Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-22 Board of Selectmen HandoutBen Tafoya, Chairman James E. Bonazoli, V. Chairman Town of Reading Stephen A. Goldy, Secretary 16 Lowell Street Camille W. Anthony Richard W. Schubert Reading, MA 01867 BOARD OF SELECTMEN (781) 942-9043 FAX:. (781) 942-9071 Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Bernard Cohen, Secretary of Transportation FROM: Ben Tafoya, Chairman Reading Board of Selectmen DATE: May 16, 2007 RE: Reading's Board of Selectmen Position on Interstate Routes 95 and 93 Interchange Improvements Town of Reading Position on Interstate Routes 95 and 93 Interchange Improvements The Town of Reading appreciates the hard work of the Interstate Route 95/93 Task Force, and MfID's staff and consultants. The process that was followed is much improved from the previous process, and therefore the product is much improved. This is important to the Town of Reading because Reading is the community most impacted by any scenario of improvement of this interchange - the interchange itself and much of the ramp structures are in the Town of Reading directly abutting a residential neighborhood. The following statement represents the Town of Reading position on options presently before the Task Force as this phase concludes. This position paper represents the formal vote of the Board of Selectmen on May 15, 2007. Early in the study, the Interchange Task Force (ITF) worked with the consultants to develop goals and objectives. Selected objectives are listed 'below. Of major importance were the objectives to work within the existing right-of-way and avoid takings, particularly of residences. 1. Improve traffic flow in and around the I-93/I-95 interchange; 2. Improve safety for motorists; 3. Maintain local access and improve traffic conditions on local streets; 4. Improve mobility through multi-modal and other transportation strategies; 5. Meet transportation goals without sacrificing quality of life for area communities. Minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences and other sensitive receptors; Relieve impacts of cut-through traffic on neighborhoods and business districts; Design improvements within the existing right-of-way; Avoid residential and business property takings; • Minimize negative economic effects to tax bases, and enhance local and regional economic activity.where possible; • Minimize visual impacts on the communities and enhance the visual environment where possible; • Maintain community and business district connections and access, including automobile, truck, emergency vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access, and make improvements where possible; • Consider quality of life costs as well as financial costs. 6. Protect and enhance the natural and cultural environment; 7. Develop recommendations that can be implemented efficiently; 8. The study will continue to be conducted through an open and inclusive process; 9. Provide justification for any additional recommended actions over and above what analyses show is necessary. In order to meet these objectives the Town of Reading believes that the following actions are necessary as a package of actions to be undertaken by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Highway Department: A. Transit and TDM (Transportation Demand ManaLlement) Components Further development and study of the following components must be included in the environmental phase: 1. Re-open the Mishawum passenger rail station; 2. Implement a fully online sign-up system for carpools in the area;. 3. Increase utilization of the Anderson Regional Transportation Center (RTC) through the following or other measures: Free commuter parking at Anderson RTC; • Creation of a formal park-and-ride program at the Anderson RTC; • Improve access to the Anderson RTC, including a pedestrian bridge from the west side of the railroad tracks. 4. Expand ongoing marketing of transit services in the study area; 5. Expand ongoing outreach and incentives for carpooling in the study area through MassRIDES: • A carpool incentive program; • Expanded vanpool incentive program; • Additional marketing. 6. Expand peak-period "Route 128" shuttle service from Anderson RTC to Burlington, . Lexington, and Waltham, with connecting service to Reading Depot; 7. Add off-peak "Route 128" shuttle service; 8. Establish a park-and-ride shuttle service from Peabody; 9. Explore cross-ticketing/fare payment arrangements on privately operated shuttle services; 10. Improve signage and traveler information to promote carpooling and transit: • Install static signage on I-93 and I-95 promoting carpooling and transit; • Install electronic signs or Variable Message Signs (VMS) on I-93 and I-95 promoting carpooling and transit; • Use real-time traffic, transit schedule, and parking information in signs, websites, cell phones, or other media. 11. Increase MBTA reverse-peak and local bus service on Route 354 and extending Route 132 (currently serving Malden,'. Melrose and Stoneham) to serve the Reading commuter. rail station, the Anderson RTC, and nearby employers in Woburn; 12. Enhance MBTA commuter rail service on existing lines: • Improve headways on the Lowell Line between Anderson RTC and Boston to create a shuttle-type service with peak period headways of 15 or 20 minutes; • Add service north of the Anderson RTC on the Lowell Line and the Haverhill Line. 13. Encourage employers within the 128 region to allow flexible work hours. B. Hishwav Components 1. Implement "easy fix" enhancements to the highway system as soon as possible: • Eliminate the lane drop on I-95 North at the Interchange - extend the additional lane northbound to at least the I-95/129 intersection; • Add a southbound lane to I-95, beginning the 4a' lane from as far north as Walkers Brook Drive; • Incorporate noise barriers as part of the construction of this north bound and south bound lane additions; • Proceed with the project to modify the Washington Street ramp by moving it westerly; • Improve traffic/speed enforcement; • Enforce EXISTING state laws to minimize noise: 80db for motorcycle mufflers and exhaust pipes Prohibited use of engine brakes on 18-wheelers (and post signage). 2. Work to lower the profile of all overhead ramps to the maximum extent possible; 3. Make an up-front commitment for inclusion of sound barriers as part of any project; 4. Implement the following construction mitigation to: • Minimize cut-through traffic; • Each component of the improvements should be analyzed for reduction in traffic congestion and minimization of cut through traffic during and following construction. The results of the analysis should establish the phasing of components of construction to minimize impacts of the surrounding communities during construction. Minimize disruption - noise and otherwise - to abutting properties (noise and light from night time construction); 0 Additional law enforcement funding needs to be provided tot the communities to regulate traffic during construction; Major project construction cannot start before the following projects in Reading are complete: West Street improvements (Project # 601705) and state projects; Main Street Pavement Resurfacing (Project # 604804) and N. Reading/Reading Rte 28 bridge project (Project # 603473). The reason. for this request is to make sure that the local infrastructure needed to handle traffic diverted by construction is in place and is adequate to accommodate this traffic; MHD needs to perform benefit analysis (environmental, traffic mitigation, noise etc.) of daytime vs. nighttime construction; Prior to construction, an upgrade in the traffic controllers and installation of a closed loop system for traffic signals along Rte 28, Rte 129, Walkers Brook Drive, West Street, Woburn Street and Summer Avenue in Reading is needed to regulate cut through traffic during construction; Provide to the Town of Reading adequate funding to hire a consultant to provide for an independent evaluation of the proposed construction mitigation. C. Interchanee Desion Alternatives The Town does not endorse either of the alternative plans because they do not meet the goals of the study. Specifically these alternatives: • do not eliminate all property takings, • do not minimize noise impacts, and • do not minimize visual impacts on properties in Reading. The Town believes that all of these impacts can be reduced or eliminated through additional design work. Approved by the Reading Board of Selectmen May 15, 2007 cc: Board of Selectmen Representative Brad Jones Representative Patrick Natale Senator Richard Tisei D Page 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Everson, Jeff Deverson@foster-miller.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:20 AM To: bernard.cohen@state.ma.us; luisa.paiewonsky@state.ma.us; Bob.Frey@state.ma.us Cc: Rep. Brad leyJones@hou.state. ma.us; Rep. PatrickNatale@Ho u.State. MA. US; Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us; Reading - Selectmen; kstein@hshassoc.com; amckinnon@hshessoc.com Subject:. SUMMARY: SECOND FEASIBILITY STUDY - EVERSON Attachments: REF 1 - CONGESTION BACK FLOW.doc; REF 2 - REAR END ACCIDENTS.dpc; REF 3 - ROUTE 128 AIR QUALITY.doc; REF 4 - OIG_ACCIDENT DATA.doc To: Bernard Cohen, Secretary of Transportation; Luisa Paiewonsky, Commissioner, Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD); Bob Frey, Manager, State Planning, Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) CC. Brad Jones, State Representative; Representative Patrick Natale; Senator Richard Tisei; Reading Board of Selectmen From: Dr. Jeffrey Everson; Member: PRESERVE, I93/I95 Task Force Date: May 22, 2007 Subject: Summary, Second Feasibility Study The second feasibility study of the I93/I95 interchange afforded community participation and stakeholder outreach that was facilitated by the expertise of Howard-Stein-Hudson (Kathy Stein and Anne McKinnon). This "context sensitive" approach was a vast improvement compared to the heavy-handed recitation of eminent domain rules presented by the MHD during the summer of 2002 as part of the first feasibility study. I offer the following evaluation of the second feasibility study after 45 Task Force meetings over a period of nearly '4 years. My evaluations in summary form are supported by references attached to this email. 1. Design Exception and.Eminent Domain The only substantial difference between the current interchange redesign concepts and those from the summer of 2002 is the use of 40 mph speed limit ramps now versus 55 mph speed limit ramps then. Lower speed limits permit tighter radii of curvature ramps that can be contained within the current right of way and, thus, avoid eminent domain. However, use of 40 mph requires a design exception from both the MHD and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The current draft final report does not offer a guarantee or even a likelihood that such a design exception would be forthcoming and when. This particular interchange has been an item of interest at the MHD since at least 1997. Surely, the MM must know whether a design exception is possible. Just for the record, how may such design exceptions have ever been granted for similar interchanges by the MHD and the FHWA and under what circumstances? Action item for the MA DOT: As a cynical, homeowner, who survived the looming prospect of eminent domain during the summer of 2002, I want to see a guarantee signed by Bernard Cohen, the Secretary of Transportation that an engineering exception for 40 mph ramps will be granted and that eminent domain will not be imposed. Otherwise, the Task Force will have been a waste (i.e., 45 meetings, 4 years and $1M+ study money). 2. Negative Impact, Connecting Highways: An improved interchange means that vehicles will flow more readily through it, especially during the peak weekday commuting periods (i.e., improved Level of Service [LOS]). Unfortunately, this improved LOS of a redesigned interchange will frequently be substantially 5/22/2007 Page 2 of 2 different from the degraded LOS of connecting roadways, such as the link from Reading to Waltham along Route 128 and from Reading to Boston along Route 93 during the peak AM period. I have traveled both routes frequently during this period and have asked myself the question, "What's the point of making a "spot " improvement so that commuters can rush faster to the next point of congestion? " Without mitigating action in conjunction with a redesigned interchange, the following events will occur along these connecting routes: a. Increased congestion flowing back into the interchange (Ref. 1) b. Elevated likelihood of more rear end accidents (Ref. 2) c. More exhaust emissions from increased stop and go driving (Ref. 3) 3. Mitigating Negative Impacts: These unacceptable consequences (a-c) can be mitigated to the extent that the peak AM period congestion along Route 128, for example, can reduced by employing electronic techniques to control traffic flowing from Routes 2, 2A and 3 onto Route 128. These techniques include ramp metering and adaptive speed control (Ref. 1) and have been utilized both nationally and internationally. Action item for the MA DOT: The EOT and MHD have the choice of either making a good faith effort to employ these electronic techniques now in conjunction with a redesigned interchange or not utilizing them and facing the reality of congestion back flow into the interchange, increased rear end accidents and more exhaust emissions, both along connecting highways. (Note: the same negative impacts may occur during the PM peak period along Routes 93 and 95 heading away from the interchange).. 4. MHD Accident Data: On the subject of accident data, it is a fact that the MHD is unable to accountfor 40 percent of the locations related to fatal accidents. Since this memo will be widely distributed, some readers may want to know the outcome of my petition to the Office of Inspector General, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC on the subject of fraud regarding the consistent, widespread use of flawed accident data by the MHD (Ref. 4). Neither the lame OIG inquiry not the missing fatal accident location data warrants any confidence in accident data used by the MHD. Action item for the MA DOT: Conduct an independent audit of accident data from the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 and publish the results. (Frankly, you have been (are?) using accident data that would have caused me to be fired and my contract cancelled if I had used it). 5. Reading Board of Selectmen: The Reading Board of Selectmen were correct in rejecting the two interchange design alternatives due to unacceptable noise/visual impacts and absence of an ironclad guarantee that eminent domain would not be used (See item 1 above). 6. Construction Industry Lobbying for Projects: Would anyone from either the EOT or MHD be willing to testify that no one from the Construction Industries of Massachusetts (www.cimass.ora) has ever lobbied for a construction project at the site of the I93/I95 interchange? I am personally in favor of jobs creation but not at the expense of transferring (i.e., dumping) problems of the interchange onto connecting highways. Dr. Jeffrey H. Everson Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force, 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cni4aa,aol.com 60 5/22/2007 Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation Bob, Traffic congestion during the peak period on roadway links connecting the interchange cannot be ignored because it will affect the interchange level of service (LOS). The redesigned interchange concept H3 (i.e., a fully directional flyover type) and the link between the interchange along Route 128 and Waltham during the weekday peak AM period are used as an example (i.e. my daily commute): 1. By itself interchange concept H3 promotes an efficient flow of vehicles through the interchange because the weaving segments are eliminated (i.e., improved level LOS). I' raised this point at a recent Task Force meeting. No one disagreed. However, concept H3 incurs a penalty per the discussion below. 2. Vehicles traveling through this improved LOS facility will encounter frequent congestion [LOS (F)] along Route 128 to Waltham during the weekday peak AM period. 3. This weekday peak AM congestion along Route 128 will impede the flow of vehicles from the interchange such that conaestion will flow back into the interchanae. (The same affect will occur during the weekday AM peak period for Route 93 heading south to Boston. I've traveled this route many times on my way to Logan airport during the peak AM period). 4. Why does Sudhir Murthv's computer simulation not show this congestion back flow? During a recent ITF meeting, Camille Anthony expressed disbelieve when Sudhir's computer simulation showed vehicles "breezing" through the redesigned interchange (H3) at 60 mph. This result is not credible. (Note: Sudhir Murthy is a member of the Louis Berger contractor team that is supporting the second feasibility study of the 193/95 interchange) 5. The LOS potential of concept H3 could be approached by slowing congestion build up along Route 128 by regulating traffic flow onto Route 128 from Routes 3, 2 and 2A using ramp metering and/or adaptive speed control on these three roads. There are many precedents for this approach. The cost for this electronic augmentation is minor compared with the construction expense of a redesigned interchange. 6. Based on the foregoing dose of reality, the Task Force has two options: o Vote for concept H3 with electronic traffic flow control onto Route 128 during the peak AM period. o Vote for only H3 and explain to your friends, neighbors and the Boston Globe why you opted for a flawed interchange design. 6) Common sense shows that connecting highway facilities with vastly different levels of service will be dominated by the facility with the least desirable level of service. Bob, please explain why your alleged "spot improvements" vastly outweigh the congestion mess incurred by a redesigned interchange without adaptive electronic traffic control. Thanks, Jeff Dr. Jeffrey H. Everson Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force, 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cni4a.aol.com January 11, 2007 0 Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation Bob, Interchange concept H3 (i.e., a fully directional flyover type) has two fundamental flaws: One flaw is due to CONGESTION BACK FLOW into the interchange during the AM weekday peak period because vehicles traveling though a more efficient interchange will encounter congestion on roadways connecting the interchange. I discussed this deficiency in an email that was sent to on January 11, 2007. The other flaw is the likelihood of increased REAR END ACCIDENTS for the following reason. Rear end crashes occur primarily under conditions of clear weather and on dry, straight pavements. During 77 percent of the time, they result when the lead vehicle (i.e., the driver in front of you) is stopped. The primary causal factor is inattention to the driving task. These statements are found in the reference given below. It is a US DOT report where I am a co-author. A copy can be made available if desired. The relationship between a more efficient redesigned interchange and rear end accidents on connecting roadways follows: 1. REAR END ACCIDENTS are likely to happen during stop and go driving (i.e., by definition, lead vehicles will be periodically stopped). Interchange concept H3 will increase stop and go driving during the weekday AM peak period as vehicles "breeze" through that more efficient H3 interchange and encounter traffic that is already in a congested state along connecting highways (e.g., Route 128 in the direction of Waltham). 2. The chance for CONGESTION BACK FLOW and REAR END ACCIDENTS could be diminished by regulating the rate at which vehicles flow into Route 128 during that weekday AM peak period (i.e., keep that Route 128 traffic moving to avoid stop and go driving conditions). This could be accomplished by using adaptive ramp metering and/or varying the permitted speed limits for Routes 3, 2A and 2. 3. Your portrayal of the interchange problem has been heavily biased in favor of eliminating weaving accidents with no discussion about CONGESTION BACK FLOW and little discussion on REAR END ACCIDENTS. One might readily assume that you are using weaving accidents as an excuse to build a flyover facility (i.e., the bigger the better). 4. You are essentially trading one.accident type for another (i.e., eliminating. weaving accidents while increasing rear end accidents). In fact, concept H3 may increase the overall annual interchange accident count. This trade off (unannounced to an unsuspecting Task Force) may increase your exposure to legal liability. In recent years, more state DOT's have encountered an increasing number of lawsuits (I checked). Furthermore, to what extent is the TASK FORCE exposed to LIABILITY ISSUES? You never told us. After all, you have a group of nearly 3 dozen people, most with no technical 0 background, "helping" you redesign a major interchange. A sharp lawyer could have fun with that. Please explain (in writing) how your "spot improvements" due to concept H3 diminish the significance of CONGESTION BACK FLOW, REAR END ACCIDENTS and possible LEGAL EXPOSURE. Regards, Jeff Dr. Jeffrey H. Everson Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force, 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cni40.aol.com January 15, 2007 Reference Hendricks, D., Allen, J., Tijerina, L., Everson, J., Knipling, R., Wilson, C., "VNTSC IVHS Program Topical Report No. 1: Rear-End Crashes," Final Report, Omni Task RA1039- Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems (IVHS) Program (Contract No. DTRS-57-89-D- 00086) Final Report, July 1992. 12 The 128/ABC - "Route 128 Add-a-Lane Business Coalition "Route 128 has the worst air quality and highest ozone concentration in the state, according to Rebecca Snow, Transportation Coordinator for Reebok International Headquarters, Canton, who focuses on efficient methods to get Reebok's 1,200 employees to work through carpooling, flex time, and the Neponset Valley Transportation Management Association. Pollution from Route 128 traffic backups causes asthma attacks, nausea, sore throats, coughing and headaches, she said. "Idling cars produce 20 times more air pollution than cars traveling 30 mph." "Traffic snarls also make employees late for work, reducing productivity and costing businesses money," Snow said. Reference httr):Hnvcc.com/128abc/lane.html Dr. Jeffrey H. Everson Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force, 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cni40..aol.com 13 Summary of Findings (Nov. 2006): Office of Inspector General (OIG), Washington, DC; Based on Input from the local Massachusetts Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Related to a Petition Filed by Dr. Jeffrey Everson, January 2005 Concerning the Alleged Fraudulent Use of Accident Data during the First and Second Feasibility Studies of the I93/I95 Interchange in Massachusetts; Studies Conducted by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) and the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) 1. Missing Crash Data: The FHWA never refuted the findings I presented on the state-wide, traffic accident data audit conducted by a contractor (Nexus Data) in 2001 based on accident case files from 1999. These findings are: (a) -50 percent of case files had NO identifving vehicle information: (b) up to 40 percent of accident case files had NO known location. 2. Missing Crash Vehicle Data: The website, www.9395infor.com, has accident locations within in the interchange for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004. There is NO identifviniz vehicle information. Thus, there is no way of knowing whether certain vehicle types (e.g., SUVs) are statistically over represented and whether such vehicles correlate with interchange features. iThe OIG did. not address this? point, 3. Missing Fatal Crash Data: In the packet I received from the OIG, I learned that 40 percent of all fatal crashes in Massachusetts have NO known location. 4. Lack of Verification: The MHD issued a new police accident reporting form in 2002 to generate accident case files with less missing information. To the best of my knowledge, the MHD has never formally audited traffic accident data acquired since 2002. There is no way of knowing whether the "old" accident data (prior to 2002) is any more complete that the "new" (from 2002 to present) accident data The 01 G' did not address this poznl 5. Lack of Verification: As a result of my petition to the OIG, they never asked the EOT to verify their claims about the worthiness of the new accident data. The OIG simply "rubber stamped" with approval whatever the EOT presented. This "rubber stamping". action consumed nearly two years after submission of my petition to the OIG. 6. Lack of Verification: The EOT noted that the Louis Berger Group (LBG) analyzed the 2002 accident data from the interchange area. The results were never verified by an independent audit. No mention was given about LBG's expertise/experience on accident data analysis... 'T1he 01G did i~yf address this point> 6) 7. Lack of Task Force Technical Expertise: In their report to the OIG, the EOT claimed several members of the I93/I95 Task were satisfied with the way EOT treated accident data. How could they know whether they were satisfied? (Only one member [i.e., me] out of nearly 3 dozen members has direct contract, analytical experience with highway accident data. Almost no members have any technical background)... The OIG did not address this votnt. 8. EOT Honesty: The OIG noted that EOT was forthright in their admission to the Task Force on flawed accident data. The EOT only discussed flawed accident data after I first raised the issue The OlG did not address this point. Thus, according to the OIG, the EOT is not guilty of fraud. 9. Top 1,000 Crash Locations in MA: Based on issues 1-4 above, there is NO reason to believe that the top 1000 crash locations in Massachusetts are accurate. Thus, an accurate assessment of the 193495 interchange crash problem relative to other comparable interchanges is not known iThe; OIG did not addr, ss this poant. 10. EOT/OIG Failure to Ask Basic Question: Neither the OIG nor the EOT ever asked the question, "To what extent can an accident case file have missing data and still be useful for public safety improvement projects?" The results of the OIG legal inquiry were sent to me in hard copy form and can be made available upon request. Dr. Jeffrey H. Everson Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force, 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cni4a.aol.com 0 71D7 APR 2 3 AM 10: 13 Emperor's Choice Restaurant 530 Main Street Reading, MA 01867 April 23, 2007 Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: This is to inform you that we have added.the sushi bar to the existing bar area recently. We are now ready to open the sushi bar for business. Due to the expansion, we now have .a total of eight bar stools around the bar area and five chairs in front of the sushi bar. We have finished all the renovations and have since passed all the inspections. Please see attached layout of the bar and sushi area, for details. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 781-942-2882. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~ I r Michael Wong President (b TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Tuesday, May 22, 2007 • 128/193 Task Force Meeting from May 16 - follow-up. • Community meeting May 17 at the Senior Center at 7:30 PM regarding the new plans for Memorial Park. This was an excellent meeting with lots of very positive feedback. We will evaluate the comments, make changes to the plans, and get them back to the Board of Selectmen along with meeting summary, for the Board to adopt the plan. • , West Street curb and sidewalks are under construction and are almost completed. • Included with this evening's packet of information is the projected road improvement program for the remainder of FY 2007 funds, plus projected FY 2008, 2009, and 2010. The additional cost of hot-top because of volatility of oil prices is reflected, as well as the policy of placing granite curbing on streets with a slope of greater than 5%, in order to protect the road from being undermined by run-off. • Approval has been granted.to Stop and Shop. to work later hours tonight and on the 24th due to concrete pours. Notice has been delivered to abutters. • The March 2007 National Development PowerPoint presentation is now available by a link through the Town web site. • Street lists are available for the public in the office of the Town Clerk for a cost of $15. • 1 understand from reliable sources at the state house that "earmarks" are unlikely to be included in the State budget this year, but that a separate capital appropriation is likely which may include a number of earmarks for communities. • The Reading Lions Club invites you to participate in the Fourth Annual Reading Friends and Family Day. Save the Date - Saturday, June 30, 2007 BOARR OF SELECTMEN AGENDAS June 5, 2007 Selectmen's Office Hours - Camille Anthony. - I 6:30 Highlights Planning and Permits Coordination I 7:30 MAPC Update - Steven Sadwick ( 8:00 Hearing I Curb cut waiver - Hoyt - West and Woburn Street I 8:15 . Hearing ( Policy on email correspondence 8:30 Appointments Review. Action Status report I June-12, 2007. Report - CAB (Andrew Herlihy) Town Accountant Quarterly meeting I 8:00 0_~ Hearing Appointments ( 8:15 Appoint Town Counsel June 26, 2007 Appointments Water, Sewer, Storm Water rates 8:00 Final Report - ad hoc Downton Parking Committee Board of Selectmen proposed standards for multi-way stops Discuss traffic speed and multi-way stops Bancroft and Hartshorn multi-way stop I 'July 10, 2007 Selectsnen's.Office Hour - Ben Tafoya Building Inspection Review Action Status report Sight Triangle bylaw Highlights July 24, 2007: Discuss Charter and Town Accountant regulations Ig GARY S. BRACKETT ELAINE M. LUCAS JUDITH A. PICKETT JAMES T. MASTERALEXIS STEVEN C.FLETCHER* ELLEN CALLAHAN DOUCETTE DONNA GORSHEL COHEN HEATHER C. WHITE *Also Admitted in ME and CO FEDERAL EXPRESS Johanna Soris, Esq., A.A.G. Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108 BRACKETT & LUCAS COUNSELORS AT LAW 19 CEDAR STREET WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01609 508-799-9739 Fax 508-799-9799 May 21, 2007 RE: Reading Memorial Park. Salem Street. Reading. MA Dear Attorney Soris: WINCHESTER OFFICE 165 WASHINGTON STREET WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01890 781-729-1500 Fax 781-729-5444 E-Mail: ECDoucette@BrackettLucas.com Please respond to the Winchester office. Enclosed herewith you will please find the Town of Reading's Petition for Reasonable Deviation relative to the property known as the "Reading Memorial Park" located on Salem Street in Reading. After you have reviewed the petition, kindly advise if you will assent thereto on behalf of the Attorney General's Office. The courtesies and cooperation which have extended to this office and the Town of Reading have been greatly appreciated. Please contact me if you require any further information or have any questions regarding the petition. Sincerely, Ellen Callahan Doucette ECD/sjs Encl. cc: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager (w/out enclosures) 0~ Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Zambouras, George Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 4:08 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Road Program Attachments: road-program-3_year.pdf Pete Attached is the revised paving program. We had to move a couple of streets each year to account for curbing and the price increase. Regarding Hillcrest Road the grade is 7.5 to 8%, 1 guess we should start installing the curb? Our new rule (based on gutter velocities) would be that road grades equal to or in excess of 5% could result in erosion. George 5/22/2007 ROADWAY CAPITAL PROGRAM 15-May-07 Plan Date: FY 08 to FY 10 Scenario Code: 07-Split-10yr 1 1 FY071 FY081 FY091 FYI 0 FUNDING 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 90 1 1 368,5161 451.3481 451,348 451,348 LOCAL 1 1 328,0001 331,1001 339,378 347,862 1SUPPLEMENTAL 1 1 167,9951 1 1 TOTAL FUNDING 1 1 864,5111 782,4481 790,7261 799,210 Est. Est. Est. Est. FY Plan Street Name From To Alternative Cost Cost Cost Cost Date FY-2007 LAWRENCE ROAD MAIN ST DEAD-END RECONSTRUCTION 111,500 LOCUST STREET HIGHLAND ST MAIN ST RECONSTRUCTION 97,000 WENTWORTH WEST ST LEWIS ST RECONSTRUCTION 34,500 Sub Total $243,000 FY-2008 BANCROFT AVE MIDDLESEX AVE LOWELL ST RECONSTRUCTION 39,000 COLBURN ROAD FOREST ST DEAD-END RECONSTRUCTION 127,500 FRANKLIN STREET MAIN ST HAVERHILL ST RECONSTRUCTION 180,000 GOULD STREET HAVEN ST ASH ST RECONSTRUCTION 59,400 HAMPSHIRE ROAD MAIN ST LAWRENCE RD RECONSTRUCTION 42,000 HIGH STREET MIDDLESEX AVE LOWELL ST RECONSTRUCTION 125,000 HILLSIDE ROAD OAKLAND RD MAIN ST RECONSTRUCTION 53,000 JUNIPER CIRCLE WAKEFIELD ST DEAD-END RECONSTRUCTION 36,000 LONGWOOD ROAD WEST ST END PUBLIC WAY RECONSTRUCTION 53,000 WELLS ROAD FOREST GLEN IRVING ST RECONSTRUCTION 19,700 FOREST GLEN ROAD Y INT PEARL ST FOREST GLEN RD Crack Seal or FOP 99 FOREST ST MAIN ST COLBURN RD Crack Seal or FDP 2,084 HAVERHILL ST READING-WAKEFIELD 200'N OF TIMBERNECK DR Crack Seal or FDP 4,044 HIGH ST WASHINGTON ST VINE ST Crack Seal or FDP 2,236 JOHN ST GREEN ST SALEM ST Crack Seal or FDP 1,363 LOWELL ST SALEM ST 575'E OF GROVE ST Crack Seal or FDP 4,381 LOWELL ST 575'E OF GROVE ST 50'N OF BRADFORD RD Crack Seal or FDP 3,109 SUMMER AV WOBURN ST WOODBINE AV Crack Seal or FDP 2,054 TOWER RD WINTHROP AV HANSCOM AV Crack Seal or FDP 154 VILLAGE ST GREEN ST JOHN ST Crack Seal or FOP 422 Sub Total $754,546 FY-2009 BEAR HILL RD NORTH ST CEDAR ST Reclaim Local 30,058 CALIFORNIA ROAD INDIANAAVE PENNSYLVANIAAVE RECONSTRUCTION 40,000 CENTER AVE MINOT ST MAPLE ST RECONSTRUCTION 31,000 CHARLES ST PEARL ST TIMBERNECK DR Patch and PrevMaint 60,660 FRANKLIN ST BLUEBERRY LN (E) MAIN ST Reclaim Art/Coll 232,408 HOPKINS ST MAIN ST WAKEFIELD TOWN LINE PrevMaint Overlay 14,300 LINCOLN STREET WOBURN ST WASHINGTON ST 2" MILL/OVERLAY 53,000 LONGVIEW RD PALMER HILL AV PROSPECT ST Reclaim Local 51,753 PALMER HILL AV WEST ST LONGVIEW RD Reclaim Local 14,909 PEARL ST PUTNAM RD 534'N OF AUDUBON RD Reclaim Art/Coll 48,652 SANDRA LN JOSEPH WY WILLIAM RD Reclaim Local 58,102 SCHOOL STREET DUDLEY ST MIDDLESEX AVE 2" Overlay w/mill Local 13,922 SCOTLAND RD WEST ST SUMMER AV Reclaim Local 113,213 AZALEA CIR SALEM ST CARNATION CIR Crack Seal or FOP 1,038 BEACON ST AUBURN ST LOCUST ST Crack Seal or FDP 142 BOYCE ST PRATT ST SUMMER AV Crack Seal or FOP 362 BRIARWOOD AV PEARL ST BEAVER RD Crack Seal or FOP 651 CHARLES ST TIMBERNECK DR HAVERHILL ST Crack Seal or FOP 3,093 ECHO AV PRATT ST SUNNYSIDE AV Crack Seal or FOP 362 GARDNER RD PLEASANT ST IDE ST Crack Seal or FOP 322 HAVEN ST JOHN ST PARKER ST Crack Seal or FDP 571 HAVEN ST PARKER ST MAIN ST Crack Seal or FOP 423 HOLLY RD WALNUT ST VIRGINIA RD Crack Seal or FOP 769 HOPKINS ST SUMMER AV MAIN ST Crack Seal or FOP 1,615 HOWARD ST WEST ST COUNTY RD Crack Seal or FDP 775 JOHN ST VILLAGE ST GREEN ST Crack Seal or FOP 408 MIDDLE ST PLEASANT ST UNION ST Crack Seal or FDP 269 MILEPOST RD HOPKINS ST HAYSTACK RD Crack Seal or FDP 769 MILL ST MAIN ST NORTH READING TOWN Crack Seal or FDP 1,087 NORMAN RD TRACK RD DEAD END Crack Seal or FOP 55 PEARL ST MAIN ST (N) FRANKLIN ST Crack Seal or FDP 1,713 PENNSYLVANIA AV SUMMER AV RED GATE LN Crack Seal or FOP 725 POND MEADOW DR NEW CROSSING RD PARKING LOT Crack Seal or FOP 536 RED GATE LN PENNSYLVANIA AV WALNUT ST Crack Seal or FDP 439 RICHARDS RD TIMBERNECK DR TAMARACK RD Crack Seal or FOP 1,236 SALEM ST HARNDEN ST BAY STATE RD Crack Seal or FOP 4,579 SHACKFORD RD 400'N OF CROSS ST CROSS ST Crack Seal or FDP 263 SOUTH ST WALNUT ST (W) WALNUT ST (E) Crack Seal or FOP 404 SUMMER AV BROOK ST 50'E OF MAIN ST Crack Seal or FOP 1,618 1 THOMAS DR SANBORN LN LILAH LN Crack Seal or FDP 780 FY-2010 tw, THORNDIKE ST TRACK RD VIRGINIA CIR VISTA AV WAKEFIELD ST WALKERS BROOK DR WARREN AVENUE SPRING ST PEARL ST Crack Seal or FDP 423 PRIVATE SECTION HARVEST RD Crack Seal or FOP 399 VIRGINIA RD HOLLY RD (CUL-DE-SAC) Crack Seal or FOP 274 SUNNYSIDE AV PRATT ST Crack Seal or FOP 390 HAVERHILL ST BAINBRIDGE RD Crack Seal or FOP 554 VILLAGE ST 100' NW OF NEW Crack Seal or FDP 467 CUL DE SAC 90'E OF CUL DE SAC Crack Seal or FOP 220 Sub Total $789,708 FOREST GLEN RD PEARL ST MAIN ST 3" Overlay w/mill 32,709 FRANKLIN ST GROVE ST BLUEBERRY LN (E) Reclaim Art/Coll 273,381 MAPLE ST CENTER AV WARREN AV Reclaim Local 9,288 OAKLAND RD LONGFELLOW RD BIRCH MEADOW DR Reclaim Local 211,629 PUTNAM RD MAIN ST PEARL ST Reclaim Local 100,735 WILSON ST SALEM ST PLEASANT ST Reclaim Local 40,676 WASHINGTON ST MAIN ST VILLAGE ST 3" Overlay w/mill 68,435 APPLETON LN ASHLEY PLACE ASHLEY PLACE AURELE Cl AURELE Cl AUTUMN LN BENTON CIR CHEQUESSETT RD COLONIAL DR DAVIS LN EMERALD DR ENOS CI FAMILY CIR GRAND ST HIGHLAND ST JEFFERSON CIR JESSICA CIR JOHNSTON CIR KING ST KURCHIAN LN LOCUST ST LINDSAY LN LOUANIS DR LYNN VILLAGE WY MARGARET RD NEW CROSSING RD PARSONS LN ORANGE ST FAIRCHILD DR 941'S OF FAIRCHILD DR BENTON CIR BENTON CIR WAKEFIELD ST LOWELL ST BELMONT ST 75'S OF JEFFERSON Cl FOREST GLEN RD COUNTY RD WEST ST GROVE ST LOWELL ST LOWELL ST COLONIAL DR ASHLEY PL FOREST ST PROSPECT ST FRANKLIN ST BANCROFTAV VAN NORDEN RD WEST ST ROMA LN DEAD END WALKERS BROOK DR FRANKLIN ST CUL-DE-SAC 941'S OF FAIRCHILD DR CUL DE SAC CUL DE SAC LOOP CUL DE SAC LOOP CUL-DE=SAC CUL-DE-SAC LOOP BELMONT ST CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC DUDLEY ST 331'N OF LOWELL ST CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC WEST ST CUL-DE-SAC HIGHLAND ST FAIRCHILD DR AVALON DR CUL-DE-SAC . ` PARKMAN RD PARKING LOT CUL-DE-SAC Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FDP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FOP Crack Seal or FDP 473 1,018 559 303 303 933 880 1,313 867 717 1,358 781 506 2,071 358 292 581 338 671 843 156 991 1,215 928 183 1,514 800 PARTRIDGE RD FRANKLIN ST CUL-DE-SAC Crack Seal or FDP 684 PEARL ST FRANKLIN ST MAIN ST (S) Crack Seal or FDP 1,753 RICE RD FOREST ST DEAD END Crack Seal or FDP 685 RUSTIC LN HAVERHILL ST BEAVER RD Crack Seal or FDP 2,715 SHORT ST MILL ST MAIN ST Crack Seal or FDP 250 STONE WELL RD HAVERHILL ST CUL-DE-SAC LOOP Crack Seal or FDP 274 SUNSET ROCK LN FRANKLIN ST CUL-DE-SAC LOOP Crack Seal or FDP 906 TIMBERNECK DR CHARLES ST TAMARACK RD Crack Seal or FDP 1,622 WINTHROP AVENUE WESTON RD HARTSHORN ST Crack Seal or FDP 878 Sub Total $767,572 Page 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Redmond, Glen Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:48 AM To: Cormier, Jim; Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: walkers 2-5.19.05.doc Attachments: image001.png; oledata.mso TO: FROM: DATE: RE: 16 Lowell Street Readin%, NIA 01867-2683 Reading Police Department Fax 893 Construction Superintendant for Pincon Glen Redmond May 22,2007 Concrete Pour @ Stop & Shop Walkers Brook Dr Today May 22 & May 24 Glen Redmond Commissioner ofBuildings Pho me: (781) 942-9013 Fax: (781) 942-9071 Email: gre dmond@ciamading.ma.us Reading Police Department Jim Cormier Notices were sent out yesterday afternoon aprox 4:00pm to all the abutters hand delivered by the contractor of the Stop 7 Shop project There will be a large concrete pour at Walkers Brook Dr Stop & Shop project on May 22 and May 24th This pour will probably run into the evening beyond the normal working hours allowed Please do not enforce any complaints with regards to working after hours I did check with your dispatcher about the last concrete pour on May 1714--there were no complaints filed Also I have discussed this with the Town Manager I n the future we will handle these requests in a more timely manner Any questions please contact me--Cell 978 337 0103 5/22/2007 (9) Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Scott Weiss [SWeiss@natdev.Com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:34 PM Subject: National Development, Addison-Wesley, Reading - Re-Development Update Since the public information session in March, National Development has continued to advance our planning efforts for the re-development of the Addison-Wesley property. We have taken comments received at that meeting and feedback from the Town's Advisory Team to help advance the plan. We look forward to sharing an updated plan with you in the coming months. In the meantime, we have created a website to post the information presented. While it is a simple summary at this time, please go to htto://www.natdevreadina.cnm/ for-information on the project. Most notably, after overcoming several-setbacks, we h rraily been able to post the m 1 presented at the March meeting. To view the presentation, go to h~tt www.natdevreadina.corri/Images/R March22web.ndf. Please feel free to pass along thissHare-t+~e-datbsittr with others. As always, you can e-mail me at sweissOnatdev.com or call me at (617) 559-5011. And, thank you all for your continued interest in the future of Addison-Wesley property. -Scott Weiss Scott J. Weiss Vice President of Development National Development 2310 Washington Street Newton Lower Falls, MA 02462 tel: 617-559-5011 cell: 508-259-1192 fax: 617-965-7361 e-mail: sweissOnatdev.com web: www.natdev.com Notice: This message (including any attachments) contains confidential Information and is Intended only for the use of the intended addressee(s). Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended addressee(s). Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this transmittal in error and delete it from your computer system. We accept no liability for any loss or damage that arises as a result of this transmission; each addressee is responsible for checking this transmission for the presence of viruses. Nothing In this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature or to otherwise satisfy the requirements for a contract unless an express statement to the contrary is included in this message. 5/22/2007 27 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Ellen Doucette [ecdoucette@brackettlucas.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:29 PM To: Kowalski, Carol; Schloth, Mike Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Danis Realty v. CPDC Today I received Danis' Stipulation of Dismissal to be filed with the court regarding the above appeal of the CPDC's site plan approval for the property at 38 Walkers Brook Drive. Ellen Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq. Brackett & Lucas . 165 Washington Street Winchester, MA 01890 (781) 729-1500 (781) 729-5444 Facsimile 5/21/2007 9 DRAFT Section 3.X -Approval of Retail Sales between midnight and 6 am Section 5.10 of the General Bylaws of the Town of Reading prohibits retail sales between the hours of midnight and 6:00 am. It also provides for a process by which the Board of Selectmen may consider allowing retail sales between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. when the Board determines that permitting retail sales during those hours is in the interest of public health safety and welfare, or is in the interest of public necessity or public convenience. These regulations are adopted by the Board of Selectmen to provide guidance to the Board of Selectmen, applicants, and the. public regarding how applications for waivers from the restriction on hours of retail sales will be handled. Each application will be dealt with on a case by case basis. An initial application for a waiver of the 6 am to midnight hours of operation shall require a public hearing noticed to all property owners within 300', and by publication in a local newspaper and/or publication on the Town's web site. Renewal of a waiver shall be required on an annual basis with each waiver expiring on December 31. The Board of Selectmen shall determine on a case by case basis whether a public hearing is required for each renewal. Board of Selectmen may revoke approval upon receipt of complaints that the operation is taking place contrary to the approval granted by the Board. Revocation shall be made only after a public hearing, unless emergent circumstances require an administrative revocation pending hearing. The following guidelines are not intended to be a full list of issues to be dealt with by the Board but are merely guidelines to the applicant. 1. Approval will be granted for businesses within a commercial or industrial zoning district only. 2. In general, approval shall be for the entire business. For example, if a business dispenses gasoline, sells coffee, and has a convenience store, all within the same business, then the approval shall be for all parts of the business. 3. The retail use for which approval of a change in retail hours is permitted will be the principal use on the property. 4. Written approval of the property owner will be required prior to the Board hearing an application for a license. This will need to be renewed annually. 5. The Board will require evidence that the change in permitted hours of retail operation Will have minimal effect on the neighborhood adjacent to the site. 6. The applicant must show that adequate controls are in place to ensure public safety and follow food code sanitation protocols. 7. The Board may limit the use of outdoor speakers, drive throughs', and/or restrict parking in certain areas in order to limit the impact of the waiver on neighboring properties. 8. Prior to the issuance of a waiver on the hours of retail sales, the. Board may request a review by the Health Division, Police Department, and the Building/Zoning Inspection Division and proof that all necessary approvals, permits, and other licenses needed to operate have been issued. 9. A waiver to allow retail uses between midnight and 6 am is not a waiver of any other bylaw or regulation of the Town of Reading or other agency having jurisdiction. Rubbish collection, recycling, parking lot cleaning, and other maintenance operations (excluding emergency work), and deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 am Adopted xx/xx/07 2~► Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Fiore, Jane Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:06 PM To: Cormier, Jim; Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: Draft regulations on waivers from Section 5.10 - Retail Sales.doc One issue for Public Health f0l Our Dumpster Regulation BOH Sec 4. 3 The dumpster is not filled or emptied between 11 pm and 6:30 am. Extenuating circumstances will be determined on a case by case basis by the Health director. The business filing for an exemption must do so in writing and receive approval before the fact. Section Guidelines # 6. 1 would prefer this to read to follow food code sanitation protocols rather than cleanliness ( "cleanliness" is too subjective a term) # 9. 9 pm and not before 7 am is very different from 11 pm and 6:30 am. That's it for health Jane From: Cormier, Jim Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:48 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Fiore, Jane Subject: FW: Draft regulations on waivers from Section 5.10 - Retail Sales.doc I just tried to fix a typo, I'm not sure on the grammar on drive-through's. It seems to coverall the items we discussed. Jimmy From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:02 AM To: Fiore, Jane; Cormier, Jim Subject: Draft regulations on waivers from Section 5.10 - Retail Sales.doc Please review the attached which are scheduled for discussion by the BOS this evening - not for approval yet. Give me any comments you have at this time by 3 this afternoon if you can. Pete 5/22/2007 3~ Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Cormier, Jim Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:48 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Fiore, Jane Subject: FW: Draft regulations on waivers from Section 5.10 - Retail Sales.doc Attachments: Draft regulations on waivers from Section 5.10 - Retail Sales.doc I just tried to fix a typo, I'm not sure on the grammar on drive-through's. It seems to cover all the items we discussed. Jimmy From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:02 AM To: Fiore, Jane; Cormier, Jim Subject: Draft regulations on waivers from Section 5.10 - Retail Sales.doc Please review the attached which are scheduled for discussion by the BOS this evening - not for approval yet. Give me any comments you have at this time by 3 this afternoon if you can. Pete 5/22/2007 RF,ADINGPoLicE EP 1 mEN1 OFFICE OF T CHIEF Janaev W. Cormier Chief of Police April 6, 2007 15 Union Street, Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Emergency Only: 911 All Other Calls: 781-944-1212 Fax: 781-944-2893 E-Mail: JCormier@ci.reading.ma.us Peter Hechenbleilaler Town Manager Dear Peter: 9 v y► 'o C! 0 a- 00 As a follow up to the March 20t" meeting I had with Jane Fiore, Selectmen Stephen Goldy and Selectmen Camille Anthony, I would like to, as requested, forward a summary and some points that were made during the meeting regarding the early opening of coffee shops. Jane pointed out at the beginning of the meeting, from her perspective from the health department, when they lower the time on opening that there will be people needing to enter the premises approximately one hour earlier than the opening for appropriate preparation time. Jane may be able to add more to the perspective from the Health Department. Regarding the perspective from the Police Department, one of the main issues that I would ask the board to consider, is that one standard time for all requests be granted, whatever that time may be, but I would ask that it would be the same time for everybody to ensure consistency for enforcement abilities. Some of the points that the board should consider, I think, that carne out of this meeting are: #1. Is the early opening time for "stand alone" coffee shops only? The discussion that we had was that some of the coffee shops (Bagel World, Dunkin Donuts, etc) sell such items as milks and juices. Does the fact that they sell these extra items now create an opportunity for convenience stores that sell these items and coffee, to make an argument regarding the competition aspect for the businesses? Should the convenience stores also be allowed to open early, because, along with coffee, they sell milk and juices as well. #2. What about coffee shops that share premises? The question regarding this is the convenience, and/or gas station part of the premises going to be allowed to be open at the salve time as the coffee shop portion? Enforcement of this would be time consuming and difficult, and would probably ultimately bring us back to the same question that we are trying to address, having to do with why these other places can't be open early. If the convenience store part of the premises is allowed to open, then the "stand alone" convenience stores will also have an argument to pose before the board, in regards to them opening early as long as 3Z they sell coffee also. So, that would be an issue as to once you start expanding from the "stand alone" coffee shops to these other stores, where do you draw the line and say "no"? I believe that the board should give themselves an "out" clause in each instant of a variance. There is a very good chance that we will receive complaints from neighbors regarding noise depending on the previous points mentioned, at the locations of these various stores being allowed to open. The police department would record all complaints and be able to provide a report to the board regarding these complaints and the'number that have been received. The board, however, would have to determine what would be acceptable or excessive. Does one neighbor, constantly complaining, dictate a revocation, or do numerous neighbors have to complain? The summer months would probably generate more complaints, at least history dictates that, due to windows being open and different vehicles, such as motorcycles, being used. ■ Rubbish collection hours are controlled through public health regulations Deliveries would have to be addressed individually, and instructed not to begin before 6am. I believe we control those now in conjunction with the business hours, therefore if we change the business hours and don't address the deliveries, we could be allowing earlier deliveries which will definitely cause complaints. These are my recollections of the meeting, Steve and Camille may have others to add or remember more in depth the conversation. If I can be any further assistance please feel free to contact me. ly Since p Chief W. Cormier Chief of Police 0 - 2> Meeting 3/20/07 Topic: Coffee Shop early opening policy Attendina: 3/20/07 Chief Jim Cormier, Selectmen Camille Anthony and Stephen Goldy and myself, Jane Fiore met to discuss the change in the By- Law " public convenience " around the opening of coffee shops before 6 am. Issues discussed Public Health o Each operation would need to open 1 hour earlier fro food prep and shop readiness than public operation time o There are operations that have difficulty safely staffing existing operation hours o A mechanism to track complaints for a time specific should be developed • Police concerns o Complaint tracking mechanism for at least 90 days to evaluate temporary permit before annual permit is issued o Opening operation time should be the same for all establishments o Deliveries should remain the same for all retail regardless of opening for control and enforcement if necessary General discussion covered consistency in opening time, types of coffee shop - stand alone vs. drive through and convenient stores. Initial trial for permitted with stand-alone copy shops. Define a stand alone coffee shop does it share space. Each 27 licensed operations 4 DD, 2 Starbucks, 5 breakfast coffee shops, 6 convenient stores, 8 gasoline stations. (3 new establishments to open late 2007) Breakfast restaurant - Christopher's, Bear Rock Cafe, Aroma Caf6, Dunkin Donuts (2), Bagel World, Little Chucks, Station Coffee Shop, Burger King, McDonald's Convenient Store - multiple food products i.e. P&S Market Delivery and rubbish collection hours are control through public health regulations Outside speaker noise addressed in construction by-laws Recommendations/ reauests Public Health statement for BOS policy All food establishments requesting an extension of hours of operations shall be in compliance with all federal, state and local health regulations. • Define different operations • Consistent opening time should be included in regulations/policy • 90 day trial period before first annual early opening permit is granted • Continued discussion of issues before procedure developed Jane Fiore Health Administrator J May 22, 2007 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Representative Brad Jones Representative Patrick Natale Senator Richard Tisei State House Boston, MA 02133 Dear Representatives Jones and Natale and Senator Tisei: Ben Tafoya, Chairman James E. Bonazoli, V. Chairman Stephen A. Goldy, Secretary Camille W. Anthony Richard W. Schubert BOARD OF SELECTMEN (781) 942-9043 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us The Board of Selectmen is writing to you in a role as statutory issuing authority regarding the proposed legislation on consumer choice and competition for cable service sponsored by Senator Panagiotakos and Representative James Vallee. We believe that this legislation is single purpose legislation that unfairly favors the company that requested it, Verizon, at the expense of Massachusetts municipalities including Reading and at the expense of other cable companies such as Comcast. Other companies have followed existing law in good faith, in establishing their current license with the Town of Reading. The Town of Reading has also franchised Verizon under the existing regulations. While this process with Verizon took a long time, this was largely because of their newness at this process and Verizon's inexperience in Massachusetts. For over 30 years the Commonwealth's cable companies have constructed and operated cable television systems under competitive municipal contracts that address local communities' needs and provide local community benefits. Federal law specifically prohibits cable companies and municipalities from entering into exclusive franchises. We believe competition is desirable and has in fact in Reading resulted in producing consumer benefits through increase choice. We support competition as long as the current local community process is continued for Verizon and all companies entering the local market place. Unfortunately, Verizon is seeking state legislation that would exempt it from the municipal process under which all cable television companies operate. Essentially if this legislation was enacted, Verizon would bypass municipal authorization and approval. This local authorization and approval has worked to the benefit of cable subscribers in the Town of Reading and has had a very important positive benefit for our community access corporation - RCTV. The same franchise process will insure competition on equal terms among providers. The proposed law would harm the local communities' ability to meet local interest including our PEG local programming. The Town of Reading has a strong track record in issuing franchises in a business like and professional manner. We are a prime example of why Verizon's proposed legislation is not needed. If Verizon does it job properly, it should have no trouble negotiating franchises in all of the communities in the Commonwealth under existing regulations. We appreciate your attention to this issue. Sincerely, Ben Tafoya, Chairman James Bonazoli, Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy, Secretary Camille Anthony Richard Schubert 3~ Resolution of the Reading Board of Selectmen Urging the Massachusetts Legislature To Reject Efforts by Telecommunications Companies to Eliminate Municipal Control of Cable Franchising Authority WHEREAS, Verizon Communications has built facilities through which competitive cable television services can be offered in nearly 50 Massachusetts communities including the town of Reading, yet it is not clear whether or when any other municipality in which Verizon also operates will enjoy the benefits of competition to the same extent as these communities; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth provides a primary role for local governments to negotiate the terms and conditions under which a wireline cable television company may provide cable television service to its residents pursuant to a municipal consent ordinance, and this requirement of law is consistent with the long-standing principle of ascertaining and addressing community cable-related needs at the local level; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth's wireline cable television companies constructed and now operate cable television systems under municipal consents that address the specific needs of local communities with specific agreed upon terms; and WHEREAS, federal law explicitly prohibits cable companies and municipalities from entering into exclusive franchises. Yet, notwithstanding non-exclusivity, construction of competitive wireline cable television systems in Massachusetts has not occurred to the extent desired due to economic factors beyond the control of local government; and WHEREAS, competition in the provision of cable television service is desirable and has the potential for producing consumer benefits through increased choice and the Town of Reading supports and now enjoys that competition; and WHEREAS, Verizon is seeking state legislation that would exempt it from the municipal consent process to which all cable television companies now operate and, if such legislation were enacted, would be permitted to offer competitive cable services under a state-issued franchise that would bypass municipal authorization and approval; and WHEREAS, the Town of Reading has negotiated a franchise with Verizon, and is keenly aware of the need to maintain the role of the local licensing authority in ensuring that local needs are being met in the franchising process; and WHEREAS, municipalities and their residents have a significant and specific interest in the terms and conditions attendant to the award of a cable television franchise. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN OF READING that it does hereby urge the Massachusetts Legislature and the Patrick Administration, in the strongest possible manner, to oppose any effort to eliminate the municipal consent process for competitive providers of cable television service until, at a minimum, a thorough evaluation is completed of the current system and the effect of any proposed changes on local governments, residents, competitors, and incumbents is analyzed. 3~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Selectmen recommend that the Massachusetts Legislature request from the Department of Telecommunications and Cable a report on the status of Verizon's commitments, operation and intent to utilize municipal rights of way for the purpose of providing cable television service and the Department of Telecommunications and Cable's opinion as to whether Verizon's status as a telephone provider exempts it (Verizon) from the requirements that apply to provide cable television service. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution shall be certified and forwarded to Governor Patrick, Lt. Governor Murray, Senate President Murray, House Speaker DiMasi and Attorney General Coakley, members of the legislature's Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the New England Cable Telecommunications Association for their records. Signed this 22nd day of May, 2007 by the Reading Board of Selectmen; . Ben Tafoya, Chairman James Bonazoli, Vice Chairman Steve Goldy, Secretary Camille Anthony Richard Schubert CONSERVATION COMMISSION Phone (781) 942-6616 ' Fax (781) 942-9071 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 AGENDA Reading Conservation Commission Meeting Selectmen's Meeting Room, 7:00 PM Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:00 Old/New Business 7:30 Public Hearing, Notice of Intent, Kevin and Beth Murray, 147 Belmont Street, DEP 270-499, RGB 2007-6, addition to house 7:40 Public Meeting, Request for Determination of Applicability, Karen Ghirardi, 55 Louanis Drive, RGB 2007-12, three-season porch addition 7:50 Public Meeting, Request for Determination of Applicability, Susan Patterson, 572 Haverhill Street, RGB 2007-13, addition to house 8:00 Public Hearing, Notice of Intent, Jason Benagh, Quannapowitt Theater, 55 Hopkins Street, DEP 270-500, RGB 2007-8, addition to theater 8:10 Public Hearing, Notice of Intent, 85 Batchelder Road, RGB 2007-11, addition to house 8:20 Public Hearing, Notice of Intent,. Reading Memorial High School, Patrick Schettini, Supt., Town of Reading School Building Committee, RGB 2007-14, light pole Old/New Business: • 37 Pinevale - Response to violation notice ® Johnson Woods, DEP 270-424, RGB 2004-10 - Grading and drainage as-built plan • 13 Riverside, DEP 270-46 Request to reissue Partial Certificate of Compliance for recording purposes • Walkers Brook Crossing, DEP 270-352, RGB 2001-14 - Final inspection, request for Certificate of Compliance • Reading Memorial High School, DEP 270-416, RGB 2003-51-Response to Enforcement Order • 15 Timothy Place, DEP 270-398, RGB 2003-16 - As-built site plan and request for Certificate of Compliance • 26R Summer Avenue, DEP 270-454, RGB 2005-27 - Draft Conservation Restriction for review e 1481 Main Street - Name, sign, screening, trail layout . • 10 Torre Street - Appeal of Superseding Determination • 14 Strawberry Hill Lane - Appeal of Order of Conditions • Site Visit Reports • Minor Projects • Minutes for approval 0 other... (This agenda is prepared in advance and may not list all items for the meeting.) BIRCH MEADOW MASTER PLAN R~ Legend 'Birch Meadow Master Plan area Buildings j Parcels School Town Owned Land Other New High School Sports Facilities RMHS Roads & Parking ( Field Tennis VIA Basketball ~l V V A C ~ ,.Y Map by: Town of Reading Map date: 5121/07 Parcels valid 1/1/06. Roads, buildings, sidewalks, drives, parking, sports facilities, and hydrography are from aerial photos taken spring 1998. RMHS footprint, driveways, and parking from CAD plan. 0 200 400 800 Ft y o~T MEMORANDUM TO: Bernard Cohen, Secretary of Transportation FROM: Ben Tafoya, Chairman Reading Board of Selectmen DATE: May 16, 2007 RE: Reading's Board of Selectmen Position on Interstate Routes 95 and 93 Interchange Improvements Town of Reading Position on Interstate Routes 95 and 93 Interchange Improvements The Town of Reading appreciates the hard work, of the Interstate Route 95/93 Task Force, and MHD's staff and consultants. The process that was followed is much improved from the previous process, and therefore the product is much improved. This is important to the Town of Reading because Reading is the community most impacted by any scenario of improvement of this interchange - the interchange itself and much of the ramp structures are in the Town of Reading directly abutting a residential neighborhood. The following statement represents the Town of Reading position on options presently before the Task, Force as this phase concludes. This position paper represents the formal vote of the Board of Selectmen on May 15, 2007. Early in the study, the Interchange Task Force (ITF) worked with the consultants to develop goals and objectives. Selected objectives are listed below. Of major importance were the objectives to work within the existing right-of-way and avoid takings, particularly of residences. 1. Improve traffic flow in and around the I-93/I-95 interchange; 2. Improve safety for motorists; 3. Maintain local access and improve traffic conditions on local streets; 4. Improve mobility through multi-modal and other transportation strategies; 5. Meet transportation goals without sacrificing quality of life for area communities. • Minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences and other sensitive receptors; • Relieve impacts of cut-through traffic on neighborhoods and business districts; • Design improvements within the existing right-of-way; • Avoid residential and business property takings; • Minimize negative economic effects to tax bases, and enhance local and regional economic activity where possible; • Minimize visual impacts on the communities and enhance the visual environment where possible; • Maintain community and business district connections and access, including automobile, truck, emergency vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access, and make improvements where possible; Y Consider quality of life costs as well as financial costs. 6. Protect and enhance the natural and cultural environment; 7. Develop recommendations that can be implemented efficiently; 8. The study will continue to be conducted through an open and inclusive process; 9. Provide justification for any additional recommended actions over and above what analyses show is necessary. In order to meet these objectives the Town of Reading believes that the following actions are necessary as a package of actions to be undertaken by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Highway Department: A. Transit and TDM (Transportation Demand Manamement) Components Further development and study of the following components must be included in the environmental phase: 1. Re-open the Mishawum passenger rail station; 2. Implement a fully online sign-up system for carpools in the area;. 3. Increase utilization of the Anderson Regional Transportation Center (RTC) through the following or other measures: • Free commuter parking at Anderson RTC; • Creation of a formal park-and-ride program at the Anderson RTC; • Improve access to the Anderson RTC, including a pedestrian bridge from the west side of the railroad tracks. 4. Expand ongoing marketing of transit services in the study area; 5. Expand ongoing outreach and incentives for carpooling in the study area through MassRIDES: • A carpool incentive program; • Expanded vanpool incentive program; • Additional marketing. 6. Expand peak-period "Route 128" shuttle service from Anderson RTC to Burlington, Lexington, and Waltham, with connecting service to Reading Depot; 7. Add off-peak "Route 128" shuttle service; 8. Establish a park-and-ride shuttle service from Peabody; 9. Explore cross-ticketing/fare payment arrangements on privately operated shuttle services; 10. Improve signage and traveler information to promote carpooling and transit: • Install static signage on I-93 and I-95 promoting carpooling and transit; • Install electronic signs or Variable Message Signs (VMS) on 1-93 and I-95 promoting carpooling and transit; • Use real-time traffic, transit schedule, and parking information in signs, websites, cell phones, or other media. 11. Increase MBTA reverse-peak and local bus service on Route 354 and extending Route 132 (currently serving Malden, Melrose and Stoneham) to serve the Reading commuter rail station, the Anderson RTC, and nearby employers in Woburn; 12. Enhance MBTA commuter rail service on existing lines: • Improve headways on the Lowell Line between Anderson RTC and Boston to create a shuttle-type service with peak period headways of 15 or 20 minutes; • Add service north of the Anderson RTC on the Lowell Line and the Haverhill Line. 13. Encourage employers within the 128 region to allow flexible work hours. B. Hiahwav Components 1. Implement "easy fix" enhancements to the highway system as soon as possible: • Eliminate the lane drop on I-95 North at the Interchange - extend the additional lane northbound to at least the I-95/129 intersection; • Add a southbound lane to I-95, beginning the 4t' lane from as far north as Walkers Brook Drive; • Incorporate noise barriers as part of the construction of this north bound and south bound lane additions; • Proceed with the project to modify the Washington Street ramp by moving it westerly; • PROPOSED: Proceed with the project to modify the Washington Street ramp as shown in Alternate H3 • OR Delete sentence • Improve traffic/speed enforcement; • Enforce EXISTING state laws to minimize noise: 80db for motorcycle mufflers and exhaust pipes Prohibited use of engine brakes on 18-wheelers (and post signage). 2. Work to lower the profile of all overhead ramps to the maximum extent possible; 3. Make an up-front commitment for inclusion of sound barriers as part of any project; 4. Implement the following construction mitigation to: • Minimize cut-through traffic; • Each component of the improvements should be analyzed for reduction in traffic congestion and minimization of cut through traffic during and following construction. The results of the analysis should establish the phasing of components of construction to minimize impacts of the surrounding communities during construction. Minimize disruption - noise and otherwise - to abutting properties (noise and light from night time construction); Additional law enforcement funding needs to be provided tot the communities to regulate traffic during construction; Major project construction cannot start before the following projects in Reading are complete: West Street improvements (Project # 601705) and state projects; Main Street Pavement Resurfacing (Project # 604804) and N. Reading/Reading Rte 28 bridge project (Project # 603473). The reason for this request is to make sure that the local infrastructure needed to handle traffic diverted by construction is in place and is adequate to accommodate this traffic; MHD needs to perform benefit analysis (environmental, traffic mitigation, noise etc.) of daytime vs. nighttime construction; Prior to construction, an upgrade in the traffic controllers and installation of a closed loop system for traffic signals along Rte 28, Rte 129, Walkers Brook Drive, West Street, Woburn Street and Summer Avenue in Reading is needed to regulate cut through traffic during construction; Provide to the Town of Reading adequate funding to hire a consultant to provide for an independent evaluation of the proposed construction mitigation. C. Interchanee Design Alternatives The Town does not endorse either of the alternative plans because they do not meet the goals of the study. Specifically these alternatives: • do not eliminate all property takings, • do not minimize noise impacts, and • do not minimize visual impacts on properties in Reading. The Town believes that all of these impacts can be reduced or eliminated through additional design work. Approved by the Reading Board of Selectmen May 15, 2007 cc: Board of Selectmen Representative Brad Jones Representative Patrick Natale Senator Richard Tisei wo . v SET . ATE 'FORT BQ -od DSTO^ SEE` TV _ ' , Alm E SS_ hIA~ (please prind) R _ 3 6 i - Y J^~ I ~f