The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-01-23 Board of Selectmen PacketPage 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: bonazoli@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:31 PM To: Schena, Paula; Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: hours of operation Attachments: Hours of Operation Bylaw.doc Pete and Paula Sorry I missed the Friday packet delivery. Please get to the board of selectmen. Thank you James /'t / 1/19/2007 Hours of Operation Bvlaw Original By-law language 5.10 Retail Sales 5. 10.1 No retail, commercial operation or place of business shall be open for the transaction of retail business between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless after an application and hearing before the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Selectmen determine that it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to allow such retail, commercial operation or place of business to operate during such hours or during a portion of such hours. 5.10.2 This Bylaw shall not apply to the retail, commercial operation of facilities operated by inn holders and/or common victuallers and/or taverns where a license has been duly issued for the operation of the same which otherwise restricts or describes the hours of operation of such facilities. This Bylaw shall not prevent a cinema from concluding the showing of a movie that has commenced prior to 12:01 a.m.. Options of Change 5.10 Retail Sales 5. 10.1 No retail, commercial operation or place of business shall be open for the transaction of retail business outside the following hours: Description I Hours Automotive Repair Shop I 7:00A.M.-10 P.M. Restaurants without liquor/ 5:00A.M.-Midnight Fast Foods Retail stores Gasoline Filling Stations Second Hand Dealers/Pawnshops Mechanical Equipment (Noise) Recording Studios (Audio & Video) Residential Deliveries Second Hand Goods Bowling Alley/Pool Room Dumpster Pick Up/Delivery Car Sales Drive Up Window Service at all Businesses All Other Deliveries and/or Services to business establishments 6:OOA.M.-10:00 P.M 6:00A.M.-Midnight 8:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M 6:OOA.M.-8:00 P.M 8:OOA.M.-9:OOP.M 6:OOA.M.-8:00 P.M 6:OOA.M.-8:00 P.M 6:OOA.M.-11:00 P.M 7:OOA.M.-8:00 P.M 9:OOA.M.-9:00 P.M. 5:00A.M.-Midnight 6:OOA.M.-10:00 P.M Unless after an application and hearing before the Board of Selectmen, whereas the Board of Selectmen determine that it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to allow such retail as described above to operate during such hours or during a portion of such hours Option Two: 5. 10.1 No retail, commercial operation or place of business shall be open for the transaction of retail business between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless the Board of Selectmen shall have made the following specific findings with respect to such establishment: 5.10.1.1 That such night-time hours of operation by such establishment will not cause unreasonable disruption, or disturbance to, or otherwise adversely affect, the customary character of any adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods; 5.10.1.2 That such night-time hours of operation are reasonably necessary to serve a public need or person to provide a convenience to the public that outweighs any increase in any of the following impacts on the adjacent or nearby residential neighborhood (or the character thereof) that are likely to result from such retail business establishment being open for such night-time hours: noise, lighting, vibration, traffic congestion, or volume of pedestrian or vehicular retail customer traffic; risk to pedestrian or vehicular safety, accident potential or other public safety impacts, or any other adverse safety impact. The Board of Selectmen may adopt rules and regulations to govern the administration of the licensing process and in so doing may impose such terms and conditions upon granting such license as it may consider to be appropriate. If the Board of Selectmen determines that as of a result of any increase or change in the nature or character of the business conducted by such retail business establishment has become substantially more detrimental to the adjacent or nearby residential neighborhood than was the business being conducted by such retail business, then the Board of Selectmen shall be authorized to detennine that the provisions of this bylaw shall apply to such retail business establishment, in which case such establishment shall be entitled to be open for business during such night-time hours only if it complies with the provisions of 5.10.1.1 and 5.10.1.2. For purposes of determining whether any such increase or change has been "substantially more detrimental" the Board of Selectmen shall analyze such increase or change in light of the impacts described in 5.10.1.1 and 5.10.1.2. 5.10.2 This Bylaw shall not apply to the retail, commercial operation of facilities operated by inn holders and/or common victuallers and/or taverns where a license has been duly issued for the operation of the same which otherwise restricts or describes the hours of operation of such facilities. This Bylaw shall not prevent a cinema from concluding the showing of a movie that has commenced prior to 12:01 a.m. Due to the recent changes installed by the Board of Selectmen, parking in the center of town is going to be "2 hour all day". In addition there will be numerous spots in the outlying areas that allow for all day parking with a permit. The all day parking with a permit areas are in blue on the attached map. This permit will cost $240 per year (pro rated,for the calendar year). These spaces are first come first served. The applicant must be able to prove employment at a business in the center of town. The areas marked in gold are leased spaces. These spaces cost $30 per month. Persons leasing one of these spots are guaranteed access to their assigned space during the hours of Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00pm (violators will be towed at leasor's request). Once again, the applicant must be able to prove employment at a business in the center of town. Although the number of leased spaces has increased by almost 60 under the new regulations, these spaces are of great interest to many of the area business. For this reason, I am working in conjunction with the Chief and Town Manager to set up a lottery for the available leased spaces that we have in the town when the new parking regulations go into effect.' We are currently gathering the names of the interested business, the number of spots they would like entered into the lottery, and the location of the spots they are interested in (Le High Street leased spots, Senior Center leased spots). Once we are able to gather the information of all the interested parties we will hold the lottery. All interested parties shall email Safety Officer Michelle Halloran directly with their responses at: MHa11oran(a)ci.readinR.ma.us Please use email for their correspondence-We can not tie up the police phone lines with this amount of phone calls!!!! DEADLINE TO SUBMIT YOUR ENTRY INTO THE LOTTERY IS; WEDNESDAY 9/6/06 AT 12:00 NOON THE LOTTERY WINNERS WILL BE NOTIFIED AFTER THAT DATE Thank you L' C H A P A Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, Inc. (Sc ~ ~G t, f1vot 2W JAN 18 AM 11= 34 President Ann Houston January 17, 2007 Vice Presidents Jack Cooper Mr Peter Hechenbleikner Vincent O'Donnell Town Manager Jeanne Pinado Town of Reading Treasurer 16 Lowell Street Rick Muraida Reading, MA 01867 Clerk Susan Schlesinger Re: Inspector General's Review of Sumner Cheney Condominiums Executive Director Aaron Gornstein Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: Citizens' Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) received a copy of a letter from Inspector General Sullivan (dated January 2, 2007) regarding his Office's review of Sumner Cheney Condominiums in Reading. There are two important areas which account for the difference in the excess profit,of $17,976 as found by. CHAPA's independent consultant review and. the excess profit of $452,556 as found:by the IG) review..,These., two areas are:. 1) . Tnspetor Generals the methodology for determining land value; and 2):exclusion.ofwarous project costs because the developer did not have adequate supporting documentation. I would like to provide our perspective on each of these areas. Land Value 1375 Main Street Limited Partners LLC (Donald Van Dyne) purchased the land from 1375 Main Street Trust (Michael Henessey) after the Reading ZBA had already issued a comprehensive permit to the Trust. Despite the similar names of these two entities, CHAPA's research did not find any evidence that there was a relationship between Mr. Henessey and Mr. Van Dyne. It appears that the IG's review also did not find that this was a related-party sale (the IG's review did find that the previous owner, 1375 Main Street Trust, and Rangeway were related parties when they entered into a purchase and sale agreement for $600,000). Therefore, it appears that the land purchase by Donald Van Dyne, the developer of the parcel, was an "arms-length" transaction for $580,000. Mr Van Dyne, the developer o£ Sumner Cheney Condominiums,. entered into, a. regulatory agreement with "Middlesex Federal Sayings Banl~. an IVlarch.28, 2002. It is our understanding. that this document was reviewed by the Town of Reading.. The regulatory.agreement specified that the developer received a comprehensive permit. from the Reading ZBA. This developer utilized construction financing from the THIS AGENCY IS SUPPORTED BY 18 Tremont Street • Suite 401 ® Boston, MA 02108 a Telephone (617) 742-0820 m Fax (617) 742-3953 Unit fdp /ay Website: www.chapa.org Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston's New England Fund Program (NEF) as the eligible subsidy source. This developer commenced with Sumner Cheney Condominiums prior to the adoption of the February 2003 state guidelines governing NEF. As such, there was no requirement that an appraisal be submitted to the ZBA nor was there a requirement that the land value be based on a pre-permit appraisal. Today, there are specific state rules governing land value and other expenses. In these cases, such as Sumner Cheney Condominiums, CHAPA has consulted with our legal counsel, the state housing agencies, and various 40B experts to determine how to treat the issue of land value when no guidelines or regulations existed-either under the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston's NEF program guidelines or state housing agency guidelines. There is strong consensus among these parties that CHAPA cannot retroactively apply today's land value policies to "old NEF" projects when no such policies existed at the time, especially in cases of arms-length transactions. This class of NEF projects is defined as those which received site approval letters prior to July 22, 2002 as specified in 40B regulation 760 CMR 31.09 (3). We consider this to be a reasonable and respectful policy disagreement with the IG's office and one which may ultimately need to be decided by the courts and/or the Housing Appeals Committee. To date, we have not received any formal legal opinion from the state housing agencies, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston, or the Inspector General's Office regarding this issue. Disallowed Proiect Expenses In addition to excluding a land value amount of $310,000, the IG's report disallows $82,792 in project expenses because the developer did not have adequate supporting documentation. This included a portion of certain expenses, such as construction costs, landscaping, marketing and commissions, and legal and accounting. The IG contracted with Melanson Heath & Company to conduct an audit of the developer's cost-certification review, involving verification of all invoices, cancelled checks, and timesheets. This scope of work exceeds that required by CHAPA. Our agency is responsible for conducting a review of the developer's financial information (in accordance with the monitoring services and regulatory agreements), not an entirely new audit. CHAPA's use of a review of the developer's cost-certification is consistent with other affordable housing programs in Massachusetts, such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Based on the fact that we conduct an independent review rather than an audit, CHAPA relies on the numbers presented in the independent audit submitted by the accounting firm. Frequently, we do ask for 2 ~~z additional documentation for related party expenses, if there appears to be questionable expenses, or if expenses appear to be above industry standards. Discount Rate for Resales of Affordable Units The IG report points out that the discount rate with regard to the resale of the two affordable units was not originally calculated properly by the developer. As discussed with staff at the Inspector General's Office, we were not aware at the time of the resale at 6 Sumner-Cheney Place that the discount rate was calculated incorrectly in both the Regulatory Agreement and the Deed Rider. As also explained, this was the first resale that CHAPA coordinated. Because the Regulatory Agreement and Deed Rider contained the same Discount Rate, we did not question the validity of the calculation. Nevertheless, the affordable unit at 6 Sumner Cheney was resold to a new income eligible household and a new deed rider was recorded. The Town of Reading was involved throughout the resale process and was fully aware of the resale price. Since 2004, CHAPA has adopted an alternate process for coordinating resales in which the deed rider contains a "discount rate." Based on discussions with our attorneys, we no longer use the discount rate resale price methodology in cases where it results in a resale price that is unaffordable to a household earning 80% of the area median income. In these cases, we conduct a second methodology to determine what would be affordable to an income-eligible household and set the resale price based on that calculation. We also conveyed this information to the IG's office. Recommendations In his letter of January 2, 2007, the Inspector General makes several recommendations regarding land value, related party expenses, timeliness of audit submissions, and posting of bonds to ensure project completion. CHAPA agrees with the recommendations addressing these areas. The IG also recommends that the town should require deed riders to provide for affordability in perpetuity and to tie the resale prices to median income changes. We would like to elaborate on this recommendation. First, since 2003 all deed riders for "new NEF" projects tie resale prices to median income changes. Second, we strongly encourage municipalities and developers to use the new uniform deed rider approved by Fannie Mae and all of the state housing agencies (May 2006). CHAPA worked closely with Fannie Mae and the state agencies to develop this deed rider, which includes a provision that affordability restrictions survive foreclosure. ~~3 Since CHAPA began monitoring 40B projects seven years ago, our agency has continuously advocated for state guidelines, regulations, and procedures governing Chapter 40B and The New England Fund. As a result of these efforts and others, the following has occurred: • In February 2003, the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development promulgated comprehensive guidelines for The New England Fund Program (and they were amended on August 8, 2005). These guidelines included a definition of land value based on "the current appraised fair market value under existing zoning without a comprehensive permit in place." • In November 2005, Massachusetts Housing Partnership released guidelines regarding local review of 40B developments, which were adopted by all of the state's housing agencies. Appendix 1 of these guidelines covers issues relevant to cost-certifications, such as a definition of land value, allowable related-party expenses, allowable brokerage commissions, allowable administrative costs, and other important issues. In February 2006, MassHousing issued specific instructions for conducting cost-certification reviews of 40B developments. All monitoring agencies must follow these instructions. MassHousing is now drafting a comprehensive manual for monitoring agents, developers, cost-certification reviewers, and accounting firms. • In May 2006, Fannie Mae and the state housing agencies made available a uniform deed rider, which contains a provision that affordability restrictions survive foreclosure. • On September 1, 2006, MassHousing assumed the responsibility for conducting cost-certification reviews of projects for which MassHousing is the project administrator. We requested that MassHousing do this because we believe that MassHousing, in cooperation with the municipalities, is the most appropriate entity to conduct these reviews. We believe this will ensure uniformity and consistency across the state. CHAPA continues to serve as monitoring agent when asked by MassHousing or municipalities for all other monitoring aspects, such as overseeing but not conducting lotteries, conducting income certifications, and coordinating the resales of affordable units. 4 L~ CHAPA looks forward to continuing our monitoring work on behalf of the Reading ZBA and in coordination with your office. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments regarding our monitoring activities. Sincerely, Aaron Gornstein Executive Director cc: Inspector General Gregory Sullivan Donald Van Dyne, 1375 Main Street Partners LLC Thomas Gleason, Executive Director, MassHousing Sarah Young, Deputy Director, DHCD Ben Tafoya, Chairman, Reading Board of Selectmen Susan Miller, Chair, Reading Zoning Board of Appeals 5 ~a5 G ( 'C' g, --C,5 READING SCHOOL COMMITTEE Administrative Offices 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 781.944-5800 January 14, 2007 Mr. Ben Tafoya, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Mr. Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Re: School Committee Public Heating, January 22, 2007 Dear Ben and Pete, Elaine L. Webb, Chair Lisa F. Gibbs, Vice-Chair Christopher, Caruso Harvey J. Dahl Carl McFadden David C. Michaud Patrick A. Schettini, Jr. Superintendent of Schools This conveyance is intended to ensure that you are aware of the time and place of.the Public Hearing to be held by the School Committee on the Reading Public Schools FY 2008 budget. The hearing will begin at 7:30p.m. on Monday, January 22, 2007, in the A.W. Coolidge Middle School multipurpose room. Respectfully, TCaine L. 'Webb Elaine L. Webb Chairperson, Reading School Committee 4. Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading,. MA 01867-2683 Fax: (781) 942=5441 Web site: www.cireading.maus. PUBLIC WORKS (781) 942-9077 January 16, 2007 Dear Residents, In response to your petition to the Board of Selectman regarding the pavement condition on Colburn Road, the Town of Reading is planning on resurfacing your. street during the Fall of 2007. Prior to resurfacing, the Town will begin upgrading the drainage system on parts of your street during the coming spring and summer months. As construction gets closer, every resident on Colburn Road will receive a letter from the Town with a more accurate time schedule as to when work will commence. If you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to contact me at 781-942-9082. Z ouras Engineer cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Ted McIntire, Director of Public Works U She Commonwealth o Massachusetts E)cecutive Office of EnvironmentaCAffairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, 9W X 02114 Deval Patrick GOVERNOR Timothy Murray LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Ian Bowles Fax: (617) 626-1181 SECRETARY http:/Iwww.mass.gov/envir January 12, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT NAME PROJECT MUNICIPALITY PROJECT WATERSHED EOEA NUMBER PROJECT PROPONENT DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR Town of Reading Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Water System Reading Ipswich/North Coastal, and Chicopee/Nashua :12514 : Town of Reading :.December 6, 2006 As Secretary of Environmental Affairs, I hereby determine that the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report (SFEIR) adequately and properly complies with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (G. L. c. 30, ss. 61-62H) and with its implementing regulations (301 CMR*11.00). While I find the SFEIR to be adequate, I note that additional information is required to complete the Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) application as further detailed below. Proiect Description and MEPA Historv The town of Reading proposes to become a full-time member of the MWRA Waterworks System and purchase up to 829 million gallons of water annually from the MWRA, based on an average daily withdrawal of 2.27 million gallons per day (mgd). Reading proposes to cease withdrawal from its local water supply sources in the Ipswich River basin and maintain its sources as an emergency water supply. The purpose of the project is to ensure a safe water supply for the'town and reduce adverse impacts to the Ipswich River. The town previously filed a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) that proposed a partial seasonal supply from MWRA (219 ingd from May I" through October 31"). A Certificate on the FEIR, indicating that the project adequately and properly complied with MEPA, was issued October 31, 2003. In 2005, the Water Resources Commission approved a ~1 EOEA# 121514 SFEIR Certificate January 12, 2007 transfer of 219 million gallons per year (mgy). The town subsequently filed a Notice of Project Change (NPC) for an alternative project that would result in the town obtaining all of its water supply from the MWRA. The NPC and request for a Phase I waiver were filed pursuant to an Administrative Consent Order (ACO-NE-06-F001) between Reading and the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) as the result of unique circumstances regarding the town of Reading's water supply. The conditions of the ACO include requirements and timelines for the Town of Reading to file with MEPA, request approvals from the Water Resources Commission and obtain agreements and commitment from MWRA. The ACO also specifies withdrawal limits, and requirements for water conservation requirements and maintenance of the existing municipal water supply system. The Secretary's Certificate on the NPC (dated September 14, 2006) required the preparation of a Supplemental Final EIR (SFEIR) and limited the scope to issues associated with the potential impacts of incremental increase in the proposed transfer from the MWRA system, and cumulative effects on downstream flow in donor basin rivers. A Final Record of Decision was issued on October 10, 2006 granting a Phase I waiver to allow the proponent to proceed with its proposed alternative to obtain all of the town's water from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) prior to completion of the SFEIR for the entire project. Water Manaaerrient Issues As my predecessor noted in his Certificate on the NPC, the Reading proposal comes against the backdrop of discussions related to the potential expansion of municipal water supply by the MWRA. Comment letters received on the NPC and SFEIR address water management issues that need to be addressed in a basin- and system-wide context. I acknowledge the significance of these issues and appreciate the detailed and thoughtful comment letters received from the Nashua River Watershed Association, Ipswich Watershed Association, Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee and others. I also note that MEPA review of the Reading proposal does not require complete resolution of these water management issues. As part of the Water Resources Commission (WRC) review of Reading's pending application under the Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA), I will expect the WRC to require appropriate management measures to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts associated with water supply withdrawals in the Ipswich River watershed and the donor basins. Commenters on the SFEIR continue to express concern regarding the adequacy of flow to downstream reaches of the donor river basins and have recommended further evaluation of the effects of variable flows, and the in-stream releases necessary to support fisheries, recreation, and a more naturalized flow. The concerns raised in comment letters received on both the NPC and SFEIR address cumulative impacts of existing and potential future withdrawals and highlight water resource management issues that need be addressed at a broader level by the WRC, MWRA, and other parties. The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW), while it does not oppose the Town of Reading's admission to the MWRA water system, has stated that it will not support any future admissions to the MWRA system until the MWRA addresses its environmental operations, including but not limited to, the in-stream flow needs of the Ware, Swift and Nashua River basins. I expect that these issues will be addressed by WRC during its review of projects under the Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) and as part of the on-going dialogue 8~ti .EOEA# 125 14 SFEIR Certificate January 12, 2007 among MWRA, DFW, WRC, and other stakeholders. Jurisdiction The project is undergoing MEPA review and requires a mandatory EIR pursuant to Section 11.03(4)(a)(2) because it will involve a new interbasin transfer of water of 1,000,000 or more gallons per day or any amount determined significant by the WRC. The project requires approval from the WRC under the ITA and approval from the MWRA for admission to its water supply system, The proponent is not seeking financial assistance from the Commonwealth. Therefore, MEPA jurisdiction is limited to those aspects of the project within the subject matter of required permits that are likely to cause damage to the environment as defined in the MEPA regulations, In this case, MEPA jurisdiction extends to water supply and broad issues of water use and management. Suoolemental FEIR Review The SFEIR provided additional information as required by the Scope including information related to the viability of sources in the receiving area, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed interbasin transfer, water supply protection in the receiving basin, and the town's water conservation program. The SFEIR provided an update on MWRA discussions with state agencies and other stakeholders regarding system expansion and cumulative impacts, and management strategies to support adequate stream flow, The SFEIR also include a detailed response to comments, a draft Section 61 Findings, and a draft plan for decommissioning the town's water treatment plant and converting from inactive to emergency supply status. While the SFEIR provided much of the information requested by WRC, the proponent will be required to provide additional information and clarifications in order to complete the ITA application. The additional information required for the ITA application includes, but is not limited to: • information on the town of Reading's contract with MWRA and maximum daily limits; • release data from the Quabbin and Wachusett reservoirs; • clarifications on the United States Geological Service (USGS) analysis regarding viability of Ipswich River basin as a water supply source; • cost data for recently built water treatment plants in Massachusetts and comparison of water rates against other similar communities; • information on water treatment plant construction costs and clarification of findings relating to limited facility use and local source viability; • additional information concerning cost estimates for water purchased from MWRA and MWRA cost projections; • town of Reading water rates (clarify if seasonal water rate has been replaced with a higher year-round rate); • updates to Local Water Resource Management Plan to reflect current and proposed conditions; ® clarification of data in 2004/2005 Annual Statistical Report (ASR) reports; and ~3 EOEA# 1215 i4 SFEIR Certificate January 12, 2007 • the Annual Statistical Report for 2006 (which should be provided to WRC concurrent with the MassDEP filing due by February 28, 2007). The proponent should provide the additional information as further detailed in the WRC comment letter to WRC staff in the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Office of Water Resources and other EOEA ITA reviewers, to the public libraries in the donor and receiving basins, and to the MEPA Office for the project file. The SFEIR concludes that potential impacts to the donor basin associated with providing an additional 1.67 mgd to Reading are negligible because the MWRA decrease in system demand far exceeds the cumulative demands of Reading. The SFEIR refers to MWRA's determination of insignificance. As stated in the WRC comment letter, the WRC will determine whether reasonable in-stream flow will be maintained in the donor basins. Some commenters objected to the town of Reading's proposal to retain its Water Management Act registration of 2.57 mgd and raised concerns about potential future allocation of the registered volume. As discussed in the SFEIR, the town is seeking full-time membership in the MWRA Waterworks System and proposes to preserve and protect local water supply sources, which will be reclassified for future emergency use. I note that the Administrative Consent Order (ACO) between MassDEP and the town of Reading specifies maximum withdrawals allowed from the town's registered water supply sources, and I expect that MassDEP will address any future revisions to the town's WMA registration that may be necessary. In order to protect local water supply sources and promote conservation, the town of Reading has committed to a range of mitigation measures, As further detailed in the SFEIR, the town will: maintain ownership and control of the Zone I areas of public water supply wells and the capacity to provide disinfection; survey Zone II areas annually; maintain land use restrictions provided by the current zoning regulations for the Aquifer Protection District; assist the USGS in locating sites for installation and maintenance of stream gauges in the Ipswich River; and continue to implement the town's water conservation program, which includes outdoor water restrictions, annual master meter calibration and maintenance, an annual leak detection and repair program, a multi-year meter replacement program, a large user water audit/retrofit program, a water conservation rebate program, and a public education program. Based on a review of the SFEIR, consultation with state agencies, and review of the comment letters received, I hereby find that the SFEIR adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations. I am satisfied that any outstanding issues can be addressed during the state agency review and permit process. No further MEPA review is 4 EOEA# 12514 SFEIR Certificate January 12, 2007 required for the proposed project. I remind state agencies to forward copies of final Section 61 Findings to the MEPA Office for the project file. Januarv 12. 2007 ' DATE Ian A. Bowles Secretary Comments received 1/04/07 Nashua River Watershed Association 1/05/07 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission 1/05/07 Water Supply Citizen's Advisory Committee 1/05/07 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast Regional Office 1/08/07 Ipswich River Watershed Association 1/08/07 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 12514 SFEIR IAB/AE/ae 1~1 y 01/11/2007 THLT 10:10 FAX 017 722 23UU ffuuah Uur 1,navnn a urr 2007 READING OFFICE HOURS SCHEDULE R.EPRESENTATAT 'BRAD JONES Friday, hnuary 264,-9:30 am - 10:30 a». Friday, Febraary 23'.d, 9:30 am -10:30 ain Friday, March 23rd, 9:30 am 1.0:30 am Friday, April. 20`x', 9:30 am -10:30 w-.n Friday, May 18'b, 9:30 am -10:30 am Friday, :Dune 15`1', 9:30 ain -10:30 am Fi iday, July 13th, 9:30 am -10:30 am Ffiday, August 10"', 9:30 an-i -10:30 am .Friday, September 7th, 9:30 am- 10:30 ain Friday, October 5`n, 9:30 am 1.0:30 am Friday, November 2"d, 9:30 am- 10:30 am Friday, November 30th, 9:30 am -10:30 am Friday, December 28th, 9:30 am -10:30 am i e L ~ C-~Cf Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Bo or Gina [bogina03@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:46 PM To: Ron D'Addario; Hechenbl6ikner, Peter; Reading - Selectmen; Anthony, Camille Cc: blodgettde@yahoo.com; joan.boegel@genzyme.com; michele.benson@rmld.com; Schena, Paula; rporter@ch2m.com; Goldy, Stephen; tsopchak@comcast.net; Stephanie Anderberg Subject: Transportation Grant available Maybe this could be used to include mitigation of I95-I93 and town transportation. It would take effort from the town and surrounding communities, and perhaps the MPO but with the interchange group already in discussions, the timing is good for a proposal: Transportation Congestion Initiative The U.S. Department of Transportation requests proposals for the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network (the Congestion Initiative). DOT seeks operational testing and evaluation of innovative uses of technology to address congestion on a specific facility or facilities, such as a corridor, an urban area or region. Areas of interest include but are not limited to: Demand management pricing strategies, advanced traffic signal control, incident detection and management strategies, integrated corridor management, parking management tied to transit service, high occupancy/toll lanes, and signal priority systems for buses. $100 million expected to be available, up to 5 awards anticipated. Responses due 4/30/07. For more info, contact Sarah Tarpgaard at sarah.tarpgaard@fhwa.dot.gov or go to: http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=11970. Refer to Sol# DTFH61-07- RA-00111. (Grantys.gov 12/18/06) r v Hechenblefter, Peter From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bob, cnj4@aol.com Monday, January 15, 2007 10:26 PM Bob.Frey@state.ma.us; jcorey@cityofwoburn.com; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; jebarnes@mit.edu; bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net; rep.paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; dac@cummings.com; jcosgrove@mbta.com; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Ian.Durrant@state.ma.us; rep. m ikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; jgallagher@mapc.org; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; joshua.grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us; rep. bradleyjones@hou.state. ma.us; katsoufis.9395info@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@MASSPORT.COM; rmayo@mass-trucking.org; tmclaughlin@cityofwoburn.com; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@verizon.net; andy.motter@dot.gov; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; sueandmikes@comcast.net; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@cityofwoburn.com; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; billwhome@juno.com jbiaustein@mapc.org; Melissa.Callan@state.ma.us; michael.a.chong@fhwa.dot.gov; dcooke@vhb.com; adisarcina@hshassoc.com; mdraisen@mapc.org; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us; tharwood@cityofwoburn.com; Town Manager; Michael. Lindstrom @state. ma. us; elutz@hshassoc.com; Justin.Martel@state.ma.us; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; thomaslmclaughlin@comcast.net; john.mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; pmedeiros@sigcom.com; Kenneth. Miller@state.ma.us; Carmen.O'Rourke@state.ma.us; jpurdy@louisberger.com; kpyke@hshassoc.com; wschwartz@thecollaborative.com; kstein@hshassoc.com; Tafoya, Ben; Frederick.Vanmagness@state.ma.us REAR END ACCIDENTS-TASK FORCE LIABILITY Interchange concept H3 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 you last week. 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. REAR END ACCIDENTS are likely to happen during stop and go driving (i.e., by definition, lead vehicles will be periodically stopped). 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). 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. 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): You are essentially trading one accident type accidents while increasing rear end accidents). overall annual interchange accident count. This Task Force) may increase your exposure to legal DOT's have encountered an increasing number of 1 for another (i.e., eliminating weaving In fact, concept H3 may increase the trade off (unannounced to an unsuspecting liability. In recent years, more state 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 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 Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force, 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@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.. Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. 2 Jy J Page 1 of 1 t I c ~Cf Hechenbleikner, Peter From: heidi [heidijerry@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:24 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: National Development Attachments: Natl Dev abutter letter.doc Pete and Selectmen, Attached is a letter that the abutters are sending to National Development. They wanted to introduce themselves and begin a positive and successful dialogue with them. Thought we should share it with you. Thanks, Heidi Bonnabeau J\ /1 1/19/2007 January 18, 2007 Dear Mr. Tye and the National Development Team, Welcome to Reading! The South Street and Curtis Street abutters are eager to meet with you and hear your ideas for the development of the Addison Wesley site. We were encouraged by your presentation at the Selectmen's meeting on January 9rh We are hoping to continue in the spirit of that meeting. The abutting families are looking forward to meeting with you to discuss our thoughts and concerns and create an open dialogue between us for continued communication and success of the development at the Addison Wesley site. I can be contacted at 781.944.5995 to coordinate a meeting with the abutters. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Theresa Petrillo