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