HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-26 Board of Selectmen PacketN OFF?
Town of Reading
^ two 16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2685
FAX: (781) 942-9071
Email: townmanager&i.reading.ma.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 20, 2006
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner
RE: Ask the Town Manager
TOWN MANAGER
(781) 942-9043
On the September 18th edition of "Ask the Town Manager," a caller recommended that
the Town do background checks on all members of Boards, Committees and
Commissions. The caller has had a problem with one of our Boards, Committees and
Commissions. I told him that I would not recommend doing background checks on
volunteers but I would bring this issue to the Board of Selectmen.
PIH:hn
jr,
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter r,
Or,.
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter IN
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:46 AM
To: 'andreagarb@comcast.net' V
Cc: Reading - Selectmen; heidijerry@verizon.net
Subject: RE: West Side Community Walk
The Board has not had a chance to discuss whether or not to have such a walk and if so when. I hope to have
the board have that discussion within the next couple of weeks.
Pete
From: andreagarb@comcast.net [mailto:andreagarb@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:26 AM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Cc: Reading - Selectmen; heidijerry@verizon.net
Subject: West Side Community Walk
Peter,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to pick a date to do a "Community Walk" on the west side of
town. Heidi Bonnabeau and I will organize the event around whatever timetable works for you and the
Board of Selectmen. I heard back from James and Camille and both expressed interest in the idea. I
would like to do this before the end of October so the weather will not be an issue.
Thank you-
Andrea
G-L,
9/21/2006
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: RNRchambercom@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:19 PM
To: RNRchambercom@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Please Read the Open letter
Attachments: Open letter
Hello Reading Businesses,
Bill Brown and Tom Ryan asked me to forward this press release that was in the Chronicle and the Advocate
regarding the recent "Storm" charge on the September water and sewer bills.
Carol Hughes, Executive Director
Reading-North Reading Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 771
Reading, MA 01867
Phone #781-944-8824 Fax #781-944-6125
Web Address - readingnreadingchamber.org
"Our business is your business"
/<-P3
9/22/2006
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: thomas ryan [tobus111@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:29 PM
To: rnrchambercom@aol.com
Subject: Open letter
Open letter to the water and sewer ratepayers of Reading--residents, commercial, nonprofits:
In your recent water and sewer billing there is a new charge called 'Storm'. This amount is
being charged to you as a 'fee' under the Storm Water Management enterprise fund
established at Annual Town Meeting this year.
Subsequently the Board of Selectmen established the amount of the 'fee'.
We feel that this amount is a TAX, not a fee. Therefore we have filed a suit against the Town
of Reading in Middlesex Superior Court to nullify the 'fee.
We would like to help you, and we hope you can help us. (A fee is not tax-deductible.)
In addition to your personal 'fee' on your house you will have to help pay the 'fee' on your
church or other nonprofit social organization to which you may belong, those of which own
buildings. Nonprofits are NOT exempt from paying these 'fees', by order of the Board of
Selectmen.
We are trying to help you, the taxpayers, and we hope that you can help our cause by making
contributions to assist in defraying court costs.
If the court rules in our favor and awards us the total damages we request. (just expenses) we
will return any and all donations to you.
Please send your contributions to:
William C. Brown
28 Martin Rd.
Reading, MA 01867
Thank you,
Bill Brown
Tom Ryan
/CV
9/22/2006
DRAFT November 13, 2006 Subsequent Town Meeting
WARRANT OUTLINE 09/22/2006
Art.
# Article Description
Mover/ Moderator
Sponsor Comment Notes
1 Reports Board of Selectmen • RMLD annual report
• Report on Affordable
Housing Planned
production
• Report on land across
the street from RMHS
• Status of MWRA water
purchase
• Substance Abuse
• State of the Schools
Improvement Program
FY 2007 - FY 2011
4 Amending FY 2007 Board of Selectmen ' Capital
pliA rcit ■ Flowers in cemetery
Approving Payment of Board of Selectmen
Prior Years Unpaid
Bills
Establish Public Board of Selectmen
Health Revolving
Fund
7 Authorizing contract School Committee
for greater than 3
Appropriating Board of Selectmen
additional Chapter 90
funds
9 Transfer funds from Board of Selectmen -$167,995
Landfill FAM to Sale
of Real Estate Fund
10 Additional funding for School Committee ■
RMHS project ytq
3 Amend Capital Board of Selectmen '
11 Funding for Wood Request of residents '
End School
12 Abandon Easement -Board of Selectmen •
Joseph Wav
15 Amending Article 4 of •
the General Bylaws
relative to Attendance
by Members of
Boards, Committees
and Commissions;
Voting
YA Z
16 Hours of Construction Board of Selectmen '
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading:
By virtue of this Warrant, I, on notified and warned the
inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote on Town affairs, to meet at the
place and at the time specified by posting attested copies of this Town Meeting Warrant
in the following public places within the Town of Reading:
Precinct 1 J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street
Precinct 2 Registry of Motor Vehicles, 275 Salem Street
Precinct 3 Reading Police Station, 15 Union Street
Precinct 4 Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue
Precinct 5 Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street
Precinct 6 Austin Preparatory School, 101 Willow Street
Precinct 7 Reading Library, Local History Room, 64 Middlesex Avenue
Precinct 8 Mobil on the Run, 1330 Main Street
The date of posting being not less than fourteen (14) days prior to November 13, 2006,
the date set for the Subsequent Town Meeting in this Warrant.
I also caused an attested copy of this Warrant to be published in the Reading
Chronicle in the issue of
Robert H. Prince, Constable
A true copy. Attest:
Cheryl A. Johnson, Town Clerk
~f 3
1
SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
(Seal)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss.
To any of the Constables of the Town of Reading, Greetings:
In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are hereby required to
notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote in elections and
Town affairs, to meet at the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium, 62 Oakland
Road, in said Reading, on Monday, November 13, 2006, at seven-thirty o'clock in the
evening, at which time and place the following articles are to be acted upon and
determined exclusively by Town Meeting Members in accordance with the provisions of
the Reading Home Rule Charter.
ARTICLE 1 To hear and act on the reports of the Board of Selectmen, Town
Accountant, Treasurer-Collector, Board of Assessors, Director of Public Works, Town
Clerk, Tree Warden, Board of Health, School Committee, Contributory Retirement
Board, Library Trustees, Municipal Light Board, Finance Committee, Cemetery Trustees,
Community Planning & Development Commission, Conservation Commission, Town
Manager and any other Board or Special Committee.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 2 To choose all other necessary Town Officers and Special
Committees and determine what instructions shall be given Town Officers and Special
Committees, and to see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing or transfer from
available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate for the purpose of funding Town Officers
and Special Committees to carry out the instructions given to them, or take any other
action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 3 To see if the Town will vote to amend the FY 2007 - FY 2011,
Capital Improvements Program as provided for in Section 7-7 of the Reading Home Rule
Charter, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 4 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the payment during Fiscal
Year 2007 of bills remaining unpaid for previous fiscal years for goods and services
actually rendered to the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 5 To see if the Town will vote to amend one or more of the votes
taken under Article 15 of the April 24, 2006 Annual Town Meeting relating to the Fiscal
Year 2007 Municipal Budget, and see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing or
transfer from available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate as the result of any such
amended votes for the operation of the Town and its government, or take any other
action with respect thereto.
Finance Committee
ARTICLE 6 To see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate to establish
revolving funds under Chapter 44, Section 53E'/2 for any or all of the following purposes:
• Using the receipts generated through clinic fees and third party reimbursement,
said expenditures to be administered by the Health Services Administrator;
and to determine the total amount of expenditures during Fiscal Year 2007 which may
be made from each such fund, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 7 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Mass. General Laws
Chapter 30B, Section 12, to authorize the School Committee to enter into a contract,
including all extensions, renewals and options, for the provision of banking services to
serve the Rearing Memorial High School community, said banking facility to be located
at the Reading Memorial High School, for a period greater than three years but not
exceeding 20 years upon such terms and conditions determined by the School
Committee, or take any other action with respect thereto.
School Committee
ARTICLE 8 To see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate by borrowing,
whether in anticipation of reimbursement from the State under Chapter 44, Section 6,
Massachusetts General Laws, or pursuant to: any other enabling authority or from the tax
levy, or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, for highway projects in accordance
with Chapter 90, Massachusetts General Laws, or take any other action with respect
thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 9 To see if the Town will revoke the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter
44, §53FY2 ceasing the "Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Monitoring Fund" established
by Article 4 of the December 9, 2002 Special Town Meeting in accordance. with the
requirements of the Enterprise Fund Agreement between the Town of Reading and the
Department of Environmental Protection relative to the town's municipal solid waste
disposal facility but only insofar as it relates to that portion thereof known as the "Closure
Account" and retaining the acceptance of §53F'/2 as to that portion of the "Landfill
Closure and Post-Closure Monitoring Fund" known as the "Post-Closure Account"; and
further, that the town transfer the remaining balance of the "Closure Account" to the
general fund in accordance with said §53FY2; and further, to see what sum the Town will
appropriate and transfer from the General Fund to the Sale of Real Estate Account, or
take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 10 To see if the Town will vote to amend the vote taken under Article
5 of the January 13, 2003 Special Town Meeting to appropriate by borrowing, or transfer
from available funds, or otherwise, for the purpose of making extraordinary repairs
and/or additions to the Reading Memorial High School at 62 Oakland Road, including
the costs of engineering and architectural fees, plans, documents, cost estimates, and
qR,<
related expenses incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith, said sum to
be expended by and under the direction of the School Committee; and to see if the Town
will vote to authorize the School Building Committee, the School Committee, or any
other agency of the Town to file applications for a grant or grants to be used to defray
the cost of all or any part of the cost of the project; and to see if the Town will vote to
authorize the School Committee to enter into all contracts and agreements as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Article, or take any other action with respect
thereto.
School Committee
ARTICLE 11 To see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate for the
construction of a playground at the Wood End School to provide for handicapped access
and fencing, such moneys to be spent under the direction of the Town Manager, or take
any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 12 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to
release all of the Town's right, title and interest in a twenty (20) foot wide drainage
easement located upon the property at 37 Joseph Way, Assessors Map 191,
Parcel 47, presently owned by Stephen A. and Julie A. Voegelin; or take any other
action in relation thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 13 To see if the Town will vote to transfer the care, custody, and
control to the Board of Selectmen any and all of the following parcels of land which are
in the care, custody, and control of the School Department, and to discontinue any and
all public and/or private ways abutting such lands 'as the Board of Selectmen deem
necessary:
Map 123, Parcels: 16-32, 34, 48-54, 58-62;, 139
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 14 To see if the Town will vote to accept the provisions of M.G.L.
Chapter 39, Section 23D which provides that;
a) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, upon municipal
acceptance of this section for 1 or more types of adjudicatory hearings, a
member of any municipal board, committee or commission when holding an
adjudicatory hearing shall not be disqualified from voting in the matter solely due
to that member's absence from no more. than a single session of the hearing at
which testimony or other evidence is received. Before any such vote, the
member shall certify in writing that he has examined all evidence received at the
missed session, which evidence shall include an audio or video recording of the
missed session or a transcript thereof. The written certification shall be part of the
record of the hearing. Nothing in this section shall change, replace, negate or
otherwise supersede applicable quorum requirements.
4
YA ~
b) By ordinance or by-law, a city or town may adopt minimum additional
requirements for attendance at scheduled board, committee, and commission
hearings under this section,
or take any action relative thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 15 To see if the Town will vote to amend Article 4 of the General
Bylaws, Conduct of Town Business, by adding a new Section thereto as follows:
Section 4.12 Adiudicatorv Hearinas; Attendance by Members of Boards, Committees
and Commissions: Votina Disaualification
(a) A member of any town board, committee or commission when holding an
adjudicatory hearing shall not be disqualified from voting in the matter solely due
to that member's absence from no more than a single session of the hearing at
which testimony or other evidence is received.
(b) Before any such vote, the member shall certify in writing that he/she has
examined all evidence received at the missed session, which evidence shall
include an audio or video recording of the missed session or a transcript thereof.
(c) Written certification by the member that he has examined all evidence received
at the missed session shall be part of the record of the hearing.
(d) Nothing in this section shall change, replace, negate or otherwise supersede
applicable quorum requirements.
or take any action relative thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 16 To see if the Town will vote to adopt the following General Bylaw
regulating construction hours and noise limits, or take any other action with respect
thereto:
5.5.8 - Construction Hours and Noise Limits
5.5.8.1 - Purpose. The intent of the bylaw is to regulate the hours during which
construction and demolition activities may take place within the Town and
otherwise to limit the impact of such activities on nearby residents and business.
5.5.8.2 - Definition.
® "Construction" shall mean and include the construction, reconstruction,
alteration, repair, demolition and/or removal of any building, structure or
substantial part thereof if such work requires a building permit, razing
permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, gas permit, or mechanical
permit. "Construction" shall also include excavation that involves the use
of blasting jackhammers, pile drivers, back hoes and /or other heavy
equipment. "Construction" shall also include the starting of any
machinery related to the above, deliverys, fueling of equipment, and any
other preparation or mobilization for construction which creates noise or
disturbance on abutting properties.
5.3.8.3 - Hours. No person shall perform any construction within the Town except
between the hours of:
• 7 a.m. and 8 PM, Monday through Friday;
• 8 a.m. to 5 PM on Saturdays;
none on Sundays and legal holidays.
Y~l
5
5.3.8.4 - Exemptions. The restrictions set forth in this bylaw shall not apply to any
work performed as follows:
• by any Federal or State Department, Reading Department of Public
Works, the Reading Municipal Light Department and/or any contractors
working directly for these agencies;
• by a resident on or in connection with his residence, without the aid of
hired contractors, whether or not such residence is a detached single
family home.
• in the case of work occasioned by a genuine and imminent emergency,
and then only to the extent necessary to prevent loss or injury to persons
or property.
5.3.8.5 - Permits. The Chief of Police or his designee (the Chief), may in his
reasonable discretion issue permits in response to written applications
authorizing applicants to perform construction during hours other than those
permitted by this bylaw. Such permits may be issued upon a determination by
the Chief, in consultation with the Building Inspector, the Town Engineer, or other
Town staff, that literal compliance with the terms of this bylaw would create an
unreasonable hardship and that the work proposed to be done (with or without
any proposed mitigative measures) will have no adverse effects of the kind which
this bylaw seeks to reduce. Each such permit shall specify the person authorized
to act, the dates on which or within which the permit will be effective, the specific
hours and days when construction otherwise prohibited may take place, and any
conditions required by the Chief to mitigate the effect thereof on the community.
The Chief may promulgate a form of application and charge a reasonable fee for
each permit. No permit may cover a period of more than thirty days. Mitigative
measures may include notice to residents in the surrounding area, and other
mitigation as determined by the Chief.
5.3.8.6 - Unreasonable Noise. Regardless of the hour or day of the week, no
construction shall be performed within the Town in such a way as to create
unreasonable noise. Noise shall be deemed unreasonable if it interferes with the
normal and usual activities of residents and businesses in the affected area and
could be reduced or eliminated through reasonable mitigative measures.
5.3.8.6 - Copy of Bylaw. The Building Inspector shall deliver a copy of this bylaw
to each person to whom it issues a building permit, razing permit, electrical
permit, plumbing permit, gas permit or mechanical permit at the time that the said
permit is issued.
5.3.8.7 - Enforcement. The Police Department, Zoning Officer, and/or other agent
designated by the Town Manager shall enforce the restrictions of this bylaw.
Fines shall be assessed and collected in the amount of up to $300 for each
violation. Each day or portion thereof that a violation continues shall constitute a
separate offense. Any alleged violation of this bylaw may, in the sole discretion
of the enforcing agent be make the subject matter of non-criminal disposition
proceedings commenced by such agent under M.G.L. c. 40, § 21 D.,
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 17 To see if the Town will vote to amend the General Bylaws of the
Town of Reading by adding the following section 5.2.10 entitled "Sight Triangles":
5.2.10 - Sight Triangles
5.2.10.1 Definition
q~
A sight triangle is defined as that area formed by the intersection of property
lines and a straight line joining said property lines to the street or right of way
at a point 25 feet distant from the point of their intersection. For corner lots,
the sight triangle is determined from the point of intersection of their tangents.
5.2.10.2 Corner lots
Except in the downtown business district, no building, fence, wall,
landscaping, parking of vehicles, signs, or the placement of or growing of any
other obstruction between the height of 2 Y2 feet and a height of 8' shall be
located within the sight triangle so as to obstruct visibility in a manner that will
jeopardize the safety of vehicles or pedestrians. For purposes of this by-law,
the downtown business district is defined as that portion of the Business B
Zoning district that is generally bounded by the META rail line, Woburn Street
and a line east of Main Street.
5.2.10.3 Residential Districts
On any lot in a residence district, no building, fence, wall, landscaping,
parking of vehicles, placement of signs, or the placement of or growing of any
other obstruction between the height of 2 Y2 feet and a height of 8' shall be
located within 5 feet of the front lot line unless it can be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Chief of Police that such vegetation or structure will not
restrict visibility in such a way as to hinder the safe entry or exit of vehicles
from any driveway to the street.
5.2.10.4 Exemptions
(a) Principal buildings existing on a lot at the time of adoption of this bylaw
shall not be required to conform to this bylaw. Shade trees planted by
the Town of Reading, mailboxes, street and traffic signs, and utility
poles are also exempt from the provisions of this bylaw.
(b) Fences of "open-type construction" defined herein as a fence
constructed so that its vertical surface area is unobstructed, enabling
motorists and pedestrians to have a clear view through such fence (e.g.
a fence of chain-link or post and rail construction).
Board of Selectmen
And you are directed to serve this Warrant by posting an attested copy thereof in at least
one (1) public place in each precinct of the Town not less than fourteen (14) days prior to
November 13, 2006, the date set for the meeting in said Warrant, and to publish this
Warrant in a newspaper published in the Town, or providing in a manner such as
electronic submission, holding for pickup or mailing, an attested copy of said Warrant to
each Town Meeting Member.
Hereof fail not and make due return of this Warrant with your doings thereon to
the Town Clerk at or before the time appointed for said meeting.
Given under our hands this 26th day of September, 2006.
Ben Tafoya, Chairman
c~j~~
September 10, 2006
Move that
The Addison-Wesley Working Group turn the ongoing project evaluation.over to
the Board of Selectmen. The Addison-Wesley Working Group provided its report
and findings to the Board of Selectmen on July 11, 2006, included Board of
Selectmen comments in the document, and provided the amended report to the
developer.
The Addison-Wesley Working Group recommends that the Board of Selectmen
request that the developer provide a detailed written response to the Addison-
Wesley Working Group report together with supporting information and any
response to issues raised during the August 9th meeting.
The Addison-Wesley Working Group further recommends that the Board of
Selectmen consider requesting financing from the developer for:
• an additional independent traffic study to look at a larger area and to
conduct a sensitivity analysis of the key assumptions and
• an independent financial feasibility study to determine the viability of retail
developments of less than 320,000 sq. ft. at this location.
Unanimously approved as the final report of the Addison Wesley Working Group.
N6
09/22/2006 15:05 FAX 617 739 5945 S R WEINER ASSOC. lgj Vf) I/VVL
S.R. WEINER
AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATpn
September 22, 2006
't'own of Reading
Board of Selectmen
Reading Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, Massachusetts 01867
Dear Members of the Board:
0 W/S DEWLOPMENT
ASSOCIATES LLC
We are writing in response to Selectmen Bonazoli's email requesting further information
regarding Park Square at Reading. Here is the information he requested:
l , Enclosed is a chart provided to us by the Town of Hingham showing calls made
to the police department from the Derby Street Shoppes from the opening of the
Shoppes in 2004 through last month. During this period, 2005 is the only full
year, and during that year, a total of 473 calls were made to the police
department. If Kohl's and Brooks pharmacy are removed from the statistics,
the result would be 385 calls, or about 1 per clay. (The removal of Kohl's and
Brooks results in a shopping center of about the size and character of what we
propose in Reading.)
According to the Town of Hingham's statistics, the vast majority of the calls
were for alarms, medical assistance, lockouts from cars and the like.
2. Our current proposal calls for approximately 1700 parking spaces, of which
approximately 300 are located in the parking structure above the retail stores
along Route 128.
3, Regarding access to the Route 128 ramps, we are quite twilling to engage in a
conversation with the Massachusetts Highway Department concerning this
matter. In our experience, direct highway access is not favored by the Highway
Department, but we will incorporate this into our plans should the Highway
Department allow us to do this.
We are looking forward to continuing our dialogue with you said with the rest of your
Town. Toward that end, we thought it might be helpful if we provided you wvith an
annotated version of the Working Group document so that you would be able to see how
close our project is to the Working Group's goals, and, at the same time, so that you could
see where the project deviates from those goals. We stand ready to discuss all of those
differences with you to better inform your decision-making on this important matter.
153o BOYLSTON STREET • CH85TN VT !-TILL • MASSACHUSHTT S 09.467
PHON8. 617-232.8900 " www,erwriner.cnm
qLq,)
09/22/2006 15:05 FAX 617 739 5945 S R WEINER ASSOC. 19 002/002
Town of Reading
Board of Selectmen
September 22, 2006
Page Two
Thank you for your time and continuing thoughts about Park Square at Reading.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Marks
N1,3
Addison Wesley Redevelopment - documents Page 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Askin, Richard [Richard.Askin@srweiner.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:08 PM
To: Town Manager
Cc: Marks, Dick
Subject: Addison Wesley Redevelopment - documents
Importance: High
Attachments: WGDoc_WSD-annotated-f.pdf; WGDoc-ItemizedNotes-f.pdf; POLICE REPORT.pdf
Hi Pete:
Here are 3 pdf files for BOS distribution.
A cover letter from Dick is now being sent via FAX.
Thanks, Richard
<<WG Doc_W SD-annotated-f.pdf>>
«WGDoc-ItemizedNotes-f.pdf>>
<<POLICE REPORT.pdf>>
Richard K. Askin
Director of Planning & Design
WIS Development Associates LLC
Affiliated with: S. R. Weiner & Associates, Inc
Tel-Direct: 617-646-3226 Cell: 617-571-7693
e-mail: richard.askin(ftrweiner.com
Main: 617-232-8900 FAX: 617-738-1628
1330 Boylston Street Chestnut Hill MA 02467.
This message (and any associated files) is the property of
S. R. Weiner and Associates Inc. and W/S Development Associates LLC
and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
9/22/2006
Addison Wesley Redevelopment - documents Page 2 of 2
copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this
message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify us immediately by calling our corporate office
at 617-232-6900 and deleting this message from your computer.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, S. R. Weiner
and Associates, Inc. and W/S Development Associates LLC do not accept
responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this
message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail
transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy
version of this message.
Any views or opinions presented in this message are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
q6
9/22/2006
REPORT OF
Addison Wesley Working Group (AWWG)
To The Reading Board of Selectmen
July 11, 2006
1. Review Mission of Working Group
2. Review Findings of Working Group to date
3. Community input/comments on Working Group's findings
4. Review Schedule
• Review findings and result of public input session with the Board of Selectmen
• Fine Tune the "Findings" of the Working Group
• Ask the Property owner and Developer to respond to the Findings
Also see:
"Explanatory Notes Prepared by W/S Development"
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
I Yb
MISSION
Addison Wesley Working Group
June 22, 2006 - 7:30 PM
Mission of the Working Group:
• To advise the Board of Selectmen on the Community's view of the
appropriate development of the Addison Wesley site;
• To then have the property owner and/or developer respond to the
Community vision of the appropriate development of the site;
• To evaluate the property owner's/developers response and
recommend to the Board of Selectmen whether the community
should move forward with re-zoning of the site.
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
2 q~
FINDINGS
Addison Wesley Working Group
June 22, 2006 - 7:30 PM
Issues Addressed by the Addison Wesley Working Group:
1. Land Use(s)
2. Traffic and Access
3. Impact
4. Mitigation
5. Financial considerations
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
3 L, 69
1.1 Land Uses permitted as a Special Permit
•
Mixed use required, which shall include residential uses
...AGREE
•
Retail
...AGREE
•
Office/non retail commercial
...AGREE
•
Residential
...AGREE
•
Over 55 housing (may alter mixed use guidelines)
...AGREE
•
Community use
...AGREE
•
Non-profit use may be permitted
...AGREE
•
Open Space
...AGREE
•
Parking garages
...AGREE
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting. C
4 L,
1.2 Amount of use permitted
Retail - lack of consensus by AWWG - Discussed between 150,000 sf and 320,000 sf
Range of opinion for retail use of AWWG participants ...AGREE
• 100,000 to 200,000 but require
0 190,000 to 210,000 320,000 sf
• 200,000 to 250,000 see note #1
• 320,000
• 250,000 to 300,000
• 150,000
• 200,000 to 300,000
• 100,000 to 150,000
• Average 188,750 to 235,000
Issues to be used to determine amount of retail use, in priority order are: ...AGREE
■ Traffic generation and other traffic congestion;
■ Neighborhood Impact and Physical scale and mass relative to surrounding uses
■ Net cost/financial impact to the Town
• Impact on Reading Square and other retail areas of Reading (what of the uses
would compete with Reading Square?)
• Level of activity
• Development needs to be successful to the Town and developer
■ What level of retail use makes the development financially feasible
■ Diversity of uses on the site is desirable to the community
• Quality of the development is a factor
• Development should create a sense of place
• How to evaluate appropriate levels of retail Additional
■ Range of size of lifestyle malls -156K sf to 784k sf / 530k sf info provided
■ Density ranges of retail -,2,800 sf/acre to 12,000 sf/acre see note #2
■ Mixed commercial - 6,680 sf/acre to 14,600 sf/acre
■ Need to apply subjective criteria to ranges
• Office/non-retail commercial ...AGREE
• Residential - 2 to 4 units per gross acre (approx 50 to 100 units) ...NEED TO DISCUSS
see note #3
• Allow over 55 housing (may alter mixed use guidelines) ...AGREE
• Community Space - minimum amount of 2,000 square feet ...AGREE
• Allow some non-profits ...AGREE
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
q b / T
5 V
1.3 Conditions or special considerations
• Project should be permitted as a Special Permit by the CPDC; (note - some changes or
clarifications of definitions should be applied to the underlying zoning at the same time as
special use regulations are developed.) ...AGREE
• Retail - These conditions may need to be done as a deed covenant as part of the special
permit granting process
• Maximum size for largest retail unit 63,000 sf (1 unit); next largest 50% of
largest or 31,500 sf (1 unit); next largest 50 % of 2°d largest of 15,750 sf
(remainder) not including restaurants ...AGREE 63,000, discuss other sizes
see note #4
• Maximum number of restaurants with liquor licenses - 3 ...DISCUSS
see note #5
• Not more than 25% of the space to open for business in any 30 day period
...DISCUSS see note #6
• Prohibited uses - No "big box" uses, automotive uses, fast food. Liquor stores.
Movie Theaters, adult uses. ...AGREE
• Office/non retail commercial - permitted uses would include professional offices; corporate
offices; consumer services, child care; fitness facility; ...AGREE
• Residential - at least 20% affordable (so it counts as part of the Town's affordable housing
stock); rental is preferable; location as a transition at both South Street and Curtis;
maximum of 2 BR units; ...DISCUSS see note #7
• . Over 55 housing (may alter mixed use guidelines) ...AGREE
• Community Space - 2,000 sf; may include kitchen facilities, shared bathrooms with
development office; available to Reading residents and groups; nominal charge for use;
location can be "back office" less visible: good buffer use; near housing; ...AGREE
• Non-profit uses - may be allowed if it fits within the mix of uses and doesn't have negative
impact ...AGREE
• Open Space - would include buffer; may include islands in parking and pedestrian areas,
and may include "urban" opens spaces like plazas, gazebos, etc.; ...AGREE
• Parking garage - permitted height will be related to location. ...AGREE
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting. L a r
6
2 Traffic/Access
• Keep Level of Service (LOS) as high as practical ...AGREE
• Keep Impact on South Street as low as possible ...AGREE
• Keep the needed improvement to Main Street as minimal as possible but making sure that
improvements are adequate to serve the site and through traffic ...AGREE
• Require developer to evaluate alternate means of access if 128/193 interchange
improvements are done - and how to guarantee and phase in ...AGREE
• Require a follow-up traffic study and mitigation if there are unanticipated problems
identified by the study. ...AGREE
• Require aesthetic improvements to Main Street- plantings, gateway, ...AGREE
• Residential access from South Street ...AGREE
• Future of Jacob Way (conveyance for consideration) ...AGREE
• Measure the total delay for the total route - not just at one or 2 points - measure at each
signal ...AGREE
• Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access from off site to the site, and within the site should
be required ...AGREE
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
7 YYY
3 Impact
• Lot coverage % - applicant needs to address what their proposal has a lot coverage by
buildings, lot coverage by impervious surface, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ...AGREE
• Commercial Building setback from residential district - not less than 100 feet....AGREE
• Residential Building setback from residential district -
• Could be less than commercial - depending on layout, height, interrelationship
with commercial building and uses ...AGREE
• Building setback from abutting highway - can be minimal - as little as 10' - ...AGREE
• Landscaped Buffering from residential district ...NEED TO DISCUSS see note #8
• Residential use - 25'
• Retail use - 50'
• Office use - 50'
• Parking including garage - 50'
• Loading area - 50'
• Fire lane - 25'
• Route 128 - 0 to 25'
Building heights - stepped towards highway ...AGREE
• 2 "steps"
• Using existing zoning map for the site, "blue" area max of 401; "purple" are
max of 55'; allow architectural features.
• Don't need 95' height
• Need to address the definition of building height in the zoning bylaw
n6
wsheight. pdf
e Lighting
...AGREE
• Needs to be peer reviewed
• Needs to reflect site topography and impact on abutting properties and roads
• Needs to be well shielded
e Need to develop a lighting section of the Zoning Bylaw
• Adequate lighting for site safety is needed
• This is a site plan review issue
• Signs ...AGREE
• Generally should be attached to buildings
• Recognition that there will probably need to be one free-standing sign - will
need to address height, where it's visible from, etc.
• Will need to address hours of illumination - current bylaw says signs are
illuminated only during hours business is open
• Needs to be sensitive to abutting residential properties
• Need to have height restrictions even if attached to buildings - i.e. not on
higher architectural features
Hours of operation ...AGREE, would like to discuss Sunday opening at 11:00 am
e Should be able to be competitive with other situations in Reading
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting. I
8 L4
• Supermarket hours to be the same as the Stop and Shop - Stop and Shop is 7
am 'til 11 PM, less on Sundays
• Restaurant hours to be the same as the liquor license allows - Current Reading
Restaurant Liquor licenses - llam until 12 midnight weekdays; noon to
midnight Sundays
• Retail - 9:30 am to 9:30 PM M-S; Sun Noon 'til 6
• Fitness center - 6 am to 10 PM
• Child care - 7 'til 7
• Hours for use of loading areas ...AGREE
• General standard - 7 am - 9:30 PM - based on performance standard -extra
buffering or berming.
• Location of loading/delivery areas ...AGREE
• As far from residences as possible
• Use mitigation - grade changes or enhanced (in quality not dimension) of
buffer
• Location of uses ...AGREE
• Restaurant uses away from homes
• Residential uses as transition
• What happens with "fingers" or property that go out to South Street ...AGREE
• Permanently not to be used as part of the commercial development, except for
emergency access. Methodology of accomplishing this to be determined at Site
Plan approval.
• No structures should be allowed in the "no build" area as defined on the
existing zoning map
• Aesthetic treatment of the "rear" of the buildings ...AGREE
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting. Lqb I q
9
4 Mitigation
Linkage to other community needs - ...AGREE
■ We should get agreement on the basic plan and then see what mitigation we can
secure
■ Transportation (trolley service to transportation and other commercial sites)
■ Sewer Inflow and Infiltration reduction
■ Modify capacity of utilities as demanded by development (Sturgis Sewer pump
station)
■ Supplemental water purchase - MWRA
■ Downtown linkage - marketing
■ Park Improvements - Artificial fields
■ Refurbishment, of Imagination Station
■ Gateway treatment of Main Street
Sidewalks
■ Street improvements
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting. '
10
5 Financial
The Town should get an outside independent financial consultant to understand the
finances of the real estate deal and the added value to the property of the zoning change -
which will-assist in understanding what mitigation, would be reasonable. This would also
assist in understanding at what level of development the deal works. This would happen
when there is a specific proposal before the Town that meets the other criteria of this
document, but before then the Town will identify potential consultants and develop a scope
of work;
Town should get independent consultant to understand the financial impact on the
development to the Town - cost of services vs income from taxes and fees on the site. This
should be projected over a period of time. This should be done when there is a specific
proposal for re-zoning for the site but before then the Town will identify potential
consultants and develop a scope of work.
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting. qb) t~
11
PARK SQUARE
AT R E A D I N G
Exolanatorv Notes oreoared by W/S Development
Reference: "Report of Addison Wesley Working Group", document dated July11, 2006
Please refer to item numbers in the margins of the review copy:
Item # Topic
Comment
#1 Size of Retail component
At WG-Mtg-1, the WG asked W/S to state its minimum
requirement; at WG-Mtg-2 the retail size was reduced from
400,000 sf to 320,000 sf., and was presented as the 'New Site
Plan', dated April 2006. This retail square footage satisfies
feasibility criteria and development experience, including:
location in trade-area, tenant mix for number & size, supports
quality design and construction, and meets financial criteria.
#2 Density
Data on reference properties indicates a wide range of
statistical density depending on location, acreage and market
conditions. Two research efforts were conducted during the
AWWG process to identify and compare similar and
appropriate "retail" and "mixed-use development" properties.
The density of the proposed A-W redevelopment program is
clearly within those norms.
#3 Residential program
The 'New Site Plan' responded to numerous suggestions of
the WG, including a Residential component. Residences were
positioned as a "transition zone" near existing homes.
Depending on building height, the plan provided from 32 to 44
residential units. More units are possible subject to planning
and design considerations.
#4 Size of a Retail Unit
Besides the single largest retail unit of max. 63,000 sf, the
tenant mix would benefit from some degree of greater
flexibility. For example, two retail units of between 25,000 and
30,000 sf could be both appropriate and desirable.
#5 No. of Liquor Licenses
The number of fine dining establishments could be limited to
three, though we believe the character and quality of Park
Square would certainly be enhanced if more than three were
possible.
#6 Opening percentage
Early and continued success of the project is better assured
when a majority of tenants initially open together. First
impressions are important to assure return visits.
#7 Residential format
The 'New Site Plan' assumes residential units 'for-sale' with
10% affordable.
#8 Landscape Buffer
The 'New Site Plan' features a highly developed planning &
design approach which features a significant landscape buffer
around the perimeter of the property abutting existing
Explanatory Notes prepared by W/S Development 22-SEP-06
q0
PARK SQUARE
AT R E A D I N G
residential neighbors. In fact, in zoning district Business-C, a
required "buffer zone" consists of two minimum horizontal
dimensions: 25' for landscape buffer; and 100' for buildino
setback (including the landscape buffer). The proposed
landscape buffer meets or exceeds the existing zoning
requirement of a minimum horizontal dimension of 25'.
As the proposed Site Plan indicates, the actual landscape
buffer varies in width, never being less than 25', and expands
to as much as 50'-60'. In the location of Restricted Area 'A', it
is as much as 180' across. If the Site Plan layout was
modified, it is possible that some perimeter parking in select
locations could be converted into 'landscape buffer'. This
could result in portions of landscape buffer of, variously: 35',
37', 43' and 50' widths.
The quality of the buffer, and views across & through it, are at
least as important as minimum dimensions. The landscape
buffer has been designed to include: feasible retention of
existing mature trees, plants and fencing for screening;
inclusion of elevated berms to reduce sightlines; additional
new trees and plantings for further screening; commitment to
retain "Restricted Area A"; and a commitment to retain natural
conditions in the so-called "fingers" along South Street.
Within the buffer zone are landscaped islands bordering
parking or circulation; landscaped areas adjacent to buildings;
architectural screen walls to screen service points; low, cut-off
lighting; and no signage. Towards the goal of being a good
neighbor, the site plan layout is oriented so that the 'public-
active' side of the buildings are primarily faced away from
neighbors, and in turn, the sides and rears of the
"architecturilized" building facades faces towards neighbors.
Importantly, the New Site Plan meets or exceeds existing
dimensional requirements of zoning, including the minimum
landscape buffer and building setback, yet, does not utilize as-
of-right building heights of 55' and 95'.
The following items are provided as additional information:
#9 Location of Restaurants It is agreed that restaurants will not be located in either of the
two, long retail buildings parallel and close-by residents
directly abutting along Curtis Street and South Street.
#10 Emergency Evacuation As previously noted, the existing A-W emergency access to
South Street will be retained for emergency access. A detailed
evacuation plan will be prepared consistent with our normal
property management procedures. Importantly, that plan will
be prepared with direct input from and satisfaction of the
Town's fire and police departments.
Explanatory Notes prepared by W/S Development 22-SEP-06 l.. ' I
PARK SQUARE
AT R E A D I N G
#11 Building services It has been incorrectly reported that none of the tenants at our
Derby Street Shoppes-Hingham property take deliveries
through the front door. The 'building in the middle' we call The
Pavilion Building can be fully serviced from the carefully
planned curb-side service truck'lay-by' and nearby service-
utility room. This functional layout and operation is the same
as found at The Pavilion Building at Derby Street Shoppes. In
addition, many other tenants, whether they have rear service
doors or not, routinely take deliveries through their front doors.
This fact has been verified by daily observation, as well as by
direct interview of on-site retail store managers, as conducted
by our full-time property manager at Derby Street Shoppes.
Park Square at Reading is a type of retail center that is
predominantly home to small-to-medium sized shoppes which
share common service points. These service areas are
screened by architectural fencing and landscaping. In
response to concerns about the larger dedicated service court
at Whole Foods Market, we agree to relocate that court to the
side of that building and therefore away from direct view of
directly abutting neighbors on South Street.
#12 Parking The proposed site layout provides approx 1,640
parking spaces serving Retail Commercial (320k) and Non-
retail Commercial (70k) at a parking ratio of nearly 4.25.
Residential parking is in addition to that, and based upon 1.5
cars per unit, that additional parking would be 48 to 66 cars.
Therefore, the total on-site parking is approximately 1,700
spaces. Of that total, approximately 600 spaces are on
structural deck. The deck is configured in two parts: 2-levels
of parking located over retail, situated adjacent & parallel to
Route 128; and, 1-level of parking over grade-parking, located
in front of Whole Foods Market and also situated adjacent &
parallel to Route 128. The parking structures will be
architecturally integrated with the other buildings. An
architectural perspective rendering could be prepared to better
present scale and character.
#13 Crime data The great majority of emergency calls to Derby Street
Shoppes, numbering approximately one per day, consists of:
door alarms (retailer doors left ajar), medical assistance and
especially car-lockouts. Town of Hingham data has been
provided.
#14 Site Utilities The existing property's water, sanitary, and power
requirements will be re-engineered and rebuilt. Exhaustive
detail will be forthcoming when professional engineers develop
appropriate design documentation. These details will be
carefully and exhaustively reviewed, including appropriate peer
review, by local and state authorities.
#15 Scope of traffic study As mutually determined in June 2005 and specifically directed
by town leadership, traffic analysis to-date has focused
Explanatory Notes prepared by W/S Development 22-SEP-06 big
PARK SQUARE
AT R E A D I N G
#16
primarily (but not exclusively) on the intersection at Main Street
and South Street; and, on cut-through traffic along South
Street. We have clearly stated that we fully expect the scope
of the traffic study to be expanded by MEPA-MassHighways.
Size of Intersection As previously presented, the principal intersection at Main
Street and South Street could be designed with 7-lanes (only
within the approximately 150'-long segment of Main Street,
and wholly located within the state-right-of-way and the 128-95
clover leaf interchange), but initially constructed with 6-lanes
only. LOS would still be very good and overall improved over
pre-existing conditions. If after completion and operation of
Park Square, it is determined that the 7th lane segment is
desirable, it could be constructed by the developer at that time.
Also, the aesthetics of the intersection have been studied and
proposed to be significantly improved over current road-
shoulder/ road-side conditions.
Explanatory Notes prepared by W/S Development
22-SEP-06 qb~
CALLS FOR SERVICE BY LOCATION
I I I
LOCATION LOC ID 2004** ( 2005 2006* * 111106 - 8128106
Stores had staggered openings during 2004) I I
Baja Fresh
1 9698 I
3
19 I
10
Social Graces
9701 I
1
3
0
Diamonds by Jewell
9912 I
0
3
4
Beauty and Main
9841 I
3
12 1
13 1 I
Stride Rite
9923 I
0 1
2 I
3 I
Water-Water Everywhere
1 9897 I
0 1
3 1
0 1
Cold Stone Creamery
I 9554 1
6 1
14 1
8 1 I
White House - Black Market
I 9563 I
0 I
5
2 I I
Ritz Camera Shop
I 9859 1
1 1
4
6 1 I
Sprint PCS
9543 I
4 1
3
5 ( I
E B Games
( 9561 I
1 1
7
5
The Health Back Shop
I 9865 I
0 1
11 1
0 ( 1
Panera Bread Co.
9423 I
22
13 I
7
Whole Foods
9696 1
17
64 1
37 ( 1
J. R. Dunn Jewelers
9852 I
1 1
5 1
1 1
Eldred Wheeler
9843 I
0 I
0 I
0 I
Rustic Kitchen
9697
4 I
5 I
4 1
White's Pastry Shop
7960
6 (
11 I
3 I
Jasmine
1 10064
0 I
0
2 1
Bella's Closet
I 10058
0
0
1 1
Banana Republic
9745
4
9 1
12 1
GAP
1 9878
0
5 1
6 1
Shoe Market
9846
1
4 I
3 ( I
Gymboree
19958
0
4 I
2 1 I
Jos A. Banks
9570
2
5 1
3
London Harness
9869
0 1
1 1
1 1 I
Baby Gap
I 9704 (
2 I
8 (
1 I
Ann Taylor Loft
I 9573 1
1 I
3
4 1
Yankee Candle Co.
I 9562 1
9 I
8
1
Claire's
( 9572 I
1 I
8
1
In The Pink
I 9847 (
0 (
2
1
Smith & Hawken
I 9548 1
1 I
3 (
0 I I
Bay State Birkenstock
9870 (
0 1
0 1
0
Bombay Co.
9550 1
10 I
8 (
7
Victoria's Secret
I 9560 I
1
7 I
3 I
Express
9571
4
2 1
1 I
American Eagle
9711
2
0 I
2
Children's Place
9569
7
16 I
4 1
Apple Computer
9943
0
0 I
13
Burton's Grill
9863 1
0
22 I
15 1
Barnes & Noble
I 9555 I
11 (
7
6 I
Subtotal I
125 I
306
197 ( i
LOCATION
LOC ID
2004 (
I
2005
I
2006
I
William Sonoma
I I
I 9545 I
1 I
4 (
1 I
Talbots
9567 (
8 I
17 I
4 1 I
L,, bz~
Crate & Barrel I
9439 (
4 1
16 I
7 I
Brighton Collectables
9921
0 I
1 I
8
Chico's
9703
4 I
3 I
1 I
Cold Water Creek
9842
0 I
4 I
1 I
Sigrid Olsen
9848
1 1
1 1
0
J Jill
9705
0 1
1 I
1
R. E. 1.
9568
3
11 I
4
Brooks Pharmacy *
6779 1
i
20
26 (
I
8
I I
Kohl's Department Store (
I
6679
I 62
I
62 I
41
I I
Bertucci's (
6973
I 36 (
21
16 I
Subtotal
1 139
167
92 I
I
TOTALS
264 I
I
473
289
I I
_
* NOTE: There are 3 Officer Initiated pharmacy checks per day at Brooks Pharmacy. I
1 I
These are not included in Calls for Service.
I
I
I I
Derby Shoppes - CALLS FOR SERVICE I
22
Ft;~;611-Arx.t2 Chilinski Associates
t
?rY
j I' I i (
tt I I 14-1
7-4
III i-~ r i
X016. _ ,
I
1+ I - 4
b
Q l _ I
t...
~
III
r Q
E I. I: 11 I: i
1
-y
' ~1 A i ' i t It A j ~ R. A'
s.1'.,ogssV utdol
ebb
a
41
'7,'~j yS f^ 1 1 ~JV~
j a R I I ~
t
+:n 17 2.4-5 I
LF,
}
r
,
M t~ _ti r ~ ti.i
aN i 5.~. W
S.
i. Ll
aQ S/&
REPORT OF
Addison Wesley Working Group (AWWG)
To The Reading Board of Selectmen
July 11, 2006
1. Review Mission of Working Group
2. Review Findings of Working Group to date
3. Community input/comments on Working Group's findings
4. Review Schedule
• Review findings and result of public input session with the Board of
Selectmen
• Fine Tune the "Findings" of the Working Group
• Ask the Property owner and Developer to respond to the Findings
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting. 1
13
9/22/2006 1 t "D
MISSION
Addison Wesley Working Group
June 22, 2006 - 7:30 PM
Mission of the Working Group:
• To advise the Board of Selectmen on the Community's
view of the appropriate development of the Addison
Wesley site;
• To then have the property owner and/or developer
respond to the Community vision of the appropriate
development of the site;
• To evaluate the property owner's/developers response
and recommend to the Board of Selectmen whether the
community should move forward with re-zoning of the
site.
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
9/22/2006 2 I
FINDINGS
Addison Wesley Working Group
June 22, 2006 - 7:30 PM
Issues Addressed by the Addison Wesley Working Group:
1. Land Use(s)
2. Traffic and Access
3. Impact
4. Mitigation
5. Financial considerations
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
9/22/2006 3
1.1 Land Uses permitted as a Special Permit
• Mixed use required, which shall include residential uses
• Retail
• Office/non retail commercial
• Residential
• Over 55 housing (may alter mixed use guidelines)
• Community use
• Non-profit use may be permitted
• Open Space
• Parking garages
~V
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
9/22/2006 4
1.2 Amount of use permitted
Retail - lack of consensus by AWWG - Discussed between 150,000 sf and
320,000 sf
Range of opinion for retail use of AWWG participants
• 100,000 to 200,000
• 190,000 to 210,000
• 200,000 to 250,000
• 320,000
• 250,000 to 300,000
• 150,000
• 200,000 to 300,000
• 100,000 to 150,000
• Average 188,750 to 235,000
Issues to be used to determine amount of retail use, in priority order are:
■ Traffic generation and other traffic congestion;
■ Neighborhood Impact and Physical scale and mass relative to
surrounding uses
■ Net cost/financial impact to the Town
■ Impact on Reading Square and other retail areas of Reading
(what of the uses would compete with Reading Square?)
■ Level of activity
■ Development needs to be successful to the Town and developer
■ What level of retail use makes the development financially
feasible
■ Diversity of uses on the site is desirable to the community
■ Quality of the development is a factor
■ Development should create a sense of place
• How to evaluate appropriate levels of retail
■ Range of size of lifestyle malls -156K sf to 784k sf / 530k sf
■ Density ranges of retail -,2,800 sf/acre to 12,000 sf/acre
■ Mixed commercial - 6,680 sf/acre to 14,600 sf/acre
■ Need to apply subjective criteria to ranges
• Office/non-retail commercial
• Residential - 2 to 4 units per gross acre (approx 50 to 100 units)
• Allow over 55 housing (may alter mixed use guidelines)
• Community Space - minimum amount of 2,000 square feet
• Allow some non-profits
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
9/22/2006 5
1.3 Conditions or special considerations
• Project should be permitted as a Special Permit by the CPDC; (note -
some changes or clarifications of definitions should be applied to the
underlying zoning at the same time as special use regulations are
developed.)
• Retail - These conditions may need to be done as a deed covenant as part
of the special permit granting process
• Maximum size for largest retail unit 63,000 sf (1 unit); next
largest 50% of largest or 31,500 sf (1 unit); next largest 50 %
of 2"d largest of 15,750 sf (remainder) not including restaurants
• Maximum number of restaurants with liquor licenses - 3
• Not more than 25% of the space to open for business in any 30
day period
• Prohibited uses - No "big box" uses, automotive uses, fast food.
Liquor stores. Movie Theaters, adult uses.
• Office/non retail commercial - permitted uses would include professional
offices; corporate offices; consumer services, child care; fitness facility;
• Residential - at least 20% affordable (so it counts as part of the Town's
,affordable housing stock); rental. is preferable; location as a transition at
both South Street and Curtis; maximum of 2 BR units;
• Over 55 housing (may alter mixed use guidelines)
• Community Space - 2,000 sf; may include kitchen facilities, shared
bathrooms with development office; available to Reading residents and
groups; nominal charge for use; location can be "back office" less
visible: good buffer use; near housing;
• Non-profit uses - may be allowed if it fits within the mix of uses and
doesn't have negative impact
• Open Space - would include buffer; may include islands in parking and
pedestrian areas, and may include "urban" opens spaces like plazas,
gazebos, etc.;
• Parking garage - permitted height will be related to location.
b b 2,19
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
9/22/2006 6
2 Traffic/Access
• Keep Level of Service (LOS) as high as practical
• Keep Impact on South Street as low as possible
• Keep the needed improvement to Main Street as minimal as possible but
making sure that improvements are adequate to serve the site and
through traffic
• Require developer to evaluate alternate means of access if 128/I93
interchange improvements are done - and how to guarantee and phase
in
• Require a follow-up traffic study and mitigation if there are
unanticipated problems identified by the study.
• Require aesthetic improvements to Main Street - plantings, gateway,
• Residential access from South Street
• Future of Jacob Way (conveyance for consideration)
• Measure the total delay for the total route - not just at one or 2 points -
measure at each signal
• Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access from off site to the site, and
within the site should be required
t bZ'
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
9/22/2006 7
3 Impact
• Lot coverage % - applicant needs to address what their proposal has a lot
coverage by buildings, lot coverage by impervious surface, and Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
• Commercial Building setback from residential district - not less than 100
feet.
• Residential Building setback from residential district -
• Could be less than commercial - depending on layout, height,
interrelationship with commercial building and uses
• Building setback from abutting highway - can be minimal - as little as
109-
• Landscaped Buffering from residential district
• Residential use - 25'
• Retail use - 50'
• Office use - 50'
• Parking including garage - 50'
• Loading area - 50'
• Fire lane - 25'
• Route 128 - 0 to 25'
• Building heights - stepped towards highway
• 2 "steps"
• Using existing zoning map for the site, "blue" area max of
401; "purple" are max of 551; allow architectural features.
• Don't need 95' height
• Need to address the definition of building height in the zoning
bylaw
C°
wsheight. pdf
• Lighting
• Needs to be peer reviewed
• Needs to reflect site topography and impact on abutting
properties and roads
• Needs to be well shielded
• Need to develop a lighting section of the Zoning Bylaw
• Adequate lighting for site safety is needed
• This is a site plan review issue
• Signs
• Generally should be attached to buildings
• Recognition that there will probably need to be one free-
standing sign - will need to address height, where it's visible
from, etc.
• Will need to address hours of illumination - current bylaw
says signs are illuminated only during hours business is open
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting, t! V
9/22/2006 8
• Needs to be sensitive to abutting residential properties
• Need to have height restrictions even if attached to buildings
- i.e. not on higher architectural features
Hours of operation
• Should be able to be competitive with other situations in
Reading
• Supermarket hours to be the same as the Stop and Shop -
Stop and Shop is 7 am 'til 11 PM, less on Sundays
• Restaurant hours to be the same as the liquor license allows -
Current Reading Restaurant Liquor licenses - Ilam until 12
midnight weekdays; noon to midnight Sundays
• Retail - 9:30 am to 9:30 PM M-S; Sun Noon 'til 6
• Fitness center - 6 am to 10 PM
• Child care - 7 'til 7
• Hours for use of loading areas
• General standard - 7 am - 9:30 PM - based on performance
standard - extra buffering or berming.
• Location of loading/delivery areas
• As far from residences as possible
• Use mitigation - grade changes or enhanced (in quality not
dimension) of buffer
• Location of uses
Restaurant uses away from homes
Residential uses as transition
• What happens with "fingers" or property that go out to South Street
• Permanently not to be used as part of the. commercial
development, except for emergency access. Methodology of
accomplishing this to be determined at Site Plan approval.
• No structures should be allowed in the "no build" area as
defined on the existing zoning map
• Aesthetic treatment of the "rear" of the buildings
Lb3l
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
9/22/2006 9
4 Mid2adoA
• Linkage to other community needs -
■ We should get agreement on the basic plan and then see what
mitigation we can secure
■ Transportation (trolley service to transportation and other
commercial sites)
■ Sewer Inflow and Infiltration reduction
■ Modify capacity of utilities as demanded by development
(Sturgis Sewer pump station)
■ Supplemental water purchase - MWRA
■ Downtown linkage - marketing
■ Park Improvements - Artificial fields
■ Refurbishment of Imagination Station
■ Gateway treatment of Main Street
■ Sidewalks
■ Street improvements
32'
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting.
9/22/2006 10
5 Financial
• The Town should . get an outside independent financial consultant to
understand the finances of the real estate deal and the added value to the
property of the zoning change - which will assist in understanding what
mitigation, would be reasonable. This would also assist in understanding
at what level of development the deal works. This would happen when
there is a specific proposal before the Town that meets the other criteria
of this document, but before then the Town will identify potential
consultants and develop a scope of work;
• Town should get independent consultant to understand the financial
impact on the development to the Town - cost of services vs income from
taxes and fees on the site. This should be projected over a period of time.
This should be done when there is a specific proposal for re-zoning for the
site but before then the Town will identify potential consultants ' and
develop a scope of work.
Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AWWG meeting. qb33
9/22/2006 11
September 11, 2006
Dear Board of Selectmen:
As a Reading business owner and a Reading resident, I am writing to express my
opposition to the proposed Park Square lifestyle center at the Addison Wesley site here in
Reading.
I believe that this mall will have a devastating effect on our downtown businesses.
The new mall may attract more people from out of town, but I believe these shoppers will
be passing through Reading center to the mall, not stopping to shop in our established
businesses. With the parking issues we have in town, it will be much easier for people to
park once at Park Square and do all their shopping, rather than try to find a space and
shop downtown Reading in 2 hours or less. Also, the increased traffic in downtown
Reading will be a deterrent to customers who want to shop the center businesses. People
frequenting the lifestyle center from Rt. 128 will get on and off the highway without ever
seeing Reading center.
For the past four years I have worked closely with other retail businesses in the
center to bring awareness to what Reading has to offer. When people lookbeyond the sub
shops and the pharmacies, there are several places to go for unique gifts, clothing,
accessories, stationary, personal care and a good meal. With "Shop the Block", and
through joint advertising, we have worked to bring awareness to all that our downtown
has to offer. We have unique, independent businesses that offer customer service that
can't be found at any chain store.
As a Reading resident, I am concerned about the impact this mall will have on our
town. I am concerned about the neighborhoods surrounding the Addison Wesley site -
although I don't live there, I know I wouldn't like to have a mall built in my backyard.
There is a big difference between living next to a 9 to 5 /Monday through Friday business
and a retail site that is open for business 12 hours/day, seven days a week with early
morning deliveries. And what about the increased drain on our municipal services?
Although there are plans for a security force at Park Square, they certainly will not be
able to handle all emergencies, and to my knowledge will not be patrolling the lifestyle
center 24/7. The upscale status of the center and its proximity to Rt. 128 unfortunately
makes it a target for criminals. We have already seen this happen at the Jordan's
Furniture/Home Depot site on Walkers Brook Drive.
I am also concerned about the viability of Park Square. We have competing malls
in Burlington, Saugus, Danvers & Peabody. We have the new lifestyle center, Wayside
Commons, in Burlington as well as another proposed lifestyle center in Lynnfield at the
Colonial hotel site. It is my understanding that WS Development owns Redstone
Shopping Center in Stoneham, which is less than a mile from the Addison Wesley site.
Why haven't they been able to succeed there? What will happen if Park Square is not
successful?
I do not believe that Park Square is in the best interest of the Town of Reading.
Respectfully,
Leslie Leahy
The Hitching Post
190 Haven Street
Reading, Ma 01867
43N
LIC tq-C?5 -
Reading Board of Selectmen and the Addison Wesley Working Group:
The peer reviewer of the traffic study, prepared for W/S Development by Edwards &
Kelcey (EK), claims that a 400,000 square foot mall is "feasible." How do we know if
this is true or even appears to be credible?
Here's one way to think about it. That well-known handbook on land use codes specifies
an average trip generation rate and a standard deviation (i.e., how much actual rates will
vary about the average rate) for shopping malls (i.e., Land Use code 820). If you "do the
math" (see attached memo), there will be an average of 1500 vehicles entering and
exiting only one point of egress during the peak PM hour during a weekday. That means
a traffic counter at the entrance to this mall will record entering or exiting vehicles every
2.4 seconds during that peak period hour (i.e., 3600 seconds/1500 vehicles). Does that
rate of traffic flow seem manageable for one entrance/exit?
Now what happens when the trip generation is greater than the average rate? (The Land
Use code 820 tells its that it will be greater). Once again, when you "do the math," there
is a 1 in 5 chance that there will be 2240 to 3720 vehicles passing in or out the
"driveway" to the mall. That's an average of 2980 vehicles for this range and means
every 1.2 seconds a vehicle will be either entering or exiting the entrance to this 400,000
square mall.
Imagine that you are standing at the entrance to this mall and watching the mall traffic
pass by at the rate of one vehicle nearly every second? Is this credible?
What about the I in 5 chance? That land use code handbook predicts it.
What proof do we have that EK's redesign signalized intersection can accommodate
traffic flow at the rate of one vehicle every 2.4 seconds, or, worse yet every 1.2 seconds?
What happens when the intersection light turns red for traffic heading toward that one
mall entrance during the weekday peak PM hour?'How long will the queues become?
What happens to the Level of Service (LOS)? The developer and peer reviewer never
addressed these issues.
According to the www.NoMa1101867.com website, I understand that the BoS will be
discussing the mall at the Addison Wesley property on Tuesday (September 5). May I
have a few minutes of your time to discuss this matter with you?
Regards, Jeff
Jeffrey Everson, Ph.D.,
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS);
Member: Mass Highway I93/95 Interchange Task Force; PRESERVE
21 Pine Ridge Circle
Reading, MA 01867
Hoene phone: 781-944-3632
Work phone: 781-684-4247
ub 3~
L- CZll
ROBERT E. LAUTZENHEISEK.
35 ARCADIA AVE.
READING MA 01867-2203
0/1-3/06
Office of Selectmen, Town Hall
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Selectmen:
As a resident and a long time weather observer for Reading, I made observations
about the A-W area development.
The initial and follow up brochures issued by the developer were so full of errors
and inflated claims that the .developer's integrity should be suspect.
The claim that the Town would ahead around a million in "free" taxes is a myth.
Extra police and fire costs will take a bite, but more importantly the massive
devaluation of southern. Reading real estate will cause a great loss of tax revenue
not only from that area but probably will downgrade property through much of
the Town. It might be that total tax revenue would be reduced, not enhanced.
The plan is simple theft from property owners, as neither the town nor the
developer will reimburse these losses.
It is unethical for a developer to hire local lawyers and so get a free ad on local
Reading TV. This should not have been allowed..
There was published a list of 500 pro names. An inspection of the list shows multiple
names for many families The number of families is a fraction. The list would be
further sizably cut sown if the relatives and friends of the hired lawyers were deleted.
I spoke to a friend whose name I found on the list only to be told that he had no need
for such a development. Perhaps a family member, a lawyer relative, added his name.
On a lighter vein, the road curve sign as one comes into Reading on West St. from
Woburn, still shows the wrong turn direction. This the only such case I have ever sees
in my 75 years of driving. It is in the area on Countryside Lane. It easily would be
fixed by turning the present sign upside down. This might prevent a serious accident
on a foggy night if one turned as the sign directs into a house on the left side of the
street.
Sin y
Ro ert E. Lautzenheis
&,63CO
LIc- Qos
35 Washington Street
Reading, MA 01867
September 18, 2006
To the Reading Board of Selectmen:
My name is Lois Bell, and I have lived in Reading for 55 years. I love Reading and am
trying to stay here as a senior citizen on a fixed income.
I am all for "progress" and for improving the town especially if it will help reduce taxes,
but I am really upset about the Addison Wesley property. I have followed all the meetings very
closely and have come to the conclusion that I don't trust the developer. I won't repeat all the
reasons like traffic studies, unanswered questions, etc., because everyone has been over all the
reasons many times. I don't live anywhere near the site, but I can imagine what a shopping mall
would do to the neighbors who do. The beeping of trucks backing up at all hours and the odors
and hours from the restaurants (increase in number) will impact neighboring streets in addition to
South and Curtis. With only one entrance/exit, I'm sure you remember the traffic backups on
election day, and this was only Reading residents. The plan is good, but definitely not for this
site.
I would request for your consideration an over-55 project for this site. I believe this
would have least impact on our schools and fire and police departments, not to mention traffic.
Thank you for the many hours of volunteer work you do for our community.
Copy to CPDC
Respectfully,
X)~ ,~6w
L b3~'
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From: ekochey [ekochey@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:03 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Fw: A Canton Ct resident speaks.
Original Message
From: "ekochey" <ekochey@sbcglobal.net>
To: <readingchronicle@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:20 PM
Subject: A Canton Ct resident speaks.
>I have just read with interest the letter from Nancy Usich of Avon
> Connecticut with her glowing picture of the "Shoppes At Farmington
> Valley"
> the Weiner development in Canton Connecticut.
> There are few Canton residents who have the same glowing feeling about the
> "Shoppes" It is not the unique charming little village that the
> developer
> convinced the people of Canton he was going to build. Except for the three
> big anchor stores which he claimed he needed later after he had approval
> for the property, the rest are primarily restaurants and stores of
> national chains catering to
> women. Some of them are stores who have relocated from other neighboring
> towns. They are not the mix of stores that can keep a shopping area going
> for a long time. It is attractive now with all its plantings but it will
> never compare to the golf course we lost.
> Shopping for some women is the female equivalent of hunting. We enjoy the
> novelty of new shopping areas for a time and trying out new restaurants.
> When the novelty wears off and we go somewhere else, stores begin to
> close.
> That is happening a few miles down the road in Avon as their shopping area
> that was once the place to go, no longer has that new feeling and is
> beginning to look a little seedy in places.
> Elsewhere in Connecticut older shopping centers are going down hill
> rapidly
> as customers go elsewhere to try out the new "Shoppes" Meanwhile the
> developers have moved on, having used up all the tax breaks and other
> perks
> that towns give them to attract the tax revenue they are promised. The
> financial benefits rarely match the glowing promises.
> If you do approve the shopping village, make sure the developer really
> does
> what he says he will do. Don't buy his claims, if he comes back later and
> says he can't make a go of it financially without major changes. Make
> sure
> it is truly a good mix of shops not just clothing and shoe stores.
> Evon Kochey
> Canton, Connecticut
qb3K
G~GG
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Bryan OConnell [boc@deputycollector.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 7:48 AM
To: readingchronicle@comcast.net; reading@cnc.com; Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen
Subject: park square
To Whom It May Concern;
I am a principal partner at PKS Associates, 34 Salem St. here in Reading. The Park
Square proposal would be a great addition to the community by providing economic growth as
well as convenience to the residents and working class alike. I hope the upcoming
discussions and Town Meeting vote result in the execution of this project.,
Sincerely,
Bryan O'Connell
PKS Associates
qb 3q
Page 1 of 1
G ~vS
Hechenblefter, Peter Z76
From: Sandibijou1@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:36 PM
To: nomall01867@comcast.net; Reading - Selectmen
Subject: C.A.R.E.
Being relatively new to the town of Reading, and not being politically involved, I was a little perplexed when I
received a flyer in the mail today regarding usage on the former Addison-Wesley/Pearson site.
First of all their are two (2) phone numbers on the flyer to call with concerns.
1 called both phone numbers and neither had an-answering machine: Is it this difficult to air a concern???
The second issue I have is as follows:
The flyer states the upcoming meetings are to be held on September 5, 7, respectively.
I received this flyer today on Septmember 11, 2006. Bulk mail may be cheaper but not very effective when the
mail is delivered at least 6 days after the first meeting is to be held.
1 am not aware what the population is in Reading, but it is called the Town of Readina. 1 would personally like
to see it stay as a small town without all the traffic, noise, and new, large developements.
Marjie Patnaude
9/18/2006
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: colleen o [oceanasea@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: No Mall .
Please do not allow a mall to be built at Addison-Wesley. It would destroy any hope for a
downtown Reading.
How many stores do we need?
The Woburn Mall is half full. The Redstone mall is half full.
Why would this one be different?
Colleen O'Shaughnessy
56 Walnut Street
qbq
9/18/2006
~(C 6(7
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: lindgren-reid@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:54 AM
To: selectmen@ci.reading.ma.usA
Subject: Park Square at Reading
To the Selectmen:
I want to add my name to the list of those residents in favor of Park Square at Reading. I
believe it would be a positive addition to the town both to the tax base and for the type
of development that has been proposed.
I am not in favor of that site being used as high density housing. The huge development on
West Street is enough.
Thank you,
Nancy Reid
45 Linnea Lane
Reading, MA 01867
1
Pagel of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Everson, Jeff geverson@foster-miller.com)
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:57 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: reading@cnc.com
Subject: FW: VARIABILITY: MALL TRIP GENERATION RATES
Attachments: mall feas let BOS.doc; mall feasibility question.doc
To all:
C/Cgbs
I would appreciate the courtesy of a formal written response to the letter below and the material
that I summarized at your Board of Selectmen meeting on Tuesday of this week. The basis of
that summary stems from the two attached documents that I previously sent to you.
You might want to frame your response along the following lines: (1) My calculations on mall trip
generation rates are in error and can be, therefore, dismissed, (2) These calculations are
correct but are inconsequential due to some overriding consideration or (3) My calculations and
conclusions are correct and deserve to be addressed by W/S Development, Edwards & Kelcey
and the Peer Reviewer (John Diaz). A logical extension of the third option is that there may be
embedded safety concerns in the developer's traffic study that could materialize in a legal
context.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force,
781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Everson, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 3:15 PM
To: Ben Tafoya
Subject: VARIABILITY: MALL TRIP GENERATION RATES
Ben,
Thank you once again for the position that you took during the meeting on August 9th regarding
the Mall at the Addison Wesley site. Your efforts on the Working Group are appreciated.
At the BOS meeting on September 5th, I summarized the cover letter and attached document
that I sent to you, other BOS members and members of the working group. The sum and
substance of my latest writing is that trip generations to the mall (i.e., a 400,000 sq. ft. mall) can
exceed the average trip generation by a factor of 2 (i.e., 1500 vehicles versus approximately
3000 vehicles, peak hour during a PM weekday). This exceedance can be expected to happen
9/18/2006
~ q3
Page 2 of 2
20 percent of the time according to the ITE Handbook on Trip Generations, Land Use Code
820. At the rate of 3000 vehicles, one can expect to observe vehicles passing in and out of the
mall entrance at the rate of one vehicle every 1.6 seconds. This rate of vehicle passage would
need to be accommodated by the Level of Service afforded by the mall parking facilities.
Otherwise, traffic will back up in the parking facilities and/or overflow the entrance into the mall.
The developer's traffic study did not account for all the information afforded by the data given in
Land Use Code 820 (i.e., both the average trip generation and its standard deviation). This
omission by the developer could lead to a seriously degraded intersection at Main and South
Streets.
The Working Group offered two requirements on the subject of traffic. These are:
o Keep Level of Service (LOS) as high as practical
o Require a follow-up traffic study and mitigation if there are unanticipated problems
identified by the study
My latest findings indicate that the LOS will not be as high as possible at least 20 percent of the
time. The LOS of service could be improved, if, for example, vehicle sensors and adaptive
signal algorithms were employed as part of a redesigned signalized intersection at Main and
South Streets. However, the developer failed to provide that capability.
Has the Working Group ever considered the subject of trip generation variability and what to do
about it? You folks on the BOS might want to consider a public meeting so that the developer
can address his technical omissions. If he is not held accountable and Town Meeting approves
the rezoning of the Addison Wesley property, then we what do "we" do about that 20 percent?
Regards,
Jeff Everson
qb ub
9/18/2006
Page 1 of 1
v5
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From:
aiko [aikoblair@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Friday, September 15, 2006 3:13 PM
To:
readingchronicle@comcast.net
Cc:
reading@cnc.com; Reading - Selectmen; Jane Latus
Subject:
S.R. Weiner Development
Attachments: 2160513839-Reading, IVIA.doc
Please see attached document regarding the S.R. Weiner proposed development in
Reading.
Regards,
Trish Z. Blair
VI n
NAMASTE
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
9/18/2006
Dear Residents of Reading, MA;
I write this in response to Nancy Usich's article on August 30te'in your newspaper regarding the
possible shopping development in Reading, MA. I am a Canton resident and a local business
owner. In other words you will be getting a view point from a closely affected person to an S.R.
Weiner development.
As a resident I was opposed to the proposed shopping mall (The Shoppes at Farmington Valley).
My opposition was that it would take away all of the beautiful green land, that it's Big Box
stores would ruin local businesses that built the town's character and provide incomparable
customer service, that it would be an eyesore to the town's landscape and finally that the entire
development's square footage was growing and growing with each town planning meeting. It
was spinning wildly out of control. Unfortunately small towns just do not have their town boards
set up to handle the huge developers from doing exactly what they want the way they want it.
Thanks to the support of Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion (C.A.R.E.), which I am a
proud advocate of, we are now putting those planning commissions into place (a little too late
for the old Canton Golf Course). I must say I always wanted there to be more shopping in my
area and many of the stores The Shoppes brought in I've enjoyed. However now that it is done.
here is the reality of the negative effects this development has had:
1. All the existing local businesses' garbage removal increased by about $120 per
month/$1440 per year for a "garbage transfer fee" which the town previously paid for
(multiply that by all the businesses in town). Canton can no longer include that in their
budget because of all the added trash expense The Shoppes rubbish added to the transfer
fee.
2. The high scale shopping that the developers presented at the start of their campaign have
been shadowed by the low end Big Box stores not originally in the plan which they
insisted needed to be added (adding 60,000 square feet to the already once, twice [who
remembers] expanded footprint) in order to draw the stores they needed to fill all the
leases. The developers basically had their intimidating lawyers make the town think it
would be an empty lot of buildings if they didn't approve the expansion.
3. The beautiful landscape is ruined. Yes, the shops look lovely from the inside of the
development; however, from the road all we see is the backs of the buildings, electrical
boxes & dumpsters. It looks like a typical shopping strip, nothing like the developer
described. They did a wonderful job distracting our attention from how it would look
from the road by describing in extensive detail the inner area.
4. Traffic, yes it most definitely has affected this Rt.44 Canton section, I know I drive
through it each day I go to work.
5. Did it lower our taxes, absolutely not! Do some research and see what the Big Box stores
negotiate regarding their taxes when they sign the lease.
6. I have spoken to many residents in the nearby area and the light pollution is horrible.
They no longer can see the stars at night in their own backyard as they once had.
7. Additional police were needed to direct traffic during the Holiday shopping and traffic
was so backed up that many businesses outside the plaza were not visited during this
prime retail season.
8. When we requested a stop light to help the safety of entering and exiting our shop the
town told us someone had to die to get a stop light. Just last week I witnessed a car flip
over onto our lawn as a driver was waved into our entrance and got directly hit by on
oncoming car. Thank goodness she did not die. No light I guess. ' J
I would like you to know that I personally believe my business has gained from this
development. My sales have gone up with help of the increased traffic among other things. I
wouldn't want anyone reading this to think I am a bitter business owner, which is simply not the
case.
Thank you for this opportunity to express only some of the important points that the town of
Reading should know. Educating yourselves is the most important thing to do right now.
C.A.R.E.'has some excellent resources, httD://www.cantoncare.orvJ.
Regards,
Trish Z. Blair
Canton Resident and Business Owner
P.S. By the way the red barn is not very proud, it is standing isolated, empty and in the far back
of The Shoppes. A Canton Historical building that was saved by the developers? I think not.
~;byl
Page 1 of 1
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From:
fft [fft@comcast.net]
Sent:
Sunday, September 17, 2006 12:39 AM
To:
reading@cnc.com; read ingchronicle@comcast.net
Cc:
Reading -Selectmen
Subject:
Addison-Wesley property development
Attachments: Dear editor.doc .
Dear Editors and Reading Board of Selectmen,
41G 3D5
Attached you will find my thoughts regarding the proposed re-development of the former Addison-Wesley site.
Sincerely,
Frank Touserkani
Precinct 3
L(bHg
9/18/2006
Dear Editor,
As a Reading resident for over 23 -years, I can say that Addison Wesley was a good neighbor for
years when they resided on Jacob Way and they minimally impacted the town services and
surrounding/adjacent neighborhoods (traffic, fire, police etc...). There were never any bottlenecks
entering the site. The only impact was to the employees of Addison Wesley themselves when leaving
the site in the evenings, and they had that addressed by a police officer detail on Main Street to get the
people out of the site efficiently.
I can only imagine what the traffic would be when shoppers enter and exit the site simultaneously all
day, everyday via a single access roadway. In all their traffic studies, the developer S.R. Weiner claim
that they have addressed all the traffic concerns raised by Reading residents and at all the working
group meetings, and they could manage the traffic and make it work, but someone needs to explain to
us why Wayside Commons Lifestyle Center, which recently opened in Burlington, has four (4)
entrances to a site that is 180,000 sq. ft. (approximately half the size of the proposed retail
development here). Actually, the proposed development not only is twice as large the one in
Burlington, but also includes another 140,000 sq. ft. of residential component that no one is talking
about it yet.
You can throw all the developers traffic studies away and fire all the traffic engineers, for basing their
studies on false traffic models to make it appealing to our town. They should be basing their studies on
realistic models. For instance, leaving my house at 9:00 AM this past Friday morning, I could not get to
work in Burlington, as 1-95/Route 128 south bound was backed up all the way to Lynnfield, due to
grand opening of L.L. Bean store in Wayside Commons. While this is goodness for retailers, it is a
commuter nightmare. Even multiple exit ramps on a major interchange, could not handle the additional
traffic load.
Another point to observe is that this year's primary election voting location would not be at the
traditional Addison Wesley site, and instead it will be at Walker Brook drive. I would assume that the
developer did not want the whole Town to witness another live and realistic traffic fiasco, similar to the
previous elections days. If I were the developer, I would have asked the Town to hold the election on
the Pearson property and based their traffic studies on the "real" data, and see if there are any ways
that they could mitigate the #1 issue here, traffic.
Pearson Education (www.r)earsoned.com) is the global leader in educational and professional
publishing, and part of Pearson (NYSE: PSO) with over 11 billion (with a "B") dollars market
capitalization. Do they really need the extra millions (with an "M") from maximizing the sale price tag of
this property, and devastate this town prior to their departure? Pearson could let the town decide who
would be the future purchaser and developer for this property, based on what makes sense for re-
development of this property.
We all know that the site is going to be re-developed and something is going to go there, not to
mention the additional income to the town, which I am sure they'II_find a way to spend it. Does it have
to be a mall though? Do we really need to add to the congestion of 1-95/1-93 corridor gridlock? Why
can't it be an assisted living, over 55 housing, or simply mixed use office/hotel complexes which was
recently re-zoned for? And please don't threaten us with another 408, our town officials have done a
great job adding to the 10% affordable housing stock year after year.
Sincerely,
Frank Touserkani
Precinct 3
alb 49
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: bonazoli@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:38 AM
To: Brian Sciera; Dick Marks; Brad Latham; Bill Griset
Cc: Goldy, Stephen; Anthony, Camille; Schubert, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Tafoya,
Ben; Schena, Paula
Subject: questions from August 9th AWWG
Weiner team
Based on a recent email and articles in the local paper there are still outstanding questions that need to
be answered. I believe I was to get them to you so excuse my request for a quick turn around but I need
the answers by Friday morning in order to get into the Selectmen's packet.
Here are the questions I have from my notes and the minutes. If anyone has others or I am missing any
please send them by tomorrow. Otherwise consider this a complete list.
* Crime rate I Statistics for Hingham
* Based on current proposal how many parking spaces are there.
* Would they be willing to work with the state on additional access and if yes is there a logical spot on
the property to locate it?
There was much talk and questions about traffic but I believe the conclusion there is an expanded study
needs to be performed from the 128 ramps to Summer Ave.
That is all I have, if there are others please send them.
Thank you
James
qh5'0
9/20/2006
Page 1 of 1
Z-1c a Os
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: colleen o [oceanasea@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: No Mall
Please do not allow a mall to be built at Addison-Wesley. It would destroy any hope for a
downtown Reading.
How many stores do we need?
The Woburn Mall is half full. The Redstone mall is half full.
Why would this one be different?
Colleen O'Shaughnessy
56 Walnut Street
qb-!
9/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
yc a as
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: Donna_Tucker@CarpenterAndPaterson.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:01 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: nomall01867@comcast.net
Subject: I support Reading Care on no Mall
After reading the letter I received in the mail from Reading C.A.R.E in regards to the proposed Mall at the
Addison--Wesley site,
1 would like to say that I support all that they are doing to keep Reading from putting in a Mall.
I love my town and I am very proud to say I live in Reading. I have lived in Reading since 1962 All of my
children have attended Reading Schools one is currently a teacher in Reading for the last 6 years and one
works in an office in Reading.
I live off of Pearl Street and find that Reading Square already has its share of traffic. Just trying to make
my way across the square heading towards Woburn can take time due to the traffic lights and traffic in
general.
Please think of our community and say not to the Mall proposal...
Thank You,
Donna and Larry Tucker
68 Orange Street
Reading Ma
ub 5- -Z'
9/19/2006
4/c. gos-
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Paul Millett P.E. [paulm@watermarkenv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:40 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Park Square Development Concerns
Attachments: Letter to Reading Chronicle Sept 12 2006.doc
Dear Members of the Board of Selectmen:
I am attaching a letter regarding concerns I have with the Park Square Development. I appreciate the continued
and careful attention that the Board has expressed with this project, and your concerns with the magnitude of the
impacts that this development could have on our community.
Please consider the content of my letter as you evaluate the merits of this development.
Please contact me at 944 8417 with any questions.
FYI. I also sent this letter to the Advocate and the Chronicle.
Regards,
Paul Millett
25 Fairview Avenue
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Millett P.E. [mailto:paulm@watermarkenv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:23 PM
To: 'reading@cnc.com'; 'read ingch ronicle@comcast. net'
Subject: Park Square Development Concerns
To the Editors:
Please consider publishing my letter concerning the many unresolved technical questions with this development.
They range from traffic to stormwater issues.
I am a civil engineer with over 20 years of experience and have grave concerns about this development.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Paul Millett, PE
25 Fairview Avenue
Reading
9449417
Watermark Environmental Inc.
Boott Mills South
100 Foot of John Street, 4th Floor
Lowell, MA 01852 ~j
www.watermarkenv.com qb,!
Tel: (978) 452 9696
9/19/2006 Fax: (978) 453 9988
25 Fairview Avenue
Reading, MA 01867
September 12, 2006
Editor
Reading Chronicle
Re: AWP Development - Engineering Reality Meets Conceptual Dreams
After 6 months of meetings, presentations, and working group sessions, the site plan presented at
the August meeting is really a slap in the face to the sincere efforts of the working group,
selectmen, and members of the community who have taken the time to provide meaningful input
to this project. How much faith can we have in this developer if they continue not to listen?
How clear can the direction from the community be?
I attended the August 9'' presentation from the developer, where the revised site plan and store
layout were presented. The developer stated that "over 95%" of the working group's comments
had been incorporated into the revised design, and that only a few minor issues remained to be
resolved. As many of you are aware, after much comment from the public, the meeting
concluded with two members of the Board of the Selectmen expressing their displeasure with the
developer's revised site plan and its blatant disregard for the content of the working group's
document.
I have been following this project for the past year by watching the public meetings and working
group sessions on RCTV and have read the traffic reports via the town's web site. I attended the
CPDC public hearing in March at the High School and spoke candidly about the lack of solid data
and engineering analysis to support the project's infrastructure. Specifically, I detailed concerns
about "real engineering" issues such as traffic, water supply, wastewater disposal and stormwater.
I concluded by stating to the CPDC that in simple terms, there were too many unresolved,
complex technical issues with this development to reach an objective conclusion, and that I could
not see how the CPDC could reach a informed and defendable recommendation on the merits of
this project without significant additional analysis.
How much progress has really been made since March? Candidly, not much. The guidance
provided in the Working Group document and endorsed by the Board of Selectmen, was written
in plain, simple English. I applaud the efforts of the working group, as this cooperative process
should have commenced about one year ago if the developer was truly committed to consensus-
building and community involvement.
I strongly encourage members of the community to take 15 minutes and printout the working
group's guidance document from the town's web page. Then sit back and ask yourself if the
August 9`h revised site plan truly reflects the content and guidance contained in the document. If
you haven't yet taken the time to do this, it will probably be the best 15 minutes investment you
can make to educate yourself about this project.
The only engineering aspect of this project that has been given cursory attention appears to be the
traffic analysis, which is still incomplete. The developer touted the "significant" improvements
that the revised design provided, as portrayed in the supplemental traffic analysis completed in
ybSN
November of 2005. I pointed out at the CPDC hearing that in simple layman terms, there really
is no significant improvement. Using the developer's own report and numbers, (see page 8 of the
Supplemental Traffic Study, Table 1 LOS Summaries), the level of service at the intersection is
still a grade "C". How can this be significantly better than the original (August 2005) traffic
study's grade "C". Is this modified Chicago Math?
At previous meetings, the developer acknowledged the concerns of the community and stated that
the design team would revise the plans to "scale back" the project, and tackle some of the real
thorny issues. However, the site plan presented on August 9 showed no meaningful attempts to
scale back the project's footprint. The same fundamental engineering questions remain
unanswered.
Traffic Analysis
The traffic analysis that I have seen is based on some narrow assumptions. Even with the
developer's so-called "improved redesign" of the intersection, the traffic analysis in his report still
gets a C/D grade. In addition, this conclusion hinges on a very narrow assumption - all traffic
simulation analysis is based on 80% of the traffic coming from 128/95, and 20% from local
streets. I saw no technical justification for this key 80/20 split in the traffic reports. Are you
aware of any justification? The C/D grade will fall to a D/E grade on heavy shopping holiday,
and I don't just mean on one day such as the Friday after Thanksgiving. Try the broader
Christmas Holiday season, or any major shopping weekend.
Every traffic engineer's nightmare is how to make a large volume of traffic make a Left Turn-this
is precisely the problem here. All traffic from 128/95 needs to get in the left lane of 28N quickly
and try to make the left turn to get into the site-a major problem. For comparison, consider how
much easier it is to enter the Walker. Brook site because you are making a Right Turn off North
Avenue from 128/95 (and you have two entrances).
I don't think people can truly appreciate the volume of traffic that the developer projects for this
project. Can you appreciate what 16,500 vehicle trips on a Saturday or Sunday looks like? Or
what over 20,000 vehicle trips on a busy shopping holiday looks like? And most of them' need to
make the dreaded left turn to enter the propertyl Moreover, emergency vehicle access to a site
with one common entrance and exit is extremely concerning, will be very difficult, and will
compromise life safety responses.
Additional analysis is needed for other potential traffic split scenarios-70/30; 65/35 etc. People
from Wilmington, North Reading and Wakefield will likely take West Street to Oak Street to
Summer Avenue to Main Street, or Route 129 to Main Street (or North Avenue from Wakefield)
and travel up Main Street. With a 70/30 split - i.e. 30% of vehicles from local streets, you can
expect significantly more traffic. You cannot widen Main Street to add a lane from say Hopkins
Street up to South Street - there's no room to add a lane due to the businesses on the right side.
You will quickly see that the local streets will be surcharged. And let's be candid about South
Street - it is one or the narrowest two-way streets in town.
I think the traffic analysis needs to be continued by the developer to assess the 70/30; 65/35
scenarios, and to predict the flow on other shopping holidays. In addition, the limitations of the
intersection's capacity to handle traffic need to be candidly stated, under these various scenarios `
~bsS
At the August 9 meeting, the developer presented a traffic graph with LOS plotted against square
feet of retail space. The LOS line was essentially a flat line. The intent of this graph was
presumably to show that the traffic impacts are manageable at an LOS of grade "C" whether the
mall contains 100,000 or 400,000 sf of retail. The simple conclusion that one might innocently
make from.this graph is that whether we have a small, medium, large of super-size mall, the traffic
impacts are the same, thereby justifying the 400,000 sf option. However, it was unclear what
traffic conditions this graph was reflecting. Are we to believe that regardless of mall size, the
traffic impacts will be indistinguishable?
Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Issues
Where will all the stormwater go? The recent May rainy season should provide a flavor and
accurate visual aid for what stormwater runoff looks like. Reading received over 6-inches of rain
over the Mother's Day weekend. Given the. vast, hard impermeable surface of the parking lots
and roof tops, an extensive stormwater collection, treatment and conveyance system will be
required. For example, assume that the most recent site plan contains approximately 18 acres of
hard space (roads, parking lots, buildings, etc) out of the 24 acres available at this site. Even with
a moderate rain storm with 1-inch of rainwater falling over 18 acres, approximately 490,000
gallons of stormwater will generated. The developer mentioned at the August presentation that
the design for the stormwater system has NOT yet started, but he expects this will be handled
with on-site infiltration. Somehow, almost 500, 000 gallons of water will magically soak into
the ground-and this is with just 1-inch ofrarnfall. Imagine what will happen with heavier
rains.
How much water will this project require on an average day, maximum day and peak hour basis?
Can the existing water system support these demands? What piping improvements are necessary
on South, Walnut and Main Street? How much wastewater will the project generate? I heard
nunbling about the insufficient capacity of the sewer on South Street and the likely need to
replace the pipe and the Sturges Park pump station - which means construction all the way down
South Street.
On a broader note, I am convinced that this development will also take away from the downtown
revitalization plan. Providing a shuttle bus from the mall to the downtown area is a token gesture
to the downtown merchants who have committed to stay in town. Is the revenue benefit really
worth the headaches that this development will create? On an average household basis, if we save
say $150-$200 per year on our taxes (and I haven't seen any hard numbers that tell us what we will
"save"), is this marginal savings worth it?
This site is completely different than the Walker's Brook site. The traffic flow patterns are
fundamentally different (right turn versus left turn), and more tolerable. Development at that site
solved a twenty year old landfill problem owned by the town. Through a cooperative developer-
town approach during the planning and design phases, a win-win situation was realized.
I would like to see some careful development at this site, appropriate for the site, the
neighborhood and community, and consistent with the town's master plan. An over-55
retirement community is one option that would have considerably less impacts on traffic patterns,
the town's infrastructure, and the neighborhood. The SR Weiner proposal was (and continues to
be) too big, too invasive and has too many major traffic, water, wastewater and stormwater
impacts which have not been fully presented, nor candidly disclosed. The traffic analysis hinges
on some narrow and potentially misleading assumptions.
The input from the working group and Board of Selectmen has clearly not been taken seriously, as
demonstrated by the August 9rh revised site plan. How much longer can we tolerate this charade'
Let's move away from glossy graphics that have been presented to date for this upscale
development and get to the heart of the real issues that this site presents. We may then be able to
evaluate this project in a truly objective and informed manner.
Paul Millett
uhs'
4
~-/c gas
Hechenblefter, Peter
From:
Paula G [pmgentile@gmaii.com]
Sent:
Friday, September 15, 2006 12:26 PM
To:
reading@cnc.com; readingchronicle@comcast.net; RNRChamberCom@aol.com;
Rep.PatrickNatale@hou.state.ma.us
Cc:
Ben; Town Manager
Subject:
Remember what we once were, what we can be
Attachments: blocked traffic on south street-3.JPG
EA
blocked traffic
on south stree...
September 15, 2006
Dear Sir(s),
After all this time, and after all of the working group meetings, I want you all to know
my family (who have lived here for years) continues to oppose the proposed "Lifestyle
Center" mall project.
Many of my neighbors remain opposed to it as well.
It is so sad that people feel the need for materialism, the need for status, and the need
to aimlessly drive for more complexity in their lives. I find it sad that even some
children of this town are being manipulated into campaigning for the proposed mall. Where
have our priorities gone? What are we teaching them?
Do we want kids hanging out at malls late at night?
In any town, as prestigious as it may be, we all must remember what is truly •important.in
our lives. I can tell you, this mall is NOT it.
Those of us against the mall want simplicity back in our town again.
Perhaps a refresher of simplicity is in order:
"Simplicity is the property, condition, or quality of being simple It often
denotes beauty, purity or clarity...
The opposite of simplicity is complexity.... Chaos..."
This simple vision was Reading once. "Tree town USA." Then slowly
over the years it started to all go. Empty storefronts, empty retail buildings and box.
stores started to appear. The thickets of trees slowly began to fade. The farms
disappeared. Giant marketing lights started to shine through people's windows. Shop
here! Shop here! Buy this! Buy that!
Where have our priorities gone?
This proposed issue must stop wasting the Town of Reading's precious time. Let us focus
on the proper economic development and preservation of Reading.
Please, if you care about the Town of Reading, about having a town not overdeveloped by
complex projects that will destroy neighborhoods, you will join us all and remain opposed
to this Mall.
Remember this property was never designed for retail. It is designed for commercial.
There are STILL lots of commercial options that won't destroy our town.
Thanks for listening.
Paula Gentile and Family
4658
1
Hechenbleikner, Peter,. , , . , . . „
From: vpolitano@verizgn.net
Sent: Monday, September 18, 200610:49 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: nomaII01867@comcast.net
Dear Reading Selectmen,
I have been trying, to stay on top of the proposed mall at the Addison-Wesley/Pearson site.
I am a.supporter of C.A.R.E.
As I read the newspaper articles from both sides, I do not agree with the supports for the
mall, and I. do see any positive justifications for it. Their theories are flawed in
thinking that the mall will.clean up main street, bring $1M in tax dollars to Reading and
create jobs is outweighed by the traffic, crime and trash along Main street that will
litter that section of Reading with plastic bags, food wrappers and bottles, cans and
coffee cups. We do not need a Mall in this town, nor does this area. I don't see how.Main
Street will be cleaned up and transformed into anything better then it already is, in fact
it. will. get trashed.
I read in one letter from a supporter about what a convenience and pleasure it is. for them
going to the Home Depot, that's great, but Walkers Brook has a small amount of.stores and
has a big entrance and easy access to 128, that is the not.the case at the proposed new
mall. Walkers Brook has about 7 stores, medium sized restaurants, and a bank. The amount
of stores and the layout/density is far less then the volume of traffic the roadway will
handle. We can't compare the 2 sites.
There is a lot of focus put on the intersection of 128 and 28 (Main St). I do agree that
the traffic will not.be supported, regardless of what the developer proposes. But I also
feel that we are forgetting about the traffic coming from the west on Main Street. If you
think about it, the proximity and amount of shopping malls and small.strip malls south of
Reading along 128, east bound on 28 in Stoneham, and on Route 1, which is 10 to 15 minutes
north of Reading just off of 128, and possibly the new Mall that may go in at the Colonial
site, the proposed mall will have a lot of competition, people will have lots of options
for shopping. But towns west do not have the same amount of shopping mall and store
density. So my concern is that the volume corning from the.west on Main Street is not being
considered. I would invite you to take a ride through the center on Saturday morning, see
what a mess it is, witness what the traffic is like..I invite you to drive up Salem Street
(RT 129) starting from the Registry of Motor Vehicles heading toward the center in the
morning, between the hours of 7:30am and 9:00 am. And sit in traffic for 10 to 15 minutes
when it would only take about a minute. I also invite you to hang out on Arrow circle, a
cul-de-sac off of Salem Street for an hour or 2, and count the number of vehicles that
turn around, and if you where to ask these drivers what they are looking for, they will
most likely tell you Jordan's Furniture. Prior to Walkers Brook, Arrow circle was quiet,
and I would not have any worries with the kids riding and playing on the street. Now we
can't have that, because of the cars whipping around because they can't find Jordan's.
Do we need more of this in the town?
Other concerns I have is:
1. Guarantee by the developer of the stores they are promising, and the commitment by
those corporations that they will go in when the mall is completed, and that they will
stay.
2. Crime
3. Stress on town services, the tax revenue will be eaten up quickly with the addition
of personnel, and responses.
4. Safety
5. Traffic that will not only be generated by mall goers, but by delivery trucks to the
mall and to gas station on 28
6. Traffic in and out of the gas stations that are very close to the proposed mall
site, Exxon, Shell, and Mobil
I ask you to do the right thing for the town, and the people of Reading. We have a
beautiful town, and year by year I see changes drastically changing this town forever in a
negative way. There will be other opportunities for the Addison/Wesley site, why take the
first offer.
Thank you ~f
Hechenbiefter, Peter
From: tunacat@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:35 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager
Subject: Letter to BOS
Attachments: BOSletter.doc; Deviations.doc
BOSletter.doc Deviations.doc
(662 B) (37 KB)
To the Board of Selectmen:
Attached is a Letter to the BOS and an additional document mentioned in the letter. Thank
you for taking the time to read these.
Angela Binda
qb &D
21 September 2006
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Reading, Massachusetts
Dear Selectmen:
I am writing to request that the Board of Selectmen send the clear and strong message to
W/S Development and Pearson Education that the current development proposal for the
Addison-Wesley/Pearson site (as presented at the 8/9 AWWG meeting) is inappropriate
for the town of Reading and does not receive the approval of the BOS.
As written in the 7/11 (Final) Report of the AWWG, the last "Mission of the Working
Group" was "to evaluate the property owner's/developer's response and recommend to
the Board of Selectmen whether the community should move forward with re-zoning of.
the site (p.2)." While re-zoning of this property is most likely inevitable, and re-
development will occur on this property, the BOS must make it clear to the town and
developer that W/S Development did not meet the most significant priorities of the town
and fell far short of the goals and items presented in the Final Report of the AWWG.
The AWWG appeared unable to make these stronger statements in its final
recommendation to the BOS (the wording of which, to date, has not been finalized),
because it had not yet received any response in writing from W/S Development and
questions asked of the developer at the 8/9 meeting had not been answered. But let us
not forget the AWWG members' reaction to the proposal when it was presented, and let
that clear message of disapproval and disappointment stand for itself.
The following are important items of the document and proposal to consider:
W/S Development's current proposal includes 320,000 sq. ft. of retail space. The
average range of allowable retail use in the AWWG report is 188,750 to 235,000 sq. ft.
The report lists the most important items in determining the amount of retail use
permitted to be, in order of importance: traffic generation and other traffic congestion;
neighborhood impact and physical scale; net cost/financial impact to the Town (p. 5
The developer's sole justification for the amount of retail was that it was "financially
feasible" for them; a much lower priority for the town. However, the developers have
never stated what constitutes "financial feasibility", what they consider a fair profit
margin, what they expect their profit to be, or any documentation to support the claim
that 320,000 sq. ft. is as low as they can go. W/S Development's proposal failed to
respond to the Report's criteria to determine amount of retail use, and the developers
stated during their presentation that they were not prepared to talk about traffic.
At one AWWG meeting, CPDC Chair John Sasso stated that the most important data
that he had seen to determine the amount of retail space to be allowed was a lifestyle
mall density comparison researched and presented by AWWG member Nick Safina.
The chart showed the W/S Development's proposal to be far denser than comparable
developments, and would be the densest lifestyle mall in the northeast if it were built.
qb (l
W/S Development's proposal failed to meet the condition that there be only one 31,500
sq. ft. anchor, in addition to the 63,000 sq. ft grocery store anchor they have planned.
Their current proposal calls for at least two additional anchor stores (p. 6). (When W/S
Development first presented its vision for Park Square to the CPDC in January 2005,
they touted "Lifestyles Centers" as being very different from traditional malls, a main
reason being the focus on small stores and the lack of anchor stores.)
The AWWG requested, through its document, that housing be used as transition
between abutters and retail space, that 20% be affordable so that it counts as part of the
town's affordable housing stock, with rental units being preferable, and specified 40 and
55 ft. height limits for different areas of the property (p. 6, 8). Included in the proposal
is housing that would add to the town's affordable housing need, not alleviate it. The
developers also stated that the housing units would not be rental and the housing portion
of the project would "probably not" comply with the height restriction.
The report limits the number of restaurants to 3 (p. 6), yet the proposal shows 4, and the
developers have stated they would prefer 5 or 6. A complete chart showing the
deviations in the W/S Development plan from the AWWG Report was compiled by
Marianne Downing and is attached.
An AWWG member suggested, at the final meeting, that W/S Development be allowed
a "do over" as their presentation was met with disapproval. For those of us who have
attended not 6 or 7 meetings over the course of a summer, instead more like 20+
meetings over the course of nearly two years, the suggestions that the developer be
given just one more chance, and that they would try to work with us if they only knew
what we wanted, is completely infuriating and downright insulting.
NO FURTHER STUDIES ARE NEEDED AT THIS POINT, AS IT HAS ALREADY
BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS IS THE WRONG PROJECT FOR THIS
PROPERTY.
At the final meeting of the AWWG, the possibility of commissioning several studies
was discussed, an expanded traffic study and a financial feasibility study to verify the
developer's claims. There is no need for these studies at this time, and additional
studies would not add anything significant and would just delay the process of finding
an appropriate developer and project for this property. An expanded traffic study should
be done after an appropriate project has been presented, development at the Tambone
property has been determined, and plans for the 93/128 interchange can be considered.
According to the AWWG Report, the two financial studies are to be done "when there is
a specific proposal before the Town that meets the other criteria of this document"
(p.11). The purpose of the consultant's work is to determine fair mitigation and true
financial impact, positive and negative, on the town. The Report states:
"The Town should get an outside independent financial consultant to understand
the finances of the real estate deal and added value to the property of the zoning
change - which will assist in understanding what mitigation would be reasonable
q 7
This would also assist in understanding at what level of development the deal
works... (The) Town should get (an) independent consultant to understand the
financial impact on the development to the Town - cost of services vs. income
from taxes and fees on the site (p. 11). "
The developer's financial feasibility should not be used as a determining factor in
deciding, whether or not this project meets the board's approval. That would only,
corrupt the process outlined in the document, and put the developer's needs ahead of
those of the town. If this developer has stated that they cannot make a reasonable profit
with a significantly scaled-back design, they should move on. Commissioning a study
to secure a large profit for a private developer to the detriment of a significant portion of
this town's population is not an activity in which the Board of Selectmen should be
engaged.
FURTHERMORE, I QUESTION IF THIS IS EVEN A SIGNIFICANTLY
DIFFERENT ENOUGH PROPOSAL TO LEGALLY BRING BEFORE TOWN
MEETING BEFORE APRIL 2008.
Yes, there are changes that have been made, but I suggest that they are not significant
enough to warrant bringing this back to Town Meeting at this date, and are the type that
may have been made during the site review process anyway.
The developers have labeled their latest site plan a "mixed-used village"
(www.parksquareatreading,com), perhaps to signal a change from the original "Lifestyle
Center." However, zoning language in Warrant Article 26 called for a Lifestyle Center
to be defined as "a Group of commercial establishments (including any combination of
retail sales uses, consumer service establishments, restaurants, financial institutions and
offices) situated on 15 acres or more..." Warrant Article 26 allowed for several
different uses besides retail use.
The previous plan, tabled at the April Town Meeting, was a 400,000 sq, ft. "Lifestyle
Center, " primarily a retail center, with specific use percentages undefined. The current
plan is for a 440,000 "mixed-use" development with 320,000 sq. ft, over 70%, retail
space. The previous plan provided a provision to exclude "big-box" stores: "...no retail
stores shall exceed 70,000 sq. ft. of net floor area" (Art. 26.f). Yet this provision is
touted as an "important modification" in an April 13, 2006, press release released by
W/S Development announcing their "updated" plans: "Another important modification
prohibits individual retail stores from being larger than 63,000 gross square feet. This
change was put in place to prohibit a larger retailer, or "big box" store, from being part
of the project..." (www.parksquareatreading.com).
What are the procedures for bringing this before Town Meeting at this point? Do the
developers need the approval of the CPDC? Would they be able to petition to put it on
the November warrant, or petition for a Special Town Meeting, or will they be required
to go before the CPDC?
►~b ~3
The law requiring two years' time to elapse before a developer is able to return to Town
Meeting with the same proposal is meant to protect town's from what W/S Development
is doing to our town: wearing down its citizens and advancing their interests through
attrition.
I sincerely hope that after nearly two years of unproductive discussions with this
developer, in many venues, with small and large groups of neighbors, residents, and
officials, that a clear and strong message be sent that this proposal and these developers
do not belong in the Town of. Reading.
Sincerely,
Angela Binda
10 Orchard Park Drive
Town Meeting Member
r~
qb bq
Deviations in the 8/9/2006 W/S Development Plan from the Addision-Weslev Working
Group Report:
Section
1.3 Conditions
or Special
Considerations
1.3 Conditions
or Special
Considerations
1.3 Conditions
or Special
Considerations
1.3 Conditions
or Special
Considerations
2.0
Traffic/Access
2.0
Traffic/Access
Requirement
Maximum size for largest retail unit
63,000 sf (1 unit); next
largest 50% of largest or 31,500 sf (1
unit); next largest 50 %
of 2nd largest of 15,750 sf (remainder)
not including restaurants
Maximum number of restaurants with
liquor licenses - 3
Residential - at least 20% affordable (so
it counts as part of the Town's
affordable housing stock); rental is
preferable; location as a transition at
both South Street and Curtis; maximum
of 2 BR units;
Open Space - would include buffer;
may include islands in parking and
pedestrian areas, and may include
"urban" opens spaces like plazas,
gazebos, etc.;
Measure the total delay for the total
route - not just at one or 2 points -
measure at each signal
Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access
from off site to the site, and
within the site should be required
W/S Development Proposal &
comments
The propose a 63K ft Whole
foods, then they want at least 2
stores >30K ft (e.g., bookstore
and Crate & Barrel)
W/S says it would like 5-6
restaurants with liquor licenses
and showed 4 on the 8/92006
plan.
Approx. 44 non-rental townhouse
units, of which 10% (4-5) would
be affordable, effectively adding
40 market rate units to Readings
total of non-affordable stock,
meaning Reading's total burden
for providing additional
affordable housing actually will
increase.
Appears to be net reduction in
open space. No new open space
areas seen. With the additional
parking levels and housing
added, the only open space
appears to be the buffers, the no
build areas, and the fingers. W/S
indicated that approximately
75% of the 24 acre property will
be paved over/impervious.
W/S did not provide a total delay
that could include, for example,
coming from 28S to 28N (2-4
new traffic lights on top of the
existing ones).
W/S said it eliminated an onsite
walking path due to the concerns
of one abutter (but W/S did not
relocate or reconfigure the
3.0 Impact
Landscaped Buffering from residential
district
- Residential use - 25'
Retail use - 50'
walking path).
W/S indicated they could not
meet this requirement
everywhere in the project, e.g.,
some buffering from retail mi P-,bt
4~(o
Section Requirement
3.0 Impact Location of loading/delivery areas
- As far from residences as possible
3.0 Impact Location of uses
Restaurant uses away from homes
W/S Development Proposal &
comments
be only 25'.)
The 8/9/06 plan shows that the
entire truck access road for
Whole. Foods, and all of the
Whole Foods shipping docks
(and dumpsters), abuts at least 5
residential properties on South
St. This is the same
configuration that W/S showed
in its 4/11/06 plan.
The 8/9/06 plan now shows at
least 1 restaurant substantially
adjacent to 1-2 Curtis street
residential properties (separated
only by the buffer & access road
behind the restaurant). It is not
clear where W/S would locate
the 2 additional restaurants it
wants.
1
4b~&
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Paul Dynan [pauldynan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:16 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Against the Addison Wesley mall
To the Board of Selectman;
As residents and homeowners in Reading for the past fourteen years we care very deeply about this town
and its future. And as members of Reading C.A.R.E. we are strongly against the mall proposed for the
Addison Wesley site. W/S Development's proposed mall is much too large, will generate traffic that
will overwhelm Reading's streets, and will severely impact the surrounding neighborhoods. The
citizens of Reading, most recently the members of the Addison Wesley Working Group, have tried
working with the developer to formulate a plan that is acceptable to a majority of the residents of
Reading. In return W/S Development has continued to push through a plan that is without a doubt the
wrong development for the Addison Wesley property and the Town of Reading.
W/S Development has asked the citizens of Reading to trust them, and state that they will be good
neighbors. But should we really trust them? Should we trust a company that claims to be in agreement
with all but 3 or 4 of the Addison Wesley Working Group's recommendations, when in actuality their
plan differs on several of the Working Group's most important points such as maximum retail size, the
number of restaurants, the size of buffer zones, the number of affordable residential units, and the
proximity of truck access roads and loading docks to South Street homes? Should we trust a company
that quickly dismisses the additional 16,000 to 22,000 car trips per day on Reading's streets and
accessing the mall through one entry/exit as "feasible"? Should we trust a company that establishes a
"resident-based" group to support the mall and places as its chairperson a commercial real estate broker
whose bio on her company's website states that she has partnered with S/R Weiner, the parent company
of W/S Development, and then fails to disclose that relationship to the public? Should we trust W/S
Development with Reading's future? Absolutely not!
We strongly encourage the Reading Board of Selectmen to oppose W/S Development's oversized mall.
We can and must do better.
Sincerely,
Meghan and Paul Dynan
Indian Tree Lane
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
cbO
9/22/2006
Reading Board of Selectman
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Crime in Gotham City.
In response to the bogus crime statistics fabricated by the Reading CARE group and
included in a town wide mailer that they recently sent out, I have done a little research of
my own.
The CARE group stated that, "according to the Reading Police Department, the
development at Walkers Brook Drive, which includes Jordan's Furniture, Home Depot,
and three restaurants, generates approximately 1,100 emergency calls per year."
To verify this, I personally phoned Chief Cormier and he did not know what the real call
response rate was for WBD, and he also emphatically stated that he had never released
such statistics, but he would look into it.
I have shopped at WBD many times and I even brought my three young children with
me. Am I really exposing my family to such unnecessary risk?
Rather than fear needlessly for my safety, and after talking to Chief Cormier, I called the
Hingham, MA Chief of Police Steve Carlson. As we know, there is a Lifestyle Center
located in Hingham so I thought that it would be a good property on which to get some
police statistics. Chief Carlson was very forthright and assuring that the new Hingham
Lifestyle Center was an excellent development and a very safe place to shop. He went on
to say that the Center has not created any unusual safety concerns. Chief Carlson also
stated that he would be more than willing to meet with and/or speak to the Reading Board
of Selectmen and our Chief of Police should they have any questions regarding either
crime statistics or the positive financial impact that the Lifestyle Center has brought to his
community.
Anyone wanting further information on how this center has affected the Town of
Hingham should call the Town Administrator Charlie Cristello at 781-741-1400, and he
would be more than willing to answer any questions that people may have.
Attached are the Hingham Police Department response statistics for the Derby Street
Shoppes. As you can see, for the full year 2005, the Hingham Police made 473 service
calls to the Lifestyle Center, or approximately 1.3 calls per day, and over a third of these
calls were to check on some type of alarm signal. Additionally, for the year 2005, Whole
Foods (who will be the largest tenant at Park Square at Reading) had 64 service calls
(approximately 1.2 per week), of which 35 were to check on an alarm. So much for the
vaunted crime spree that Reading CARE wanted to make us "aware" oL
Respectfully submitted,
Caryn Hayes
Pearl Street
Cc: Town Manager
BREAKDOWN OF CALLS FOR SERVICE
~ I
LARCENY/SHOP
I
I
I
PARKING/MV
KOHL'S LIFTING
ALA
RMS MEDICAL A
ID OT
HER RELATED
TOTAL
20061
251
71
3
51
11
41
2005
24
61
6
181
7
61
2004
24
1
91
I
81
121
9
62
1
WHOLE FOODS I
1
1
1
I
I
1
20061
3
201
3
6
51
37
- 2005
2
351
5
10
121
64
2004
21
4
1
4
I
6
17
BERTUCCI'S RESTAURANT
I
I
I
2006 1 Att. B & E
21
11
51
6
15
20051
11
61
01
41
7
18
2004
11
61
21
1
101
I
6
25
1
THE FOLLOWING STORES ARE TOTALS FOR 2005 ONLY:
BAJA FRESH
11
13
31
0
21
19
BEAUTY & MAIN I
21
81
01
11
11
12
COLD STONE CREAMERY
11
61
01
51
21
14
THE HEALTHY BACK
01
91
01
51
31
17
PANERA BREAD
2
1
21
51
3
13
WHITE'S PASTRY
1
9
01
21
0
12
THE CHILDREN'S PLACE
0
15
01
01
1
16
BURTON'S GRILL I
01
14
21
51
1
22
TALBOTS (
01
131
0
31
11
17
CRATE & BARREL
01
10
1
51
0
16
R.E.I.
I
11
I
5
01
I
I
21
2
(
10
Breakdown of Calls for Service - CALLS FOR SERVICE
I
I
1
I
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: RICHARD MCDONALD [remejm@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:30 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Park Square
Dear BOS member
Please don't let this project die. There are many Reading citizens who very much want to see this project work.
There are also many citizens who are terrified that high-density housing will once again rear its ugly head in our
beloved town. Surely, good sensible people can come to some agreement so that we don't have such rancor
amongst each other.
Sincerely,
Dick and Elaine McDonald
qb~ 0
9/22/2006
u r n ~ Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
639 xx~oRY°~~ Reading, MA 01867-2685
FAX: (781) 942-9071
Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner
DATE: September 22, 2006
RE: Imagination Station
TOWN MANAGER
(781) 942-9043
In the Board of Selectmen packet this evening is a copy of e-mail correspondence between John
Feudo and representatives of Leathers & Associates. Also included is the vote of the Recreation
Committee recommending the demolition and replacement of imagination Station.
Having viewed the Imagination Station site several times, including at the Selectmen's site walk,
and having discussed this matter with the Friends of Reading Recreation, I would recommend
the following course of action:
® The Board of Selectmen would vote to agree to the demolition of Imagination Station
immediately.
® The Town will proceed with the demolition as soon as possible. As part of that
demolition, we would preserve major features of Imagination Station site, including the
art work, plaques, and Time capsule.
® As part of the capital planning process for FY 2008 we will identify Town funds that can
be used for the reconstruction of a new Imagination Station playground on the site. We
would also hope to identify donations and grants that could offset part of the cost of this
proj ect.
® During this winter, we will plan the site to accommodate conservation issues, the
playground, and possibly a skateboard park. Part of that planning would include a design
charrette with elementary school kids in Reading. I would also recommend that the new
Imagination Station be made fully handicapped accessible.
® We would hope to have at least a first phase of a new playground constructed on the site
for the fall of 2007 season, depending on budgeting.
y~
C.2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Feudo, John
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:02 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: Recreation Committee Vote
Peter,
Below is the official motion and vote by the Recreation committee on the status of Imagination Station at their August 9th
meeting. Please let me know if you would like me to meet the Selectmen on the 16th of September (Time).
On a motion made by Nancy-Linn Swain, seconded by Chris Campbell, the Recreation
Committee by a 5-0-0 vote recommended to the Board of Selectmen to tear down Imagination
Station and investigate potential options for a new Recreational facility.
Voters in Attendance:
Nancy Linn Swain
Mary Ann Kozlowski
Kate Kaminer
Chris Campbell
Mary Ellen Stolecki
John Feudo
Recreation Administrator
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
(781)942-9075
qcA
Page 1 of 4
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Feudo, John
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:03 AM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: FW: Imagination Station, Reading, MA
Peter,
Seems Michael would recommend a rebuild.
John
From: Michael Cohen [mailto:mcohen@leathersassociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:57 AM
To: Feudo, John
Subject: Imagination Station, Reading, MA
Hello John,
There are many variables when estimating costs for renovating your playground.
Firstly, there is the cost of purchased materials. These materials include Trex or a similar
plastic-wood composite product, wood, Fiberforce (structural, fiberglass-reinforced plastic),
fasteners. You might also want/need to purchase manufactured slides to replace the site-built
ones you have now. Lastly, you will need new safety surfacing, probably engineered wood
fiber or shredded rubber.
Unless we were to do an inspection, if not a complete audit, I can only offer you the broadest
estimates for these items. I am trying to err on the high side, and am making no allowance for
any donations. I am assuming covering or replacing most of the decking, handrails, and
balusters. I am also assuming that the structural elements (posts and framing) of your
playground are still sound.
. Trex + wood + Fiberforce: $15,000
. Slides: $5,000 to $10,000
. Groundcover: $10,000 (wood fiber) or $35,000 (shredded rubber)
. Hardware: $3,000
. Miscellaneous: $3,000
. Preliminarv estimated total for purchased materials: approximately $35.000 to $65.000.
Secondly, you have to consider the cost of labor. A very rough estimate is 50 people working
5 x 12-hour days, or 3,000 worker-hours. I don't know your local labor costs, but I expect this
will cost at least $30.000. Of course, volunteers work for free, and that is waht we recommend.
Thirdly, there are Leathers fees. We would have to inspect the playground, prepare detailed
materials and tools lists, prepare any necessary design. documents to comply with today's
9/21/2006
N GZ
Page 2 of 4
safety standards and address specific design requests (openness, for example). provide
project management, and send a consultant or two to guide your workers. There is almost as
much work in this as in a new playground. I estimate fees of around $15.000 to $20.000.
Adding up the numbers, you can anticipate spending at least $50,000, with volunteer labor
If we were to proceed along these lines, we would naturally send you a written proposal of
our fees.
If you were to do all this work, and assuming the structural components are sound, I would
expect the playground to serve at least another ten years, with normal maintenance.
I'm sorry to say we know of no Leathers playgrounds in your area which have been extensively
renovated in this fashion. Faced with your situation, almost every community we have worked
with has opted to replace their playground, and have chosen to use our 100% plastic option
(Fiberforce posts and framing). The total, completed, costs are about $120,000 to $150,000.
For new playgrounds, we would only follow our community-built model (i.e., volunteers).
Not having seen your playground, but knowing its age and maintenance record, I am inclined
to believe that your best option is really to replace most, if not all, of the playground. Starting
afresh, we could help you develop a better design, one that meets current ADA rules, safety
standards, and also incorporates our improved understanding of childhood development and
age appropriate design. Additionally, a new playground would last two or three times as
long. We have helped quite a few communities through this process now. We know the
decision to replace can be quite emotional, because many folks will have a strong tie to the
playground. Nevertheless, with care and deliberation, this passion can be used quite
constructively to re-create the community involvement necessary for a successful community-
building experience.
In fact, we have already recieved a few calls from local people who are quite concerned about
the future of your playground, and I am guessing that they could form the nucleus of a new
organizing committee. I would like to repeat my offer of making myself available to visit and
meet with such an organizing committee if and when it should become appropriate.
I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if I have answered your questions.
Sincerely,
Michael Cohen,
Leathers & Associates.
y63
9/21/2006
Page 3 of 4
From: Feudo, John [mailto:jfeudo@ci. reading. ma. us]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:44 AM
To: Michael Cohen
Subject: RE: Imagination Station
Dear Michael,
The Reading Board of Selectmen did a site walk of Imagination Station this past Sat. They will be discussing and
voting upon it on Tuesday Night. I will be on hand to hopefully answer some questions for them but want to be
able to give them accurate answers. Wondering if you could give me some insight:
One of the questions from the Board will be, what would it take to retro fit with the fiber plastics and how long
would it last(generally, if maintained properly)? Cost estimates?
If we retro fit how likely is it that we could address the density issue to improve- supervision? Is this something
you have been able to do? That has seemed to always have been an issue with the structure.
Are there any Playgrounds in the area being retrofitted? Recently Shawsheen School in Wilmington tore down.
I am guessing other communities have had this dilemma, what is the recommended course of action from
Leathers. Our playground has unfortunately received zero maintenance for the past 8 years. I am interested to
see what you think. People put a lot of time and effort into that structure and I would like to make sure we make
an informed decision. As you probably know the playground has been closed by the Reading Health Division
because of surfacing (both safety and contact point) materials were inadequate. From where I sit, I desire to have
a structure that is safe for children, right now I don't feel that's the case.
Any insight you could give me would be appreciated
Sincerely,
John Feudo
Recreation Administrator
From: Michael Cohen [mailto:mcohen@leathersassociates.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 2:38 PM
To: Feudo, John
Subject: Imagination Station
Hi John,
In the last few years, I have had many discussions with owners of older Leathers playgrounds.
Especially when they looking at replacement options, I hear a few concerns again and again.
That's why I mentioned the all-plastic option to you, because I know that maintenance and
splinters are always a problem, always a "selling point" for the manufactured steel and plastic
products. The recent development of structural plastic posts and beams means we now build
many new playgrounds without any wood at all. We have been using extensive amounts of
9/21/2006 q
Page 4 of 4
Trex composite decking in our designs for well over ten years.
Another concern I have heard is that Leathers designs are rather dense, making supervision
and security difficult. We can easlily address this in the design phase, if it is a concern.
Please let me know if you or your colleagues have other reservations about our designs or
materials.
Sincerely,
Michael Cohen
Leathers & Associates
y GS'
9/21/2006
Board of Selectmen Meeting
September 5, 2006
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which
the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which
any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Ben Tafoya, Vice Chairman James
Bonazoli, Secretary Stephen Goldy, Selectman Camille Anthony, Town Manager Peter
Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Conservation
Administrator Fran Fink, Paula Schena and the following list of interested parties: Marianne
Downing, Joe D'Alessio, Jeff Everson, Bill Brown, Angela Fischer, Joyce Taormina, Donna
Morin, Mac McEnture from Reading Advocate, Judith and Robert Maxted-Rice, Karen Herrick,
Stephen Crook, Jamie Maughan, Mark Wetzel, Arnold Rubin, Paul Duffy.
Reports and Comments
Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Selectman Camille Anthony noted that the Board
of Selectmen "Walk and Talk" will take place on September 16th beginning at Birch Meadow at
9:00 a.m.
Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that the Fire Department will be hosting an Open House on
October 14, 2006 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. He also noted that in Debby McGully's letter
regarding Imagination Station, she suggested talking to someone concerning a retrofit and will
try to get more information before the meeting on September 26, 2006.
Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that the Addison-Wesley Working Group is meeting on
September 7th in the Town Hall Conference Room at 7:30 p.m. He asked what the next steps
would be, and Chairman Ben Tafoya indicated that he hoped the AWWG would conclude its
work and communicate a final report to the Board of Selectmen. Vice Chairman Bonazoli noted
that the final report should have been the conclusion.
Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that letters have been sent out regarding the change in the
Downtown parking. There is a map that shows all the parking regulations, and the Board will
revisit the issue in November.
Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that Mike Iapicca is doing his Eagle Scout project collecting
bedding for the Mission of Deeds on September 16, 2006.
Public Comment - Karen Herrick noted that the community group working on the Wood End
School playground will be asking for money.
Donna Morin of 10 Gould Street, Joyce Taormina of 7 Gould Street and Angela Fischer of 45
Ash Street were present. They had concerns regarding the new parking regulations. Ms. Fischer
asked if guest permits will be issued, and the Town Manager indicated that they would not.
Board of Selectmen Meetiniz - September 5. 2006 - Pate 2
Most owners will park on the street and let their guest park in the driveway. Ms. Fischer noted
that trucks can't get out of Gould Street sometimes and back into her wall. She requested a no
truck sign.
Jeff Everson made comments regarding the Addison-Wesley traffic study.
Marianne Downing of 13 Heather Drive noted that regarding deliveries at Addison-Wesley what
the developer told us is inconsistent with what they are doing in Hingham. Almost every store
had a dumpster instead of them sharing. All of these stores get their deliveries through the back
of the store, not the front. The 50 stores get two deliveries per day which equals 100 trucks and
that doesn't count all of the Whole Foods deliveries.
Judith Maxted-Rice of 65 Martin Road had questions regarding the traffic delays and the
monetary benefit of the Addison-Wesley project.
Town Manager's Report
The Town Manager gave the following report:
• The Water Treatment Plant has been shut down effective August 31 st. The Town is now
on 100% MWRA water. We are working hard to make this connection permanent.
• 1 will be doing a presentation with SEA at Water Resources Commission meeting on the
14th of September regarding the status of Reading's water supply and our request to buy-
in 100% to the MWRA
• The Addison-Wesley Working Group (AWWG) is scheduled for September 7th.
• Late last week, the Town was served with legal notice of a lawsuit about the new storm
water fee (Bill Brown and Tom Ryan). We have forwarded it to Town Counsel. There
seems to be no immediate injunctive impact - we will proceed sending out the first bills
with this fee within the next two weeks.
• Habitat for Humanity has requested approval to work on Sundays through early October.
They didn't work the past two Sunday because the slab was not ready, and then there was
the holiday weekend. I have given them approval to work this coming Sunday, and have
asked the neighbors for feedback.
• The next 128/193 meeting is September 13th
• Housing Forum - September 281H
• Board of Selectmen "Walk and Talk" in the Birch Meadow Area on September 16th
• Road Construction: Edgmont Avenue and Arcadia Avenue Road overlay are done.
• Eagle Scout candidate Mike lapicca is doing a collection of materials for the Mission of
Deeds as his Eagle Scout project. The collection date is Saturday, September 16th at Old
South Church from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Needed items include bedding, blankets,
comforters, sheets, new mattresses and pillows. Donations of money are also welcome.
Discussion/Action Items
Conservation HiahliLyhts - Conservation Administrator Fran Fink, Conservation Commission
Members Jamie Maughan and Mark Wetzel were present.
Fran Fink reviewed the history and 'authority of the Conservation Commission. She noted that
the Conservation Commission was created by the State in 1958. The Town of Reading appointed
say
Board of Selectmen Meetina - September 5. 2006 - Paae 3
their first Conservation Commission in 1960. The Town has acquired over 800 acres of
conservation land. The Conservation Commission spends a lot of time on the Wetlands
Protection Act and other regulations. She also noted that the guide to the trails needs to be
updated, and she needs a volunteer to go out in the trails and do that. She noted that the Water
Treatment Plant is being shut down, and we need to keep and protect the aquifers.
Selectman Camille Anthony asked if the Open Space and Recreation Plan is outdated, and Fran
Fink indicated that it is, and we are not eligible for Self Help Grants until it is updated.
Atlantic Reauest for Chance in Plan - Liauor Sales - Atlantic Food Mart owner Arnold Rubin
and Manager Paul Duffy were present.
The Town Manager noted that the Atlantic Mart has an All Alcoholic Liquor License and they
must submit a floor plan. Selectmen approval is needed in order to change the floor plan. Both
the Police and Health Departments feel that the proposed changes are positive although the
Police Department suggests that they update their security system.
Arnold Rubin noted that he has received positive and negative comments regarding the sale of
liquor and the displays. He is proposing to eliminate the beer in the dairy case and to eliminate
the auxiliary areas. He plans on consolidating all the liquor together in the frozen foods area.
Selectman Camille Anthony asked how long is the new area, and Paul Duffy indicated that it is
65 feet long. They will not be cutting back on the frozen foods, and they will be buying new
types of cases.
Chairman Ben Tafoya asked if they are planning on stocking more liquor. Paul Duffy indicated
that they are and are asking for additional storage space because the more they buy, the cheaper
the price.
Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that he likes the idea that the auxiliary areas are being
eliminated but was concerned that there is an increase in the amount being displayed.
The consensus of the Board was to schedule a site visit for September 12th at 6:30 p.m. at which
time they will receive information comparing the current square footage to the proposed square
footage in regards to what is being displayed and what is being stored in the basement.
Review Water Rate Proiections - The Assistant Town Manager noted that the Water Treatment
Plant is now closed as of last week. This results in lower wages and a chance to lower debt. On
the other hand, there is an increase of $1 million to MWRA because we are now purchasing
100% water from them. He also noted that he recommends increasing the water rates to $6.20 to
offset the FY 2007 Budget. There will be a big jump in FY 2008 but he plans to use $1 million
in reserves. He noted that we did not budget for closing the Water Treatment Plant this year and
if we had stayed with a new Water Treatment Plant, the cost would have been more. He also
noted that the quicker and higher the rates are raised, the more money we save in the end.
5a3
Board of Selectmen Meetine - September 5. 2006 _ Paue 4
Chairman Ben Tafoya asked what the Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory
Committee recommends, and the Assistant Town Manager indicated that they recommend using
no reserves and raising the rates quickly.
Selectman Camille Anthony indicated that she would be in favor of increasing to $6.75.
Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that he felt $6.75 was too big of an increase especially
with the new storm water fee just going into place. He indicated that he would do $6.50 to pay
off debt. Selectman Stephen Goldy agreed with Vice Chairman Bonazoli.
Preview Town Meeting Warrant - The Town Manager reviewed the Warrant for the Subsequent
Town Meeting. He noted that Karen Herrick was present regarding Article 15 which is
requesting funding in the amount of $42,600 for the Wood End School playground. The Town
Manager noted that the Town is willing to work with them but this far exceeds any other school
playground. Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that he and Selectman Camille Anthony are meeting
with representatives from this group tomorrow and will report back to the Board.
The Town Manager noted that Article 5 is a Site Triangle Bylaw. This will be done as a General
Bylaw and can be enforced by the Police Department. Selectman Stephen Goldy asked if this
will require fences to come down, and the Town Manager indicated that it will. Chairman Ben
Tafoya asked if we could do for just in the future, and the Town Manager indicated that we
cannot because there are a lot of violators now.
Selectman Camille Anthony suggested that the Town Manager look at the Bylaw and amend it
according to the comments. The Town Manager noted that municipal entities will be exempt and
that includes the schools.
Article 11 is the adoption of the Mullin decision. This will allow Board of Appeals members to
view a tape of a hearing that they were not present, and allow them to vote.
Article 14 is the transfer of the care, custody and control of the Oakland Road property to the
Board of Selectmen.
Follow Un on the Hours of Construction Bvlaw - Article 6 is the Hours of Construction Bylaw.
Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that the big topic of discussion from the last Town Meeting was
the High School project. Also, there was concern that this will pit neighbor against neighbor.
There were questions regarding the definition of construction and major construction and also
the definition of a contractor.
Dissolution of SAPAC - Rescind Section 2.2.5 of the Board of Selectmen Policies - The Town
Manager noted that a letter was sent to the Substance Abuse Prevention Advisory Council
members regarding the Coalition Against Substance Abuse. The letter indicated that both
committees are not needed.
Selectman Stephen Goldy indicated that he was interested in serving on the Coalition Against
Substance Abuse.
r
Board of Selectmen Meeting - September 5, 2006 - Pare 5
A motion by Anthonv seconded by Bonazoli to appoint Stephen Goldv as the Board of
Selectmen representative on the Readin¢ .Coalition Auainst Substance Abuse 501e was,
approved by a vote of 3-0-1. with Goldv abstaining.
Approval of Minutes
A motion by Goldv seconded by Bonazoli to approve the Minutes of Aueust 8. 2006. as
amended. was approved by a vote of 4-0-0.
A motion by Goldv seconded by Bonazoli to approve the Minutes of Aueust 22. 2006. as
amended, was approved by a vote of 4-0-0.
A motion by Goldv seconded by Bonazoli to adjourn the meeting of September 5. 2006 at,
10:40 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
~a5
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Number: 2006-18 Fee: $50.00
TOWN OF READING
This is to certify that UNION STREET VENTURES LLC d/b/a BEAR ROCK
CAFE, 26 WALKERS BROOK DRIVE, READING, MASS.
IS HEREBY GRANTED AN
ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE
for the following: Live Entertainment - One to three piece musical group for
background dining, one evening per week, 5:00 - 8:00 p.m.
There will be no admission charge. Location will be in the
area in front of the fireplace
WHICH IS/ARE KEPT ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PREMISES:
26 Walkers Brook Drive
This license is granted in conformity With the provisions of Chapter 140 of the
General Laws as amended by Section 183A of the Acts of 1949 and expires on
December 31, 2006, unless sooner suspended or revoked.
In Testimony Whereof, the undersigned have hereunto affixed their official
signatures.
Date Issued: September 21, 2006
te'1~'.'sy' ,.w~:2"4:SY~i=.f^~'Gr/5!'X+#'~"Try4M°w1;5F~~o+.
1W. #
J
ti
L IC 60
RMLD
Reading Municipal Light Department
RELIABLE POWER FOR GENERATIONS
230 Ash Street, P.O. Box 150
Reading, MA 01867-0250
/A-L'/ oc 6 n Ail 10: 45
September 15, 2006
Mr. Pat Schettini
Town of Reading Superintendent of Schools
82 Oakland Road
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Mr. Schettini,
After hearing Mary DeLai's presentation on the Reading Public Schools/Town of Reading Energy
Management Committee, I believe you are sending a very positive message to the Town of
Reading that the School Department is serious about controlling the energy costs of its municipal
buildings. Over the past few years, the cost of fossil fuels, which directly affect the energy sector
(electricity, natural gas, oil, and gasoline), has experienced large fluctuations. These prices
fluctuations have made the annual budgeting process difficult at best, in both the public and the
private sector. Your efforts to control energy costs can only be a benefit in streamlining the Town
of Reading's budget process.
I would like to reiterate my comments at the meeting that the RMLD is willing to offer its
expertise and capabilities to the Energy Management Committee.
The RMLD has two Key Accounts Manager's, Joe Bilicki and Michele Benson, who are assigned
to assist customers in the RMLD Commercial sector. Mr. Bilicki, who I believe you have
contacted concerning this committee, is responsible for handling the Town of Reading accounts
except for the High School, which is the responsibility of Michele Benson.
You may contact Joe Bilicki at 1-781-942-6426 or Michele Benson at 1-781-942-6458.
Sincerely yours,
Reading Municipal Light Department
JG+LP
F. Ca eron Jr.
dincent
eneral Manager
cc: Peter Hechenbleikner - Reading Town Manager
Mary DeLai - Reading School Department
Jane Parenteau - RMLD
Joe Bilicki - RMLD
Michele Benson - RMLD
~tp
Y
~ i c•
BRADLEY H. JONES, JR.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
MINORITY LEADER
Ms. Amy Roth
Mass D.E.P.
1 Winter Street, 10'h Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Ms. Roth:
20'n MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
READING • NORTH READING
LYNNFIELD • MIDDLETON
ROOM 124
TEL. (617) 722-2100
Rep.BradleyJones@hou.state.ma.us
r-.>
September 5, 2006
0
CD
I understand the Town of Reading has applied for two grants under the Cities for Climate Protection
Program. I am writing to convey my enthusiastic support for these grant requests and to encourage you to
receive and act upon them favorably.
The Town has requested $17,000 in technical assistance for the acquisition and planting of certain shade
trees along the southern portion of Main Street (Route 28). According to local officials, this stretch of
roadway is exceptionally busy and it is a target area for improvements. The addition of shade trees would
not only enhance the aesthetic beauty of the area but also create a more hospitable atmosphere for
pedestrian traffic and neighboring residents alike.
At the same time, the Town has requested an additional $8,000 for the acquisition of a hybrid vehicle to
use for inspections. Given the current cost of fuel and the impact of traditional transportation on our
environment, I have filed legislation this session to encourage the use of hybrid vehicles by residents
across Massachusetts. I am very happy to see the Town of Reading taking the initiative to implement such
purchasing voluntarily. It is incredible how the purchase of a single vehicle could have such a profound
impact on the environment as to eliminate up to 1.27 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. I hope you will
react favorably to this application to reduce environmental emissions from town vehicles across Reading.
As always, should you have any questions about either of these grant applications, please do not hesitate
to contact me. On behalf of the town, thank you for your consideration.
H. Jones, Jr.
Leader
~,a~~dc a~~c~sfc~crzL`a,L`a'ucd
cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
1, 1 CZIJ
ROBERT E. LAUTZENHEISER
35 ARCADIA AVE.
READING MA 01867-2203
0/1.3/06
Office of Selectmen, Town Hall
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Selectmen:
As a resident and a long time weather observer for Reading, I made observations
about the A-W area development.
The initial and follow up brochures issued by the developer were so full of errors
and inflated claims that the developer's integrity should be suspect.
The claim that the Town would ahead around a million in "free" taxes is a myth.
Extra police and fire costs will take a bite, but more importantly the massive
devaluation of southern Reading real estate will cause a great loss of tax revenue
not only from that area but probably will downgrade property through much of
the Town. It might be that total tax revenue would be reduced, not enhanced.
The plan is simple theft from property owners, as neither the town nor the
developer will reimburse these losses.
It is unethical for a developer to hire local lawyers and so get a free ad on local
Reading TV. This should not have been allowed.
There was published a list of 500 pro names. An inspection of the list shows multiple
names for many families The number of families is a fraction. The list would be
further sizably cut sown if the relatives and friends of the hired lawyers were deleted.
I spoke to a friend whose name I found on the list only to be told that he had no need
for such a development. Perhaps a family member, a lawyer relative, added his name.
On a lighter vein, the road curve sign as one comes into Reading on West St. from
Woburn, still shows the wrong turn direction. This the only such case I have ever seen
in my 75 years of driving. It is in the area on Countryside Lane. It easily would be
fixed by turning the present sign upside down. This might prevent a serious accident
on a foggy night if one turned as the sign directs into a house on the left side of the
street.
Sin y
~L
Ro ert E. Lautzenheis
~1
L cgo)
OF-F f " t~ ro: 47
To" Reading Board of Selectmen
From: Jim McTeague
A week or so ago I caught a few minutes of a presentation by Atlantic Foodmart management
regarding repositioning of several of their display cases to better accommodate their beer and
wine sales.
The thing that caught my attention was not the mechanics of moving the product within the store
but rather why in the world are the selectmen even getting involved. I would think there are
plenty of real issues for the selectmen to pursue without getting involved with industrial
engineering issues within a very socially conscious local business. It seemed to me that Ms
Anthony had a second agenda in pursuing the matter.
The Atlantic has been here in town for many years and is obviously a very well run business.
There was never any question but that the store is quite clean and there are sufficient controls to
prevent minors from obtaining alcohol.
I don't have any knowledge of grocery merchandising but I have plenty of experience and
education in management. I would classify your attempt at micro-managing the store as meddling
and I sincerely hope you would relegate the details of the store management to Arnold Rubin and
Paul Duffy, the real professionals.
If you want to discuss it further you can reach me at 781-944-4073
8a
4 /C tqz? 5 -
Reading Board of Selectmen and the Addison Wesley Working Group:
The peer reviewer of the traffic study, prepared for W/S Development by Edwards &
Kelcey (EK), claims that a 400,000 square foot mall is "feasible." How do we know if
this is true or even appears to be credible?
Here's one way to think about it. That well-known handbook on land use codes specifies
an average trip generation rate and a standard deviation (i.e., how much actual rates will
vary about the average rate) for shopping malls (i.e., Land Use code 820). If you "do the
math" (see attached memo), there will be an average of 1500 vehicles entering and
exiting only one point of egress during the peak PM hour during a weekday. That means
a traffic counter at the entrance to this mall will record entering or exiting vehicles every
2.4 seconds during that peak period hour (i.e., 3600 seconds/1500 vehicles). Does that
rate of traffic flow seem manageable for one entrance/exit?
Now what happens when the trip generation is greater than the average rate? (The Land
Use code 820 tells us that it will be greater). Once again, when you "do the math," there
is a 1 in 5 chance that there will be 2240 to 3720 vehicles passing in or out the
"driveway" to the mall. That's an average of 2980 vehicles for this range and means
every 1.2 seconds a vehicle will be either entering or exiting the entrance to this 400,000
square mall.
Imagine that you are standing at the entrance to this mall and watching the mall traffic
pass by at the rate of one vehicle nearly every second? Is this credible?
What about the I in 5 chance? That land use code handbook predicts it.
What proof do we have that EK's redesign signalized intersection can accommodate
traffic flow at the rate of one vehicle every 2.4 seconds, or, worse yet every 1.2 seconds?
What happens when the intersection light turns red for traffic heading toward that one
mall entrance during the weekday peak PM hour? How long will the queues become?
What happens to the Level of Service (LOS)? The developer and peer reviewer never
addressed these issues.
According to the www.NoMall01867.com website, I understand that the BoS will be
discussing the mall at the Addison Wesley property on Tuesday (September 5). May I
have a few minutes of your time to discuss this matter with you?
Regards, Jeff
Jeffrey Everson, Ph.D.,
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS);
Member: Mass Highway I93/95 Interchange Task Force; PRESERVE
21 Pine Ridge Circle
Reading, MA 01867
Home phone: 781-944-3632
Work phone: 781-684-4247
9L_~ 1%
P
September 11, 2006
Dear Board of Selectmen:
As a Reading business owner and a Reading resident, I am writing to express my
opposition to the proposed Park Square lifestyle center at the Addison Wesley site here in
Reading.
I believe that this mall will have a devastating effect on our downtown businesses.
The new mall may attract more people from out of town, but I believe these shoppers will
be passing through Reading center to the mall, not stopping to shop in our established
businesses. With the parking issues we have in town, it will be much easier for people to
park once at Park Square and do all their shopping, rather than try to find a space and
shop downtown Reading in 2 hours or less. Also, the increased traffic in downtown
Reading will be a deterrent to customers who want to shop the center businesses. People
frequenting the lifestyle center from Rt. 128 will get on and off the highway without ever
seeing Reading center.
For the past four years I have worked closely with other retail businesses in the
center to bring awareness to what Reading has to offer. When people look beyond the sub
shops and the pharmacies, there are several places to go for unique gifts, clothing,
accessories, stationary, personal care and a good meal. With "Shop the Block", and
through joint advertising, we have worked to bring awareness to all that our downtown
has to offer. We have unique, independent businesses that offer customer service that
can't be found at any chain store.
As a Reading resident, I am concerned about the impact this mall will have on our
town. I am concerned about the neighborhoods surrounding the Addison Wesley site -
although I don't live there, I know I wouldn't like to have a mall built in my backyard.
There is a big difference between living next to a 9 to 5 /Monday through Friday business
and a retail site that is open for business 12 hours/day, seven days a week with early
morning deliveries. And what about the increased drain on our municipal services?
Although there are plans for a security force at Park Square, they certainly will not be
able to handle all emergencies, and to my knowledge will not be patrolling the lifestyle
center 24/7. The upscale status of the center and its proximity to Rt. 128 unfortunately
makes it a target for criminals. We have already seen this happen at the Jordan's
Furniture/Home Depot site on Walkers Brook Drive.
I am also concerned about the viability of Park Square. We have competing malls
in Burlington, Saugus, Danvers & Peabody. We have the new lifestyle center, Wayside
Commons, in Burlington as well as another proposed lifestyle center in Lynnfield at the
Colonial hotel site. It is my understanding that WS Development owns Redstone
Shopping Center in Stoneham, which is less than a mile from the Addison Wesley site.
Why haven't they been able to succeed there? What will happen if Park Square is not
successful?
I do not believe that Park Square is in the best interest of the Town of Reading.
Respectfully,
Leslie Leahy
The Hitching Post
190 Haven Street
Reading, Ma 01867
g4
Massachusetts Department of Revenue
Alan LeBovidge, Commissioner
Division of Local Services
Gerard D. Perry, Deputy Commissioner
September 8, 2006
Town Accountant
Town of Reading
To the Town Accountant:
Ul C 6c~
H
,OFO
Based upon the unaudited balance sheet submitted by the Town, I hereby certify that the
amount of available funds or "free cash" as of July 1, 2006 for the town of Reading is:
General Fund $ 3,233,516
Water Enterprise Fund $ 1,841,598
Sewer Enterprise Fund $ 952,035
This certification is in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 59, Section 23, as amended.
Please forward copies to the Board of Selectmen, Town Manager, Treasurer, Collector and
the Board of Assessors.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Rassias
Deputy Director of Accounts
g9'
Post Office Box 9569, Boston, MA 02114-9569, Tel: 617-626-2300, Fax. 617-626-2330
LIC 6(p
- 0 6-
bw
02-11472524 u~~~~ ~w~ goo
,--a
MITT ROMNEY T61>(617) 626-1000
GOVERNOR Fafc!617) 626-1181
KERRY HEALEY http://www lnass.gov/envir
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Ca:~
ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, JR.
SECRETARY
September 14, 2006 ~
cry
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE
NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE
PROJECT NAME : Town of Reading Admission to the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority (MWKA) Water System
PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Reading
PROJECT WATERSHED : Ipswich/North Coastal, and Chicopee/Nashua
EOEA NUMBER . :12514
PROJECT PROPONENT : Town of Reading
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : August 8, 2006
Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (G.L. c. 30, ss. 61-62H) and
Section 11.10 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed the Notice of Project
Change (NPC) submitted on this project and hereby determine that it requires the preparation of
a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report (SFEIR).
This Notice of Project Change and request for a Phase I waiver has been filed pursuant to
an Administrative Consent Order between Reading and the Department of Environmental
Protection (MassDEP) as the result of unique circumstances regarding the town of Reading's
water supply. As discussed in a Draft Record of Decision (DROD), also issued today, I propose
to grant a Phase I Waiver for Reading's proposed immediate tie-in to the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA) system, subject to conditions that include completion of the
SFEIR Scoped below. The DROD will be published in the September 26, 2006 issue of the
Environmental Monitor and subject to a fourteen day public comment period, after which I shall
reconsider, modify, or confirm the waiver.
I have received detailed and thoughtful comments. from the Water Supply Citizens
Advisory Committee, Ipswich River Watershed Association and others that speak to the need to
address water management issues specific to the Reading proposal in a basin- and system-wide
context. I also note that Reading's proposal comes against the backdrop of discussions related to
the potential expansion of municipal water supply by the MWRA. I acknowledge that many
00 Printed on Recycled Stock 20% Post Consumer Waste
EOEA4 12514 NPC Certificate September 14, 2006
issues raised relate to cumulative impacts of existing and potential future withdrawals and
highlight water resource management issues that need be addressed at a broader level by the
Water Resources Commission (WRC), MWRA, and other parties. As part of the 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.
However, while the current proposal from Reading highlights the need to address
significant water management issues, the review of Reading's current proposal does not require
their complete resolution. This Certificate requires Reading to provide the level of information
and commitments necessary to demonstrate that potential damage to the environment is avoided,
minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, to satisfy the WRC process, and to
respond substantively to the comments described above.
Proiect Description and MEPA Historv
The Town of Reading proposes to increase the amount of water purchased from MWRA
to enable the town to meet all its water supply needs and subsequently eliminate withdrawal
from the Ipswich River basin except on an emergency basis. The purpose of the project is to
ensure a safe water supply for the town and reduce adverse impacts to the Ipswich River. The
project previously underwent MEPA review and a Certificate on the Final EIR, indicating that
the project adequately and properly complies with MEPA, was issued October 31, 2003. At that
time, the Town of Reading proposed purchasing up to 219 million gallons of water from MRWA
during the May I" - October 31" period and limiting the town's use of Ipswich River basin
sources to 1 million gallons per day (mgd) during that same time period. The Water Resources
Commission subsequently approved a transfer of 219 million gallons per year (mgy) (based on
an average of 1.2 mgd during the months of May through October). According to the NPC, the
Town of Reading is currently proposing to increase its water purchase from MWRA from 219 to
829 mgy and proposes to use the MWRA system to fully meet the Town's year-round water
supply needs. The Town of Reading proposes to cease withdrawal of water from its municipal
supply wells located in the Ipswich River basin and intends to maintain its local sources as an
emergency supply with the capacity to provide disinfection and to maintain or improve existing
wellhead protection areas.
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 gpd 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.
2
81 L
EOEA# 12514 NPC Certificate September 14, 2006
SCOPE
Given the level of analysis and information provided. in previous filings for the proposed
interbasin transfer, this Scope is limited to the 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. Where appropriate, the SFEIR should incorporate
information and discussion provided in the FEIR. The SFEIR should include information and
analysis necessary to complete the ITA application process and to respond to the comments
received on the NPC.
Interbasin Transfer Act
The SFEIR should provide sufficient information to demonstrate that all reasonable
efforts have been made to identify and develop all viable sources in the receiving, area of the
proposed interbasin transfer. As noted by WRC in its comment letter and in the June 2005 WRC
decision, the use of Reading's water supply well during low flow conditions adversely impacts
the Ipswich river: However, the WRC decision found that withdrawals had little effect on
moderate to high flows. The SFEIR should demonstrate why the water sources in the receiving
basin' are no longer considered viable during moderate to high flows. The SFEIR should provide
an analysis of potential impacts to the donor basin as a result of the increased transfer, and
discuss mitigation measures proposed.
The SFEIR should provide a justification for the proposed alternative to obtain the town's
entire water supply from MWRA. If this preferred alternative is being selected on the basis of
economic viability, the SFEIR should include a cost comparison over twenty years as further
detailed in the WRC comment letter. The SFEIR should include a revised Local Water
Resources Management Plan that incorporates changes identified by WRC in its comment letter.
The SFEIR should provide additional information on the town's water conservation
program as required by the WRC. This should include, but not be limited to:
• Documentation of the latest leak detection survey and last annual meter calibration;
• An update of the phased meter replacement program;
• Information on the most recent rate structure and billing program;
• Annual statistical reports for 2004, 2005, and 2006 (if available);
• A report on the system-wide audit and recommendations that Will be implemented;
• A copy of the latest water use restriction by-law and drought plan;
• A discussion of progress on renovation and water saving retrofits for the High School and
Barrows School; and
® Details on water conservation actions taken as part of Reading's four-year, $1 million
conservation program.
3
9,/)/3-
EOEA# 12514 NPC Certificate September 14, 2006
Cumulative Impacts
Comment letters received have raised important issues relating to the cumulative impacts
associated with community connections to the MWRA system, including the need for further
assessment and downstream flow issues and measures to ensure adequate quantities and timing
of releases to support healthy fisheries and other components of donor. basin ecosystems. The
town of Reading should consult with the WRC and other appropriate agencies, as well as the
Connecticut River Watershed Council and other groups working on these broader watershed
issues as referenced by WSCAC in its comment letter during preparation of the SFEIR.
The cumulative impact analysis in the SFEIR should take into consideration the proposed
Reading increase as well as other proposed connections and MWRA supply expansion plans. I
note that the NPC includes an analysis by MWRA. The Town of Reading should consult with
WRC during preparation of the SFEIR for guidance on additional analysis to be presented in the
SFEIR. The SFEIR should provide sufficient information and analysis for the WRC review
process and demonstrate that impacts associated with the Reading transfer increase will be
avoided, minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
The SFEIR should provide additional information and analysis to respond to the
comments received relating to basin-wide impacts including releases needed to support fisheries
and adequate stream flow in the Nashua River. The SFEIR should provide'an update on
consultations with state agencies and other groups as part of the discussion of cumulative
impacts and management strategies to support adequate stream flows and ecological protection
in donor river basins.
Ipswich River Basin Impacts
The NPC and comment letters received describe the positive impacts expected as a result of
the proposed MWRA transfer since the town will no longer be withdrawing from the stressed
Ipswich River basin. The SFEIR. should discuss plans to monitor and evaluate improvements to
the Ipswich River. I encourage Reading to coordinate and consult with other communities in the
Ipswich River headwaters with regard to river monitoring and water supply issues and to provide
an update in the SFEIR. The SFEIR should also discuss Reading's long-term plans to protect the
water supply and river basin, including any limits on future withdrawals: The SFEIR should
clarify the status of Reading's WMA registration including its expiration date and whether or not
the withdrawal volume allowed under Reading's current registration will be available to any
future user or retired so that this water continues to be available to enhance flow in the Ipswich
River.
Water Resource Protection
The NPC and some comment letters describe the risks to Reading's water supply from
contaminated sites and threats associated with current land uses. The SFEIR should provide an
update on Reading's efforts to protect the Zone I and Zone II of existing and potential future
water supply sources. The SFEIR should include information on clean-up efforts, and strategies
8 t"
4 j v
EOEA# 12514 NPC Certificate September 14, 2006
to address hazardous materials use and other factors affecting water supply. The SFEIR should
demonstrate compliance with the conditions of the ACO as it relates to Zone I and II protection.
The SFEIR should include a draft plan to address the decommissioning of Reading's
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and conversion of the existing water supply sources from inactive
to emergency status.
Permittine
The SFEIR should include a detailed discussion of each state permit and approval
required and demonstrate how the project meets applicable regulatory and performance
standards. The SFEIR should include an update on Reading's compliance with the conditions
and requirements of the ACO, and an update on the status of.the permitting and approval process
for the project.
Mitigation and Section 61 findinvs
The SFEIR should include a detailed description of all feasible measures to avoid,
minimize and mitigate adverse effects on the environment which will be incorporated as part of
the project. The SFEIR should include a summary of commitments to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts and a cost estimate for mitigation measures. The SFEIR should include
proposed Section 61 Findings for all state permits and approvals that describe mitigation
measures to be implemented; contain clear commitments to mitigation and a schedule for
implementation, and identify parties responsible for funding and implementing the mitigation
measures.
Comments
The SFEIR. should include copies of all comment letters received on the NPC and
respond to the comments received to the extent they are within MEPA jurisdiction. The
proponent should use either an indexed response to comment format, or direct narrative
response. The SFEIR should present any additional narrative or quantitative analysis necessary
to respond to the comments received.
Circulation
The SFEIR should be circulated in accordance with Section 11.16 of the MEPA
regulations. .A copy should be sent to all those who commented on the NPC as listed below and
to any agency from which the proponent will seek permits or approvals. A copy of the SFEIR
should also be made available at the Reading Public Library and libraries in the donor basin area.
r0-
SeDtember 14.2006
DATE Robert W. Golleyl o Aretary
5
EOEA# 12514 NPC Certificate September 14, 2006
Comments received
8/11/06 Town of Reading
9/01/06 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Advisory Board
9/06/06 Water Supply Citizen's Advisory Committee
9/07/06 Ipswich River Watershed Association
9/07/06 Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast Regional Office
9/07/06 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (WRC)
9/08/06 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Riverways Program
12514 Draft ROD
RWG/AE/ae
6
/VV' • /V /VJ'
h, Y
z w l%✓LGT/G1VVI/V'T/ effi v 0/
r. ~ tl
/00 leamwwcyi d9hea, e7WW& 900
oWK
027,14-2524
MITT ROMNEY Tel. (617) 626-1000
GOVERNOR Fax. (617) 626-1181
KERRY HEALEY http://www.mass.gov/envir
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, .JR.
SECRETARY
September 14, 2006
DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION
PROJECT NAME : Town of Reading Admission to the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA) Water System
PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Reading
PROJECT WATERSHED : Ipswich/North Coastal, and Chicopee/Nashua
EOEA NUMBER :12514
PROJECT PROPONENT : Town of Reading
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : August 8, 2006
Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (G.L.c.30, ss. 61-62H)
and Section 11.11 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed this project and
hereby grant 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 (MWR.A)
prior to completion of the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the entire
project. A Certificate on the Notice of Project Change (NPC) with a Scope for the Supplemental
Final EIR has been issued separately. This Draft Record of Decision (DROD) proposing to grant
the Phase I Waiver will be published in the September 26, 2006 issue of the Environmental
Monitor and subject to a fourteen day public comment period.
Project Description
The Town of Reading proposes to increase the amount of water purchased from MWRA
to enable the town to meet all its water supply needs and subsequently eliminate withdrawal from
the Ipswich River basin except on an emergency basis. The purpose of the project is to ensure a
safe water supply for the town and reduce adverse impacts to the Ipswich River. The project
previously underwent MEPA review and a Certificate on the Final EIR. was issued October 31,'
2003. At that time, the Town of Reading proposed purchasing up to 219 million gallons of water
from MRWA during the May 1St - October 31St period and limiting the town's use of Ipswich
River basin sources to 1 million gallons per day (mgd) during that same time period. The Water
Resources Commission subsequently approved a transfer of 219 million gallons per year (mgy)
(based on an average of 1.2 mgd during the months of May through October). According to the
NPC, the Town of Reading is currently proposing to increase its water purchase from MWRA
from 219 to 829 mgy. The Town of Reading proposes to cease withdrawal of water from its
10 Printed on Recycled Stock 20% Post Consumer Waste l
EOEA # 12514 Draft ROD September 14, 2006
municipal supply wells located in the Ipswich River basin and intends to maintain, its local
sources as an emergency supply with the capacity to provide disinfection and to maintain or
improve existing wellhead protection areas.
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 gpd or any amount determined significant by the Water Resources Commission. The
project. requires approval from the Water Resources Commission (WRC) under the Interbasin
Transfer Act (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 use and management.
Waiver Reauest
On August 1st 2006, the proponent submitted a NPC with a request that I grant a waiver
to allow Phase I of the project to proceed in advance of completion of the SEIR. As proposed,
Phase I involves immediate withdrawal of up to 829 mgy from the MWRA system and would
result in the Town of Reading ceasing its withdrawals from water supply sources in the Ipswich
River basin.
During Phase I, the Town of Reading will maintain its existing water supply sources as an
inactive source in accordance with the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
requirements. If the Town receives the required certificates, permits and approvals for the
interbasin transfer, the municipal water supply will then be converted to emergency status, and
wellhead protection and other measures implemented in accordance with the Administrative
Consent Order established by MassDEP.
Administrative Consent Order (ACO)
The Town of Reading has entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO NE-06- .
F001) with the MassDEP which allows the town to receive all of its water from MWRA subject
to the conditions and requirements of the ACO. 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 ACO states that if the Town of
Reading has not received final certificates, permits and approvals for the project by December
31, 2007 (or a later dates agreed to by the parties), the Town of Reading shall immediately cease
2 f
EOEA # 12514 Draft ROD September 14, 2006
its receipt of water from the MWRA. system under the ACO and obtain water pursuant to existing
approvals including the WRC's June 9, 2005 Decision and the Town's Water Management Act
Registration.
Criteria for a Phase I Waiver
. Section 11.11 of the MEPA Regulations provides that the Secretary may waive any
provision or requirement of 301 CMR 11.00 not specifically required by MEPA, and may impose
appropriate and relevant conditions or restrictions, provided that the Secretary finds that strict
compliance with the provision or requirement would: a) result in undue hardship to the
proponent, unless based on delay in compliance. by the proponent; and b) not serve to minimize
or avoid damage to the environment.
In the case of a partial waiver of a mandatory EIR. review threshold that would allow the
proponent to proceed to Phase I of the project prior to preparing an EIR, the finding required
under Section 11.11(1)(b) shall be based on a determination that: 1) the potential environmental
impacts of Phase I are insignificant; 2) ample and unconstrained infrastructure and services exist
to support Phase I; 3) the project is severable, such that Phase I does not require the
implementation of any other future phase or restrict the means by which potential environmental
impacts from any other phase of the project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated; and 4) the
agency action on Phase I will contain terms, such as a condition or restriction in a permit to
ensure due compliance with MEPA and 301 CMR 11.00 prior to commencement of any other
phase of the project.
Based upon review of the NPC and comments received, and after consultation with the
relevant state agencies, I find that:
• The Town of Reading has entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with
MassDEP that requires the town to reduce its withdrawal of water from the Ipswich River
basin to the extent feasible provided the town has in place an agreement and commitment
to receive water from the MWRA system. Effective immediately, and during the review
and approval process under MEPA and the ITA, the ACO requires that the Town of
Reading shall receive an annual average of no more than 2.1 mgd from the MWRA
system and shall withdraw from its registered water supply sources only to the extent
provided in the ACO or pursuant to an emergency declaration or other MassDEP
approval as further detailed in the ACO;
• Comments from MassDEP, the Riverways Program, the Ipswich River Watershed
Association, and the Water Supply Citizens' Advisory Committee acknowledge that the
proposed withdrawal from the MWRA system in lieu of the Town of Reading water
supply wells will benefit the Ipswich River, which is one of the Commonwealth's most
stressed rivers;
3
EOEA # 12514 Draft ROD September 14, 2006
• Comments from the Riverways Program, the Ipswich.River Watershed Association, the
MWRA and the Town of Reading support the Phase I Waiver request;
• Comments from MassDEP and Riverways highlight the existence of contamination, the
potential for new contamination, and the lack of safer, alternative water sources within
the Town of Reading that necessitate use of the MWRA water supply;
• The Town of Reading has made significant progress in improving water conservation and
has committed to a range of conservation measures including leak detection, restricting
outdoor water use, a rebate program for rain barrels, maintaining per capita residential use .
below 65 gallons per day and unaccounted-for water to less than ten percent;
• The MWRA, in its comment letter, has determined that the transfer of an additional 610
million gallons per year (an additional 1.67 mgd on average) will have an insignificant
impact on the Quabbin Reservoir and discharges to the Swift River. I note that the.project
change is subject to review and approval by the Water Resources Commission (WRC)
under the Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) and, as part of this review process; the WRC will
make a determination regarding impacts to the donor basin;
• MassDEP has indicated that the MWRA withdrawals, including the additional transfer
proposed by the Town of Reading, is still within MRWA registered withdrawal volumes;
• The proposed increase in transfer from the MWRA system to Reading will require a
mandatory EIR, which will serve as the ITA application to the Water Resources
Commission.
This Phase I waiver is conditional upon the proponent's compliance with the conditions
specified below:
As a condition of this Waiver:
• The proponent must submit a Supplemental Final EIR in accordance with the Certificate
on the NPC that I have issued separately today; and
• The proponent must comply with the conditions of the ACO including but not limited to:
- The Town of Reading shall exercise best efforts to obtain all certificates, permits
and approvals (including MEPA certificates and WRC approvals under the ITA)
within one year of the effective date, of the ACO;
- The Town of Reading shall maintain its existing water supply source as an
inactive water supply, and maintain its water treatment plant, distribution system,
ownership and control of Zone I and H areas, and capacity to provide water in an
emergency as further detailed in the ACO;
- The Town of Reading shall comply with the conditions of the June 9, 2005 WRC
decision, including those specified in the ACO;
If the Town of Reading does not receive a final certificate.of adequacy on the
Supplemental EIR, and other permits and approvals required by December 31
2007 (or a later date agreed by the parties to the ACO), the town shall
immediately cease its receipt of water from the MWRA system under the ACO,
EOEA # 12514 Draft ROD September 14, 2006
and obtain water pursuant to its WMA registration and the June 9, 2005 WRC
decision.
Pursuant to Section 11.11 of the MEPA regulations and based on review of materials
provided and consultation with state agencies, I have determined that the waiver request has
merit. Therefore, I propose to grant the Phase I waiver requested for this project. This Draft
Record of Decision. (DROD) shall be published in the September 26, 2006 issue of the
Environmental Monitor for a fourteen-day public comment period, after which I shall. reconsider,
modify, or confirm the waiver.
4 y
September 14, 2006
✓j.°''0\J\DATE Robert W. Golledge, t., 'ea
Comments received
8/11/06
Town of Reading
9/01/06
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Advisory Board
9/06/06
Water Supply Citizen's Advisory Committee
9/07/06
Ipswich River Watershed Association
9/07/06
Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast Regional Office
9/07/06
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (WRC)
9/08/06
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Riverways Program
12514 Draft ROD
RWG/AE/ae
5
J
tyG 60 SIT
Arlington Ashland e Bedford o Belmont • Boston • Braintree • Brookline I. r~(1~
ti
Dedham • Everett • Framingham • Hingham • Holbrook • Leominster ~ MW1Z11 Ge
Medford • Melrose • Milton • Naltant • Natick • Needham • Newton ADVISORY
Revere • Saugus o Somerville • South Hadley • Southborough o Stoneham (s] BOARD
C_.)z
Watertown • Wellesley • Weston • Westwood • Weymouth e Wilbraham
August 34, 2006
A
Burlington • Cambridge • Canton • Chelsea • Chicopee • Clinton
Lexington • Lynn • Lynnfield • Malden • Marblehead • Marlborough
Northborough • Norwood • Peabody* Quincy • Randolph • Reading
Stoughton • Swampscott 4 Wakefield • Walpole • Waltham
Wilmington • Winchester • Winthrop • Woburn • Worcester
RECEIVED
Secretary, Robert W. Golledge, Jr.
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office
Nicholas Zavolas, EOEA No. 12514
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
SEP 1 2Q66
EDA
Dear Secretary Golledge:
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Advisory Board (MWRA Advisory Board) would
like to express its support of the Town of Reading's Notice of Project Change seeking full
membership to the MWRA Waterworks System. Both the MWRA Advisory Board and the
MWRA Board of Directors voted unanimously in fall 2005 to provide Reading with up to 219
million gallons ;of water annually. `The transfer would take place from May 1 through October
31st,' priir arily to reduce t t i e i m p a c t of`Reading's c r a t e r supp yi withdrawals`6lfthe4pswich River
during low flow penods Reading is now requesting itsrentlxe water supply, beprovided;via the:
MWRA. The change'1s predicated on'a'nursmber i fifactors including:! `r'
r. _ .
® Reading'.s` issues .'in meeting the , Federal •Saf6- bringing ` Water-. Act's Maximum
Contaminant Level for trilialomethanes via its own-wells and treatment plant;
0 Providing environmental relief by ceasing all of Reading's water supply withdrawals
from the headwaters of the Ipswich River;
0 Reducing risk of. contamination to the supply wells from vehicles on Route 93 by fully
transferring to MWRA water;
® And, the cost effectiveness of seeking fizll MWRA membership versus construction of a
new treatment plant with a restricted production capacity of up to 1 MGD from May 1
through October 31st (essentially operating the treatment plant at 25% capacity for 50%
of the year).
The proposal for Reading to take all of its water from MWRA is supported by the Reading Board
of Selectmen and Reading Town Meeting. ' MWRA has-determined the transfer of an additional
610 million gallons per year will liave an insignificant impact' on the Quabbin Reservoir and
discharges to the Swift. River. Reading's request for supplemental water from the MWRA
G.:
appears to be consistent with the intenteofthe` Int6~rbasin;T>idnsffeir Aet to protect the interest of the
donor basin Allowuig M'V~RA `to `b'e` the e~ccluave soi4i~e bf'v`ater lfo he'Town, of Readig
i
~ 2.3 S r
while coiitlnuing to portee{°locsl`stipplies fot emergency pposes; vt~i'1l' en"sure the=cbrutiulity is
provided'wi"th a safe and reliable `supply.
A/
Joseph E. Favaloro, Executive Director
1.1 Beacon Street • Suite 1010 • Boston, MA 02108-3020 • Telephone: (617) 742-7561 Fax:. (617).742-.4614,
Website: www.mwraadvisoryboard.com • Email: mwra_ab@mwra.state.ma.us
The proposed change in Reading's withdrawal rate is an alteration to the original application.
The basic qualifying terms have been established via the EOEA, MWRA Advisory Board and
MWRA approval processes. Recognizing what remains is the relatively narrow question of the
impact of providing additional supply, consideration of Reading's Notice of Project Change
should be expedited. Both the MWRA and the MWRA Advisory Board intend to work
cooperatively to seek the support of our governing boards to approve Reading's request for
supplemental water. Considering the insignificant impacts on the donor basin, the substantive
benefits to the Ipswich River and ongoing issues in controlling trihalomethane levels, Reading's
proposal is worthy of your support.
E. Fayal6ro
ve Director
cc: MWRA Board of Directors
Fred Laskey, MW12A
Michael Hornbrook, MWRA
Pamela Heidell, MWRA
Marian Orfeo, MWRA
Stephen Estes Smargiassi, MWRA
Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager, Town of Reading
Edward McIntire, Jr., Town of Reading
Michael Cunningham, SEA
Jon Beekman, SEA
7 13.
WATER SU:FPLY' C!'TI;EN.S'
ADV. S CCJ7VlMlTTEE
ro the Mass Water Resources Autho
±CAC . ty`
September 6, 2006
Secretary Robert Golledge
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
8 :River prive + P.:O Box 478
Hadley, .M 's.6thusetts {:11035-047$:.
(413) 586:=88
FA {41'3) 5.8 =9257
E-mail:: wsca;e@rerr:ccytrri
Attention: EOEA 412514, Notice of Project Change (NPC) Town of Reading Admission
to the MWRA MEPA Analyst: Nicholas Zavolas
This NPC process is quite complex because the project has a history of prior approvals for a portion of water
service to the Town of Reading from MWRA, recent political actions by the Town of Reading's annual
meeting, a DEP Administrative Consent Order (ACO) as a remedy to possible preemptive legislative action
and the unfortunate circumstances within the management of Reading's water system, that may have been
foreseeable, but which were not acted upon in time to assure the residents the continued safe and potable
water supply they certainly should expect.
The NPC Cover Letter, MEPA summary and NPC text identify and argue for two important regulatory
actions from MEPA and the Water Resources Commission (WRC): A Waiver to permit immediate use of
MWRA water full time; and a determination of insignificance from MEPA and the Water Resources
Commission Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) respective regulations, 301 CMR 11.00 and 313 CMR 4.00.
1. The Phase 1 Waiver and Determinations of Insignificance:
The Phase 1 Waiver to allow immediate full time use of MWRA water is part of the DEP, August 1, 2006
ACO and will be approved by MEPA, we are sure. However, the NPC has two conditions of compliance
that MEPA should address. Firstly, the ACO requires that permits and approvals under the NPC will include
the conditions of the prior determinations. These include, that Reading will not exceed the 219 MGY from
May 1 through October 31 of any year, and that Reading will, until all approvals are complete, restrict its
water use to 2.1 MGD. The NPC continually uses 2.27 MGD, not allowed under the ACO. The ACO was
absolutely clear on these matters, and MEPA should uphold them, as should the WRC ITA process as it
unfolds.
The letter of submittal by SEA to the Secretary, August 7, 2006, states, "When approved, this change
results in an acknowledged immediate positive net benefit to the Ipswich River Basin environment." This
sentence opened the argument that the net benefit to the Ipswich should qualify this project for a
determination of insignificance under the MEPA regulations (11.10 (6)). It does not. MEPA should surely
reject this argument since there is no interfering delay in the project- it is merely moving forward as the
processes call for, and the Phase 1 Waiver will assure that the Ipswich River will see an elimination of
Reading's well withdrawals completely.
The proposal, to exempt the incremental taking from MWRA of 610 MGY (829 MGY up from 219 MGY)
being more than 1 MGD, is prohibited under the Interbasin Transfer Act under any circumstances, which we
know you all recognize. A determination of insignificance is therefore not permissible. Neither request for a
determination of insignificance is warranted or legal and should of course be denied.
H. Impacts of the NPC proposal on the MWRA System:
It is our experience that the MWRA does not acknowledge the insufficiency of the downstream releases from
the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs, particularly the latter. There is continuing omission in the MWRA's
letter and in the former WRC ITA Reading admission process that should forthwith be remedied.
The ITA admission of communities to MWRA such as Stoughton and Reading for partial supply ignored the
absurdity of the 12 million gallons a week of required release from the Wachusett Reservoir to the
impounded branch of the Nashua River. The MWRA has reconstructed a former physical constraint to the
operation of improved releases, and the Nashua River Water Association, WSCAC and other river advocates
have presented the arguments for improved releases downstream. MWRA is capable of over 100 MGD from
the reservoir directly and with variable control. Increasing dilution to the Clinton wastewater treatment plant
will improve the stream and this branch of the Nashua could use a seasonally more varied and higher release.
Initial estimates are between 15-20 MGD average annual release with a summer release that is tenfold the
current release or about 18 MGD.
The ITA process has failed to maintain an ITA requirement: the sufficiency of instream flow in the donor
basin. This must be addressed in the MEPA review and the ITA process. The MWRA's Executive Director,
Fred Laskey, has stated that this surely will be considered as the MWRA sounds the disputed call to boost its
water sales!
As for the Quabbin Reservoir, the releases to the Swift River are somewhat more difficult, in that required
releases already increase during the warm weather months (based on Connecticut River flows at Montague)
resulting in the Swift River periodically having higher flows in warm weather times than it would have had
as an un-impounded river. The Swift needs more flow in the spring and fall. The Connecticut River
Watershed Council is working with fisheries, WSCAC and other river advocates to gain development and
implementation from the MWRA of such a plan. The proposal has more physical problems than the
incremental releases from Wachusett Reservoir because of insufficient structures and outlets to the Swift.
However, the Connecticut River at the confluence of the Chicopee (this includes the Swift flows) does not
meet Class B standards and can use every drop in every tributary. A plan should be required.
Again, the ITA process has failed to recognize the donor watershed streamflow issues as they pertain to the
MWRA. Although Quabbin has been spilling in recent years, it is assured that there will be dry years with
increased demand, and as new communities are added to MWRA we want the Swift to have appropriate
volume assured with more seasonally varied flow. MEPA should make the first step in requiring a solution
to the downstream release problems so that the ITA process will see new support to do what is required of its
process. Such resolution will not prevent qualifying communities now or in the future from being admitted
to the MWRA
We acknowledge that large storage reservoirs dampen the impact of Reading's proposed withdrawal
increase, but there is an economic cost to increasing the number of user communities in the event of any
degree of drought response; even a one-month increase has real costs. We would like the MEPA process and
the ITA process to identify the facts: that user communities will see longer drought responses with each
added community and each demand increment. MWRA tends to understate the potential impact when
offering its system-modeling results.
III. Carpe Diem:
We accept the statements that the Ipswich River should experience an immediate benefit from the NPC
proposal. Data should be collected to document the actuality. Gauging needs to be added immediately at
and below the Reading reach of the Ipswich. The readings at Middleton cannot alone demonstrate the degree
of improvement in the river's flows at Reading. Further, the Secretary's Certificate and the ITA process
5
1(
2
should pro-actively constrain the DEP from releasing by permit or any other means, any portion of Reading's
preexisting Water Management Act registration in the Ipswich Basin (2.57 MGD). The Town, in its first
ITA-MWRA admission process, agreed in concept (FEIR Certificate) to an adjustment in its WMA
registration. The Ipswich Basin's allocated withdrawals through future registration reviews or permits
should be prevented from using the water made newly available from eliminating Reading's well usage.
The Water Resources Commission, MEPA and DEP should condition any Reading increase in interbasin
transfer by requiring the highest form of ongoing local well source protection and protection of identified
potential future sources. The requirements should include outdoor water use controls consistent with the
policy that out of basin water takings should not be an opportunity to waste water on non-essential uses. A
maximum day limit and seasonal summer limit should be imposed by MEPA and the WRC determination,
and require the MWRA to be consistent with these in contract requirements. Under the DEP Consent
Agreement, Reading shall not exceed 65 rgpcd. The DEP states that if the prior year rgpcd exceeds 65 then
the subsequent year Reading will impose restrictions. Why not set a maximum.day and seasonal use so that
excessive use is curbed in real time, and not after the fact?
We were not clear whether the Town of Reading has taken the local authority to declare a state of
conservation or whether it has approved a bylaw to enforce a DEP declared drought: Reading should review
its zoning to ensure that potential future water sites, only one or two have been identified, are protected to the
extent that treatment would allow for fixture potable use. It also seems almost foolhardy in troubled
international times to centralize water service when viable sources remain. Protection and identification of
decentralized and locally operable small sources should be part of the state's policy calculus.
IV. The DEP ACO:
The DEP ACO of August 2006, memorialized the requirements of the June 9, 2005 ITA staff report on
Reading. At the time we disagreed with the hours allowed under Note 42 of page 29 of the approval
document which allowed Reading residents to water from 5 pm to 9 pm on odd and even days. In the
typical summer day, 5 pm still holds the highest heat of the day. The NPC Certificate should amend the
program to the hours of 6-8 a.m. and 6-8 p.m. for two days a week. The literature has shown that folks will
use their odd/even watering time as insurance, whether needed or not. The August 15 to October 31 water
ban and order that appears as NPC Attachment 8 allows. watering only for these limited hours.
To reiterate two important points, the DEP ACO also restricts Reading's total water use to 2.1 MGD (as
stated earlier in our comments, and not 2.27 as used in the NPC) from the MWRA until the issuance of final
certificates, permits or approvals initiated by this NPC. The ACO also requires (ACO, p. 4, 7(g)) that
Reading remain within its prior MEPA withdrawal limit of 219 MGY from, May 1 through October 31.
These requirements should be included in the MEPA Certificate at least by reference to the ACO sections.
Reading has committed in the NPC to continue to work on Tier 1 sites and to protect its current water
sources. Both MEPA and the WRC should continue to highlight this commitment, and continue to ask for
identification and reasonable protection of potential future water source locations that might exist within
Reading but outside the Ipswich Basin, in particular. .
V. Final Remarks:
The NPC proposal to invoke an "insignificance" determination was disturbing on a few fronts. Reading's
charity to the Ipswich River can happen only by taking water out of a distant basin not good water policy.
We have yet to see the promised coordination in the Ipswich headwater communities promised in the
Secretary's first sewering waiver for the Lowell Street interceptor in Wilmington (another Ipswich
community) or the certificates on Reading in the prior MEPAATA processes. More needs to be done to
protect the Ipswich River than reach for far-away sources. The DEP must refrain from over-allocation, and
the headwater towns (formerly spurred to action by the Ipswich River Watershed Association) should still be
gJ~~~ ~3
meeting and dealing with seasonal water waste and other matters that would improve river flows. Much
more creativity in stormwater recharge and wastewater management should be implemented throughout the
basin.
The original application of the Town of Reading caused a great deal of discussion about the appropriateness
of taking water via an interbasin transfer- in order to ostensibly benefit a depleted river elsewhere in the
Commonwealth. WSCAC argued strenuously that the MWRA's own Enabling Act (Section 71) did not
make allowance for the Reading application. The Interbasin Transfer Act, which WSCAC members and
staff helped to develop, also did not approve of an interbasin transfer for river flow augmentation in a
receiving basin, but might have been newly interpreted to do so, if the process had led to improvements in
the donor rivers and long term coordination of communities in the Ipswich River Basin. Lacking the
realization of these outcomes, the Reading application still violates the intentions of these laws.
We see pending an extraordinary opportunity for this NPC to cause good results: a carefully scoped short
study, an ITA and MWRA re-application which provides direction to Reading to move other basin
communities to act in the River's behalf, a chance to improve the donor watershed rivers of the
MWRA/DCR system, a needed outcome, and improved protection for Reading's present and potential water
sources and seasonal water use program.
We always appreciate the MEPA public process and hope to contribute in a positive fashion.
Very truly yours,
Eileen R. Simonson
Co-Executive Director
S I
,V/ (\'W 4
W5 ERSHED
WASSOCIMION OEO WPO Box 576, Ipswich, MA 01938
978-887-2313 fax 978-887-2208
September 7, 2006
Secretary Robert Golledge
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn: Nicholas Zavolas; MEPA Unit
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02114
Ref: EOEA #12514
Notice of Project Change, Town of Reading Admission to MWRA Water Supply
Dear Secretary Golledge,
The Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) is writing in support of the alternative water
supply scenario proposed in Reading's Notice of Project Change, and does not oppose the Phase
I Waiver Request in the above-reference project.
The Town of Reading's June 15, 2006 vote to obtain all their water from the MWRA, and to
cease use of the Ipswich River basin wells except on an emergency basis, is a positive outcome
to years of consideration of water supply alternatives for the town. This resolution addresses the
.fact that Reading's Ipswich River sources are not viable because of the contamination threats
they face and the extreme environmental damage they cause; as well, the escalating costs to
replace the water treatment plant make these sources uneconomic.
Based on the information available to IRWA, our understanding is that the impacts of Reading's
increased withdrawals from the MWRA system will not result in significant adverse impacts to
the Authority's source river systems.
IRWA also commends Reading on the resources that the Town is dedicating to improving water
conservation and the progress that they have made in that area. The commitment to continue
these exemplary efforts is important in meeting the requirements of the Interbasin Transfer Act.
Even in light of this support ; IRWA wishes to reiterate several.concerns that have arisen and that
we believe should be addressed:
1) Reading's situation is.quite unique, and it-should be explicitly Mated that abbreviated
review _,f the NPC should not be regarded .as a precedent for other future authorizations
to sell additional MWRA water without full environmental review prior to allowing the
transfer to take place. .
✓N
2) IRWA supports full evaluation of the instream flow releases needed to support fisheries
and other ecological values in the MWRA's source watersheds; such review should be
required prior to authorization of new proposals to purchase M W xA water. This
evaluation should be done in collaboration with federal and state fisheries experts, to
avoid piecemeal authorizations of increased withdrawals, which singly may not rise to
the level of significant impact, but cumulatively may do so.
3) IRWA urges that water conservation _m_ eas»res and their effectiveness be regularly.
evaluated, not only as a pre-requisite for interbasin transfers, but also to 'ensure that
communities with existing transfers continue to effectively implement water conservation
and meet the ITA Performance Standards, and to encourage incorporating advances in
water conservation into future water resource management.
4) The Town of Reading's r`pgistration for a withdrawal of 2.57 mgd should be retired, or at
least amended to make clear that the Ipswich River wells are reserved as an emergency
source only.
IRWA thanks all those in the Town of Reading and at the state environmental agencies who have
dedicated so much time and energy to come to this resolution. .
Sincerely,
Kmem,
Kerry Mackin
Executive Director
Cc: Kathleen Baskin, EOEA
Peter Hechenbleikner, Town of Reading
Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation
Martha Stevenson, LWV
Eileen Simonson, WSCAC
Margaret Kearns, Riverways
Jon Beekman, SEA Consulting,
9J ~ , 0- -
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
205B Lowell Street, Wilmington, MA 01887 • (978) 694-8200
MITT ROMNEY ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, Jr.
Governor
Secretary
DERRY HEALEY ARLEEN O'DONNELL
Lieutenant Governor Commissioner
Robert W. Golledge, Jr., Secretary
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
251 Causeway Street, Suite 900
Boston MA, 02114
September 7, 2006
RE: Reading
Admission to the MWRA
Waterworks System
EOEA # 12514
Attn: MEPA Unit
Dear Secretary Golledge:
The Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office (MassDEP) has
reviewed the Notice of Project Change (NPC) and Phase I wavier request prepared by SEA
Consultants Inc. and submitted by the Town of Reading regarding a change in the Town's request
for admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) waterworks system
(EOEA# 12514).
On August 1, 2006, the Department entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO)
with the Town of Reading requiring, among other things, the filing of this NPC for the Town's
request to receive an annual average of 2.27 million gallons.per day (mgd) from the MWRA.
Previously, Reading completed the Interbasin Transfer Act process to receive water from the
MWRA that included a review under the. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, and approval
by the MWRA Board of Directors, the MWRA Advisory Board, the General Court, and the
Water Resources Commission, to purchase up to 219 million gallons or an average of 0.6 mgd
from the MWRA.
Reading now seeks to obtain all of its water from the MWRA system pursuant to an
affirmative vote at Town Meeting on June 15, 2006. The Department recognizes that this
alternative provides needed relief to the Ipswich River. The Ipswich River is one of the
Commonwealth's most stressed rivers, with streamflow in the upper watershed sometimes
depleted to a dry riverbed. Reading's streamside wells are located along the most impacted
portion of the Ipswich River, and Reading's withdrawals have a greater direct impact on the
Ipswich River than withdrawals by any other municipality.
The Depar tment also is concerned that the Town of Reading's wells continue to be
vulnerable to groundwater contamination from a variety of land use sources. There are several
This information is available in alternate format. Call Donald M. Gomes, ADA Coordinator at 617-556-2057. TDD Service 1-978-694-3492.
http://www.mass.gov/dep • Fax (978) 694-3499
00 Printed on Recycled Paper
Admission to the MWRA Waterworks Svstem EOEA # 12514
Tier I contamination sites that threaten Reading's wells. Businesses located within the Zone II of
Reading's wells use hazardous materials and generate hazardous waste, or store oil or hazardous
material in above ground or underground tanks. In addition, Interstate Route 93 crosses the west
side of the Zone I protective radius of two of Reading's wells. A 1992 gasoline tanker spill on
Route 93 forced the temporary shutdown of six wells, and the location of this major thoroughfare
through the Zone I poses a continuing threat of pollution from deicing materials, petroleum
products or contaminated stormwater runoff. Reading's Well 82-20 was shut down from 1988 to
1991 because of contamination from a facility that distributed dry cleaning chemicals.
Reading is committed to continuing its implementation of water conservation measures
and managing its water resources in accordance with the performance standards of the Water
Resources Commission. This includes performing leak detection of its water distribution system
at least every two years, maintaining the level of unaccounted-for water at less than ten (10)
percent, and maintaining the residential per capita water use below 65 gallons per day. As
explained in the NPC, (Section 6.1), leak detection has been performed annually for the past
three years, per capita residential use has not exceeded 55 gallons, and unaccounted-for water in
the 2005 calendar year was 3.8 percent. Reading also has a $25.00 rebate program for rain
barrels to encourage water conservation. Reading shall continue its practice of restricting
nonessential outside water use and restrict the use of sprinklers and automatic irrigation systems.
The Department notes that the Administrative Consent Order between Reading and the
Department requires that, in the event Reading has not received final certificates, permits and
approvals for the request to obtain all of its water from MWRA by December 31, 2007, (or by a
later date agreed to by the parties), Reading shall immediately cease its receipt of water from the
MWRA system. In this event, Reading shall obtain some of its water from the MWRA system
pursuant to the Water Resource Commission's June 9, 2005 Decision, and the remainder from its
own water supply sources, pursuant to its WMA Registration and any revisions.
Reading must maintain the capacity to provide water from its existing water supply
sources in the event of an emergency, including, the ability to provide disinfection, during the
interim period, while the MEPA review and Water Resource Commission decisions are pending.
In the event that the Water Resource Commission approves the town's request to receive all water
from the MVJRA, Reading's existing water supply sources must be converted from inactive
status to emergency status in accordance with the Drinking Water Regulations at 310 CMR
22.00. This would require Reading to submit a plan for the Department's review that would set
forth the actions necessary for the town to maintain the water supply capacity of its existing
sources in the event of an emergency, including the ability to provide disinfection.
The MassDEP Northeast Regional Office appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
proposed project. Please contact Kellie O'Keefe at (617) 654-6522 for further information.
Sincerely,
iolp
o ,
Deputy Regional Director
Admission to the MWRA Waterworks Svstem EOEA # 12514
cc: Duane LeVangie, MassDEP-Boston
Eric Worrall, MassDEP-Boston
Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission
Tom Mahin, Kellie O'Keefe, DEP-HERO
Michelle Drury, DCR
a~
Arlington • Ashland • Bedford • Belmont • Boston • Braintree • Brookline
Dedham • Everett • Framingham • Hinghnnt • Holbrook • Leominster
Medford • Melrose • Milton • Naham • Natick • Needham • Nt'nvrnn
Revere • Saugus • Somerville • South Hadley • Suuthhormigh • Stoneham I
Watertown • Wellesley • Weston • Wost%vood • Weymouth • kVilbraham
August 31, 2006
~4G 60 clT
a~~ ~f s
~ MNNrRA a
ADVISORY o
BOARD ~L
Burlington • Cambridge • Canton • Chelsea • Chicopee • Clinton
Lexington • Lynn • Lymnfield • Malden • Marblehead • Marlborough
Northborough • Norwood • Peabody • Quincy • Randolph • Reading
Stoughton • Swampscott • Wakefield • Walpole • Waltham
Wilmington • Winchester • Winthrop • Woburn • Worcester
tawil
Sip 1
Secretary, Robert W. Golledge, Jr.
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn:. MEPA Office
Nicholas Zavolas, EOEA No. 12514
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Dear Secretary Golledge:
MEPA
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Advisory Board (MWRA Advisory Board) would
like to express its support of the Town of Reading's Notice of Project Change seeking full
membership to the MWRA Waterworks System. Both the MWRA Advisory Board and the
MWRA Board of Directors voted unanimously in fall 2005 to provide Reading with up to 219
million gallons of water annually. The transfer would take place from May 1 through October
31 st, primarily to reduce the impact of Reading's water supply withdrawals on the Ipswich River
during low flow periods. Reading is now requesting its entire water supply be provided via the
MWRA. The change is predicated on a number of factors including:
• Reading's issues in meeting the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act's Maximum
Contaminant Level for trihalomethanes via its own wells and treatment plant;
• Providing environmental relief by ceasing all of Reading's water supply withdrawals
from the headwaters of the Ipswich River;
• Reducing risk of contamination to the supply wells from vehicles on Route 93 by fully
transferring to MWRA water;
• And, the cost effectiveness of seeking full MWRA membership versus construction of a
new treatment plant with a restricted production capacity of up to 1 MGD from May 1
through October 31st (essentially operating the treatment plant at 25% capacity for 50%
of the year).
The proposal for Reading to take all of its water from MWRA is supported by the Reading Board
of Selectmen and Reading Town Meeting. MWRA has determined the transfer of an additional
610 million gallons per year will have an insignificant impact on the Quabbin Reservoir and
discharges to the Swift River. Reading's request for supplemental water from the MWRA
appears to be consistent with the intent of the Interbasin Transfer Act to protect the interest of the
donor basin. Allowing MWRA to be. the. exclusive source of water for the Town of Reading
while continuing to protect local supplies for emergency purposes, will ensure the community is
provided with a safe and reliable supply.
Joseph E. Favaloro, Executive Director
it Beacon Street • Suite 1010 • Boston, MA 02108-3020 • Telephone: (617) 742-7561 • Fax: (617) 742-461
Wehsite: www.mwraadvisoryboard.com • Email: wwra_ab@mwra.state.ma.us
The proposed change in Reading's withdrawal rate is an alteration to the original application.
The basic qualifying terms have been established via the EOEA, MWRA Advisory Board and
MWRA approval processes. Recognizing what remains is the relatively narrow question of the
impact of providing additional supply, consideration of Reading's Notice of Project Change
should be expedited. Both the MWRA and the MWRA Advisory Board intend to work
cooperatively to seek the support of our governing boards to approve Reading's request for
supplemental water. Considering the insignificant impacts on the donor basin, the substantive
benefits to the Ipswich River and ongoing issues in controlling trihalomethane levels, Reading's
proposal is worthy of your support.
Si
E.
Director
cc: MWRA Board of Directors
Fred Laskey, MWRA
Michael Hornbrook, MWRA
Pamela Heidell, MWRA
Marian Orfeo, MWRA
Stephen Estes Smargiassi, MWRA
Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager, Town of Reading
Edward McIntire, Jr., Town of Reading
Michael Cunningham, SEA
Jon Beekman, SEA
~ti
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
t ~
WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
100 CAMBRIDGE STREET, BOSTON MA 02114
September 7, 2006
Robert Golledge, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attention: Nicholas Zavolas, MEPA Office
EOEA #12514
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02114
Dear Secretary Golledge:
Staff for the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (WRC) reviewed the August
2006 Notice of Project Change (NPC) for the MEPA file referenced above. Through the -PC,
the Town of Reading proposes to transfer up to 829 million gallons per year. (mgy), based on an
average day demand of 2.27 million gallons per day (mgd), from the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA) water supply sources in the Nashua River and Chicopee River
basins. This constitutes a new "increase over the present rate of interbasin transfer" as defined
by the Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA), MGL Chapter 21 8B-8D, and its regulations (31.3 CMR
4.00). Although the WRC approved a transfer of 219 mgy from the MWRA Water Works
System to Reading in 2005, (based on purchase of an average of 1.2 mgd during the months of
May through October), it must treat this proposal to purchase additional water as a separate
application under the ITA. Our understanding is that a new transfer of 1 mgd or more triggers a
mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under MEPA regulations. The EIR will serve as
the ITA application to the WRC in this case.
The earlier-approved proposal by Reading differs from the project currently proposed in
several ways. Reading's 2005-approved interbasin transfer is for the period between May 1 and
October 31, while through this NPC, Reading seeks full-time use of MWRA water. At the time
of its original ITA application, Reading proposed to continue use of its local sources, but with
restrictions during the months the town would be purchasing water from the MWE2A. Through
the NPC, Reading now seeks approval to eliminate withdrawals from the Ipswich River basin,
except on an emergency basis, and to purchase all of its water from the MWRA. The purposes
of this request are to "ensure a safe supply of water for the Town and to further reduce stress on
the Ipswich River."
Before the WRC can approve an ITA application, the proponent must demonstrate that it
has made "all reasonable efforts to identify and develop all viable sources in the receiving
area of the proposed interbasin transfer." In its June 2005 decision, the WRC recognized that used'
JAS,,
of Reading's existing sources during certain low flow times of the year contributed to the severe
impacts to the Ipswich River, however, it also found that withdrawals had little effect on
moderate to high flows. Reading must demonstrate why these sources are no longer viable at
any time.
If Reading bases its proposal to obtain all of its water supply from the MWRA on
economic viability that is, the costs of using its in-basin sources (including construction of a
new treatment plant) are not favorable compared with the cost of obtaining all its water from the
MWRA the Town must provide a cost-comparison over 20 years for both of these options that
includes all costs, including the MWRA entrance fee and a projection of the MWRA's water rate
structure. We refer the proponent to the ITA Performance Standards, page 4, for guidance on
determining the economic viability of in-basin sources.
In addition, information concerning the Town's water conservation efforts must be
updated. The EWITA application must provide the following information:
1. Documentation of the latest leak detection survey, identifying leaks discovered and
repaired through the survey.
2. Documentation of the latest annual master meter calibration.
3. An update of the phased meter replacement program that was started in 2005. Have all
meters been replaced? When will the project be completed? Provide any updates to the
meter maintenance, calibration, testing and repair program that may have occurred since
the 2005 WRC Decision.
4. The most recent information provided to the WRC indicates that the rate structure is
evaluated annually and was last changed in 2001. Is this still accurate? If the rate
structure has changed since 2005, provide the latest rate information.
5. The most recent information provided to the WRC indicates that water supply customers
are billed quarterly, but that Reading was considering monthly billing. Has this change
occurred? If so, when did the change in billing frequency take place? Are the bills based
on actual meter readings?
6. Provide the Annual Statistical Reports for 2004, 2005, and if available, 2006.
7. The information provided to the WRC, and used in its 2005 Decision, indicated that a
system-wide water audit was being conducted. Provide the report for this audit and
indicate which recommendations will be implemented, which will not be, and the reasons
for those decisions.
8. Provide a copy of the latest water use restriction by-law, including documentation of
when it was enacted. The by-law should reflect the 2005 ITA decision, with outdoor
water use restrictions tied to streamflow. If this is to be amended upon becoming a full
2
J h~p
MWRA member, details of how water use restrictions will be imposed, including
environmental criteria, should be discussed.
9. Has the drought plan been amended? If so, provide the updated copy.
10. At the time of the 2005 WRC Decision, the High School and the Barrows School were
undergoing renovation, including retrofit with water saving devices. The EIRATA
application must provide a discussion of the progress made to date with the renovations
and an estimated schedule for completion. If the renovations have been completed,
Reading must furnish documentation that water saving devices have been installed.
11. Provide details concerning the water conservation actions taken as part of Reading's four-
year, $1 million conservation program. This should include an accounting of the money
spent and the successes of the program.
The NPC includes a letter from the MWRA indicating that the increased transfer of water
from the donor basin to Reading would not impact reasonable instream flow or required releases
-di""other water uses in the Swift and Nashua River basins. - Under the ITA, it is up to the WRC to
make the determination regarding impacts to the donor basin. The WRC can rely upon data
associated with its 2005 approval from Reading's previous EIR/ITA submittals to make a
determination for this new amount of transfer.
The NPC, contains amendments to the Town's Local Water Resources Management Plan.
These amendments must be incorporated into a stand-alone plan to be made available to all town
departments. In addition, the revised plan will need to be approved by the WRC. In order for
that to occur, the following changes must be made:
• Section 2.1.1.13 MWRA Supply, last sentence: Delete the term "reasonable instream
flow" and replace it with "required releases."
• Section 2.1.3: This section should discuss why the existing treatment plant cannot be
renovated or replaced with a modern facility.
The plan can be included in the EIRATA application.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Kathleen M. Baskin, P.E.
Executive Director
cc: Water Resources Commission
Michele Drury, DCR
Linda Hutchins, DCR
) ~_l
A
Coinutonwealth of Massachusetts ;
RIVEKWAYS PROGRAM
Building Perrttr.erships, Protectitrg Rivers
Joan C. Kimball, River ivavs Director U l~
Secretary Robert W. Golledge, Jr. SER. 8
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office
EOEA #12514; MEPA Analyst
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 0211472524
September 6, 2006
EOEA #1514 - Notice of Project Change - Town of Reading Admission to the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority
Dear Secretary Golledge,
The Riverways Program staff has reviewed the Notice of Project Change for the Town of Reading's
application to the MWRA. In this document, the Town proposes to obtain all of its water from the
MWRA system, leaving its own sources active as emergency sources only.
In general Riverways is supportive of the proposed change and Phase I Waiver request because
they will remove the significant vulnerability of Reading's water supply to contamination and result
in increased flow in the Ipswich River near Reading's. wells, an area that has been drained completely
dry in the past.
However, we would like to point out that we also support the concept of "Keeping Water Local",
which was a main focal point of the Executive Office of Environmental Affair's 2004 Water Policy,
and do not support the use of MWRA water simply to "bail out" rivers that have had their water
sources mismanaged. In the case of Reading, the existence of contamination, the potential for new
contamination, and the lack of safer, alternative water sources within the Town appropriately
necessitate-the need to turn to MWRA. If it were not for the contamination and public health
threats we would have preferred to have seen local solutions to the stream flow problem, such as
water conservation, stormwater recharge and wastewater recharge and reuse to solve the stream
flow problem.
In keeping with this stance, we would like to request that the MWRA and the Water Resources
Commission take the opportunity presented by Reading's re-application for an Interbasin Transfer
approval to re-assess and rectify the issue of inadequate stream flow downstream of MWRA's
major reservoirs, especially the Nashua River downstream of Wachusett Reservoir. We hope that
the Water Resources Commission will recognize that the streams affected by the MWRA system
are have been suffering from low problems for many years. Although any single application for
additional water from the MWRA is unlikely to signi f icantly change the analysis of impact to the
251 Causeway Street • Suite 400 • Boston, Massachusetts 02114 • www.massriverways.org • (61.7) 626-1540
Riverways Program, A Division of the Department of Fish and Game David. M. Peters, Commissioner
rivers in the donor basins, the currently required stream flows, particularly in the Nashua River, are
inadequate to support the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the river.
The current minimum flow release from the Wachusett Reservoir to the Nashua River is 1.8 cubic
feet per second (cfs) (1.2 million gallons.per day (mgd)), which was legally required by the
legislature at the time the dam was built. ,Since that time, the science of stream flow and its
pivotal role in supporting the critical func 'i- n ,",a f °rivers has advanced considerably. The US Fish
and Wildlife Service Service's Aquatic Base Flow policy is a rule-of-thumb seasonal stream flow
prescription for New England that is protpctiye of fish and wildlife communities. The summer
Aquatic Base Flow for the.Nashua River of the Wachusett dam is 54 cfs (35 mgd). The US
Geological Survey also has method for estimating summer low flow values, which is based on factors
such as watershed area, slope, and percenf, sdnd ai'd gr gil ;I ;ershed. The USGS value for
August median stream flow in the Nashua River at the a use'• . am is 31 cfs (20 mgd).
Obviously there is a large difference between the amount of water required as a release in 1927
and the amount of water that is now recognized as necessary to protect the ecological integrity of
river communities.
Fortunately, we understand that a new outlet is now in place that allows the MWRA to release up to
155 cfs (100 mgd) from the Wachusett Reservoir to the Nashua River in a controlled manner.
According to the safe yield evaluations presented by MWRA in the Notice of Project Change, the
use of an additional 47 cfs (30 mgd) during the summer period (which could be roughly equated to
23 cfs (15 mgd) annually) results in an increase in the number of Stage I drought days from 4 to
about 8 days over the period of record (including Reading's current proposed water use). We
believe that this is an acceptable burden to users in exchange for the improved health of the
Nashua River. We would like to propose that the summer Aquatic Base Flow be required as an
interim measure under the Interbasin Transfer Act until a more thorough site-specific study of
habitat needs in the Nashua River can be completed..
Riverways appreciates the Town of Reading's long and arduous journey to come to the decision to
use MWRA water exclusively and we applaud the Town's good intentions to help restore more
natural stream flow in the Ipswich River. We hope that EOEA will also recognize in this project a
win-win opportunity to restore more natural flows to the Nashua River, which has suffered from
extreme low flows arguably even longer than the Ipswich River.
Kind regards,
Margaret Kearns, Watershed Ecologist
CC: Mark Tisa, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Todd Richards, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, c/o Michele Drury, DCR Office of Water Resources
251 Causeway Street - Suite 400 - Boston, Massachusetts 021.14 - www.massriverways.org - (617) 626-1540
Riverways Program, A Division of the Department of Fish and Game David M. Peters, Commissioner
i
. I . g
4`c- f3os
35 Washington Street
Reading, MA 01867
September 18, 2006
To the Reading Board of Selectmen:
My name is Lois Bell, and I have lived in Reading for 55 years. I love Reading and am
trying to stay here as a senior citizen on a fixed income.
I am all for "progress" and for improving the town especially if it will help reduce taxes,
but I am really upset about the Addison Wesley property. I have followed all the meetings very
closely and have come to the conclusion that I don't trust the developer. I won't repeat all the
reasons like traffic studies, unanswered questions, etc., because everyone has been over all the
reasons many times. I don't live anywhere near the site, but I can imagine what a shopping mall
would do to the neighbors who do. The beeping of trucks backing up at all hours and the odors
and hours from the restaurants (increase in number) will impact neighboring streets in addition to
South and Curtis. With only one entrance/exit, I'm sure you remember the traffic backups on
election day, and this was only Reading residents. The plan is good, but definitely not for this
site.
I would request for your consideration an aver-55 project for this site. I believe this
would have least impact on our schools and fire and police departments, not to mention traffic.
Thank you for the many hours of volunteer work you do for our community.
Respectfully,
Copy to CPDC 4`2~
g~
~j C 80'~
TRACKING OF
LEGAL SERVICES - FY 2007
Monthly
Hours
Month
Monthly
Monthly
Hours C
umulative
Available
Monthly
Monthlv
Hours
Hours
Used vs
Remainder
1
$
Allocated
Used
Allocated
of 112 vear
Allocated
Used
July
51.2
48.6
(2.60)
(2.60)
258.6
$6,667
$6,318
August
51.2
44.8
(6.40)
(9.00)
213.8
$6,667
$8,189
September
51.2
(51.20)
(60.20)
213.8
$6,667
October
51.2
(51.20)
(111.40)
213.8
$6,667
November
51.2
(51.20)
(162.60)
213.8
$6,667
December
51.2
(51.20)
(213.80)
213.8
$6,667
307.2
93.4
(213.80)
$40,002
$14,507
January
51.2
(51.20)
(265.00)
521,
$6,667
February
51.2
(51.20)
(316.20)
521
$6,667
March
51.2
(51.20)
(367.40)
521
$6,667
April
51.2
(51.20)
(418.60)
521
$6,667
May
51.2
(51.20)
(469.80)
521
$6,667
June
51.2
(51.20)
(521.00)
521
$6,667
Subtotal
307.2
0
$40,002
$0
Total
614.4 93.4 -521
$80,004 $14,507
Cumulative
Available
Cost
Remainder
Year
$6,318
$73,686
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$14,507
$65,497
$65,4971
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: ekochey [ekochey@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:03 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Fw: A Canton Ct resident speaks.
Original Message
From: "ekochey" <ekochey@sbcglobal.net>
To: <readingchronicle@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:20 PM
Subject: A Canton Ct resident speaks.
>I have just read with interest the letter from Nancy Usich of Avon
> Connecticut with her glowing picture of the "Shoppes At Farmington
> Valley"
> the Weiner development in Canton Connecticut.
> There are few Canton residents who have the same glowing feeling about the
> "Shoppes" It is not the unique charming little village that the
> developer
> convinced the people of Canton he was going to build. Except for the three
> big anchor stores which he claimed he needed later after he had approval
> for the property, the rest are primarily restaurants and stores of
> national chains catering to
> women. Some of them are stores who have relocated from other neighboring
> towns. They are not the mix of stores that can keep a shopping area going
> for a long time. It is attractive now with all its plantings but it will
> never compare to the golf course we lost.
> Shopping for some women is the female equivalent of hunting. We enjoy the
> novelty of new shopping areas for a time and trying out new restaurants.
> When the novelty wears off and we go somewhere else, stores begin to
> close.
> That is happening a few miles down the road in Avon as their shopping area
> that was once the place to go, no longer has that new feeling and is
> beginning to look a little seedy in places.
> Elsewhere in Connecticut,older shopping centers are going down hill
> rapidly
> as customers go elsewhere to try out the new "Shoppes" Meanwhile the
> developers have moved on, having used up all the tax breaks and other
> perks
> that towns give them to attract the tax revenue they are promised. The
> financial benefits rarely match the glowing promises.
> If you do approve the shopping village, make sure the developer really
> does
> what he says he will do. Don't buy his claims, if he comes back later and
> says he can't make a go of it financially without major changes. Make
> sure
> it is truly a good mix of shops not just clothing and shoe stores.
> Evcn Kochey
> Canton, Connecticut
g~
Water Rates
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:14 AM
To: 'Jacobs, Tod'
Cc: McIntire, Ted
Subject: RE: Water Rates
Tod
Page 1 of 2
~(C9CI
Thanks for your email. I'm referring this to the DPW Director to take up at a Water, Sewer, and Storm Water
Management Advisory Committee meeting, and asking him to let you know when that will be scheduled for
discussion so that you may attend.
There are a lot of issues regarding second water maters, and the use of the Ipswich River basin for water supply
was not really one of them as I recall - but I leave that discussion for the WSSWMAC.
Pete
From: Jacobs, Tod [mailto:Tod.Jacobs@fmr.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:05 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Water Rates
Mr. Town Manager,
I think that you should reconsider the town policy on water rates for 2nd water meters at private residences.
In the early 1990's the town of Reading had a policy that permitted residences to have a 2nd water meter used to
measure water used by sprinkler systems for lawn care. That 2nd water meter was billed a water rate (for water
used), but was NOT billed a sewer rate (because the water used went into the lawn and not into town sewers).
In the mid-1990's the town of Reading changed its policy and required that the water measured by the 2nd water
meters (the sprinkler system water) would be charged both a water AND a sewer rate. The explanation to
homeowners who had not been paying sewer rates on the 2nd water meters was that the increase in rates would
discourage outdoor water use and minimize the affects that were occurring to the Ipswich River.
A couple of things have now changed. The town of Reading is now obtaining water from MWRA (so the Ipswich
River is not a consideration any longer), and the town of Reading now has a• Storm Water Fee (so the town gets
paid for any outdoor water used that goes into town sewers).
Based on these two important changes, I request that you consider reinstating the policy that allows homeowners
with a 2nd water meter that is used only for lawn sprinklers to pay only water rates (not sewer rates) on water
used by the lawn sprinklers. The town water rates are now higher than ever, so it is now more important than ever
for homeowners to be given the opportunity for some relief.
Many other surrounding towns have this policy in affect (not charging sewer rates on water used by lawn
sprinklers). I request that Reading reinstate this same policy.
Please reply to inform me of your plans.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tod Jacobs
73 Fairchild Drive ~n
lam/
9/15/2006
Wc 6.05
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: Bryan OConnell [boc@deputycollector.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 7:48 AM
To: readingchronicle@comcast.net; reading@cnc.com; Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen
Subject: park square
To Whom It May Concern;
I am a principal partner at PKS Associates, 34 Salem St. here in Reading. The Park
Square proposal would be a great addition to the community by providing economic growth as
well as convenience to the residents and working class alike. I hope the upcoming
discussions and Town Meeting vote result in the execution of this project..
Sincerely,
Bryan O'Connell
PKS Associates
1
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter z1G e) vs
From: Sandibijou1@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:36 PM
To: noma1101867@comcast.net; Reading - Selectmen
Subject: C.A.R.E.
Being relatively new to the town of Reading, and not being politically involved, I was a little perplexed when I
received a flyer in the mail today regarding usage on the former Addison-Wesley/Pearson site.
First of all their are two (2) phone numbers on the flyer to call with concerns.
I called both phone numbers and neither had an answering machine. Is it this difficult to air a concern???
The second issue I have is as follows:
The flyer states the upcoming meetings are to be held on September 5, 7, respectively.
I received this flyer today on Septmember 11, 2006. Bulk mail may be cheaper but not very effective when the
mail is delivered at least 6 days after the first meeting is to be held.
I am not aware what the population is in Reading, but it is called the Town of Readina. 1 would personally like
to see it stay as a small town without all the traffic, noise, and new, large developements.
Marjie Patnaude
9/18/2006
Page 1 of 1
VC 6-bs
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: colleen o [oceanasea@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: No Mall
Please do not allow a mall to be built at Addison-Wesley. It would destroy any hope for a
downtown Reading.
How many stores do we need?
The Woburn Mall is half full. The Redstone mall is half full.
Why would this one be different?
Colleen O'Shaughnessy
56 Walnut Street
9/18/2006
~(C 6C,
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: lindgren-reid@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:54 AM
To: selectmen@ci.reading.ma.usA
Subject: Park Square at Reading
To the Selectmen:
I want to add my name to the list of those residents in favor of Park Square at Reading. I
believe it would be a positive addition to the town both to the tax base and for the type
of development that has been proposed.
I am not in favor of that site being used as high density housing. The huge development on
West Street is enough.
Thank you,
Nancy Reid
45 Linnea Lane
Reading, MA 01867
i P
Page 1 of 2
C/Cgt~
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Everson, Jeff Deverson@foster-miller.com]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:57 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: reading@cnc.com
Subject: FW: VARIABILITY: MALL TRIP GENERATION RATES
Attachments: mall feas let BOS.doc; mall feasibility question.doc
To all:
I would appreciate the courtesy of a formal written response to the letter below and the material
that I summarized at your Board of Selectmen meeting on Tuesday of this week. The basis of
that summary stems from the two attached documents that I previously sent to you.
You might want to frame your response along the following lines: (1) My calculations on mall trip
generation rates are in error and can be, therefore, dismissed, (2) These calculations are
correct but are inconsequential due to some overriding consideration or (3) My calculations and
conclusions are correct and deserve to be addressed by W/S Development, Edwards & Kelcey
and the Peer Reviewer (John Diaz). A logical extension of the third option is that there may be
embedded safety concerns in the developer's traffic study that could materialize in a legal
context.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force,
781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Everson, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 3:15 PM
To: Ben Tafoya
Subject: VARIABILITY: MALL TRIP GENERATION RATES
Ben,
Thank you once again for the position that you took during the meeting on August 9th regarding
the Mall at the Addison Wesley site. Your efforts on the Working Group are appreciated.
At the BOS meeting on September 5th, I summarized the cover letter and attached document
that I sent to you, other BOS members and members of the working group. The sum and
substance of my latest writing is that trip generations to the mall (i.e., a 400,000 sq. ft. mall) can
exceed the average trip generation by a factor of 2 (i.e., 1500 vehicles versus approximately
3000 vehicles, peak hour during a PM weekday). This exceedance can be expected to happen
9/18/2006
Page 2 of 2
20 percent of the time according to the ITE Handbook on Trip Generations, Land Use Code
820. At the rate of 3000 vehicles, one can expect to observe vehicles passing in and out of the
mall entrance at the rate of one vehicle every 1.6 seconds. This rate of vehicle passage would
need to be accommodated by the Level of Service afforded by the mall parking facilities.
Otherwise, traffic will back up in the parking facilities and/or overflow the entrance into the mall.
The developer's traffic study did not account for all the information afforded by the data given in
Land Use Code 820 (i.e., both the average trip generation and its standard deviation). This
omission by the developer could lead to a seriously degraded intersection at Main and South
Streets.
The Working Group offered two requirements on the subject of traffic. These are:
o Keep Level of Service (LOS) as high as practical
o Require a follow-up traffic study and mitigation if there are unanticipated problems
identified by the study
My latest findings indicate that the LOS will not be as high as possible at least 20 percent of the
time. The LOS of service could be improved, if, for example, vehicle sensors and adaptive
signal algorithms were employed as part of a redesigned signalized intersection at Main and
South Streets. However, the developer failed to provide that capability.
Has the Working Group ever considered the subject of trip generation variability and what to do
about it? You folks on the BOS might want to consider a public meeting so that the developer
can address his technical omissions. If he is not held accountable and Town Meeting approves
the rezoning of the Addison Wesley property, then we what do "we" do about that 20 percent?
Regards,
Jeff Everson
9/18/2006
S5_)/,
Page 1 of 1
Z/&ets-
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From: andreagarb@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:14 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Community Walk
Dear Board of Selectmen,
I would like to request that the Board does- a community walk on the west side of town similar to the one
planned next weekend in the high school area. It would be a great opportunity to speak with the
residents about the proposed mall, and get a look at the neighborhoods that will be negatively impacted,
primarily by traffic, if this were to pass. I hope that by walking our streets, speaking to neighbors and
seeing the proximity of the schools and parks to this site, the Board will have a more complete view
with which to draw its conclusions.
I would also like to know what became of the list of unanswered questions from the recent meeting
where the developer unveiled its latest proposal. I did not hear this mentioned at either the BOS meeting
or last night's Working Group meeting. Mr. Bonazoli stated that he would get back to S.R. Weiner with
a complete list of what they claimed they could not answer and the developer's agents were due to
respond. Among these items were traffic, crime statistics and number of parking spots. I would like to
know if this has been done yet as it would seem to be an incremental part of any future decision. I have
a list if needed and will be happy to submit it to the Board.
I am also interested in the financial analysis that Mr. Bonanzoli stated the town was "working on" when
questioned by a resident during public comment at Tuesday night's BOS meeting. I have made similar
requests since June and have offered the services of both my husband and myself who are/were financial
professionals. We have put our own analysis together while waiting for the Town's. I would like to
know the level at which this analysis is currently being performed and by whom. Also, where and when
can residents obtain a copy of the results?
Thank you very much for your time and attention to this critical issue facing the town of Reading and its
future. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. I would like to organize the walk
through the west side neighborhoods for any members interested.
Andrea Garbarino
V
9/18/2006
Page 1 of 2
yc 9 a-S-
Hechenbleikner, Peter '
From: bonazoli@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:40 AM
To: andreagarb@comcast.net; Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Re: Community Walk
Hello Andrea
I think having a community walk up that way is a great idea. Hopefully we can schedule that sooner
rather than later. Peter is this'something we can schedule in October?
For the questions to the developer, to my knowledge we have not put a packet together for the developer
with the outstanding questions. As I did not catch all of them I look to Peter's help in pulling them
together.
As for the comment Tuesday night I believe there is a little confusion. My statement of "we are working
on it" was to the couple asking the town to look at the traffic and what the AW project would create.
Obviously I was not clear as I meant the town is working on it through the efforts of the AW working
group.
Thanks - have a nice weekend
James Bonazoli
Original message
From: andreagarb@comcast.net
Dear Board of Selectmen,
I would like to request that the Board does a community walk on the west side of town similar to
the one planned next weekend in the high school area. It would be a great opportunity to speak
with the residents about the proposed mall, and get a look at the neighborhoods that will be
negatively impacted, primarily by traffic, if this were to pass. I hope that by walking our streets,
speaking to neighbors and seeing the proximity of the schools and parks to this site, the Board
will have a more complete view with which to draw its conclusions.
I would also like to know what became of the list of unanswered questions from the recent
meeting where the developer unveiled its latest proposal. I did not hear this mentioned at either
the BOS meeting or last night's Working Group meeting. Mr. Bonazoli stated that he would get
back to S.R. Weiner with a complete list of what they claimed they could not answer and the
developer's agents were due to respond. Among these items were traffic, crime statistics and
number of parking spots. I would like to know if this has been done yet as it would seem to be
an incremental part of any future decision. I have a list if needed and will be happy to submit it
to the Board.
I am also interested in the financial analysis that Mr. Bonanzoli stated the town was "working
on" when questioned by a resident during public comment at Tuesday night's BOS meeting. I
have made similar requests since June and have offered the services of both my husband and
S
9/18/2006
Page 2 of 2
myself who are/were financial professionals. We have put our own analysis together while
waiting for the Town's. I would like to know the level at which this analysis is currently being
performed and by whom. Also, where and when can residents obtain a copy of the results?
Thank you very much for your time and attention to this critical issue facing the town of
Reading and its future. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. I would like
to organize the walk through the west side neighborhoods for any members interested.
Andrea Garbarino
gsa
9/18/2006
Page 1 of 1
yC- gas
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From:
aiko [aikoblair@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Friday, September 15, 2006 3:13 PM
To:
readingchronicle@comcast.net
Cc:
reading@cnc.com; Reading - Selectmen; Jane Latus
Subject:
S.R. Weiner Development
Attachments: 2160513839-Reading, MA.doc
Please see attached document regarding the S.R. Weiner proposed development in
Reading.
Regards,
Trish Z. Blair
NAMASTE
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
9 -
9/18/2006
Dear Residents of Reading, MA;
I write this in response to Nancy Usich's article on August 30th'in your newspaper regarding the
possible shopping development in Reading, MA. I am a Canton resident and a local business
owner. In other words you will be getting a view point from a closely affected person to an S.R.
Weiner development.
As a resident I was opposed to the proposed shopping mall (The Shoppes at Farmington Valley).
My opposition was that it would take away all of the beautiful green land, that it's Big Box
stores would ruin local businesses that built the town's character and provide incomparable
customer service, that it would be an eyesore to the town's landscape and finally that the entire
development's square footage was growing and growing with each town planning meeting. It
was spinning wildly out of control. Unfortunately small towns just do not have their town boards
set up to handle the huge developers from doing exactly what they want the way they want it.
Thanks to the support of Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion (C.A.R.E.), which I am a
proud advocate of, we are now putting those planning commissions into place (a little too late
for the old Canton Golf Course). I must say I always wanted there to be more shopping in my
area and many of the stores The Shoppes brought in I've enjoyed. However now that it is done
here is the reality of the negative effects this development has had:
1. All the existing local businesses' garbage removal increased by about $120 per
month/$1440 per year for a "garbage transfer fee" which the town previously paid for
(multiply that by all the businesses in town). Canton can no longer include that in their
budget because of all the added trash expense The Shoppes rubbish added to the transfer
fee.
2. The high scale shopping that the developers presented at the start of their campaign have
been shadowed by the low end Big Box stores not originally in the plan which they
insisted needed to be added (adding 60,000 square feet to the already once, twice [who
remembers] expanded footprint) in order to draw the stores they needed to fill all the
leases. The developers basically had their intimidating lawyers make the town think it
would be an empty lot of buildings if they didn't approve the expansion.
3. The beautiful landscape is ruined. Yes, the shops look lovely from the inside of the
development; however, from the road all we see is the backs of the buildings, electrical
boxes & dumpsters. It looks like a typical shopping strip, nothing like the developer
described. They did a wonderful job distracting our attention from how it would look
from the road by describing in extensive detail the inner area.
4. Traffic, yes it most definitely has affected this Rt.44 Canton section, I know I drive
through it each day I go to work.
5. Did it lower our taxes, absolutely not! Do some research and see what the Big Box stores
negotiate regarding their taxes when they sign the lease.
6. I have spoken to many residents in the nearby area and the light pollution is horrible.
They no longer can see the stars at night in their own backyard as they once had.
7. Additional police were needed to direct traffic during the Holiday shopping and traffic
was so backed up that many businesses outside the plaza were not visited during this
prime retail season.
8. When we requested a stop light to help the safety of entering and exiting our shop the
town told us someone had to die to get a stop light. Just last week I witnessed a car flip
over onto our lawn as a driver was waved into our entrance and got directly hit by on
oncoming car. Thank goodness she did not die. No light I guess. 2
I would like you to know that I personally believe my business has gained from this
development. My sales have gone up with help of the increased traffic among other things. I
wouldn't want anyone reading this to think I am a bitter business owner, which is simply not the
case.
Thank you for this opportunity to express only some of the important points that the town of
Reading should know. Educating yourselves is the most important thing to do right now.
C.A.R.E. has some excellent resources, httD://www.cantoncare.orv,/.
Regards,
Trish Z. Blair
Canton Resident and Business Owner
P.S. By the way the red barn is not very proud, it is standing isolated, empty and in the far back
of The Shoppes. A Canton Historical building that was saved by the developers? I think not.
9 P3
Page 1 of 1
41G 3vS
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From:
fft [fft@comcast.net]
Sent:
Sunday, September 17, 2006 12:39 AM
To:
reading@cnc.com; readingchronicle@comcast.net
Cc:
Reading - Selectmen
Subject:
Addison-Wesley property development
Attachmen
ts: Dear editor.doc .
Dear Editors and Reading Board of Selectmen,
Attached you will find my thoughts regarding the proposed re-development of the former Addison-Wesley site.
Sincerely,
Frank Touserkani
Precinct 3
qj~ i k
9/18/2006
Dear Editor,
As a Reading resident for over 23 -years, I can say that Addison Wesley was a good neighbor for
years when they resided on Jacob Way and they minimally impacted the town services and
surrounding/adjacent neighborhoods (traffic, fire, police etc...). There were never any bottlenecks
entering the site. The only impact was to the employees of Addison Wesley themselves when leaving
the site in the evenings, and they had that addressed by a police officer detail on Main Street to get the
people out of the site efficiently.
I can only imagine what the traffic would be when shoppers enter and exit the site simultaneously all
day, everyday via a single access roadway. In all their traffic studies, the developer S.R. Weiner claim
that they have addressed all the traffic concerns raised by Reading residents and at all the working
group meetings, and they could manage the traffic and make it work, but someone needs to explain to
us why Wayside Commons Lifestyle Center, which recently opened in Burlington, has four (4)
entrances to a site that is 180,000 sq. ft. (approximately half the size of the proposed retail
development here). Actually, the proposed development not only is twice as large the one in
Burlington, but also includes another 140,000 sq. ft. of residential component that no one is talking
about it yet.
You can throw all the developers traffic studies away and fire all the traffic engineers, for basing their
studies on false traffic models to make it appealing to our town. They should be basing their studies on
realistic models. For instance, leaving my house at 9:00 AM this past Friday morning, I could not get to
work in Burlington, as 1-95/Route 128 south bound was backed up all the way to Lynnfield, due to
grand opening of L.L. Bean store in Wayside Commons. While this is goodness for retailers, it is a
commuter nightmare. Even multiple exit ramps on a major interchange, could not handle the additional
traffic load.
Another point to observe is that this year's primary election voting location would not be at the
traditional Addison Wesley site, and instead it will be at Walker Brook drive. I would assume that the
developer did not want the whole Town to witness another live and realistic traffic fiasco, similar to the
previous elections days. If I were the developer, I would have asked the Town to hold the election on
the Pearson property and based their traffic studies on the "real" data, and see if there are any ways
that they could mitigate the #1 issue here, traffic.
Pearson Education (www.cearsoned.com) is the global leader in educational and professional
publishing, and part of Pearson (NYSE: PSO) with over 11 billion (with a "B") dollars market
capitalization. Do they really need the extra millions (with an "M") from maximizing the sale price tag of
this property, and devastate this town prior to their departure? Pearson could let the town decide who
would be the future purchaser and developer for this property, based on what makes sense for re-
development of this property.
We all know that the site is going to be re-developed and something is going to go there, not to
mention the additional income to the town, which I am sure they'll find a way to spend it. Does it have
to be a mall though? Do we really need to add to the congestion of 1-95/1-93 corridor gridlock? Why
can't it be an assisted living, over 55 housing, or simply mixed use office/hotel complexes which was
recently re-zoned for? And please don't threaten us with another 408, our town officials have done a
great job adding to the 10% affordable housing stock year after year.
Sincerely,
Frank Touserkani
Precinct 3
0
Page 1 of 1
G/C9IJ
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Halloran, Michelle
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Cormier, Jim
Subject: Leased parking
Attachments: Parking Lottery List.xis
Sirs-
Attached is the final list of all people that put in for the lottery. I listed the number of spaces they had
requested, and the number of spaces they won.
`7
1\2
All winners have received notification of how many spots they won,'their specific space numbers, and billing
information.
Have a good day-
Michelle #64
V
9/18/2006
Hiah Street
M
Number. of
of Spaces spaces
Company
wanted
won
Address
WGBH
2
1 2
12 Haven Street
107 Woburn
Dowd Medical
18
15
Street
American Diabetes
Association-Northern
(
2 Haven Street
Division
I 1
1
#302
30 Haven
Atlantic Food Mart
1
1
Street
30 Haven
Atlantic Food Mart
1
1
Street
30 Haven
Atlantic Food Mart
1
1
Street
30 Haven
Atlantic Food Mart
1
1
Street
30 Haven
Atlantic Food Mart
I 1
1
Street
Advancian Realty
( 3
( 3
Haven Street
20-22 Woburn
DP Capital
5
5
Street
2 Haven Street
MA Dental Care
2
2
#303
MG Hall
35
12
2 Haven Street
Capital Mortgage
5
5
59 High Street
76
50
Senior Center
Imum
ue
Number of
of Spaces spaces
Company
(wanted won
Sense of Wonder
( 1
1
Middlesex Animal
Hospital
3
2
Danvers Bank
6
2
Ruff 'n Ready
1
0
Reading Trophy & Shirt
I
6
0
Cathy's Nail's
3
0
Family Dental
2
0
Walgreens
5
0
27 I
5
Address
622 Main Street
Main Street
Harnden Street
664 Main Street
Rear
660 Main Street
644 Main Street
636 Main Street
Hamden Street
~~a
September 19, 2006
Effective September 19, 2006, I, Robert Cusolito am resigning
from the Reading Board of Registers.
Sincerely,
Robert CusolitJ ~l
G SUS
~a~ r
S S.
MID
Page 1 of 1
L (c- Sc)
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: bonazoli@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:38 AM
To: Brian Sciera; Dick Marks; Brad Latham; Bill Griset
Cc: Goldy, Stephen; Anthony, Camille; Schubert, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Tafoya,
Ben; Schena, Paula
Subject: questions from August 9th AWWG
Weiner team
Based on a recent email and articles in the local paper there are still outstanding questions that need to
be answered. I believe I was to get them to you so excuse my request for a quick turn around but I need
the answers by Friday morning in order to get into the Selectmen's packet.
Here are the questions I have from my notes and the minutes. If anyone has others or I am missing any
please send them by tomorrow. Otherwise consider this a complete list.
* Crime rate / Statistics for Hingham
* Based on current proposal how many parking spaces are there.
* Would they be willing to work with the state on additional access and if yes is there a logical spot on
the property to locate it?,
There was much talk and questions about traffic but I believe the conclusion there is an expanded study
needs to be performed from the 128 ramps to Summer Ave.
That is all I have, if there are others please send them.
Thank you
James
9/20/2006
Page 1 of 1
4-/C
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: colleen o [oceanasea@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: No Mall
Please do not allow a mall to be built at Addison-Wesley. It would destroy any hope for a
downtown Reading.
How many stores do we need?
The Woburn Mall is half full. The Redstone mall is half full.
Why would this one be different?
Colleen O'Shaughnessy
56 Walnut Street
a~.
9/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
`/c Bas
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From: Donna_Tucker@CarpenterAndPaterson.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:01 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: nomall01867@comcast.net
Subject: I support Reading Care on no Mall
After reading the letter I received in the mail from Reading C.A.R.E in regards to the proposed Mall at the
Addison--Wesley site,
I would like to say that I support all that they are doing to keep Reading from putting in a Mall.
I love my town and I am very proud to say I live in Reading. I have lived in Reading since 1962 All of my
children have attended Reading Schools one is currently a teacher in Reading for the last 6 years and one
works in an office in Reading.
I live off of Pearl Street and find that Reading Square already has its share of traffic. Just trying to make
my way across the square heading towards Woburn can take time due to the traffic lights and traffic in
general.
Please think of our community and say not to the Mall proposal...
Thank You,
Donna and Larry Tucker
68 Orange Street
Reading Ma
9/19/2006
L/c_ gas
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: Paul Millett P.E. [paulm@watermarkenv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:40 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Park Square Development Concerns
Attachments: Letter to Reading Chronicle Sept 12 2006.doc
Dear Members of the Board of Selectmen:
I am attaching a letter regarding concerns I have with the Park Square Development. I appreciate the continued
and careful attention that the Board has expressed with this project, and your concerns with the magnitude of the
impacts that this development could have on our community.
Please consider the content of my letter as you evaluate the merits of this development.
Please contact me at 944 8417 with any questions.
FYI. I also sent this letter to the Advocate and the Chronicle.
Regards,
Paul Millett
25 Fairview Avenue
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Millett P.E. [mailto:paulm@watermarkenv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:23 PM
To: 'reading@cnc.com'; 'readingchronicle@comcast.net'
Subject: Park Square Development Concerns
To the Editors:
Please consider publishing my letter concerning the many unresolved technical questions with this development.
They range from traffic to stormwater issues.
I am a civil engineer with over 20 years of experience and have grave concerns about this development.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Paul Millett, PE
25 Fairview Avenue
Reading
944 9417
Watermark Environmental Inc.
Boott Mills South
100 Foot of John Street, 4th Floor
Lowell, MA 01852
www.watermarkenv.com
Tel. (978) 452 9696 J
9/19/2006 Fax: (978) 453 9988
25 Fairview Avenue
Reading, MA 01867
September 12, 2006
Editor
Reading Chronicle
Re: AWP Development - Engineering Reality Meets Conceptual Dreams
After 6 months of meetings, presentations, and working group sessions, the site plan presented at
the August meeting is really a slap in the face to the sincere efforts of the working group,
selectmen, and members of the community who have taken the time to provide meaningful input
to this project. How much faith can we have in this developer if they continue not to listen?
How clear can the direction from the community be?
I attended the August 9"' presentation from the developer, where the revised site plan and store
layout were presented. The developer stated that "over 95%" of the working group's comments
had been incorporated into the revised design, and that only a few minor issues remained to be
resolved. As many of you are aware, after much comment from the public, the meeting
concluded with two members of the Board of the Selectmen expressing their displeasure with the
developer's revised site plan and its blatant disregard for the content of the working group's
document.
I have been following this project for the past year by watching the public meetings and working
group sessions on RCTV and have read the traffic reports via the town's web site. I attended the
CPDC public hearing in March at the High School and spoke candidly about the lack of solid data
and engineering analysis to support the project's infrastructure. Specifically, I detailed concerns
about "real engineering" issues such as traffic, water supply, wastewater disposal and stormwater.
I concluded by stating to the CPDC that in simple terms, there were too many unresolved,
complex technical issues with this development to reach an objective conclusion, and that I could
not see how the CPDC could reach a informed and defendable recommendation on the merits of
this project without significant additional analysis.
How much progress has really been made since March? Candidly, not much. The guidance
provided in the Working Group document and endorsed by the Board of Selectmen, was written
in plain, simple English. I applaud the efforts of the working group, as this cooperative process
should have commenced about one year ago if the developer was truly committed to consensus-
building and community involvement.
I strongly encourage members of the community to take 15 minutes and printout the working
group's guidance document from the town's web page. Then sit back and ask yourself if the
August 9s' revised site plan truly reflects the content and guidance contained in the document. If
you haven't yet taken the time to do this, it will probably be the best 15 minutes investment you
can make to educate yourself about this project.
The only engineering aspect of this project that has been given cursory attention appears to be the
traffic analysis, which is still incomplete. The developer touted the "significant" improvements
that the revised design provided, as portrayed in the supplemental traffic analysis completed in
V~,v " 1
November of 2005. I pointed out at the CPDC hearing that in simple layman terms, there really
is no significant improvement. Using the developer's own report and numbers, (see page 8 of the
Supplemental Traffic Study, Table 1 LOS Summaries), the level of service at the intersection is
still a grade "C". How can this be significantly better than the original (August 2005) traffic
study's grade "C". Is this modified Chicago Math?
At previous meetings, the developer acknowledged the concerns of the community and stated that
the design team would revise the plans to "scale back" the project, and tackle some of the real
thorny issues. However, the site plan presented on August 9 showed no meaningful attempts to
scale back the project's footprint. The same fundamental engineering questions remain
unanswered.
Traffic Analysis
The traffic analysis that I have seen is based on some narrow assumptions. Even with the
developer's so-called "improved redesign" of the intersection, the traffic analysis in his report still
gets a C/D grade. In addition, this conclusion hinges on a very narrow assumption - all traffic
simulation analysis is based on 80% of the traffic coming from 128/95, and 20% from local
streets. I saw no technical justification for this key 80/20 split in the traffic reports. Are you
aware of any justification? The C/D grade will fall to a D/E grade on heavy shopping holiday,
and I don't just mean on one day such as the Friday after Thanksgiving. Try the broader
Christmas Holiday season, or any major shopping weekend.
Every traffic engineer's nightmare is how to make a large volume of traffic make a Left Turn-this
is precisely the problem here. All traffic from 128/95 needs to get in the left lane of 28N quickly
and try to make the left turn to get into the site-a major problem. For comparison, consider how
much easier it is to enter the Walker Brook site because you are making a Right Turn off North
Avenue from 128/95 (and you have two entrances).
I don't think people can truly appreciate the volume of traffic that the developer projects for this
project. Can you appreciate what 16,500 vehicle trips on a Saturday or Sunday looks like? Or
what over 20,000 vehicle trips on a busy shopping holiday looks like? And most of them need to
make the dreaded left turn to enter the property! Moreover, emergency vehicle access to a site
with one common entrance and exit is extremely concerning, will be very difficult, and will
compromise life safety responses.
Additional analysis is needed for other potential traffic split scenarios-70/30; 65/35 etc. People
from Wilmington, North Reading and Wakefield will likely take West Street to Oak Street to
Summer Avenue to Main Street, or Route 129 to Main Street (or North Avenue from Wakefield)
and travel up Main Street. With a 70/30 split - i.e. 30% of vehicles from local streets, you can
expect significantly more traffic. You cannot widen Main Street to add a lane from say Hopkins
Street up to South Street - there's no room to add a lane due to the businesses on the right side.
You will quickly see that the local streets will be surcharged. And let's be candid about South
Street - it is one or the narrowest two-way streets in town.
I think the traffic analysis needs to be continued by the developer to assess the 70/30; 65/35
scenarios, and to predict the flow on other shopping holidays. In addition, the limitations of the
intersection's capacity to handle traffic need to be candidly stated, under these various scenarios.
t~' L7
I
2
At the August 9 meeting, the developer presented a traffic graph with LOS plotted against square
feet of retail space. The LOS line was essentially a flat line. The intent of this graph was
presumably to show that the traffic impacts are manageable at an LOS of grade "C" whether the
mall contains 100,000 or 400,000 sf of retail. The simple conclusion that one might innocently
make from this graph is that whether we have a small, medium, large of super-size mall, the traffic
impacts are the same, thereby justifying the 400,000 sf option. However, it was unclear what
traffic conditions this graph was reflecting. -Are we to believe that regardless of mall size, the
traffic impacts will be indistinguishable?
Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Issues
Where will all the stormwater go? The recent May rainy season should provide a flavor and
accurate visual aid for what stormwater runoff looks like. Reading received over 6-inches of rain
over the Mother's Day weekend. Given the vast, hard impermeable surface of the parking lots
and roof tops, an extensive stormwater collection, treatment and conveyance system will be
required. For example, assume that the most recent site plan contains approximately 18 acres of
hard space (roads, parking lots, buildings, etc) out of the 24 acres available at this site. Even with
a moderate rain storm with 1-inch of rainwater falling over 18 acres, approximately 490,000
gallons of stormwater will generated. The developer mentioned at the August presentation that
the design for the stormwater system has NOT yet started, but he expects this will be handled
with on-site infiltration. Somehow, almost 500,000gallons of water will magically soak into
the ground-and this is with just 1-inch ofrainfaff Imagine what will happen with heavier
rains.
How much water will this project require on an average day, maximum day and peak hour basis?
Can the existing water system support these demands? What piping improvements are necessary
on South, Walnut and Main Street? How much wastewater will the project generate? I heard
rumbling about the insufficient capacity of the sewer on South Street and the likely need to
replace the pipe and the Sturges Park pump station - which means construction all the way down
South Street.
On a broader note, I am convinced that this development will also take away from the downtown
revitalization plan. Providing a shuttle bus from the mall to the downtown area is a token gesture
to the downtown merchants who have committed to stay in town. Is the revenue benefit really
worth the headaches that this development will create? On an average household basis, if we save
say $150-$200 per year on our taxes (and I haven't seen any hard numbers that tell us what we will
"save"), is this marginal savings worth it?
This site is completely different than the Walker's Brook site. The traffic flow patterns are
fundamentally different (right turn versus left turn), and more tolerable. Development at that site
solved a twenty year old landfill problem owned by the town. Through a cooperative developer-
town approach during the planning and design phases, a win-win situation was realized.
I would like to see some careful development at this site, appropriate for the site, the
neighborhood and community, and consistent with the town's master plan. An over-55
retirement community is one option that would have considerably less impacts on traffic patterns,
the town's infrastructure, and the neighborhood. The SR Weiner proposal was (and continues to
be) too big, too invasive and has too many major traffic, water, wastewater and stormwater
W
3
J
impacts which have not been fully presented, not candidly disclosed. The traffic analysis hinges
on some narrow and potentially misleading assumptions.
The input from the working group and Board of Selectmen has clearly not been taken seriously, as
demonstrated by the August 9`s revised site plan. How much longer can we tolerate this charade?
Let's move away from glossy graphics that have been presented to date for this upscale
development and get to the heart of the real issues that this site presents. We may then be able to
evaluate this project in a truly objective and informed manner.
Paul Millett
~S
L/c gas
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From:
Paula G [pmgentile@gmail.com]
Sent:
Friday, September 15, 2006 12:26 PM
To:
reading@cnc.com; readingchronicle@comcast.net; RNRChamberCom@aol.com;
Rep.PatrickNatale@hou.state.ma.us
Cc:
Ben; Town Manager
Subject:
Remember what we once were, what we can be
Attachments: blocked traffic on'south street-3.JPG
U00
blocked traffic
on south stree...
September 15, 2006
Dear Sir(s),
After all this time, and after all of the working group meetings, I want you all to know
my family (who have lived here for years) continues to oppose the proposed "Lifestyle
Center" mall project.
Many of my neighbors remain opposed to it as well.
It is so sad that people feel the need for materialism, the need for status, and the need
to aimlessly drive for more complexity in their lives. I find it sad that even some
children of this town are being manipulated into campaigning for the proposed mall. Where
have our priorities gone? What are we teaching them?
Do we want kids hanging out at malls late at night?
In any town, as prestigious as it may be, we all must remember what is truly Important.in
our lives. I can tell you, this mall is NOT it.
Those of us against the mall want simplicity back in our town again.
Perhaps a refresher of simplicity is in order:
"Simplicity is the property, condition, or quality of being simple It often
denotes beauty, purity or clarity...
The opposite of simplicity is complexity.... Chaos..."
This simple vision was Reading once. "Tree town USA." Then slowly
over the years it started to all go. Empty storefronts, empty retail buildings and box.
stores started to appear. The thickets of trees slowly began to fade. The farms
disappeared. Giant marketing lights started to shine through people's windows. Shop
here! Shop here! Buy this! Buy that!
Where have our priorities gone?
This proposed issue must stop wasting the Town of Reading's precious time. Let us focus
on the proper economic development and preservation of Reading.
Please, if you care about the Town of Reading, about having a town not overdeveloped by
complex projects that will destroy neighborhoods, you will join us all and remain opposed
to this Mall.
Remember this property was never designed for retail. It is designed for commercial.
There are STILL lots of commercial options that won't destroy our town.
Thanks for listening.
Paula Gentile and Family
3,X P,
1
Hechenblefter, Peter y
From: vpolitano@verizon.net
Sent: Monday, September 18, 200610:49 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: nomai101867@comcast.net
Dear Reading Selectmen,
I have been trying•to stay on top of the proposed mall at the Addison-Wesley/Pearson site.
I am a.supporter of C.A.R.E.
As I read the newspaper articles from both sides, I do not agree with. the supports for the
mall, and I. do see any positive justifications for it. Their theories are flawed in
thinking that the mall will clean up main street, bring $1M in tax dollars to Reading and
create jobs is outweighed by the traffic, crime and trash along Main street that will
litter that section of Reading with plastic bags, food wrappers and bottles, cans and
coffee cups. We do not need a Mall in this town, nor does this area. I don't see how Main
Street will be cleaned up and transformed into anything better then it already is, in fact
it. will.get trashed.
I read in one letter from a supporter about what a convenience and pleasure it is for them
going to the Home Depot, that's great, but Walkers Brook has a small amount of.stores and
has a big entrance and easy access to 128, that is the not.the case at the proposed new
mall. Walkers Brook has about 7 stores, medium sized restaurants, and a bank. The amount
of stores and the layout/density is far less then the volume of traffic the roadway will
handle. We can't compare the 2 sites.
There is a lot of focus put on the intersection of 128 and 28 (Main St). I do agree that
the traffic will not.be supported, regardless of what the developer proposes. But I also
feel that we are forgetting about the traffic coming from the west on Main Street. If you
think about it, the proximity and amount of shopping malls and small strip malls south of
Reading along 128, east bound on 28 in Stoneham, and on Route 1, which is 10 to 15 minutes
north of Reading just off of 128, and possibly the new Mall that may go in at the Colonial
site, the proposed mall will have a lot of competition, people will have lots of options
for shopping. But towns west do not have the same amount of shopping mall and store
density. So my concern is that the volume coming from the.west on Main Street is not being
considered. I would invite you to take a ride through the center on Saturday morning, see
what a mess it is, witness what the traffic is like. _I invite you to drive up Salem Street
(RT 129) starting from the Registry of Motor Vehicles heading toward the center in the
morning, between the hours of 7:30am and 9:00 am. And sit in traffic for 10 to 15 minutes
when it would only take about a minute. I also invite you to hang out on Arrow circle, a
cul-de-sac off of Salem Street for an hour or 2, and count the number of vehicles that
turn around, and if you where to ask these drivers what they are looking for, they will
most likely tell you Jordan's Furniture. Prior to Walkers Brook, Arrow circle was quiet,
and I would not have any worries with the kids riding and playing on the street. Now we
can't have that, because of the cars whipping around because they can't find Jordan's.
Do we need more of this in the town?
Other concerns I have is:
1. Guarantee by the developer of the stores they are promising, and the commitment by
those corporations that they will go in when the mall is completed, and that they will
stay.
2. Crime
3. Stress on town services, the
of personnel, and responses.
4. Safety
5. Traffic that will not only be
mall and to gas station on 28
6. Traffic in and out of the gas
site, Exxon, Shell, and Mobil
tax revenue will be eaten up quickly with the addition
generated by mall goers, but by delivery trucks to the
stations that are very close to the proposed mall
I ask you to do the right thing for the town, and the people of Reading. We have a
beautiful town, and year by year I see changes drastically changing this town forever in a
negative way. There will be other opportunities for the Addison/Wesley site, why take the
first offer.
Thank you
Vito Politano
g~c
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: tunacat@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:35 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager
Subject: Letter to BOS
Attachments: BOSletter.doc; Deviations.doc
BOSletter.doc
Deviations.doc
(662 B)
(37 KB)
1~`~21
To the Board of Selectmen:
Attached is a Letter to the BOS and an additional document mentioned in the letter. Thank
you for taking the time to read these.
Angela Binda
1
u
G~
21 September 2006
Board of Selectmen
Town Hail
Reading, Massachusetts
Dear Selectmen:
I am writing to request that the Board of Selectmen send the clear and strong message to
W/S Development and Pearson Education that the current development proposal for the
Addison-Wesley/Pearson site (as presented at the 8/9 AWWG meeting) is inappropriate
for the town of Reading and does not receive the approval of the BOS.
As written in the 7/11 (Final) Report of the AWWG, the last "Mission of the Working
Group" was "to evaluate the property owner's/developer's response and recommend to
the Board of Selectmen whether the community should move forward with re-zoning of.
the site (p.2)." While re-zoning of this property is most likely inevitable, and re-
development will occur on this property, the BOS must make it clear to the town and
developer that W/S Development did not meet the most significant priorities of the town
and fell far short of the goals and items presented in the Final Report of the AWWG.
The AWWG appeared unable to make these stronger statements in its final
recommendation to the BOS (the wording of which, to date, has not been finalized),
because it had not yet received any response in writing from W/S Development and
questions asked of the developer at the 8/9 meeting had not been answered. But let us
not forget the AWWG members' reaction to the proposal when it was presented, and let
that clear message of disapproval and disappointment stand for itself.
The following are important items of the document and proposal to consider:
W/S Development's current proposal includes 320,000 sq. ft. of retail space. The
average range of allowable retail use in the AWWG report is 188,750 to 235,000 sq. ft.
The report lists the most important items in determining the amount of retail use
permitted to be, in order of importance: traffic generation and other traffic congestion;
neighborhood impact and physical scale; net cost/financial impact to the Town (p. 5
The developer's sole justification for the amount of retail was that it was "financially
feasible" for them; a much lower priority for the town. However, the developers have
never stated what constitutes "financial feasibility", what they consider a fair profit
margin, what they expect their profit to be, or any documentation to support the claim
that 320,000 sq. ft. is as low as they can go. W/S Development's proposal failed to
respond to the Report's criteria to determine amount of retail use, and the developers
stated during their presentation that they were not prepared to talk about traffic.
At one AWWG meeting, CPDC Chair John Sasso stated that the most important data
that he had seen to determine the amount of retail space to be allowed was a lifestyle
mall density comparison researched and presented by AWWG member Nick Safma.
The chart showed the W/S Development's proposal to be far denser than comparable
developments, and would be the densest lifestyle mall in the northeast if it were built.
8
W/S Development's proposal failed to meet the condition that there be only one 31,500
sq. ft. anchor, in addition to the 63,000 sq. ft grocery store anchor they have planned.
Their current proposal calls for at least two additional anchor stores (p. 6). (When W/S
Development first presented its vision for Park Square to the CPDC in January 2005,
they touted "Lifestyles Centers" as being very different from traditional malls, a main
reason being the focus on small stores and the lack of anchor stores.)
The AWWG requested, through its document, that housing be used as transition
between abutters and retail space, that 20% be affordable so that it counts as part of the
town's affordable housing stock, with rental units being preferable, and specified 40 and
55 ft. height limits for different areas of the property (p. 6, 8). Included in the proposal
is housing that would add to the town's affordable housing need, not alleviate it. The
developers also stated that the housing units would not be rental and the housing portion
of the project would "probably not" comply with the height restriction.
The report limits the number of restaurants to 3 (p. 6), yet the proposal shows 4, and the
developers have stated they would prefer 5 or 6. A complete chart showing the
deviations in the W/S Development plan from the AWWG Report was compiled by
Marianne Downing and is attached.
An AWWG member suggested, at the final meeting, that W/S Development be allowed
a "do over" as their presentation was met with disapproval. For those of us who have
attended not 6 or 7 meetings over the course of a summer, instead more like 20+
meetings over the course of nearly two years, the suggestions that the developer be
given just one more chance, and that they would try to work with us if they only knew
what we wanted, is completely infuriating and downright insulting.
NO FURTHER STUDIES ARE NEEDED AT THIS POINT, AS IT HAS ALREADY
BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS IS THE WRONG PROJECT FOR THIS
PROPERTY.
At the final meeting of the AWWG, the possibility of commissioning several studies
was discussed, an expanded traffic study and a financial feasibility study to verify the
developer's claims. There is no need for these studies at this time, and additional
studies would not add anything significant and would just delay the process of fording
an appropriate developer and project for this property. An expanded traffic study should
be done after an appropriate project has been presented, development at the Tambone
property has been determined, and plans for the 93/128 interchange can be considered.
According to the AWWG Report, the two financial studies are to be done "when there is
a specific proposal before the Town that meets the other criteria of this document"
(p.11). The purpose of the consultant's work is to determine fair mitigation and true
financial impact, positive and negative, on the town. The Report states:
"The Town should get an outside independent financial consultant to understand
the finances of the real estate deal and added value to the property of the zoning
change - which will assist in understanding what mitigation would be reasonable.
G''
This would also assist in understanding at what level of development the deal
works... (The) Town should get (an) independent consultant to understand the
financial impact on the development to the Town - cost of services vs. income
from taxes and fees on the site (p. 11). "
The developer's financial feasibility should not be used as a determining factor in
deciding whether or not this project meets the board's approval. That would only.
corrupt the process outlined in the document, and put the developer's needs ahead of
those of the town. If this developer has stated that they cannot make a reasonable profit
with a significantly scaled-back design, they should move on. Commissioning a study
to secure a large profit for a private developer to the detriment of a significant portion of
this town's population is not an activity in which the Board of Selectmen should be
engaged.
FURTHERMORE, I QUESTION IF THIS IS EVEN A SIGNIFICANTLY
DIFFERENT ENOUGH PROPOSAL TO LEGALLY BRING BEFORE TOWN
MEETING BEFORE APRIL 2008.
Yes, there are changes that have been made, but I suggest that they are not significant
enough to warrant bringing this back to Town Meeting at this date, and are the type that
may have been made during the site review process anyway.
The developers have labeled their latest site plan a "mixed-used village"
(www.parksquareatreading,com), perhaps to signal a change from the original "Lifestyle
Center." However, zoning language in Warrant Article 26 called for a Lifestyle Center
to be defined as "a Group of commercial establishments (including any combination of
retail sales uses, consumer service establishments, restaurants, financial institutions and
offices) situated on 15 acres or more..." Warrant Article 26 allowed for several
different uses besides retail use.
The previous plan, tabled at the April Town Meeting, was a 400,000 sq, ft. "Lifestyle
Center, " primarily a retail center, with specific use percentages undefined. The current
plan is for a 440,000 "mixed-use" development with 320,000 sq. ft, over 70%, retail
space. The previous plan provided a provision to exclude "big-box" stores: "...no retail
stores shall exceed 70,000 sq. ft. of net floor area" (Art. 26J). Yet this provision is
touted as an "important modification" in an April 13, 2006, press release released by
W/S Development announcing their "updated" plans: "Another important modification
prohibits individual retail stores from being larger than 63,000 gross square feet. This
change was put in place to prohibit a larger retailer, or "big box" store, from being part
of the project..." (www.parksquareatreading.com).
What are the procedures for bringing this before Town Meeting at this point? Do the
developers need the approval of the CPDC? Would they be able to petition to put it on
the November warrant, or petition for a Special Town Meeting, or will they be required
to go before the CPDC?
0
~J
The law requiring two years' time to elapse before a developer is able to return to Town
Meeting with the same proposal is meant to protect town's from what W/S Development
is doing to our town: wearing down its citizens and advancing their interests through
attrition.
1 sincerely hope that after nearly two years of unproductive discussions with this
developer, in many venues, with small and large groups of neighbors, residents, and
officials, that a clear and strong message be sent that this proposal and these developers
do not belong in the Town of Reading.
Sincerely,
Angela Binda
10 Orchard Park Drive
Town Meeting Member
Deviations in the 8/9/2006 W/S Development Plan from the Addision-Weslev Workine
Groun Resort:
Section Requirement
1.3 Conditions
Maximum size for largest retail unit
or Special
63,000 sf (1 unit); next
Considerations
largest 50% of largest or 31,500 sf (1
unit); next largest 50 %
of 2nd largest of 15,750 sf (remainder)
not including restaurants
1.3 Conditions
Maximum number of restaurants with
or Special
liquor licenses - 3
Considerations
1.3 Conditions Residential - at least 20% affordable (so
or Special it counts as part of the Town's
Considerations affordable housing stock); rental is
preferable; location as a transition at
both South Street and Curtis; maximum
of 2 BR units;
1.3 Conditions
or Special
Considerations
2.0
Traffic/Access
2.0
Traffic/Access
3.0 Impact
Open Space - would include buffer;
may include islands in parking and
pedestrian areas, and may include
"urban" opens spaces like plazas,
gazebos, etc.;
Measure the total delay for the total
route - not just at one or 2 points -
measure at each signal
Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access
from off site to the site, and
within the site should be required
Landscaped Buffering from residential
district
- Residential use - 25'
Retail use - 50'
W/S Development Proposal &
comments
The propose a 63K ft Whole
foods, then they want at least 2
stores >30K ft (e.g., bookstore
and Crate & Barrel)
W/S says it would like 5-6
restaurants with liquor licenses
and showed 4 on the 8/92006
plan.
Approx 44 non-rental townhouse
units, of which 10% (4-5) would
be affordable, effectively adding
40 market rate units to Readings
total of non-affordable stock,
meaning Reading's total burden
for providing additional
affordable housing actually will
increase.
Appears to be net reduction in
open space. No new open space
areas seen. With the additional
parking levels and housing
added, the only open space
appears to be the buffers, the no
build areas, and the fingers. W/S
indicated that approximately
75% of the 24 acre property will
be paved over/impervious.
W/S did not provide a total delay
that could include, for example,
coming from 28S to 28N (2-4
new traffic lights on top of the
existing ones).
W/S said it eliminated an onsite
walking path due to the concerns
of one abutter (but W/S did not
relocate or reconfigure the
walking path).
W/S indicated they could not
meet this requirement
everywhere in the project, e.g.,
some buffering from retail might
Section Requirement
3.0 Impact Location of loading/delivery areas
• As far from residences as possible
3.0 Impact Location of uses
• Restaurant uses away from homes
W/S Development Proposal &
comments
be only 25'.)
The 8/9/06 plan shows that the
entire truck access road for
Whole Foods, and all of the
Whole Foods shipping docks
(and dumpsters), abuts at least 5
residential properties on South
St. This is the same
configuration that W/S showed
in its 4/11/06 plan.
The 8/9/06 plan now shows at
least 1 restaurant substantially
adjacent to 1-2 Curtis street
residential properties (separated
only by the buffer & access road
behind the restaurant). It is not
clear where W/S would locate
the 2 additional restaurants it
wants.