The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-03-18 Select Board Packet Town of Reading Meeting Posting with Agenda 2018-07-16LAG Board -Committee -Commission -Council: Select Board Date: 2025-03-18Time: 7:00PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell StreetAgenda: Purpose:General Business Meeting Called By:Jacquelyn LaVerdeon behalf of the Chair Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of the meetings excluding operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure your posting is made in an adequate amount of time. A listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting must be on the agenda. All Meeting Postings must be submitted in typed format; handwritten notices will notbe accepted. Topics of Discussion: \\~~{ Bs~|¯PAGE # Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82306903816 Meeting ID: 823 0690 3816 Dial by your location Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kcJs5Btpp ¤¯Overview of Meeting ¤¯¢Public Comment ¤¯¢Select Board Liaison / Town Manager Reports Vote for In-Person Early Voting on Saturday, March 29, 2025 for ¤¯¢ April Election Vote to Approve Re-World (formerly Covanta) Waste Disposal ¤¯ Contract ¤¯¡¢Master Plan & Capital Projects Priorities Discussion ¥¯¢Pleasant Street Center Discussion This Agenda has been prepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting. Page | 1 Town of Reading Meeting Posting with Agenda Vote to Appoint Town Accountantto a termofJuly 2025-June ¥¯ 2026 ¥¯¡Future Agendas ¥¯¢Approve Meeting Minutes This Agenda has been prepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting. Page | 2 FOURTHAMENDMENT TO WASTE DISPOSALAGREEMENT ThisFourth Amendment to Waste DisposalAgreementisentered intoas of , 2025and amends the Waste Disposal Agreement dated as of January 6, 1997, First Amendment to Disposal Agreement dated as of June 15, 2010,Second Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement dated as of June2014, and ThirdAmendment to Waste Disposal Agreement dated as ofJuly 1, 2020 Agreementby and between ReworldHaverhill Associates, LLC(formerly known as Covanta Haverhill Associates, LLC,Disposer Town of Reading,MassachusettsCommunity The terms used herein with the initial letter capitalized, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings therefore set forth in the Agreement. THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises set forth below and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 1.Term Term the period of time between the Effective Date and June 30, 2031. 2.Schedule 2is hereby replaced with the following, effective as of July 1, 2025: Schedule 2: The Acceptance Fee for the period July 1, 2025through June 30, 2026shall be $98.35 per ton. On July 1,2026, and every July 1st thereafter that this Agreement is in effect, the Acceptance Fee shall be subject to an increase over the preceding contract by a percentage positive increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index, for Water, Sewer and Trash Collection index, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of stth Statistics,from the preceding contract year(July 1through June 30), not to exceed 4.5%.The Acceptance Fee shall also be increased by the monthly surcharge set forth in Section 3.2.2 in response to Facility Force Majeure Costs. All terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement not specifically amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Fourth Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement the date first above written. REWORLDHAVERHILL ASSOCIATES, LLC By: Name: Title: Page 1of 2 3 3 TOWN OF READING By: Name: Title: Page 2of 2 4 ƚǞƓ ƚŅ wĻğķźƓŭ 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 tǒĬƌźĭ {ĻƩǝźĭĻƭͲ /ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ 5źǝźƭźƚƓ Andrew MacNichol, Community Development Director Direct: 781-942-6670 amacnichol@readingma.gov March 13, 2025 ƚʹ Town Managers Office; Reading Select Board CƩƚƒʹ Community Development Director, Andrew MacNichol wĻʹ Requested Master Plan Update Information for Consideration ağƭƷĻƩ tƌğƓƓźƓŭ , through a process than took place from 2003-2005. The document, while comprehensive and thoughtful, is now about 20 years old, and in need of an update. A Master Plan, in addition to being an extremely useful guiding document containing the vision and goals used to set priorities for a town is also a required document in Massachusetts under Section 81D of M.G.L. Chapter 41. We call attention to this fact because the State has specific requirements for the elements that should be included in such a document. For consideration we list each required element below, and the recent work done in relation to relevant areas of interest. Though the Town has not updated our overall Master Plan in two decades, many of the required elements for inclusion do have up-to-date and relevant Plans, which have been used as guiding documents for those specific fields. These current and active plans may alleviate the need for a future Master Plan to have a comprehensive scope, as these plans contain specific data and actions for the Town. plan sets may be used to inform elements of the Master Plan so that it may focus on building upon what exists, capture any missing pieces, and incorporate new public input strategies to establish the overarching goals. A comprehensive Master Plan shall include the following elements per Mass General Law: (1)Dƚğƌƭ ğƓķ tƚƌźĭźĻƭʹ a.aD\[ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭʹ Establish a goals and policies statement which identifies the goals and policies of the municipality for its future growth and development. Each community shall conduct an interactive public process, to determine community values and to identify patterns of development that will be consistent with these goals. b.wĻğķźƓŭ {ƦĻĭźŅźĭʹ Some goals and priorities can be taken from existing plans, but the public process to update the Master Plan may wish to focus heavily here to determine the overall vision, values, and goals for Reading over the next 10-15 years. This could be accomplished by re-confirming existing priorities and establishing new priority frameworks. (2)\[ğƓķ ƭĻʹ a.aD\[ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭʹ A land use plan element which identifies present land use and designates the proposed distribution, location and inter-relationship of public and private land uses. This element shall relate the proposed standards of population density and building intensity to the capacity of land available or planned facilities and services. A land use plan map illustrating the land use policies of the municipality shall be included. 5 5 b.wĻğķźƓŭ {ƦĻĭźŅźĭʹ Reading has a current zoning (land use) allowance map but revisiting it as part of our overall Master Plan process would be advisable. Looking at different mapping elements such as demographic and income breakdowns, more specific land uses and allowances, non-conformities to existing allowances, density, and so on could be helpful to analyze in more detail. Future actions and priorities of this section would likely be informed by many, if not all, of the sections below. (3)IƚǒƭźƓŭʹ a.aD\[ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭʹ A housing element which identifies and analyzes existing and forecasted housing needs and objectives including programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing. This element shall identify policies and strategies to provide a balance of local housing opportunities for all citizens. b.wĻğķźƓŭ {ƦĻĭźŅźĭʹ Housing remains an area of interest with many different opportunities to consider, explore and advance. The Housing Production Plan (HPP) Update was completed in late 2022 and approved in 2023. The HPP focuses primarily on Affordable housing but includes relevant data points on housing typologies and stock, affordability gaps, and more. Many of its goals and strategies are relevant for inclusion but there are likely other considerations to be made. The HPP is updated every 5-years for relevancy and that expects to continue in 2028. i.The Town has submitted for compliance with the MBTA Communities Act and awaits EOHLC review. ii.The Town is tracking near future Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) unit additions to get back and maintain a 10+% inventory for Safe Harbor from 40B. iii.The Affordable Housing Trust Fund was modified in 2023-24 and is in need for priority and action plan establishment, as well as ideas on how to continue future funding of the trust. We have reached out to help kick-start these conversations in Spring 2025. iv.In many engagement efforts we continue to hear that housing costs are a concern to address both in Affordable Units, market-rate units, and variety of options (i.e. ). (4)9ĭƚƓƚƒźĭ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷʹ a.aD\[ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭʹ An economic development element which identifies policies and strategies for the expansion or stabilization of the local economic base and the promotion of employment opportunities. b.wĻğķźƓŭ {ƦĻĭźŅźĭʹ The Economic Development Action Plan was completed in 2015 and established a phased approach for priority development areas from 2016-2022. While many of the high-level concepts contained in this plan remain relevant, the economic landscape post-2022 is much changed. It is likely appropriate to reassess the strategies outlined in this Plan, especially as many efforts of the plan have been advanced since its inception. i.The Downtown Smart Growth District was expanded in 2017, saw numerous development and affordable housing growth, amended in 2022 and has not seen an application since which is likely due to a variety of factors to review. 6 6 ii.Main Street was amended in 2019 to allow for Mixed-use Development by Special Permit. One application has been approved for development and another is proposed. iii.The Town is currently engaging in advancing priority land use concepts for the Eastern Gateway District, which maintains a strong portion of the Industrial District, to determine and inform future zoning allowances that may be desirable to promote future redevelopment that enhances the area and advances Town needs/goals. iv.Town staff are considering submitting a grant application in 2025 Market Study Reading, regional trends, and other key factors to better understand commercial growth, impact/change, and resources for small business opportunity and support. (5)/ǒƌƷǒƩğƌ ğƓķ IźƭƷƚƩźĭğƌ wĻƭƚǒƩĭĻƭʹ a.aD\[ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭʹ A natural and cultural resources element which provides an inventory of the significant natural, cultural and historic resource areas of the municipality, and policies and strategies for the protection and management of such areas. b.wĻğķźƓŭ {ƦĻĭźŅźĭʹ Spring of 2025 will see the completion of the Arts & Culture Action Plan, which will re-inventory the cultural and historic resources in Town. Strategies and recommendations will be up-to-date and could be directly incorporated though they are more specifically tied to improvement for arts/culture organizations and placemaking events. i.More conversation on historic preservation and what resources exist to support the rehabilitation of privately owned historic structures rather than complete demolition/rebuild may be beneficial. The Community Preservation Act continues to be discussed by the CPA Committee and would be a direct funding resource to support some historic preservation efforts. The Reading Historical Committee and Reading Historic District Committee have recently discussed the possibility of reviewing and updating their existing regulations. ii.Natural resources are touched upon in the following Master Plan item. ΛЏΜhƦĻƓ {ƦğĭĻ ğƓķ wĻĭƩĻğƷźƚƓʹ a.aD\[ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭʹ An open space and recreation element which provides an inventory of recreational and resources and open space areas of the municipality, and policies and strategies for the management and protection of such resources and areas. b.wĻğķźƓŭ {ƦĻĭźŅźĭʹ The Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP) was completed in 2022 and approved in 2023. The OSRP directly covers most of this topic and is up-to-date with inventory and recommendations for future action. i.The Birch Meadow Master Plan continues to advance; as well as Town Forest management. ii.More climate and public health specific priorities could be considered though the Town does have an MVP Plan, Net Zero Plan, and a Community Health Plan. The Town continues to work with Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) grants to 7 7 advance items such as flood mitigation and social resilience. Other park improvements likely warrant consideration. iii.We continue to work with earmarks, private development, and volunteers to expand trails and open space resources over the short-term. ΛАΜCğĭźƌźƷźĻƭ ğƓķ {ĻƩǝźĭĻƭʹ a.aD\[ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭʹ Services and facilities element which identifies and analyzes existing and forecasted needs for facilities and services used by the public. b.wĻğķźƓŭ {ƦĻĭźŅźĭʹ Periodic service inventories have been completed by Town Facilities Staff in recent years with energy and efficiency improvements through the NORESCO contract and others, which can inform this element. i.Reading expects a Green Communities designation in 2025 that could further expand this goal and actionable items through grant work. ii.The Facilities Division would like a more specific Municipal Facilities Master Plan to inform next priorities and capital planning. ΛБΜƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓʹ a.aD\[ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭʹ Circulation element which provides an inventory of existing and proposed circulation and transportation systems. b.wĻğķźƓŭ {ƦĻĭźŅźĭʹ This is likely an area to expand further goals in a Master Plan effort. The 2014 Bike and Pedestrian plan lacks more up-to-date best practices. The Complete Streets grant process is a slow mechanical process, and the Safe Routes to School grants are similar. There are other state funding opportunities/designations to consider but establishing transportation priorities and shared uses through a Master Plan would be beneficial. These are costly improvements so prioritizing key intersections or corridors for improvement and concept designs could be considered as well. With future growth and traffic considerations conceptual road designs are necessary to help inform capital planning. i.The Walkers Brook Drive corridor design is advancing in 2025 a continued fully grant funded effort. Priority design thoughts need to be agreed upon and contemplation of State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) processes to begin. ii.The Lower Downtown Streetscape project is seeking funding at April Town Meeting and includes design work for bump-outs, shorter crossings, and other co-benefits to the Downtown area if prioritized. iii.Town Staff are considering 2025 grants or other to support funding for Sidewalk Inventory and/or Pedestrian and Bike Plan updates as the previous plans as mentioned are seemingly out of date. iv.Other intersection design, signal, and other improvements through Engineering/DPW and Town Meeting. 8 8 ΛВΜLƒƦƌĻƒĻƓƷğƷźƚƓ ağƷƩźǣʹ a.aD\[ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭʹ Implementation program element which defines and schedules the specific municipal actions necessary to achieve the objectives of each element of the master or study plan. Scheduled expansion or replacement of public facilities or circulation system components and the anticipated costs and revenues associated with accomplishment of such activities shall be detailed in this element. This element shall specify the process by which the municipality's regulatory structures shall be amended so as to be consistent with the master plan. b.wĻğķźƓŭ {ƦĻĭźŅźĭʹ This portion would likely be added to condense and combine all related priorities established. Even though the above listed sections are all required, there is still some flexibility within those confines to decide what overall level of detail the Town wants to include in its Master Plan. It is informative to look at the range of details recent Master Planning efforts. For comparison we present the following examples, 1., a.A highly thorough, complete with census and other data trends, for over 200+ pages 2.-2036, a.A visual roadmap of goals established high-level priorities to implement and advance that refers back to other planning documents and case studies (Executive Summary) 3.Vision Lynn a.An award-winning planning document that provides an advanced level of land use development scenarios, concepts and trends in each field (in 2D, 3D, and other forms) Viewing the plans, one can immediately see the variation in length, organization, and focus, while still addressing all the required topics. A document shorter length, with visual elements, and a streamlined feel does not mean it is less comprehensive, just a different approach. We would advise that additional direction from Town Meeting, the Select Board, and/or CPDC as to what style of Plan is desired by the Town. Updating the Master Plan, even with strong starting points for many of the required sections would be a multi-year project, likely with an outside consultant. Recent posts amongst Planning colleagues discussing the costs to updating a Master Plan indicated that Beverly spent around $175,000, Concord spent $200,000, and the Town of Norfolk recently budgeted $140,000 over the last few years. A conservative timeline would estimate it to be a 2-year effort start to finish, and a reasonable budget to be $175,000±. Town staff have requested a quote from JM Goldson LLC, who produced the Ipswich Community Development Plan above, to determine reasonable market-rate costs for a vision plan with the idea that if more data/visuals/other are wanted costs would increase commensurately. If the Town chooses to update the Master Plan, and as required in MGL and local regulations, that will become the primary project for the Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) who also takes on sub-projects such as the Eastern Gateway, Zoning Amendments, and plan review. Of 9 9 course, and most likely, a sub-committee could be formed to expand with other partner boards and residents to inform the project needs and steps. Continued conversations are necessary to ensure need, scope and costs. As shown above many of the elements continue to be advanced very publicly, and there are likely ongoing projects not described above as well but consolidating and combining may be found worthwhile. Our division is happy to support in whatever capacity is desired from Town management and public leadership. 10 T OWN OF R EADING 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 C OMMUNITY D EVELOPMENT Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us February 28, 2006 TO: B OARD OF S ELECTMEN (BOS) RE: A SSIGNMENT OF M ASTER P LAN A CTION S TRATEGIES The Master Plan Advisory Committee completed their work on the most recent version of the Master Plan (MP) in the Fall of 2005 and subsequently it was adopted by the Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) on February 25, 2006. This plan is available through the Town’s Planning Webpage, and an electronic copy of this document is attached to this letter (see attached CD). This MP provides the strategic and tactical goals and objectives for the Town of Reading and more importantly captures in a Vision statement the core ideals by which each and every board, commission, staff, resident and elected official have agreed as the basis for the community. A list of the seven themes of the Vision statement is as follows: Sense of Community: neighborhoods, small town feel, scenic ways & volunteerism Retain and enhance natural resources and open space Provide housing for diversity – expand infrastructure to support housing Business friendly atmosphere and vibrant downtown Regional road network, transportation and road improvements and transportation alternatives Town-wide connections, safety and access Excellence of School system Chapter 11, Implementation (attached), was developed to take those objectives considered a priority and define specific action strategies requiring execution, identifying a responsible party for each strategy, and proposing an initial timeframe for completion. The BOS has been assigned14 action strategies. A complete list of the action strategies can be found in the attached spreadsheet. Those assigned to the BOS can be identified by looking for “BOS” in the “Assignment – Primary” column of the spreadsheet. The BOS may also be responsible as a secondary or “co-assignee.” Please also review and coordinate with the primary owner on those actions for which you have been identified in the “Assignment – Secondary (Co)” column of the spreadsheet. The CPDC is responsible for ensuring execution of this plan, and has made a commitment to the Board of Selectmen (BOS) and the community to keep them apprised of the status. To facilitate this process, we are asking that the BOS identify a single point of contact for each assigned action strategy. This will allow the CPDC to communicate directly with this individual to obtain status, address issues and concerns, answer questions and affect changes as needed. Please understand that while not all of the steps identified in the action strategy (in the implementation 11 chapter) may fall under the BOS purview, it is our expectation and your responsibility to ensure all activities are completed. Please provide the name of the responsible individual for each of the identified action strategies and update this information into the attached spreadsheet (Name, Email & Phone) for contact purposes by March 31, 2006. This information can be sent to the Town Planner (Chris Reilly) in the Community Development office, or via email to creilly@ci.reading.ma.us. The CPDC looks forward to working with you and wants to ensure you are provided with the support you need to be successful and complete your assigned action strategy. If you have any questions, the CPDC and the BOS welcome your feedback and encourage you to attend any of the upcoming joint CPDC/BOS status meetings. In the meantime, please feel free to contact the CPDC if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, John Sasso, Chairperson Richard Howard, Secretary Jonathan Barnes Susan DeMatteo Neil Sullivan Community Planning and Development Commission Attachments: (1)Hard copy of Implementation Chapter (2)Electronic Copy of Master Plan (CD) (3)Action Strategy Spreadsheet 12 12 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 of 199 TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS 2005 MASTER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 LETTER FROM MPAC……….…………………………………………3 CHAPTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……….……………………………………….5 CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION & TOWN HISTORY……………………………….11 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………..11 ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………………19 VISION………………………………………………………………………………………………...21 CHAPTER 4 CHARACTER & IDENTITY……………………………………………23 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………..23 ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………………24 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………..27 CHAPTER 5 HOUSING…………………………………………………………..……29 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………..29 ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………………30 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………..44 CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………48 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………48 ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………………..48 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES…………………………………………………………………………58 CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES………..…65 INTRODUCTION……………………..……………………………………………………………….65 ANALYSIS…………………………..………………………………………………………………...67 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES…………...……………………………………………………………70 13 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 of 199 CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION………………………………………77 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………77 ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………………..81 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES…………………………………………………………………………82 CHAPTER 9 SERVICES AND FACILITIES………………………………………….87 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………87 ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………………..88 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………..103 CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION…………………………………………………..107 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………..107 ANALYSIS……………………………….……………………………………………………………107 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………..113 CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION……………………………………………………122 CRITERIA AND PRIORITIZATION………………………………………………………………...122 PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES…………..………………………………………………………124 FISCAL REALITIES………………………………………………………………………………….136 CHAPTER 12 CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………..137 FUTURE EFFORTS………………………………………………………………………………….137 DECISION PROCESS……………………….………………………………………………………138 NEXT MASTER PLAN ISSUANCE………………………………………………………………..138 APPENDICES..…………………………………………………………………………….139 A-1 MASTER PLAN SURVEY……….……………………………………………………….. 139 A-2 ADDITIONAL TOWN INPUT………………………………………………………………152 A-3 MASTER PLAN ASDVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES……………………………….154 A-4 LIST OF MAPS/FIGURES…………………………………………………………………196 14 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 1 LETTER FROM MPAC Page 3 of 199 CHAPTER 1 LETTER FROM MPAC Dear Reading Resident: he enclosed Master Plan represents Reading's ongoing commitment to planning the future of our community in an inclusive, comprehensive manner. Despite the valuable and T exhaustive efforts of the prior Master Plan Advisory Committee, Reading has changed in many unanticipated ways since adoption of the last Master Plan in 1991, creating impacts that continuously challenge our way of life. This demonstrates the need to proactively identify what we do and don't like about the changing landscape, to allow us to efficiently seek a path toward maintaining and enhancing what is good while attempting to avoid all the rest. The process the MPAC adopted to update the Master Plan reflects a thorough, balanced, comprehensive and open exercise designed to include as much public input as possible. There will always be people who will disagree with the results but the MPAC has invested substantial time and effort to ensure that their voice was heard as loud as any choir of consensus. The MPAC has approached this exercise as a way to inform and involve as many of Reading's residents as possible in the planning of our community. The Master Plan is not meant to be a technical document that sits on a shelf awaiting occasional use by staff and special interests. It is a living document to be used by the breadth of our citizenry to inform and inspire reasoned and meaningful discourse about the way of Reading's future. Ultimately the Master Plan will be used in a variety of official and practical ways in the conduct of Town business, such as defending legal challenges to Board or Commission decisions, guiding land use through zoning amendments, directing administrative priorities and management, enabling State-sanctioned housing and economic development plans, and accessing state funding to promote ongoing capital projects. But the true value in this exercise lies in providing a vision by which the community as a whole can share in the management of Reading's destiny. The formal implementation of this document is meant to be entrusted to the dedicated residents who serve the community on various Boards and Committees. Reading's reputation as a municipality run openly, fairly, efficiently and ethically primarily depends on the ongoing commitment of these individuals and bodies, who understand and respect the importance of the public's contribution to the governmental process. The Selectmen, CPDC, Historical 15 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 1 LETTER FROM MPAC Page 4 of 199 Commission, Conservation Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals have all been intimately involved in the Master Plan update and are among the fine examples of how well- served Reading's constituency is by the volunteer gatekeepers of our community. Other individuals in the nonprofit and business community have provided great insight to the MPAC and their contribution was invaluable. As this document is implemented by the community there will be ongoing evaluations to determine what is and isn't working. Of course, we do not live in a vacuum and events beyond Reading's control will dictate that our course is corrected on occasion. Therefore it is anticipated that the Master Plan herein may be examined and modified periodically to account for these effects, or certain priorities will be adjusted or abandoned as needed. The goal is not to stubbornly stick to the path we're on, but be mindful of obstacles in the road or better routes that may emerge. Certainly the Master Plan will only be as effective as Reading's residents allow through their support. Further, in the case of the many zoning changes recommended in this document the ultimate authority on whether they will be enacted will still be our representative government, as defined by the Selectmen and Town Meeting. This Master Plan does not and will not supersede Reading's Home Rule Charter, but merely serves as an advisory and enabling document to achieve elected officials' and the public's planning and policy initiatives. The Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) greatly appreciates the excellent work done by Chris Reilly, Town Planner, and its Consultant, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in developing the Community Development Plan, which served as the foundation for the greater task of updating the entire Master Plan. The MPAC also thanks those members of the public who participated in the four visioning sessions and in the “Putting It All Together“ workshop, and contributed their thoughts, ideas, concerns, knowledge and above all patience as the Master Plan was carved and crafted into its final form. Respectfully submitted, Master Plan Advisory Committee Dick Howard, Chairman Jonathon Barnes, Vice Chairman Ben Tafoya Neil Sullivan Susan DeMatteo John Sasso Jack Russell Janet Allen George Katsoufis Tim Kelley Steve McLaughlin Peter Smargon Virginia Adams 16 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 5 of 199 CHAPTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary attempts to capture a top-level view and critical insight into the Master Plan. However, before proceeding, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the hard work and dedication of volunteers, staff and other organizations that made this plan reality. In particular, the Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) would like to recognize the tireless efforts of Reading’s Town Planner, Chris Reilly. Additionally, we are grateful for the support of the numerous Town staff members, Town committees and boards, and the public for their involvement in this process. Ultimately, this Master Plan is owned by the community at large, and those responsible for its creation are only caretakers along the way. There was, however, a core team of volunteers and staff that shepherded the Master Plan through the process, and this group (the Master Plan Advisory Committee), deserves a great deal of credit and admiration for their diligence and perseverance. 2.1 PLAN ROLE FOR TOWN/BOARDS This Master Plan will be used by Town Staff, various boards, community volunteers, local business, civic and even religious organizations. Town administration can and will effectively utilize it while defending legal challenges to Board or Commission decisions, guiding land use through zoning amendments, directing administrative priorities and management, enabling State- sanctioned housing and economic development plans, and accessing state funding to promote ongoing capital projects. More important, the true value of the Plan lies in providing a vision by which the community as a whole can share in the management of Reading's future. Many, if not all, of these individuals and organizations have been part of the development of the Master Plan. Their input, coupled with validation from the public, forms the basis for the Plan, and has driven the advisory committee to adopt those items that are seen as a priority by these same constituents. The guidance contained in the 1991 Master Plan has steered the Town’s boards, committees and staff to pursue items such as the downtown improvements, capping the landfill and development of the site, increases in affordable housing, and numerous changes to Town by-laws consistent with the prior plan’s goals and objectives. A similar, level of planning effort is expected with regards to the 2005 Master Plan. 17 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 6 of 199 2.2 VISION STATEMENT ROLE FOR THE PLAN During the last decade, several large new developments were introduced in Reading, generating substantial public participation in crucial Planning Board (CPDC) meetings. This involvement illustrates a high level of resident interest in the future of the Town. The Town-Wide Visioning Workshop that was held in April 9, 2003 under the public process of the CD Plan, established a set of visioning themes, presented in the subsequent chapter as “Vision Statement.” The development of the Vision Statement was open, all-inclusive and the issues brought forward were diverse, rich and inspiring. For this Plan, the 7 themes of the Vision Statement have served as the canvas on which several issues and themes have been projected, tested, distilled and enhanced. Throughout its process, the Plan has maintained an increased awareness of the issues brought forward by the Reading residents that attended the Visioning Workshop. The key elements of that vision provided guidance not only for the development of the goals and objectives for the Plan, but also to prioritize action items based on effective short-term impact criteria. Sense of Community: neighborhoods, small town feel, scenic ways & volunteerism Retain and enhance natural resources and open space Provide housing for diversity – expand infrastructure to support housing Business friendly atmosphere and vibrant downtown Regional road network, road improvements and transportation alternatives Town-wide connections, safety and access Excellence of School system 2.3PLAN’S STRUCTURE The Plan is structured three parts containing 12 chapters. The first part includes the Executive Summary and Introduction to Reading’s History. The second part contains seven themes/land- uses, each one of which develops along background material, analysis of conditions and proposed goals/objectives and focuses on: Character and Identity – this chapter elaborates on what the Town means to its residents and the image it conveys to visitors. Reading’s New England Village structure (center- residential neighborhoods-business corridors-natural environment) requires different types of protection from abrupt changes, while absorbing its share of the region’s growth. The housing crisis in the Boston region has required, is requiring and will require a continuous planning for growth within the Town’s environment of balanced land-uses, human scale neighborhoods and excellent school system. Housing – Since the 1991 Master Plan, a great deal of housing development has occurred, primarily in large farm tracts that could not sustain themselves under the real estate market pressure to develop. The Town has failed to meet a State criterion of having 10% of all housing units affordable, thereby allowing developers to circumvent local zoning and built in Reading with State permits, a process known as 40B developments. Consequently, the character and identity of the community has been threatened by large 18 18 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 7 of 199 housing developments because the community lacks affordable units for its family- starters, seniors and moderate-income families. Those three groups are expected, based on demographic projections, to grow in the next decade, so higher demand for cheaper homes is forthcoming. The community is not complete without offering options for our children and our seniors, for households on fixed income and long-time residents and those who do not drive. Affordability and diversity in housing types and households are fundamental to the open, motivated and proud community that Reading is. The quest for innovative funding mechanisms and the planning for housing strategies are high level goals which have and will require a great deal of effort from the Town to attend to. Economic Development – The business sector in Reading, although showing a 6% gain between from 1990 to 2003, has been contributing lesser as a percentage of the Town’s taxes since, during the last decade, Reading has seen a tremendous increase of housing valuation, similar to other communities in the Region. To address the heavy reliance on residential property taxes, the Town will establish a new Economic Development Commission whose purpose would be to solicit the development of new businesses in Reading. In parallel, the Downtown and South Main Street will undergo zoning enhancements that will allow their image to improve. Natural,HistoricandCulturalResources –The quantity and quality of public water supply and the seasonal drainage of Ipswich River has been a major concern for many years, resulting to a recent approval for a summer-time connection MWRA. Further conservation planning for uplands and wooded areas, enforcement of wetlands protection through current zoning bylaws, containment of storm water runoff and flooding, all of them are current environmental concerns that affect Board/Committee decisions for new developments. The impacts of future residential and business growth can be mitigated by an increased effort in environmental planning from the Town. In parallel, the Historical Commission, with a Demolition Delay Bylaw and Scenic Roads Program as tools, will protect buildings of historical significance and establish historic districts where appropriate, as part of the value the Town puts into its architectural heritage and character. OpenSpaceandRecreation – The 2001 Open Space Plan has been a valuable resource for the 2005 Master Plan, in its analyses, recommendations and conclusions. Without the funds to purchase open spaces, the Town is facing a challenge: to maintain open spaces and recreational resources, elements that contribute to the Town’s quality of life. CPA (Community Preservation Act), which failed to pass in 2001, can be pursued again to allow State funding for open space protection and acquisition, this time with a better program definition and timeframe. While open spaces and places for recreation are necessary to have, of equal importance is to design a network that connects them, a safe system for pedestrians and bicyclists to move around Town without an automobile. Services and Facilities– During the last decade, the reality of Town’s economics has been such that several activities and funds are not available as they used to be. The document used by Town Meeting to appropriate the Fiscal year budget, the 10 Year Capital Plan, contains the state of community services and public facilities and the 19 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 8 of 199 expenditures for building, infrastructure and service improvements. This chapter is largely based on the Selectmen’s Mission Statement that ultimately reflects the goals and objectives set forth in that document. Transportation – After 1990, the ease of acquiring and maintaining a car has contributed substantial congestion to interstates, highways and to town streets throughout the Region. Reading residents have followed the trend of automobile dependency to drive more miles per day and own more cars per household. With the MBTA on limited funding, the current trips to work are unlikely to change in mode. For non-work related trips, local shuttle opportunities will likely arise for seniors and for shopping/recreation purposes. Funding for transit projects will need the Town’s support of area-wide organizations (such as Transportation Management Associations) and state agencies for initiatives that originate out-of-town. The current Town-wide Traffic Study, supplemented with a new Town-wide Parking Study, will be a valuable tool to provide for parking options in the Downtown area, satellite employee parking options and sidewalk improvements where children safety is important. Participation in the I-93/I-95 Interchange Task Force of the Massachusetts Highway Department planning initiative will continue in order to ensure Reading’s interests in the project are well advocated. The third part of the Plan sets forth action items for the realization of objectives and a conclusion chapter. Each action item draws responsibility for its implementation to a specific Town administrative body or Town board. MPAC realized early on that a realistic implementation effort couldn’t cover all the objectives and action items in the Plan. The action items of this Plan, presented in Chapter 11, address a set of 24 objectives that topped a priority list produced between May and August 2005. These 24 objectives are as follows: 1 Protect the historical village pattern by the balance of its constituents: buildings, streets and natural elements. Promote this balance as a prerequisite for developments to a scale familiar and comfortable to the individual. 2 Promote the design of new construction to seamlessly connect with their receiving surroundings. 3 Pursue an increase in Town involvement and investigate additional funding vehicles, to improve on housing goals Communicate Housing Goals to residents. 4 Encourage rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing buildings for low and moderate- income multi-family housing and promote new developments consistent with Reading’s character and identity and meeting state mandated affordable housing goals. 5 Introduce mixed-use zoning in the Downtown and around the Depot. 6 Study the various options available and recommend to the Board of Selectmen the type of official commission or standing committee to best meet the development needs of the Town and to bring additional clout to bear on obtaining State and Federal developmental grants. 20 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 9 of 199 7 Examine properties with regard to re-zoning with particular attention to reducing the current front setback requirements and expanding the use of PUD (B) overlay districts. 8 The Town will pursue all possible state and Federal grants to hire consultants (landscape architects and traffic engineers) to generate a detailed streetscapebeautification plan for the area from Washington Street south to I95/128 similar to the plan recently completed for the downtown. 9 Promote the preservation and enhancement of Reading's extent of existing uplands and wooded areas and the extent of public accessibility to these areas, particularly in new developments through appropriate amendments to the Zoning By-Laws and Subdivision Regulations and other measures such as impact fees. 10 Encourage the development of a regional resource-protection plan (Aberjona, Saugus, and Ipswich River water-sheds, Cedar Swamp), and of regional efforts to reduce water, groundwater, and air pollution. 11 Protect wellfields and water-recharge areas, and strengthen and monitor the enforcement of the Aquifer Protection Zoning By-Law. 12 Maintain and add to the Town’s inventory of historical and architecturally significant buildings. 13 Create path systems connecting schools, open space, and neighborhoods, e.g. develop walking/biking trails between open spaces. 14 Acquire more land for playing fields, a family picnic area and pocket parks. 15 Make public aware of the importance public and private conservation land and open space. 16 Reconsider the Community Preservation Act. 17 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. 18 Develop an impact fee bylaw consistent with State legislation and the Town’s Master Plan goals to apply to new developments of mid- to large-scale. 19 Create and maintain appropriate Town-wide disaster, security and/or health outbreak plans and ensure Town services, departments and nonprofits and other service providers are trained and prepared. 20 Develop strategies to disseminate information from Town Government to residents and businesses in the most effective manner. 21 Develop and conduct a comprehensive customer service survey 21 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 10 of 199 22 Develop a comprehensive Town-wide Parking Plan to address satellite employee parking, alternative locations for garages in Downtown with respective zoning amendments and revisit public parking regulations. 23 Develop a sidewalk improvement priority list, complete all needed sidewalk extensions and improve crossings in areas where children safety is a concern. 24 Promote a Regional Transportation Management Association (TMA) to organize carpooling and vanpooling, shuttle-bus, high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) highway lanes and transit-dedicated lanes and other forms of improved regional vehicular and alternative transportation commuting measures and improvements, as joint transit projects among participant cities. 2.4 TYING IT ALL TOGETHER The planning process envisioned for each chapter of the Plan can not be fully understood without emphasizing the importance of a common thread binding all land-uses of Reading together: the character of the place and the identity of the community. Character and identity are facets of traditional communities, especially in a region as old as New England, places that offer choices and human scale qualities on daily activities. In several occasions during the development of this Plan, the MPAC discovered that the qualities found in the residential neighborhoods in Town are the cornerstones sustaining the unique character and identity of the community. With housing being the dominant land-use element of Reading, it has been imperative to document, understand and illustrate the current land-use balance and how it came out to be this way. In simple terms, how residential areas interrelate and interact with all other uses such as transportation, retail, offices, opens pace and natural environment. Reading housing policies and strategies are fundamental in defining the Town’s character in the future, as stated by several participants in the Housing Forum of January 2004, conducted under the CD Plan public process. The community itself is the guardian of its character and identity, from board the volunteers and old residents to Town’s administration, we all have a partnership with a livable community, a place to be protected from but also adapted to the challenges of Boston Region’s housing reality. 2.5 NEXT STEPS Although the Community Planning and Development Committee (CPDC) is the board primarily responsible for the Master Plan, that board must work closely with all the other stakeholders identified in this plan, most notably the Board of Selectmen, to ensure these actions are undertaken. The CPDC will retain responsibility for updating the Town on progress toward implementing these actions and achieving the objectives, and as items are completed, provide a new forum to continue to validate the remaining actions, add new ones as deemed appropriate, and assign them to the relevant board or organization to complete. It is the recommendation of the MPAC that these updates be provided to the Board of Selectman on a semi-annual basis (at a minimum). 22 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 11 of 199 CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY 3.1INTRODUCTION Process and Participation The last Master Plan of Reading was issued in 1991 and was the output of a 4-year focused effort, with profound results on the image of the Town today. In its conclusion it stated the following: “A periodic review of the Mater Plan should take place approximately at the beginning of each decade. Those reviewing the Master Plan should not hesitate to make such revisions as they genuinely perceive necessary in order to keep the Plan up-to-date and realistic in light of changed perceptions and conditions in the Town and the surrounding Region.” In Month, 2000 Reading was granted $30,000 in planning services to create a Community Development (CD) Plan, pursuant to Executive Order 418. The CD Plan, which followed standards issued by the State Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), focused on four elements: Natural Resources and Open Space, Housing, Economic Development and Transportation. To facilitate the planning process by the consultant hired to prepare the CD Plan - the Metropolitan Area Planning Council -, the Board of Selectmen formed a Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC). As the CD Plan developed between 2001-2003, it elicited wide community involvement in numerous visioning sessions and a significant level of community research. The CD Plan was presented to the Town and the State in April 2004. In July 2004, the MPAC tenure was extended by the BOS until the end of 2005, with the task to incorporate the information of the CD Plan into a Town Master Plan set for completion by December 2005. In parallel, three new elements were to be developed in an attempt to incorporate a larger inventory of issues and concerns. Over the course of 2004 and 2005, MPAC held numerous meetings to: (a) update un-addressed components of the 1991 Master Plan, (b) re- examine the four elements of the CD Plan, where the Committee felt that a deeper focus on Town issues was required and (c) identify new elements for review and inclusion. The value of this public process lies in the fact that the actual source of all information included and analyzed was, in a broad sense, the Town itself. The MPAC consists of Town staff, the full CPDC, members of boards, committees and organizations and residents, whose motivation has been to accurately depict current conditions, concerns and strategies. 23 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 12 of 199 Upon issuance of the Final Draft in August 2005, the MPAC engaged in an outreach campaign to publicize the 2005 Master Plan. This effort included presentations to boards, committees and organizations, the design and management of a web-page dedicated to the Plan and, finally, circulation and statistical analysis of a Town-wide questionnaire requesting residents input for the Plan’s priorities. The 2005 Master Plan went into effect upon formal adoption of the finalized Plan by the Community Development and Planning Commission – it went through further MPAC and public review. It was presented to the Selectmen and Town Meeting at the November, 2005 Town Meeting. Land Use Summary Between 1951 and 1981, Reading's land use changed from 68% non-urban (agricultural, forest, wetlands) to 51% urban (industrial, commercial, residential, transportation), while the population increased from 14,006 to 22,678 and the number of housing units increased from 3,962 to 7,486. By 1990, this change had continued, with the number of housing units further rising to 8,104. Adjoining municipalities have experienced the same kinds of changes, increasing the impact of their development on Reading. Since 1990, the population has increased 5.19%. Along with this growing urbanization within both the Town and the region, the extent of conflicts between land uses has accelerated. There are significant conflicts, stemming from their different physical characteristics, purposes, and operations, between commercial and residential land uses, especially where they abut. These conflicts may include traffic, noise, drainage, and visual impacts. In generating more traffic and by using up much of the remaining open uplands, new residential development can conflict with existing neighborhoods. Regional traffic impacts can impair the functioning and safety of local streets. Changing demography, economics, and technology contain sources of new conflict as well, in such matters as: housing: affordability, multi-family and secondary dwelling units, home occupations, and cottage industries, business: regionally and nationally based corporations seeking to promote non-local uniform standards and competing with locally owned businesses, and professional, office, and industrial: differential market changes in demand for office, research, assembly, wholesaling, and large retail space. 24 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 13 of 199 Map 1 Topography 25 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 14 of 199 Map 2 Certified Wetlands 26 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 15 of 199 Map 3 Zoning Districts 27 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 16 of 199 Map 4 Public and Quasi-Public Lands 28 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 17 of 199 Map 5 Neighborhood Nodes 29 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 18 of 199 Map 6 EO-418 Map on Future Land Use 30 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 19 of 199 Overall, the change from general non-urban to urban presents continuing conflicts between the demand for buildings with their attendant infrastructure improvements on the one hand, and, on the other hand the need and desire for supporting natural resource and open space protection and the preservation of the character of the community. 3.2ANALYSIS Reading's original settlers came from England in the 1630's to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Many arrived through the ports of Lynn and Salem. In 1639 some citizens of Lynn petitioned the government of the colony for "place for an inland plantation." The general court granted them six square miles, then an additional four. The first settlement called Lynn Village was on the south shore of the great pond, what is now known as Lake Quannapowitt. On June 10th, 1644 the settlement was incorporated by the house of deputies as the Town of Reading, taking its name from Reading, England. The first church was organized soon after the settlement, and the first parish, later known as South Reading, became Wakefield in 1868. A special grant in 1651 added land north of the Ipswich River to Reading. This area in 1853 became the separate Town of North Reading. During its early years, the area which is currently the Town of Reading was known as Wood End, or Third Parish. In 1693, town meeting voted to fund public education in Reading. The funding consisted of "four pounds for three months school in the town, two pounds for the west end of the town, and one pound for those north of the Ipswich River." Within the present Town, the Parker Tavern is the oldest remaining seventeenth century structure, built in 1694. This property is currently owned and operated by the Reading Antiquarian Society, which is a non-profit corporation. In 1769 the meetinghouse was built in what is now Reading. It was constructed in the area which is currently the Town Common; a stone marker commemorates the site. Reading played an active role in the American Revolutionary War. Minutemen were prominently involved in the engagements pursuing the retreating British Red Coats after the skirmish at Concord Bridge. Dr. John Brooks, captain of the "fourth company of minute" remained in the army for eight years of distinguished service, including White Plains and Valley Forge. He later became the ninth governor of Massachusetts. Only one Reading soldier was killed in action during the revolution; Joshua Eaton died in the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. In 1791, sixty members of the "West Parish" which is the current Town of Reading, started the federal library. This was a subscription library with each member paying $1.00 to join, and annual dues of $.25. The Town's public library was created in 1868. The Andover-Medford turnpike, a private corporation, currently Main Street or Route 28, was built in 1806-7. This provided the citizens of Reading with a better means of travel to the Boston area. In 1845, the Boston & Maine Railroad came to Reading and improved the access to Boston and the southern markets. During the first half of the Nineteen Century, Reading became a manufacturing town. Sylvester Harnden's furniture factory, Daniel Pratt's clock factory and Samuel Pierce's organ pipe factory were major businesses. By the mid 1800'S, Reading had 31 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 20 of 199 Figure 1 Historical structures from Reading's lengthy past thirteen establishments that manufactured chairs and cabinets. The making of shoes began as a cottage industry and expanded to large factories. Neckties were manufactured here for about ninety years. During and after civil war the southern markets for Reading's products declined and several of its factories closed. Reading members of the Richardson Light Guard of South Reading fought at the first battle of Bull Run. The second company was formed as part of the grand army of the Potomac, and a third company joined General Bank's expedition in Louisiana. A total of 411 men from Reading 32 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 21 of 199 fought in the Civil War, of whom 15 died in action and 33 died of wounds and sickness. A memorial exists in the Laurel Hill Cemetery commemorating those who died in the Civil War. Following the Civil War, Reading became a residential community with excellent commuting service to Boston. Industrial expansion during that time included the precursor of General Tire & Rubber Company off Ash Street. Additional businesses created after World War I included the Boston Stove foundry, Ace Art, and several other companies. The business community currently consists of a number of retail and service businesses in the downtown area, as well as the Analytical Sciences Corporation (TASC). The governmental structure of the Town has evolved since its creation in 1644. Initially, the government consisted of a Town Meeting and a Board of Selectmen. During Reading's early years, this governmental structure was adequate for the needs of the community. As the Town grew and the needs of its population evolved, Reading adopted the representative town meeting. This form of government replaced the open town meeting in 1944. More recently, the residents of Reading adopted the Reading Home Rule Charter in March 1986. This form of government focused the policy and decision making function in a very few elected boards and committees, and provided for the creation of the Town Manager position to be responsible for day to day operations of the local government. In 1994, Reading celebrated its 350th anniversary of incorporation as a town. 3.3 VISION Reading’s excellent school system, residential neighborhoods, proximity to Boston, small-town feel, Town services, scenic ways and abundant open space will continue to create a strong sense of pride in its residents and businesses. This sense of pride, which results in residents’ willingness to serve as volunteers and take leadership roles, contributes to Reading’s strong sense of community. Reading will retain and enhance its rich stock of natural resources, open space, and recreation. The Town will build upon its existing green spaces by improving or creating path systems and maintaining and expanding the Town Common and parks. The Town will expand its greenery to the streets with street trees. Reading will continue to protect its critical water supply through open space protection and exploring options for a back-up supply. Reading residents will be aware of the Town’s numerous parks and forests and access to them will be convenient Reading will provide a variety of housing types for a diverse population. Such housing will integrate well with existing neighborhoods. Elderly, renters, first-time homebuyers, empty- nesters, and others, will be able to find housing to match their needs. Providing these housing types, including affordable housing, will be accomplished in part by improving the Town’s regulations to more easily allow certain types of housing, such as townhouses, multi-families and accessory apartments. The Town’s historic housing will be re-used and renovated, with incentives offered to owners to do so. The Town will work to retain units as affordable through deed restrictions in perpetuity. Reading will expand and enhance its infrastructure to support housing, based on feasibility and the extent that resources are available. Potential traffic impacts that can accompany new housing 33 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION AND TOWN HISTORY Page 22 of 199 will be reduced by allowing mixed uses and by locating housing in areas convenient to existing or future public transit. A Housing Committee will work to accomplish these goals. The Town will convey a business-friendly atmosphere, with streamlined permitting for desirable types of uses. The public will be well-educated regarding the benefits of economic development and participate in determining the best types of businesses for Reading.The result will be an increased commercial and industrial tax base. Downtown Reading, including South Main Street, will be improved to increase the Town’s commercial tax base, to re-instill pride, and to ensure that the downtown is a vibrant, aesthetic center that provides services to residents and meets their retail needs. The Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project will be implemented. The improvements will include a pedestrian-friendly design and circulation enhancements, further attracting businesses, including higher end retail and restaurants. The needs of pedestrian and car access to the downtown will be balanced by improving sidewalks and streetscapes, creating convenient parking locations including multi-level parking garages, encouraging infill development along transit routes, and exploring the potential for shuttle bus service. With a particular emphasis on land use and municipal governance, this document will serve as a comprehensive guide for Reading to achieve and maintain all of these objectives in a proactive, cost effective and inclusive manner, with ongoing input from and accountability to the citizens of Reading. 34 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 4 CHARACTER AND IDENTITY Page 23 of 199 CHAPTER 4 CHARACTER AND IDENTITY 4.1 INTRODUCTION Reading’s urban form maintains the traditional New England village structure, with a distinct center, family-oriented residential neighborhoods, few business corridors and a surrounding system of natural elements. Reading has a long history of change and growth. It has evolved from an outlying and isolated collection of subsistence farms, to a specialized farming community centered around a village center, to a minor center for the manufacture of every-day commodities, and to a residential suburb. Throughout this evolution it has managed to retain a sense as a distinct place. Reading is perceived by its citizens as a low-to-moderate-density,single-family suburban residential community, into which business, industrial, and multi-family land uses should fit without disruption. New development or redevelopment is judged principally on its ability to conform harmoniously to residential values. The Town is seen as a destination community, to which families from elsewhere strive to be able to live and in which families already residing expect to be able to remain. Thus, the upholding of a quiet, family-oriented lifestyle, with supportive community services, is held to be of great value. The extent to which the Town’s physical environment is consistent with these values is held to be critically important: well-maintained homes, shade trees, lawns, private yards, safe streets without noise and dangers from traffic, and freedom from impingement from non-residential users; a daily refuge from the pressures, impersonality, and uncertainties of modern urban life. The image of Reading as a peaceable, family-oriented, single-family suburban residential community remains a powerful, self-defining ideal, against which the Town’s citizens judge the quality of real conditions in the Town and the nature of changes to it. 4.2 ANALYSIS During the last decade, the housing cost increase in the Boston Region has reached such proportions that it has begun to affect Reading’s New England village character and community identity in mainly two ways: 35 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 4 CHARACTER AND IDENTITY Page 24 of 199 In building/expanding to larger houses for smaller households In absorbing housing developments of high density The first comes as a general tendency to expand their homes for a variety of reasons. The second is a consequence of the lack of affordable units for low- and medium-incomes, thus allowing unplanned, state mandated, high-density comprehensive permits to occur in tandem with real estate market demand. Both tendencies impact the diversity and scale of the housing stock to the detriment of the Town’s traditional character and identity. FINDING Reading’s urban form maintains the traditional New England village structure, with a distinct center, family-oriented residential neighborhoods, few business corridors and a surrounding system of natural elements. The character and identity of the community, preserved up to today, is potentially threatened by changes occurring within the existing fabric; changes driven by forces outside the realm of the Town’s influence and sustained by the regional housing crisis. The human-friendly balance among building size, lot size and natural elements that exists throughout the Town is put to test by factors external to Reading, thus threatening the sense of distinctiveness maintained throughout the years. During the last 10-15 years, Reading's relationship to its adjacent communities and to the Region as a whole has increased in complexity. Policy and planning in topics such as sustainability, smart growth, allocation of resources and large project consensus do show a relationship between local and regional scale. This condition is a consequence of growth issues within the “part” (each municipality) and growth of the “whole” (the region) being interconnected, as witnessed in many communities throughout the Boston Region and other metropolitan areas in the country. Given Reading's limited municipal resources, the effort required to sustain the Town's presence in inter-municipal and regional activities needs to be carefully prioritized and efficiently programmed. In this way, the Town's interests can be protected in the short- and long-range, as demonstrated since 2002 by the I93-I95 Interchange Planning Initiative. 36 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 4 CHARACTER AND IDENTITY Page 25 of 199 Map 7 Locus Map 37 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 4 CHARACTER AND IDENTITY Page 26 of 199 Map 8 U.S. Census Tracts 38 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 4 CHARACTER AND IDENTITY Page 27 of 199 In the subsequent chapters of this Master Plan, the significance of planning ahead is emphasized in many areas, such as housing, the environment, the downtown and the vitality of the neighborhoods. The emphasis is on a proactive approach that allows for change to be woven into the character and identity of our traditional New England community. Whether offering protection to elements vulnerable to abrupt change, such as historic preservation, or advocating appropriate locations for development to occur, a proactive approach will look at both perspectives concurrently. Beyond zoning ordinances and mitigation initiatives, the Town may need to investigate additional tools and methods in order to effectively absorb growth in a benign and beneficial way. 4.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Esthetic Preservation Reading prides itself on its colonial heritage and substantial inventory of historic structures and places. The Historic Commission is a long-standing Town body that seeks to preserve the historical environment, which is under continual threat from small and large scale residential development and commercial redevelopment. Goal 1 Preserve the architectural heritage and the traditional village character of the Town. Objectives: A.Preserve the Town as a primarily single-family, owner-occupied residential community. Reach a consensus on the definition of Reading as a “bedroom community” in the context st of 21 century Boston Region. B.Protect the historical village pattern by the balance of its constituents: buildings, streets and natural elements. Promote this balance as a prerequisite for developments to a scale familiar and comfortable to the individual. C.Promote an orderly coherent public realm for the Town through gateways, historic preservation, sign control, open-space preservation, and beautification programs. Growth Management Reading has experienced large scale development and redevelopment in recent years that was uncommon to its landscape in previous generations. Notably, the residential environment over the past 20 or so years has seen the introduction of large, multi-family structures in large tracts of open space and farmland, which were previously home to single family subdivisions. These more intensive uses have created strains on the natural and built environments in less centralized areas where inadequate infrastructure exists at a time when housing prices were escalating. 39 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 4 CHARACTER AND IDENTITY Page 28 of 199 Goal 2 Manage Growth in size, location, land-use selection & infrastructure impacts. Objectives: A.Respect the limits to growth imposed by the natural environment and by the existing and feasible extent of infrastructure. B.Manage affordable housing policies so that affordable units are evenly distributed in the neighborhoods. C.Promote diversity as a strengthening civic bond in the daily interaction of residents. and continuity of residence as a prerequisite for the community’s motivation and volunteerism. D.Promote the design of new construction to seamlessly connect with their receiving surroundings. E.Encourage infill development and create incentives to intensify developments adjacent to the Depot. Encourage the adaptive re-use of buildings wherever feasible. Education Reading's educational system continues to be a valued resource for the Town's existing families, but the very qualities of the school system that appeal to current residents are attracting an influx of families from around the region, thereby challenging the maintenance of its assets. Goal 3 Preserve the School System in resources, infrastructure & scholastic achievement as a social function of high importance. Objectives: A.Prioritize the development and modernization of aging building stock so that students experience a contemporary school environment. B.Assist the School Committee in assessing the short- and long-term needs in facilities and personnel. C.Create a network of pathways, bike routes and sidewalks around schools and encourage students to use them. D. Strengthen the bond between schools and extra-curriculum activities run by the Town and other Organizations. 40 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 29 of 199 CHAPTER 5 HOUSING 5.1INTRODUCTION The history of Reading's housing stock spans several centuries, from early colonial farm buildings to contemporary, multi-family apartment buildings. The evolution of Reading's housing reminded fairly static through the 1940s, when the predominantly single-family dwellings were complimented with a variety of housing types. Subdivision tracts became common through the 1950s and 60s, and former farm properties were developed to accommodate the growing demand for suburban residential coinciding with the construction of Route 128, growing affluence and the middle class migration from the inner city. More recently in the 1970s, 80s and 90s larger condominium and apartment buildings were constructed in or adjacent to Reading's commercial corridors, which offered easy access to regional transportation such as Routes 128 and 93. While Reading continued to be a principally suburban commuter shed to Boston and the office development on Route 128 and Reading's increasingly white collar residents, the Town eventually became a focal point for large-scale commercial and residential development as growth expanded outward from Boston's inner metropolitan core. The period since the 1991 Master Plan has seen substantially development of subdivisions, rehabilitated single family housing and more dense, multi-family housing such affordable projects under the State mandated Chapter 40B statute. These developments have ranged from 2 lot subdivisions in well-established residential neighborhoods to substantial, 200+ unit condominium and rental developments on the periphery of Town. It’s clear as housing demand increases for a variety of housing types in Reading due to its well regarded school system, proximity to commuter links and sustained property values, the Town will continue to see more intensive development on the dwindling supply of buildable land. 41 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 30 of 199 5.2 ANALYSIS Recent Population and Household Trends Population trends are among the key factors driving housing demand. After experiencing a slight decline, Reading’s population grew 5%, to 23,708 person, from 1990 to 2000. This growth rate parallels the region’s growth rate. However, based on projections, Reading’s population can be expected to decline slightly over the next 20 years (see Figure 1). Meanwhile, the number of households in Reading, which increased 10% from 1990 to 2000, is expected to continue to increase over the next twenty years. This is not a unique trend – nationally, household size is shrinking, resulting in more households. Reading’s household size shrunk from 2.84 persons per household in 1990 to 2.73 in 2000, representing a 4% decrease. As we will see, this increase in the population and the number of households led to declining vacancy rates and escalating housing costs. In 2000, Reading had 3.7 persons per square acre. Figure 1. Population and Household Trends and Projections, Reading. Population Households Year#% Change # % Change 22,678 -- -- -- 1980 199022,539 -1% 7,932 -- 200023,708 5% 8,688 10% Projecte d: 23,500 -1% 8,973 3% 2010 202022,865 -3% 9,085 1% Sources: U.S. Census and MAPC. Household Composition Reading is primarily composed of family households – 74% of all households are family households. By comparison, only 61% of the region’s households are families. Conversely, 26% of the households in Reading are non-family. Non-family households include households with one person or room-mate situations – i.e., those in the household are not related. Figure 2. Breakdown of Household Type in Reading, 2000. % of Total Households Type of HouseholdReading Region Families74% 61% Married-Couple Families64% 47% Single-person Households22% 30% Married & Single-Parent Households 38% 31% With Children under 18 All Households with Persons Age 65+27% 24% Non-Family Households26% 39% Source: U.S. Census, 2000. 42 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 31 of 199 Five percent of Reading’s households are headed by a single parent. Just over 150 Reading residents live in group quarters. Most of these persons live in nursing homes and a small percentage live in group quarters for persons with developmental disabilities. It is worth noting that 7% of those over age 65 live with a relative other than a spouse (e.g., with their adult children, with a sibling, etc.). Also, 25% of those over age 65 live alone, 80% of whom are women. Analyzing the age composition of residents helps to identify current and future housing needs. To show this relationship, we clustered age groups to relate them loosely to various stages in the housing market (Figure 3). For example, the age 20 to 34 age groups tend to form households for the first time and are likely to rent or to buy a smaller starter home. The trade-ups (age 35 to 54) have generally accumulated more wealth, may have a larger family, and often drive the demand for larger and more expensive homes in a community. The empty nesters (55-64) are called such because often their children are grown and have moved out, so they may be ready to downsize to smaller, easier to maintain units. Lastly, the early (65-74) and “wiser” (75+) seniors have special housing needs also. Some prefer to move back in with family, some may continue to live on their own, and some may find it necessary to move to assisted living facilities or a nursing home. If these various age groups can not find housing in Reading to meet their needs, they may have to leave the community. From 1990 to 2000, Reading saw: A decrease in the household formation age group. Reading is not alone in this trend – this age group has decreased in the region also. Large growth in the middle years (35 to 54), putting pressure on the trade-up market. Youth and the older population remained relatively stable from 1990 to 2000. Population projections indicate that Reading’s household formation group could rebound by 2020 and that the trade-ups may decrease over that time period. A decrease in this latter group could open up more family housing units for younger families. The trade-ups, however, still would comprise the largest portion of Reading’s age groups. The projections also indicate an increase in empty-nesters and early seniors. This could result in a need for smaller units. 43 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 32 of 199 Figure 3. Reading’s Age Groups – Trends and Projections. 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 1990 4,000 2000 2010 3,000 2020 2,000 1,000 - Preschool (0-4)School Age (5-19)HouseholdTrade-Up (35-54)Empty Nesters (55-Early Seniors (65-Wiser Seniors Formation (20-34)64)74)(75+) Note: Age clusters are not evenly divided. Sources: U.S. Census and MAPC Projections. Figure 4. Number of Reading Residents in Each Age Group from 1990 to 2000 (table) 1990 2000 Preschool (0-4) 1,518 1,701 School Age (5-19) 4,253 4,904 Household Formation (20-34) 5,072 3,501 Trade-Ups (35-54) 6,534 8,071 Empty Nesters (55-64) 2,266 2,162 Early Seniors (65-74) 1,651 1,752 Seniors (75+) 1,245 1,617 Source: U.S. Census. FINDING Despite a possible drop in population, the trend toward increasingly smaller household sizes will continue to drive demand for housing units. Reading will likely remain a predominantly family community. This, combined with the large proportion of trade-ups, may contribute to the demand for larger family-size housing units. However, if the number of trade ups decreases, as projected, this demand could lessen somewhat. An increase in empty nesters and early seniors may fuel a need for smaller units that are easy to maintain, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes. 44 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 33 of 199 Housing Demand Findings Despite a possible drop in population, the trend toward increasingly smaller household sizes will continue a demand for housing units. Reading will likely remain a predominantly family community. This, combined with the large proportion of trade-ups, may contribute to the demand for larger family-size housing units. Though if the number of trade ups decreases, as projected, this demand could lessen somewhat. An increase in empty nesters and early seniors may fuel a need for smaller units that are easy to maintain, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes. Housing Supply Quality and Characteristics of Reading’s Housing The number of housing units in Reading grew at a steady pace from 1980 to 2000, reaching 8,823 units in 2000. Reading’s 9% increase in housing units from 1990 to 2000 outpaced the rate in the region, which was 5%. In 2000, only 1.5% of Reading’s housing units were vacant; this rate is half of the region’s rate. This low vacancy rate reflects the tight housing market that the region is experiencing. Figure 5. Change in Housing Units and Vacancy Rates, Reading. Housing Units Vacancy Rates Year # % Increase All Units Rentals Homeowner 19807,486 -- -- -- -- 8,104 8.3% 2.1% 3.5% 0.6% 1990 8,823 8.9% 1.5% 3.1% 0.3% 2000 Source: U.S. Census. Three-quarters of Reading’s housing units are single-family detached units. This proportion is substantially greater than the region; only 6% of Reading’s housing units are located in two- family houses. From 1997 to 2002, building permits were issued for 12 multi-family units and 124 single-family units. 45 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 34 of 199 Figure 6. Type of Structure that Housing Units are Located In, Reading, 2000. 20 to 49 Units, 50 + Units, 4% 3% 10 to 19 units, 4% 5 to 9 units, 2% 3 to 4 units, 3% 2 units, 6% 1 unit attached, 3% 1 unit detached, 74% Source: U.S. Census Reading’s housing units are 82% owner-occupied and 18% are rentals. These percentages have remained relatively unchanged since 1980. Reading’s proportion of owner-occupied units is significantly greater than the region’s rate of 57%. Figure 7. Housing Tenure, Reading, Subregion, and Region, 2000. 100% 80% 57% 76% 60% 82% Owner Occupied Renter Occupied 40% 43% 20% 24% 18% 0% ReadingSubregionMAPC Source: U.S. Census In terms of age, Reading’s housing stock is fairly diverse. One-third of the housing units were built prior to 1940. These houses, while adding to Reading’s historical fabric, can mean a need for rehabilitation (including upgrades to meet current building codes), repairs, and lead paint 46 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 35 of 199 removal. A large number of housing units were built from 1950 to 1970 and a fair number of units have been built since then. Figure 8. Year Housing Units Built in Reading, 2000. 1990 - March 2000 8% 1980-1989 10% 1939 or earlier 32% 1970-1979 10% 1960-1969 1940-1949 13% 10% 1950-1959 Source: U.S. Census. 17% Zoning Allowances Reading is predominantly zoned for single-family houses with minimum lot sizes ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet. The current zoning bylaw does provide options for other types of housing developments. These options may present opportunities to address Reading’s housing needs. Briefly, these options include: Accessory apartments are allowed by special permit in single family districts and Business A, but only in dwelling units that existed prior to August 1, 1982. Two family units are allowed in A-40 and Business A. Business A zones also allows apartments. Nursing homes are allowed by special permit in the S-20 district. Residential uses, to some extent are allowed in the Planned Unit Development – Industrial Overlay Districts (PUD-I). Relief from certain dimensional and intensity requirements are allowed if the developer provides affordable units on or off site. Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD-R) is another type of overlay zone which allows single family units, two family townhouses, apartments, and elderly housing, among other uses. Ten percent of the units must be affordable and up to half of these can be provided off site. A Planned Residential Development (PRD) Overlay is allowed by special permit in the single family districts and A-80. There are two types of PRDs. General (PRD-G) requires a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet and encourages affordable units. 47 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 36 of 199 Municipal (PRD-M), allowed on current or former municipally owned land of at least eight acres in size, requires the provision of affordable units. Municipal Building Reuse District is an overlay district that allows the redevelopment or reuse of surplus municipal buildings. Ten percent of the units must be affordable. Affordable Housing Stock in Reading According to the state’s Subsidized Housing Inventory, which officially keeps track of all housing that qualifies under M.G.L. Chapter 40B, 404 housing units in Reading are considered affordable – this equals 4.6% of the housing stock. (M.G.L. Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23 is a state statute that enables local Zoning Boards of Appeals (ZBAs) to issue a single “comprehensive permit” for residential developments that include affordable housing, even if the proposal does not conform to local zoning requirements. The law, also known as the Comprehensive Permit or “Anti-Snob Zoning” Law, sets a goal of 10% low-to-moderate income housing in each community. If communities with less than 10% deny a comprehensive permit or set excessive conditions for approval, the proponent may appeal to the state, which can order the ZBA to issue the permit. The purpose of this 1969 law is to address the shortage of affordable housing statewide by reducing unnecessary barriers erected by local zoning and other restrictions.) Figure 9. Subsidized Housing Gap in Reading, as of February 2003 Total Year-Round Units 8,811 Subsidized Units (on DHCD list) 404 10% Goal 881 Deficit 477 Source: Mass. Dept. of Housing and Community Development, Feb. 2003. Affordable units in Reading include: The Housing Authority owns 115 units – 73% are for elderly or handicapped persons, 20% are for families, and 8% are for special needs persons. Another 290 units are privately owned. These range from assisted living facilities to other forms of elderly housing and family housing. In addition, a small number of group homes for persons with developmental disabilities are scattered throughout Reading, mostly in renovated houses. The Town recently approved another 200 plus units under 40B. These are primarily two bedroom units, with some one and three bedroom units. This list does not yet include recently approved 40B projects, which would bring the total to approximately 650 affordable housing units (7%). As new market-rate units are created, the number of affordable units needed to reach and maintain the state’s goal of 10% will increase. Another hindrance to maintaining 10% are the units with “expiring use restrictions.” These are properties built under programs that require affordability only for a fixed number of years, after which owners may choose to sell or rent the units at market rate. As a result, 114 units will expire in 2010 and most of the remaining private 48 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 37 of 199 units will expire between 2013 and 2046. While it is possible that some of these units will still be kept affordable, there is no guarantee. A community can take steps to keep these units affordable. Housing Supply Findings In 2000, MAPC conducted Build-Out Analyses for communities in the region. A Build-Out Analysis estimates the amount of development and related impacts if all land in a community is developed according to the current zoning by-law. In Reading, the analysis indicated that an additional 770 single family units could be constructed in Residential Districts S-15, S-20 and S- 40. The analysis equated this increase in units with an addition of 2,000 residents, 380 new students, and roughly 11 miles of new roads. This analysis was based on those uses allowed as of right in Reading’s zoning districts – not those uses that require a special permit nor the potential for overlay districts. Figure 10. Future Housing Units Based on Build-Out Analysis, Reading. Zone Minimum Lot Size Total New Units 15,000 sq. ft. 176 Residential District S-15 20,000 sq. ft. 531 Residential District S-20 40,000 sq. ft. 64 Residential District S-40 771 Total New Units Source: MAPC and Reading Zoning Bylaw, March 2003. FINDING Reading is predominantly zoned for single-family houses with minimum lot sizes ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet. The current zoning by-laws do provide options for other types of housing developments, such as planned residential and unit developments, accessory apartments and mixed use. Although multi-family production has seen temporary increases with periodic real estate booms, based on zoning and the historically low production of other-than- single-family units, it can be expected that most of Reading’s future housing production will be single family houses on average half-acre lots. The likely result will be a continuation of high housing costs and fewer opportunities for low to moderate income households, empty nesters, and elderly. 49 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 38 of 199 Based on zoning and the historically low production of other-than-single-family units, it can be expected that most of Reading’s future housing production will be single family houses on half- acre lots. The likely result will be a continuation of high housing costs and fewer opportunities for low to moderate income households, empty nesters, and elderly. Linking Supply, Demand & Affordability When housing prices increase at a faster pace than incomes, housing becomes less affordable for all income groups and can be particularly challenging for low and moderate income households. When people are spending too much for housing, it becomes difficult for employers to attract new workers, residents have fewer dollars to spend in the community, and some may ultimately leave the community. The Cost of Buying a Home Reading has seen its housing sales prices increase substantially from the late 1990s though the present. The median sales price for a single family house reached $362,000 and condominiums reached $237,000 in 2002. Figure 11. Median Home Sales Prices, Reading. $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $- 1 FamilyCondo . Source: The Warren Group, 2003 Another way to analyze affordability is to see how many households are paying 30% or more of their income toward a mortgage – this is considered the maximum percentage that a household can afford to pay. By this standard, the 2000 Census indicates that 20% of Reading’s home owners can not afford their mortgage. We analyzed whether Reading’s housing stock is affordable to households in the region that fit in the moderate or middle income categories. We focus on moderate and middle income since it can be assumed that housing needs for low income households can be met best by rental housing. 50 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 39 of 199 A rule of thumb is that a household can afford a house that is no more than 2.5 times its annual household income. Data from 2002 indicate that moderate income household in the region (which earns up to $62,650) can afford a house priced up to $157,000.Reading’s median sales price in 2002 was $362,000 for a one-family house – or $205,000 more than what the region’s moderate income households could afford. The Town’s median sales price for a condominium in 2002 was $237,000. While the median sales price for a condominium is more affordable than a single- family house, it is still at least $80,000 too much for moderate income households. Middle income households in the region (earning up to 150% of the median, or $121,200 in 2002) could afford a house priced up to $303,000. It appears that, in 2002, the median sales prices for Reading’s single family units were at least $59,000 more than what a middle income household could afford. Condominiums in Reading, however, appear to be affordable for many middle income households. We also analyzed whether Reading’s housing stock is affordable to Reading’s residents. Figure 12 compares the median home value (as reported by home-owners in the census) to median household income. The gap between income and housing values increased from 1980 to 2000 – this chart shows that housing values were four times the median household income in 1990 and 2000 while in 1980, the median housing price was only 2.5 times the median income – i.e., affordable. Figure 12. Housing Affordability Gap in Reading. $300,000 $271,600 $250,000 $206,500 $200,000 $150,000 $63,700 $100,000 $77,059 $50,000 $52,783 $25,796 $- 198019902000 Median Home ValueMedian Household Income Source: U.S. Census The Cost of Renting The affordability of rental units is another important factor to evaluate. The census shows that median monthly rents in Reading were $340 in 1980, $706 in 1990, and $739 in 2000. These 51 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 40 of 199 rents seem low – they are as reported by tenants in 1999 and they reflect rents paid by in-place tenants who may be long term and have rents that rise only incrementally from year to year. Newcomers seeking market rentals today most likely face considerably higher rents. The 30% affordability rule discussed above applies to renters also – a household should not be paying 30% or more of its income towards rent. According to the 2000 Census, 31% of renters in Reading were paying too much. High housing costs have the most severe impacts on those on the lowest rung of the income ladder. Figures 13 and 14 show which age groups and income groups are paying too much for rent in Reading. It appears that a substantial percentage of all age groups are unable to afford their rent. Large percentages of households that earn less than $35,000 per year are also paying too much for rent in Reading. Figure 13. Rent-Burdened Tenants by Age Group, Reading, 2000. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 15-3425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+ Age Group Source: U.S. Census. 52 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 41 of 199 Figure 14. Rent-Burdened Tenants by Income Group, Reading, 2000. 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than$10,000-$20,000-$35,000-$50,000-$75,000-$100,000 + $10,000$19,999$34,999$49,999$74,999$99,999 Income Group Source: U.S. Census Incomes in Reading Reading’s median household income in 2000 was $77,059. Figure 15 indicates that Reading is predominantly a middle to upper income town, with approximately one-third of the households middle income and one third upper income. Conversely, 31% of Reading’s households were considered low to moderate income in 2000. These figures have not been adjusted for family size. The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development also provides data on the number of persons that are low to moderate income. According to 2000 data, 21.5% of the Town’s population is considered low to moderate income. It comes as no surprise that home-owners have a higher median income than renters. While homeowners in Reading had a median annual income of $83,884 in 2000, renters had a median of $32,485 – less than half. The median income for those over age 75 was even less, at $25,104 (see Figure 16). 53 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 42 of 199 Figure 15. Estimated Number of Households in Each Income Group in Reading, 2000 Low Income, 1658, 19% Upper Income , 3114, 36% Moderate Income , 1047, 12% Middle Income , Not adjusted for family size. 2850, 33% Source: Estimates based on U.S. Census. Figure 16. Median Household Income by Type of Household, Reading, 2000. $83,884 $90,000 $76,453 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $32,485 $40,000 $25,104 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $- 75 Years & OlderRentersAllOwners (Owners & Renters) Source: U.S. Census. Current Affordable Housing Needs in Reading Waiting lists for subsidized units indicate present and future needs.Discussions with the Housing Authority and with some of the private providers indicate that elderly may have to wait one to two years for a subsidized unit, while a wait for a family unit can be three to five years. The Housing Authority has approximately 140 Section 8 applicants on its waiting list, 40 on an elderly and disabled waiting list, and 21 on a waiting list for family units. A small portion of those on the Authority’s list are from Reading. The Section 8 and family waiting list are currently closed. It is important to keep in mind that waiting lists contain persons outside of 54 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 43 of 199 Reading and that an individual can be on more than one waiting list. Regardless, there appears to be a gap between the need for elderly units and family units and available units in Reading. Lower income households are paying too much for rent in Reading, and moderate and middle income households struggle to afford housing in Reading. 28% of Reading’s households have incomes below the low and moderate income limits that are appropriate for subsidized housing. A large percentage of all age groups can not afford their rent. There is a need for more rental units that meet the needs for various life stages. Reading is at risk of losing over 100 affordable units by 2010, when they may “expire”. Reading has taken action to increase its affordable housing stock and meet housing needs. Conclusions While Reading overall is a middle to upper income town, low, moderate and middle income households find it difficult to afford rents and mortgages in the Town.The senior and elderly population are particularly burdened and in light of the current waiting lists for subsidized units the need will likely increase in the future. Additional efforts are likely needed to meet their needs, along with the needs of all income groups. The waiting list and relative low supply of subsidized family units may indicate that Reading’s single parent households and low to moderate income families face a daunting challenge affording housing in Reading. It is important to remember that Reading has made significant progress toward meeting the state’s ten percent goal and, as we will see, has many assets in place to help the Town to meet current and future housing needs. The following table summarizes the potential outcome of two development scenarios for the year 2020: the “Current Trend” and the “Build-out”. The horizon year 2020 assumed to be the point in time that Reading will need to meet the 10% affordability criterion as set forth by M.G.L. Chapter 40B. (Data from Figures 1 & 10 have been used in order to assemble this table.) Figure 17. Reading Build-Out Projection Current Trend Build-out 8,863 All units 2004 * 8,863 9,085 All units, 2020 projection 9,634 ** New units built between 2004-2020 222 771 650 Affordable units in 2004 650 908 All Affordable units, 2020 projection, 963 necessary to comply with 10% criterion Necessary new affordable units for 2020 258 313 258 /222 > 100% 2020 : % of new affordable units within 313 / 771 = 41% all new units * 2004 data extrapolated from Figure 1 ** There is a view shared among the Master Plan committee members that a more detailed analysis of the Reading Wetlands Map may actually decrease this number. As noted in previous chapters, the vast majority of new housing units – based on current zoning and trends – will be single-family residences. This analysis does not account for the main route 55 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 44 of 199 of introducing high densities with affordable units in Town, that is through comprehensive permits authorized under M.G.L. Chapter 40B, or other recent avenues like Chapter 40R. The result of the first scenario is that, even if all the new units built between 2004 and 2020 are affordable, it will not be enough to meet the 10% criterion. In the second case, Reading will need to ensure a 41% of all new units between 2004 and 2020 as affordable in order to meet the 10% criterion. FINDING Town zoning allows medium density residential developments under PRD (overlay districts resembling Cluster zoning) and PUD-R (overlays for large parcels allowing a medium density), while the State encourages LIP for community involvement and some impact mitigation as an alternative to conventional comprehensive permits authorized under M.G.L. Chapter 40B. Other avenues such as Chapter 40R State permits or mixed use overlay districts are means to introduce affordable units in Town and should be investigated as to their applicability, flexibility and long-term impacts. Market forces and State directives necessitate the need for planning proactive housing policies and incentives to avoid abrupt changes in the Town’s character. This inevitable process, which has started for Reading several years ago, will target appropriate locations that can support the inevitable higher residential densities that new developments bring. 5.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Policies & Strategies Current institutions, Town administration and Boards (Selectmen and Planning) have limited resources to fully develop the housing policies that Reading needs, policies ranging from new projects to preservation and from zoning amendments to extended planned programs. Numerous advocacy, technical and consulting roles have to be assigned so that a pro-active position in housing can be manifest within the Town government, the Town administration and among the residents. Goal 1 Establish a strong public commitment to housing and develop proactive housing policies. Objectives: A. Strengthen existing housing non-profits in order to ensure potential programs and funding strategies in Reading. B. Pursue an increase in Town involvement and investigate additional funding vehicles, to improve on housing goals Communicate Housing Goals to residents 56 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 45 of 199 Affordability Housing Affordability is one of the greatest challenges of the current generation. Housing supply has dwindled while demand has increased, driving prices ever higher. This dynamic creates a financial strain on even fully employed individuals, let alone young families with only 1 wage earner or the elderly with limited means. In addition to a critical social issue, the lack of affordability hampers recruitment of a skilled workforce for the local and regional economy, given lower costs of living in other competitive wage markets. The Town relies on civil servants to maintain quality of life; a diverse and affordable housing stock is needed to retain these individuals and insulate the elderly from substandard housing. As of early 2003, only a 9% of cities and towns in the Commonwealth met the 10% affordability criterion of M.G.L. Chapter 40B. Reading, belonging to the vast majority of non-conforming communities, needs to take steps to increase its affordable units and avoid the likelihood of having of its zoning regulations and Master Plan recommendations bypassed by developers. The impact that comprehensive permit developments have into the Town life can be illustrated in several layers: abrupt increases of density, alienated housing enclaves disconnected from the surrounding fabric, localized spikes in the Town’s traffic flow, sudden changes in school population, unbalanced loads in resources and infrastructure. Goal 2 Increase affordable units Objectives: A. Encourage rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing buildings for low and moderate- income multi-family housing. B. Encourage new developments consistent with Reading’s character and identity and meeting state mandated affordable housing goals. C. To the greatest extent possible, make provisions for units affordable in perpetuity. Diversity In a context larger than affordability, housing diversity is essential to building a strong community. The demographic changes occurring in the Region impose a wide range of housing needs and Reading will need to address these needs with Town-wide strategies. Though we may not cope with all the elements of social diversity at the same time, the least we can expect is for our parents and children to have a realistic option of staying in Town. In the early stages of Reading’s development to a New England Township, diversity was evident in the size of households, housing types and in the mixing of uses within the neighborhoods. Today, diversity – a core element of Reading’s character and identity - is being lost, a loss which deeply affects the future of the community, not only as built environment, but also as people. 57 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 46 of 199 Goal 3 Promote Diversity in housing types & households Objectives: A. Avoid exclusionary zoning and mansionization by “spreading” diversity of housing types to all neighborhoods. B. Provide incentives for small scale age-focused housing (over 55, young couples, nursing homes, etc). Neighborhood Design Historically, the early settlements that developed to urban centers/villages in New England were laid out in a method known today as Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND). TND in suburban communities is the basis for a balanced human experience of the built environment as part of a larger natural environment. On one hand, the size and diversity of buildings within the neighborhood “color” the experience of residency in Reading. On the other hand, the human scale of the neighborhood itself, the comfortable distance to the village center, the variety of land-uses and the uniqueness of the natural resources “color” the experience of the community of Reading. Goal 4 Promote Neighborhood preservation Objectives: A. Establish the fundamental elements of Reading neighborhoods B. Associate historic preservation with Reading’s character C. Establish general planning guidelines for new developments Downtown Mixed-use developments in downtown can maximize the use of valuable space by allowing for compact developments. These developments of increased density are easier to sustain themselves by providing for various options of marketable units, from low rent to high end. In addition, the downtown itself can be revitalized after business hours, with downtown residents in less need of a second car due to the proximity of the Depot. Goal 5 Address mixed-use zoning in Town Objectives: A. Introduce mixed-use zoning in the Downtown and around the Depot B. Expand the accessory use options to allow for home occupations 58 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 5 HOUSING Page 47 of 199 Map 9 EO-418 Housing Opportunities Map 59 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 48 of 199 CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 6.1 INTRODUCTION Reading is a prosperous suburban community with a number of economic development assets: a busy downtown with commuter rail service, direct access to both Routes 128/I-95 and I-93, and an increasingly well-educated and well-paid workforce. However, the Town remains primarily a residential community, with relatively little commercial and industrial development. The local job base is small and is dominated by lower paying retail and service jobs, while most residents commute to work in other communities. The Town’s tax base is heavily dependent on residential properties, with only 7% of the total valuation attributable to businesses. There is essentially no additional undeveloped business-zoned land in Reading, but there are opportunities to add to the Town’s business base through revitalization of the downtown and redevelopment of vacant and underused properties nearer the highways. 6.2 ANALYSIS Resident Workforce The number of Reading residents active in the workforce has grown fairly slowly over the last two decades, declining during the recession of the early 1990’s, but recovering to reach a total of 13,362 in 2001. The number of jobs in Town grew more steadily over the period, causing the ratio of jobs to working residents to rise from 0.44 to 0.55. As of 2000, about 18% of Reading’s working residents worked in Reading, filling roughly 30% of local jobs. Four of five workers commuted to jobs in other communities, with Boston (16%), Woburn (7%) and Cambridge (5%) being the most common destinations. About 3.5% (444) of the workforce worked from home. Since 1985, Reading’s annual unemployment rate has averaged slightly more than 1.5 percentage points below the annual statewide rate. While the gap narrowed somewhat in recent years, Reading residents have been relatively successful in staying employed. 60 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 49 of 199 Reading’s residents increasingly identify themselves as “white collar” workers. In 2000, 53% of Reading workers identified themselves with Managerial or Professional occupations (+32% from 1990), which is about 6 percentage points above the proportion for Greater Boston. The only other occupational category showing growth was Services occupations, but Reading remains slightly below the regional average at 9% (compared to 13% regionally). The proportions in all other occupational categories are about the same as the region. The median age of Reading residents increased in the 1990s from 36.1 to 39.1 years, above the 36 year median for the metro area. Figure 1. Numbers of Working Residents and Jobs in Reading, 1985-2001. Ratio of Jobs to WorkforceJobs Workers 1985 12,882 5,614 0.44 1986 13,005 5,719 0.44 1987 13,047 6,346 0.49 1988 13,121 6,473 0.49 1989 13,202 6,742 0.51 1990 12,906 6,060 0.47 1991 12,596 5,741 0.46 1992 12,571 5,502 0.44 1993 12,586 5,454 0.43 1994 12,668 5,778 0.46 1995 12,583 6,301 0.50 1996 12,721 6,555 0.52 1997 13,227 7,045 0.53 1998 13,325 7,115 0.53 1999 13,340 7,184 0.54 2000 13,179 7,455 0.57 2001 13,362 7,318 0.55 Growth 1990-2001 456 1,258 4% 21% Source: MA Division of Employment and Training. 61 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 50 of 199 Figure 2. Reading Unemployment Rate and Number of Working Residents. Reading Unemployment RateState Unemployment RateReading Laborforce 13,600 10.0% 9.0% 13,400 8.0% 13,200 7.0% 13,000 6.0% 12,800 5.0% 12,600 4.0% 12,400 3.0% 12,200 2.0% 12,000 1.0% 0.0%11,800 Source: MA Division of Employment and Training Figure 3. Occupations of Reading Residents. Management, +32% Professional -24% Sales & Office 2000 +14% Service 1990 Production, -16% Transportation, Material Moving Construction & -25% Maintenance -1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000 Source: US Census 2000 The shift in occupations is mirrored in rising educational levels that exceed those for the metropolitan region. While Reading’s adult population over 25 years of age increased by only 62 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 51 of 199 7% in the 1990s, the number having a college degree increased by almost 40%. By 2000, over half (55%) of Reading adults had college degrees, 7 points higher than the region. The number of adults who had not received at least a high school degree fell by over one quarter, and at 5% of the workforce, was less than half the regional average. Figure 4. Educational Attainment of Reading Adults, 1990 and 2000. +54% Graduate/Prof'l +31% Bachelor's 2000 -0.4% Some College/Assoc. 1990 -18% High School -28% Less than High School -1,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 Number of Adults Source: US Census Reading’s median household income rose by 46% in the 1990s to $77,000 which is almost 40% above the regional median $55,200. When inflation is subtracted, Reading median income grew almost 9%, much higher than the regional median’s increase of less than 2%. Reading is a solidly upper middle class community, with the Town having a higher proportion of households than the region in all income categories above $75,000. The number of families in poverty rose 88% to 113 in the 1990s, but the 600 individuals falling below the poverty line in 2000 represented only about 2.6% of the Town’s population. 63 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 52 of 199 Figure 5. Household Income in Reading and the Region. $150,000 or more $100,000-149,999 $75,000-$99,999 $50,000-$74,999 MAPC 2000 $35,000-$49,999 Reading 2000 $25,000-$34,999 $15,000-$24,999 $10,000-$14,999 Less than $10,000 0%5%10%15%20%25% Source: US Census Job Base Reading is a predominantly residential community, and its employment opportunities are concentrated for the most part in retail and service businesses serving local residents. Total jobs in the Town declined significantly in the early 1990s, but posted a substantial gain of 1,258 positions (21%) from 1990 to 2001. Unfortunately, about 1,000 jobs at Reading’s largest employer left Town during 2000 and 2001, which is only fully reflected in the decline of 430 positions in the annual figures for 2002. The number of establishments in Reading has increased slowly to a total of 614 in 2002. The average number of employees working at each establishment has stayed in the 10 to 13 range since the mid-1980s, reflecting the preponderance of small local businesses. Because the number of jobs in Reading grew much faster (+30%) than the number of working residents (+4%) from 1985-2001, the Town’s Jobs to Labor ratio increased from 0.44 to 0.55. This ratio is well below the 0.76 median for the region, but at one part- or full-time job for every two working residents is not untypical of “bedroom” suburbs whose residents primarily commute to other communities. 64 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 53 of 199 Figure 6. Jobs in Reading by Sector, 1985-2001. 8,000 7,000 6,000 Agri., For., Fish. TCPU 5,000 Services Trade 4,000 Construction Government 3,000 Manufacturing FIRE 2,000 1,000 0 Source: MA DET Most of the job growth in Reading has been in the broadly-defined Services sector, which ranges from high paying occupations such as custom software development and management consulting to low skilled office cleaning services. These industries comprise almost 40% of Reading’s jobs. Since 1990, Services businesses gained 1,200 employees while the second largest sector, Wholesale and Retail Trade lost almost 400 employees to decline to less than 20% of employment. While growth in Services jobs is consistent with national and regional trends, Reading’s increase of 200 manufacturing jobs is contrary to the general decline of employment in goods producing industries. However, most of the jobs represented in the Manufacturing category through 2001 were subsequently lost with the departure of publisher Addison-Wesley. 65 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 54 of 199 Figure 7. Number of Jobs in Reading by Sector. Jobs Total Trade Utilities Services Number of Agriculture, Government Construction Year EstablishmentsManufacturing Finance, Insur- Transportation, ance, Real Estate Fishing, Forestry Communications, 1985 465 5,614 1,266 1,719 802 834 519 292 158 25 1986 505 5,719 1,422 1,878 758 871 391 288 83 28 1987 545 6,346 1,603 2,150 876 870 467 253 71 56 1988 539 6,473 1,731 2,235 783 878 496 227 63 60 1989 561 6,742 1,839 2,160 969 900 522 208 84 60 1990 569 6,060 1,668 1,711 953 942 433 222 75 56 1991 557 5,741 1,576 1,575 931 982 331 221 70 55 1992 511 5,502 1,550 1,575 935 896 239 196 50 61 1993 525 5,454 1,564 1,256 1,009 984 269 212 101 59 1994 541 5,778 1,808 1,243 1,053 1,006 278 206 124 60 1995 554 6,301 2,379 1,241 1,002 1,005 293 241 87 53 1996 586 6,555 2,598 1,197 1,001 1,032 321 246 99 61 1997 572 7,045 2,856 1,292 1,080 1,097 329 243 71 77 1998 594 7,115 2,818 1,427 1,054 1,080 322 266 73 75 1999 577 7,184 2,813 1,526 961 1,119 354 258 78 75 2000 573 7,455 2,803 1,561 1,219 1,119 350 263 65 75 597 7,318 2,885 1,318 1,161 1,119 395 271 85 84 2001 2002 614 6,881 % of 2001 Jobs 39% 18% 16% 15% 5% 4% 1% 1% Growth 1990-2001 28 1,258 1,217 -393 208 177 (38) 49 10 28 % 5% 21% 73% -23% 22% 19% -9% 22% 13% 50% Source: MA Division of Employment & Training. FINDING Reading’s residents increasingly identify themselves as “white collar” workers. In 2000, 53% of Reading workers identified themselves with Managerial or Professional occupations (+32% from 1990), which is about 6 percentage points above the proportion for Greater Boston. Reading’s median household income rose by 46% in the 1990s to $77,000 which is almost 40% above the regional median $55,200. Total jobs in the town declined significantly in the early 1990s, but posted a substantial gain of 1,258 positions (21%) from 1990 to 2001. Most of the job growth in Reading has been in the broadly-defined Services sector, which ranges from high paying occupations such as custom software development and management consulting to low skilled office cleaning services. These industries comprise almost 40% of Reading’s jobs. 66 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 55 of 199 As noted above, Reading is primarily a bedroom community and its employment opportunities are dominated by retailers and service businesses serving local residents as is indicated in the list of largest employers in Figure 25. Reading’s largest industries in terms of employment are Retail and Health Care, a reverse of their leading rankings for the metropolitan region. Both of these industries pay relatively low wages on average, which reflects a large number of part-time positions and low hourly pay. Yet, these positions represent opportunities for people entering the job market, those interested in part time work, andless educated workers. The same can also be said of many industries in Administrative and Waste Services (e.g. cleaning services) and the restaurants comprising the bulk of the Accommodation and Food Services category. At about $40,000 per year, the average wage of Reading jobs is about $10,000 less than that of the region. This reflects the local job base’s predominance of local retail and service businesses, and the relative lack of higher paying jobs in “traded” or “export” industries that serve national and regional markets. Among Reading’s largest industries, only Computer Systems Design/Services (Professional/Technical) pays significantly above the regional average, and these jobs appear to be concentrated in one company, making the Town somewhat vulnerable to its relocation or decline. Indeed the average wage has fallen over the last few years, coinciding with Addison-Wesley publishing, the Town’s largest employer, relocating outside the community. During the 1990s, the average real wage of jobs in Reading declined by 10% in real terms while the median income of the Town’s residents rose 9% after inflation as they commuted to better paying opportunities elsewhere in the region. Still, Reading’s location along Route 128 offers the potential to attract higher paying jobs to currently vacant or underutilized properties. In addition to the vacant Addison-Wesley (Pearson) complex off South Street, there is potential for more intensive office and other commercial development near the Town’s two other exits off Route 128/I-95 when the economy improves, as evidenced by the Walkers Brook Crossing development under construction on the former landfill. Figure 8. Employment and Wages in Reading by Industry, 2002. Number ofAverage Annualized Employees Wage Retail Trade 864 $17,992 Health Care 745 $32,292 Administrative & Waste Services 591 $24,804 Professional / Technical Services 531 $69,264 Construction 439 $46,488 Other Non-Public Services 430 $21,892 Accommodation / Food Services 269 $14,976 Finance and Insurance 261 $68,588 Manufacturing 167 $45,448 Transport. & Warehousing 113 $40,040 Wholesale Trade 109 $66,144 Arts, Entertain., & Recreation 109 $17,836 Real Estate & Leasing 71$24,492 Note: Almost 2,200 jobs (32% of total) are omitted above due to DET 67 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 56 of 199 confidentiality restrictions Reading Job Average $39,676 Metro Boston Job Average $49,972 HUD Moderate Income (Metro Area, Family of 4) $62,650 HUD Low Income (Metro Area, Family of 4) $40,400 Source: MA Division of Employment & Training Figure 9. Largest Employers in Reading, 2003. Number of EmployerEmployees Industry TASC (Northrop Grumman) 500-1000 Computer Programming Services Atlantic Food Mart 100-249 Grocery Stores MASSBANK 100-249 Bank Reading Memorial High School 100-249 School United Hand Rehabilitation Services 100-249 Vocational Rehab. Services Wingate at Reading 100-249 Nursing Care Source: Reference USA. Figure 10. Wages and Employment in Reading’s Largest Industries. Number of JobsAve. Wage 1000$80,000 900 $70,000 800 $60,000 700 $50,000 600 500$40,000 400 $30,000 300 $20,000 200 $10,000 100 0$- Source: MA DET 68 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 57 of 199 Property Tax Base Because of Reading’s predominantly residential nature, its property tax base is heavily reliant on the value of residents’ homes, which represent just over 93% of the Town’s total property valuation. Combined, the Town’s CIP – Commercial, Industrial, and Personal Property (business equipment, etc.) – was valued at $195 million for 2003. Just over 80% of this CIP value represented commercial properties (stores, offices, restaurants) while industrial contributed only $24million. Since 1985, commercial valuation grew by $100 million and industrial by only $9 million. The much larger size and faster growth of Reading’s residential property value has caused the share of total valuation contributed by CIP to decline by over 5 percentage points from 1985 to 2003. This decline was driven by a tremendous increase in the value of housing, which more than quadrupled. And, while the Town’s housing stock grew by less than 10% since 1990, the real driver was a steep increase in housing prices, with the average assessed value of a single family residential parcel rising by 80% to over $350,000. Residential values have in fact soared over most of Eastern Massachusetts over the last two decades, reflecting a regional shortfall of housing construction combined with rising incomes and housing demand. In Reading, the increases in valuation were particularly large in the late 1980s, and in the last few years. While Reading’s shift from CIP to residential valuation is comparable to that experienced by most communities in the region, the relatively small base of business properties leaves the Town well below the statewide average CIP share of 19%. Reading’s home and condominium owners therefore receive relatively less help from the business sector in paying for local public services than do communities with more commercial development. Figure 11. Tax Valuation in Reading by Property Class, 1985-2003. CIP % Residential Commercial Industrial Total 1985 13% $561 M $57 M $13 M $642 M 1990 12% $1,388 M $141 M $28 M $1,569 M 1995 10% $1,292 M $109 M $16 M $1,429 M 2000 8% $1,834 M $132 M $20 M $2,002 M 2003 7% $2,643 M $157 M $23 M $2,838M Change over Period 195-1990 (1) pts $827 M $84 M $15 M $927 M 1990-1995 (2) pts $(96 M) $(32 M) $(13 M) $(141 M) 1995-2000 (2) pts $541 M $24 M $5 M $574 M 2000-2003 (1) pts $809 M $24 M $3 M $835 M Source: MA Department of Revenue. Public Input The Master Plan Advisory Committee held an economic development workshop on October 15, 2003. MAPC summarized historical and current data on economic trends in terms of Reading’s land use, tax base, jobs, and workforce. Attendees brainstormed and prioritized overall goals for economic development in Reading. Attendees then identified areas in Town for potential future economic development and described what they would like to see occur in those areas. 69 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 58 of 199 The following Economic Development Plan incorporates the result of this workshop. Potential Locations for further economic development are discussed in Appendix A and shown in Map 10. FINDING Because of Reading’s predominantly residential nature, its property tax base is heavily reliant on the value of residents’ homes, which represent just over 93% of the town’s total property valuation. In Reading, the increases in valuation were particularly large in the late 1980s, and in the last few years. While Reading’s shift from CIP to residential valuation is comparable to that experienced by most communities in the region, the relatively small base of business properties leaves the town well below the statewide average CIP share of 19%. 6.3GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Downtown Revitalization Reading's Downtown enjoys a low vacancy rate, significant public and private investment and a fairly diverse mix of commercial uses. However, the lack of parking is the major impediment to retail or mixed-use development. Also, mixed-use is currently prohibited by zoning by-law in the commercial areas. Improving the Downtown can be achieved primarily through good urban design. This includes improved streetscape, enhanced and enforced parking, more pleasing building facades, easier and safer pedestrian street crossing, and attraction of first rate restaurants and vibrant niche retailers. Goal 1 Improve Downtown Objectives: A.To enhance the economic development of Downtown, the CPDC will develop the appropriate mixed-use zoning changes and present them to Town Meeting for approval. B.Complete the planed streetscape modifications developed over the last 8 years and which is currently on the MassHighway Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for fiscal year 2006 funding. This will provide additional parking, easier crossing of Main Street to improve access to the east side shops, provide improved traffic circulation for the Haven Street – Gould Street areas and generally beautify the Main Street area from the Common to Washington Street. 70 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 59 of 199 C.Investigate multi-level structured parking facilities in the parking area behind CVS, perhaps in conjunction with medical, commercial and/or residential facilities. Other areas for potential open or structured parking should also be investigated for a multi-leveled structure, with some consideration for pedestrian, bicycle or alternative transportation. D.Encourage specific beautification projects such as façade improvement, window flower boxes, artwork on graffiti-prone walls and alleys, and shrubs and plantings for screening where needed. These to be accomplished by shop owners, landlords, church groups, service clubs, youth groups, and other volunteer organizations with assistance from the Town where appropriate. E.Apply for grants from all appropriate State and Federal programs to extend the streetscape program to the Haven Street/High Street/Depot areas. Economic Development The only organizations in Reading focusing specifically on economic development are the Downtown Steering Committee (DSC) and the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce (R/NRCC). These are non-governmental volunteer groups. The DSC was formed to work with the streetscape architects performing under a State grant to study improvements to the downtown. (See Goal 1 above). The creation of an official Town entity, such as a Development and Industrial Commission, formed under Chapter 40, Section 8A, would give the Town more clout in obtaining State and Federal grants for not only downtown improvements but Town wide re-development of the commercial and industrial zoned areas. Goal 2 Establish an Economic Development Commission. Objectives: A.Study the various options available and recommend to the Board of Selectmen the type of official commission or standing committee to best meet the development needs of the Town and to bring additional clout to bear on obtaining State and Federal developmental grants. B.Explore the need for and legality of forming a “property based” and/or “business based” Business Improvement District(s) funded by assessments on all businesses within the individual district(s). C.To the extent feasible, encourage commercial development and office leases of downtown space nondisrupting to the traditional atmosphere of a New England Village Center. D.Review options to funding economic development activities in cooperation with other civic organizations. 71 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 60 of 199 Streetscape Improvements Main Street in the southern part of Reading has been characterized by a varied commercial mix, lack of investment, business turnover, and unappealing aesthetics. South Main Street is a major element of the commercial corridor in Reading and a gateway to the downtown and central core of the community. It represents an opportunity for future economic development. Goal 3 Improve South Main Street Streetscape. Objectives: A.Examine properties with regard to re-zoning with particular attention to reducing the current front setback requirements and expanding the use of PUD (B) overlay districts. B.The Town will pursue all possible state and Federal grants to hire consultants (landscape architects and traffic engineers) to generate a detailed streetscape beautification plan for the area from Washington Street south to I95/128 similar to the plan recently completed for the downtown. C.Present the plan to the public, and encourage the businesses and residents of the South Main Street area to make façade and parking lot improvements consistent with the plan. D. Obtain state and Federal funding to implement the plan. Neighborhood Scale There is interest in encouraging small commercial nodes in neighborhoods. Such nodes should, however, be considered so as to not disrupt the neighborhoods or detract from the central downtown vitality. Some improvement in the appearance of South Main Street Commercial areas has happened recently as a result of some attention by the Board of Selectmen but the whole area needs a cohesive beautification plan, Goal 4 Recognize small commercial nodes in neighborhoods. Objectives: A. The CPDC to identify and recommend zoning changes to recognize existing non- conforming commercial nodes. 72 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 61 of 199 Commercial Development The commercial / industrial development potential is in a state of flux at present due to a planned MassHighway reconfiguration of the I95-I93 cloverleaf intersection. The detailed plans are not yet firm and face an extensive public review and hearing process. When the ramifications of the new intersection are known, the zoning along I95/128 should be reviewed to maximize the development potential. Goal 5 Explore Zoning Changes to enhance Development along I95/128. Objectives: A.During the new I95/I93 intersection design, hearing, and approval process, the CPDC and, if formed in time, the Economic Development Commission should give input and make suggestions to maximize the development potential. B.After the intersection is finalized, the CPDC should review and change the zoning as necessary to maximize the development potential to the Town. 73 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 62 of 199 CHAPTER 6 APPENDIX ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Potential Locations for Economic Development. Downtown retail core (#1 on map) o Would like it to extend (flow) all the way to Washington Street o Want businesses that attract pedestrians. Have stores up to the sidewalk line. o Maybe it should extend all the way south to Summer Street – this may not be realistic. o Parking garage has been mentioned for lot behind the CVS. o Could extend downtown to area around the depot – integrate lower Haven Street with Main Street. Needs better pedestrian access to make attractive for walking. Perhaps more parking behind Atlantic Market and make Haven a pedestrian way? o Current zoning precludes. o Gould Street has nice houses and a couple of businesses. Could be made attractive with streetscape improvements. South Main Street (#2 on map) o Parking in front of stores looks bad. Need greenery in front. Blend parking or put it behind buildings – probably need to change the zoning. o Preserve and enhance residential mixed in. Keep density about as it is. There are some existing apartment buildings. Mixed use in same building may work also. o Needs visual “edges” – e.g. greenery in front instead of cement from street to building. o Utilities need to be buried. o Traffic volume and street design are inhospitable to pedestrians – there is no place to cross Main Street. There is not enough right-of-way to install median with turn lane. o Car-dependent businesses there.Need traffic calming, maybe a light. South of South Street (along 128) (#3 on map) o Long-term potential to redevelop large areas along 128 from 28 to I-93 interchange. o Depending on the outcome of the I-93/95 studies, this area may become less desirable for residential use and may have more potential for economic development o Need to take care not to put all eggs in one basket, though, because area is so large, Town’s fortunes would rise and fall in tandem if any single business/industry took it all over. o Would want to integrate it with the rest of the Town. o Also, in the long-term it would be useful to discuss with Woburn the landlocked area west of 93 and north of 128. Investigate some kind of swap with Woburn land farther north on 93 on the east side that can only be accessed through Reading. Walkers Brook Crossing (old landfill) - The retail portion in the back is going ahead (Jordan’s, Home Depot). The portion along the street is a mixed retail development. (#4 on map) 74 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 63 of 199 General Way (former Frugal Fannie’s) – Approved for mixed retail and a grocery store. Implementation TBA. (#5 on map) DPW area – More intense development of some type. (#5 on map) Strip mall (REI, Dunkin Donuts) – Good highway access. Self-help organization recently vacated? (#7 on map) Home Goods strip mall – Should have a plan for this area in case Home Goods leaves. Is a major auto-oriented node for the north of Town. Should have convenience store/local services. Suggested in previous workshop to link this area to High/Middle school area with walking path. (#8 on map) 75 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 64 of 199 Map 10 EO-418 Economic Development Opportunities Map 76 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 65 of 199 CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 7.1INTRODUCTION The Town of Reading contains a rich stock of natural, historic and cultural resources that contribute to the community's character, health, and quality of life. Preservation and enhancement of these resources is critical to the community. Reading’s natural resources include clean air, potable water, peace and quiet, tillable soil, native plant communities, diverse wildlife including rare and endangered species, streams, rivers, and wetlands. Public drinking water comes from an extensive aquifer in the northwestern quadrant of Town. Headwater streams in Reading such as Walkers Brook and Bare Meadow Brook contribute to the Aberjona, Mystic, Saugus and Ipswich Rivers. A summary of the Town’s open space and natural resources can be found in Table 8.1. These areas are protected from development and most of them are open for public recreation. There are also several large tracts of undeveloped land in Reading under private ownership, including a golf club, a military camp, a rifle club, and a private school campus. Much of the remaining undeveloped land is wetland, but significant upland areas remain vulnerable to development. Reading’s last two active farms have recently been lost to development. A detailed inventory of land and natural resources may be found in the 2001 Open Space and Recreation Plan in the Conservation office. Hydrogeological studies of Reading’s aquifers are maintained by the Water and Sewer Division of the Town’s Public Works Department. The Town’s Conservation office also maintains inventories of plants and animals, maps of vernal pools and endangered species habitat, and maps showing soils, surficial geology, bedrock geology, wetlands, surface waters, and floodplains. Historically, Reading has a rich background dating back to the first settlement in 1639. At that time the settlement included the current towns of Wakefield (1st parish) and North Reading (2nd parish). In 1769 the Town of Reading was set off as the 3rd parish and kept the name Reading. The first meetinghouse was built on what is now known as the common and established the political and religious center of Town. In 1806 the Andover/Medford Turnpike was built through the center of Town and that was the beginning of the conversion of the residential buildings to the commercial development in the 'square'. In the years that followed the residential buildings in the square were gradually converted or replaced with commercial development. The Railroad, introduced in 1845, played a role in the extension of commercial development down Haven Street. This had been a primarily residential street and slowly the residences were replaced with 77 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 66 of 199 business structures. With the railroad came a large population of businessmen who commuted to Boston. Such traffic generated the building of Reading Highland Station at the foot of Mineral St and an engine house at the site of Tannerville. Since the 1890’s Reading has maintained its ownelectric and water utilities. Reading has a predominately residential character today, but in the past it had a manufacturing presence. Shoemaking, cabinets, clocks, neckties, organ pipes, brushes, book publishing, stoves and an automobile fabric mill, all were part of the economic environment of Reading. Those industries have all disappeared, replaced by one primary retail/commercial complex located on the former municipal landfill and adjacent property near I-95. Currently, several large residential housing units are under construction, once again changing the character of the Town. The downtown area has seen the demolition of older residences, offices and businesses, with new construction taking its place, thereby changing the appearance of the Town Center. To mitigate the impacts of this trend the Town has had an active Historical Commission since 1978. The Commission’s main purpose is to identify and record the Town’s historic assets to develop and implement a program for their preservation. Along with a consultant, the Historic Commission compiled an 'Historical and Architectural Inventory’ of significant structures in Reading. The inventory includes about 270 properties, 90 of which are on the National Register of Historic Places. In 2003 the Reading Historical Commission updated this inventory, formatted it for computer use and had it reprinted. The recent initiative by the Historical Commission to introduce a local historic district on West St. will encourage the maintenance and preservation of architectural elements (as seen from the public way) that contribute to the character of a neighborhood and the community at large. As part of this effort in 2005 a Carriage House/Barn/Stable Bylaw was voted in at the Annual Town Meeting. This bylaw encourages the reuse of carriage houses or barns that were built before 1910, while maintaining their historic value. In 1994 the Historical Commission, along with the 350th Book Committee, compiled and published A Pictorial History of Reading - At Wood End. This book describes the Town’s rich history with photographs, maps and narrative. The Commission also established a repository in the Town Hall for the extensive collection of Reading photos and documents. A portion of this collection is the ‘Bishop Collection’ which consists of a life time of collecting Town photos and information by C. Nelson and Eleanor C. Bishop Cultural resources of all kinds are available to the residents of Reading. The Town boasts its own symphony orchestra, The Reading Symphony Orchestra, founded in 1931, and Reading Civic Band. Community theatre also thrives with two community theatre groups. The Quannapowit Players use the converted Chestnut Hill Schoolhouse on Hopkins Street as their theatre and the Colonial Chorus uses the Old Hose House on Main Street as their rehearsal hall. The Reading Art Association was founded in 1959 and continues to support the advancement of art in the community. In addition, Creative Arts for Kids offers instructional programs in the fine and musical arts. The Town is home to the Parker Tavern, a public museum, which is operated and maintained by the Reading Antiquarian Society. This 1694 saltbox home has been restored and is a favorite among area schoolchildren 78 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 67 of 199 7.2ANALYSIS The Town of Reading has worked diligently in recent years to maintain and improve the Town’s natural, cultural and historic resources, with notable progress. Nevertheless, like many Towns in the region, Reading faces new challenges in the next decade. Current concerns include: Public water supply and the Ipswich River: The aquifer that maintains the Town wells occupies the northwestern quadrant of the Town and extends into Wilmington, Woburn and North Reading. Sites have been identified in all four towns within the aquifer where hazardous materials have been released and have reached the water table. The Town has sought support of neighboring towns as well as state agencies and elected representatives to require assessment and clean-up of these releases, but the work remains incomplete. Fortunately, most of the releases were far from the wells and the contaminants have not yet reached the aquifer. Route I-93 runs through the center of the aquifer quite close to several of the Town wells, and Route 129 is also close to one of the wells. A truck full of gasoline overturned on Route I-93 in 1992 quite close to the wellfield. Reading and state officials responded rapidly, as did the company responsible for the truck, and the spill was contained and cleaned up before it reached the nearest well. The clean-up work was expensive and time-consuming. Since that time, there have been other overturned trucks and hazardous material releases in Town, but none so close to the wells. The Town has recently engaged a consultant to conduct a risk analysis and recommend actions the Town can take to minimize the likelihood of losing part of its water supply to such an incident. The quantity of water in the aquifer is also a concern. Most of the Town wells are located near the Ipswich River, and they draw from the same aquifer that keeps the river flowing during the dry summer months. Several times in recent years, the river has dried up in Reading, and at least part of the cause is drawdown of the water table due to pumping of the wells. The Ipswich River has been identified as one of the most threatened rivers in the country, and the Reading wells are one of several problems identified within its watershed. Reading is trying to address this concern by connecting to the MWRA regional water supply system for use during the summer. Reading’s permit application to make this connection is under review by State officials at this time. Reading has also placed limitations on outdoor water use, has conducted public education campaigns, has placed strict limits on impervious cover in the aquifer district, and has supported use of low-flow plumbing fixtures, rain barrels, and other water conservation measures. The Town periodically performs surveys and assessments of the water supply distribution system. Recommendations resulting from these surveys and assessments are implemented under the direction of the Town’s Department of Public Works, with capital improvements budgeted through the Town’s capital plan. Noise, light and air pollution With two interstate highways on its perimeter and major state routes and commuter routes running through the center of Town, Reading bears its share of regional traffic and its accompanying pollution. Under the authority of the Zoning Bylaws, Reading regularly requires proponents of proposed developments to analyze traffic impacts and pay for traffic 79 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 68 of 199 improvements in Town. Reading also participates in the review of traffic and other impacts from proposed projects in abutting towns, under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. Reading is participating in the planning process recently undertaken by the Massachusetts Highway Department for future improvements in the I-93/I-95 intersection. The Town remains concerned about other factors impacting its residents. Current Town bylaws regulate light and noise pollution, but these bylaws may need amendment in the future to protect the peace and quiet in residential areas. FINDING The quantity of water in the aquifer is also a concern. Most of the Town wells are located near the Ipswich River, and they draw from the same aquifer that keeps the river flowing during the dry summer months. With two interstate highways on its perimeter and major state routes and commuter routes running through the center of Town, Reading bears its share of regional traffic and its accompanying pollution. Older drainage systems in Reading often consist of catch basins and pipes with direct discharges to streams and wetlands. In addition to occasional releases of hazardous materials due to accidents on roadways, Reading has also experienced its share of leaking underground fuel tanks at gas stations, businesses, and residences, along with releases of industrial chemicals. Stormwater Management Older drainage systems in Reading often consist of catch basins and pipes with direct discharges to streams and wetlands. These systems provide little detention, recharge, or removal of contaminants. Long-time residents have alleged increases in flood levels in certain parts of Town. They also remember when wetlands were filled and streams were placed in underground pipes to make way for development. With the advent of wetlands protection laws and improvements in subdivision regulations and zoning bylaws, more recent development has been accompanied by significantly better infrastructure to control both the quantity and quality of storm water runoff. All of Reading’s drainage systems require annual inspection, cleaning, and repair to function as designed, and older systems could be improved by retrofitting them with more modern detention and pollution treatment devices. Under the EPA’s NPDES Phase 2 requirements, the Town has set forth a comprehensive plan to improve storm water management. The Town has begun to implement the plan and is seeking new funding sources to support the work. Among other things, the Town is seeking Town Meeting approval to create a drainage enterprise fund authorizing a drainage utility fee for property owners. The Town periodically performs surveys and assessments of stormwater management system. Recommendations resulting from these surveys and assessments are implemented under the direction of the Town’s Storm Water Management Committee and Department of Public Works, with mainatenance and improvements budgeted through the Town’s capital plan. 80 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 69 of 199 Wildlife Nuisances Several animal species that were hunted nearly to extinction in the last century have made a successful comeback, including coyotes, beavers, and turkeys. Deer populations have also expanded in recent years, and some eastern Massachusetts towns have also seen the return of moose and bears. Although these animals do well in suburban habitats, they can become a nuisance at times, partly due to their large size. Deer and mice carry Lyme Disease, which can be transmitted to people through ticks. Racoons and other animals carry rabies. Birds and mosquitos can transmit West Nile Virus and Eastern Equine Encephalitis. Beavers can cause flooding, and coyotes sometimes prey on small cats and dogs. The Town has worked in cooperation with State health and wildlife officials to address problems and to educate the public about effective ways to avoid them. Hazardous Material Releases In addition to occasional releases of hazardous materials due to accidents on roadways, Reading has also experienced its share of leaking underground fuel tanks at gas stations, businesses, and residences, along with releases of industrial chemicals. Fire Department and other officials have worked hard to assure that these releases are cleaned up, but much of the authority has been in the hands of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Reading recently passed an innovative petroleum storage bylaw that will give the Town more opportunity to inspect facilities that use hazardous materials, and order improvements in containment, handling, and release response where needed. The Town has commenced an inventory of facilities and must now draft and implement regulations to serve the purposes of the bylaw. Historic The Historical Commission has played an active role since its creation in 1977. They work diligently to keep the inventory of historic buildings up to date and provide input in the reuse of buildings with historic significance and in new development in the Town. They have been instrumental in the creation and use of the Town’s bylaws aimed at historic preservation and the maintenance and enhancement of the Town’s character. Currently the Historical Commission utilizes the Demolition Delay bylaw to protect properties on the Town’s inventory of historic buildings. The bylaw enables the RHC to work with owners of properties to be demolished for period of up to six months, with the objective to find alternatives to demolition and encourage reuse. There have been many successful and positive examples of how well this bylaw works. However, a need is seen to expand and strengthen this bylaw in the future as the time period of delay is not sufficient time to complete all that is needed to save some properties. The Scenic Road Bylaw has also been used successfully and several streets in the Town have been designated as Scenic Ways, thereby protecting the appearance of these historic streets. Currently parts of Mill, South and Walnut Streets are designated but the Town should consider expanding the application of this designation. Possible streets to be considered for designation include Ash, Grove, Franklin and Pearl Streets. 81 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 70 of 199 Within the past year, two new bylaws have been passed to help in the preservation and enhancement of historic buildings. The West Street Local Historic district was created and the Carriage House bylaw was enacted. Both of these bylaws should serve to further protect the Town’s history. FINDING Currently the Historic Commission utilizes the Demolition Delay bylaw to protect properties on the Town’s inventory of historic buildings. There have been many successful and positive examples of how well this bylaw works. However, a need is seen to expand and strengthen this bylaw in the future as the time period of delay is not sufficient time to complete all that is needed to save some properties. The Scenic Road Bylaw has also been used successfully and several streets in the Town have beendesignated as Scenic Ways, thereby protecting the appearance of these historic streets. Cultural The Town is fortunate to have so many cultural opportunities for its residents. The numerous resources in Town are predominately privately operated and funded. The Town considers their continued presence to be essential for the residents, and encourages these organizations to continue to seek private funding and donations as they continue their mission of providing cultural opportunities for the residents of Town. 7.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Conservation The Town has a strong tradition and record in the area of Conservation and the Conservation Commission and Conservation Administrator perform their mission with consistent effectiveness. However, there is often dispute between developers and the Commission on the exact boundaries of the resource areas. A variety of tools should be available to protect irreplaceable resources that once altered are often permanently undermined. Goal 1 Enhance and strengthen the Town's Conservation planning and implementation efforts Objectives: A. Promote the preservation and enhancement of Reading's extent of existing uplands and wooded areas and the extent of public accessibility to these areas, particularly in new developments through appropriate amendments to the Zoning By-Laws and Subdivision Regulations and other measures such as impact fees. 82 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 71 of 199 B. Protect, enhance and sustain existing wetlands and floodplains, including long-term maintenance of detention/retention ponds: C. Coordinate the use of complementary laws to work in tandem with open-space, resource protection, and amenity programs, such as Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act, Scenic Roads Act, Historic Preservation programs. D. Promote public awareness of the importance of natural resources, namely water resources, environmental quality, waste management, and their relationship to development and population pressure Regional Cooperation Quite often the most active forces in natural resource preservation operate at the regional and State level. These resources provide technical assistance augmented quite often funding to accomplish local preservation goals, given the recognition that the environment operates with interdependencies that do not operate neatly at Town boundaries. Goal 2 Promote and support regional cooperation Objectives: A. Ensure open communication between the Town, neighboring communities and regional organizations regarding natural resource and the environment. B. Encourage the development of a regional resource-protection plan (Aberjona, Saugus, and Ipswich River water-sheds, Cedar Swamp), and of regional efforts to reduce water, groundwater, and air pollution. C. Foster the effectiveness of regional cooperative and consultative organizations, such as the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the North Suburban Planning Council, the Ipswich River Watershed Association, and the North Suburban Chamber of Commerce. D. Work regularly with other units of local government and with appropriate NGOs and State or federal agencies on particular matters of concern such as water supply and aquifer protection regional pollution clean-up and corrective efforts and regional conservation efforts. E. Establish new organizations, such as the Advisory Committee for the Cities for Climate Protection Program, for regional cooperation or expand the scope of appropriate existing organizations to address and effectively deal with unmet regional needs and problems. Public Resources The Town's water supply has been at risk on several occasions, most notably in the early 1990s when a tanker overturned on I-93, dumping fuel near the Town well fields. With continued 83 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 72 of 199 development in the Town and region Reading's aquifer requires even further protection, such as enhancement of regulations to strengthen existing oversight Goal 3 Ensure that the Town provides an adequate water supply Objectives: A. Protect wellfields and water-recharge areas, and strengthen and monitor the enforcement of the Aquifer Protection Zoning By-Law: B. Develop policies and regulations to control soil erosion and urban street runoff into wetlands and streams and develop programs to minimize the use of salt, fertilizer, pesticides, and similar substances that can endanger the environment or water supply: C. Promote water conservation: 1.Establish voluntary and/or mandatory limits on water use 2.Change water rates to discourage excessive use 3.Consider a ban of automatic sprinklers 4.Work with large water users to identify and eliminate practices that waste water. 5.Promote landscaping practices that so not require irrigation and that infiltrate clean water on site D. Work cooperatively with resources inside and outside the Town, such as the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, to ensure an adequate water supply. Environmental Quality Recent, large scale development such as the Walkers Brook Crossing project have escalated concerns by abutting neighborhoods regarding the visual and environmental impacts of incompatible uses in close proximity to each other. While Boards and Commissions actively try to mitigate these concerns during the permitting process the existing regulations need to be strengthen so as to provide a consistent standard for both the developer and residential community. Goal 4 Ensure that the Town maintains an environment free of noise and light pollution, toxic materials and with good air quality Objectives: A. Establish specific by-law standards for noise, light and air pollution. B. Develop a Town by-law to screen and control excessive noise. C. Control use of local roads by commercial through traffic. D. Monitor local air quality and cooperate regionally to reduce air pollutants. 84 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 73 of 199 E. Continue the Town’s participation in the Cities for Climate Protection Program or similar to reduce adverse environmental impacts. F. Develop policies that address emissions from both stationary (including home fireplaces) and mobile sources that degrade air quality. G. Encourage the Massachusetts National Guard and private clubs to develop and implement improved practices and programs which minimize noise from rifle and gunnery ranges. H. Encourage a public sector ban and private sector reduction of the inappropriate or harmful use of pesticides, fertilizers and salt; encourage the use of natural resource compatible, biodegradable alternatives. I. Encourage the use of non-toxic substitutes for pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and other toxic materials as phosphorus, Styrofoam, freon and other chlorofluorocarbons, which may degrade the quality of water, soil and atmospheric environments. J. Encourage the Town to take the necessary measures to prevent contaminates from entering the Town’s stormwater collection system Sustainability Recycling has been a Town priority since the last implementation of the Master Plan and recycling programs run by the DPW continue to be well received, with high rates of participation. However, more products enter the consumables stream everyday and these efforts require constant vigilance to be effective. Goal 5 Reduce the production of solid waste and promote recycling Objectives: A. Support, promote and expand the Town-wide solid waste management and recycling program, including but not limited to composting, source reduction and resource recovery. B Encourage the use of biodegradable materials. Wildlife Habitats Reading's wildlife habitats face constant pressure from proximity to residential uses and ongoing development. On the positive side Reading has made great strides to permanently protect rare habitats and statutes at the State level have been improved apace. However, residential development from both by-right and Chapter 40B affordable housing mandates imposed by the state have created more opportunities for marginal development into these resource areas. 85 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 74 of 199 Goal 6 Preserve and enhance wildlife habitats Objectives: A. Identify and establish wildlife habitat protection areas, including wildlife corridors. B. Provide for wildlife habitats/corridors when planning open space. C. Allow only low-impact use within the 100-foot buffer zone of any bordering vegetative wetland or Town-designated wildlife habitat. Cultural Resources Reading's cultural resources are numerous, diverse and well-utilized. Maintaining them requires a systematic effort given competing uses for properties and uses. The Town has few resources to promote these efforts. Absent funding and staff resources, additional regulations to protect the historical inventory offer an effective way to achieve preservation goals. Goal 7 Retain and preserve the Town’s historic and cultural resources Objectives: A. Maintain and add to the Town’s inventory of historical and architecturally significant buildings. B. Support and encourage the preservation of historic features in the renovation or reuse of buildings with historic significance. C. Support and encourage quality image and long term design of new buildings in Historic districts and downtown. D. Preserve the Town’s heritage found in historic documents, photos and other artifacts. Scenic Appreciation Reading has many intangible qualities that make it a distinctive colonial Town, but many more features of the built landscape provide the community the an essential element of its historical character. The plentiful rock walls, colonial structures, narrow streets, age-old trees and ancient ways all contribute to provide not only aesthetic value, but an important legacy of our unique past. Goal 8 Retain and strengthen scenic features which enhance and support the natural environment and the character of the community Objectives: A. Increase protections provided by zoning and subdivision regulations trees, stone walls, and other special scenic features and amenities. 86 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 75 of 199 B. Emphasize the Scenic Roads By-Law and encourage its use. C. Ensure that transportation improvement programs and project design (including those resulting from the Town-Wide Traffic study) are devised and monitored so as to enhance and not degrade the scenic and visual quality of the Town and the Historic Districts. D. Promote regular on-going public and private efforts to clean-up, beautify, and maintain specific locations in the Town, such as traffic islands, pedestrian ways in commercial areas, and railway embankments; and maintain stream banks and wetland edges. E. Emphasize the Local Historic District Bylaw and encourage its use. Current Local Historic District includes a section of West Street. F. Emphasize the National Historic Districts and encourage their use. Current districts include the Common, a section of Woburn St. Cultural Activities The Town does well at making community facilities available to a variety of constituents for cultural activities of all kind. To be certain Reading has an active arts community and the Town seeks to establish ongoing support to a diverse array of activities catering to all its residents. Town resources are limited to support programs but Town facilities are often made available for any community function. Given competing uses and a lack of private facilities the importance of maintaining this support is critical to ongoing needs. Goal 9 Encourage the availability of a wide variety of cultural activities for residents of the Town and neighboring communities Objectives: A.Encourage the continuation and enhancement of the Town’s of cultural organizations through private funding and donations B.Facilitate the reuse of existing buildings by cultural organizations 87 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 7 NATURAL, HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 76 of 199 Map 11 EO-418 Locations for Natural Resource Protection 88 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 77 of 199 CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 8.1INTRODUCTION From the Town of Reading's Open Space and Recreation Plan (2001): Sculpted by glacial activity, the town is a series of gentle hills split by ravines with a few steep slopes: Bear Hill, Dobbins Hill (town's highest point, 232 feet above sealevel), Prospect Hill and Auburn Street Hill.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% of Reading's land area. The Town Forest and well fields encompass 310 acres along the northern perimeter of town abutting the Ipswich River. The Town Forest also serves as a buffer from development for most of the town's well fields. 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 wide paths for hiking, cross-country skiing, birding, nature study, scout projects, camping and environmental education. Recent subdivision on its east end has brought a new access point to the Town Forest and a new neighborhood to its doorstep. The School Department controls 11 undeveloped acres to the east of the Town Forest, which is being developed for the construction of a new elementary school. A private golf club is located to the southwest of the Town Forest and comprises 139 acres. It is within the Interim Zone II of the well fields and abuts wetland resource areas. The club has a Chapter 61 B restriction. North Cedar Swamp (429.10 acres) and South Cedar Swamp (119 acres) stretch the length of the town's eastern boundary. The Reading Rifle & Revolver Club owns 51.89 acres between these areas and its passive recreational activities are in harmony with the conservation goals of the area. North Cedar Swamp, which continues to the town's northern border, was acquired to protect the wetlands. The area provides flood control, groundwater supply, wildlife habitat and protects several vernal pools. The Symonds Way full-size baseball field with an overlay soccer field has recently been constructed on the remaining piece of upland at the former Nike site. South Cedar Swamp is a 89 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 78 of 199 relatively inaccessible woodedwetland, except in winter when frozen. An interesting aspect is that water from the area sometimes flows north toward the Ipswich River and sometimes south toward the Saugus River, depending on ground water levels. 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 ifthe base were to close. Timberneck Swamp (101 acres) is a wooded swamp at the headwaters to the Saugus River. It prevents flooding downstream and provides pollution control and wildlife habitat. Bare Meadow (84.51 acres) is protected by Conservation Commission jurisdiction and abuts Fairbanks Marsh (32 acres) owned by the Reading Open Land Trust, Inc.The area includes marsh, wet meadows, wooded wetlands with vernal pools, forested upland and open upland and allows residents to escape from daily pressures without having to drive out of town. Kurchian Woods (32.7 acres), an upland open space encroached upon by residential development, includes stands of mature trees, rocky outcrops, vernal pools, a bog and a relatively uneven terrain. The area is crossed by a Tennessee Gas Pipeline easement. Several subdivisions abut it and it acts as a natural buffer between them while providing passive recreational options. Marion Woods (8.6 acres) completes the publicly-owned greenway corridor along the Town’s northern border abutting the Ipswich River. The 1999 purchase of Marion Woods provides a connection to Lobs Pond and its canoe access area. The Reading Open Land Trust, Inc. 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. In 1998, the Trust received an 8.68-acre parcel of land known as Swamp Island on the Reading-Wakefield line, part of an area identified in the 1995 Open Space & Recreation Plan as needing to be protected. 90 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 79 of 199 FINDING Reading’s open spaces and recreational resources contribute to the Town’s quality of life for residents, businesses, visitors, and neighboring communities. The Town has attempted to pass the Community Preservation Act (CPA), which would have made matching State funds available for the preservation of open space, but it narrowly failed a referendum. Any future effort to attempt passage of the CPA needs to account for accountability and objectives, and public outreach and education. The Town’s land use regulations contain many provisions that protect of open space and recreation but budgetary constraints have not allowed additional municipal purchase of land for either. Therefore, the Town has continued to negotiate for private developer contributions to open space and recreational facilities. As the supply of buildable land diminishes and its cost increases, this strategy will become more difficult to implement. Reading’s open spaces and recreational resources (see Figure 1) contribute to the Town’s quality of life for residents, businesses, visitors, and neighboring communities. As evidence of the appreciation for this the Town maintains an up-to-date Open Space and Recreation Plan (2001), which among many goals identified two priority action items: to explore the enactment of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) and to acquire additional open space for playing fields and passive open space. The Town has attempted to pass the Community Preservation Act (CPA), which would have made matching State funds available for the preservation of open space, but it narrowly failed a referendum. Any future effort to attempt passage of the CPA needs to account for accountability and objectives, and public outreach and education. In terms of increasing The Town’s land use regulations contain many provisions that support the protection of open space and expansion of recreational resources but budgetary constraints have not allowed additional municipal purchase of land for either. The Town has continued to negotiate for private developer contributions to open space and recreational facilities. As the supply of buildable land diminishes and its cost increases, this strategy will become more difficult to implement. 91 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 80 of 199 Figure 1. OPEN SPACE INVENTORY Type of Open Space Location Ownership Degree of Area Total area Protection (acres) Woods & wetlands Town ForestTORPerm. 303.001529.18 Cedar swampCCPerm. (64%) 602.50 Timberneck swampCCPerm. 101.00 Bare MeadowCCPerm. 84.51 Kurchian woodsCCPerm. 38.50 PinevaleCCPerm. 16.22 HigginsCCPerm. 10.15 Fairbanks marshROLTPerm. 32.10 Other CCownedCCPerm. 243.00 Other ROLT ownedROLTPerm. 38.20 Other Water ownedWATPerm. 60.00 Streets & Roads Several streetsCCPerm. 20.8120.81 (1%) Cemetaries Laurel HillCemNone 19.6559.21 Forest GlenCemPerm. 10.40(2%) Wood EndCemNone 11.14 Charles LawnCemNone 18.02 Parks/playgrounds Sturges ParkTORPerm. 7.3883.25 Memorial ParkTORPerm. 12.28(3%) Hunt ParkTORPerm. 2.93 CommonsTORPerm. 2.61 Washington St.ParkTORPerm. 5.40 Symonds Way fieldsTORPerm. 4.50 Pearl St. ParkTORPerm. 4.84 Leach ParkTORPerm. 0.25 Birch MeadowTORPerm. 43.06 Schools High SchoolTORNone 10.50123.39 Barrows SchoolTORNone 7.66(5%) Killam SchoolTORNone 7.28 Eaton SchoolTORNone 7.48 Coolidge SchoolTORNone 10.89 Wood End SchoolTORNone 11.60 Birch Meadow SchoolTORNone 8.57 Parker SchoolTORNone 15.63 Austin Prep SchoolPrivateNone 43.78 Other LibraryLibraryNone 1.87570.42 RMLD ownedRMLDNone 18.48(24%) Camp Curtis GuildStateNone 282.00 LesterPrivateC6111.36 Golf ClubPrivateC61 138.90 Shooting ClubPrivateNone51.89 Camp RiceMoodyPrivateNone 8.02 Nietche PropPrivateNone 14.90 Other CClandsPrivatePCR43.00 92 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 81 of 199 8.2 ANALYSIS Note: In review of the Open Space and Recreation component, the MPAC realized that the Open Space and Recreation Plan from 2001 provided a fairly current resource for the analysis, goals and objectives section of this chapter. In an effort to avoid duplication and capitalize on previous efforts the following objectives from the Open Space and Recreation Plan are incorporated where they have not been identified in the previous master plan updating process or have not already been substantially implemented. Detailed analysis of Reading's open space and recreation inventory and needs assessment can be found in the Open Space and Recreation Plan. Strengthening and Expanding the Network The Town's primary priority should be to build upon the existing green infrastructure, path system, Town Common, and parks. The Town shares resources with neighboring towns and Reading alone can not ensure protection of these assets; it needs to work proactively and collaboratively with private, local and state entities where inter-municipal resources are concerned. Recent development may have dwindled opportunities to provide open space connections but tax title and undevelopable land continues to be conveyed to Conservation Commission jurisdiction.. The Town will need to be diligent and creative in capitalizing on further chances to expand connectivity to existing open space and recreation resources, as it was on the residential developments such as Johnson Woods at the Longwood Farm, the Archstone development at Spence Farm, and the Maplewood Village on Salem St. Land Use Policy The Town needs to insure the highest level of protection of existing open space and explore every opportunity to increase its inventory in perpetuity. Although Reading is largely built-out, 1 redevelopment continues to be a threat to maintaining the current level of 22.3% open space in the community. However, recently adopted zoning regulations that require open space components enhance existing and future opportunities to protect open space and provide more recreation options. Accessibility Accessibility is largely related to ongoing management of open space and recreation facilities, but is also obviously inter-related with other open space and recreation goals. While implementation of objectives in other areas may achieve greater accessibility, the demand for recreational space in particular continues to increase as residential development has amplified and Reading's demographic continues to shift to younger families who expect a variety of active recreation services. Budgetary constraints have also impeded the ability of the Town to maintain accessibility without sacrificing quality or public safety. Increasingly the Town will have to look to private development and redevelopment to compensate for reduced access to recreational resources. With the emphasis on more intensive uses with redevelopment the Town has sought to negotiate public access to recreation and open space areas on private developments. Balancing the need to preserve wildlife habitats while 1 MA EOEA, 2004 93 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 82 of 199 maintaining or expanding accessibility for a variety of use groups will require trade-offs and outreach to private development to achieve continued accessibility to open space and recreational resources. Financial Although property tax revenue has increased and municipal expenditures have been contained Reading has experienced reductions in State funding during a period of significant residential development. In addition, real estate prices have increased as Reading has attracted increased residential demand and supply has dwindled. This has made it more difficult to commit resources toward acquiring additional open space and much needed recreational fields. The adoption of the Community Preservation Act still remains a viable and even more lucrative option and State initiatives emphasizing smart growth principles are increasingly providing incentives that may allow for more financial resources for open space acquisition. FINDING Recent development may have dwindled options for open space connections, but undevelopable land continues to be conveyed to Conservation Commission jurisdiction and recently adopted zoning regulations requiring open space enhance opportunities to provide and protect open space and recreation options. Balancing the need to preserve wildlife habitats while maintaining or expanding accessibility for a variety of use groups will require trade-offs and outreach to private development to achieve continued accessibility. The Community Preservation Act still remains a viable and even more lucrative option, along with State initiatives emphasizing smart growth principles. 8.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Community Network A creative, community-wide system of pedestrian network can provide for non-vehicular routes for residents, workers and visitors to follow. In their design, these routes can be part of memorable place-making when taking best advantage of neighborhood features. Within the residential neighborhoods, open space networks can add to the variety, richness and (to some extent) the unique neighborhood identity. Within Downtown, the qualities of designed open space can enhance the civic experience of retail stores, offices, institutions and parking. Goal 1 Provide a Community and Regional Network to Open Spaces, Recreation and Public Facilities 94 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 83 of 199 Objective: A.Work with adjacent communities to connect public spaces and protect shared resources B.Look for opportunities to connect open spaces within Reading C.Create path systems connecting schools, open space, and neighborhoods, e.g. develop walking/biking trails between open spaces D. Enhance public open spaces as part of downtown revitalization E. Build river/watershed greenway F. Provide legal rights of way between neighborhoods and from new subdivisions to adjacent public land G. Promote and Support Regional cooperation Open Space and Recreation Open spaces have been a functional and aesthetic component of the New England Village providing the grounds for collective activities, recreation and a collective experience. For a community like Reading, without any undeveloped lands, the Town’s priorities for the preservation and enhancement of open (and natural) space are, essentially, the means to control growth and define areas preferred to receive future developments. Goal 2 Provide ample open space and recreation space Objectives: A.Review and amend ways to enhance zoning protections for open space B.Provide active management and maintenance of conservation areas. C.Acquire additional open space for passive use D.Acquire more land for playing fields, a family picnic area and pocket parks E.Continue programs for refurbishing the Town’s playgrounds and maintain the turf on the playing fields F.Establish a policy of no net loss of sledding hills, skating rinks, basketball and tennis courts, etc. when school properties and recreation areas are redeveloped 95 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 84 of 199 Accessibility Providing adequate access to open spaces and natural resources for all ages and all mobility levels not only adds to their passive protection but also develops a public awareness of their contribution to the Town's character. In times of thin state aid, the funding for open space and recreation programs is determined by the creativity of the Town and its non-profits to look into alternative sources and types of funding. Given the option, communities will decide in favor of the park and revitalization as long as all interested parties are involved in the decision making process. Goal 3 Make recreation and open space accessible to all Objectives: A.Build more quality trails at existing open space areas specifically for: seniors baby strollers wheelchairs B. Provide more handicapped parking and regular parking at well-used conservation areas and or the Town Forest. C. Make public aware of the importance public and private conservation land and open space D. Improve signage at conservation areas and Town Forest E. Lead walks for the public at different conservation areas F. Build a handicapped-accessible nature trail on existing open space G.Address safety issues along new and existing trails Resources The Town has very limited resources to purchase land for open space and receation. The Community Preservation Act, which would have provided State-matching funds for this purpose, failed at Town-wide referendum. The Town has sought developer contributions both through regulations and negotiations but recently land has become more scare and valuable. Goal 4 Identify new funding and acquisition sources for recreation and open space Objectives: A.Re-consider the Community Preservation Act 96 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 85 of 199 B.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 C.Build partnerships with developers of large tracts of land for conservation restrictions, for land donations, and for “bargain” and sales to realize income tax relief and develop links with local businesses and civic groups and interact with owners of large tracts D.Increase Dept. of Public Works funding for maintenance of open space APPENDIX Suggested Locations for Open Space or Recreation Protection (Refer to Map 13 for locations) Between Fairbanks and Bare Meadow – wetlands, possible vernal pool, core habitat, near Ipswich River floodplain (#10 on map) – 9 votes Central Path – connection, hub at Birch Meadow (#9 on map) – 8 votes Area east of Lindsay Lane – open space connection, wetlands, vernal pools, rare habitat (#5 on map) – 7 votes East of Haverhill Street – uplands, playing fields, wetlands, core habitat, natural landscape (#7 on map) – 7 votes Camp Curtis Guild – wetlands, habitat, vernal pools (#1 on map) – 5 votes Meadow Brook Golf Course – aquifer, zone II, wetlands, habitat (# 3 on map) – 5 votes West of Dividence School – wetlands, zone II, habitat (#4 on map) – 4 votes Between Van Norden and Forest – wetlands, vernal pools, rare habitat (#6 on map) – 2 votes Birch Meadow – expand, improve habitat (# 2 on map) – 0 votes Cross / Ash Street – wetlands, vernal pools, habitat, rare wildlife (#8 on map) – 0 votes 97 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Page 86 of 199 Map 12 Open Space and Recreation Plan (2001) Map 98 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 87 of 199 CHAPTER 9 SERVICES AND FACILITIES 9.1 INTRODUCTION The Town of Reading has undergone a number of significant changes since the last Master Plan was approved. The Town administration has reorganized several times, primarily due to financial constraints and the Town Manager's priorities. Reading has continued to maintain a relatively low tax rate, which has constrained Town services and facilities in a period of escalating costs. The demographics of Reading has also shifted somewhat, resulting in a population that desires more family oriented services and facilities services for less money. Prioritization of services and facilities has become a much more challenging exercise during the budgeting process, and the Town has resorted to charging higher fees merely to maintain existing programs. Reading also relies on many volunteers to assist in the provision of services, and the dedicated involvement of these individuals allows the Town to maintain more programs and public hours. The Town has sought to centralize facilities in the Downtown area to make services convenient and accessible. Within a short walking distance are the Town Hall, Police Station, Main Fire Station, Main Library, Senior Center and main public park. Serveral large, municipal parking lots in the downtown allow for convenient access to Town services in the same area where most residents conduct their daily business. Municipal services are largely dictated by the Selectmen with input and recommendations from the Town Manager, Town Department Heads and the Finance Committee. Ultimately Town Meeting votes to appropriate the fiscal year budget at Annual Town Meeting. Budget shortfalls have on occasion been subject to a Town-wide referendum on an override to maintain services. Reading's residents have shown their appreciation for the value and efficiency of Town government by passing recent override ballot questions on additional funding to maintain services. The Town always seeks ways to expand services for its residents but is mindful of their fiscal responsibility to the tax payers in doing so. Much of this chapter is focused on documenting the current state of the Town’s services and facilities, with emphasis on those that have changed or evolved, and an eye toward identifying those needing changes going forward. The goals and objectives found at the end of this chapter are derived directly from the 10 year capital plan (reference, November 8, 2004). 99 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 88 of 199 9.2 ANALYSIS INVENTORY OF BUILDINGS Reading has 16 major public buildings for administration and public services, public works, public safety, and education. Town Hall The Town Hall, facing the Common at Lowell, Salem, and Woburn Streets, consists originally of two buildings, the Municipal Building, built in 1917, and the Old Library, also built in 1917, both renovated and connected together in 1989. It houses the administrative offices of the Town Manager, Town Clerk, Finance and Collections, Accounting, Assessors, Public Works, Human services, and Community Development. In addition it house one large meeting room, for major Boards and Commissions, and two smaller meeting rooms. It is adequate in size and condition to meet projected future needs. Public Library The Public Library, occupying the former Highland School, built in 1895 and renovated in 1984, is located at the corner of Middlesex Avenue and Deering and School Streets, in the older residential neighborhood west of downtown. It houses all public library functions, principally reference, circulation, administration, adult and children's rooms, historical room, and two meeting rooms. It is adequate in size and condition for projected future needs. Public Works Garage The Public Works Garage was built in 1987 on New Crossing Road, replacing an antiquated facility, now demolished, on Walkers Brook Drive. It houses all Public Works vehicles and vehicle-maintenance, as well as some associated administrative offices. It is of adequate size and condition to serve projected future needs. Water Treatment Plant The Water Treatment Plant: below see Public Utilities--Water and Sewer Police Station The Police Station, on Union Street just east of Reading Square, was built in 1999. It houses all police functions as well as central dispatch for police and fire protection. The new station is a state of the art facility with expanded roll-call space, office space, locker and shower facilities for female officers, physical fitness equipment, contraband and evidence storage, equipment storage, general storage and a community meeting room. Central Fire Station The Central Fire Station, located on Main Street just north of the Common, was built in 1990 as a three-bay facility, housing Fire Department administration, one engine, one ladder truck, and one ambulance. For projected future needs it is adequate in condition and in size, provided that the West Side Fire Station is retained. The Town converted the previous Central Fire Station on Pleasant St. into a permanent Senior Citizens Center. 100 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 89 of 199 West Side Fire Station The West Side Fire Station, on Woburn Street between Prospect and Berkeley Streets, was built in 1956, and houses one engine and one fire-alarm truck. It also houses the mechanic shop. While some renovation will be needed in the future, it is of adequate size to function as a satellite station. Senior Center The new Senior Center on Pleasant St. replaces the Old Police Station and contains several meeting rooms and a modern kitchen for ongoing senior activities. The Center is staffed entirely by elder volunteers who conduct activites coordinated and administered by the Town's Office of Elder Affairs contained in Town Hall. The Senior Center also serves as public hearing venue for various Board, Committee and Commission meetings. School Buildings Schools (with 1990 enrollment levels): 9) Joshua Eaton Elementary School, built in 1948 at the corner of Summer Avenue and Oak Street: 18 classrooms, 458 students. 10) Birch Meadow Elementary School, built in 1957 on Arthur B.Lord Drive between Birch Meadow Drive and Forest Street: 18 classrooms, 406 students. 11) Alice M. Barrows Elementary School, built in 1964 on Edgemont Avenue, off West Street: 15 classrooms, 324 students. 12) J. Warren Killam Elementary School, built in 1969 between Charles and Haverhill Streets: 26 classrooms, 542 students. 13) Walter S. Parker Middle School, built in 1927 on Temple Street, off Woburn Street and Summer Avenue: 24 classrooms. 418 students. 14) Arthur W. Coolidge Middle School, built in 1961 on Birch Meadow Drive: 24 classrooms, 408 students. 15) Reading Memorial High School, on Oakland Road just south of Birch Meadow Drive, built in 1954 and enlarged in 1971: it also houses the administrative offices of the school system: 91 classrooms, 974 students. This facility was undergoing renovations and new construction as of 2005, including demolition of the 1954 portion. 16) Wood End Elementary School, on Sunset Rock Lane just off Franklin St. New construction completed in 2005. The following school buildings have been closed and turned over to the care and custody of the Board of Selectmen and have been converted or slated to be converted to other purposes: 1)The Old High School, between Sanborn and Linden Streets, was sold to the private sector in 1986 and converted to residential condominiums. 2)The Prospect Street - and Lowell Street schools were demolished and the land sold for single-family house lots in 1980 amd 1977 respectively. 101 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 90 of 199 3)The Pearl Street School, on Pearl Street between Thorndike and Charles Streets, was built in 1939 and abandoned as a school in 1984. Consisting of 24 classrooms, the building was rented to a variety of commercial tenants, and in part used since 1988 as a temporary Senior citizens Center. The building was sold and after an addition was added it operates as an assisted living facility. In addition, the School Committee turned over to the Town the Batchelder Field property (37.14 acres) on Franklin Street which is now Wood End Cemetery. The School Committee site on Dividence Road (11.6 acres) and on Oakland Road (4.6 acres) are not projected to be needed for new school facilities. Town Administration (Departments and Programs) \[Note the majority of this section was taken directly from the FAQs found on the Town Clerk’s website\] “The administration of all the fiscal, prudential and municipal affairs of the Town shall be vested in an executive branch headed by a Board of Selectmen and a Town Manager.” (Section 1-3 of the Reading Charter) Board of Selectmen – 5 members elected for overlapping 3-years terms, unpaid. The executive powers of the Town are vested in the Board of Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen acts as a Board of Directors of the Town, providing general direction to the community, and exercising their statutory responsibilities in a number of areas. The Board is responsible for policy directives regarding the department of public works, police, fire, personnel, including collective bargaining, building maintenance and inspection departments. The Board issues licenses required by businesses to operate within the Town. The Board appoints the Town Manager to administer its policies. The Board of Selectmen also appoints the Town Counsel, Town Accountant, not more than five constables, and most appointed boards and commissions. These include the Conservation Commission, Historical Commission, Community Planning & Development Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Housing Authority, Board of Health, Recreation Committee, Council on Aging, and Cemetery Trustees. As the chief executive board in Town, the Board of Selectmen represents the Town at all types of ceremonies. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Town Manager – The Town Manager is the chief administrative officer of the Town and is responsible to the Board of Selectmen for the proper administration of all Town affairs in his charge. The Town Manager appoints and may remove a number of administrators, such as the treasurer/collector, Town Clerk and most department heads and employees except those serving under the school, library and municipal light. The appointment of any full or part-time department head under the direction supervision of an appointed board must be approved by that board. The Town Manager appoints the police and fire chiefs and the civil defense director subject to confirmation by the Board of Selectmen. The Town Manager is responsible for administering all personnel policies, negotiates and awards contracts, prepares and submits a proposed annual operating budget, a proposed capital improvement program and development and implementation of the long range vision of the community. He approves all financial 102 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 91 of 199 warrants submitted by the accountant for payment by the treasurer. The Town Manager is responsible for the maintenance and repair of all Town property under his control and for the purchasing of supplies and equipment. The Town Manager or his appointee serves as an ombudsman whose function is to provide a connection between the public and Town government. Town Clerk – The Town Clerk acts as the chief election official, supervising elections and election officials, maintaining voting lists and registering voters. Duties also include keeping minutes of all regular and special town meetings, conducting annual Town Census, preparing the street list of residents and jury list to the Office of the Jury Commissioner. The Town Clerk's Office is responsible for recording and certifying all official actions of the Town; recording state tax liens and Uniform Commercial Code filings; reviewing and recording campaign finance statements; registering all vital events of local residents; maintaining public records for the Town; issuing licenses and permits; including marriage licenses, hunting, fishing and trapping licenses, permits for raffles and bazaars; business certificates; dog licenses, and fuel storage permits. Town Counsel – The Town Counsel serves as legal adviser to all Departments of the Town providing general legal advice and services. Board of Health – 3 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for 3 year terms, unpaid. The Board of Health enforces regulations of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, establishes policies to safeguard the health of citizens of the Town, enforces state regulations and plans programs to promote and maintain good health for all ages. A Hazardous Waste Committeeserves as an advisory committee to the board. Council on Aging – 10 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. The Council on Aging provides numerous social services to the senior citizens of the Town. The council also makes educational and recreational activities available to older residents. Housing Authority – 4 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen and 1 appointed by the state for overlapping 5 year terms, unpaid. The Housing Authority provides, manages and processes housing for low income families and the elderly through both housing and rental assistance programs Veterans Services – The Director of Veterans Services, a position required by state law, provides information, advice and financial assistance to eligible veterans. Sealer of Weights and Measures – The sealer protects buyers and sellers in Reading in any transaction involving weights or measurements by periodical inspections of all weighing devices, such as scales in commercial use, gasoline and fuel oil meters, taxi meters and containers used in measuring. Pre-packaged foods sold in Reading are checked by the department periodically during the year and retail markets are also inspected for unit price compliance. Consumer complaints about weights and measurements of food or fuel or any other commodity, with regard to weight or measure, should be reported to the State Division of Standards. 103 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 92 of 199 Town Planner – Town Planner’s functions include providing technical and professional support to the Community Planning and Development Commission, Master Plan Advisory Committee, Selectmen and ZBA, in the areas of site plan and special permit review, subdivision regulation, master planning, and zoning by-law drafting and review. The Town Planner is actively involved in most development projects, and serves as a point person for the public, Board of Selectmen and staff-level Design Review Team on a wide specturm of public and private projects related to economic development, land use, housing, new development and redevelopment. Community Planning & Development Commission – 5 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. This commission is charged with making studies and preparing plans concerning the resources, developmental potential and needs of the Town. The commission has the power to regulate subdivision of land. It must hold a public hearing on any proposed zoning changes and report its findings to town meeting. It is responsible for updating, maintaining and implementing the master plan for development of the Town. Conservation Commission – 7 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. The Conservation Commission’s function is to promote natural resources and to protect watersheds at the local level. The Wetlands Protection Act gives the commission the responsibility for advertising and conducting public hearings regarding activities in or near any wetlands. The commission has the power to issue orders regulating this activity. The act does not prohibit wetland development but directs how the development should be carried out. The commission has a major responsibility to ensure the water quality of Reading’s municipal water supply. Zoning Board of Appeals – 3 members and 3 associate members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. This board acts on petitions for variances in zoning and building bylaws, including the sign bylaws. It also grants special permits, such as for accessory apartments and carriage house conversions, hears appeals from decisions of the building inspector. Code Enforcement Officers – appointed by the Town Manager for indefinite terms, paid. A building inspector, wire inspector and plumbing and gas inspector are each appointed to enforce zoning regulations through inspections and permit issuance. Historical Commission – 5 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for overlapping 3 year terms, associate members appointed for 1 year terms, unpaid. The Historical Commission is charged with the identification and preservation of the Town’s historic assets. The commission serves as the Town’s advocate on historic matters, continually updates an inventory of historical or architecturally significant structures and implements a preservation plan within the Town. The Commission also administers the Town's demolition delay-by-law. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Board of Assessors – 3 members elected for overlapping 3 year terms, paid for certain duties. While the town meeting decides how much the Town departments may spend, the Assessors determine the equitable assessments of all real and personal property to raise money to meet 104 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 93 of 199 these expenditures. The Assessors appoint the Town Appraiser to assist them. The Assessors are responsible for updating the assessed valuations as required by state law. Town Treasurer/Collector – The treasurer/collector is the manager of the Town’s funds, who collects all taxes and payments due the Town, except the electric bills; pays all bills and payrolls; negotiates all bonds and is authorized to borrow in anticipation of revenue and to invest idle money. Technology Division – The Technology Division’s responsibilities include providing computer and communication support for all of the Town Departments (as well as software support for the business functions of the School Department), purchasing hardware, software and computer related supplies, providing computer training for all departments, and developing long range, Town wide communication systems. Town Accountant – The accountant prescribes the methods and supervises the accounting records of Town officers and agencies. He examines all bills and payrolls submitted for payment to see if they are correct. The accountant receives the budget estimates from all departments, prepares monthly statements of the status of each appropriation for the officer authorized to spend money from it and prepares the annual financial report which is published each year in the Town Report. His work is subject to periodic audits required by the state director of accounts. Commissioners of Trust Funds – 3 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for 3 year overlapping terms, unpaid. The commissioners oversee various trust funds, which are earmarked for specific purposes. Among these are the workman’s compensation fund, the Town and municipal light pensions funds, and cemetery and library trust funds. Personnel Administrator – The Personnel Division is staffed by the Personnel Administrator whose responsibilities include the following: Professional Development and Training programs, Safety Committee, Employee and Retiree Benefits, Monthly Employee Newsletter, Personnel Policies review, pay and classification updates, Affirmative Action, Workers’ Comp and Indemnification programs, information gathering for Union Contracts, and Drug & Alcohol Screening. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Director of Public Works – The direct control of the department is under the Director of Public Works. The policy, rules and regulations of the department of public works are established by the Board of Selectmen. The Town Manager is responsible for the overall supervision of the department. The Public Works Department is responsible for all public works activities: water supply and distribution; protection of natural resources; sewers and sewerage systems; streets and roads; parks and playgrounds; refuse collection, disposal and recycling; forestry services; and maintenance of all municipal buildings and grounds except those of the School Department and municipal light. The Board of Cemetery Trustees – 6 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. The Board of Cemetery Trustees sets rules and regulations for the operation of the cemeteries in Town including policies for eligibility to purchase lots, prices 105 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 94 of 199 for services and regulations for memorials. The board also controls the expenditures of special cemetery trust funds. Town Forest Committee – 3 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. The Town Forest Committee is charged with the care and supervision of the use of the Town Forest, including recreation use and protection of Town water supply. The Land Bank Committee – 3 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. This committee keeps information, maps and copies of deeds pertaining to Town owned land. Recreation Committee – 9 members, 8 appointed by the Board of Selectmen and 1 by the School Committee for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. This committee evaluates program activity and formulates overall plans for program direction. It is responsible for scheduling the use of the Town parks and the field house and other public school recreation areas when not in use by the schools. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY This department is comprised of the police, fire, animal control and civil defense. All of these functions are under the policy direction of the Board of Selectmen and the administrative direction of the Town Manager. Police Department – the police station in Reading is located on Union Street. There is no jail as such but rather a lock up where persons are confined temporarily awaiting bail or arraignment before the Middlesex Court in Woburn. Reading has approximately 40 permanent police officers. These officers are hired and work under civil service regulations. Reading Police Department protects and serves the public through police action. They provide services in several board areas: crime prevention and suppression, crime reduction, investigation of crimes and apprehension of offenders, movement and control of traffic, the maintenance of public order and public emergency services. Fire Department – There are two fire stations in Reading. The central station is on Main Street, near the center of Town and additional station is on the west side of Town on Woburn Street. Firefighting and control and fire prevention are the main jobs of the fire department. The Fire Department also manages ambulance service for the Town and provides a high level of emergency care. Inspection of commercial and manufacturing properties, school, apartments, nursing homes and other buildings used by the public are an important part of the department’s work. The department also checks fire alarm systems in new construction for proper location and tests for proper installation and operation and conducts a similar inspection for smoke detectors whenever private homes change ownership. The department’s personnel, who are under civil service, number approximately 50. Civil Defense – State law requires each town in Massachusetts to have a civil defense director who is responsible for establishing and maintaining an organization for civilian defense in case of enemy attack or for disaster relief in any natural emergency. The Fire Chief presently serves as civil defense director. 106 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 95 of 199 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Board of Library Trustees – 6 members elected for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. The Board of Library Trustees controls the selection of library materials, has custody and management of the library and its property, and administers monies received as gifts or bequest. The actual maintenance of the library building and its grounds is the responsibility of the Town Manager. SCHOOL DEPARTMENT There are 8 public schools in Reading – 5 elementary, 2 middle, and 1 senior high school. The Reading school system has been the recipient of numerous state and national awards and staff members have also been highly recognized. In addition to strong academics, the school system also stresses a strong after school athletic program and an arts and music program. Superintendent of Schools – The superintendent is the chief architect of the educational program in the community and the chief administrator of the programs and policies decided upon the School Committee. He attends all School Committee meetings and supervises the school curriculum, personnel and property. FINDING Before the Charter was adopted many of the officers and committees were independently elected, resulting in a lack of coordination and cohesiveness. The Charter provided for the appointment of most of these positions. However a few important boards continue to be elected, allowing voters to maintain direct control over them so that the boards can retain their independence. These boards include the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee, the Library Trustees, the Municipal Light Board and the Board of Assessors. The administrative branch of government is organized into operating agencies each headed by a director. INDEPENDENT BOARDS AND COMMITTEES School Committee – 6 members elected for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. The School Committee determines the educational policy of the Town of Reading and monitors the operation of the school system. They appoint the superintendent of schools and upon his recommendation select administrators and teaching staff. They are responsible for developing budget, evaluating programs and implementing all state laws related to education. Regional School District Representative – elected for 4 year term, unpaid. Reading voters elect a representative to the Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School. This regional school, which is located in Wakefield, serves 12 communities. 107 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 96 of 199 Municipal Light Board – 5 members elected for overlapping 3 year terms, unpaid. The Municipal Light Board has charge of all the real estate, facilities, personnel and equipment of the Town pertaining to the production of electrical power and establishes policy regarding the administration of the department. Reading Municipal Light purchases power and resells it to consumers in Reading, North Reading, Wilmington and part of Lynnfield. A percentage of the net income is returned to the Town in lieu of taxes. TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE Public Water The Town owns and operates a public water system, with approximately 100 miles of distribution mains and lines serving the entire Town. The water is drawn exclusively from groundwater through wells, in the Town Forest and the Revay Swamp (Ipswich River watershed). Eight wells are located within the 100-Acre Wellfield in the Town Forest, with a maximum combined pumping capacity of 7.55-mgd (million gallons per day); however, due to groundwater contamination traced to North Reading, one of the larger-producing wells has had to be taken offline and' aerated to oxidize petrochemical pollutants. There are two wells in the Revay Swamp, with a combined pumping capacity of 1.22-mgd; the smaller of these serves as a back-up, while the larger has been out. of service due to salt contamination from Interstate Highway-93 and the near-by State Public Works highway maintenance and storage yard on Lowell Street. The Water Department is exploring two potential new well locations, one additional in the Town Forest, and one in Bare Meadow, a location previously untapped but so far proven inadequate. There are two sources of recharge to the groundwater supply: permeability through the ground surface in the aquifer area, and subsurface infiltration from the Ipswich River and its minor tributaries. The water drawn from all wells is treated at the Water Treatment Plant, located in the Town Forest. Concentrations of sodium, not removable in treatment, exceed State-recommended levels and are continually monitored. High levels of iron and manganese, naturally occurring in the groundwater, are removed in treatment. Extensive renovations were completed at the Treatment Plant to update this treatment and to eliminate surface discharge of the resulting flocculant and sludge by introducing it diluted into a newly constructed sewer main. A new facility is being planned to further enhance water treatment. The Town's water system includes three storage tanks, from which water is distributed by gravity to various parts of the network of mains. Located atop the highest point in the center of the Town, the Elevated Tank, built in 1953, holds 750,000 gallons. On top of the second highest point in Town, the Bear Hill Reservoir, a large cylindrical tank built in 1930, holds one-million gallons. In addition, the Water Department owns a tract of land, consisting of 32,000 square-feet on Lothrop Road, at the highest point of Town, Dobbins Hill, to provide for any additional storage that may become necessary. Average water consumption equaled 1.91-million gallons per day (mgd) in 1990; and throughout the period from 1980 to 1990 has fluctuated between a low of 1.70-mgd in 1982 and a high of 2.64mgd in both 1985 and 1986. Maximum water demand in 1990 was 3.81-mgd and has fluctuated between 2.84-mgd in 1989 and 4.34-mgd in 1983. Commercial and industrial 108 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 97 of 199 enterprises account for 14% of the Town's water consumption. Average consumption is projected to equal 2.11-mgd in 2010, and maximum consumption is projected to equal 3.90-mgd in 2010, both within existing ranges. While voluntary water consumption reductions have been sporadi- cally imposed during periods of excessive drought, there has generally not been a problem with meeting peak water demands. As the Town is entirely dependent for potable water on groundwater sources, the safeguarding of the water quality and quantity of the aquifer and of the river water, which replenish the groundwater, is critical. The aquifer is vulnerable to reductions in impervious surface caused by land development, to snow-removal and ice-control practices of the state and municipalities, to the use of fertilizers and pesticides by property owners, to lachate through contaminated soils and from leaking underground fuel storage tanks, to erosion and contaminated surface runoff, and to sewage infiltration from faulty septic systems and sewer mains. The aquifer is protected by an Aquifer Protection overlay District, specified in the Zoning By-Laws. This district includes those parts of the Ipswich River watershed upgradient of Revay Swamp and the Town Forest Wellfield. It does not protect the groundwater sources of any wells which may be developed in Bare Meadow or Cedar Swamp. The largest unsewered area of the Town is partially located in the aquifer district, and several homes in that are with sewer availability still retain septic systems. The Aquifer Protection District contains a commercial area, in which 3 gasoline stations and several commercial parking lots are located, posing potential, if not actual, dangers of contamination of groundwater from leaking underground tanks and from surface runoff. The Zoning By-Law restrictions relative to the Aquifer Protection District do not apply retroactively to preexisting land-uses, and they contain some ambiguity regarding the application of the 20%- maximum impervious lot area to the subdivision of existing lots.Furthermore, since the physical extent of the aquifer includes lands in North Reading and Wilmington, not subject to Reading's Zoning By-Laws, the protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater is subject to measures which can only be taken by other jurisdictions. Public Sewer The sewer system is owned and operated by the Town and serves approximately 87% of all properties within the Town. While some individual properties throughout the Town are not yet connected to available public sewer, the only major unsewered areas are in the vicinity of Mill and Short Streets and Main Street north of Mill street, and the westerly portion of Longwood Road. There are approximately 90 miles of sewer line within the Town, with 9 pump or lift stations, and with 5,971 local service connections. The system, through 2 outfalls, along the Aberjona River in the west, and along Summer Avenue in the south, and through a small collector in the Border Road/West Street area, discharges into the regional sewerage system operated by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), with principal treatment at Deer Island in Boston Harbor. Reading's water is pumped out of the Ipswich River basin and is discharged through the sewer system into Boston Harbor. This diversion deprives downstream communities in the Ipswich River basin of potential water flow, and causes riparian rights throughout the basin to be of increasing concern. A long-term program, with required par- ticipation by developers building new subdivisions, has largely been effective in eliminating inflow and infiltration of stormwater and groundwater into the system. 109 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 98 of 199 The operation of the sewer system, as well as 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 and sewer users, and not through local property taxes. The Water and Sewer Advisory Board recommends all rate changes to the Board of Selectmen. The MWRA projects the installation of metering at the 2 outfalls to determine and charge the Town accurately for the sewer volume entering its system from Reading. Town policy has been to require new development to tie into the public sewer system and to require conversion to public sewer when residential septic systems fail. Still, there are still hundreds of septic systems in the Town, regulated and monitored by the Board of Health. Electrical (RMLD) In 1891, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law enabling cities and towns to operate their own gas and electric plants. This act marked the beginning of public power in the nation, planting the seed that eventually grew into Reading Municipal Light Department. On October 2, 1891, the citizens of Reading held a Special Town Meeting where the first of two required votes was taken to exercise the Town’s authority under Chapter 370, Section 1, of the new state law. Those who attended the meeting unanimously voted to study the feasibility of operating a publicly owned power plant within the community. After several years of study, another Special Town Meeting to discuss the matter was held on May 21, 1894. On August 14 of that same year, voters agreed to appropriate bonds totaling $50,000 to finance construction of a light plant. Reading’s generating station began producing electricity for 47 streetlights and 1,000 incandescent lamps on September 26, 1895. In 1908, Lynnfield residents applied to RMLD for electric service for their community. They were quickly joined by North Reading residents, some of whom were so eager to obtain electric service that they wired their homes in anticipation. Preliminary negotiations were already underway to furnish a minimum of 200 streetlights in Wilmington, with assurance that 100 customers would apply for service. 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. As more customers were added, it became necessary for the plant to increase its capacity and update its generators. The demand for electricity had increased to such a degree that by 1925, the generation equipment was inadequate to carry the peak load. A portion of the current was purchased from Boston Edison Company, and by 1926, the Reading Municipal Light Board had entered into an agreement to purchase all required current from Boston Edison. 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. 110 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 99 of 199 The Gaw substation on Causeway Road in Reading, constructed in 1969-1970, marked a milestone in allowing RMLD to connect to the grid and purchase power from almost anywhere on the northeast power pool. 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 also state- of-the-art, and now include a sophisticated website. Even meter reading is modern and efficient, with an automatic system that uses radio transmitters for optimal accuracy and efficiency. 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. Because reliability is key, 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. 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, outreach to senior groups, community support and active memberships in local civic groups. Communication Infrastructure/Cable Advancements in technology have resulting in a changing landscape for many services offered directly to Town residents. Specific items include the prevalence of high-speed broadband, DSL and now lasar technology access to the internet offered by companies such as Verizon, Comcast, and whole host of other competitors. The local phone service market has been opened up to competition with local number portability allowing consumers to keep their home phone number if the switch. Cable TV, once a market controlled by capital intensive cable operators is under fire from satellite TV companies as well as telecommunication (phone) firms that are poised to provide higher bandwidth access over improved networks. Cellular service has improved dramatically and federal law has allowed placement of cell phone towers in neighborhoods regardless of local zoning. Even the Town has improved its internal infrastructure, and much of the day to day Town business is conducted via email, with information posted regularly on the Town’s website. The impact of this changing landscape has yet to be fully understood. One example may be in the area of Cable TV. As the current broadband service provider (Comcast) customer base is eroded by satellite and other competitors (Verizon), their commitment to the Town to support public service programming (RCTV) may become less attractive given the resulting landscape. The Town will have to understand these type of issues as it crafts policy and negotiates for license renewals with these organizations. 111 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 100 of 199 FINDING The Town owns and operates a public water system, with approximately 100 miles of distribution mains and lines serving the entire Town. The operation of the sewer system, as well as 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 and sewer users, and not through local property taxes. The sewer system is owned and operated by the Town and serves approximately 87% of all properties within the Town. RMLD serves more than 27,000 customers in its four-town service area. Recent technological advances at RMLD include a fiber optic cable network that links all substations for state-of-the-art system monitoring and control. Advancements in technology have resulting in a changing landscape for many services offered directly to town residents. Specific items include the prevalence of high-speed broadband, DSL and now laser technology access to the internet Community Reading benefits from a vibrant community filled with numerous business, religious, sporting and other community based organizations. A listing of those and their websites can be found below: (Disclaimer: The Town does not warrant or make any representations as to the content, accuracy, or completeness of the information contained on this page or any other linked page. Such materials have been compiled from a variety of sources, and are subject to change without notice.) Chamber of Commerce http://www.readingnreadingchamber.org/ Church of the Good Sheperd http://www.goodshepherd-reading.org/ First Baptist Church http://www.fbcreading.org/ First Congregational Church http://www.churchofreading.org/ Old South United Methodist Church http://old-south.org/ Reading Unitarian Universalist Church http://www.uureading.org/ St. Agnes http://www.st-agnes-reading.org/ St. Athanasius http://www.rc.net/boston/stathanasius/ Reading Pop Warner http://www.readingpopwarner.com/ Celebration Trust http://www.ci.reading.ma.us/celebration.htm 112 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 101 of 199 Community/Adult Education http://home.comcast.net/~rpsadulted/ Connect the Tots http://www.connectthetots.org/ Girls Scouts Patriots’ Trail Council http://www.ptgirlscouts.org/ Boy Scouts Boston Minuteman Council http://www.bsaboston.org/ La Leche League http://www.prairienet.org/llli/WebReadingMA.html Lynnfield, Reading and North Reading Community Partnership for Children http://www.partnership4children.org/ Mystic Valley Elder Services http://www.mves.org/ Newcomers and Neighbors http://www.newcomersandneighbors.com/ Quannapowitt Players http://www.qptheater.com/ Reading Art Association http://www.readingart.org/ Reading Community Singers http://www.readingcommunitysingers.org/ Reading Garden Club http://www.ci.reading.ma.us/garden.htm Reading Rotary Club http://www.readingmarotary.org/ RCTV http://www.rctv.org/ YMCA http://www.ymcaboston.org/ The Town is also home to the Burbank Ice Arena, providing a location for local and regional ice related events (hockey and skating). PUBLIC PROPERTY Public Lands Public lands of all types, owned by the Town, Commonwealth, and Federal Government, amount to 2692 acres, or 42% of the Town's total land area. Of this acreage, 1297 acres are either developed or dedicated to established improved uses, and 1395 acres (uplands and wetlands) are undeveloped or unimproved. The lands, both developed and undeveloped, owned by the Town itself equal 2223 acres, or 35% of its land area; 860 acres of Town-owned land are developed, with public buildings or with 113 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 102 of 199 dedicated and improved uses; and 1363 acres are undeveloped open space lands, of which 1189 acres comprise the Town Forest and all conservation lands. State and Federal lands total 469 acres, of which Camp Curtis Guild occupies 275 acres, the two Interstate Highways consume 124 acres, and the railway tracks utilize 32 acres; the only Federal property is the Post Office in Downtown, occupying one acre. Streets and highways occupy 730 acres. Public buildings and facilities occupy 377 acres (including 64 acres schools and 9 acres Municipal Light Department), parks 110 acres, cemeteries 42 acres, public housing 5 acres, and public parking lots 5 acres. Lands devoted to semi-public institutional uses, such as the YMCA, Austin Preparatory School, two theatrical companies, four fraternal and veterans organizations, and nine churches, total 14 acres. The three privately owned assisted housing complexes occupy 24 acres of land. In addition, the seven properties owned by the Reading Open Land Trust contain a total of 61 acres dedicated as permanent open space. Several Town-owned properties have been sold to the private sector for re-use. The Prospect Street School and the Lowell Street School were sold and the land divided into house lots. The Old High School on Sanborn and Linden Streets was sold for rehabilitation, subject to the Municipal Building Re-Use Special Permit Zoning By-Law, as condominiums. The former Public Works Garage and Incinerator property on John Street (now Walkers Brook Drive) was sold for redevelopment as a professional research and development' complex. Of the 801 acres _f publicly owned upland, some tracts are suitable for development, and have been declared surplus and offered for sale to the private sector for re-use. The former Landfill (33 upland acres) has been placed under a Purchase and Sales Agreement to a major national developer for construction of a regionally-oriented 750,000-square-foot office park with hotel, subject to a Special Permit Planned unit Development Zoning ByLaw. The former Nike Site at Bear Hill (10 acres) has been offered for sale, subject to a Special Permit Planned Residential Development Zoning By-Law, for development as a residential condominium or apartment complex. The Pearl Street School (5 acres) has been offered for sale, subject to the Municipal Building Reuse By-Law, for residential, life-care facility, or professional office re-use. Attempts are underway to secure financing for the conversion of the Old Central Fire station at Pleasant and Parker Streets for rehabilitation as a permanent Senior Center. The specific uses, or, reuses, of additional Town-owned property have yet to be definitively ascertained. The Town needs first to keep sufficient uplands to accommodate public uses and facilities for which there is a definite need, such as for cemetery, recreation, affordable housing, and open space and open space corridors (greenways). Not only should individual properties, particularly vacant parcels, be examined for any suitability for definable public uses, particularly for the types outlined above, but public lands which are designated and used for single purposes should be examined to ascertain if additional publicly-needed uses can be suitably accommodated on them. Examples include parcels assigned to the Water Department and uplands portions of Conservation lands which may be suitable for neighborhood oriented recreation and for inclusion in an open-space and greenway network. There are surplus lands, due to size, location, access, or topography, which would not be suitable to meet any identifiable public need. As the retention of public ownership of some of these lands may constitute a potential liability for the Town and would keep them off the tax-base, examination and 114 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 103 of 199 determination of an orderly process for disposition, with appropriate re-use parameters and safeguards, should be undertaken. Public lands of which portions may be appropriate for development, either for public uses such as parks and cemeteries or for private development through sale, include Camp Curtis Guild (195 state-owned upland acres), the Haverhill street Nike Site (15 upland acres), the Dividence Road School property (11.6 upland acres), and the Oakland Road School property (5 upland acres). It is important to note that decisions to dispose of public property must be carefully considered, both as to the appropriateness and timing of sale and as to development and re-use restrictions, because once .lands are sold they are no longer available for any needed public use, and because once they are developed they can no longer serve as open space. 9.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Fiscal Management The requirement for the Town to take this particular goal seriously is grounded in the Town Charter, which establishes the various Town committees and boards, the position of the Town Manager, and an entire section dedicated to Finances and Fiscal Procedures. Passage of Proposition 2 ½ in the 1980’s has been a significant external factor affecting the Town and is in part a reflection of this goal. Town Meeting, as the ultimate fiscal decision maker, provides the checks and balances twice a year within the domain of Town Government. Goal 1 Maintain Fiscal Strength and Responsibility Objectives: A. Maintain a fiscally sound annual and multi-year capital planning budget B. Apply for grant and other funding mechanisms for federal, state and other organizations consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town C. Work with local, state and federal legislative and executive government officials to enhance and secure revenues for required services D. Develop an Impact Fee bylaw consistent with State legislation and Town’s Master Plan goals to apply to new developments of mid- to large-scale. Health and Safety Health and Safety are issues to consider within the Town Government. While often only viewed in terms of Police and Fire departments, they extend to the Board of Health, Council on Aging and other departments and governmental service providers involved with Civil Defense and Emergency Preparedness. With the creation of a Federal Department of Homeland Security, and new responsibilities levied upon state and local governments on issues such as terrorism, catastrophic events and national health crises, the Town must create and maintain the necessary 115 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 104 of 199 infrastructure and procedures to address those events. In addition, the Town continues to be responsible for the mundane but critical day-to-day functions of inspecting local establishments (restaurants), spraying for mosquito control, running flu clinics and maintaining necessary infrastructure. Goal 2 Support Public Health and Safety Objectives: A. Create and maintain appropriate Town-wide disaster, security and/or health outbreak plans and ensure Town services, departments and nonprofits and other service providers are trained and prepared B. Ensure Public Health and Safety is addressed as a result of the expansion and development within the Town Planning Strategic Planning is a tool reserved not only for the corporate world, but also the public sector. In order to achieve many of the goals and objectives defined within this Master Plan (which could actually be considered the Parent Strategic Plan for the Town), each responsible individual, department, organization and committee should be following a strategic planning process including the requirement to set internal goals against which progress can be measured. However this should not be a process performed in a vacuum, it must include all stakeholders to be effective, and then kept open with regular communication. This strategic planning process should be instilled at all levels, projects and activities. Goal 3 Utilize Strategic Town Planning to enhance infrastructure and resources Objectives: A. Strengthen DPW’s budget and participation in strategic planning action items in a manner compliant with Master Plan Goals. B. Continue to utilize planning as a tool to manage and improve the services of the Town, including but not limited to Pavement Management, Water Distribution, Sewer Improvements, Open Space and Recreation, and initiate new plans as needed. Infrastructure To keep existing infrastructure in a state of good condition, capital investments need to target areas requiring attention, before the cost of repair escalates. A large part of this Mater Plan emphasizes those investments that are essential to sustain the Town’s assets. New projects as well as other enhancements are given a chance to succeed as long as they are based on a solid and reliable infrastructure. 116 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 105 of 199 Goal 4 Maintain Infrastructure Objectives: A. Maintain a multi-year budget and review it annually to address short and long-term infrastructure needs. B. Fund building maintenance to ensure new and existing buildings lifespans are extended to the fullest extent possible and provide the right environment for intended function. C. Investigate and improve the Town sewer system to a capacity that meets demand, and finalize improvements in water treatment. D. Expand the Town’s parks and recreation areas to a level that meets demand. Communication Communication must be considered in its most broad sense when considering what this goal is trying to achieve. That is a wide reach of effective and clear communications on items ranging from formal Town Governmental responsibilities to a method to facilitate the underlying and accompanying information communication that is inevitable. The Town must encourage active, two-way communication with all stakeholders and utilize both public and private “means.” It will be necessary to differentiate communication into unfiltered versus targeted communications, and look at communications at a strategic tool for accomplishing goals and objectives. The Town will need to take advantage of new technologies to improve communication speed, accuracy and reach. Goal 5 Provide qualitative communications of Town Government issues to residents Objectives: A. Develop strategies to disseminate information from Town Government to residents and businesses in the most effective manner. B. Evaluate existing communication means to identify needed improvements. Services A set of Town services that lies outside Town administration includes, but is not limited to, public utilities, non-Town services, recreation programs and the compost center. Public and private utilities are part of the infrastructure required for the residents. They need to be reliable, in terms of their performance, as well as non-intrusive, in terms of their appearance. Reading Recreation has a successful history of various programs that are supported by several residents 117 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 9 SERVICES & FACILITIES Page 106 of 199 throughout the year. The programs are intended for the youth, adults and special needs and they use school facilities, Town fields and occasionally initiate group trips. Goal 6 Evaluate and Improve Services in Town Objectives: A. Implement technology improvements as planned within various Town departments to improve services. B. Perform a comprehensive customer service survey. C. Collaborate with public/private utility carriers to ensure a quality service throughout the Town. 118 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 107 of 199 CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION 10.1 INTRODUCTION As the region surrounding Reading has developed, and as regional economic patterns have become more diffuse, Reading has not only been generating more traffic, but its streets have been forced to bear increased through-traffic load, a situation exacerbated by the decreasing ability of regional highways to carry regional traffic and by the failure to develop additional and alternative transportation modes. Since 1990, the number of vehicles in Reading has increased at a rate nearly four times faster than that of population (19% and 5% respectively). The use of public transit has somewhat increased given the improvements in the Commuter Rail system that the MBTA conducted in the 1990s. Commuting by Reading residents has remained scattered to a multitude of locations throughout the northern part of the Metropolitan area. In transportation, the last 15 years have brought substantial changes in highway traffic, changes witnessed in a congestion paralyzing the Boston Region in the peak hours, and in limited attempts to enhance transit networks with high costs and with increased design phase duration. In transportation, the last 15 years have brought substantial changes in highway traffic, changes witnessed in a congestion paralyzing the Boston Region in the peak hours, and attempts to enhance transit networks with high associated costs and with rather extended design/approval processes. 10.2 ANALYSIS Regional Mobility The transportation infrastructure of the Metropolitan Area of Boston is based on a radial system where most major highways and all rail lines converge to the City of Boston, while a few circumferential highways “ring” around the center. The radial system is finite in terms of expansion possibilities and complex in terms of enhancement. A number of factors have contributed to the 48% increase of registered vehicles in the Metropolitan Area, between 1992 and 2002: The unsustainable low density of outer-regional development (sprawl) The household size decrease 119 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 108 of 199 The relatively low gas prices The relative increase of licensed drivers and, mostly, The decline of car prices and the variety of financing opportunities amidst the economic prosperity of the mid-90s It should be noted, however, that the percent of households who do not have access to a personal vehicle has remain almost the same throughout this period. At the same time most of us have observed the number of cars in the private driveways of our Town increasing year after year. This picture has been analyzed by several Departments of the Commonwealth and agencies in numerous reports and plans. All these documents, look at the current transportation trends in the Metropolitan Area and, in a way, the future projections under current growth patterns and legislation as: the automobile being the prevalent mode of travel automobile travel demand increasing, while highway capacity not most of the added traveled mileage is and will be on local roads; highway and arterial capacity has not significantly changed over the last decade peak congestion periods lasting 10-12 hours per weekday commuting time to work gradually increasing with the coming retirement of baby-boomers, new substantial transportation needs arising within each community Regional traffic puts an additional burden to Reading as it comes from the Town’s proximity to a major node of the interstate system, the I-93/I-95 interchange. Reading becomes the daily choice of several thousands of motorists to bypass the congested interchange via arterial and residential collector roads of the Town (West Street, Walker Brook Drive, Salem Street). From the Town’s perspective, the two major transportation problems of congestion and insufficient transit opportunities are of such magnitude that extend beyond the Town’s limits and take on Metropolitan proportions, in terms of policy, improvements, resources and project funding. Projects:The following table lists projects of regional magnitude included in the Regional Transportation Plan 2004-2025 with a specific reference to the Town of Reading, either in the Transportation Improvement Program (fiscally constrained and shown here as TIP) or the Universe of Projects (fiscally unconstrained shown as UOP). Figure 1 Regional Transportation Plan 2004-2025 Highway Rte. 128 Capacity Improvements Lynnfield to Reading TIP I-93/I-95 InitiativeReading & Woburn TIP I-93/Route 129 Interchange Reading & Wilmington TIP ITS Roadway Projects Region-wideTIP HOV Lanes for buses Region-wideUOP Transit Orange Line - Extension from Oak Grove Malden to Reading UOP to Reading/Rte. 128 Commuter Rail - Extend commuter rail Haverhill to NH UOP from Haverhill to Plaistow, NH Source: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization 120 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 109 of 199 Sub-Regional Mobility Along the North Rte 128 corridor in the E-W direction, Reading abuts communities with a similar residential character to the east and other communities with substantial business, retail and industrial developments to the west. In this context, the portion of Route 128 passing through Reading is a threshold of many trips whose origin is in the bedroom communities and others whose destination is in the commercial and employment developments in the two suburban clusters of Bedford/Lexington/Waltham and Burlington/Wilmington/Woburn. Along the N-S direction, Reading abuts interstate I-93, a major entry corridor to Boston for commuters originating up to New Hampshire. Additionally, Reading enjoys the service of the Haverhill line passing through the downtown and the proximity of the Lowell line running on the west side if I-93. A number of suburb-to-suburb and employer based van/pools operate in the area of the North Suburban Planning Council (NSPC), the organization of 9 communities that Reading belongs to. These shuttle/bus services provide mainly work trips to employment centers as well as significant feeder trips to commuter rail stations. Aside from MBTA’s rail and bus operations - most of them following the radial pattern to Boston -, public and employer-based shuttle/bus services in the NSPC area are: Burlington: “B-Line” Lexington: “Lexpress” Lowell RTA: Bus Rte 19 & B1 128 Business Council: “Alewife Shuttle” 2 Projects: The following table lists transit enhancements recommended by CTPS in 2000 as part of a transportation analysis of patterns and origins/destinations of trips in the NSPC area. A map illustrating the two proposed routes is included in the Chapter 10 Appendix. Figure 2 CTPS, 2000 Transit New Shuttle #1 and #2 Anderson RTC, Woburn to Reading Depot, via Cummings Park, West Street and Woburn Street. New Shuttle #3, or extension Redstone Plaza, Stoneham to Reading Depot of Bus-132 2 North Suburban Transit Opportunities Study, CTPS, 2002 121 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 110 of 199 FINDING: Even if implemented today, Regional Suburban Transit improvements would not affect congestion as we experience it today, not at least in the short- to medium-term. It is true that even ambitious suburban transit projects - such as the Route 128 circumferential Express bus – would not result in significant congestion reduction, since the convenience, cost and time of driving an automobile in the suburbs is too 1 appealing versus transit. The proposed bus service enhancements shown in the previous Table are capturing the need for mobility at a “local area” or inter-town scale, by providing commuter rail feeder services and suburb-to-suburban local circulator routes. Reading's road network Reading has approximately 100 miles of streets and roads within its borders, aside from portions of Interstate Highway 95 (also known as state Highway 128), which is located on the south and southeast of the Town, and Interstate Highway 93 on the west. Highway network: There is one system interchange within Reading, the I-93/I-95 cloverleaf and four service interchanges, located adjacent to the Town's boundary: I-93/Route 129 (Lowell street), I-95/Route 28 (Main street), I-95/Walkers Brook Drive, and I-95/Route 129 (Salem Street). Both interstate highways (I-93 and I-95) operate during weekday commuting peak hours above capacity that they are often subject to functional inadequacy, causing significant congestion overload on local Reading streets, particularly along streets, which parallel or connect between these highways. Currently, the Massachusetts Highway Department is conducting a planning study whose ultimate goal is to broadly define the problem of the interchange - its regional and local nature - and provide for a pool of potential short-term and long-term improvements. Reading’s 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 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). 122 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 111 of 199 Collector streets, collecting traffic from neighborhood streets and feeding into the arterial streets in Town, are: Franklin StreetHigh Street Grove StreetSummer Avenue Forest StreetSouth Street Charles StreetHopkins Street Washington StreetWillow Street According to Town records, recently documented average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the arterial/collector network are: Figure 3. Reading Traffic Loads Chart Reading Traffic Loads Chart 1990 2004 % change South Main street (Sta#S002) 22,200 31,800 143% Main street through Downtown 16,200 18,200 112% Main street at the North Reading line 14,500n/an/a West street 7,000 8,800 126% Lowell street 16,600 14,300 86% Salem street 14,600 19,400 133% Walkers Brook Drive 12,700 23,900 188% Woburn Street 9,400 8,800 94% Washington Street 9,100 12,400 136% Haverhill street 8,700 n/a n/a Source: Town Records and Master Plan Committee FINDING: Reading's streets and street network were established over a long period in the past, and the physical nature and layout of these streets contribute significantly to the character and visual amenity of the Town. These physical characteristics present many constraints to the smooth and efficient flow of traffic and contribute to congestion, frequent unsafe conditions for motorists and pedestrians and poor 1 access to residential and commercial properties. Within both the physical character of the street network and the qualities that identify the character of the Town, there is a definite limit to the volume of traffic which can safely and sensibly be accommodated. Transit in Reading Since 1990, the number of vehicles in Reading has increased at a rate nearly four times faster than that of population (19% and 5% respectively). The use of public transit has somewhat increased given the improvements in the Commuter Rail system that the MBTA conducted in the 1990s. Commuting by Reading residents has remained scattered to a multitude of locations throughout the northern part of the Metropolitan area, with the single occupancy vehicle as the main mode of commuting to work. 123 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 112 of 199 Commuter Rail: At present, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) operates twenty-one commuter trains each weekday in each direction between Reading and Boston (with an average travel time of 34 minutes); of these nine continue to and from Haverhill (with an average travel time of 65 minutes). During peak morning period (6-9AM) there are six trains from Reading into Boston North Station and, similarly, during peak evening period (4-7PM) six outbound trains to Reading. One third of the peak trains to and from Boston does not continue to Haverhill but terminate in Reading. On weekend days and holidays six commuter trains operate in each direction to and from Boston, all of which serve Haverhill. The local commuter rail stop is at the Depot, in the center of Town. Weekday boarding counts at Reading (Spring 2004) average 667 commuters, 85% of which are in the morning peak period. The 567 morning boarding passengers access the commuter rail in the following manner: 325 park in spaces for Reading residents (57%) 110 park in spaces for Out-of-Town commuters (20%) 40 park in private lots and on the street (7%) 92 walk, bike or are dropped-off (16%) The 667 Reading boardings are the highest on the Haverhill Line (14%) and comparable to the 769 Woburn Anderson RTC boardings on the Lowell Line (within 87%). Bus Service: The MBTA operates two bus routes from the Depot only through the southeastern portion of the Town to Wakefield and to the Malden MBTA--Orange rapid transit (subway) line; the Merrimack Valley Transit Authority operates two busses daily between Reading Depot and Andover and Lawrence. Local Data: The following tables illustrate demographic trends of Reading residents in transportation choices: Figure 4. Reading Residents’ Transportation Choices: Top 10 Locations Where Reading Residents Worked NumberPercent of NumberPercent ofWorkersofof Workers2000WorkersWorkers 200019901990 Reading 2,263 18.41% 2,355 19.43% Boston 1,973 16.05%1,86115.35% Woburn 892 7.25%1,0208.42% Cambridge 579 4.71% 362 2.99% Burlington 425 3.46% 578 4.77% Wilmington 417 3.39% 399 3.29% Wakefield 377 3.07% 362 2.99% Waltham 367 2.98% 312 2.57% Source: MAPC 124 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 113 of 199 Vehicle registrations in Reading HouseholdsEligibleRegisteredvehicles per drivers(+16)vehicleshousehold 19907,900 17,912 15,839 2.00 20008,700 18,071 18,791 2.16 change10% 1% 19% 8% Source: US Census, MHD & MA DMV Mode of Transportation of Reading residents to Work Single occup. CarpooledPublicWalked Other Worked at car/van/truckcar/van/truckTransportationmeanshome 1990 9,808 80.9% 1,0348.5%5674.7%2652.280 0.7% 3673.0 %% 2000 10,2283.1% 7165.8%6945.6% 1881.532 0.3% 4443.6 1%% change 2.2% -2.7%1.1%-0.7% -0.4% 0.6% Source: MAPC FINDING: The above tables demonstrate that there is substantial automobile dependency among Reading residents, following the national trend, thus generating traffic congestion at all levels: town, suburban and regional. This traffic can be perceived under the term “local traffic.” A local type of transit service, facilitating certain intra-town trips and linking areas such as South Main street to/from Downtown would alleviate the impact of “local traffic” to the Town. To pursue this, focus needs to turn on shuttle bus services. For a town the size of Reading, shuttle buses are relatively inexpensive to operate/maintain and flexible to adapt to the changing needs of the Town’s population. 10.3 GOALS & OBJECTIVES The Goals and Objectives of this Chapter aim to minimize the escalating future repercussions of the two principle transportation problems the Town faces today: auto-dependency and through traffic. At the same time, there are several secondary but, nevertheless, substantial measures which will assist resolutions on the two principle problems. They range from sidewalk/bicycle network enhancements to additional transit options and from Town-wide Plans to local and regional initiatives. The proposed goals should also be viewed through the lens of inter-town cooperation, thus bringing Reading closer to other neighboring communities facing similar transportation challenges. 125 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 114 of 199 The Goals and Objectives of this Chapter aim to minimize the escalating future repercussions of the two principle transportation problems the Town faces today: auto-dependency and through traffic. At the same time, there are several secondary but, nevertheless, substantial measures which will assist resolutions on the two principle problems. They range from sidewalk/bicycle network enhancements to additional transit options and from Town-wide Plans to local and regional initiatives. The proposed goals should also be viewed through the lens of inter-town cooperation, thus bringing Reading closer to other neighboring communities facing similar transportation challenges. The documents taken into consideration in developing this chapter are: Master Plan, Town of Reading, 1991 Community Development Plan of Reading, MAPC, 2004 Town-wide Transportation Study of Reading, McDonough & Scully, 1990,1993 & 1996 Regional Transportation Plan 2004-2025, Boston MPO Program for Mass Transportation, MBTA, 2003 Smart Growth Principles, MAPC, 2003 North Suburban Transit Opportunities Study 2002, CTPS Suburban Public Transportation, CTPS, 1998 Town Planning for Transportation Reading, like most communities on the Route 128 beltway, absorbs a large portion of regional traffic, looking for a way out of a congested State highway system, which jams the local street network. The route choices that drivers make can vary based hour of day, weekday, even weather; more often than not, there is no rational match between the trip’s geography (origin- destination) and the type of road chosen. The Town needs to take measures so that motorists select as the most attractive option the routes designed for their trip. These measures should address regional, local area and Town traffic as part of a comprehensive multi-layered strategy. 126 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 115 of 199 Goal 1 Develop a town-wide traffic control, maintenance, and management program, and improve long-term capital improvements programs Objectives: A.After public review and evaluation, implement recommendations of the Town-wide Transportation Study according to a prioritized, orderly, comprehensive, and feasible timetable. Maintain the document up to date after the implementation of private/public projects that substantially affect existing traffic conditions throughout the Town. B.Develop a comprehensive Town-wide Parking Plan to address satellite employee parking, alternative locations for garages in Downtown with respective zoning amendments and revisit public parking regulations. C.Promote an emphasis on slower/safer local traffic rather than faster/safer local traffic, and emphasize traffic improvements compatible with Goals and Objectives set forth in the Economic Development, Open Space and Character & Identity chapters of this Plan. Associate with Goal-2. D.Promote the re-establishment of publicly or privately funded safe bussing for all school children living over a mile away from school or on routes without sidewalks. E.Prioritize a list of infrastructure improvements in roads, sidewalks and paths, associate each project with source(s) of funding and target year of repair. F.Identify and pursue state and federal funding for the Town and local non-profit organizations to improve the roadway and transit networks. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Neighborhood Traffic Calming provides for a set of measures aimed at discouraging thru-traffic and high-speeds in residential streets, either through specific urban design and landscaping features or by providing residents and volunteers resources to reasonably identify dangerous driving in their neighborhood. Goal 2 Promote traffic calming in residential neighborhoods to protect Reading’s civic identity. As a means of promoting safety and relieving significant cut- through traffic on neighborhood streets, focus on specific Neighborhood Traffic Calming strategies available to Town to channel traffic to higher capacity roads. Objectives: A.Plan for traffic alternatives to the current traffic connections between the Industrial District and the Eastside and the Ash street neighborhoods. 127 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 116 of 199 B.Undertake improvements to major arterial streets through residential areas only in ways which avoid undue impact on residential quality and which promote safe access to residential side-streets. C.Develop a Washington Street by-pass from Walkers Brook Drive to Main Street Downtown & Business Connections The viability of Reading’s downtown is fundamental to the Town’s character and identity. To counteract the negative impacts of the steady increase of traffic in Downtown, the Town needs to increase parking options integrated with the urban fabric and the building configurations, avoid open parking lots that deaden downtowns, and increase transportation options other than single- occupancy automobiles. Since a successful transit environment is characterized by a mix of land uses, with trips combining many purposes linked together, the Downtown needs to provide a good walking environment. Goal 3 Promote adequate circulation and parking for commercial uses and eliminate use of residential streets for commercial and commuter parking: Objectives: A.Develop a comprehensive Downtown Program to promote traffic and pedestrian safety, improved vehicular, transit, and pedestrian connections between major commercial areas, and increase regional accessibility to these areas and associate action items with Goal-1. B.Implement the Downtown Traffic and Signalization Study. C.Examine the feasibility of pedestrianizing certain portions of Downtown Streets and associate with Goal-4 and Open Space Chapter objectives. D.Reduce permissible travel speeds on South Main Street, and reconfigure the traffic flow patterns within the existing Right-Of-Way to promote traffic safety, smoothness of traffic flow, and carrying capacity; over time, reduce the number of separate curb-cuts and expand the landscaping features throughout the corridor. E.Enforce regulations on truck routes and hours in the Downtown, the Industrial District and the Walkers Brook Drive developments. F.Provide a new access of the Industrial District from the New Crossing Road Bikeways and Walkways To encourage mobility without the use of the automobile, bicycle routes, pedestrian paths and sidewalks need to be an attractive alternative to all ages. By enhancing urban design features of Town’s public spaces, Traditional Neighborhood Design guidelines can promote social interaction on the sidewalk rather than independent trips inside automobiles. 128 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 117 of 199 Goal 4 Improve and extend curbs and sidewalks and bicycle paths, where appropriate and consistent with Town standards. Objectives: A.Develop a comprehensive network of foot, bicycle, and open-space pathways ("green- ways") throughout the Town, providing adequate levels of safety and convenience. B.Develop a sidewalk improvement priority list, complete all needed sidewalk extensions and improve crossings in areas where children safety is a concern. C.Develop the Town’s bicycle network and make the map broadly available to Reading residents. Transit The level and reliability of public or private transit service offered to Reading residents can, to a large extent, determine the future demand for it, as assessed by federal grant programs. Several towns in the North-West Metropolitan Region have initiated/supported intra-town and inter-town shuttle bus services to medical facilities, commuter rail stations and other major destinations as a transit service to residents. A public shuttle service will be staying on a fixed-route and schedule and connecting favorite origins and destinations rather than looping around mostly empty. A private shuttle service can be more demand-responsive with likely candidates from employers, elderly services, commercial businesses, hospitals. Goal 5 Promote the use of public transit and alternative modes of transportation within Reading and within the Region and connect Reading with other major destinations. Objectives: A.Incorporate the Depot area into all regular bus routes in order to utilize the depot as a multi-modal transportation center for rail, bus, and taxi service. B.Encourage the improvement of local taxi and bus service and the implementation of mini- bus/dial-a-ride types of service for all residents and especially for the youth and the elderly. C.Examine the feasibility of establishing a Reading Transportation Authority or a Department within Town government that can address the forthcoming increased transportation needs of retiring boomers and coordinate with Goal-6. D.Promote the development of regional circumferential public transit routes in the North Suburban region, and link to other suburban regions (MetroWest and North Shore). 129 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 118 of 199 E.Examine the feasibility of establishing new transit routes to metropolitan airports and to adjacent communities, as well as nearby commuter rail stations, major employment centers and healthcare facilities. F.Collaborate with Reading employers to examine the feasibility of feeder transit service to commuter rail stations. G.Promote Transit Oriented Developments with reduced parking requirements per housing unit (see Housing Goals). Regional Collaboration Rarely do transportation problems originate in towns/cities; they are the result of regional traffic or transit issues that affect several areas and layers of a region’s population. Recent anti-sprawl policies promoted by the Commonwealth encourage towns to cooperate in planning efforts to move people and goods in a more efficient and environmentally responsible way, a way other than single-occupancy automobiles. Goal 6 Participate in the development of regional transportation plans with state agencies and neighboring towns. Objectives: A.Encourage, and provide appropriate improvements for, the use of Interstate Highways 93 and 95 (Route 128) by out-of-town, regionally-oriented through traffic and by commuters driving to commuter rail stations, and discourage, to the fullest extent practicable, the use of Routes 28 and 129 by such traffic through such means as increasing the capacity of both regional highways and of their common interchange, and other needed improvements to the regional highway system. B.Promote a Regional Transportation Management Association (TMA) to organize carpooling and vanpooling, shuttle-bus, high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) highway lanes and transit-dedicated lanes, and other forms of improved regional vehicular and alternate transportation measures and improvements, as joint transit projects among the participant cities. C.Encourage all large-scale local developments to cooperate with the TMA, to facilitate the use by their employees of mass-transit passes, and to facilitate employee non-automobile access to and from Downtown and the Depot. D.Invite Reading citizens and community groups to participate in Regional Planning Organizations and to advocate for Reading’s transportation interests. M 130 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 119 of 199 Map 13 Existing Roadway Volumes Map 16 131 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 120 of 199 Map 14 Transportation Opportunities 132 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION Page 121 of 199 Chapter 10 APPENDIX 133 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 122 of 199 CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 CRITERIA AND PRIORITIZATION In order to guide the selection of priority action items, the committee started with a criteria that was based primarily on the key aspects of the Vision Statement for this plan (as articulated by members of the community at large). This resulted in a set of seven major themes to compare each goal and objective against. Protect the sense of Community: in the neighborhoods, in the small-town feel, in the scenic ways and in the volunteerism of the residents. Retain and enhance the natural resources and the open space of the Town. Provide housing for a diverse range of incomes and ages, while expanding the infrastructure necessary to support it. Generate a business-friendly atmosphere throughout the Town and initiate changes so as to create a more vibrant downtown. Maintain Reading’s connections to the regional interstate/highway network and to public transportation, while promoting other necessary local road improvements and alternative means of transportation. Improve walking and bicycling within the Town, with a focus on safety and access of open/natural spaces. Protect the excellence of the Reading School System. The previous 7 chapters identified a total of 149 Objectives. Although each of them is important within their own right, we recognized the need for selecting the most critical ones on which to focus our initial efforts. This Plan is intended to cover activities that may continue for some time, those that are not yet ready to begin, and even some that have been on-going but have yet to be fully completed. Objectives (and associated actions) that are already underway have not been identified as priority simply because the efforts have already been given a priority. An example of one such action is the Downtown Improvements (Economic Development Goal 1, Objective B) planned for completion in 2006. Objectives that were deemed lower priority may in fact be under consideration by some of the very committees, boards or organizations that provided input to the Master Plan. On such example is the Historical Commission’s effort to 134 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 123 of 199 “Preserve the Town’s heritage found in historic documents, photos and other artifacts.” (Natural, Historical and Cultural Resources Goal 7, Objective D). The committee set forth to validate its selections by surveying members of the community, various Town boards, staff, committees, Town meeting members, business owners, and other stakeholders using a questionnaire (See APPENDICES). Survey Results After selecting an initial list of 20 priority objectives (note an additional 4 priority objectives were selected from the modified Service and Facilities objectives after the survey was finalized), the questionnaire was developed and distributed throughout the community by a variety of methods, including media publication, web placement, Town and Public Meeting distribution, availability at numerous Town facilities, email circulation and Master Plan presentation distribution. Approximately 110 questionnaires were returned as of November 30, 2005. The first 18 questions were intended to validate selection of the priority objectives. Without exception, when reviewing the positive responses (those marked strongly agree or agree), every question resulted in greater than a 50% positive response, with 13 of the questions yielding greater than 80%. The questions resulting in the most affirmative acceptance were #7, #5, and #8, corresponding to (1) protection of the historic village pattern of the Town, (2) promoting preservation and enhancement of Reading’s existing uplands and woodlands, and (3) creation of a path system connecting schools, open, space, and neighborhoods, respectively. It is interesting that these three objectives span goals found within Character and Identity, Natural and Cultural Resources, and Open Space. Conceptually they can be tied together by the underlying theme of Reading as a historic New England Village, with a diverse nature of uses, but one that must be respectful of the natural resources and preservation of its heritage. Although no question resulted in an overwhelmingly negative reply, there were two questions that were identified as having between 20% and 25% negative responses (those marked strongly disagree or disagree). Those were questions #3 and #16, corresponding to (1) the construction of a multilevel parking structure in the municipal lot behind CVS, and (2) the issue of whether existing, renovated or newly built, single-family houses substantially larger in size than the Town’s traditional capes, ranches and colonials have a negative effect on the Town’s character. The remainder of the questionnaire was focused on a number of diverse subjects. In question #19 the committee was interested in feedback for particular uses at the Addison Wesley site. With the exception of a clear dislike for the potential of a 40B, the results were mixed, showing that there was no one particular use that everyone could agree upon. In question 20, the respondents were asked to characterize Reading, and the majority of those surveyed (41%) defined Reading as a bedroom community, although another 44% characterized Reading as either having a “small town” or “New England village” feel. The last substantive question asked the respondents to rate the types of business in Town as either having the right amount, too many or too few in Town. In two cases, Fast Food Restaurants and Drug Stores, over 60% of the respondents indicated there were too many. 135 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 124 of 199 The last set of questions was aimed at understanding the demographics of the respondents. Ninety-two respondents were from Reading, and twenty-four respondents working within the Town. One interesting fact was that of those responding to question 25, nearly 30% of them indicated they worked from home at least 1 or more days per week. This particular trend reflects the changing business environment, acceptance of flexible work schedules, and infusion of enabling technologies. It is one that the Town will need to close watch as it continues to foster development of public and private infrastructure for business and residents alike. 11.2 PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES For each of the priority objectives, the following information was considered to form a more cohesive action plan. a.Identification of Person, Organization, Town Committee or Staff to be assigned responsibility for the Objective. b.Identification of the Action Steps required to implement objective c.Cost and/or resources required to implement d.Time frame – including how long to complete and a recommendation for target date. This information forms the basis for each of the action strategies defined in the next section and will be used as a basis for tracking progress and ensuring the appropriate individuals and organizations are assigned and provided with the necessary resources to complete the efforts. Character and Identity Action Strategies Objective 1B: Protect the historical village pattern by the balance of its constituents: buildings, streets and natural elements. Promote this balance as a prerequisite for developments to a scale familiar and comfortable to the individual. 1. Update Design Standards & Guidelines CPDC/Town Planner develop, adopt and apply design standards & guidelines for use in subdivision application process, site plan review and other special permit application processes. Where appropriate, revise internal CPDC policies and prepare zoning articles, to incorporate and reflect these standards & guidelines. This would be accomplished by involving the business community and using the public hearing process, as appropriate. Town Planner places these standards & guidelines on Town web site. (July, 2006) 2.Create Scenic Road/Historic District CPDC/Town Planner/Historical Commission considers other appropriate areas within Town for applications for “Scenic Road” designation and “Historic District” designation. For Scenic Road designation, initiate dialogue with residents within the area and review applications for Scenic Road designation. 136 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 125 of 199 CPDC conduct hearings relative to Scenic Road applications and prepare zoning articles for Town Meeting consideration. For Historic District designation, initiate dialogue with residents within the potential area and review petitions for Historic District designation (December, 2006) Objective 2D: Promote the design of new construction to seamlessly connect with their receiving surroundings. 1.Develop Mansionization Zoning CPDC to prepare “Mansionization” or other appropriate zoning article to address “tear-down-rebuild” and environmental issues. Town Meeting to consider zoning article. (May, 2008) 2.Inventory Undeveloped Land CPDC/Town Planner to inventory remaining undeveloped land within residential districts for consideration by Town for acquisition based on criteria set forth in the Town Open Space Plan. Failing acquisition of such land by the Town, CPDC to consider PUD-R Overlay zone on undeveloped sites within residential districts. Prepare zoning article for Town Meeting consideration. ( Initial Review, November, 2006) Housing Action Strategies Objective 1B. Pursue an Increase in Town Involvement and Investigate Additional Funding Vehicles to Achieve Housing Goals. Communicate Housing Goals to Residents. 1.Create New Housing Partnership (HP) with the Objective to Coordinate Housing Related Action Strategies under the Master Plan. Town Manager to recommend Charter for HP Board of Selectmen appoints HP members (June 2006) 2.Pursue Additional Funding for Housing Using the Community Preservation Act (CPA) Board of Selectmen appoints new CPA Committee to not only prepare the recommendation for implementing the CPA but also to identify the programs to be funded by it (March, 2006) Town Meeting considers CPA warrant article (November 2006) If Town Meeting approves, ballot question to create and fund CPA is placed on the ballot for Town election (March 2007) Submit CPA funding request to State ( September, 2007) 3.Communicate Housing Goals 137 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 126 of 199 HP continues to make Town residents aware of housing goals and initiatives (Ongoing, beginning November, 2006) Objectives 2A and 2B. Encourage New Developments and the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Existing Buildings Consistent with the Town’s Character and Identity and Meeting State Mandated Affordable Housing Goals. 1.Prepare zoning article which would allow cluster development (PRD) in all S-15 and S- 20 zoning districts provided one in eight units is affordable and $30,000/market unit is contributed to Housing Trust Fund for market units above/below eight. CPDC prepares zoning article Town Meeting considers zoning article (May, 2006) 2.Modify Section 4.3.2.8 (Accessory Apartments) of the Zoning Bylaws to remove the restriction that an accessory apartment must be occupied prior to 1982 in the portions of the residential districts adjacent to the Depot. CPDC prepares zoning article Town Meeting considers zoning article (May, 2006) Objective 5A. Introduce Mixed Use Zoning in the Downtown and Around the Depot 1. Prepare a zoning article that would allow residential units on all floors except the street portion of the first floor of properties in the Business B zoning district. CPDC drafts zoning article CPDC reviews draft of article with Board of Selectmen Town Meeting considers zoning article (November, 2005) Economic Development Action Strategies Objective 2A: Establish an Economic Development Commission 1. Determine structure of the Commission Town Manager and Town Planner study the various options available under state law and recommend to the Board of Selectmen the type of Economic Development Commission (EDC) to best meet the Town’s development needs and to leverage additional State and Federal developmental grants. (February 2006) 2. Establish the Commission The Board of Selectmen takes the necessary steps to establish the EDC and appoint qualified and dedicated citizens to the commission. (November, 2006) 138 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 127 of 199 Objective 3A and B: Improve South Main St. Streetscape 1. Rezone along South Main Street Corridor CPDC consider re-zoning along the South Main Street corridor as a means to improve the appearance with particular attention to setback requirements, visual buffering of parking areas, and expanded used of the PUD (B) overlay district. (Town Meeting, November, 2006) 2. Obtain funding for streetscape improvements. Town Planner, supported by the Board of Selectmen, will pursue all possible State and Federal grants to hire consultants (landscape architects and traffic engineers) to generate detailed streetscape beautification plans for the area from Washington St. south to I95/128. After completion of the initial plans, the Town Planner, supported by the Board of Selectmen, will pursue State and Federal funds to implement the plans (September, 2007) Natural, Historic and Cultural Resources Action Strategies Objective 1 A: Promote the preservation and enhancement of Reading’s extent of existing upland and wooded areas and the extent of public accessibility to these areas, particularly in new developments through appropriate amendments to the Zoning By-Laws and Subdivision Regulations and other measures such as impact fees. 1. Review Bylaws/Subdivisions Regulations to Enhance Preservation. CPDC and Town Planner review the existing zoning bylaws and subdivision regulations to improve the preservation and enhancement of Reading’s natural resources. (November, 2007) 2. Explore Impact Fees to Fund Preservation CPDC explores impact fees as a means of funding the preservation and enhancement of Reading’s natural resources. (May, 2007) Objective 2 B: Encourage the development of a regional resource protection plan (Aberjona, Saugus, and Ipswich River water-sheds, Cedar Swamp), and of regional efforts to reduce pollution of water, groundwater, and the air. 1.Address and Deal Effectively with Unmet Regional Needs. 139 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 128 of 199 Conservation Administrator and Board of Selectmen establish new organizations (or expand the scope of appropriate existing organizations) for regional and /or Town- wide cooperation to address and effectively deal with unmet regional needs and problems. (Ongoing) Objective 3A: Protect well fields and water recharge areas and strengthen and monitor the enforcement of the Aquifer Protection Zoning By-Laws. 1.Protect Wellfields by Amending/Strengthening the Town’s Bylaws Conservation Commission reviews and amends Town’s bylaws to ensure protection of the Town’s wellfields and water recharge areas. (Fran?) 2. Monitor Enforcement of Bylaws Enforcement Officer and Conservation Commission ensure that the Town monitors enforcement of these provisions. (Ongoing) Objective 7A: Maintain and add to the Town’s Inventory of historical and architecturally significant buildings. 1. Hire Consultant to Expand Historical Inventory Historical Commission uses inventory as the basis for Town’s historic preservation planning. Board of Selectmen secures funding to hire a consultant to assist the Town in identifying historically and architecturally significant buildings. (March, 2007) Open Space Action Strategies Objective 1C: Create path systems connecting schools, open space, and neighborhoods, e.g. develop walking/biking trails between open spaces 1.Review Open Space Plan Town Planner reviews plan with School Committee, DPW, and Design Review Team (Annually, beginning in January, 2007) 2.Solicit Public Input Town Planner solicits public input (Annually, beginning in July, 2006) 3.Identify Public/Private Easements for Connections DRT identifies public and private easements that can used for connections (Annually, quarterly, beginning in April, 2006) Objective 2D: Acquire more land for playing fields, a family picnic areas and pocket parks 140 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 129 of 199 1.Provide Funding Town Manager, DRT and Recreation Committee include funding in the Capital Plan/operating budget (Annually, beginning in May, 2007) 2.Develop School Land Superintendent, Town Manager and DRT develop and use school land more intensively for multi-purpose recreation (Annually, beginning in August, 2006) Objective 3C: Make public aware of the importance of public and private conservation land and open space 1.Evaluate Conservation Land for Trails Conservation Committee and Town Forest Committee evaluate conservation areas for self-guided trails (Annually, beginning in January, 2007) 2.Develop Interpretive Programs Open Space Plan Committee develops interpretive programs based on 2006 Open Space Plan update (January, 2007) 3.Improve Mapping GIS Administrator improves mapping (Ongoing) 4.Conduct Public Education Superintendent and School Committee conduct public education with schools and youth groups via speakers, displays in the Spring/Fall, curriculum studies (Annually, beginning in May, 2007) 5.Create “Guide to Reading’s Open Space” Consultant, GIS Coordinator and Town Forest Committee create a “Guide to Reading’s Open Space,” including better scaled maps, and using new aerial photos and history (May, 2007) 6.Support Public Awareness Events Selectmen and Recreation Committee support events such as Earth Day and Town Forest Day (Annually, beginning in May, 2006) Objective 5A: Re-consider the Community Preservation Act 1. Appoint Ad Hoc CPA Committee Selectmen, CPDC and Finance Committee develop and appoint Ad Hoc Community Preservation Act Committee (March, 2006) 141 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 130 of 199 Objective 5B: 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 1.Implement Developer Impact Fees Recreation Committee, Finance Committee and Selectmen develop and implement a developer impact fee program for financing improvements and additions to recreational facilities (May, 2007) 2.Create Recreation al Funding Endowment Recreation Committee creates recreation funding endowment or “friends” groups (Annually, ongoing) 3. Recruit Volunteers for Fund Raising Recreation Committee and Selectmen recruit volunteers for fund-raising (Every two years, beginning March, 2007) 4. Solicit Letters/News Articles for Programs Recreation Committee solicits letters and news articles for programs (Annually, Ongoing) Services and Facilities Objective 1(D): Develop an impact fee bylaw consistent with State legislation and the Town’s Master Plan goals to apply to new developments of mid- to large-scale. 1. Review impact fee practices. Town Planner/Town Counsel gather State laws, regulations, case law and practices by other Massachusetts communities related to impact fees CPDC reviews the gathered information in light of the Master Plan objectives and evaluated benefits and drawbacks to the Town. (May, 2007) 2. Develop impact fee bylaw CPDC/Town Planner develops impact fee bylaw through a series of workshops inviting the public and interested developers Town Meeting considers the bylaw (November, 2007) Objective 2 (A): Create and maintain appropriate Town-wide disaster, security and/or health outbreak plans and ensure Town services, departments and nonprofits and other service providers are trained and prepared. 1. Develop and maintain Public Health Emergency Response Plan To establish Memorandum of Understanding with surrounding town public health professionals 142 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 131 of 199 To maintain written public health emergency plan (Annually, Ongoing) To continue training of public health staff with Homeland Security and Health Alert Network for notification from state and CDC on outbreaks To plan physical operation of Emergency Dispensing Site/Treatment (EDS) clinics to treat the entire Town population To secure facilities for Town wide immunization and or treatment in preparation for outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. To secure physician orders referring to the 15 most likely disease outbreak scenarios To continue to training and credential medical response volunteers To secure medical supplies such as 24,000 syringes, screens, vaccine, medications, bandages, etc. To establish a team of trained volunteers to work at clinic site To establish and exercise response time and operation Emergency Medical Dispensing Sites To maintain communication with Town departments fire, police, DPW for support and cooperation Objective 5(A): Develop strategies to disseminate information from Town Government to residents and businesses in the most effective manner. 1. Define types of information to be communicated Board of Selectmen/Town Manager survey Town Departments, Boards and Committees to identify various types of information that is communicated and who the target audience is for each. Also identify underlying reason for communication (legal req’t, health/safety, general info, etc.) Board of Selectmen/Town Manager survey residents and businesses regarding the effectiveness of communication and solicit feedback at Town functions, board/committee meetings, and at local organizational meetings Board of Selectmen/Town Manager review results of surveys and develop definition of information types and priorities (November, 2006) 2.Define communication means and methods available for communication and segregate by priority, intrusiveness, cost, etc. Board of Selectmen/Town Manager review various technologies and communications means both currently being used by the Town and those available or potentially applicable for use by the Town. Board of Selectmen/Town Manager create assessments of each communication means to define the communication priority it could represent, how intrusive or available to the community, the cost of the method, and other factors deemed appropriate. (November, 2006) 3. Identify Strategies to couple information needs with communication methods 143 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 132 of 199 Board of Selectmen/Town Manager create draft communication plan based on the information defined in Actions 1 and 2. Objective should be to create Community “Communication” Guide Board of Selectmen/Town Manager: Solicit input from all stakeholders on “Guide” (May, 2007) 4. Implement Communication Plan Board of Selectmen/Town Manager ensure all defined communication means are available and in place, and appropriate training performed for Stakeholders on how to utilize guide (Web based Q&A, local meetings, etc.) Board of Selectmen/Town Manager: Monitor implementation; obtain feedback and update plans and guide on-going. (November, 2007) Objective 6B: Develop and conduct a comprehensive customer service survey 1. Explore methodologies for measuring customer satisfaction with Town services. Town Manager to review scale of customer interaction in the various Town departments (May 2006) Board of Selectmen reviews methods of citizen input and customer surveys in place in Reading and other cities and towns in the Commonwealth (May 2006) 2. Determine approach to and proceed with measuring customer satisfaction Board of Selectmen and Town Manager determine if scale of customer interaction justifies hiring consultant or managing the function with Town resources. (August 2006) Board of Selectmen and Town Manager implement survey (November 2006) Board of Selectmen and Town Manager publicize customer survey process to the Town (November 2006) Board of Selectmen and Town Manager compile results and report to the community ( February 2006/2007) 3. Analysis of results and future actions Board of Selectmen and Town Manager identify opportunities to change Town processes and procedures based on survey input (Ongoing, beginning February 2006/2007) Board of Selectmen and Town Manager determine how to build customer satisfaction measurement into ongoing Town operations such as through comment page on website, periodic random surveys, comment cards at Town Hall, etc… (November 2006) 144 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 133 of 199 Transportation Action Strategies Objective1B: Develop a comprehensive Town-wide Parking Plan to address satellite employee parking, alternative locations for garages in Downtown with respective zoning amendments and revisit public parking regulations. 1. Initiate a Town-Based Transit Non-Profit (TNP) in Collaboration with Other Adjacent Bedroom Communities Town Planner to attempt a joint meeting with Town Planners from Stoneham, North Reading, Wakefield, Wilmington, Woburn (June, 2007) Town Manager/Town Planner to investigate interest by those communities to participate in the transit non-profit. (September, 2007) Town Manager/Town Planner to recommend Scope for TNP (November, 2007) Board of Selectmen to appoint TNP members (January, 2008) 2. Identify Parking Concepts for Downtown. Board of Selectmen/Town Manager to review the current parking regulations in Downtown (September, 2006) When formed, Economic Development Commission to hold joint meeting with the BOS to map out potential areas for new municipal garages/lots and calculate their capacity (January, 2007) Objective 4B: Develop a sidewalk improvement priority list, complete all needed sidewalk extensions and improve crossings in areas where safety is a concern. 1. Form a Town-Wide Parking and Traffic Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee (PATAC) Town Engineer to provide sidewalk improvement prioritization criteria (December 2005) Town Manager to recommend Scope for PATAC (May 2006) Board of Selectmen appoints PATAC members (June 2006) 2. Explore an Impact-Fee Bylaw for Sidewalk Improvements. Town Planner to monitor State Legislation update process (May, 2007) Objective 6C: Develop a Town and/or a regional transportation organization to address increased transportation needs via car pooling, van pooling, HOV/transit dedicated highway lanes and other forms of local/regional commuting measures. 1.Advocate Reading’s Transportation Interests in the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the North Suburban Planning Council and the MBTA Advisory Board Representatives to these organizations to report bi-yearly to the Board of Selectmen. Continue active participation to the Task Force of the I93-I95 Interchange Planning Initiative by the Massachusetts Highway Department. 145 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 134 of 199 Staff to monitor updates of the State Transportation Plan, the Metropolitan Planning Organization studies that CTPS performs and reports on short- and long-term issues effecting Reading and the NSPC sub-region to Town Manager. (Ongoing) 146 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan-CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 135 of 199 PRIORITY OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ChapterObj/Action NoActionResponsible PartyDue Date Char & Identity1B/1Update Design Standards & GuidelinesCPDC/Town Planner2006-September Char & Identity1B/1Update Design Standards & GuidelinesCPDC/Town Planner2006-July Char & Identity1B/2Create Scenic Road/Historic DistrictCPDC/TP/Historical Comm.2006-December Char & Identity2D/1Develop Mansionization ZoningCPDC2008-May Char & Identity2D/2Inventory Undeveloped Land (initial review)CPDC/Town Planner2006-November Housing1B/1Create New Housing PartnershipTown Manager/Board of Selectmen2006-June Housing1B/2Persue Add'l Funding for Housing Using CPA Board of Selectmen2007-September Housing1B/3Communicate Housing GoalsHousing Partnership2006-November Housing2A-B/1Prepare Zoning Article to Allow Cluster Devlpmnt (PRD)CPDC2006-May Housing2A-B/2Modify Sec 4.3.2.8 (Accessory Apts) of the Zoning BylawCPDC2006-May Housing5A/1Introduce Mixed Use Zoning in Downtown/Depot CPDC2005-November Econ Development2A/1Determine Structure of Econ Devlp CommissionTown Manager/Town Planner2006-February Econ Development2A/2Establish Econ Develop CommissionBoard of Selectmen2006-November Econ Development3A-B/1Rezone along South Main Street CorridorCPDC2006-November Econ Development3A-B/2Obtain Funding for Streetscape ImprovementsTown Planner/Board of Selectmen2007-September Natural Resources1A/1Review Bylaws/Subdivision Regs to Enhance Preservation CPDC/Town Planner2007-November Natural Resources1A/2Explore Impact Fees to Fund PreservationCPDC2007-May Natural Resources2BAddress and Deal Effectively with Unmet Regional NeedsConservation Administrator/Selectmen Ongoing Natural Resources3A/1Protect Wellfields by Amending/Strengthening BylawsConservation Commission2007-May Natural Resources3A/2Monitor Enforcement of BylawsConservation Comm./Enforcement OfficerOngoing Natural Resources7A/1Hire Consultant to Expand Historical InventoryHistorical Commission/Board of Selectmen2007-March Open Space 1C/1Review of Open Space Plan (annually)Town Planner2007-January Open Space 1C/2Solicit Public Input (annually)Town Planner2006-July Open Space 1C/3Identify Pub/Priv Easements for Connection (quarterly)DRT2006-April Open Space 2D/1Provide Funding for Land for Fields/PicAreas/Parks(annly)Town Manager/DRT/Recreation Comm.2007-May Open Space 2D/2Develop School Land for Multi-purpose Recreation(annly)Superintendent/Town Manager/DRT2006-August Open Space 3C/1Evaluate Conservation Land for Trails (annually)Conservation Comm./Town Forest Comm.2007-January Open Space 3C/2Develop Interpretive ProgramsOpen Space Comm./Historical Comm.2007-January Open Space 3C/3Improve Mapping for Open SpaceGIS AdministratorOngoing Open Space 3C/4Conduct Public Education for Schools/Youth Groups(annl)Superintendent/School Comm.2007-May Open Space 3C/5Create "Guide to Reading's Open Space"Consultant/GIS Coord/Town Forest Comm.2007-May Open Space 3C/6Support Public Awareness Events (annually)Board of Selectmen/Recreation Comm.2006-May Open Space 5A/1Appoint Ad-Hoc CPA CommitteeBoard of Selectmen/CPDC/Fin Comm.2006-March Open Space 5B/1Implement Developer Impact Fees for RecreationRecreation Comm./Fin Comm/BOS2007-May Open Space 5B/2Create Recreation Funding Endowment (annually)Recreation CommitteeOngoing Open Space 5B/3Recruit Volunteers for Fund Raising (ever two years)Recreation Committee/BOS2007-March Open Space 5B/4Solicit Letters/News Articles for Programs (annually)Recreation CommitteeOngoing Services&Facilities1D/1Review Iimpact Fee PracticesTown Planner/Town Counsel2007-May Services&Facilities1D/2Develop Impact Fee BylawCPDC/Town Planner2007-November Services&Facilities2A/1Develop/maintain Public Health Emergency Response PlanBoard of HealthOngoing Services&Facilities5A/1Define Types of Information to be CommunicatedBoard of Selectmen/Town Manager2006-November Services&Facilities5A/2Define Communication Means ans MethodsBoard of Selectmen/Town Manager2006-November Services&Facilities5A/3Identify Strategies to Couple Information Needs/MethodsBoard of Selectmen/Town Manager2007-May Services&Facilities5A/4Implement Communications PlanBoard of Selectmen/Town Manager2007-November Services&Facilities6B2Measure customer satisfaction with Town services. Board of Selectmen/Town Manager2007-May Transportation1B/1Initiate Town-Based Transit Non-ProfitTown Planner/Town Manager/BOS2008-January Transportation1B/2Identify Parking Concepts for DowntownBOS/Town Mgr/Econ Devlp Comm.2007-January Transportation4B/1Form Town-Wide Parking/Traffic Ad-Hoc Adv Comm.Town Manager/Board of Selectmen2006-June 147 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CHAPTER 11 IMPLEMENTATION Page 136 of 199 11.3 FISCAL REALITIES The Master Plan introduces a wide range of action items aimed at controlling the Town’s growth and protecting the Town’s assets, strategies that require the expenditure of time and resources. In effect, there exist several methods of public policy and of development tactics that can augment and improve a Town’s capabilities to control and protect. A few of the methods that are closer to New England’s reality are examined below, as to whether they can provide opportunities for proactive planning. The State While the State has delegated the power of zoning to local authorities through Chapter 40A, the yearly 2.5% cap of tax revenue increase is a true limitation for a broad-base proactive land use planning by the Town. Long-term local planning for the type of growth, the preservation and the environmental protection is not publicly funded at a local level. Frequently the only alternative left to the Town is to advance limited short-term planning agendas with an impact on the Town’s resources and Board/Committee time. Even if the Town found a quick and efficient way to adjust its zoning regulations against pressures for abrupt growth, the requirement for a two-thirds Town meeting majority to authorize zoning changes makes local proactive planning very cumbersome. The Private Sector Many municipalities have used tax waivers and impact fees to encourage or discourage particular types of development. In this manner, towns can tap on new funding mechanisms originating in the private sector and streamline specific planning activities and projects of high-priority. Compared to these municipalities, however, Reading is much smaller in size, in proportion of commercial/industrial land uses and in potential for new-developments. Furthermore, given the limited amount of undeveloped land in Reading, the method of having proactive planning conducted as part of alliances with the private sector is unlikely to occur while the potential for large-scale projects is diminished. Redevelopment projects can require limited planning and raise awareness and solicit public involvement for only a certain period of time. The Community Preservation Act In effect, the Town has been utilizing the existing planning tools found in the zoning bylaws, the district overlays, the public processes and the impact mitigation efforts to protect its assets. The task of proactive planning, however, lies beyond the resources and fiscal abilities as they exist today. Realizing this impasse, the State instituted the Community Preservation Act in 1999 as a local funding mechanism for proactive planning and for the protection of the Town’s assets. In light of its near passage a few years ago, building public support for a new CPA referendum will require a substantial grass-roots effort in that task. 148 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CONCLUSION Page 137 of 199 CHAPTER 12 CONCLUSION 12.1 FUTURE EFFORTS With the conclusion of this Planning effort, the responsibility for seeing this Master Plan implemented will fall to the various Town boards, staff, and other public and private organizations that are given ownership for each of the specific objectives and actions. The CPDC, as part of its charter, will solicit status and feedback for each of the actions and provide this information, along with any recommendations for changes or additional objectives to begin work on, to the Board of Selectman (twice a year). In addition, for the true value of this Master Plan to be realized, the entire Town must embrace this plan and begin to utilize it as part of their vocabulary and guidance for any substantial efforts or important decisions. The State has also made the existence of a Master Plan a critical aspect of a Communities responsibility, and many state grants require that the Master Plan include information that supports the Town’s application for such funds to support defined Master Plan efforts. 12.2DECISION PROCESS This Master Plan provides a collection of intentions about the future of Reading. It is important to note that the needs and aspirations of the residents affect the plan’s implementation in three tiers: through Town Boards, Commissions and Committees (B/C/Cs) through Town Administration through Town Meeting While proud about its strong planning legacy and its volunteerism, Reading is a community whose administration has been affected by fiscal constraints, thus resulting in operational challenges of running the Town government in a modern and forward looking model. It is because of these reasons that in order to translate the collective intentions of the plan to policy, the three tiers mentioned above need to function in a complementary way. This is accomplished by asking the questions, providing the answers and aligning the actions with this plan’s vision and goals. At the same time, while state and federal legislation is going through a revision process, the Town should evaluate its priorities as a locality as well as a constituent of those regions. The 149 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- CONCLUSION Page 138 of 199 recent publicized smart growth principles, legislative reform efforts and interdepartmental cooperation initiatives provide opportunities for Reading not only to define its own future, but also affect regional development. One such example is the planned Massachusetts Land Use Reform Act (MLURA) in as far as it encourages communities to adopt or update their local master plans and enables them to develop effective land use regulations that are consistent with those plans. Other examples at a federal level are the new accessibility guidelines, transportation bills, environmental protection funding and national security initiatives, all of which should be investigated for their impact to this plan. It is the act of monitoring Town issues with regards to state and federal legislation and funding changes that will add another layer of credibility to the implementation decisions. 12.3 NEXT MASTER PLAN ISSUANCE The last Master Planning effort was concluded in 1991, just about 14 years ago. Although there is no specific guidance, plans that are not updated after 10 years begin to show their age, and given the rapidly changing environment, do not reflect current issues facing the community. Although the Community Development (CD) plan completed in 2003 satisfied some of the Master Plan objectives, this recent effort clearly addressed all of the required aspects from both the State and Communities point of view. Our hope is that through a more rigorous process of tracking progress against objectives and actions, Reading will recognize the need for updates to this Master Plan sooner, and continued involvement by members of the community, the various boards, staff, business and other organizations, will provide further encouragement to not allow such a long lapse between plan updates to occur. With plans for a formal review process by the CPDC in place, this could be another mechanism for requiring plan addendums to be created to address critical needs or significant community changes without having to recreate an entire document. 150 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 139 of 199 APPENDICES A-1 MASTER PLAN PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS MASTER PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITIZEN OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN READING To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following master plan objectives or action strategies: 1.Introduce mixed use zoning in the Downtown and around the Train Depot which would allow residential units on upper floors and retail on the first floor. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 2.Examine business properties along South Main St with regard to re-zoning with particular attention to relocating parking to the rear to allow beautification in the front. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 3.Construct a multi-level parking garage in the municipal lot behind CVS funded by a combination of state and federal grants, developer contributions and other funding sources. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 4.Reading has need for more varied retail businesses in Town Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 5. Protect the historical village pattern in the Town by the balance of it constituents: buildings, streets and natural elements. Promote this balance as a prerequisite for developments to a size familiar and comfortable to people. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 6.In already developed residential neighborhoods, promote the design of new construction or renovation to be compatible with their surroundings. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 7.Promote the preservation and enhancement of Reading’s existing uplands and wooded areas and public access to these areas, particularly in new developments. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 151 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 140 of 199 8.Create path systems connecting schools, open space, and neighborhoods, by developing walking/biking trails between open spaces. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 9.Acquire more open land for playing fields, family picnic areas and small neighborhood parks. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 10.Develop a comprehensive Town-wide parking plan to address employee parking and alternate locations for garages to create more parking options. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 11.Develop a pedestrian safety priority list for completing all needed sidewalk extensions and improving crossings, including pedestrian lights, where safety is a concern. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 12.In cooperation with neighboring communities, promote initiatives to address the increase of traffic and limited transit options. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 13.Develop a multi-faceted housing plan to produce the required number of state-mandated affordable housing units throughout the Town so as to minimize the impact of large 40-B developments. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 14.Provide a range of housing options to meet the requirements of singles, starter families and the elderly. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 15.Overall, the Town conveys a friendly atmosphere, which is comfortable and familiar to the individual. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 16.Existing, renovated or newly built, single-family houses substantially larger in size than the Town’s traditional capes, ranches and colonials have a negative effect on the Town’s character. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 17.Require that new large projects, residential, commercial or mixed use, blend in with the street network and types of houses adjacent to them. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree 152 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 141 of 199 18.Establish an official Town commission to plan, encourage, and control economic development activities Town-wide consistent with the Town’s character and identity. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree Check your preference for the options listed: 19. Since there is no market in the foreseeable future for an office/hotel development at the former Addison-Wesley site (Rt. 128 & 28), which type of development would be most compatible with the neighborhood and the Town’s character and identity? Boutique retail shops Townhouse/Condo 40B Apartments Mixed Use (400,000 sf) (200 units) (600 units) (Shops plus 75 housing units) Town purchase 55+ Housing Other _________________________ 20. Select the term which bests describes your perception of Reading. Small-town feel New England Bedroom Village town community Other ____________________ 21. Indicate whether Reading has too few (Too F), the right amount (R Amt) or too many (Too M) of the following types of businesses to meet the needs or its residents over the next five years. a) Banks b) Fast Food Restaurants c) Gas d) Extended Stay Stations/Garages Restaurants e) Supermarkets f) Exercise/Health Clubs g) Drug Stores h) Clothing Stores i) Appliance Storesj) Other Retail Stores ********** 153 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 142 of 199 Tell us about yourself: 22. Are you a resident of Reading? Yes No If yes, how many years? ______ If yes, what precinct? ______ 23.How old are you? Under 20 20-40 41-60 Over 61 24.Where do you work? Reading Boston Other _____________ 25. Do you work at home? Yes No If yes, how many days per week? ______ 26.How do commute to work? Public transportation Carpool Car (single occupant) At home Please mail this questionnaire to Town Planner, 16 Lowell St., Reading, MA 01867 or plan and e-mail complete on line at www.ci.reading.ma.us/planning/masterplan.htm to creilly@ci.reading.ma.us 154 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 143 of 199 FACTORAL ANALYSIS OF MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS CITIZEN OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE - 2005 Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Weighted 1. Introduce Mixed Use Zoning in Downtown 55 33 12 2 4 106 1.25 2. Rezone So Main St to Allow Beautification in Front 68 22 10 2 5 107 1.36 3. Construct Multi-Level Garage Behind CVS 35 30 20 9 13 107 0.61 4. Reading Needs More Varied Retail 63 25 14 4 0 106 1.39 5. Protect Historical Village Pattern by Balance of Constituents 72 27 6 1 1 107 1.57 6. Blend New Construction into Existing Neighborhoods 61 33 6 4 2 106 1.39 7. Preserve Uplands/Wooded Areas in New Developments 77 24 2 1 0 104 1.70 8. Create Path Systems to Connecting Schools/Open Spaces 59 33 11 1 1 105 1.41 9. Acquire More Open Land for Playing Fields, Picnic Areas, etc 47 36 11 8 2 104 1.13 10. Develop Comp. Town-Wide Parking Plan 44 42 12 3 2 103 1.19 11. Develop Pedestrian Safety Priority List for Sidewalks/Lights 49 46 8 0 0 103 1.40 12. Promote Initiatives to Address Traffic/Transit Options 44 36 18 3 1 102 1.17 13. Develop Housing Plan to Minimize 40B Developments 48 39 9 1 3 100 1.28 14. Provide a Range of Housing Options to Meets Needs 40 44 12 2 5 103 1.09 15. Town Conveys Friendly Atmosphere - Comfortable/Familiar 29 50 15 7 1 102 0.97 16. Substantially Larger Houses Have a Negative Effect on Town's Character 30 28 21 17 11 107 0.46 17. Require New Large Projects Blend In with Adjacent Streets/Properties 56 37 5 4 4 106 1.29 18. Establish Economic Development Commission 38 39 17 4 4 102 1.01 0 Too Few Right Amt Too Many 21a. Banks 0 62 33 95 -0.35 21b. Fast Food Restaurants 2 33 61 96 -0.61 21c. Gas Stations/Garages 0 50 41 91 -0.45 21d. Extended Stay Restaurants 69 17 2 88 0.76 21e. Supermarkets 38 52 4 94 0.36 21f. Exercise/Health Clubs 13 69 5 87 0.09 21g. Drug Stores 0 35 56 91 -0.62 21h. Clothing Stores 69 21 1 91 0.75 21i. Appliance Stores 18 71 1 90 0.19 21j. Other Retail Stores 50 27 5 82 0.55 155 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 144 of 199 CITIZEN OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE - 2005 Strongly NotStrongly Agree Agree Sure DisagreeDisagree TotalWeighted 16. Substantially Larger Houses Have a Negative Effect on Town's Character 30 28 21 17 11 107 0.46 3. Construct Multi-Level Garage Behind CVS 35 30 20 9 13 107 0.61 15. Town Conveys Friendly Atmosphere - Comfortable/Familiar29 50 15 7 1 102 0.97 38 39 17 4 4 102 1.01 18. Establish Economic Development Commission 40 44 12 2 5 103 1.09 14. Provide a Range of Housing Options to Meets Needs 9. Acquire More Open Land for Playing Fields, Picnic Areas, etc47 36 11 8 2 104 1.13 44 36 18 3 1 102 1.17 12. Promote Initiatives to Address Traffic/Transit Options 44 42 12 3 2 103 1.19 10. Develop Comp. Town-Wide Parking Plan 1. Introduce Mixed Use Zoning in Downtown 55 33 12 2 4 106 1.25 13. Develop Housing Plan to Minimize 40B Developments 48 39 9 1 3 100 1.28 17. Require New Large Projects Blend In with Adjacent Streets/Properties 56 37 5 4 4 106 1.29 2. Rezone So Main St to Allow Beautification in Front 68 22 10 2 5 107 1.36 4. Reading Needs More Varied Retail 63 25 14 4 0 106 1.39 6. Blend New Construction into Existing Neighborhoods 61 33 6 4 2 106 1.39 11. Develop Pedestrian Safety Priority List for Sidewalks/Lights 49 46 8 0 0 103 1.40 8. Create Path Systems to Connecting Schools/Open Spaces 59 33 11 1 1 105 1.41 5. Protect Historical Village Pattern by Balance of Constituents 72 27 6 1 1 107 1.57 7. Preserve Uplands/Wooded Areas in New Developments 77 24 2 1 0 104 1.70 156 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 145 of 199 A pictorial representation of the results can be found in the table below. MASTER PLAN QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 12.8.05 #strongly agree agree not sure Disagree strongly disagree 774% 23% 2% 1% 0% 567% 25% 6% 1% 1% 856% 31% 10% 1% 1% 459% 24% 13% 4% 0% 658% 31% 6% 4% 2% 1147% 44% 8% 0% 1% 264% 21% 9% 2% 5% 1753% 35% 5% 4% 4% 1348% 39% 9% 1% 3% 152% 31% 11% 2% 4% 1043% 41% 12% 3% 2% 1243% 35% 18% 3% 1% 945% 35% 11% 8% 2% 1439% 43% 12% 2% 5% 1528% 49% 15% 7% 1% 1836% 37% 16% 4% 8% 333% 28%19%8%12% 1628% 26%20%16%10% retail condo 40B Mixedpurchase 55+ 1916%14%1%30% 19%20% small town village bedroom Other 2026% 18% 41% 15% too few right amt too many 21A 0% 65%35% B 2% 34% 64% C 0% 55%45% D78%19%2% E 40% 55%4% F 15% 79%6% G 0% 38% 62% H76%23%1% I 20% 79%1% J61%33%6% Y n 2292 <20 20><40 40><60 60+ 23 12 4240 reading boston other 2424 17 52 Y n 252360 pub poolcarHome 2611 1 4712 157 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 146 of 199 MASTER PLAN SURVEY INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS 1 Residential garbage and re-cycle collection? Eliminate parking spaces if necessary. ************ 2 Current traffic pattern in front of CVS and other stores is very confusing and dangerous-I try to avoid driving in that area. The gas station on the corner of Main and Hopkins does not blend- why was this huge structure approved? Impact on any residential abutters in rear? Infringes on abutters. ************ 3 Would rather see trolley or shuttle. Disagree if it means raising my taxes again. ************ 4 No more banks/pharmacies and gas stations. ************ 5 Many of the buildings are not pretty or functional. Preserving the layout of the common should be a priority. Replacing buildings with better even at historical cost would be acceptable. West St. mess ************ 6 Individual tastes should be drivers. Promote diversity in design-control size of new garages. ************ 158 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 147 of 199 7 8 I believe this would encourage children to exercise more and not count on parents to drive them. ************ 9 Only repair current ones like tennis courts which are in disrepair. Have enough fields, start t-ball, other sports at appropriate age. ************ 10 Do not sell of land already owned by the Town such as the old Pearl St. school Don’t want more cars downtown-public transportation. Depends on how far away the parking would be. A small Town shouldn’t have excessive employment. ************ 11 12 West St. greed Is it possible to promote a bus route from Friendly’s Route 28 Stoneham the entire length of Rt. 28 north up to the Rt. 125 area Citizens would be able to shop at many businesses along Rt. 28 ************ 13 Accessory apartments!!! Is there any more land to build on? Against 40B developments-it could bring along with it unwanted elements. Enough 40Bs unless the new Reading look is going to be a cheap city-West St is awful. ************ 159 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 148 of 199 14 Reading is too expensive for starter families and/or the elderly. Promote 55+ housing 1 floor living badly needed and has the lowest impact on tax rate via schools. For shame! We are losing this part of our housing supply because of oversized renovations. ************ 15 Losing it fast in view of West St. debacle (Spence farm) and home depot as primary entries to Town. To many lights on Main St. Don’t like one way streets downtown. ************ 16 New developments-larger houses is OK. On small lots, existing houses, remodels should blend in. Depends on the lot size and how close the structures are to each other. They look ridiculous. There should be room for everyone and every housing type-don’t downsize us. ************ 17 The West St. project certainly does not blend. Why was it approved to be placed so close to the street? What is their landscaping plan? 18 19 Need park, tennis courts. Why should reading have to suffer because the owner of this land can’t find someone to rent it as office space at his asking price? If it can’t remain as office space the town should purchase it. We are in sore need of soccer, baseball, filed hockey and lacrosse fields. How can you sell this town on the basis of its schools when its sports programs are quickly running out of space on which to practice and play. And we are fighting over the few decent fields we have. Whatever you do, do not allow it to be sold as housing of any kind. We’re over-saturated as it is. And do not kid yourself into thinking any boutique would locate itself on Rt. 128, with the Burlington and North 160 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 149 of 199 shore Liberty Tree malls right down the road. Plus, it surrounded by a residential neighborhood Don’t do to those poor people what you have done to the folks in the Home Depot area. Remote site for a community college or 4 year college or technical school. Anything but residential. Sportsplex it would draw income and fill a need. Light industrial. Has direct access to Rt. 128 been discussed? This would reduce traffic on South St. Do we need this site for DPW-and or storing snow in wintertime because storage space is lacking? Or Town vehicles or a Fire station combined with Police station etc. Be careful before the land adjacent to Rt. 128 is sold. The old Cerritanni’s site would have been a better location for the Police and/or Fire Station . TASC Reading sold the property to TASC and had to buy back access for the DPW! Combine parking area with small shops and apartments above them. Affordables for retired Town employees! Too much pollution for Rt. 128 for housing or a park. Assisted living. Multiple uses. Affordables for Reading’s seniors being forced out of Town. With West St. at one end and 28+128 at the other talk about gridlock. Satellite campus for a college. ************ 20 Ugly (re: downtown and all of Main Street) Out of control (re: allowing developers to build on every square inch rather than bringing to a vote an option for Town purchase of the land. For instance, the Spence farm megadevelopment looks horrendous and will pose substantial traffic problems once people start to move in. Getting too commercial. Overbuilt. Shabby looking Rt. 28 ask the State to clean it up, replace sidewalks and plant trees. Coordinate traffic lights on Rt. 28 to increase traffic flow, especially in the square. Inform residents of major changes i.e. the huge gas station on the corner of Main and Hopkins and the unattractive play gym at McDonalds-shabby. 161 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 150 of 199 Recent uncontrolled growth. Drab, uninteresting. Emerging from a sleepy listless, backward thinking community to one that is forward looking, thoughtful, embracing the future. Small town trying to become a big city by overdevelopment. ************ 21 Could use a fresh fish/take out store. If there are too many that will be self –regulating. These things should be business decisions –if too many some will leave. Marketing plan has much information. Please, no more fast food restaurants. The city is taking away our small town without the high end and mix. I only believe we should have retail downtown. ************ 22 23 24 25 26 ADDITIONAL Create more upscale restaurants on Main St. w outdoor dining –will bring in money from neighboring communities. Is there any way that the light from the CVS be changed? I know that it is difficult to walk across the street safely For children the downtown is not pedestrian or bicycle friendly How about a 162 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 151 of 199 central kiosk that can be electronically updated by RCTV with advertisements and ticket sales for various events going on. Eliminate parking southbound on Main St. from Haven to Washington-this will help flow of traffic from 7 am to 9am weekdays. Playgrounds have been placed in full sun-please plant some trees and authorize better maintenance-post signs pick up after your pet. Appoint a committee with the sole purpose of seeking out state and federal monies for reading. Advertise to find citizens with expertise in this area. Comcast-changes are too high-tighter town control/input is needed. Survey residents for money saving tips-our Re taxes are outrageous. Ask retired residents to ride on school buses as monitors and site in classrooms/lunchrooms for a claming affect-the playground too. Retired citizens could provide a valuable volunteer group and input in areas of expertise. At all grade levels, teach students water and energy saving tips. Discuss bullies-retirees can help here too. Ask residents to adopt a playground and beautify and maintain it. Establish and promote meet your neighbor get-togethers at the Fieldhouse 4 times a year. Appoint a committee to address our major emergency needs; water, food, etc. Encourage resident’s input-publish information. Pets: increase fines for barking and loose dogs. Publish where dangerous dogs are located-outlaw pit bulls in Reading. Publish town wish list twice a year and encourage well to do residents to sponsor. Examples” th computers for schools and all public departments, decorations for the square, 4 of July celebrations. Teach dancing in Grades K-9 together with social graces. Windmills-is this energy possible for Reading? Why Walgreen’s-whatever happened to the downtown steering committee formed years ago? 163 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 152 of 199 A-2 ADDITIONAL TOWN INPUT MEMORANDUM Date: April 3, 2006 To: MPAC CC: From: Chris Reilly, Town Planner RE: N OTES FROM MPAC PRESENTATION TO BOS Notes from the 10.18 MPAC Presentation to the BOS: BOS Comments: The FinComm meets every Wednesday and would be receptive to an ongoing dialogue with the MPAC to establish the potential fiscal impact from Master Plan Action Items. The MPAC should have a Recreation Committee member given the numerous Actions Items that involve public and private recreation programs and facilities. The MPAC should be commended for their dedication and exhaustive effort toward updating the plan. The Selectmen-specific Action Items need updated deadlines. The Services and Facilities chapter should not include specific reference to the 10 Year Capital Plan given the need for fiscal flexibility during difficult budgetary cycles. The effort to solicit public input through the survey should be as extensive as possible and include Town Meeting; surveys should be made accessible at the Senior Center, public library and hearings. The collaboration between the BOS and CPDC regarding implementation of the Master Plan is critical-every effort should be made to facilitate and maintain this process through frequent reporting and assessment. Mobility and accessibility issues regarding our aging population should be given more scrutiny. Protections and mitigation for abutters and neighborhoods from the impact of 40Bs should be paramount. The Cities for Climate Protection Taskforce supports and applauds the efforts of the MPAC and would welcome any involvement in the Master Plan process. 164 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 153 of 199 165 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 154 of 199 A-3 MASTER PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES (SUBSEQUENT TO EO-418 COMMUNITY PLAN ADOPTION) Date: December 19, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis (GK), Virginia Adams (VA), John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Janet Allen (JA), Jack Russell (JR), Neil Sullivan (NS), Chris Reilly (CR) Agenda & Discussion (1) MPAC Survey Results The Committee reviewed the summary text provided by JS and the accompanying color coded table from GK. We agreed simply to reference the individual comments collected from the survey (summarized by CR) in an appendix. Minor comments and updates were made to the text, which will be inserted into the Implementation chapter as its own section. GK took the remaining action to finalize the table of results which will also be placed in the appendix (with a note for how the rankings were performed). (2) Services and Facilities Goal Introductions and Action Strategies A final version of the S+F Goal Introductions were presented and reviewed. Action strategies were presented for two of the four priority objectives; these will be incorporated into the implementation chapter. CR took the action to obtain the remaining action strategies from Jane F. and Ben T. as well as update the Executive Summary to include these four new priority objectives. (3) General Review of Implementation and Conclusion Chapters The Committee reviewed the final versions of these two chapters as modified by previous comments and including the updated/final “Aligning Actions” section in the conclusion. The Implementation Chapter will still require updating once the action strategies for the two remaining priority objectives are submitted. (4) Other Comments and Cities for Climate Protection Program (CCP) The committee received a memo from the newly formed CCP committee with a set of comments to the Master Plan. The MP Committee reviewed these comments and where appropriate made modifications and/or incorporated these comments directly. There were, however, a number of comments related to concepts of “sustainability” and “low impact re-development.” The MP Committee was concerned that these concepts were explicitly clear and generated much debate. In the end, the MP Committee agreed to communicate their concerns back to the CCP and suggest that once the CCP has an opportunity to define its own goals and objectives more clearly, it may then be appropriate to approach the BOS and CPDC and request incorporation of specific 166 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 155 of 199 goals and/or objectives to the Master Plan (which will continue to be a living document updated over time). GK took the action to communicate this message back to the CCP. The MP Committee also identified other comments that needed to be incorporated to the final Master Plan, including (1) ensuring that action strategies and steps are removed from goal/objective statements in all other chapters (other than implementation), (2) to address the Compost and Recycling services in the Services and Facilities chapter, (3) make additional format updates based on feedback from GK. Action Items (1) GK to finalize the Survey Results table for an appendix. (2) CR to obtain action strategies for remaining two priority objectives from Ben T. and Jane F. (3) CR to update Executive Summary with four new priority objectives from S+F Chapter. (4) GK to communicate feedback from the MP Committee review of comments to the CCP. (5) CR to make final updates to MP per all of the above comments including incorporate of rd suggested formatting from GK. Prepare MP for adoption at January 23 CPDC Meeting th and available as a final document at January 9 meeting. End of Year MPAC Meetings/Schedule 11/30/05: All Questionnaires due 12/5/05: MPAC meeting at 7:30pm in Town Hall Conference Room Finalize all MP Sections Specific review of Services and Facilities Goals and Objectives Specific review of Implementation Action Strategies AND DATES 12/12/05: MPAC meeting at the beginning of CPDC meeting (7-8 pm) Review results of Questionnaire (as documented by CR) Ensure all Final Maps are in place Ensure all comments from prior meeting have been incorporated 12/19/05: MPAC meeting at 7:30pm in Town Hall Conference Room Make and final modifications to MP (and action strategies) based on Questionnaire feedback Prepare MP for CPDC Adoption in January 2006 167 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 156 of 199 Date: December 12, 2005 Time:7:00 pm Place:Police Station Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis (GK), Virginia Adams (VA), John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Janet Allen (JA), Peter Smargon (PS), Jack Russell (JR), Neil Sullivan (NS), Chris Reilly (CR) Agenda & Discussion (5) MPAC Survey Results CR had provided the committee with a spreadsheet displaying the results from the MPAC Survey. Approximately 110 responses were obtained. The committee discussed the approach for summarizing the results and providing a user friendly method for communicating the positive nature in a more pictorial representation. RH, GK, JS and CR all took actions to work on completing the summary for the Implementation chapter and attachments to be included in the Appendix of the MP. (6) Services and Facilities Goal Introductions JS and GK had provided the committee with drafts of these introductions and we reviewed them at the meeting. Comments were made and GK took the action to update the introductions as well as provide a re-write for goal #6. (7) Implementation Chapter Format and Priority Actions RH presented the final version of the Implementation chapter and the committee agreed upon the final format as presented. Of the four remaining priority objectives (from the Services and Facilities Section), two of the objectives have been translated into action strategies, the remaining two are still due (from Ben T. and CR). We agreed to separate out the Board of Selectman (BOS) actions from the list and present them this update at the January 3, 2006 BOS meeting. (8) Miscellaneous GK presented a final update to the Conclusion chapter and the committee made some minor suggestions and edits. In addition the committee received a letter from the Recreation committee supporting the MPAC efforts and re-enforcing the objectives for more recreational space in the town. We agreed to include this letter in the MP Appendix. RH also heard from the Finance Committee and is prepared to meet with them on December 21, 2005. Action Items (6) RH to perform an analysis of the survey results and present a numeric ranking scale (12/19/05) (7) GK to take the numerical survey analysis and turn that into a color coded pictorial presentation (12/19/05) (8) CR to document miscellaneous survey comments for inclusion into an Appendix (12/19/05) 168 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 157 of 199 (9) JS to summarize results for a section in the Implementation Chapter (12/19/05) (10) GK to update Service and Facility Goal Introductions including rewrite for Goal #6. (12/19/05) (11) CR and Ben T. to submit action strategies for remaining two priority objectives (12/19/05) (12) GK to make final edits to Conclusion Chapter and send to CR (12/19/05) (13) RH to meet with Finance Committee on December 21, 2005 at 7:30pm End of Year MPAC Meetings/Schedule 11/30/05: All Questionnaires due 12/5/05: MPAC meeting at 7:30pm in Town Hall Conference Room Finalize all MP Sections Specific review of Services and Facilities Goals and Objectives Specific review of Implementation Action Strategies AND DATES 12/12/05: MPAC meeting at the beginning of CPDC meeting (7-8 pm) Review results of Questionnaire (as documented by CR) Ensure all Final Maps are in place Ensure all comments from prior meeting have been incorporated 12/19/05: MPAC meeting at 7:30pm in Town Hall Conference Room Make and final modifications to MP (and action strategies) based on Questionnaire feedback Prepare MP for CPDC Adoption in January 2006 Date: December 5, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis (GK), Virginia Adams (VA), John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Janet Allen (JA), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Peter Smargon (PS), Jack Russell (JR), Neil Sullivan (NS), Chris Reilly (CR), Ben Tafoya (BT) Agenda & Discussion (9) Review of Services and Facilities Goals and Objectives The committee performed a detailed review of the individual objectives as proposed by JS and GR. Specific comments and suggestions were made and agreed upon. The committee also defined four of the objectives as priority and will therefore require action strategies to be defined for each and then incorporated into the implementation chapter. JS and GR also began drafting introductory paragraphs for each goal (consistent with the other chapters). A draft of these will be provided for review in time for our meeting next week. (10) Review of Updated Implementation Chapter Format and Content 169 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 158 of 199 Having agreed upon a final format for the chapter, the committee turned to defining realistic action dates for each of the priority action strategies. We completed this exercise and agreed to pull out the Board of Selectmen actions and dates for their final review. Three items remain for this chapter. The first is to include a section on the survey results. CR agreed to have information available at our next meeting for review. Second, GK took the action to provide additional wording for action strategy 1 of Character and Identity Objective 1B. Finally, the chapter needs to be updated to include the Service and Facilities priority objectives. (11) Review of Political Landscape section of Conclusion Chapter This section is still in process. GK will have an update for our next meeting. Action Items (14) GK and JS to finalized draft introductions to the 6 major Service and Facility Chapter goals (12/12/05) (15) GK to provide a draft of the new “Political Landscape” conclusion section to committee for review by 12/12/05. (16) CR to send out updated set of Service and Facility Objectives based on meeting tonight (12/12/05). (17) RH, CR, JS and BT to provide draft action strategies for identified and assigned priority Service and Facilities objectives (12/12/05) (18) CR to provide survey result information to the committee in preparation for next meeting. End of Year MPAC Meetings/Schedule 11/30/05: All Questionnaires due 12/5/05: MPAC meeting at 7:30pm in Town Hall Conference Room Finalize all MP Sections Specific review of Services and Facilities Goals and Objectives Specific review of Implementation Action Strategies AND DATES 12/12/05: MPAC meeting at the beginning of CPDC meeting (7-8 pm) Review results of Questionnaire (as documented by CR) Ensure all Final Maps are in place Ensure all comments from prior meeting have been incorporated 12/19/05: MPAC meeting at 7:30pm in Town Hall Conference Room Make and final modifications to MP (and action strategies) based on Questionnaire feedback Prepare MP for CPDC Adoption in January 2006 170 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 159 of 199 Date: November 7, 2005 Time:8:00 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis (GK), Virginia Adams (VA), Susan DeMatteo (SD) John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Janet Allen (JA), Jonathan Barnes (JB) Agenda & Discussion (12) Review of Services and Facilities Goals and Objectives GK and JS presented a draft of the updated Goals and Objectives for this chapter. Initially JS was concerned whether or not the MP should use a set of goals and objectives consistent with those adopted by the Town Manager and BOS. However, after further discussion it was agreed that while the overarching goals make sense to be consistent, the objectives can (and should be) somewhat different to reflect the broader aspect of the MP and the potentially longer horizon. The committee will review this document and be prepared with comments at our next meeting. In the meantime, JS and GK will draft introductory wording for each goal. (13) Review of Updated Implementation Chapter Format RH provided an update of the Implementation chapter including a reformat of the priority action strategy section. The committee provided a few specific comments (such as making sure the action strategy statements are consistent with the table and stated using action verbs) and discussed a few formatting recommendations. RH will incorporate the comments and provide to the committee (and Chris Reilly) for incorporation into the final draft. (14) Review of Political Landscape section of Conclusion Chapter This section is still in process. GK will have an update for our next meeting. (15) Review of all Action Strategies in Implementation Chapter We were not able to complete this effort. The committee agreed to review these along with assigning dates at our next meeting. (16) Dry Run of Town Meeting Presentation RH presented his section of the presentation to the committee. For the Services and Facilities section we agreed to change the priority action slide to just list the 6 overall goals and state that we are in the process of finalizing the priority action strategy(s). Additional minor comments were made but overall the presentation is in great shape and the committee will be ready to support Town Meeting next Monday. (17) Determine if we need to present at any other Town Boards (feedback from CR Email?) CR followed-through on his action to provide all the boards, committees and commissions with copies of the MP questionnaire, the executive summary, and an offer for someone from the MPAC to meet and discuss the MP. RH stated that he will personally contact the Finance Committee in an effort to address an action from the BOS presentation. 171 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 160 of 199 Action Items (19) GK and JS to draft introduction to the 6 major Service and Facility Chapter goals (12/5/05) (20) GK to provide a draft of the new “Political Landscape” conclusion section to committee for review by 11/30/05. (21) RH to contact the Finance Committee and schedule a time for him to meet with them to discuss the MP. (11/30/05) (22) RH to update the Implementation Chapter based on feedback from the Committee (11/30/05) (23) MPAC members to review the details of the action strategies found in the Implementation chapter in preparation for a review on 12/5/05. (24) JS to send out draft Service and Facility Goals and Objectives to the Committee (11/8/05) 5. End of Year MPAC Meetings/Schedule 11/30/05: All Questionnaires due 12/5/05: MPAC meeting at 7:30pm in Town Hall Conference Room Finalize all MP Sections Specific review of Services and Facilities Goals and Objectives Specific review of Implementation Action Strategies AND DATES 12/12/05: MPAC meeting at the beginning of CPDC meeting (7-8 pm) Review results of Questionnaire (as documented by CR) Ensure all Final Maps are in place Ensure all comments from prior meeting have been incorporated 12/19/05: MPAC meeting at 7:30pm in Town Hall Conference Room Make and final modifications to MP (and action strategies) based on Questionnaire feedback Prepare MP for CPDC Adoption in January 2006 Date: October 17, 2005 Time:7:00 pm Place:Town Hall Selectman’s Meeting Room Attendees: George Katsoufis (GK), Virginia Adams (VA), Jack Russell (JR), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Chris Reilly (CR), Neil Sullivan (NS), John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Janet Allen (JA) Agenda & Discussion (1) Review presentation schedule and ensure assignments are made for remaining groups. 172 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 161 of 199 We discussed the approach for reaching out to the remaining boards and organizations, including sending out a copy of the presentation, questionnaire and offering to attend one of their upcoming meetings. (2) Review Implementation and Conclusion Chapters based on updates and comments made. CR provided an updated document to the committee for review. It is still missing the Natural and Cultural resources priority objective discussion, and some additional changes were discussed including the need to finalize the “Political Landscape” section in the conclusion. The section summarizing survey results will be added after all the survey’s are in, and the committee agreed that we should wait until after Town Meeting to work on updating the dates for action items. (3) Discuss results of meeting with Town Manager and impact to Services and Facilities. GK, CR, and JS met with the Town Manager on 10/17/05 to discuss his concerns with the current approach to the Services and Facilities section. We agreed upon a rationale for improving the goals and objectives and aligning them better with Town Priorities and broad values and issues for the Town. (4) Review Questionnaire feedback to date. CR indicated that we have received well over 100 surveys back from the residents. Additional copies will be distributed (along with the Executive Summary) to town meeting members, and we are going to attempt to get a copy of it into the Advocate (it was already included in the Chronicle). GK and JA volunteered to spend a morning at Atlantic handing out surveys as well. (5) Discuss Upcoming Town Meeting Presentation th We are set for presentation to Town Meeting on November 14. We are planning to have a table setup outside of the auditorium with a place to drop off surveys and ask questions. The plan is to arrive between 6:30 and 6:45pm. CR will ensure we get a table. (6) Discuss BOS Comments from MPAC presentation We reviewed the summary notes that CR drafted from this meeting. Some of the actions (discussed above and listed below) are results of these comments. Action Items (25) GK and JS to update the Service and Facility Chapter goals and objectives and present to MPAC at 11/7/05 meeting (26) GK to provide a draft of the new “Political Landscape” conclusion section to committee for review by 11/1/05 (27) CR to send out email notice to other Town committees informing them of the MPAC efforts, including a copy of the presentation, executive summary and questionnaire. We will offer to attend one of their upcoming meetings, and at a minimum hope they will provide us with feedback in the form of completed questionnaires. CR will also make a concerted effort to get on the ConsCom agenda as well. (28) CR to update the Implementation Chapter to include the Natural and Cultural resources priority objectives in the text and table and provide to RH. (29) RH to review the Implementation chapter formatting and provide a final update to MPAC by 11/1/05. 173 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 162 of 199 (30) RH to draft letter to the editor (Advocate) for Master Plan activities and request they include the Questionnaire in the paper. (31) JA and GK to stand out in front of Atlantic on a Saturday AM and hand out questionnaires (do you need to get permission from Atlantic??) (32) RH to contact the Recreation committee and ask that they nominate a member to participate on the MPAC (33) MPAC members to review the details of the action strategies found in the Implementation chapter in preparation for a review on 11/7/05 (RH to send out update on 11/1/05 above). 5. Next MPAC Meeting – NOTE DATE CHANGE Monday, November 7, 7:30pm, Town Hall Conference Room Topics/Agenda: (18) Review of Services and Facilities Goals and Objectives (19) Review of Updated Implementation Chapter Format (20) Review of Political Landscape section of Conclusion Chapter (21) Review of all Action Strategies in Implementation Chapter (22) Dry Run of Town Meeting Presentation (23) Determine if we need to present at any other Town Boards (feedback from CR Email?) Date: October 3, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees:George Katsoufis (GK), Virginia Adams (VA), Jack Russell (JR), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Chris Reilly (CR), Neil Sullivan (NS), John Sasso (JS) Agenda & Discussion 1. Implementation and Conclusion Chapter The committee reviewed the drafts from John and George for these two last chapters. A few minor editorial and structure comments were made, but by in-large the committee approved of the chapters. Dick had provided a summary of the Priority Objectives Timeline prior to the meeting. We noticed that at least one of the primary chapter priority objectives were missing from the document, but otherwise the format and information seemed to be nicely arranged and would serve as a table in the resulting document. We agreed not to deal with the “due dates” until we had completed the rest of our efforts. The Committee agreed on the final format for these last two chapters as follows: Implementation Chapter Section 1: Criteria and Prioritization Remaining effort in this area is to add the summary of the survey results once final Section 2: Implemenation Plans a) Introductory Paragraph on Format and Assignment b) Listing of the Action Strategies to include the summary table at the end of the section 174 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 163 of 199 Section 3: Fiscal Realities This is the section that George drafted. It will be rewritten to fit at the end of the Implementation section instead of in the Conclusion Conclusion Chapter Section 1: Future Efforts Section 2: Political Will We may need to retitle this section, but essentially we agreed to take another stab at describing the factors that affect the success or failure this master plan. Issues to include are the town stakeholders (Electorate – Town Staff – Town Boards – and of course the people), and other factors such as pending state legislation, etc. George has the action to work on this section. Section 3: Next Master Plan Issuance 2. Presentations The committee discussed the status of the presentations being made to the various boards, committees, town staff and other civic and local organizations. Unfortunately with a limited attendance, we were not able to get a status of all of the planned presentations. This information will be reviewed in detail at our next meeting. We then discussed the feedback from the BOS presentation. We all felt the presentation seemed to be well accepted. One specific action to address is how to revisit the services and facilities chapter given that the direct references to the 10 year capital plan may not be appropriate. The committee decided to meet with the Town Manager to discuss options, including getting a priority list of internal town staff objectives. The rationale is that if the state is serious about using Master Plans as guidance, especially for validating grants, we need to ensure items that may be contingent upon inclusion in the Master Plan are in fact addressed. 4. Action Items (34) Chris to update Master Plan with draft Implementation and Conclusion Chapters (35) George to provide a draft of the new “Political Will” conclusion section to committee for review. (36) John S. and George K. to meeting with Town Manager (with Chris) to discuss Services and Facilities objectives (37) John S. to send email to committee to solicit status of presentations for review at next meeting (38) Chris to update Priority Objective table with missing objectives and actions. (39) CR will check on Map preparation status with GID Coordinator and hopefully have some maps to review for 10.17 5. Next MPAC Meeting Monday, October 17, 7:00-8:00pm, Selectman’s conference room (at beginning of CPDC meeting) Topics/Agenda: Review presentation schedule and ensure assignments are made for remaining groups. Review Implementation and Conclusion Chapters based on updates and comments made. Discuss results of meeting with Town Manager and impact to Services and Facilities. Review Questionnaire feedback to date. Discuss Upcoming Town Meeting Presentation 175 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 164 of 199 Date: September 19, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis (GK), Dick Howard (RH), Virginia Adams (VA), Jack Russell (JR), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Chris Reilly (CR), Pete Smargon (PS), Neil Sullivan (NS), John Sasso (JS) Agenda & Discussion 1. BOS presentation The Committee discussed JB’s presentation on the master plan to the Historical Commission. CR had heard JB did a great job and VA agreed although she noted it will be difficult to keep it within the 30 minutes or so allotted for the BOS presentation. The Committee suggested that GK conduct a dry run to prepare for the presentation. CR had the presentation queued on his laptop and followed along. Various suggestions were made during the course of the dry run where the presentation notes might need some elaboration or condensation. Regarding the follow up CR’s understanding was they would have about an hour and the BOS had been provided with the action items specifically under their responsibility. It was likely there would be some questions from the BOS regarding these action items so he agreed to distribute to GK and the Committee after meeting so they could review. There was some general discussion about what the BOS would be looking for and the Committee suggested keeping the initial background slides to a minimum while focusing on the action items. CR mentioned GK and he had already given them a background and status presentation some time ago so they were familiar with the historical process. There was some concern that the action items had grown dated and the BOS may perceive that their responsibilities are too aggressive given many of them fall on the front end of the Implementation Priority schedule. RH offered to revise the implementation schedule and it will be emphasized to the BOS that there will need to be some last minute adjustments to the Implementation Chapter prior to CPDC adoption to ensure the timeframe is practical. 2. Questionnaire CR has placed the revised questionnaire on the webpage and has provided it and the Executive Summary to presenters for distribution. He has not received any responses, but there are a variety of ways to respond and it was suggested that copies could be provided to the Library and Police Station so people without access to the internet could get a copy should they see the BOS presentation and want to respond. It was agreed that the questionnaire should be distributed right through Town Meeting and Town Meeting members should be given copies so their input can be considered after the Report to subsequent Town Meeting. 3. Presentation and MPAC schedule 176 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 165 of 199 Discussion followed about the presentation schedule and MPAC meeting schedule going forward. Additional meeting dates were scheduled for October 3 at 7:30 and at the CPDC meeting on October 17 at 7:00 PM. The agenda on October 3 will include finalization of the Implementation Chapter. JS commented about the need for a section on conclusions and political will, as previously discussed. He will draft these sections for review on October 3. The presentation schedule was further reviewed; CR had invited the ZBA and Cons Comm to attend the 9.27 CPDC hearing for a presentation. Depending on whether they show another meeting(s) can be scheduled to accommodate them. CR will check with the Town Manager about the availability of the Finance Committee; as he understands it they have been meeting sporadically and usually have full agendas but he will see what can be arranged through the TM. 4. Action Items (40) MPAC to attend BOS presentation on 9.20 at 7:30 PM (41) JS will draft Conclusion and Political Will sections toward completing the Implementation Chapter (42) CR will distribute Memo of BOS action items supplied to the BOS (43) RH will have Priority Implementation Schedule updated for review on 10.3 (44) CR will check on Map preparation status with GID Coordinator and hopefully have some maps to review for 10.3 5. Next MPAC Meeting Monday, October 3, 7:30-9:30pm, Conference Room Topic: Continue Implementation Chapter effort; discuss BOS comments following the 9.20 presentation; review Questionnaire feedback to date All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room Date: September 7, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis (GK), Dick Howard (RH), Virginia Adams (VA), Jack Russell (JR), Ben Tafoya (BT), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Chris Reilly (CR), Pete Smargon (PS) Agenda & Discussion 1. JR’s presentation The Committee discussed Jack Russell’s presentation on the master plan to the Downtown Steering Committee. CR said Jack did a great job and there were only some minor editorial comments on the presentation itself involving the graphics, etc. CR said he would look into getting some better graphics and mentioned that they need to run the presentation off of his personal 177 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 166 of 199 laptop, which is ready to give up the ghost. He asked that the Committee to expect that there may be some technical difficulties with the powerpoint presentation and anyone presenting should be prepared to wing it off the hard copy. Jack offered his on-slide notes for future presentations and CR said he would update the presentation and distribute. 2. Implementation Chapter The Implementation Chapter was reviewed; CR had assembled the draft submissions into one document for distribution and review. He had not received any comments back. As of the meeting he had received chapters on Character and Identity, Housing, Open Space and Transportation. JR and VA presented chapter drafts for review. Each Chapter was reviewed and grammatical and Symantec edits were made. CR pointed out that there were a variety of formats still in play, and although each was exceptional in its own way perhaps a uniform format should be agreed upon. Several others lobbied on behalf of their stellar formats and it was acknowledged that the choice would be difficult with so many outstanding entries. This weighty topic was put off until the Chapters were reviewed. JR noted that many of the action dates were already looming and needed revision. The frequency of action dates early in the implementation process was questioned and it was agreed there would have to be some consideration to a practical timetable. RH noted that the dates reflected the Priority Action list, which was only the first stage in the overall implementation. Implementation of several Priority Action items was already underway, such as the downtown mixed-use zoning. As previously discussed the intent was to have a periodic evaluation of the implementation efforts by the CPDC so that new priority action items could be identified and engaged as existing ones were achieved or revised. However, the draft implementation chapter was becoming dated so it was agreed that the action dates would receive a final review once the Chapter was finalized. As an example GR commented that some of the action items in the Housing chapter were already substantially completed so they should be removed. The rest of the Implementation chapters were reviewed and it was agreed that CR would edit and finalize the draft for review at the next meeting on September 19. CR requested that VA and JR send the electronic versions of the hard copy they had submitted to the Committee so he could incorporate into the Chapter. 3. Action Items (45) CR to update the Implementation Chapter (46) CR to finalize presentation with notes for distribution (47) MPAC to finalize Implementation sections 4. Next MPAC Meeting Monday, September 19th, 7:30-9:30pm, Conference Room Topic: Continue Implementation Chapter effort, prepare for BOS presentation the following evening (9.20) and discuss presenters and presentation schedule. All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 178 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 167 of 199 Date: September 6, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis (GK), Dick Howard (RH), Virginia Adams (VA), Jack Russell (JR), Ben Tafoya (BT), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Chris Reilly (CR), Pete Smargon (PS) Agenda & Discussion 1. JR’s presentation The Committee discussed Jack Russell’s presentation on the master plan to the Downtown Steering Committee. CR said Jack did a great job and there were only some minor editorial comments on the presentation itself involving the graphics, etc. CR said he would look into getting some better graphics and mentioned that they need to run the presentation off of his personal laptop, which is ready to give up the ghost. He asked that the Committee to expect that there may be some technical difficulties with the powerpoint presentation and anyone presenting should be prepared to wing it off the hard copy. Jack offered his on-slide notes for future presentations and CR said he would update the presentation and distribute. 2. Implementation Chapter The Implementation Chapter was reviewed; CR had assembled the draft submissions into one document for distribution and review. He had not received any comments back. As of the meeting he had received chapters on Character and Identity, Housing, Open Space and Transportation. JR and VA presented chapter drafts for review. Each Chapter was reviewed and grammatical and Symantec edits were made. CR pointed out that there were a variety of formats still in play, and although each was exceptional in its own way perhaps a uniform format should be agreed upon. Several others lobbied on behalf of their stellar formats and it was acknowledged that the choice would be difficult with so many outstanding entries. This weighty topic was put off until the Chapters were reviewed. JR noted that many of the action dates were already looming and needed revision. The frequency of action dates early in the implementation process was questioned and it was agreed there would have to be some consideration to a practical timetable. RH noted that the dates reflected the Priority Action list, which was only the first stage in the overall implementation. Implementation of several Priority Action items was already underway, such as the downtown mixed-use zoning. As previously discussed the intent was to have a periodic evaluation of the implementation efforts by the CPDC so that new priority action items could be identified and engaged as existing ones were achieved or revised. However, the draft implementation chapter was becoming dated so it was agreed that the action dates would receive a final review once the Chapter was finalized. As an example GR commented that some of the action items in the Housing chapter were already substantially completed so they should be removed. 179 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 168 of 199 The rest of the Implementation chapters were reviewed and it was agreed that CR would edit and finalize the draft for review at the next meeting on September 19. CR requested that VA and JR send the electronic versions of the hard copy they had submitted to the Committee so he could incorporate into the Chapter. 3. Action Items (48) CR to update the Implementation Chapter (49) CR to finalize presentation with notes for distribution (50) MPAC to finalize Implementation sections 4. Next MPAC Meeting Monday, September 19th, 7:30-9:30pm, Conference Room Topic: Continue Implementation Chapter effort, prepare for BOS presentation the following evening (9.20) and discuss presenters and presentation schedule. All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room Date:August 29, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: Dick Howard, George Katsoufis, Virginia Adams, Jack Russell, Neil Sullivan, Chris Reilly, Janet Allen and Tim Kelly. Agenda & Discussion (1) Presentation Schedule The following persons agreed to contact the remaining entities in the list, to schedule a presentation within September: Tim Kelly: Housing Authority, Rotary Club Janet Allen: EMAR th It was reiterated that the full MPAC should attend the September 20 presentation of the Plan to the Board of Selectmen, that Chris Reilly and George Katsoufis will conduct on behalf of the MPAC. (2) Presentation The final set of slides for the presentation were prepared by Chris Reilly prior to the meeting. A set of questions/clarifications were offered to Jack by the group, in light of his 8-30-05 presentation to the Downtown Steering Committee. Jack conducted a dry-run of his presentation, which also included a short recap of what the CPA provides, when it was put to the Town ballot and the percentage of tax levy that is suggested (1%). Jack was timed at 22 minutes and everyone congratulated him for an energetic, all-round presentation. 180 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 169 of 199 (3) Action Items Dick to assemble action items from Chapter authors and, with the assistance of Chris Reilly, to distribute to MPAC for review and discussion for the next meeting. It was agreed that since several MPAC members are using their professional email accounts in this group, information should be exchanged on Thursdays at the latest. This will allow those individuals enough time to review the material in the weekend. (4) Next MPAC Meeting th Monday, September 6, 7:30-9:30pm, Conference Room Topic: Assess Jack’s Presentation, Continue Implementation Chapter Effort. All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room Date:August 15, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees:George Katsoufis (GK), Dick Howard (RH), Virginia Adams (VA), Jack Russell (JR), Neil Sullivan (NS), Ben Tafoya (BT), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Chris Reilly (CR). Agenda & Discussion (5) Questionnaire The majority of the meeting was focused on reviewing the updated questionnaire provided by RH by email. Several format items were reviewed and grammatical errors were addressed. On Question #12 it was agreed “various” would replace “employee” On Question #21 “family restaurants” will replace “extended” On Question #6 there was a discussion on the distinction between new development, i.e. subdivision vs. existing residential. The intent was to solicit opinion on both. RH said Question #6 gets at architecture and compatibility of surroundings, i.e. mansionization, while Question #16 gets at diversity if homes. JB noted it comes down to definition of mansionization. On Question #8 “open spaces” was replaced with “these locations.” Question #10 was reworded: “Town-wide plan to address parking issues and various locations…” The rest of the questionnaire was reviewed and minor amendments were made. (6) Presentation Discussion about the Master Plan draft presentation followed. The slides prepared by John Sasso were reviewed and some consistent language was agreed on. George asked whether we should have specific action items in the presentation, or handouts. Dick said that the presentation was meant to review the overall progress and cater to the relevant audience-emphasizing the particular focus of the group, e.g. “Natural Resources” for the Conservation Commission. It was agreed that the general approach honed for the layman was to be utilized and jargon avoided. 181 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 170 of 199 Dick suggested cutting out multiple “Action” slides, instead having one to refer to as an example. For clarity the slide entitled “Objective” was changed to “Purpose.” It was agreed terms like “stakeholders” are vague jargon to be avoided in the slide, but the presenter could have more detailed terms available in the notes or handouts to elaborate on. Background 1991 master plan needed updating Commonwealth encouraged planning State grant was utilized for consultant to develop community development plan MPAC plan and developed goals, objectives and priority action plans The “Role for Town/Boards” slide was discussed; there was concern about the legal emphasis of the statement. There was lengthy discussion about the use or legal standing of the Master Plan vs. its stand- alone authority; perhaps a distinction without a difference. CR noted the Selectmen had specifically asked about the practical applications of the Master Plan so CR had emphasized its use as legal implement. Nonetheless it was agreed the statement should be simplified and the second bullet would be dropped. The “Vision Statement” was maintained given agreement that it was the guiding rationale for the exercise and provided a good overview. The slide entitled “Plan’s Structure” was deleted because it was determined it was probably not relevant. The slides will be presented with an element heading, e.g. “Character and Identity,” and will show objectives. The various elements were reviewed and the language was amended to be simpler, with less bullets. This was continued through each slide in the presentation, concluding with “Tying it All Together” and “Next Steps.” It was decided the former slide will include an excerpt from the Executive Summary. CR agreed to find a suitable presentation background and various appropriate graphics; BT suggested a good template called “Stream.” CR discussed the proposed presentation dates he had generated based on upcoming civic and board meetings. The plan would be to present a first draft to the Town Staff (completed earlier in th the day on August 15). Some dates were amended and presenters assigned, namely JR for the 8.30 DSC meeting and JB for the 9.13 Historical Commission meeting. At the time of presentation the recommendation is to distribute the Questionnaire to the attendees. The final set of slides for the presentation will be revised and updated prior to distribution. 3. Action Items (51) CR to update the Questionnaire for distribution (52) CR to finalize presentation for MPAC review (53) MPAC to finalize and distribute Implementation sections for review 4. Next MPAC Meeting th Monday, August 29, 7:30-9:30pm, Conference Room Topic: Review Presentation, Continue Implementation Chapter Effort All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 182 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 171 of 199 Date:August 1, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, John Sasso, Dick Howard, Virginia Adams, Jack Russell, Neil Sullivan, Peter Smargon, Ben Tafoya, Janet Allen, Jonathan Barnes, Susan DeMateo, Chris Reilly Agenda & Discussion (7) Questionnaire The majority of the meeting was focused on reviewing the updated questionnaire provided by Dick Howard prior to the meeting. Many of the comments were targeted to provide clear information for the targeted audience, although some of the edits may need to be incorporated back into the original objectives that were reflected in the questions. Dick will provide an updated questionnaire to the MPAC. (8) Presentation A number of members provided inputs to the list of presentations, with Chris Reilly adding proposed dates based on upcoming civic and board meetings. The plan would be to present a th first draft to the Town Staff (at the Design Review Team meeting scheduled for August 15). At the time of presentation the recommendation is to distribute the questionnaire to the attendees. An initial set of slides for the presentation have been drafted and will be distributed along with these minutes to the team for review. Action Items (54) Dick Howard to update the Questionnaire and distribute to the MPAC (55) John Sasso to send out draft presentation to MPAC for review (56) Chris Reilly to present first draft of MPAC presentation (and Executive Summary) to DRT on August 15. Next MPAC Meeting th Monday, August 15, 7:30-9:30pm, Conference Room Topic: Review Presentation – Assign individuals for Contacting and Presentation, Continue Implementation Chapter Effort All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room Date:July 18, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees:George Katsoufis, John Sasso, Dick Howard, Virginia Adams, Jack Russell, Neil Sullivan, Peter Smargon, Ben Tafoya 183 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 172 of 199 Agenda & Discussion (9) Executive Summary Review A detailed review of the recent Executive Summary draft was performed at the meeting. The comments were documented and will be updated into the draft by George. A few other actions were taken to help facilitate the completion of this chapter. (10) Questionnaire The Committee reviewed the draft questionnaire and at least decided what the scope and objective of this effort should be (to validate the priority goals and objectives selected). The list of priority objectives was reviewed and the committee identified those that should be queried as part of the questionnaire. Actions were assigned to individuals to develop appropriate questions. (11) Presentation and Contacts A draft list of organizations/committees that are targeted for a Master Plan presentation was distributed. The committee is asked to review the list and provide a contact name and number for each to Dick Howard. John S. will begin a first draft of the presentation and at the next meeting we can begin to assign individuals responsible to contact and present to the various organizations. Action Items (57) John S. email George Edits to the first paragraph of section 3 in Executive Summary and a new draft of the Services and Facilities Summary (58) Chris R. to circulate Services and Facilities Chapter to other Town Departments for input. (59) Assigned individuals to provide draft questions regarding selected objectives to Dick Howard. (60) Committee to decide where in plan the Vision Statement belongs (61) Committee to provide Dick Howard with contact names and numbers for listing of other organizations for MP presentation. (62) John S. to draft outline of presentation from Executive Summary Next MPAC Meeting st Monday, August 1, 7:30-9:30pm, Conference Room Topic: Review Questionnaire, Review Presentation Outline and Schedule – Assign individuals for Contacting and Presentation, Continue Implementation Chapter Effort All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room Date: July 11, 2005 Time:7:00 pm Place:Selectmen's Hearing Room Attendees:George Katsoufis, John Sasso, Dick Howard, Virginia Adams, Jack Russell, Neil Sullivan, Ben Tafoya, Chris Reilly 184 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 173 of 199 Agenda & Discussion (12) Draft Executive Summary The draft versions of the Executive Summary section were discussed. The draft is a work in progress and John and George have been compiling based on the conceptual framework agreed to on 6.20 as follows: a) The Document and Process (updated prioritized goals, vision/criteria, etc) – John S. b) Tying it all together – George K. c) Next Steps - TBD There was discussion about the slightly different approaches John and George suggest and what format would be best. The distinction revolved around whether the Executive Summary should capture specific elements of chapters or be more general and global about the process and objective criteria, etc. George suggested a concise format dictated by the 5% rule where the section is limited to that ratio of the overall document. With more detailed content is was acknowledged that this rule may need to exceeded but the goal should be to speak to the layman and emphasize what they would look for. George advised inclusion of a table listing the Implementation plans at the end of the Executive Summary, which all thought important. CR thought layman would want to know about the action items and who specifically was responsible for them, so that should be primary. He also suggested that the Executive Summary should have a marketing element to sell the rationale of the process. There was further talk about enhancing the Introduction Section by taking elements out of John's excellent Executive Summary after the adopted ES was completed. It was agreed that John and George would revise the Executive Summary in preparation for review in advance of the next MPAC meeting on July 18. Discussion continued about Dick's schedule of MPAC activities leading up to adoption of the plan by CPDC and the status of various milestones. CR went over the action items in the 6.20 minutes and reviewed the progress status of each. Discussion followed about the preparation of the survey and various web documents. CR indicated he was working on a Master Plan web page now that he had arranged for more space on the Town server and the overall draft had been brought current. Accounting of the 6.20 meeting about the need to obtain additional public input and feedback continued and it was reiterated that the objective at this point should be to validate the priority goals and objectives, as well as get input on the document as written. George has some ideas on the survey and will polish for review in in July and August and it was affirmed it should be ready to distribute in September. Dick suggested taking 20 odd priorities and asking whether for responseon continuum, e.g. strongly agrees<>strongly disagrees, etc. John offered 2 questions focused on : (1) validation of chosen priorities; (2) qualitative on how best to get the priority accomplished. The following dates have been confirmed for MPAC meetings in July and August: th July 18 st August 1 th August 15 (13) Implementation Plans The Committee spent some time discussing the draft Implementation Plans developed based on the format agreed to on 6.20: e. Identification of Person, Organization, Town Committee or Staff to be assigned responsibility for the Objective. f. Identification of the Action Steps required to implement objective g. Cost and/or resources required to implement 185 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 174 of 199 h. Time frame – including how long to complete and a recommendation for target date. The implementation plans that have been submitted include: Housing Character and Identity Open Space Dick talked about his format for the Implementation Plans. George initiated discussion about Concord's approach to implementation -with ad-hoc committee ad infinitum. John noted the Selectmen and CPDC are already implementing several priorities and as part of their charter would be largely responsible for much of the ongoing implementation. CR offered that an annual performance report could be compiled, which was standard procedure for most formal, programmatic comprehensive plans required by the Feds, etc. It was agreed that time was running short and the Committee should review the submitted plans for the next meeting while we await more implementation plan sections. Action Items (63) John S. and George K. to finalize drafts of Executive Summary sections in preparation for next meeting – 7/18/05 (64) Chris Reilly to work on draft of MP web page (65) Chapter Authors to complete first cut of “implementation plan” for each prioritized goal (66) CR will check on map preparation by GIS Coordinator (67) CR will review EO 418 CD plan housing section for obsolescence on regional options /programs that might be included in implementation plan Next MPAC Meeting th Monday, July 18, 7:30-9:30pm, Conference Room Topic: Continued review of Executive Summary and Priority Objective Implementation Plans All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room Date:June 20, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, John Sasso, Dick Howard, Virginia Adams, Jack Russell, Chris Reilly, Neil Sullivan, Peter Smargon, Susan DeMatteo, Tim Kelley, Agenda & Discussion (14) Draft Activity Schedule and Meetings in July and August Dick Howard provided the committee with a proposal for remaining MPAC activities leading up to adoption of the plan by CPDC. We discussed the need to obtain additional public input and feedback, at this point the objective would be to validate the priority goals and objectives as well as get input on the document as written. We agreed to work on this survey in July and August and have it ready to distribute in September. We also discussed potential means of administering 186 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 175 of 199 the survey. As part of our objective to maintain open communication with all the stakeholders, we agreed that it was time to put together a more formal Presentation of the MP (as it currently stands) and deliver the presentation to different groups in the town. Our goal is to complete the Executive Summary section (at least to cover the efforts we have performed to date) and use that as an outline for the Presentation. George K. also requested that we begin to think about the requirement for a “web ready” document. Although the preparation of this document is not considered difficult, we will need to identify space on a town server to put the information. The following dates have been proposed for MPAC meetings in July and August: th July 11 (7pm to 8pm as part of the CPDC meeting) th July 18 st August 1 th August 15 (15) Executive Summary The Committee spent some time discussing the current Executive Summary in the draft and agreed that additional work was required in this area. George K. and John S. took actions to work on two aspects of the Executive Summary and have it ready for the next meeting. Conceptually we agreed to a three part executive summary as follows: a) The Document and Process (updated prioritized goals, vision/criteria, etc) – John S. b) Tying it all together – George K. c) Next Steps - TBD (16) Comments to Specific Chapters The Committee entertained a number of comments to specific sections. Virginia Adams had a number of specific comments to the Services and Facilities Chapter and she agreed to provide copies of her mark-ups to Chris directly. The following are additional comments from the committee: Letter from MPAC Delete first two sentences of second paragraph In fifth paragraph, remove the words “highly qualified and” and “selflessly” from the first sentence Economic Development Goals, Objectives and Appendix A. In Objective 1C, the end of the sentence should read, “should also be investigated.” Deleted Goal 2E Edits to the introductory paragraph to Goal 3 as follows: change the word “poor” to “varied”, remove the word “dalipated”, and reword the last sentence to read “It represents an opportunity for future economic development.” Goal 4 should read “Recognize small commercial nodes in neighborhoods.” Move the introductory paragraph for Goal 5 before the goal. In Appendix A, second sub-bullet of the third bullet, change the sentence to read, “Depending upon the outcome of the I-93/95 studies, this area may become less desirable for residential use and may have more potential for economic development.” In Appendix A, fourth bullet, change the end of the sentence to read, “The portion along the street is a mixed retail development.” In Appendix A, fifth bullet, change the sentence to read, “General Way (128 Marketplace) – Approved for mixed retail and grocery store. Implementation TBD. (17) Chapter Priorities 187 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 176 of 199 Having agreed to a list of 22 odd priority objectives in the MP, the group must now define explicit implementation/action plans for each of them. The recommendation is to have the original chapter authors take a first cut at providing the following information for each of the priority objectives: i. Identification of Person, Organization, Town Committee or Staff to be assigned responsibility for the Objective. j. Identification of the Action Steps required to implement objective k. Cost and/or resources required to implement l. Time frame – including how long to complete and a recommendation for target date m. Other organizations or individuals to include in the process A listing of those chapters, the priority objectives and chapter authors can be found below: Chapter Priority Chapter Author(s) Goals/Objectives Character and Identity 1B, 2D John S, Jonathan B Housing2A&2B(to combine), 1B, Janet A, George K, Dick 5AH, Tim A. Economic Development 2A, 3A, 3B Peter S, Jack R. Natural and Cultural Resources 1A, 2B, 3A, 7A Susan D, Chris R., Virginia A. Open Space and Recreation 1C, 2D, 3C, 4A, 4B Chris R. Transportation1B, 4B, 5C/6B Neil S, Steve Services and Facilities AllJohn S. Action Items (68) Chris Reilly to reserve room for planned July and August meetings and include the th MPAC working session into the July 11 CPDC Agenda (69) John S. and George K. to write up drafts of Executive Summary sections in preparation for next meeting – 7/8/05 (70) Chris Reilly to identify town server space for a web version of the MP (71) Chapter Authors to complete first cut of “implementation plan” for each prioritized goal. (72) Virginia Adams to provide Chris R. with copy of her mark-ups to Services and Facilities Chapter (73) Next MPAC Meeting th Monday, July 11, 7-8pm at the CPDC meeting Topic: Review of Executive Summary and Priority Objective Implementation Plans All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 188 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 177 of 199 Date:June 6, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, John Sasso, Dick Howard, Jonathan Barnes, Virginia Adams, Chris Reilly, Jack Russell, Neil Sullivan, Ben Tafoya Agenda & Discussion The focus of this meeting was to identify the priority goals and objectives in each of the chapters. The following lists the results of that effort by chapter. Chapter Priority Goals/Objectives Character and Identity 1B, 2D Housing2A&2B(to combine), 1B, 5A Economic Development 2A, 3A, 3B Natural and Cultural Resources 1A, 2B, 3A, 7A Open Space and Recreation 1C, 2D, 3C, 4A, 4B Transportation1B, 4B, 5C/6B Services and Facilities TBD Action Items (74) Chris Reilly to provide updated draft of Plan for the committee prior to next meeting – 6/17/05 (75) George K. to write up introduction for each goal in the Character and Identity section – 6/15/05 (76) Renumber goals (Chris R.) and objectives in the Housing section to be consistent with rest of document – 6/17/05 (77) Jack to provide final comments on the Economic Development section (based on changes) to Chris R. – 6/20/05 (78) George to Email John S. prioritization section – 6/20/05 (79) John S. to propose means to status all objectives in Plan and in particular in the Implementation chapter – 6/20/05 Next MPAC Meeting Monday, June 20 Topic: Final reviews of Chapters (including Services and Facilities), discussion of Implementation section. All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 189 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 178 of 199 Date:May 16, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, John Sasso, Dick Howard, Peter Smargon, Jonathan Barnes, Virginia Adams, Chris Reilly, Susan DeMatteo, Janet Allen, Jack Russell, Neil Sullivan Agenda & Discussion (1) Character and Identity The committee reviewed the most recent version of the Character and Identity chapter. A number of comments were made and suggested changes will be incorporated to the document by Chris Reilly. We also reviewed the goals and objectives for the section. Peter S. agreed to provide a recommendation for the last goal (school related). (2) Services and Facilities We were unable to provide a detailed review of this chapter. It will be incorporated into the next full draft, and Chris Reilly agreed to update the chapter (much of the information is out of date). The chapter as written was put together consistent with the outline from our last working meeting. Action Items (80) Chris Reilly to provide updated draft (with all chapters) on the web for the committee to review – 5/20/05 (81) Committee to provide comments back to Chris on document by 5/24/05 (82) George K. to provide committee with Excel sheet to use for prioritization of goals and objectives 5/24/05 (83) Committee to provide prioritization recommendations to Chris R. 6/2/05 Next MPAC Meeting Monday, June 6 Topic: Goals and Objective Prioritization of remaining chapters All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 190 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 179 of 199 Date:April 4, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, John Sasso, Dick Howard, Peter Smargon, Jonathan Barnes, Virginia Adams, Chris Reilly, Susan DeMatteo Agenda & Discussion The committee reviewed the status of comments from last meeting as well as the Housing Chapter. - Natural and Cultural Resources: Susan will incorporate comments and then distribute to the committee - Open Space and Recreation: Discussed comments, agreed to add in table George provided, modified one of the comments (b-iii) to read as follows “The Town has continued to negotiate for private developer contributions to open space and recreation facilities as deemed appropriate on a project by project basis”, and agreed to reword comment (b-v) to reflect the demographics that the shift was toward more younger children, not necessarily younger families. - Transportation: Chris and George agreed to work with the town to update the average daily traffic counts that have been collected over the last few years either by the town directly or via developer traffic studies (and compare it to the data in the previous report). We also agreed to add a statement about commuter parking in the local downtown neighborhoods. - Economic Development: George agreed to add wording to finding C to address the issue of changing economic landscape and the need to create a Economic Development Commission. - General Format: The committee agreed that findings should be included in the body of each chapter (not as a separate section at the end) but also segregated so that they are visually queued. Authors agreed to review their sections to ensure this was the case. - Housing: Although not reviewed last week, the committee reviewed the chapter this week and essentially agreed that since this chapter was almost exactly as taken from the recent Community Development plan, there were no major issues with the chapter. The only question raised was how to capture what is stated in the Analysis and tie it to the goals of the chapter. th The committee agreed to cancel the April 19 MPAC. Instead, the CPDC meeting next week (April 11) would include a MPAC working session so that we can focus on the two remain chapters: (1) Character and Identity and (2) Services and Facilities. Next MPAC Meeting Monday, May 16h Topic: Goal Prioritization of remaining chapters All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 191 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 180 of 199 Date:March 21, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, John Sasso, Janet Allen, Jack Russell, Peter Smargon, Chris Reilly Jonathan Barnes, Roberta Sullivan, Virginia Adams Agenda & Discussion (2) Schedule for Next Three Months This meeting was the last meeting that we had officially scheduled thus far. Therefore, we first identified dates for meetings over the next three months. Those dates are as follows: Monday, April 4, 2005 Tuesday, April 19, 2005 Monday, May 16, 2005 Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Monday, June 6, 2005 Monday, June 20, 2005 (3) Chapter Reviews At the last meeting we agreed to halt the prioritization process until we were able to make one “last” pass through each chapter to ensure the background and analysis sections were accurate and complete. This meeting focused on three of those chapters. Comments for each are listed below. The action is for the chapter author to review and incorporate the changes into their section and then resend to Chris and John. a. Natural and Cultural Resources – Author – Susan DeMatteo i. Title – Spelling of Cultural ii. Second paragraph – Fourth sentence, change to read as follows: “A summary of the town’s open space and natural resources can be found in Table 8.1.” iii. The third and fourth paragraphs of the background section are being “flagged” as potentials to include in the general introduction section of the entire document. For now they can stay in this section. Just change the last sentence of the fourth paragraph to conclude with the words “Town Center.” iv. The historical commission date should be 1978, not 1977 v. In the sixth paragraph of the background section there is a sentence that needs to be added. Virginia Adams will provide that sentence to Susan D. directly. vi. In the seventh paragraph, the last sentence was previously rewritten and should be reflected in the most recent version of the document. vii. In the first paragraph of the analysis section, delete the word “tremendous” from the first sentence. viii. Need to confirm the status of Reading’s permit application to make connection to MWRA – Chris Reilly ix. At the end of the Public Water supply section, add the following sentence: “The town periodically performs surveys and assessments of the water 192 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 181 of 199 supply distribution system. Recommendations resulting from these surveys and assessments are implemented under the direction of the town’s water and sewer/public works department, with capital improvements budgeted through the town’s capital plan.” x. In the paragraph under Noise, Light and Air Pollution, the committee felt it was important to flag this paragraph and potentially add information regarding the Noise and Light issues that are reviewed with each development presented to the CPDC. xi. At the end of the Stormwater Management section, add the following sentence: “The town periodically performs surveys and assessments of the Stormwater management system. Recommendations resulting from these surveys and assessments are implemented under the direction of the town’s water and sewer/public works department, with capital improvements budgeted through the town’s capital plan.” xii. In the section for Wildlife Nuisances, change the third sentence to read as follows: “Although these animals do well in suburban habitats, they can become a nuisance at times, partly due to their large size.” xiii. In the third paragraph under Historic, change the end of the first sentence to read as follows: “protecting the appear of these historic streets.” xiv. In the last paragraph under Historic, add the word “Local” between “Street” and “Historic” in the second sentence. Also note, the Carriage House By- Law is pending Town Meeting approval, just track this to ensure it does happen before this document is released. b. Open Space and Recreation – Author – Chris Reilly i. George K. volunteered to put together a table that summarizes the major categories of open space and natural resources and then provide this to Chris and Fran to review. The Committee would like to ensure the information in this document is accurate and exists in one central location in the document. I think this will probably be redundant given the Open Space Plan, i.e., reference that can be made to existing info, which will be updated next year, but I would be happy to review. th ii. Delete the last paragraph (9 paragraph) that was taken directly from the Open Space & Rec. Plan. iii. Replace the last paragraph just before the Analysis section with the following: “The Town has continued to negotiation for developer contributions to open space and recreational facilities as part of every project. As the supply of buildable land diminishes, and the cost of land increases, this strategy will become more difficult to implement.” I'm not sure the amended statement would be accurate. The Town certainly has not negotiated for contributions to open space and recreational facilities as part of every project. Further, I think a distinction must be made between private and public development-generally the Town is not seeking open space on municipal land, particularly if it conflicts with recreational facilities or parking for school buildings. iv. Under Strengthening and Expanding the Network, second paragraph, the last sentence should read: “as it was on the Johnson Woods, the Archstone Development at Spence Farm, and Maplewood Village at Salem Street residential developments.” 193 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 182 of 199 v. Under Accessibility, the committee requests that Chris Reilly verify the statement in the first paragraph “the demand for recreational space in particular continues to increase as residential development has amplified and Reading’s demographic continues to shift to younger families…” The committee believes that this is not a true statement (regarding Reading’s demographics). This is certainly the case-please see http://www.ci.reading.ma.us/planning/readingtrend.pdf that not only shows trend but substantial increase in younger family cohorts. Is there info the committee has that contradicts this? vi. Under the Financial section, second paragraph, delete the first sentence up through the words “relative value” and begin the sentence now saying “The adoption of the C…”. Remove the words “even more” from the sentence as well. vii. The introduction to Goal 3 really belongs with Goal 4. George K. has the action to provide an introductory statement for Goal 3. c. Transportation and Circulation – Author – George K. i. After a discussion on the introduction of this section, the committee agreed that we need to review the level of information that is warranted here. George K. has taken the action to provide an update to the committee. d. Economic Development – Author – Jack Russell i. The only comment was that Jack needs to summarize the ED section at the end of the chapter (before the goals and objectives) in a set of three of four top level findings. We discussed them at the meeting and Jack will provide them as an update to the chapter. ii. In the goals section, the items under each goal are “objectives,” not planned actions. Actions (a) Authors are to update their sections in accordance with the comments above. Several specific actions are also highlighted within the comments, please READ the comments above carefully to ensure each person is aware of their actions (b) Chris Reilly to reserve the room and post meeting notices for the next 6 meetings we scheduled (c) Each committee member to be prepared to discuss the Housing chapter. Other chapters (Services and Facilities and Transportation) are pending updates by their respective authors Next Meeting Monday, April 4th Topic: Housing and other chapters as available – prioritization of goals and objectives of completed chapters All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 194 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 183 of 199 Date:March 7, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, Jonathan Barnes, Neil Sullivan, John Sasso, Tim Kelley, Chris Reilly, Janet Allen, Jack Russell, Peter Smargon, Will Finch, Roberta Sullivan, Virginia Adams Agenda & Discussion (4) Natural and Cultural Resources The meeting focused on reviewing this chapter, specifically to prioritize and select the top goals and objectives. As part of this process the team began to develop a list of criteria against which we would compare our selections and prioritizations. We first identified five major concepts, those being the following: 1) Single family character of neighborhoods 2) Vital downtown 3) Managed growth 4) Protect natural resources 5) Recognize Regional Issues Although these are important concepts, we also realized that what we should be using as a sanity check is the vision developed in the original CD plan (the result of the town visioning sessions). A copy of that “vision” can be found attached to these minutes for reference purposes. After completing this effort, we were able to select/prioritize the following four goals/objectives from the Natural and Cultural resources section: 1A, 2B, 3A, and 7A. (5) Next Steps We realized that while it was important to perform this exercise, the group still feels that the individual chapters, specifically the Background and Analysis sections, require more attention. Therefore, the team agreed that the priority for next meeting is to ensure each member takes the time to review those sections for all the remaining chapters. For next meeting, the focus will be on finishing Natural and Cultural Resources, then moving on to Open Space and Recreation, Economic Development, Housing, Transportation, Services and Facilities, and finally Character and Identity. Of course we don’t expect to get through all of these at the next meeting. Actions (d) Send out the most recent versions of each section to the committee for review – John Sasso (e) Update the Natural and Cultural Resources section to incorporate comments and prioritization as agreed upon at meeting (f) Complete draft of Services and Facilities Chapter – Dick Howard and John Sasso (g) Begin to put together draft of entire plan as it stands today in one document - Chris Reilly Next Meeting st Monday, March 21 195 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 184 of 199 Topic: Review of Chapters Background and Analysis sections and then perform initial prioritization for the goals/objective of that chapter in the following order: Natural and Cultural Resources Open Space and Recreation Economic Development Housing Transportation Services and Facilities Character and Identity Date:February 7, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, Dick Howard, Neil Sullivan, John Sasso, Tim Kelley, Chris Reilly, Janet Allen, Jack Russell, Peter Smargon, Will Finch, Frank Fink Agenda & Discussion (6) Natural and Cultural Resources Members of the Historical Commission were present at the meeting and provided their inputs to this section. Discussion focused around some philosophical and conceptual issues that will shape the goals, objectives and ultimate decisions the town must make as it grapples with growth and transition. Susan DeMatteo was not present at the meeting, and the comments the committee made at the last meeting had yet to be incorporated into this section. (7) Open Space and Recreation The Town actually maintains a separate open space and recreation plan. Chris Reilly took the action to take the existing plan and create the associated MPAC section for Open Space and Recreation by pulling out the relevant information, analysis and goals and objectives. (8) Implementation and other Discussion John Sasso provided his input to the committee for the steps needed to complete the first draft of the MP. These steps are outlined in a memo that was provided to the committee prior to the meeting. However, before we can begin this process, the committee felt it was important to perform an additional review of the remaining sections that still require updating. These include the two discussed above, plus the Services and Facilities section. These three will be the topic of discussion for our next meeting. In the meantime, Chris Reilly has requested that all other sections be provided to him electronically to ensure the most current copy is posted on the planning website. Actions 196 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 185 of 199 (h) Update the remaining sections in preparation for next meeting: (1) Natural and Cultural Resources – Susan DeMatteo (2) Open Space and Recreation – Chris Reilly (3) Services and Facilities – Dick Howard (i) Chris Reilly to obtain current sections electronically for posting on the web. Next Meeting nd Tuesday, February 22 Topic: Open Space and Recreation, Natural and Cultural Resources, Services and Facilities All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 197 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 186 of 199 Date:January 18, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Berger Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, Dick Howard, Jonathon Barnes, Neil Sullivan, John Sasso, Susan DeMatteo, Tim Kelley Agenda & Discussion (9) Natural and Cultural Resources Susan DeMatteo presented the information (goals and objectives) that have been developed thus far. Additional input is still pending from the Historical Commission. A few comments were provided including suggestions on how to combine some of the 10 goals, and a recommendation to address the physical versus intangible cultural resources. Although the recent CD plan did not include a great deal of detailed information on this section (beyond the visioning session results and a set of goals), the 1991 Master Plan did include information on Reading’s Geology, Topography, Hydrography and Ground Water, Land Use, and even a brief town history. This material, as updated, could serve as an introduction to this section. One remaining point that needs to be further reviewed is the segregation of this section from “Open Space and Recreation.” The committee will leave the two sections separate for now and review the goals, objectives and information to determine if it is appropriate to reintegrate them. (10) Services and Facilities While we did not discuss any details of this section, or present goals and objectives, we discussed the need to include this section (per MGL) as part of the Reading Master Plan. The introduction section to the 1991 Master Plan did include information on Public Lands, Buidings, Water and Sewer which when updated could serve as an introduction to a new Services and Facilities section. Dick Howard volunteered to review this information and as chairman make a recommendation on how to proceed getting input for goals and objectives for this section. (11) Implementation and other Discussion As we near the completion of a first pass through each of the Master Plan sections we are looking to put the document together and begin to obtain feedback and ensure our information is valid. This will most likely require some additional support from a few key individuals within the town (staff and otherwise). We also discussed the need for identifying supporting materials, such as maps, that will require time and effort to annotate. George Katsoufis indicated he would put together a list of maps that could be needed to complete our efforts. Dick Howard has taken the action to talk to Chris Reilly about the need for his and other staff’s support in the upcoming weeks. Actions (j) Susan DeMatteo to obtain input from the Historical Commission and provide and update to the Natural and Cultural Resources section incorporating comments from the committee. (k) Dick Howard to review the Services and Facilities information and make a recommendation on how to get this section completed 198 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 187 of 199 (l) Dick Howard to speak with Chris Reilly about the potential need for his and other Town Staff involvement in completion of the document and efforts (updating information, reviewing sections, generating maps, etc.) (m) George Katsoufis to put together a list of maps for the document (n) John Sasso to create a first draft of the process for the Implementation phase (finalizing each chapter, prioritizing goals, identifying ownership, creating implementation plans/recommendations for top priority items, organizing, linking, and presenting information.) Next Meeting th Monday, February 7 Topic: Open Space and Recreation All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 199 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 188 of 199 Date:January 3, 2005 Time:7:30 pm Place:Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, Janet Allen, Peter Smargon, Dick Howard, Jonathon Barnes, Neil Sullivan, John Sasso, Chris Reilly, Susan DeMatteo Agenda & Discussion (12) Transportation George Katsoufis led the session on the Transportation section of the MP. A total of 6 goals and associated objectives were proposed. The Committee focused discussion on issues including school busing, satellite and other parking issues, downtown and other business district transportation needs, and public and private transport initiatives. It was agreed that the challenge here would be to identify actionable priorities, determine how to link initiatives, and take into account the impact of outside (of Reading) factors that affect the Town’s transportation situation. (13) Agenda Implementations It was agreed that the two meetings planned for February and March that are intended to address Prioritization and Implementation will be focused on the following topics: Feb 22: Housing and Economic Development March 7: All other topics Actions (o) John Sasso to review decision (if any) regarding what to do with section on infrastructure (public services and facilities) Next Meeting th Tuesday, January 18 Topic: Open Space and Recreation All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room 200 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 189 of 199 December 20, 2004 Meeting Minutes Attendees: George Katsoufis, Janet Allen, Peter Smargon, Steven McLaughlin, Dick Howard, Jonathon Barnes, Neil Sullivan, John Sasso, Susan DeMatteo, William Finch, Jack Russell. The meeting opened at 7:30 PM. Agenda & Discussion (14) Natural Resources and Open Space Susan DeMatteo and Will Finch presented the current draft of this section. There were a few general issues raised during the discussion, including the need to solicit additional input from Frank Fink and to review the existing open space and natural resources plan (2001) and incorporate ideas planned for the next revision. In addition, M.G.L. Chpt. 41, Section 81D includes an outline for a Town/City Master plan and recommends that there be two sections, one entitled Open Space and Recreation and the second called Cultural and Natural Resources. This also raised the question of whether additional input is required from the Historical Commission (for the Cultural Resources piece) and the Recreation Committee. Additional review of these sections are planned for early 2005. (15) Transportation: George Katsoufis and Steven McLaughlin presented the current draft of this section. The discussion focused on a more general philosophical approach to how the committee should approach the goals and objectives. We discussed social issues, such as the increasing vehicular cut-through traffic, the impact of school buses for a larger segment of the population, and state and federal initiatives to reduce fuel consumption and encourage/develop mass transit solutions. As an example, what assumptions should be made for items such as the resulting solution for the Rte 93/95 interchange? There are however, a number of initiatives that can be pursued on a local level. Additional funding is also available for specific programs. Neil Sullivan presented information regarding the potential for funding locally run shuttle buses. This topic will be revisited at the next meeting. Actions (p) Dick Howard to determine if additional support is required from Historical Commision and Recreation Committee. (q) Chris Reilly to reserve room and post meeting notices for planned 2005 meetings. Next Meetings - 2005 Date Day Topic January 3 MondayTransportation January 18 TuesdayOpen Space and Recreation February 7 MondayCultural and Natural Resources February 22 Tuesday Prioritization/Implementation March 7 MondayPrioritization/Implementation March 21 MondayDraft Plan Review All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7:30pm in the Town Hall Conference Room The meeting adjourned. 201 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 190 of 199 202 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 191 of 199 203 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 192 of 199 September 20, 2004 Meeting Minutes Attendees: George Katsoufis, Jack Russell, Janet Allen, Peter Smargon, Steven McLaughlin, Tim Kelley, Dick Howard, Jonathon Barnes, Neil Sullivan, Chris Reilly, John Sasso The meeting started at 7:00 PM. Agenda & Discussion (16) Schedule of Meetings: It was decided that in an effort to ensure all members have adequate opportunity to attend the meetings, a 7:30pm start time would be set for the rest of the year. th (17) Review of Notes from September 8 Meeting: Other than the difficulty related to getting the email attachment, no additional comments were made regarding the proposed approach and schedule for the rest of the year. It was reiterated that specific agendas would be developed for each meeting and may require revisiting certain sections or topics for review after additional work has been performed. To facilitate the communication process, John Sasso volunteered to take and distribute meeting minutes to the group. (18) Master Plan Structure: A discussion was held regarding the structure of the master plan. A few specific topics were raised as follows: a) Introduction section: The 1991 Master Plan (MP) contains a section entitled “Existing Conditions and Background.” This section was approximately 50 pages in length and including information on the Town’s historical development and physical characteristics (such as status of town property/buildings), and the Town’s population and economy. The recent Community Development (CD) plan did not include such a section, instead details that impacted specific areas, such as housing, were included in the related section. It was agreed that as part of the MP effort, we would tackle updating this section to reflect current conditions. The first step of this required collecting all the existing information from the MP and CD Plan and trying to merge it together in a cohesive fashion. George Katsoufis agreed to scan in the 1991 MP section and John Sasso agreed to take that material along with CP Plan information and format the materials together. This will then be presented to the committee at a future meeting to discuss the next step in that process. b) Public Services & Infrastructure: It was proposed that we add a section to the MP with this title. After discussion regarding the content and potential concerns about who is responsible for setting town specific plans (such as schools, library’s, compost center, municipal utilities, etc.), we agreed that we would include top level goals and objectives for related items but not necessarily include specific recommendations unless they were directly related to any of the other MP sections. The Character and Identity section would be used as a placeholder for those items. A draft table of contents was presented for the MP, a copy of this can be found at the end of these minutes (thanks to George Katsoufis for providing this outline). (19) Character & Identity: 204 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 193 of 199 This topic was to be the focus of the meeting. A fair amount of material had been excerpted from both the 1991 MP and 2004 CD plan. Copies of this material, as presented at the meeting, can be found in the attachment(s) to these meeting minutes. The purpose of this session was to define the primary goals that would form the basis for identifying appropriate objectives and recommendations for Readings’ Character and Identity. The following four goals were discussed and tentatively agreed-upon: 1. Preserve the architectural heritage and the traditional village character of the Town. 2. Manage Growth in size, location, land-use selection and infrastructure impacts. 3. Maintain modern public services, facilities, infrastructure and continue the high level of service 4. Maximize the economic potential of the Town for the benefit of residents and ensure and enhance the viability of residential and commercial areas. The next step is to take these four goals and identify the applicable next level objectives and supporting recommendations for each. The Character and Identity team leads for this effort are Jonathan Barnes and John Sasso and will prepare this information for committee review at a later date. Actions (r) John Sasso to take and distribute meeting minutes going forward (On-going) (s) George Katsoufis agreed to scan in the 1991 MP section and John Sasso agreed to take that material along with CP Plan information and format the materials together (Due date TBD) (t) Jonathan Barnes and John Sasso will prepare Character and Identity information (objectives and recommendations consistent with goals) for committee review at a later date Scheduling: Next Meeting Date: Monday, October 18, 2004, 7:30pm Place: Town Hall Conference Room Topic: Housing (Full Agenda TBD) The meeting was adjourned. 205 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 194 of 199 Notes from September 8, 2004 Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) Meeting There were three main objectives for tonight’s meeting. The first was to present and inform the committee about four potential zoning changes that will be presented at Monday’s (Sept 13) CPDC meeting. The most important of those (related to MPAC work) is the proposed zoning change applicable to “Carriage houses”. The second objective was to define a working schedule for the rest of this year for the MPAC. Dick Howard presented a proposal for dates and general topics. A final schedule can be found at the end of this document. In an effort to help organize and streamline the remaining work of the MPAC, the third objective of tonight’s meeting was to propose a process for addressing the task of completing each of the five major areas within an updated Master Plan (MP). The following process is what was agreed upon: (1) Define the goals and objectives (2) Identify specific recommendations applicable to meeting those goals and objectives a. Select recommendations from the 2004 Community Development (CD) plan that are applicable b. Edit any of the 2004 recommendations to make them consistent with the community’s perspective c. Incorporate any of the 1992 Master Plan recommendations that are still viable (3) Obtain additional data or input from necessary sources (e.g. the 2004 CD plan did not include a section on transportation, and the 1992 MP may be sorely outdated in this area) (4) Group recommendations into related categories (most likely this will require review of prior work and brainstorming new concepts and ideas) (5) Establish criteria for prioritization of recommendations (e.g., impact of implementing a specific recommendation should have quantifiable costs and benefits to the community) (6) Prioritize the recommendations in each grouping (7) Provide information to support implementation of specific (priority A for example) recommendations to include responsible organization, department, or other group, or if necessary need for creation of a “group” to work on the issue To take full advantage of this process, it will be necessary to perform some initial up-front work in each area. These efforts will help to facilitate discussion and move quickly beyond steps (1), (2) and (3). To that end, the committee also identified “leaders” for each of the five areas (Character/Identity, Housing, Economic Development, Natural Resources, and Transportation) and is asking those leaders to take a first pass at completing steps (1)-(3) and presenting their draft work to the committee at the meetings dedicated to that specific topic area (see MPAC schedule and team leader assignments below). Note that we understand this process may not necessarily be complete, and it does not address the need for future public input or reporting to the selectman. However those items were discussed and will be incorporated into the overall process. MPAC Meeting Schedule September – December 2004 206 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 195 of 199 Day Date Topic Team Leaders Wednesday Sept 8 Process, Zoning Issues, Schedule MondaySept 20 Character and Jonathan Barnes, IdentityJohn Sasso Monday Oct 18 Housing GK, Dick Howard, JA TuesdayNov 9 HousingGK, Dick Howard, JA Tuesday Nov 23 Economic PS/JR Development MondayDec 6 Natural Resources Susan Dematteo, WF MondayDec 20 Transportation Neil Sullivan, GK, SM Meeting Locations TBD, Start time 7pm Note none of these meetings conflict with any of the CPDC meetings or fall town meeting Master Plan Advisory Committee June 14, 2004 Meeting Minutes Members present: Dick Howard (RH), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Neil Sullivan (NS), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Janet Allen (JA), George Katsoufis (GK), Jack Russell (JR), Steve McGlaughlin (SM), Pete Smargon (PS), Will Finch (WF). Staff: Chris Reilly (CR) The meeting was opened at 7:30 PM. RH made a motion to accept the Community Development Plan prepared by the MAPC, as so modified. NS seconded. The motion carried unanimously. RH talked about the process going forward. SM thought the Committee needed a Chairman. JA felt that some areas have urgency and should be implemented quicker than others RH looked at affordable housing as a priority. GK talked about the difference between the less detailed state and more comprehensive town documents, and the need for bridging the two. JB talked about the need to move forward to a final product but look at what was needed to continue on. He felt that the CD Plan to date was an incomplete, "floating" document and the Committee needed to decide what the finale update will include from the 1991 Master Plan. NS said we have an emotional document in the 1991 Master Plan. JR talked about bringing the practical products from the Master Plan update forward, such as zoning articles that will achieve near term objectives. JB talked about how character can be dealt with in the near term and will deliver something. RH thought the Committee should have a Master Plan draft by summer 2004. NS made a motion to nominate RH as the MPAC Chair for an indefinite term. JB seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Scheduling: The next MPAC meeting will be August 9. A parallel function will be served by CPDC by bringing forward zoning articles related to high priority MPAC goals. The meeting was adjourned. 207 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 196 of 199 A-4 LIST OF MAPS ThemePage Map 1 Location in the Metro Region Topography 13 Map 2 Wetlands 14 Map 3 Zoning map with overlays 15 Map 4 Public & quasi-public lands 16 Map 5 Neighborhood nodes 17 Map 6 2004 Land Use 18 Map 7 Region 25 Map 8 Census tracts & school districts 26 Map 9 Housing opportunities 47 Map 10 Economic Development opportunities 64 Map 11 Resource protection 76 Map 12 Open space (2001) w/ Open space network (CD2003) 86 Map 13 Transportation-roadway volumes 120 Map 14 Transportation opportunities 121 LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 3 FIGURE 1. HISTORICAL STRUCTURES FROM READING’S LENGTHY PAST………….20 CHAPTER 5 FIGURE 1. POPULATION & HOUSEHOLD TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS, READING…..30 FIGURE 2. BREAKDOWN OF HOUSEHOLD TYPE IN READING, 2000.................................30 FIGURE 3. READING’S AGE GROUPS – TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS................................32 FIGURE 4. NUMBER OF READING RESIDENTS IN EACH AGE GROUP FROM 1990 TO 2000 (TABLE).............................................................................................................................................32 FIGURE 5. CHANGE IN HOUSING UNITS AND VACANCY RATES, READING.................33 FIGURE 6. TYPE OF STRUCTURE THAT HOUSING UNITS ARE LOCATED IN, READING, 2000...............................................................................................................................................................34 FIGURE 7. HOUSING TENURE, READING, SUBREGION, AND REGION, 2000...................35 FIGURE 8. YEAR HOUSING UNITS BUILT IN READING, 2000................................................35 FIGURE 9. SUBSIDIZED HOUSING GAP IN READING, AS OF FEBRUARY 2003...............36 208 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 197 of 199 FIGURE 10. FUTURE HOUSING UNITS BASED ON BUILD-OUT ANALYSIS, READING.37 FIGURE 11. MEDIAN HOME SALES PRICES, READING............................................................38 FIGURE 12. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP IN READING....................................................39 FIGURE 13. RENT-BURDENED TENANTS BY AGE GROUP, READING, 2000....................40 FIGURE 14. RENT-BURDENED TENANTS BY INCOME GROUP, READING, 2000............41 FIGURE 15. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN EACH INCOME GROUP IN READING, 2000 .........................................................................................................................................42 FIGURE 16. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD, READING, 2000. .......................................................................................................................................................................43 FIGURE 17. READING BUILD OUT PROJECTION........................................................................44 CHAPTER 6 FIGURE 1. NUMBERS OF WORKING RESIDENTS AND JOBS IN READING, 1985-2001..49 FIGURE 2. READING UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND NUMBER OF WORKING RESIDENTS................................................................................................................................................50 FIGURE 3. OCCUPATIONS OF READING RESIDENTS...............................................................50 FIGURE 4. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF READING ADULTS, 1990 AND 2000.........51 FIGURE 5. HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN READING AND THE REGION....................................52 FIGURE 6. JOBS IN READING BY SECTOR, 1985-2001................................................................53 FIGURE 7. NUMBER OF JOBS IN READING BY SECTOR.........................................................54 FIGURE 8. EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES IN READING BY INDUSTRY, 2002....................55 FIGURE 9. LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN READING, 2003.............................................................56 FIGURE 10. WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT IN READING’S LARGEST INDUSTRIES........56 FIGURE 11. TAX VALUATION IN READING BY PROPERTY CLASS, 1985-2003...............57 CHAPTER 8 FIGURE 1. OPEN SPACE INVENTORY……………………………………………………..80 CHAPTER 10 209 Master Plan Advisory Committee 1/1/2006 2005 Master Plan- APPENDICES Page 198 of 199 FIGURE 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2004…………………………………108 FIGURE 2. CTPS, 2000………………………………………………………………………..109 FIGURE 3. READING TRAFFIC LOADS CHART…………………………………………111 FIGURE 4. READING RESIDENTS’ TRANSPORTATION CHOICES……………………112 Index 40B.............................................8, 12, 23, 27, 29, 33, 37, 45 Natural Resources....7, 12, 65, 68, 71, 72, 77, 78, 80, 85, 92, Commercial..........................................60, 78, 109, 117, 128 101 Community Preservation Act9, 19, 27, 44, 46, 66, 69, 70, 71, Open Space.......7, 12, 65, 68, 71, 72, 77, 78, 80, 85, 92, 101 74, 79, 83, 92, 124, 128, 129, 137, 140 Permitting...10, 21, 45, 68, 69, 72, 74, 79, 81, 84, 91, 92, 93, Conservation.........................................................69, 73, 183 94, 115, 117, 128, 131, 134, 137, 139 Conservation Commission...7, 12, 65, 68, 71, 72, 77, 78, 80, Public Safety.69, 87, 88, 89, 94, 95, 102, 103, 150, 158, 166 85, 92, 101 Region..9, 12, 21, 23, 45, 58, 60, 62, 66, 67, 72, 75, 94, 107, CPDC....3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 24, 27, 44, 46, 68, 70, 74, 92, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 128, 99, 103, 104, 110, 118, 129, 137, 138, 143, 163, 172, 184, 141, 147, 150, 152, 181, 189 186Roads..........................................................6, 21, 74, 75, 123 Demographics.7, 9, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, Selectmen............10, 28, 44, 72, 73, 90, 91, 94, 95, 118, 125 39, 41, 42, 43, 83, 87, 89, 91, 95, 99, 130, 141, 171, 184, Smart Growth.............................................................24, 156 185Town Character...................7, 8, 10, 24, 27, 45, 82, 116, 142 Downtown....8, 9, 46, 58, 59, 60, 62, 78, 109, 117, 128, 168, Town Departments..............90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 104, 183, 192 169Town Forest......................................9, 83, 84, 129, 130, 141 Economic development.......68, 74, 77, 92, 97, 125, 128, 171 Town History.....7, 8, 9, 27, 34, 57, 74, 78, 88, 92, 125, 129, Education9, 28, 83, 90, 94, 95, 102, 124, 129, 130, 141, 149, 140, 147, 166, 182, 191 152, 191 Town Management.............................................................93 Employment..........................................48, 52, 53, 55, 57, 94 Town Meeting.......................................3, 5, 10, 44, 115, 134 Grants.....................7, 8, 9, 79, 84, 85, 93, 94, 128, 131, 138 Town Planner...3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 24, 27, 44, 46, 68, 70, Historical Commission7, 8, 9, 27, 34, 57, 74, 78, 88, 92, 125, 74, 92, 99, 103, 104, 110, 118, 129, 137, 138, 143, 163, 129, 140, 147, 166, 182, 191 172, 184, 186 Historical structures.9, 19, 27, 44, 46, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 79, Town Services...4, 19, 21, 44, 71, 87, 91, 103, 104, 118, 138 83, 92, 124, 128, 129, 137, 140 Traffic....5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 27, 46, 48, 59, 60, 62, 66, 74, 83, Housing.5, 7, 8, 12, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 87, 88, 107, 108, 109, 110, 116, 123, 148, 149, 150, 151, 39, 43, 44, 45, 57, 68, 73, 74, 77, 90, 92, 97, 102, 124, 152, 168, 169, 181, 185, 188 125, 127, 128, 141, 171 Transportation..6, 7, 28, 82, 96, 99, 102, 110, 111, 113, 114, Infrastructure................................................66, 88, 105, 191 115, 117, 123, 141, 194 mixed-use.......................................27, 29, 35, 37, 38, 39, 57 Wildlife..............................................................................65 MPAC...3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 27, 29, 43, 45, 57, 73, 87, ZBA3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 27, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 58, 92, 103, 104, 111, 114, 115, 123, 124, 126, 131, 137, 138, 60, 61, 62, 68, 74, 81, 83, 92, 99, 115, 125, 126, 127, 128, 139, 153, 154, 156, 157, 164, 165, 171, 172, 174, 175, 134, 137, 140, 168, 169, 192 187, 190, 191, 192 Zoning....4, 9, 15, 35, 36, 37, 61, 67, 70, 72, 90, 92, 97, 102, Multi-family..............................................8, 46, 58, 168, 169 126, 127, 128, 129, 144, 145, 193, 194 END 210 211 212 213 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 TOTAL CAPITAL REQUESTS 3,930,000 3,398,000 3,248,000 3,746,000 4,189,000 3,991,000 4,865,500 5,191,000 5,611,000 3,575,000 1,975,000 2,275,000 45,994,500 Capital & Debt Policy5.57%5.00%5.00%5.03%5.00%5.12%5.14%5.14%5.12%5.12%5.00%5.00% Annual Surplus (Deficit) - - - - - - - - 480,406 2,900,324 4,616,880 5,158,790 Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) - - - - - - - - 480,406 3,380,730 7,997,610 13,156,401 Capital Projects Identified but there is no proposed funding yet in the Capital Plan (shading/boldcrossout indicates a change from last Town Meeting) 214 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 1. Killam Building project TBD Excluded Debt - Killam Field improvements, drainage, repaving ($350k HOLD for Killam project) 2. Senior/Community Center TBA Excluded Debt if >$5mil (Options are being explored) 3. DPW Bldg improvements (scope changed) 4. Community projects (no formal capital requests yet) Legend: xDebt has been approved by the voters as excluded from the Prop 2-1/2 levy; debtni has been authorized by Town Meeting but not yet issued; debtna has not yet been authorized by Town Meeting 215 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 Facilities - CORE 50,000 100,000 643,000 752,000 345,000 320,000 272,500 750,000 50,000 265,000 - - 3,547,500 Energy (Performance Contract) $4.95mil debt Debt - Energy Improvements II OPM/Design - Energy Improvements II $5.0mil/15yr DebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebt - Energy (Green Repairs) $1.05mil debt - Bldg Security - $4.0mil debt DebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebt - Bldg Sec. - window film (schools) - Facilities Master Plan 200,000 200,000 Permanent Bld Committee 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 500,000 RMHS Building project ~$55mil debt - RMHS Bldg proj - $6 mil Litig. some debt DebtDebtDebt - RMHS Retaining Wall - $0.5mil debt - RMHS Turf 2 - $2.225 mil debt DebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebt - RMHS Stadium OPM/Design - RMHS Glycol Reclamation & Installation - RMHS Building Management System (Green Communities Grant $150k?) - RMHS Stadium Turf/Track $3 mil/10yr DebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebt - RMHS Ropes Course 97,500 97,500 RMHS/RISE playground design - RMHS/RISE playground improvements - RMHS Fldhouse floor/bleachers $3.2 mil TBD debt ($200K design; $3.0 mil project )DebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtna - Parker MS roof project OPM/design - Parker MS Roofing project $2.7mil/10yr DebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebt - Parker MS Auditorium Lighting Upgrade 50,000 50,000 Coolidge MS roof project design 450,000 450,000 Coolidge MS Roofing project $3.7mil/10yr DebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtna - Modular Classrooms $1.2m debt - Killam Building project TBD xDebtxDebtxDebtxDebtxDebtxDebtxDebtxDebtxDebt - Barrows/Wd End Bldg projects $0.8mil debt - Barrows/Wd End Bldg projects debt - Birch Meadow ES roof project design 230,000 230,000 Birch Meadow Roofing project $1.9 mil/10yr DebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtna - Library Building project $18.4 mil debt xDebt - Police Sta. project $1.5mil/10yr DebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebt - Fire Station #1 Main Street Elevator Replacement 283,000 283,000 Town Hall Roofing project design $55k design and $550k design 55,000 550,000 605,000 Town Hall Elevator Replacement 252,000 252,000 Police Station . Roof $15k design and $150k design 15,000 150,000 165,000 Community Center TBA xDebt if >$5mil - Community Center Heating System $700k - DPW Garage Roof Project $102k design and $1.3 million - DPW Bldg project TBD - 216 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 Electrician Van Ford E350 Econoline (2014) 55,000 55,000 Carpenter's Pickup Ford F-350 (2013) 55,000 55,000 Carpenter's Cut-away Van (2017) 60,000 60,000 Plumber's Cut-away Van (2017) 60,000 60,000 Pickup Truck Chevy 2500HD (2016)10 75,000 75,000 Pickup Truck Chevy 2500HD (2017)10 75,000 75,000 2019 Ford Transit Van10 55,000 55,000 2021 Bobcat L28 Mini Loader (15 years)10 - 100,000 100,000 Bobcat Skid S130 (2008)15 65,000 65,000 Bobcat Utility UV56 (2024)15 - 115,000 115,000 Buildings - Schools (Total) - 120,000 40,000 185,000 - - 180,000 775,000 100,000 1,100,000 - - 2,500,000 Arc Flash Hazard Study 105,000 105,000 Barrows -> HVAC - Elementary schools 80,000 775,000 855,000 design(yr1)/project(yr2)Wood End -> 100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 Coolidge MS HVAC - Steam Traps Coolidge -> 75,000 75,000 Carpet/Flooring 70,000 60,000 130,000 Doors & Windows 40,000 40,000 40,000 120,000 Birch Meadow Food Service Line - paid by School Lunch Revolving fund - Barrows Food Service Line - paid by School Lunch Revolving fund - Wood End Water Heater 15,000 15,000 Parker Carpet/Flooring - Buildings - Town (Total) - - 144,000 - 30,000 - - - - - - - 189,000 Arc Flash Hazard Study 144,000 144,000 Carpet/Flooring 30,000 30,000 Doors & Windows - 217 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 Schools - General 180,000 160,000 260,000 260,000 735,000 260,000 300,000 260,000 310,000 260,000 225,000 225,000 3,435,000 Food Service Van E-250 (2014) - Driver's Education Vehicle (2014) 45,000 45,000 Card readers for all the schools - Vehicle Barriers for all schools 475,000 475,000 Bob Utility UV34 (2021) 50,000 50,000 Courier Vehicle (2019) 40,000 40,000 District-wide Telephone systems 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 100,000 Design for Technology wiring projects - District-wide Technology Wiring projects - District-wide Technology projects 125,000 150,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 225,000 225,000 2,725,000 Technology 615,000 100,000 130,000 150,000 150,000 166,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 2,211,000 Water Tank Town telco equip replace/relocate - Remote access multi factor authentication - Internal segmentation firewall - CAD System (Computer Aided Dispatch) 455,000 455,000 Firewall Upgrade 60,000 GIS flyover - planimetrics - Technology projects 100,000 100,000 130,000 150,000 150,000 166,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 1,696,000 Finance - - - - - - - - 600,000 - - - 600,000 Financial System 600,000 600,000 Library - - - - - - - - - - - - - Equipment - - - - - - - - - - - - - Public Services 245,000 150,000 - - 350,000 - 320,000 - 810,000 - - - 1,875,000 Maillett Sommes Morgan $1.0mil/10yrs DebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebtDebt - Downtown Improvements II $4.0mil/ 20yrs DebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtna - Downtown Improvements II $3.75 mil Bond Bill - Downtown Energy Efficient projects - PARC: Kiosks(4) handheld devices(2) - Land Use planning (CC & Symonds) - Sr/Community Center planning - Parks & Fields space study - Rehab Playgrounds Program - KillamSturges - 218 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 Birch Meadow Master Plan - Birch Meadow Master Plan Design - Phase 1 $2.3 mill ($1.5mil ARPA grant & $800k debt) - Support & general Circulation $750k-$1.2mil - Imagination Station Parking $450-550k - Phase 2 $2.14mil/10yr debt ($245k design) 245,000DebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtna 245,000 Lacrosse Wall $100-150k - Tennis Courts, Playground, Parking $800k-$1.0mil - Basketball Courts $500-650k - Phase 3 $1.6mil/10yr debt - Morton Field improvements $600-950k - Castine Field $75-100k - Higgins Farm Conserv Area $100-150k - Birch Meadow Drive Improvements $250-400k - Phase 4 $6.0mil/10yr debt - Softball/Multi purpose new turf field $3.2-3.6mil - Coolidge Field turf $2.2-2.4 mil. - Artificial Turf @Parker MS (replace) design to 2027 debt 2028 $1.5 mill 10 yrsDesign> 150,000 DebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtna 150,000 Pickleball Courts $1.95 million (200k donations)(100k FY26 Capital) DebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtna Barrows Tennis court repairs 125,000 125,000 Barrows Basketball court repairs 100,000 100,000 Barrows Replace backstop & repair infield 125,000 125,000 Killam Field improve, drainage, repaving ($350k) held for Killam project decision - Wood End Field Repairs 325,000 325,000 (*) below indicates $950k in state bond bill details TBA ($805k identified below) - *Wash Pk:Replace backstop & shift field 150,000 150,000 *Wash Pk:Walking Paths 100,000 100,000 *Mem Pk: Replace Band Stand 50,000 50,000 *Mem Pk:Court resurface 20,000 20,000 *Symonds:Replace backstop 150,000 150,000 *Hunt Pk:Replace backstop 125,000 125,000 Sturges Pk:Tennis court repairs 75,000 75,000 Sturges Pk:Basketball court repairs 85,000 85,000 Sturges Pk:Backstop repairs 50,000 50,000 Public Safety - Fire/EMS - 1,220,000 560,000 580,000 - 1,540,000 485,000 350,000 766,000 75,000 - - 5,576,000 Ladder Trk #1 (2008: $800k, next FY22) (15 years) - Ladder Truck & Equipment - Pumper Eng #1 (2010-$525k; next FY30) 1,400,000 1,400,000 Pumper Eng #2 (2007-$410k; next FY25) 1,150,000 1,150,000 219 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 Pumper Eng #3 (2016 $630k; next FY36) - Pumper Eng #4 (2020 $800k; next FY40) - Ambulance #1 (2017- 10 yrs) 500,000 500,000 Ambulance #2 (2010 - 10yrs) & equip 575,000 575,000 Ambulance equipment 45,000 45,000 90,000 Passenger Car#1 (2023 - 10yrs) 75,000 75,000 Passenger Car#2 (2022 - 10yrs) 75,000 75,000 Passenger Car#3 (2023 - 10yrs) 71,000 71,000 Passenger Car#4 (2018 - 10yrs) - Pickup Truck #1 (2019 - 10yrs) 85,000 85,000 Pickup Truck #2 (2012 - 10yrs) 80,000 80,000 Alarm Truck (2023 - 20yrs) - ALS Defibrillator Monitor (2019 - 7yrs) 70,000 70,000 140,000 BLS AEDs (2020-8yrs) 25,000 30,000 55,000 Rescue Tool 60,000 60,000 Breathing Apparatus (2017-12yrs) 400,000 400,000 Breathing Air Compressor - Breathing Air Bottles 30,000 30,000 CPR Compression Device 20,000 20,000 Thermal Imaging (2018 - 10yrs) 60,000 60,000 Fire Hose 40,000 40,000 Multigas meters 20,000 20,000 Turnout Gear (2022 - 5yrs) 300,000 350,000 650,000 Public Safety - Police/Dispatch 90,000 - 25,000 80,000 - 30,000 - 336,000 680,000 65,000 - - 1,306,000 Police Unmarked Vehicles 50,000 80,000 80,000 210,000 Police Parking Enforcement Vehicle (2024) 40,000 65,000 105,000 Police equipment (tasers) (7 years) ( 2021) 192,000 192,000 Firearms Replacement (12 years) (2023) 144,000 144,000 Radios (Police & Fire 2022 - 12yrs) 600,000 600,000 Upgrades to Holding Cells - Dispatch Center Equipment Upgrade (2019) AEDs 25,000 30,000 55,000 Public Works - Equipment 408,000 300,000 30,000 689,000 1,104,000 300,000 1,658,000 1,070,000 545,000 60,000 - 300,000 6,464,000 Large TrucksLife - 275,000 - 395,000 120,000 300,000 990,000 1,070,000 240,000 3,390,000 C-03 Dump Truck C3 (2016)10 140,000 140,000 C-04 Dump Truck C2 (2012)10 120,000 120,000 H-05 Small Dump Truck #7 (2012)10 120,000 120,000 H-06 Aerial Pickup Truck #14 (2017)10 100,000 100,000 H-07 Truck #10 (2018)15 240,000 240,000 H-08 Truck #9 - Sander (2017)15 275,000 275,000 H-09 Truck #8 - 10 wheeler (2016)15 245,000 245,000 H-10 Truck #22 -Sander (2015)15 275,000 275,000 220 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 H-11 Truck #4 - Sander (2014)15 275,000 275,000 H-12 Truck #16 - Sander (2011)15 275,000 275,000 H-14 Truck #3 - Sander (2010)15 275,000 275,000 H-15 Truck #5 (2008)15 300,000 300,000 H-16 Truck # 7 (2024)15 250,000 250,000 H-17 Truck # 11 (2024)15 250,000 250,000 H-18 Truck #19 - Sander (2007)15 275,000 275,000 H-19 Truck #18 - Sander (2006)15 275,000 275,000 P-03 Dump truck #24 Parks (2017)15 100,000 100,000 P-04 Dump truck #12 Parks (2015)15 100,000 100,000 Pick-ups/Cars/Vans 155,000 - - - 614,000 - 295,000 - 60,000 60,000 - - 1,184,000 C-02 Pickup Ford Utility #C1 (2014)10 100,000 100,000 C-06 Cem. #4 Ford SUV (2024)10 45,000 60,000 105,000 CAR 2 Ford Escape (2016)10 54,000 54,000 CAR 1 Car #3 Hyundia Sante FE HYBRID (2023)10 60,000 60,000 E-01 Chevy Traverse (2019)10 65,000 65,000 F-02 Pickup Chevy #9 Parks (2023)10 - H-01 Pickup #16 (2015)10 100,000 100,000 H-02 Pickup #18 (2006)10 110,000 110,000 H-03 Pickup #4 (2020)10 120,000 120,000 H-04 Pickup Ford Utility #11 (2014)10 110,000 110,000 M-02 Pickup #1 (2020)10 175,000 175,000 PFC-01 Ford Escape (2017)10 65,000 65,000 P-02 Pickup Ford #2 Parks (2015)10 120,000 120,000 Pickup for P/F/C Supervisor (2024)10 - Backhoes/Loaders/Heavy Equipment - - - - 100,000 - 60,000 - - - - - 160,000 C-07 Backhoe Loader (2020)10 - H-20 Loader JD 624 (2020)10 - H-21 Loader JD 624 (2017)10 - Loader to replace Sicard10 - H-22 Backhoe JD 710L HWY (2020)10 - H-23 Bobcat Loader (2015)10 - P-05 Ventrac tractor (2020)10 60,000 60,000 P-06 Tractor JD4520 (Parks) (2012)15 100,000 100,000 Specialty Equipment - Heavy Duty 253,000 - - - 180,000 - 163,000 - - - - 300,000 896,000 F-04 Bucket Truck #21 Forestry (2024)15 300,000 300,000 F-05 Chipper/LoaderTruck #23 (2008)15 - F-06 Chipper/LoaderTruck #23A (2024)15 H-24 Forklift (2016)15 - 221 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 H-25 Crawler Dozer (2003)15 - H-26 Snow Primoth SW4S (2016)15 113,000 113,000 H-27 Snow Trackless (2015)15 180,000 180,000 H-28 Snow Holder #1 c992 (2015)15 - H-29 Snow Holder #2 c480 (2013)15 - H-31 Leeboy Pavement Sprd (2014)15 - H-32 Hamm Roller, Large (2014)15 - H-33 Hamm Roller, Small (2016)15 50,000 50,000 H-34 Leeboy Roller, Small (1998)15 - H-41 Screener (2018)15 - I-50 Vehicle Lift Replacement15 33,000 Blower unit for Loader15 220,000 220,000 W-23 Sicard HD Snowblower (1999) - Specialty Equipment - Light Duty - 25,000 - 40,000 60,000 - 150,000 - 245,000 - - - 520,000 C-14 SmithCo 48" Sweeper (2012)10 40,000 40,000 C-15 SKAG Leaf Vac (Cem) (2015)10 25,000 25,000 C-16 Carmate Trailer (2019) 20,000 20,000 C-17 Big Tex Trailer (2013) 10,000 10,000 E-00 Engineering Plotter (15 yrs) 25,000 25,000 F-06 Vemeer Chipper (2018) 225,000 225,000 F-08 Stump Grinder new (2021) (replace 20 yrs)20 - F-09 Trailer Dump Trailer (2015) 50,000 50,000 F-10 Truck Mount Sprayer 500gal (2015) 20,000 20,000 H-35 Tack Machine for Paving (2004) - H-36 Curb-builder for Paving (2010) - H-37 HotBox for Paving (2020) - H-38 Cement Mixer Tow Behind (2005) - H-39 Mobile Compressor (1) (2019)10 - H-40 Mobile Compressor (2) (2020) - H-42 Trailer (2012) - H-43 Trailer, Roller (1998) - H-44 Eager beaver Trailer #2 (1996) - P-11 Smithco SuperStar (2016)15 30,000 30,000 P-12 Smithco 60 Turf Sweeper (2016)15 40,000 40,000 P-14 Leaf Vac SKAG (2016) 25,000 25,000 P-15 Trailer (2016) 10,000 10,000 222 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 P-16 Trailer (2013) - P-17 Trailer (stump grinder) - P-18 Trailer Enclosed (2007) - R-01 Rubbish Barrells for automated pickup - Lawnmowers - - 30,000 254,000 30,000 - - - - - - - 314,000 C-08 Mwr SKAG TT #2 (2017) 24,000 24,000 C-09 Mwr (Cem.) SKAG 48" (2016) 12,500 12,500 C-10 Mower SKAG 61" (2024) - C-11 Mwr (Cem.) Scag 52" Stander (2021) 10,000 10,000 C-12 Mwr SKAG 36" (2012) 12,500 12,500 C-13 Mwr SKAG TT 61" #3 (2011) 30,000 30,000 P-07 Mwr SKAG TT #5 (2017) 30,000 30,000 P-08 Mwr SKAG 20,000 20,000 P-09 Mwr (Pks) TORO 5910N (2014) 175,000 175,000 P-10 Mower - TORO Gang (2024) - DPW: Parks & Cemetery 547,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 3,847,000 Gen'l Fence Replacement 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 600,000 Fencing around play area adjacent to Wood End School 32,000 32,000 DPW Yard Improvements - Strout Avenue Improvements - School Site Improvements - Birch Meadow (parking lots, sidewalks, walkways) 215,000 215,000 Field, Playground and Court Improvements 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 1,200,000 Pickleball Courts $1.65k (10 years)DebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtnaDebtna Rock Wall repairs - Memorial Park - Rock Wall Repair Program 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 1,200,000 Rock Wall repairs - Laurel Hill - Rock Wall repairs - Joshua Eaton - Grove Street Parking Lot Improvements - Gen'l Parking Lot Improvements 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 600,000 DPW: Roads - Track Road Bridge #1 - Track Road Bridge #2 - Salem Street Crosswalk Improvements 100,000 100,000 Salem and Main Traffic Signal Improvements 50,000 50,000 Forest Street Crosswalk Improvements - Design Work 50,000 50,000 Sidewalk/Curb/Ped. Safety 200,000 100,000 160,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 2,460,000 Skim Coating & Crack Seal Patch 100,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 2,025,000 West Street - Local shr ($1.3mil)Debt - Lowell Street $500k + $600k 600,000 600,000 General Fund - various roads 845,000 648,000 781,000 600,000 800,000 700,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 9,174,000 TOTAL GENL FUND VOTED - ROADS 1,795,000 948,000 1,116,000 750,000 1,175,000 1,075,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 14,459,000 Grants - various roads 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 7,200,000 TOTAL ROAD CAPITAL 2,395,000 1,548,000 1,716,000 1,350,000 1,775,000 1,675,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 21,659,000 223 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3/13/2025 15:17 FY-2025FY-2026FY-2027FY-2028FY-2029FY-2030FY-2031FY-2032FY-2033FY-2034FY-2035FY-2036FY25-36 Biggest Changes in Capital since April Town MeetingConcerns Killam ES - any costs not Excluded debt should be identified very soon Sr. Center - 224 April 1, 2025 7:00 Overview of Meeting Public Comment 7:05 Select Board Liaison and Town Manager Reports 7:15 Commissioners of Trust Funds Update Sharon Update on Burbank and other Funds Discussion on possible creation of a Karen Disabilities Council Close Warrant for May 1st Special Town Meeting Vote to call for Special Election on May 13 Vote to Support Priority Building Projects: Killam & ReCAL Discuss Renewable Energy Trust Membership Agreement Future Agendas Approve Meeting Minutes April 22, 2025 (School Vacation - Move to 4/15?) 7:00 Overview of Meeting 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports Select Board Vote to Reorganize Potential Vote to Confirm Town Manager's appointment for Fire Chief Vote on Renewable Energy Trust Membership Agreement Charter Review Process Discussion April 28, 2025 TOWN MEETING May 1, 2025 TOWN MEETING May 5, 2025 TOWN MEETING May 8, 2025 TOWN MEETING May 13, 2025 (If Special Election - Move or cancel?) 7:00 Overview of Meeting 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports May 27, 2025 Overview of Meeting 7:00 Public Comment 7:05 Select Board Liaison and Town Manager Reports 7:15 Sean Donahue HEARING Classification Plan Preview FY26 Water and Sewer Rates 225 Annual Meeting with Reading Ice Arena June 10, 2025 Overview of Meeting 7:00 Public Comment 7:05 Select Board Liaison and Town Manager Reports 7:15 Discuss and Vote on FY26 Water & Public Hearing Sewer Rates June 24, 2025 Overview of Meeting 7:00 Public Comment 7:05 Select Board Liaison and Town Manager Reports 7:15 Discuss Town Manager Goals Appointments of Boards & Committees July 15, 2025 7:00 Overview of Meeting 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports August 5, 2025 7:00 Overview of Meeting 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports August 26, 2025 Overview of Meeting 7:00 Public Comment 7:05 Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports September 9, 2025 7:00 Overview of Meeting 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports September 23, 2025 7:00 Overview of Meeting 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports 226 Close Warrant: Subsequent Town Meeting October 7, 2025 Overview of Meeting 7:00 Public Comment 7:05 Select Board Liaison and Town Manager Reports 7:15 October 21, 2025 Overview of Meeting 7:00 Public Comment 7:05 Select Board Liaison and Town Manager Reports 7:15 November 4, 2025 7:00 Overview of Meeting 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports November 10, 2025Town Meeting November 13, 2025Town Meeting November 17, 2025Town Meeting November 20, 2025Town Meeting December 2, 2025 7:00 Overview of Meeting 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports Approve Annual Licenses December 3, 2025 Overview of Meeting 7:00 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports Budget Presentations December 9, 2025 7:00 Overview of Meeting 7:05 Public Comment Select Board Liaison and Town 7:15 Manager Reports Budget Presentations 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 Chris Haley moved to enter Executive Session under Purpose 3 to discuss litigation strategy with respect to Davenport v. Town of Reading and Milley v. Town of Reading, as the Chair declares that discussion in open session may have a detrimental effect Assistant Town Manager Jayne Wellman, Executive Assistant Jackie LaVerde, and Town Counsel Ivria Fried and Ethan Dively into the Executive Session, and under Purpose 7 for the purposes of complying with Section 22 of the OML, to approve prior executive session meeting minutes of the following meetings: January 7, 2025 and January 21, 2025, with only Board Members and Town Counsel present, and then to adjourn from Executive Session and not to return to Open Session. The motion was seconded by Mark Dockser and passed 5-0 by unanimous roll call vote. Roll call vote: Karen Gately Herrick Yes, Chris Haley Yes, Melissa Murphy Yes, Mark Dockser Yes, Carlo Bacci Yes. Open Session concluded at 9:37 pm. 235