Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-03 Board of Selectmen HandoutPage 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Schena, Paula Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:25 AM To: Ben Tafoya (btafoya@comcast.net) Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Addison Wesley Meetings The following are the dates of the public meetings held regarding Addison Wesley: Board of Selectmen: 5/9/05 11/15/05 12/6/05 12/20/05 1/17/06 2/21/06 7/11/06 9/26/06 CPDC: 1/10/05 1/24/05 2/15/05 Addison Weslev Workina Grout): 4/20/06 5/3/06 5/10/06 5/18/06 5/24/06 5/31/06 6/22/06 6/29/06 8/9/06 9/7/06 10/3/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Feudo, John Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:43 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: McIntire, Ted; Fiore, Jane Subject: Leathers Associates Imagination Station Assessment Peter, I finally connected with Leathers Associates. We have scheduled Sat, November 4th as the date Leathers will come inspect and assess Imagination Station. Looks like this this going to be more than $1,500 - not sure if they would stay over night. Here is how the assessment works: "we can send an inspector to examine your playground for $700 plus travel expenses. A thorough report costs an additional $800. You can opt not to pay for (and not receive) our report , if you instead hire Leathers to guide you through the renovation." I am finalizing details regarding time. I will let you know once I know. They would like us to be there for the beginning and meet with us for an hour at the end. I would recommend having a selectmen (Steve Goldy), a Rec Committee member and Jane Fiore on hand. John John Feudo Recreation Administrator Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 (781)942-9075 1 01~-) Hechenblefter, Peter From: Priscilla. Gottwald@rmld.com Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:01 PM To: -RNRchambercom@aol.com Subject: RMLD Commercial Business Customer Survey Attachments: ALTERNATIVE.HTM; RMLD conducting commercial business customer survey.doc ALTERNATIVE. RMLD HTM (6 KB) cting commercial Would you kindly send this press release to members. Press Release RMLD conducting commercial business customer survey Reading, MA, October 3, 2006 - Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD) is conducting a commercial business customer survey during the week of October 9. Researchers from the Center for Research & Public Policy (CRPP) will call approximately 1,300 commercial, industrial and business customers in Reading, North Reading, Wilmington and Lynnfield, introducing themselves and letting RMLD customers know they are conducting an opinion survey. CRPP's name will show up in caller ID phones - they are not blocked calls. From these 1,300 calls, RMLD expects 150 completed surveys. The researchers will call from their offices in Trumbull, Connecticut, and all collected information is strictly confidential. The survey includes questions related to customer satisfaction, utility reliability, rates, green energy, questions about the size of the customer's business, communication and related topics. The research results will be used to guide RMLD through its decision-making process based on direct feedback from its customers. . Survey results will be presented at a future RMLD Board meeting, which is open to the public. The date and time announcement will appear in local newspapers. For further information, please call RMLD Community Relations Manager Priscilla Gottwald at 781-942-6419. For immediate release 10-3-06 1 V 2006 Flu Clinic Schedule Senior HousinLy Schedule (residents only) Tannerville Tuesday October 17th 9:30am - 11 am Peter Sanborn Place Tuesday October 17th 1:30pm - 3pm Cedar Glen Wednesday October 18th 9:30am- llam Wednesday November 8, 2006 Killam Elementary School 2pm - 4pm (65 and older) Tuesday November 14, 2006 Coolidge Middle School 5pm - 7pm (Adult Reading Residents) Thursday November 16, 2006 Parker Middle School 5pm - 7pm (Adult Reading Residents) Longwood Place Wednesday October 18th 1:30pm - 3pm Public Clinics Ccomcast October 2, 2006 Board of Selectmen Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 RE: Reading Event - Comcast Cares Day Dear Members of the Board: Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. 55 Concord Street North Reading, MA 01864 www.comcast.com r-..) 9 4sWt w O This Saturday, October 7, 2006, more than 3,200 Comcast employees in Massachusetts, their family members and friends will kick off the sixth annual Comcast Cares Day - our company- wide day of service. Our employees will be partnering with local organizations on projects to benefit neighborhoods across Massachusetts. Nationally, Comcast employees will be contributing over 180,000 volunteer hours on this day. Since 2001 our employees have given more than 700,000 hours of service to more than 1,000 non-profit community partners across the country. In recognition of the efforts of our employees, to date the Comcast Foundation has contributed millions of dollars to our community partners in support of their year-round work in our communities. We invite you to join us at our local Comcast Cares Day service project at the Mission of Deeds in Reading. We are expecting about thirty employees, their family members and friends volunteering to do painting and other indoor improvements. The event details are: Event: Comcast Cares Day Date: Saturday, October 7, 2006 Time: 9:00 am - 2:00 pm Location: Mission of Deeds 6 Chapin Avenue Reading, MA C~?) Reading Board of Selectmen October 2, 2006 Page 2 We would like to ask you to reserve this Saturday, October 7th at 9:00 AM or a time that morning that is convenient for your schedule so you can stop by for a photo opportunity and help us support this organization. Please let me know by Wednesday, October 4th if any of you will be able to attend and I will plan on following up this letter with a call. In the meantime, if you have any questions about Comcast Cares Day, I can be reached at 978-207-2264 or via email at jane_lyman@cable.comcast.com. Sincerely, e M. Lym Sr. Manager Government and Community Relations Page 1 of 3 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Lynn Bannon [lynnbannon@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:05 PM To: rnrchambercom@aol.com Subject: Reading Co-op appoints new president Attachments: Reading Coop rel 10-2-06 EB quote FINAL.doc; Julie Photos 004 BandW.JPG Greetings. Reading Co-operative Bank has appointed Julieann Thurlow as its new president. Below is a press release about the appointment. I have also attached a copy of the press release and a photo of Ms. Thurlow. Please let me know if I can be of service. Lynn Bannon for Reading Co-op, 617-742-1494 Readino ~Un CO-OPERATIVE BANK Contact: Linda Cottone, Reading Co-operative Bank 781-942-5006 Icottone@readingcoop.com READING CO-OPERATIVE BANK APPOINTS NEW PRESIDENT .7u/ieann Thur/ow assumes post October 1, 2006 READING, Mass. (Oct. 2, 2006) Reading Co-operative Bank today announced that Julieann Thurlow has been appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of the bank. Thurlow, who most recently held the position of Executive Vice President and Director of Community Banking at the bank, has more than 20 years' experience in banking, including 13 years at Reading Co-operative Bank. "We are proud to appoint Julie as the new President of Reading Co-operative Bank. Julie has been highly instrumental in helping the bank grow to $230 million in assets," said Eugene Loubier, a member of the Bank's Board of Directors and former CEO of Winchester Hospital. "She has grown the loan portfolio from $28 million to $157 million, over 400%, in part by dramatically expanding the bank's commercial lending portfolio. She also spearheaded the introduction of new products including home equity loans, online bill payment services and, recently, reverse mortgages. She's a dynamic leader with outstanding banking experience who really cares about the communities we serve." As the new Bank President & CEO, Thurlow will also assume the position of President of the RCB Charitable Foundation. Thurlow has been active in identifying and supporting organizations and projects that improve the quality of life in the towns served by the bank. For example, the bank recently issued a Corporate Challenge to fund restoration of the historic Butters Farm in Wilmington. 10/2/2006 01D Page 2 of 3 In Reading, the bank has funded programs and facilities improvements at the YMCA. The bank also helped fund the renovation for the Visiting Nurse Hospice in Reading. "I've worked with Julie and Reading Co-operative Bank for many years, and she's been instrumental in helping me growing my businesses," said William Robichaud, co-owner of Black Hawk Builders in Reading and president and CEO of Collaborative Consulting in Burlington. "Julie and her team at the bank are flexible and highly responsive, providing the personal and business banking services that nimble, entrepreneurial companies need to expand and thrive. Julie will be a great president." Reading Co-operative Bank has funded or committed to fund high-profile commercial projects such the Ryer's Store in North Reading, the Unitarian Church renovation in Reading, the expansion and renovation of the Horseshoe Cafe in North Reading, and the revitalization project known as Haven Junction, also in Reading. Prior to serving as Executive Vice President, Senior Vice President and Director of Community Banking and Vice President/Senior Loan Officer at Reading Cooperative Bank, Thurlow managed the commercial and industrial lending portfolio for Boston Bank of Commerce. She has worked for Lawrence Savings Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Winchendon Savings Bank. Thurlow is a trustee of Winchester Hospital and serves as representative from the Reading-North Reading Chamber of Commerce on the Town of Reading ad hoc downtown parking committee. She is also past president of the Reading Lions Club, past president and Director for the Reading-North Reading Chamber of Commerce and was Treasurer and Director of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce. She holds a master's degree in business administration from Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut and has completed advanced studies at the National School of Banking and the Massachusetts School for Financial Studies. "2006 marks the bank's 120th anniversary," said Thurlow. "It is a privilege to serve as president of an institution that has helped local residents and businesses achieve their financial goals for more than a century. All of us at Reading Co-operative Bank are committed to ensuring that the bank serves our communities well for the next 120 years." Reading Co-operative Bank, founded in 1886, has four full-service banking locations Reading, North Reading, Wilmington and South Wilmington. The bank offers consumers a full range of checking, savings and investment solutions, as well as mortgage, home equity and personal lending options. The bank also offers extensive checking and lending options for its business customers. For more information, visit www.readinacooD.com. 10/2/2006 Reading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners 230 Ash Street Reading, MA 01867 October 4, 2006 8:00 p.m. Regular Session Agenda General Manager's Conference Room 1. 'Regular Session Agenda 2. Proposed Watson Unit Power Contract with Braintree Electric Light Department Note: Bill Bottiggi, General Manager; Braintree Electric Light Department John Coyle, Esquire, Duncan & Allen will be available via speakerphone 3. Executive Session (General Manager's Conference Room) Suguested Motion: Move that the Board go into Executive Session, based on Chapter 164 Section 47D exemption from public records and open meeting requirements in certain instances and return to Regular Session. Section 47D. A municipal lighting plant created pursuant to the provisions of this chapter or any special law shall be exempt from the public record requirements of section 10 of chapter 66 and the open meeting requirements of section 23B of chapter 39 in those instances when necessary for protecting trade secrets, confidential, competitively sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of proceedings conducted pursuant to this chapter when such municipal lighting plant board determines that such disclosure will adversely affect its ability to conduct business in relation to other entities making, selling, or distributing electric power and energy pursuant to this chapter. 4. Suggested Motion for Watson Unit Power Contract with Braintree Electric Light Department Suggested Motion: Move that the RMLD Board of Commissioners authorizes the General Manager to execute the Unit Power Contract between Braintree Electric Light Department (BELD) and the Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD) to purchase a unit entitlement, not to exceed ten percent (10%), in the Thomas A. Watson Power Plant contingent upon a thorough and favorable review of the turbine manufacturer's service agreement (warranty program), and the finalization of the appendices. The General Manager shall report back to the RMLD Board of Commissioners on the results of the review of the forgoing items in due course. 5. Motion to Adjourn Reference Information - Appropriate topics for Executive Session: This Agenda has been prepared in advance and does not necessarily include all matters, which may be taken up at this meeting. Chapter 164: Section 47D. Exemption from public records and open meeting requirements in certain instances Section 47D. A municipal lighting plant created pursuant to the provisions of this chapter or any special law shall be exempt from the public record requirements of section 10 of chapter 66 and the open meeting requirements of section 23B of chapter 39 in those instances when necessary for protecting trade secrets, confidential, competitively sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of proceedings conducted pursuant to this chapter when such municipal lighting plant board determines that such disclosure will adversely affect its ability to conduct business in relation to other entities making, selling, or distributing electric power and energy pursuant to this chapter. v Regular Session Agenda October 4, 2006 Reference Information -Appropriate topics for Executive Session: This Agenda has been prepared in advance and does not necessarily include all matters, which may be taken up at this meeting. (1) to discuss the "reputation, character, physical condition or mental health rather than the professional competence" of a particular individual, (2) to consider the discipline or dismissal of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual, (3) to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation, if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the governmental body; to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel; and to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel, (4) to discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices, (5) to investigate charges of criminal misconduct or to discuss the filing of criminal complaints, (6) to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property if an open discussion may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the governmental body with a person, firm, or corporation," (7) to comply with the provisions of any general or special law or Federal'grant-in-aid requirements, (8) to consider and interview applicants for employment by a preliminary screening committee or a subcommittee appointed by a governmental body if an open meeting will have a detrimental effect in obtaining qualified applicants; provided, however, that this clause shall not apply to any meeting, including meetings of a preliminary screening committee or a subcommittee appointed by a governmental body, to consider and interview applicants who have passed a primary or preliminary screening, (9) to meet or confer with a mediator, as defined in section twenty-three C of chapter two hundred and thirty- three, with respect to any litigation or decision on any public business within its jurisdiction involving another party, group or body, provided that: (a) any decision to participate in mediation shall be made in open meeting session and the parties, issues involved and purpose of the mediation, shall be disclosed; and (b) no action shall be taken by any governmental body with respect to those issues which are the subject of the mediation without deliberation and approval for such action at an open meeting after such notice as may be required in this section. and to return to regular session [choose applicable topics] (1) . for the sole purpose of adjournment; (2) for the purposes of continuing regular session; [individually list each Commissioner and their vote] Revised in accordance with the Open Meeting Law Guidelines, September, 2003 0 Reading Police Department James W. Cormier, Chief of Police MEMORANDUM Date: September 29, 2006 To: Town Manager's office Cc: Lillian Marino From: Chief James Cormier RE: Application for Change of Manager and Change of Location Approved By: Chief C ier Approvallnitials: The police department has reviewed the application of Vaishnodevi & Chirag / Northside Liquors and has no objection to the proposed changes. Reading Police Department James W. Cormier, Chief of Police MEMORANDUM Date: September 29, 2006 To: Town Manager's office Cc: Lillian Marino From: Chief James Cormier RE: Application to Alter Premises - Venetian Moon Restaurant Approved By: Chief Coo ie Approval Initials: The police department has reviewed the application of CAC Foods, Inc, / Venetian Moon, and has no objection to the proposed alterations. 0 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Memorandum To: Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager From: Jane Fiore Health ices Administrator Date: 9/29/2006 Re: Venetian Moon Entertainment License HEALTH Phone: (781) 942-9061 Fax: (781) 942-9071 Website: www.ci.readinff.ma.us The latest communication and set of preliminary plans received for the Venetian Moon Restaurant renovation to increase seating is more in alignment with the minimum standards of the Federal Food code. If the BOS grants the requested entertainment and all liquor licenses to this establishment the contractor and restaurant owner has agreed to present all the necessary information to the Board of Health before the full expansion takes place including but not limited to the following: 1. Dust control plan 2. Sanitization plan 3. Revised grease trap installation plan 4. Pest Management plan 5. Revised detailed construction plan To date, the only outstanding issue for the restaurant is an outdated Choice Saver Certificate for restaurants over 25 seats. If the owner carries out the agreed upon procedures the Health Division does not oppose the issuance of the applied for licenses. 0 Draft of September 21, 2006 PRESERVATION RESTRICTION AGREEMENT Between the PRZ PROPERTIES, INC. and the BOARD OF SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS (Contains MHC suggested revisions) This Preservation Restriction is made this day of , 2006 by and between PRZ Properties, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation with a place of business at 910 East Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts, and the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading, Massachusetts, (`Grantee") a municipal corporation having its usual place of business at 16 Lowell St., Reading MA 01867, to be administered, managed and enforced by the Reading Historical Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "RHC"). WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of the property located at 420 Franklin Street, Reading, MA (hereinafter referred to as "the Property"), and described on a deed from Shirley Day as trustee to the Grantor dated October 6, 2006, which deed is recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds, herewith, also shown on the "Plan of 420 Franklin Street, Reading, MA (From the Assessors Records)" (Exhibit A), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, and being also shown as Lot B on the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Reading, Mass; Hayes Engineering, Inc.; date : July 20, 2006; Owner/Applicant Shirley Day," which plan is recorded at the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 1162 of 2006, said Property including the following structure (hereinafter "the Building"): At all times referenced herein, the "Building" shall mean the 2'/2 story, timber-frame, First-Period, half-house, measuring approximately 23 feet x 26 feet, known as the Joseph Parker House, together with the later constructed 1'/2 story extension (of approximately 936 SF), running northwest, approximately 50 feet. The land and other existing structures and additions on the Property and any future additions thereto are not part of the Building and are not subject to these restrictions. Whereas, the half-house portion of the Building, is a fine example of an Eastern Massachusetts timber-frame farmhouse whose original front entry was located in the southern fagade in the eastern bay where there is evidence of the early chimney. Such structures were often added to longitudinally to make a full house. Surviving specimens of such half-houses are extremely rare. The door and chimney are not extant. WHEREAS, the Grantee is a government body duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is authorized pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 184, §31-33, inclusive, to accept preservation restrictions; 0 Draft of September 21, 2006 WHEREAS, the Grantee has designated the Reading Historical Commission ("RHC") to administer, manage and enforce this preservation restriction; WHEREAS, RHC as the designee, is a governmental body duly organized pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40C whose purposes include the preservation and protection of sites, buildings, and objects of historical significance and to manage same burdened by such restrictions, consistent with the provisions of the Act; WHEREAS, the Building is listed on the Town's Historical and Architectural Inventory and on the National and State Registers of Historic Places and the preservation thereof will help future generations to appreciate the values, aesthetics, and craftsmanship of the Town's early residents and serves the public interest in a manner consistent with the purposes of the General Laws, Chapter 184, Sections 31 and 32 ("Act") WHEREAS, restrictions, obligations and duties imposed on the Grantor and its successors and assigns are necessary to ensure the preservation of the below specified characteristics that contribute to the architectural and historical integrity of the Building include, but are not limited to, the artifacts, features, materials, appearance and workmanship of the Building including those characteristics which originally qualified the Building for listing on the National and/or State Registers of Historic Places. WHEREAS, to that end, Grantor desires to grant to Grantee, and Grantee desires to accept a preservation restriction (hereinafter the "Restriction") in gross in perpetuity on the Building pursuant to the Act. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby irrevocably grant and convey unto the Grantee this Restriction in gross in perpetuity over the Building. 1. Purpose: It is the Purpose of this Restriction to assure that the architecture, historical and cultural features of the Building will be retained and maintained forever substantially in their current condition for preservation purposes and to prevent any use or change of the exterior of the Building that will significantly impair or interfere with the Building' preservation values. , GRANTOR'S COVENANTS 2.1 Covenant to Maintain and Retiair. The Grantor agrees at all times to assume the total cost of continued maintenance, repair and administration of the Building during its ownership of the Building so as to preserve the characteristics that contribute to the architectural and historical integrity of the Building in a manner reasonably consistent with "the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historical Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (36 CFR 67)" as these may be amended from time to time (hereinafter the "Secretary's Standards"). The Grantor may seek financial assistance from any source available to it. The Grantee shall not assume any obligation for maintaining, repairing, or U10 Draft of September 21, 2006 administering the Building. Ordinary maintenance and repair of the Building may be made without the written permission of the Grantee. Interpretation of what constitutes ordinary maintenance and repair shall be governed by the Restrictions set forth in Paragraph 4(b). 2.2 Prohibited Activities. The following acts or uses are expressly forbidden, on, over, or under the Building, except as otherwise conditioned in this paragraph: The Building shall not be moved, demolished, removed or razed except as described in paragraphs 5 and 7. GRANTOR'S CONDITIONAL RIGHTS 3.1 Conditional Rights ReauirinR Approval by RHC. The prior express written approval of the RHC is necessary to maintain, repair or alter the Building, which approval may not be unreasonably withheld but which may be subject to reasonable conditions as RHC in its discretion may determine. Specifically, the Grantor shall not make alterations to any of the following visual or structural portions of the Building: (a.) any beams or posts; (b) the roof and roofline; (c) the foundation; without the written approval of the Grantee. The Grantor shall notify the RHC in writing not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date the Grantor desires to repair, maintain or alter the Building. The notice shall describe the nature, scope, design, location, timetable and any other material aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit the RHC to make an informed judgment as to its consistency with the purposes of this Preservation Restriction. The RHC shall only grant its approval by a positive vote of a simple majority of the regular members present. The RHC shall state specifically in writing its reasons for withholding its approval within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Grantor's written request thereof. The RHC shall be allowed to perform an inspection prior to granting or withholding approval. 3.2 Review of Maintenance and Rebairs. At least every five (5) years or with the change of Grantor, or whichever comes first, the RHC shall be able to examine the condition of the Building and to discuss the maintenance and repairs performed on the Building during the preceding five (5) years. The Grantor shall allow a mutually agreed upon time and inspection of the Building by the RHC when requested thereof in writing thirty (30) days in advance. 3.3 Public Access. This Restriction does not require public access. 3.4 Conditional Rights Reauirinj4 the Approval of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The conduct of archeological activities on the Property, including without limitation, survey, excavation and artifact retrieval, may occur only following the submission of an archeological field investigation prepared by the Grantor and approved in writing by the State Archeologist of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (M.G.L. Ch.9, Section 27C, 950 CMR 70.00) Draft of September 21, 2006 3.5 Standards for Review. In exercising any authority created by the Restriction to inspect the Building; to review any construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance; or to review casualty damage or to reconstruct or approve reconstruction of the Building following casualty damage, the RHC shall apply (its guidelines if applicable) and the Secretary's Standards. GRANTOR'S RESERVED RIGHTS 4. Grantors' R44hts Not Reauirina Further Approval by Grantee. Subject to the provision of paragraphs 2.1 and 3. 1, the following rights, uses, and activities of or by Grantor on, over, or under the Property are permitted by this Preservation Restriction Agreement and by Grantee without further approval by Grantee: (a) the right to engage in all those acts and uses that: (i) are permitted by governmental statue or regulation; (ii) do not substantially impair the conservation and preservation values of the Property; and (iii) are not inconsistent with the Purpose of this Preservation Restriction Agreement; (b) pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2. 1, the right to maintain and repair the Building strictly accordingly to the Secretary's Standards. As used in this subparagraph the right to maintain and repair shall mean the use by Grantor of in-kind materials and colors, applied with workmanship comparable to that which was used in the construction or application of those materials being repaired or maintained, for the purpose of retaining in good condition the appearance and construction of the Building. The right to maintain and repair as used in this subparagraph shall not include the right to make changes in appearance, materials, and workmanship from that existing prior to the maintenance and repair without the prior approval of Grantee in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2; (c) the right to continue all manner of existing residential use and enjoyment of the Property, including but not limited to maintenance, repair, and restoration of existing stone walls and steps; the right to maintain the existing driveways, and paths with the use of same or similar materials; the right to maintain existing utility lines, walkways, steps and garden fences; the right to cut, remove and clear grass and other vegetation and to perform routine maintenance, landscaping, pond maintenance, horticultural activities and upkeep, consistent with the purpose of this Preservation Restriction Agreement. (d) "(d) the Grantor may construct addition(s) to side and rear elevations of the Building, or replace the existing later extension and shed roof side additions with new additions, provided that these additions are secondary to the historic Main Block in size and height and do not obscure the front and rear roof profiles on the side elevations of the building; provided as well, that each such addition must have appropriate external architectural features that meet the Secretary's Standards, and is approved by the RHC in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.1." Draft of September 21, 2006 CASUALTY DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION; INSURANCE 5. Casualty Damaize or Destruction. In the event that the Building or any part thereof -shall be damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, windstorm, hurricane, earth movement or other casualty, Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing within fourteen (14) days of the damage or destruction, such notification including what, if any, emergency work has been completed. No repairs or reconstruction of any type other than temporary emergency work to prevent further damage to the Building and to protect public safety shall be undertaken by Grantor without Grantee's prior written approval of the work. Within thirty (30) days of the date of damage or destruction, if required by Grantee, Grantor at Grantor's expense shall submit to the Grantee a written report prepared by a qualified restoration architect and an engineer who.are acceptable to the Grantor and Grantee, which report shall include the following: (a) an assessment of the nature and extent of the damage; (b) a determination of the feasibility of the restoration of the Building and/or reconstruction of damaged or destroyed portions of the Building; and (c) a report of such restoration and/or reconstruction work necessary to return the Building to the condition existing at the date thereof. 6.. Review After Casualty Damage or Destruction. If, after reviewing the report provided in paragraph 6 and assessing the availability of insurance proceeds after satisfaction of any mortgagee's/lender's claims under paragraph 8, Grantor and Grantee agree that the Purpose of the Preservation Restriction Agreement will be served by such restoration/ reconstruction, Grantor and Grantee shall establish a schedule under which Grantor shall complete the restoration/ reconstruction of the Building in accordance with plans and specifications consented to by the parties to at least the total of the casualty insurance proceeds available to the Grantor. If, after reviewing the report and assessing the availability of the insurance proceeds after satisfaction of any mortgagee's/lender's claims under paragraph 8, Grantor and Grantee agree that restoration/ reconstruction of the Property is impractical or impossible, or agree that the Purpose of the Preservation Restriction Agreement would not be served by such restoration/ reconstruction, Grantor may with prior written consent of Grantee, alter, demolish, remove or raze the Building and/or construct new improvements on the Property. In such event, Grantor and Grantee may agree to extinguish this Preservation Restriction Agreement in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and paragraph 22.2 hereof. If, after reviewing the report and assessing the availability of insurance proceeds after satisfaction of any mortgagee's/lender's claims under paragraph 8, Grantor and Grantee are unable to agree that the Purpose of the Preservation Restriction Agreement will or will not be served by such restoration/ reconstruction, the matter may be referred by vi Draft of September 21, 2006 either party to binding arbitration and settled in accordance with the arbitration provision set forth in Section 14 below. 7. Insurance. Grantor shall keep the Property insured by an insurance company rated "A1" or better by Best's for the full replacement value against, loss from the perils commonly insured under standard fire and extended coverage policies and comprehensive general liability insurance against claims for personal injury, death and property damage. Property damage insurance shall include change in condition and building ordinance coverage, in form and amount sufficient to replace fully the damaged Property and Building without cost or expense to Grantor or contribution or coinsurance from Grantor. Such insurance shall include Grantee's interest and name Grantee as an additional insured. Grantor shall deliver to Grantee, within ten (10) business days of Grantee's written request therefore, certificates of such insurance coverage. Provided, however, that whenever the Property is encumbered with a mortgage or deed of trust nothing contained in this paragraph shall jeopardize the prior claim, if any, of the mortgagee/ lender to the insurance proceeds. INDEMNIFICATION; TAXES 8. Indemnification. Grantor hereby agrees to pay, protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend at its own cost and expense, Grantee, its agents, directors and employees, or independent contractors from and against any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, costs, damages, losses and expenditures (including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements hereafter incurred) arising out of or in connection with injury to or death of any person on or about the Property; physical damage to the Property; the presence or release in, on, or about the Property, at any time, of any substance now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any law, ordinance or regulation as a hazardous, toxic, polluting or contaminating substance; or other injury or damage occurring on or about the Property, unless such injury or damage is caused by Grantee or agent, trustee, employee or contractor of Grantee. In the event that Grantor is required to indemnify Grantee pursuant to the terms of this paragraph, the amount of such indemnity until discharged shall constitute a lien on the Property with the same effect and priority as a mechanic's lien, provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall jeopardize the priority of any recorded first priority mortgage given in connection with a promissory note secured by the Property. 9. Taxes. Grantor shall pay when first due and owing, all general taxes, special taxes, .special assessments, water charges, sewer service charges, and other charges which may become a lien on the Property unless Grantor timely objects to the amount or validity of the assessment or charge and diligently prosecute an appeal thereof, in which case the obligation to pay such charges shall be suspended for the period permitted by law for prosecuting such appeal and any applicable grace period following completion of such action. Grantee is hereby authorized, but in no event required or expected, to make or advance upon three (3) days prior written notice to Grantor in the place of Grantor, any payment relating to taxes, assessment, water rates, sewer rentals and other governmental 0 Draft of September 21, 2006 or municipality charge, fine, imposition or lien asserted against the Property and may do so according to any bill, statement or estimate procured from the appropriate public office without inquiry into the accuracy of such bill, statement or assessment or into the validity of such tax, assessment, sale or forfeiture. Such payment if made by the Grantee shall constitute a lien on the Property with the same effect and priority as a mechanic's lien. Provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall jeopardize the priority of any recorded first priority mortgage given in corinection with a promissory note secured by the Property. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 10. Written Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: To Grantor: Owner of Record 420 Franklin Street Reading, MA 01867, or, if the Building is not Owner occupied, then to the Address of Record found in the Town of Reading Assessor's Records To Grantee's: Reading Historical Commission Designee: 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Copy to: Board of Selectmen 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Each party may change its address set forth herein by a notice to such effect to the other party given pursuant hereto. 11. Evidence of Compliance. Upon request by Grantor, Grantee shall promptly furnish Grantor with certification that, to the best of Grantee's knowledge, Grantor is in compliance with the obligations of Grantor contained herein, or that otherwise evidences the status of this Preservation Restriction Agreement to the extent of the Grantee's knowledge thereof. 12. Inspection. With the consent of Grantor, representatives of Grantee shall be permitted at all reasonable times to inspect the Property, including the interior of the Building. Grantor covenants not to unreasonably withhold consent in determining dates and times for such inspections. 13. Grantee's Remedies. Grantee may, following reasonable written notice to Grantor, institute suit(s) -to enjoin any violation of the terms of this Preservation Restriction (PI Draft of September 21, 2006 Agreement by ex parte, temporary, preliminary and or permanent injunction, including prohibitory and/or mandatory injunctive relief and to require the restoration of the Property and Building to the condition and appearance required under this Preservation Restriction Agreement. Grantee shall also have available all legal and other equitable remedies to enforce Grantor's obligation hereunder. In the event of any violation of any of the provisions of this Agreement, Grantee may notify the Grantor of such violation (a "Violation Notice"), together with recommendations as to how the violation may be cured (if such violation is curable). Such notice shall inform the Grantor as to the time period in which such violation must be cured (if such violation is curable), which time period shall be a reasonable one, in no event longer than thirty (30) days. In the event the Grantor contests either the existence of the violation or the length of time in which to cure it, Grantor shall notify Grantee not later than thirty (30) days after the receipt of the Violation Notice (Grantor's Objection) and if the parties cannot agree within ten (10) days thereafter, either party shall have the right any time after expiration of such ten day period to submit the matter to arbitration within thirty days after receipt of Grantor's Objection by sending notice to the other party to name an arbiter. The other party shall have thirty days after the receipt of such notice naming an arbiter to naive a second arbiter. A third arbiter shall be selected by the other two arbiters within thirty days after naming the second arbiter. The three arbiters shall conclude the arbitration within one hundred twenty five days after the date the third arbiter is named. Findings of facts and decisions by a majority of the arbiters shall control. Each party shall bear the costs of the arbiter it naives and both parties shall share equally the cost of the third arbiter. All Arbiters shall be persons having substantial education and experience regarding the preservation of historically significant structures or artifacts. In the event Grantor is found to have violated any of Grantor's obligations, Grantor shall reimburse Grantee for any costs or expenses incurred in connection with Grantee's enforcement of the tern of this Preservation Restriction Agreement, including all reasonable court costs, and attorney's, architectural, engineering and expert witness fees, together with interest thereon at an interest rate two percent points (2%) higher than the prime lending rate. Exercise by Grantee of one remedy hereunder shall not have the effect of waiving or limiting the use of any other remedy, and the failure to exercise any remedy shall not have the effect of waiving or limiting the use of any other remedy or the use of such remedy at any other time. The rights hereby granted shall include the right to enforce this Restriction by appropriate legal proceedings and to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief against any violations, including, without limitation, relief requiring restoration of the Property to its condition prior to the time of the injury complained of (it being agreed that the Grantee may have no adequate remedy at law), and shall be in addition to, and not in limitation of, any other rights and remedies available to the Grantee. 2'~ Draft of September 21, 2006 14. Notice from Government Authorities. Grantor shall deliver to Grantee copies of any notice of violation or lien relating to the Property received by Grantor from any government authority within five (5) days of receipt by Grantor. Upon request by Grantee, Grantor shall promptly furnish Grantee with evidence of Grantor's compliance with such notice or lien where compliance is required by law. 15. Notice of Proposed Sale. Grantor shall promptly notify Grantee in writing of any proposed sale of the Property and provide the opportunity for the Grantee to explain the terms of the Preservation Restriction Agreement to potential new owners prior to sale closing. The Grantee shall be able to perform an inspection in connection with the transfer of any interest in the Building. 16. Liens. Any lien on the Property created pursuant to any paragraph of this Preservation Restriction Agreement may be confirmed by judgment and foreclosed by Grantee in the salve manner as a mechanic's lien. Provided, however, that no lien created pursuant to this Preservation Restriction Agreement shall jeopardize the priority of any recorded lien of mortgage or deed of trust given in connection with a promissory note secured by the Property. BINDING EFFECT; ASSIGNMENT 17. Burdens Rumlin2 with the Land. The restrictions, obligations and duties set forth in this Agreement shall run with the Building and shall inure to the benefit of the Grantee and all parties claiming by, through or under the Grantee and shall bind the Grantor and all parties claiming by, through or under the Grantor. The rights hereby granted to the Grantee and the RHC constitute the perpetual right of the Grantee and RHC to enforce this Preservation Restriction Agreement. The Grantor hereby covenants for itself to stand seized and hold title to the Building subject to the terms of this. Restriction. 18. Assignment. The Grantee may convey, assign or transfer this Restriction to another goven-rmental body or to any charitable corporation of trust among the purposes of which is maintenance and preservation of historic properties by a vote of a Super Majority of all its regular members. Grantor shall give prior written approval of such conveyance, assignment or transfer by Grantee, such approval may not be unreasonably withheld. 19. Recording and Effective Date. The Grantor shall, at its own cost, record this instrtiunent within fifteen (15) days of its execution in the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds and/or Registry District of the Land Court, and provide the Grantee a copy of the recordation within thirty (30) days. Grantor and Grantee intend that the restrictions arising under this Preservation Restriction Agreement take effect on the day and year this instrument is executed by Grantor and Grantee. EXTINGUISHMENT Draft of September 21, 2006 20. 1. Extinilishrment. Grantor and Grantee hereby recognize that an unexpected change in conditions affecting the Property may make impossible the continued ownership or use of the Property for the Purpose of this Preservation Restriction Agreement and necessitate extinguishment of the Preservation Restriction Agreement. Such a change in conditions may include, but is not limited to, partial or total destruction of the Building resulting from casualty. Such an extinguishment must be the result of a judicial proceeding, as well as public hearings and approval by the Grantee, or the then holder of the Preservation Restriction Agreement, if it has been assigned pursuant to Section 19 hereof, and the Massachusetts Historical Commission if this Agreement has been approved by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. 20.2 Condemnation. If all or any part of the Property is taken under the power of eminent domain by public, corporate or other authority, otherwise acquired by such authority through a purchase in lieu of a taking, Grantor may commence appropriate proceedings at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the Property that is subject to the taking and all incidental and direct damages from the taking. INTERPRETATION 21. Interpretation. The following provisions shall govern the effectiveness, interpretation and duration of the Preservation Restriction Agreement: (a) Any rule of strict construction designed to limit the breadth of restrictions on alienation or use of Property shall not apply in the construction or interpretation of the Preservation Restriction Agreement and this instrument shall be interpreted broadly to affect its Purpose and the transfer of rights and the restrictions on use herein contained. (b) This instrument is executed in two counterparts, one of which is to be retained by the Grantor and the other, after recording, to be retained by Grantee. In the event of any disparity between the counterparts produced, the recorded counterpart retained by the Grantee shall in all cases govern. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, each counterpart shall constitute the agreement of the parties. (c) This instrument is made pursuant to the Act, but the invalidity of such Act or any part thereof shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the Preservation Restriction Agreement according to its teens, it being the intent of the parties to agree and to bind themselves, their successors and their assigns in perpetuity to each teen of this instrument whether this instrument is enforceable by reason of statute, common law or private agreement either in existence now or at any time subsequent hereto. (d) Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to authorize or permit Grantor to violate any ordinance or regulation relating to building materials, construction methods or use. In the event of any conflict between any such ordinance or regulation and the teens hereof Grantor promptly shall notify Grantee of such conflict and shall cooperate with Grantee and the applicable government entity to 01-21~ Draft of September 21, 2006 accommodate the purpose of both the Preservation Restriction Agreement and such ordinance or regulation. 22. Severability. If any provision of this Preservation Restriction Agreement or application thereof to any person or circumstance is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Preservation Restriction Agreement shall not be affected thereby. 23. Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment to or modification of this Restriction would be appropriate, Grantor and Grantee may by mutual written agreement jointly amend this Restriction, provided that no amendment shall be made that will adversely affect the qualification of this Restriction or the status of the Grantee under any applicable law. Any such amendment shall be consistent with the protection of the preservation values of the Building and the Purpose of this Restriction; shall not affect its perpetual duration; shall not permit any private inurement to any person or entity; and shall not adversely impact the overall architectural and historic values protected by this Restriction. Any such amendment shall be effective when the requirements of the Act with respect to amendments have been met and the amendment is recorded in the land records of the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Nothing in this paragraph shall require Grantor or Grantee to agree to any amendment or to consult or negotiate regarding any amendment. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said Restriction unto the Grantee and its successors and permitted assigns forever. [The balance of this page is blank. The next pages are the signature pages.] 0 Draft of September 21, 2006 IN WITNESS whereof, Grantor and Grantee have set their hands and seals this day of 2006 GRANTOR: PRZ Properties, Inc. By By JOSEPH J. PHELAN III as President PETER J. ZANNI as Treasurer COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss On this day of 2006, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared JOSEPH J. PHELAN III as President and PETER J. ZANNI as Treasurer proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, being (check whichever applies) driver's license or other state or federal governmental document bearing a photographic image, or my own personal knowledge of the identity of the signatory, to be the persons whose names are signed above, and acknowledged the foregoing to be signed by him/her/them voluntarily for its stated purpose, on behalf of PRZ Properties, Inc. Notary Public My cormnission expires: Draft of September 21, 2006 ACCEPTANCE BY TOWN OF READING HISTORICAL COMMISSION We, the undersigned, being a majority of the Town of Reading Historical Commission, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, hereby certify that at a meeting duly held on , 2006, said Commission voted to accept the foregoing Preservation Restriction and agreed to be bound by its terms. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. , 2006 On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, being (check whichever applies): D driver's license or other state or federal governmental document bearing a photographic image, J oath or affinnation of a credible witness known to me who knows the above signatory, or D my own personal knowledge of the identity of the signatory, to be the persons whose names are signed above, and acknowledged the foregoing to be signed by him/her/them voluntarily for its stated purpose, as members of the Town of Reading Historical Commission. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Print Notary Public's Name: 0 Draft of September 21, 2006 ACCEPTANCE BY TOWN OF READING BOARD OF SELECTMEN We, the undersigned, being a majority of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, hereby certify that at a meeting duly held on . 2006, said Board voted to accept the foregoing Preservation Restriction. Ben Tafoya, Chair Camille Anthony Richard Schubert James Bonazoli Steven Goldy COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. On this ' day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, being (check whichever applies): LJ driver's license or other state or federal governmental document bearing a photographic image, J oath or affirmation of a credible witness known to me who knows the above signatory, or 0 my own personal knowledge of the identity of the signatory, to be the persons whose names are signed above, and acknowledged the foregoing to be signed by him/her/them voluntarily for its stated purpose, as members of the Town of Reading Board of Selectmen. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Print Notary Public's Name: , 2006 3° Draft of September 21, 2006 APPROVAL BY MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION The undersigned, Brona Simon, Acting Executive Director and Cleric of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, hereby certifies that the foregoing Preservation Restriction Agreement has been reviewed and approved in the public interest pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 184, §32. Dated: Brona Simon Acting Executive Director and Clerk Massachusetts Historical Commission COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Suffolk ss. On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared Brona Simon, Acting Executive Director and Clerk of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, being (check whichever applies): ❑ driver's license or other state or federal governmental document bearing a photographic image, J oath or affirmation of a credible witness known to me who knows the above signatory, or ❑ my own personal knowledge of the identity of the signatory, to be the persons whose names are signed above, and acknowledged the foregoing to be signed by him/her/them voluntarily for its stated purpose, on behalf of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Notary Public My Cormmission Expires: Print Notary Public's Name: 2006 3~ Please -join us for the 11 t" Annual Adopt an Island Appreciation Night & Ice Cream Smorgasbord DATE: TUESDAY, ®CTOEER 1 7TH TIME: 7:®®PM PLACE: READING SENIOR CENTER This is our way of saying thank you for all the time and resources you've put into your island. We hope you can join us! Important Reminders l 'i ® Please let us know if you will be responsible for your site again next year. ® Beginning October 181", we will be removing all signs and flags. If you would like to keep your flag, please remove it prior. ® Please put your island to rest for the winter. ® Railroad station barrels need holiday greens in early December for the Polar Express Train visit. PLEASE PLACE YOUR DECORATIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST HEAVY FREEZE OR THEY WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PLACE IN THE DIRT! Please RSVP by Monday, October 9th, so that we can purchase the needed supplies. If responding via e-mail, please indicate AAI in the heading. Thank you! Susan Bowe: 781-944-7807 Bbowe@comcast.net Sue Hunter: 781-942-7311 almoda@comcast.net 3~' Agenda for 93/95 ITF Meeting on 10/4 Page 1 of 4 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Frey, Bob (EOT) [Bob,Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:00 AM To: Paul; Frey, Bob (EOT); Corey, John; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey, Paul; Chong, Michael; Clarke, Dennis; Cosgrove, Joe; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike;_ Gallagher, Jim; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; McLaughlin, Tom; Meaney, Paul; Molter, Andy; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Suzanne; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill Cc: Blaustein, Joan; Callan, Melissa (Rep Mike Festa); Lindstrom, Michael (SEN); Cooke, Don; DiSarcina, Tony; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark (MAPC); Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Harwood, Tracey (Mayor McLaughlin); Town Manager; Lucas, Barbara (MAPC); Lutz, Elaine; Martel, Justin (Rep Brad Jones); McKinnon, Anne; McLaughlin, Thomas; Mcvann, John; Medeiros, Paul (work); Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen (Rep Paul Casey); Purdy, Jim; Pyke, Keri; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick (Rep Brad Jones); rmayo@mass-trucking.org Subject: RE: Property issues and 93/95 ITF Meeting on 10/4 Paul and Members of the Task Force, I agree that when we document potential takings, they should be clearly spelled out for each and any alternative. The "Highlights" of our last meeting - by definition a brief summary - left out the potential commercial property takings for Alternative H3 and, to be concise, should have left out that once sentence reference to H4 as well (or, each one should have had a brief sentence or two). The full meeting summary will contain a clear and complete discussion of potential takings for any and all of the alternative plans, and will be posted to the web site soon. But since we are so close to our next meeting, for simplicity sake I have just deleted the brief H4 takings reference in the highlights document and re-posted to the web site. This document is superseded anyway once the full meeting summary comes out... One important point to remember for all: The H3 Alternative - and its variations - would only affect COMMERCIAL properties in terms of full or partial takings. Let's continue these discussions at Wednesday's ITF meeting, and potential takings for each alternative (if any) will be reflected equally in future documents. Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frey@eot.state.ma.us From: Paul [mailto:paulderman@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:32 AM 10/2/2006 9 Agenda for 93/95 ITF Meeting on 10/4 Page 2 of 4 To: 'Frey, Bob (EOT)'; 'Corey, John'; 'Schubert, Rick'; 'Anthony, Camille'; 'Barnes, Jonathan'; 'Bruen, Darlene'; 'Casey, Paul'; 'Chong, Michael'; 'Clarke, Dennis'; 'Cosgrove, Joe'; 'DiBlasi, Joe'; 'Durrant, Ian'; 'Everson, Jeff; Testa, Mike'; 'Gallagher, Jim'; 'Grover, Robert'; 'Hamblin, Eileen; 'Havern, Robert'; 'Jones, Bradley'; 'Katsoufis, George'; 'Kennedy, Anthony'; 'Kinsman, Art'; 'Leiner, Craig'; 'McLaughlin, Tom'; 'Meaney, Paul'; 'Motter, Andy'; 'Natale, Patrick'; 'Rogers, Maureen A.'; 'Smith, Suzanne'; 'Stinson, Richard'; 'Sullivan, Dan'; 'Tarallo, Ed'; 'Tisei, Richard'; 'Webster, Bill' Cc: 'Blaustein, Joan'; 'Callan, Melissa (Rep Mike Festa)'; Lindstrom, Michael (SEN); 'Cooke, Don'; 'DiSarcina, Tony'; 'DiZoglio, Dennis'; Draisen,.Mark (MAPC); 'Edwards, Adriel'; 'Florino, Ron'; 'Grzegorzewski, Josh'; 'Harwood, Tracey (Mayor McLaughlin)'; 'Hechenbleikner;-Peter'; Lucas, Barbara (MAPC); 'Lutz, Elaine'; 'Martel, Justin (Rep Brad Jones)'; 'McKinnon, Anne'; 'McLaughlin, Thomas'; 'Mcvann, John'; 'Medeiros, Paul (work)'; 'Miller, Kenneth'; 'O'Rourke, Carmen (Rep Paul Casey)'; 'Purdy, Jim'; 'Pyke, Keri'; 'Reilly, Chris'; 'Schwartz, Bill'; 'Stein, Kathy'; Tafoya, Ben'; 'Van Magness, Frederick.(Rep Brad Jones)'; rmayo@mass-trucking.org Subject: RE: Agenda for 93/95 ITF Meeting on 10/4 Bob and members of the task force, I am concerned with the fact that the Highlights of the 9-13-6 mentions the possibility that a small taking could occur with H-4 but there is no mention of the taking of a building and land from various property owners with H- 3. 1 would suggest and request that be clearly stated on this document. Thanks Paul Medeiros From: Frey, Bob (EOT) [mailto: Bob. Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 9:24 AM To: Corey, John; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey, Paul; Chong, Michael; Clarke, Dennis; Cosgrove, Joe; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff, Festa, Mike; Gallagher, Jim; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; McLaughlin, Tom; Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Motter, Andy; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Suzanne; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill Cc: Blaustein, Joan; Callan, Melissa (Rep Mike Festa); Lindstrom, Mike. (Sen Richard Tisei); Cooke, Don; DiSarcina, Tony; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Harwood, Tracey (Mayor McLaughlin); Hechenbleikner, Peter; Lucas, Barbara; Lutz, Elaine; Martel, Justin (Rep Brad Jones); McKinnon, Anne; McLaughlin, Thomas; Mcvann, John; Medeiros, Paul (work); Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen (Rep Paul Casey); Purdy, Jim; Pyke, Keri; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick (Rep Brad Jones); rmayo@mass-trucking.org Subject: Agenda for 93/95 ITF Meeting on 10/4 Hello Again Task Force Members: The agenda for next week's 10/4 Task Force meeting is attached: «ITF 2006 10-04 meeting agenda.doc>> As you can see from the agenda, we will go deeper into our review of how the alternatives measure up against each other. But more importantly, we'd like everyone to leave with a good GENERAL understanding of each alternative. We will NOT have a preferred alternative going into the second public meeting on 10/25. Our main goal on the 25th will be to present each alternative group (both highway and non-highway) and ask for additional public input. Discussion/debate/evaluation will continue into the November ITF meeting(s). Remember that we are at Reading's Parker Middle School, not the Senior Center. See you on Wednesday. Thanks, - Bob 10/2/2006 3 Agenda for 93/95 ITF Meeting on 10/4 Page 3 of 4 Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frey@eot.state.ma.us PS: We will have copies of the designs.at the ITF meeting, and the files are available at www.9395info.com under Documents\Plans and Studies. There will be some slight revisions after next week's meeting... From: Frey, Bob (EOT) Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:40 PM To: ' Corey, John'; 'Schubert, Rick'; 'Anthony, Camille'; 'Barnes, Jonathan'; 'Breen, Darlene'; 'Casey, Paul; 'Chong, Michael'; 'Clarke, Dennis'; 'Cosgrove, Joe'; 'DiBlasi, Joe'; 'Durrant, Ian'; 'Everson, Jeff; Testa, Mike'; 'Gallagher, Jim'; 'Grover, Robert; 'Hamblin, Eileen'; 'Havern, Robert; 'Jones, Bradley'; 'Katsoufls, George'; 'Kennedy, Anthony'; 'Kinsman, Art; 'Leiner, Craig'; 'McLaughlin, Tom'; 'Meaney, Paul'; 'Medeiros, Paul'; 'hotter, Andy'; 'Natale, Patrick'; 'Rogers, Maureen A.'; 'Smith, Suzanne'; 'Stinson, Richard'; 'Sullivan, Dan'; Tarallo, Ed'; Tisei, Richard'; 'Webster, Bill' Cc: 'Blaustein, Joan'; 'Callan, Melissa (Rep Mike Festa)'; 'Christello, Tricia (Mass Motor TA)'; 'Lindstrom, Mike (Sen Richard Tisei)'; 'Cooke, Don'; 'DiSarcina, Tony; 'DiZoglio, Dennis'; 'Draisen, Mark'; 'Edwards, Adriel'; 'Florino, Ron'; 'Frey, Bob'; 'Grzegorzewski, Josh'; 'Harwood, Tracey (Mayor McLaughlin)'; 'Hechenbleikner, Peter'; 'Lucas, Barbara'; 'Lutz, Elaine'; 'Martel, Justin (Rep Brad Jones)'; 'McKinnon, Anne'; 'McLaughlin, Thomas'; 'Mcvann, John'; 'Medeiros, Paul (work)'; 'Miller, Kenneth'; 'O'Rourke, Carmen (Rep Paul Casey); 'Purdy, Jim'; 'Pyke, Ked'; 'Reilly, Chris'; 'Schwartz, Bill'; 'Stein, Kathy'; Tafoya, Ben; 'Van Magness, Frederick (Rep Brad Jones)' Subject: Preliminary Highway Designs and Next ITF Mtg 10/4 Greetings Task Force Members: As promised, the preliminary highway designs for the 1-9311-95 Interchange have been posted to the web site www.9395info.com. They can be accessed under Documents\Plans and Studies. There is also document containing written descriptions of each design. As you know, these will be presented and discussed at the next public informational meeting on October 25th. Collectively, these files are currently too large to e-mail, but sometime next week, they will be reformatted and better highlighted on the web site, integrated with more promotional information about the upcoming public meeting and more background information on the last (back in April). After reformatting, we may be able to e-mail these design file(s), but for now everyone can view/print/save them off the web site. We still have one more ITF meeting before the public meeting... The next meeting of the 1-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force will be: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 4:30 PM - 7:00 PM Cafeteria Parker Middle School 45 Temple Street Reading, MA 01867 NOTE THAT WE WILL BE AT PARKER MIDDLE SCHOOL, NOT THE SENIOR CENTER ! (we were at Parker once before in Spring '05) Directions: (see also attached map in pdf format) 1.0/2/2006 V_1~ Agenda for 93/95 ITF Meeting on 10/4 Page 4 of 4 From Rt. 128/95 North or South, take Exit 38B N (Rt. 28N) toward Reading Square. Take LEFT at 2nd set of lights (Mobil station) onto Summer Avenue. Take RIGHT at 2nd set of lights onto Woburn Street and first LEFT onto Temple Street. Parker Middle School is on right. From Rt. 93 to Exit 38 (Read ing/Wilmington). Follow signs for Reading onto (Rt. 129/1-owell Street). At 1 st set of Lights take RIGHT (P & S Convenient on Left) onto Willow Street, continue across railroad tracks. Take 1st LEFT onto Summer Avenue. Proceed 1/2 mile+ and take 6th LEFT onto Temple Street. Parker Middle School is on left. << File: Parker Middle School.pdf At this meeting, we will continue discussion of the highway designs, the integration with the transit/TDM components, and planning for the October 25th public meeting. Stay tuned for more information. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frey@eot.state.ma.us 310/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: cycaouette@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:54 AM To: Town Manager Cc: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square @ Reading I am a senior citizen here in Reading who has been observing the circus atmoshpere surrounding this project over the last several months and I'd like to share my observations with you. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I don't really care whether this particular project goes or not but if the residents of this town see the likes of a housing complex on that property in the future, they might well wish, including those close to that area, that they had a Park Square. I have read all the material put out by the town, CARE and RRRED, much of which has been full of bias and self-centeredness, heavy on opinion and light on facts. The report of the Working Group was pretty empty on substance and could have been written in one long night. It is hard to believe that this town would put any developer through months of time, effort and cost only to be shot down by the pressures of a few and, it appears to me, maybe a few bruised egos. It appears to this taxpayer that the decision was made long ago and only confirmed at last week's selectmen's meeting. This is one taxpayer who thinks the taxpayers of this town deserve better! Cy Caouette U3? 10/3/2006 Page 1 - of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Karen Bell [richkbell@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:55 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: park square To all the selectmen: I know you have been receiving many a-mails both for and against this project. You task has been to assess the feasibility of such a project and to listen to all voices. I am not sure that this has been the case throughout this particular issue. Usually in cases like these, the dissenters are the loudest, and this is no different. We have maintained a dignified and truthful campaign, and have not put out lies, threats, boycotts, or any other means of trying to dissuade people from daring to come forward and support this cause. We have been polite at open meetings and have been instructed by W/S to remain fair and calm at all times, as their goal was to place a project in Reading that would be welcome and one that would be a great source of money and enjoyment for all. It would seem that at this very late date, the common thread is the worry of traffic problems. I don't think that there is living soul in this town that is unaware that some heavier traffic would occur, and at very heavy shopping times, there could be some congestion. If Reading is to have this very lovely and useful center placed here, one must accept the findings of three traffic surveys and trust it to work in a satisfactory way. I can't imagine that there is selectman who thinks that high-density housing would be any exception. Once a housing development is in place, there will be access roads to South Street, causing more traffic than the life style center would, and this is a fact. Housing produces neighbors, and they will use the neighborhood for cutting through for every destination. The fact that the land would have to be subdivided, would produce a variety of styles, leaving the possibility of an unattractive situation on this property. The distinct possibility that the land would eventually end up with housing and a small strip mall is very real, and not one that would endear the judgment of our selectmen to most residents who are smarting from the loss of other great projects that should have been developed here. If you are concerned about being "blamed" for anything that could cause occasional traffic problems, let me urge you to be "blamed" for doing your best to help Reading grow in a wonderful way, one that would bring helpful tax dollars to us, and not one that would cause possible overcrowding and redistricting in our school system. This possible outcome has many residents very concerned, and one that I do not think would be forgotten at the polls. Let your legacy be one of making a choice that was wanted by most of the residents of this town. Of course, one way to eliminate any blame would be to have this decision made by a special ballot vote thereby putting the decision in the hands of the residents of Reading, where citizens feel it belongs. I am respectfully yours, Karen Bell 0 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Bob Wallace [bob.wallace@hubinternational.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:55 AM To: Town Manager Subject: FW: Park Square at Reading - Now or Never Dear Mr Hechenbleikner; I strongly feel the Park Square at Reading project is a much better option for the town than hi-rise housing or a similar project. The Park Square option would bring much needed revenue to the town and residents couls shop locally & not go to other towns. Robert I Wallace 60 Causeway Road Reading, MA From. Laurie Boucher Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:23 AM To: Bob Wallace Subject: FW: Park Square at Reading - Now or Never From: RRRED [mailto:info@rrred.org] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 5:45 PM To: info@rrred.org Subject: Park Square at Reading - Now or Never Dear RRRED Members, We are writing to you once again regarding the Park Square at Reading project. As we told you in our e-mail of last week, the Board of Selectmen voted down the oroiect 4 to 1. To our surprise, despite not receiving the endorsement of the Board of Selectmen, the developer of Park Square at Reading has not given up. They say that because of all the work that they, have already put into the project and because they strongly feel that a vast majority of the Town of Reading (75% really wants this project, they are going to continue on with their fight. That's the good news. The bad news is that the opponents of Park Square at Reading are trying to leverage the negative vote of the Board of Selectmen so that this project remains squashed in its tracks. Last Friday bight at 11:45 P.M., the head of Reading Care (the group opposed to the project) sent out an e-mail to the Reading CARE members urging them to e-mail the Board of selectmen thanking them for their vote and urging them not to let W/S Development Associates continue on with their project. By 2:00 P.M. on Saturday the BOS had received over 25 a-mails from Reading CARE doing just that. The three BOS members who are opposed to the project are using these Reading CARE a-mails to justify their vote. We can't let this happen. 10/3/2006 3~ Page 2 of 2 We need you to e-mail the Board of Selectmen and let them know that their vote was wrong and that they have done the Town of Reading a terrible injustice by not granting the developer an opportunity to come in and meet with them to try to put this project together. We thank you all for sianina uo to RRRED and for the a-mails that you have alreadv sent in. but that is not enough. We need you to e-mail the Board of Selectmen and to let them know your true feelings. We know that everybody is busy with a million things, but we need you to take 5 minutes of your time to put together this important e-mail. A number of you have e-mailed into RRRED stating your frustration with the Board of Selectmen. We truly appreciate your thoughts, but you need to tell them to the Board of Selectmen, not us. Once again here are the a-mails of the Town Manager and the Board of Selectmen: town manaaer(cci.read ino.ma.us selectmen@)ci.readino.ma.us (Town Manager - Peter Hechenbleikner) (Board of Selectmen). If you are in favor of this project and you want this process to continue on, then you must send in these e-mails. The Board of Selectmen's next meeting is Tomorrow night (Tuesday, October 3rd) at 7:00 P.M., thus it is imperative that the BOS receives a bunch of these a-mails before their meeting. We thank you for your previous efforts, but we need you to step up again now. If we sit idly by, before we know it there is going to be another hi-rise, hi-density housing development on that site, and then we will have no one to blame but ourselves (and the current Board of Selectmen). Thank you very much for your time and support. I urge you to please, please take the time now to send in this important e-mail. Respectfully, Caryn Hayes RRRED - Corresponding Secretary 10/3/2006 0 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Nancy Leary [nwleary@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:17 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Park Square Reading I am extremely disappointed with your handling of the Park Square Reading project. As a group, your behavior reminds me of the parent who rewards the whining child only to get him to be quiet. There are some very vocal opponents to this project, but all the townspeople should have an opportunity to be heard (not only those who act like ill-behaved children). Your role is to serve the constituents of your town, and to that end, you should be seeking answers for us to ensure we have all the information possible to make decisions about our town. It is our role as members of the town, not yours, to decide whether we want to support the Park Square Reading project. The town does not own this parcel of land & the town leadership should not presume to think it is your decision about what will go onto that site. The question should be put to a vote for the people of the town to decide. Some of you have said you are sick of hearing & talking about this project. Well, some of us feel the same way about the opinions being voiced and your behavior with this project. Let us vote. We pay the taxes here, deal with our student's class sizes, and drive to other towns to go to health food stores & book stores. It's our town, it's time to let us decide. If Park Square Reading does not go up for public vote, & a 40B complex ends up on the site, I will vote against each of you who did not support the project when it comes time for your reelection. Your role is to serve the people, not make our decisions for us. Nancy Leary 23 Jessica Circle 10/3/2006 A, I) Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: ckzeek@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:28 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square at Reading I am writing to express my support for the Park Square at Reading project. I was disappointed in the board's earlier "no" vote on the project. This developer has worked with the town through the working group and shown a consistent willingness to adapt plans (for instance, by adding a residential component) to fit the town's requests. Other developers may be far less interested in collaboration, and the town may find itself without a real voice in their projects. Park Square at Reading will be an asset to Reading, both in appearance and in revenues. I urge you to reconsider and reopen the conversation with the developer. Cathy Zeek Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. 10/3/2006 0 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Brian Jones [brian.jones@deputycollector.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:35 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Park Square Good morning- I have been following the Park Square proposal for about 6 months and it appears that there has not been very good progress made towards some sort of resolution. Alth6ugh I am an advocate of the project I certainly can understand the reservations and issues of those who oppose or are on the fence. Some of the concerns could negatively impact our town and no one wants to see that. However, I guess I'm a bit disappointed that there has not been enough effort made to find a middle ground. I think Mr. Goldy had a good idea at last week's meeting that could, at the very least, solve the issue as to whether a project can be put in place that would satisfy both sides involved. If the Town came up with something and presented it to W/S, and asked, "can you do this?", would that not be a move in the right direction? Unfortunately it didn't seem the other selectmen were too receptive to that idea. Some just didn't want to go through the "same-old, same-old." Maybe 400,000 sq feet was not conducive to the area as W/S had initially proposed. They came back with 320,000 sq feet and that has not been well received by the BOS. Is it now time for the Board to bring something, if anything at all, to the table and see if W/S can make it work? I believe we have a good opportunity to bring in substantial tax dollars to our town and it will be unfortunate if it slips away. Regards, Brian Jones 69 Richards Rd. 10/3/2006 Park Square at Reading Page I of I Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Covitz, William M. [WCovitz@hbrside.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:03 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square at Reading I want to make it known that I support the Park Square project and it's developer. I truly believe that the addition of some upscale merchants will be good for the town. I also think that this will help to support and perpetuate the type of town feeling that Reading is trying to create. If we are conscious of the type of vendors we allow in the town, consider our past history. We have become the pizza joint, pharmacy and gas station capital of the area! Let's not forget fast food too. Let's change this course. 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: jaimeajones@aim.com Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:18 AM To: Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen Subject: park square To: Peter Hechenbleikner and the Board of Selectmen, I am writing to you regarding the proposal for Park Square at Reading. I watched the Selectman's meeting on Sept. 25th and I believe the discussion for the proposal should not be terminated. I believe the impact of whatever is built on the Addison-Wesley property would effect the entire town, therefore, the residents of Reading should have the opportunity to vote for or against the Park Square proposal. I am in favor of Park Square as well as many other'residents who recently signed a petition I started with my husband. I would be disappointed if a decision which would have such an big effect on the town was left up to 5 individuals rather than the residents whom would be effected. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Jaime Jones 69 Richards Road Reading, MA Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail 2 GB of storage and industry-leading .sparn and email virus protection. 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Matthew M. MacKoul [mackoul.matthew@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:05 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square As a reading resident, I am extremely disappointed with the recent vote of the Selectmen against the Park Square project. I believe you do not speak for the majority of Reading residents that wish this project to move forward and have done the Town of Reading an injustice by not granting the developer an opportunity to continue its meetings with the Board. This town does not need another high density housing project. Matthew M. MacKoul, Esq. Sabbah and MacKoul, P.C. Telephone 978-664-9944 The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and delete the original message. Circular 230 Disclaimer: To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations governing written tax advice, please be advised that any tax advice included in this communication, including any attachments, is not intended, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding any federal tax penalty or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to another person. Thank you. 10/3/2006 L~ Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: bluecrab22@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:22 PM To: selectmen@ci.reading. ma. us Cc: Town Manager Subject: Park Square at Reading Dear Board of Selectmen and Mr. Hechenbleiker, Please note that we would like to make clear our strong support for the Park Square at Reading project. We hope that you will immediately and fully support this important project as well. Thank you, Bruce and Kathleen Smith Reading, MA 10/3/2006 L ~I Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Kate Obenedetto1 @verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:54 PM To: Reading - Selectmen To the Board of Selectman: This is in reference to the Park Square development. I want you to know that my husband Joe & I are very much in favor of this project. It would be horrendous if this project became housing. The people that have volunteered their time to this project should be commended for all their hard work. Sincerely, Kate Benedetto 5 Lindsay Lane Reading, MA 0 10/3/2006 Life Style Center Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Mike Slezak [mslezak@linea5.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:03 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: 'RRRED' Subject: Life Style Center To the Board of Selectmen Page 1 of 1 As I have mentioned to R. Shubert, I believe the duty of the selectmen and the Town is to evaluate any proposed use which varies from zoning, by the criteria of whether the proposed use is better than, equal to, or worse than what can be done as of right. 1-truly believe that the life style center is a far less intrusive and problematic use than the permitted hotel and 600,000 square feet of office. The office space would produce parking of 2400 cars (at the typical rate of 4 per thousand square feet). All coming and going at rush hour. These would be in addition to the parking/ access needs of either a hotel or 40B housing. I strongly urge the selectmen to continue to negotiate with the life style center developer as the Town will have greater input than is possible in an as of right project(s). Sincerely, Mchael Slezak 10/3/2006 s OBTAINED DIMENSIONS AND LOT ASSESSORS MAP. NO AREA TOWN Of READING O - _ - RE_ c ,LEAS _ _ BIT. Co _ wxLy 1S ' CON i . _ f_:.__ _.r_.. - - 51DE #j5 ~ f 2 STORY t BRICK ~2g t WOOD P pT10 OF READING CFtjER ` RET- 2 STORY BRICK kdNC \y /WALL a 15 P { a MAP 65 ASSES5OR 6 ~'3~`' C SO WALL 65 ASSE PARCEL • ~k4 SSO , M AP a !~it PARCEL SF y 22,512 AREA sus ~ w a e~ GEaROE is J. AS n ~ cQ . Ca ti US zA CIVIL 2,° ,s ' f"'"- ASSESSOR MAP 65 xaus~ p ARCEL $ st6 SITE PLAN .KING LOT l- R STS-~-~T PAR PA~.K.E' n evCINTIRE, JR- ASSESSOR MAP of public Works _ 2J7' art~e~t APT ~8. 2QD6 SCALE: 1r,~ ,Dep • .Divis on - ENGINEER ,,,g1.,eering DATE. S TOWN Town of Reading ZAMBpURAS Massachusetts DIRECTOR D.P•W GEORGE P ARCEL 9 EX141 B1.T „A ,