The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-10-10 Board of Selectmen PacketMichael F. McCall, Chairman Samuel P. Chase, Vice Chairman William F. Dalton, Clerk BOARD OF SELECTMEN 'd'own ®ffIlees 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824-2777 (978) 250-5201 FAX: (978) 250-5252 . C 204) 70'L'4 Philip M. Ehopoulos Thomas A. Newcomb a September 21, 2006 To; Surrounding Local Licensing Authorities: The Chelmsford Board of Selectmen at their meeting on September 18, 2006, voted unanimously to recommend rejection of the Udine in Food Stores ballot measure (Question 1) on the November ballot, and to notify nearby communities of their vote. Sincerely, Michael F. McCall Chainnan, Board of Selectmen cc; Senator Susan Fargo Representative David Naugle Representative Cory Atkins Representative Geoff Hall Representative Tom Golden '70 . J aCO 0 Greenwood Wine & Spirits Greenwood Flazy 969 (Main Street Wakefield, MA o 1880 rkone (781) 246-5`1'57 Fax (78 1) 2+6-015 8 greenwoodwine@Jahoo.com September 19, 2006 Board of Selectman Town of Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2601 Dear Selectman, Enclosed please find a copy of the wine initiative as filed by the Massachusetts Food Association. This initiative will appear on the November 7tn Ballot as Question 1. I have volunteered to work with the off-premise alcohol retailers in the Town of Reading. As their spokesperson, we respectfully request to speak with the Board of Selectman at your earliest available meeting, to discuss the ramifications for the Town of Reading, should this initiative be approved by the voters. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Cynthia Green cc4Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Wine Shop of Reading Square Liquors Reading (Busa) Liquors Atlantic Food Mart 2,a2 The full text of the Proposed Initiative.- AN ACT TO INCREASE CONSUMER CONVENIENCE AND CHOICE BY PERMITTING FOOD STORES TO SELL WINE Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority as follows: Chapter one hundred and thirty-eight of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting the following section: Section 15B. An additional class of licenses allowing the sale of wine at food stores is hereby created. These licenses shall be known as "wine-at-food-store licenses" and may be issued at the discretion of local licensing authorities following the procedures set forth in section fifteen A of this chapter. For purposes of this section "food store" shall mean a grocery store, shop, supermarket, warehouse-type seller, club, outlet, or other seller, which sells at retail food for consumption off the seller's premises either alone or in combination with grocery items or other nondurable items typically found in a grocery store, provided such items are sold to individuals for their own personal, family, or household use; and provided further, that such food store must carry fresh or processed meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, baked goods and baking ingredients, canned goods and dessert items. Local licensing authorities may issue wine-at-food-store licenses to individuals or business entities duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth or any other state, provided the applicant is approved by the commission; and provided further that any individual applicant is twenty-one years of age or older and has not been convicted of a felony. No license holder may hold more than ten percent of the total number of wine-at-food-store licenses this section authorizes local authorities to issue throughout the commonwealth, but wine-at-food-store licenses shall not be considered in applying any limits on the number of licenses this chapter otherwise authorizes applicants to hold or local licensing authorities to issue. Irrespective of the number of other licenses issued under this chapter by a city or town's licensing authorities, the local licensing authorities in any city or town are authorized, in their discretion, to issue up to five wine-at-food-store licenses and, in any city or town with more than five thousand residents, to issue one additional such license for each additional population unit of five thousand or any fraction thereof residing in that city or town. Holders of such licenses may sell wine alone or in combination with any other item or items they offer for sale. Except as expressly provided in this section, the provisions of law applicable to the issuance, renewal, suspension, and termination of licenses issued pursuant to section fifteen and the regulation of and operation by such license holders shall apply to wine-at-food-store licenses and license holders. The amount of any initial or renewal fee for such a license shall be determined by the local licensing authorities issuing or renewing that license. Authorized and paid for by: Massachusetts Food Association for Consumer Convenience in Wine Sales 31 Milk Street, Suite 518, Boston, ETA 02109 * Tel: (617) 542-3085 • www.mafood.com Z c~3 Wine Merchants and Concerned Citizens for SAFETY 1 Beacon Street, Suite 1320 Boston, MA 02108 `3 1 Ms. Cheryl A. Johnson Town Cleric 16 Lowell St. Reading, MA 01867 Dear Ms. A. Johnson, I'd like to use this letter as an opportunity to provide you with information regarding the Vote No on Question 1 campaign. It would be most appreciated if you could pass this information along to the legislative body of your city or town. Ballot Question 1 will threaten both public safety and the vitality of small businesses in Massachusetts. This ballot initiative, which will appear on the Massachusetts statewide ballot on November 7th, will create a new type of liquor license that if approved, would increase the current number of licenses in the state by almost 3,000, nearly doubling the current ntunber of outlets. Called the "Wine in Grocery Stores" question by its proponents, it could more accurately be terined the "Convenience Store Alcohol" question. The new type of license proposed would allow grocery stores, convenience stores. certain drue stores. and Lyas stations to carry wine without any increase in state oversight or local enforcement. Despite the numerous studies outlining the correlation between increased alcohol availability/outlet density and alcohol-related abuses and incidents, the national and international grocery and convenience store chains continue to push this initiative in the name of "convenience." While the Massachusetts Food Association is presenting this as convenience for the consumer, with a person able to pick up a bottle of wine when they shop for dinner, what it actually represents is wholesale change to the Massachusetts liquor licensing system. Thousands of additional licenses will be issued based on population - one for every 5,000 residents. Wine will be sold at grocery stores and convenience stores throughout the state, not to mention in gas stations and big box retailers. There is a very minimal food sales requirement that is easily met by convenience stores today that can easily be met to qualify for a license. Available liquor licenses don't tend to lie in inventory unused. And the experts show again and again the direct correlation between the number of alcohol outlets and increases in di Link driving and underage drinking. Some highlights of these studies can be found on our website, www.VoteNoOnOuestionOne.com. Massachusetts package store owners are integrated members of the community and consider the sale of alcohol to be a serious responsibility, as evidenced by their monitoring of stores and parking lots for public drinking and working closely with local 2, q 14 law enforcement to restrict sales to minors. The threat of a violation leading to a temporary store closure offers an added incentive for vigilance. Wine sales will only represent a small segment of sales for the national grocery and convenience store chains, who will not be concerned with a potential violation that may temporarily close their wine section. This lack of accountability is evidenced in other states where grocery stores fail to stop underage buyers 25 - 30% of the time, almost double the rate of package stores. In addition to the safety ramifications, this initiative threatens to replace our neighborhood businesses with large mega-stores. Massachusetts dollars will go to out-of- state or international corporations, and 3,000 - 4,000 jobs will be jeopardized. Currently, Massachusetts works hard to prevent alcohol abuse and alcohol related incidents through an infrastructure of responsibility and accountability, comprised of tough laws, strict regulations and comprehensive prevention programs. This effort has paid off. In the latest statistics released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Massachusetts was 48th in drunk driving fatalities, falling from 47th in 2004. The drunk driving fatality rate in the states that allow wine to be sold in food stores is 127% higher in than Massachusetts. This is an irresponsible initiative being funded by the deep pockets of the national and international grocery and mega-stores that have prioritized their profits ahead of the safety and well-being of Massachusetts residents. We have included the text of the initiative and a breakdown of how many additional licenses would be issued to each city and town in the state. We would be honored to have the support and endorsement By sieninLy the endorsement form we will be able to list vour city/town as a public supporter. Thank you verv much. If you have any questions, please contact George Cronin at Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications at (617) 443-9933 x326. Sincerely, X , 41#,- Frank Anzalotti Chairman, Wine Merchants and Concerned Citizens for SAFETY Enclosures *Paid for and Authorized by Wine Merchants and Concerned 0lizens for SAFETY. 111; 0111 ' S M 1 ~ n 1 o ~L ' 1 [c~ .f RS pa puro ~Y . 'c+e~n es ce . ~ Abington 1 16,0521 e 71 81 , 151 . 114% Acton 20,8021 81 91 171 113% Acushnet 1 10,5941 61 71 131 117% Adams 1 8,5871 ' 61 61 121 100% Agawam 1 28,528 8 101 181 125% Alford 393 0 51- 51 500% Amesbury 1 16,7181 41 81 121 200% Amherst 34,5671 101 11 211 110% Andover 31,9331 91 111 201 122% Aquinnah ( 3561 01 51 51 500% Arlington 1 41,9031 01 131 13 •500% Ashburnham 1 5,8421 41 61 10 150% Ashby 1 2,9211 31 51 81 167% Ashfield 1 1,8161 11 51 61 500% Ashland 1 15,4741 71 81 151 114% Athol 1 11,5891 81 71 151 88% Attleboro 43,5021 151 131 281 87% Auburn 1 16,4241 71 81 151 114% Avon 1 4,4231 81 51 13 63% Ayer 1 7,2581 81 61 14 75% Barnstable 48,9071 191 141 331 74% Barre 1 5,3531 51 6 111 120% Becket ( 1,7561 31 5 81 167% Bedford j 12,5831 31 71 101 233% Belchertown 1 13,8051 61 71 131 117% Bellingham 1 15,7051 91 81 171 89% Belmont 1 23,8591 01 91 91 500% Berkley 6,2731 41 61 101 150% Berlin 2,6631 21 5 71 250% Bernardston 1 2,1991 21 51 71 250% Beverly 40,2551 161 131 291 81% Billerica i 39,5931 111 121 231 109% Blackstone 1 9,0621 511 61 571 12% Blandford 1,2421 11 51 61 500% Bolton 1 4,3441 21 51 71 250% Boston 581,6161 2011 1211 3221 60% Bourne 19,5231 91 81 171 89% Boxborough 5,0121 31 61 91 200% Boxford 1 8,2141 , 01 61 , 61 500% Boylston 4,1621 11 51 61 5000/6 Braintree 33,7281 71 11) 181 157% Brewster 1 10,401 71 71 141 100% Bridgewater 1 25,142 111 101 21 91% Brimfield 1 3,5521 11 51 61 500% Brockton ( 95,0901 301 241 541 80% Brookfield I 3,1331 21 51 71 250% Brookline 1 56,6421 181 161 341 89% Buckland 1 1,9941 21 51 71 250% Burlington 1 22,8491 61 91 151 150% Cambridge 1 101,5871 401 251 651 63% aCz~ Canton 1 21,416 101 91 191 90%, Carlisle 4,862 01 51 51 500% Carver ( 11,5361 61 71 131 117% Charlemont 1 1,3851 31 51 81 167% Chariton 1 12,1591 71 71 141 100% Chatham i 6,8491 81 61 141 75% Chelmsford 33,9571 81 111 191 138% Chelsea 34,1061 131 11 241 85% Cheshire 3,3871 11 51 61 500% Chester ( 1,3241 21 51 71 250% Chesterfield 1 1,2611 11 51 61 500% Chicopee ( 54,9921 171 151 321 88% Chilmark 9131 01 51 51 500% Clarksburg 1,6811 11 51 61 500% Clinton 1 13,7741 61 71 131 117% Cohasset 7,2921 51 61 111 120% Colrain 1 1,8641 21 51 71 250% Concord ( 16,9371 81 81 16 100% Conway 1 1,8811 1 51 6 500% Cummington 1 9981 1 51 61 500% Dalton 1 6,7831 41 61 101 150% Danvers 1 25,5881 121 101 221 83% Dartmouth 1 31,1581 101 111 211 110% Dedham 23,2441 71 91 161 129% Deerfield 4,780 61 51 , 111 83% Dennis 1 16,226 131 81 211 62% Dighton 1 6,5561 51 61 11) 120% Douglas ( 7,6531 31 61 91 200% Dover 5,6791 1 61 71 600% Dracut 1 28,8041 16 , 101 261 63% Dudley 1 10,7201 81 71 151 88% Dunstable 1 3,053 01 51 51 500% Duxbury 1 14,660 71 71 141 100%. 1 East Longmeadow 1 14,7041 71 71 141 100% East Bridgewater I 13,6521 8 71 151 88% East Brookfield 1 2,1271 3 51 81 167% Eastham 1 5,632 41 61 101 150% Easthampton ( 16,340 81 81 161 .100% Easton 22,969 101 91 191 90% Edgartown 3,9241 61 51 111 83% Egremont 1 1,3411 21 51 71 .250% Erving 1,5121 21 51 71 250% Essex 1 3,3431 41 51 91 125% Everett 1 37,5401 161 121 281 75% Fairhaven 1 16,3731 91 81. 171 89% Fall River 1 92,760 401 231 631 58% Falmouth ( 33,8231 191 ill 301 58% Fitchburg 1 39,9481 181 121 301 67% Florida 1 6681 11 51 61 500% Foxborough 1 16,3821 81 81 161 100% Framingham 1 66,2431 211 181 391 86% Franklin 1 30,1751 121 111 231 92% ~6(~ Freetown 1 8,8621 41 6 101 150%' Gardner 1 21,049 71 9 161 129% Georgetown 7,827 31 61 91 200% Gill 1 1,3731 21 51. 71 250% Gloucester 1 30,7301 161 11) 271 69% Goshen 1 9661 11 51 61 500% Gosnold 1 871 01 51 51 500% Grafton 15,9811 51 81 131 160% Granby 1 6,3611 31 61 91 200% Granville 1 1,5971 11 51 61 500% Great Barrington 1 7,4451 81 61 141 75% Greenfield 18,1151 131 81 211 62% Groton 10,2101 31 71 101 233% Groveland 1 6,3421 41 61 101 150% Hadley 1 4,9061 41 51 91 125% Halifax 1 7,7901 41 61 101 150% Hamilton 1 8,4301 51 61 111 120% Hampden 5,3091 31 61 91 200% Hancock 9471 21 51 7 250% Hanover 1 13,6831 81 71 15 88% Hanson 1 9,8511 41 61 101 150% Hardwick 1 2,6681 31 51 81 167% Harvard 1 6,1081 11 61 71 600% Harwich 1 12,8591 131 71 201 54% Hatfield 1 3,3541 51 51 101 100% Haverhill 1 60,3261 251 171 421 68% Hawley 1 3441 01 51 51 500% Heath 1 8081 11 51 61 500% Hingham 1 20,3191 101 91 191 90% Hinsdale 1 1,8411 31 51 81 167% Holbrook 1 10,8711 71 71 141 100% Holden 1 16,4371 51 81 131 160% Holland i 2,4671 31 51 81 167% Holliston 1 13,9781 41 71 111 175% Holyoke 1 40,0151 251 131 381 52% Hopedale 1 6,185 21 61 81 300% Hopkinton 1 14,018 31 71 101 233% Hubbardston 1 4,2161 21 51 71 250% Hudson 1 18,3481 111 81 191 73% Hull 1 11,302 61 71 131 117% Huntington 1 2,222 21 51 71 250% Ipswich 1 13,3411 81 71 151 88% Kingston 1 12,2201 61 71 131 117% Lakeville ( 10,4691 71 71 141 100% Lancaster 1 6,6181 01 61 61 500% Lanesborough 1 2,9811 51 51 101 100% Lawrence 1 72,4921 271 191 461 70% Lee 1 5,9011 71 61 131 86% Leicester 1 10,8511 61 71 131 117% Lenox 1 5,1851 71 61 131 86% Leominster 1 42,0001 161 131 291 81% Levereft 1 1,7521 01 51 51 500% Q_? Lexington 30,6311 41 111 151 2750/o' Leyden 1 7961 O1 51 51 500% Lincoln 1 8,0661 O1 61 61 500% Littleton 1 8,6041 51 61 111 120% Longmeadow ( 15,6761 31 81 111 267% Lowell 1 104,3511 251 251 501 100% Ludlow 1 21,8421 101 91 191 90% Lunenburg 1 9,909 71 61 131 86% Lynn 1 89,571 371 221 591 59% Lynnfield 1 11,687 51 71 121 140% Malden 1 55,816 191 16 351 84% Manchester-by-the-Sea 1 5,3631 31 6 91 200% Mansfield 1 23,0111 91 91 18 100% Marblehead 20,4511 61 91 15 150% Marion 5,2821 41 61 101 150% Marlborough 37,9801 141 121 261 86% Marshfield 1 24,775 131 91 221 69% Mashpee ( 14,200 81 71 15 88% Mattapoisett 6,480 31 61 9 200% Maynard 1 10,374 71 71 141 100% Medfield 1 12,4141 41 71 11) 175% Medford 1 54,7341 111 151 261 136% Medway 1 12,9001 51 71 121 140% Melrose 1 26,7841 01 101 101 500% Mendon 1 5,6911 41 61 101 150% Merrimac 1 6,3201 31 61 91 200% Methuen 1 44,8501 181 131 311 72% Middleborough 20,909 121 91 211 75% Middlefield 1 552 01 51 51 500% Middleton' 1 8,9841 31 6 9 200% Milford 1 27,4661 18 10 28 56% Millbury ( 13,3041 8 71 151 88% Millis 1 8,0231 41 61 101 150% Millville 2,9181 31 51 81 167% Milton 25,842 41 101 141 250% Monroe 1 97 01 51 51 500% Monson 1 8,6251 31 61 91 200% Montague 1 8,4521 61 61 121 100% Monterey 1 9441 11 51 61 500% Montgomery 1 7271, O1 51 51 500% Mount Washington 1 1311 01 51 51 500% Nahant 3,6291 11 51 61 500% Nantucket 10,7241 121 71 191 58% Natick 1 32,3211 61 11 171 183% Needham 1 29,1371 O1 10 101 500% New Bedford 1 94,1121 321 231 551 72% New Marlborough 1 1,4931 21 51 71 250% New Braintree 1 1,040 11 51 61 500% New Salem 1 971 11 51 61 500% New Ashford 1 2461 01 51 51 500% Newbury 1 6,8611 61 61 121 100% Newburyport 1 17,4991 91 81 171 89% ~~q Newton Norfolk North Attleborough North Andover North Adams North Reading North Brookfield Northampton Northborough Northbridge Northfield Norton Norwell Norwood Oak Bluffs Oakham Orange Orleans Otis Oxford Palmer Paxton Peabody Pelham Pembroke Pepperell Peru Petersham Phillipston Pittsfield Plainfield Plainville Plymouth Plympton Princeton Provincetown Quincy Randolph Raynham Reading Rehoboth Revere Richmond Rochester Rockland Rockport Rowe Rowley Royalston Russell Rutland Salem 84,323 261 211 471 81%, 10,450 41 71 11( 175% 28,1021 101 101 20) 100% 27,9251 101 10) 201 100% 14,334 71 71 14) 100% 14,0251 81 71 151 88% 4,819 21 51 71 500% 29,2871 171 101 271 59% 14,291 .81 71 .151 88% 13,705 7 71 141 100% 3,1071 2 51 71 250% 19,0131 91 81 171 89% 10,2891, 41 71 ill 175% 28,7301 121 101 221 83% 3,824) 411 5) 91 125% 1,8281 21 5) 71 250% 7,564 71 61 131 86% 6,4911 91 61 151 67% 1,365) 5) 51 101 1000/0 13,7601 61 71 131 117% 12,833 8) 71 151 88% 4,532 21 51 71 250% 49,759) 141 141 281 1000/0 1,441 11 51 6 500% 17,6751, 10i 8) 18 80% 11,4351 21 71 91 350% 8211 01 5.1 51 500% 1,2451 21 51 71 250% 1,6851 21 51 71 250% 44,779) 32) 131 45) 41% 608 11 51 61 500% 7,9781 51 61 11 120% 54,109 19) 151 341 79% 2,724 21 51, 71 250% 3,494 21 51 71 250% 3,472 10) 51 151 50% 89,0591 311 221 531 71% 30,9241 71 ill 181 157% 12,569 61 7) 131 117% 23,585) 5) 91 14) 180% 10,966 7 71 141 100% 47,002 13 141 271 108% 1,6221 01 51 51 500% 5,0681 31 61 9 200% 17,9681 81 81 16 100% 7,8101 01 61 61 500% 349 01 51 51 500% 5,610 31 61 91 200% 1,3211 11 51 61 500% 1,698) 21 51 71 250% 7,036) 41 61 101 150% 42,0671 201 13) 331 65% acID Salisbury ( 8,0041 9 61 151 67%, Sandisfield 1 818 1 511 6 500% Sandwich 1 20,960 111 91 20 82% Saugus 26,4911 611 101 161 167% Savoy ( 7211 11 51 61 500% Scituate 1 18,174 811 81 1611 100% Seekonk ( 13,766 111 711 181 64% Sharon 1 17,456 0 811 811 500% Sheffield ( 3,357 3 51 .81 167% Shelburne 1 2,0631 41 51 91 125% Sherborn 1 4,2631 21 51 71 250% Shirley 7,60411 31 61 91 200% Shrewsbury ( 33,0911 81 ill 191 138% Shutesbury 1 1,8351 01 51 51 500% Somerset 1 18,7311 1011 81 181 80% Somerville ( 76,2961 261 2011 461 77% South Hadley 1 17,41411 51 81 131 1 160% Southampton ( 5,7361 51 611 111 120% Southborough 1 9,42711 81 61 141 75% Southbridge 1 17,4181 911 811 1.71 89% Southwick 1 9,3051 61 61 121 100% Spencer 11 11,98811 51 71 121 140% Springfield 1 152,1571 47 351 821 74% Sterling 1 7,69311 5 61 11) 120% Stockbridge 2,2461 21 5 71 250% Stoneham 22,0211 411 9 131 225% Stoughton 1 27,0941 121 101 221 83% Stow I 6,1361 3 61 91 200% Sturbridge 1 8,47811 6 61 121 1 100% Sudbury 1 17,2461 31 81 111 267% Sunderland 1 3,8021 , 41 51 9 125% Sutton 8,8651 41 61 10 150% Swampscott 1 14,4521 31 71 1011 233% Swansea 1 16,29211 , 811 81 161 100% Taunton 1 56,7811 241 1611 4011 67% Templeton 1 7,2541 411 61 10 150% Tewksbury 1 29,2881 121. 101 22 83% Tisbury ( 3,8631 01 51 51 500% Tolland 1 4321 11 51 61 500% Topsfeld , 1 6,25111 1 11 , 611 71 600% Townsend i 9,3641 31 61 91 200% Truro 1 2,169 411 51 91 125% Tyngsborough 1 11,317 81 71 1511 88% Tyringham 1 35711 01 51 51 500% Upton 1 6,1171 31 61 91 200% Uxbridge 1 12,0361 61 71 131 117% Wakefield ( 24,78111 , 511 91 141 180% Wales 1,786 1 511 61 500% Walpole 22,521 10 91 191 90% Waltham ( 58,8941. 181 1611 341 89% Ware 1 9,9541 71 61 131 86% Wareham I 21,0901 141 91 231 64% Warren 4,9281 51 51 101 100%, Warwick 7531 01 51 51 500% Washington ) 5421 01 51 51 500% Watertown i 32,9151 131 111 241 85% Wayland 13,1901 51 71 121 140% Webster 1 16,8911 101 8 181 80% Wellesley 1 26,578 01 10 101 500% Wellfleet 1 2,841 91 51 141 56% Wendell 1 1,0201 1.1 51 .61 500% Wenham 1 4,4601 01 5 51 500% West Springfield 27,9531 81 10 181 125% West Boylston 7,6491 21 61 81 300% West Bridgewater 1 6,8611 81 61 141 75% West Newbury 4,2651 1 51 61 500% West Brookfield 3,9001 31 51 81 167% West Tisbury 1 2,6341 01 51 51 500% West Stockbridge 1,4531 41 51 91 125% Westborough 1 18,8111 91 81 171 89% Westfield 1 40,5601 131 131 261 100% Westford 1 21,3331 101 91 191 90% Westhampton 1 1,5511 01 51 51 500% Westminster 7,2611 31 61 91 200% Weston ( 11,6451 01 71 71 500% Westport ( 14,6181 81 71 151 88% Westwood ( 14,113 01 71 71 500% Weymouth 1 54,527 221 151 371 68% Whately i 1,572 21 51 71 250% Whitman ( 14,3511 61 71 131 117% Wilbraham 1 13,8661 21 71 91 350% Williamsburg 1 2,4641 31 51 81 167% Williamstown ( 8,3271 31 61 91 200% Wilmington 1 21,6201 41, 9 131 225% Winchendon 9,9871 71 6 131 86% Winchester 21,1821 31 91 121 300% Windsor 1 8591 2 51 71 250% Winthrop 1 17,9811 8 . 81 161 100% Woburn 1 37,8091 81 12 201 150% Worcester 1 175,7061 541 40 941 74% Worthington ( 1,314 11 51 61 500% Wrentham ( 11,028 31 71 101 233% Yarmouth 1 25,1921 91 101 191 111% 1 TOTALS 1 I ( ( 1 I I ( 2,6531 I I ( 28791 I I 5,532 1 1 I 1090/0 ( 2-1 ENDORSEMENT FORM Our organization opposes Question 1, the Massachusetts ballot initiative that will threaten both public safety and the vitality of small businesses in Massachusetts. You may list our organization publicly as an opponent of Massachusetts Ballot Question 1, which will appear on the statewide ballot on November 7, 2006. Contact Name (please print) Current Title Signature Organization or company Mailing Address City State Zip Phone Number Fax Number E-mail Address Date Signed Please mail or fax completed forms to: George Cronin Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications 70 Franldin Street, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 (617) 443-9944 (fax) ael-~3 Ballot Question #1 Text AN ACT TO INCREASE CONSUMER CONVENIENCE AND CHOICE BY PERMITTING FOOD STORES TO SELL WINE Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority as follows: Chapter one hundred and thirty-eight of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting the following section: Section 15B. An additional class of licenses allowing the sale of wine at food stores is hereby created. These licenses shall be known as "wine at food store licenses" and may be issued at the discretion of local licensing authorities following the procedures set forth in section fifteen A of this chapter. For purposes of this section "food store" shall mean a grocery store, shop, supermarket, warehouse-type seller, club, outlet, or other seller, which sells at retail food for consumption off the seller's premises either alone or in combination with grocery items or other nondurable items typically found in a grocery store, provided such items are sold to individuals for their own personal, family, or household use; and provided further, that such food store must carry fresh or processed meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, baked goods and baking ingredients, canned goods and dessert items. Local licensing authorities may issue wine at food store licenses to individuals or business entities duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth or any other state, provided the applicant is approved by the commission; and provided further that any individual applicant is twenty-one years of age or-older and has not been convicted of a felony. No license holder may hold more than ten percent of the total number of wine at food store licenses this section authorizes local authorities to issue throughout the commonwealth, but wine at food store licenses shall not be considered in applying any limits on the number of licenses this chapter otherwise authorizes applicants to hold or local licensing authorities to issue. Irrespective of the number of other licenses issued under this chapter by a city or town's licensing authorities, the local licensing authorities in any city or town are authorized, in their discretion, to issue up to five wine at food store licenses and, in any city or town with more than five thousand residents, to issue one additional such license for each additional population unit of five thousand or any fraction thereof residing in that city or town. Holders of such licenses may sell wine alone or in combination with any other item or items they offer for sale. Except as expressly provided in this section, the provisions of law applicable to the issuance, renewal, suspension, and termination of licenses issued pursuant to section fifteen and the regulation of and operation by such license holders shall apply to wine at food store licenses and license holders. The amount of any initial or renewal fee for such a license shall be determined by the local licensing authorities issuing or renewing that license. ,~2CL I Lf COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH STATE ELECTION WARRANT 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 State Election to vote at Precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 55 Walkers Brook Drive (Former TASC Building) on TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. for the following purpose: To cast their votes in the State Election for the candidates for the following offices and questions: SENATOR IN CONGRESS FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH GOVERNOR/LT. GOVERNOR . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY GENERAL . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH TREASURER . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH AUDITOR FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 0h DISTRICT COUNCILLOR . 6t" DISTRICT SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT MIDDLESEX DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT. 20 th & 30th MIDDLESEX DISTRICTS DISTRICT ATTORNEY NORTHERN DISTRICT CLERK OF COURTS MIDDLESEX COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS MIDDLESEX SOUTH DISTRICT 6th District All Precincts 20th Middlesex District Precincts 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 30th Middlesex District Precincts 2, 3, and 5 i QUESTION l: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 3, 2006? P to SUMMARY . This proposed law would allow local licensing authorities to issue licenses for food stores to sell wine. The proposed law defines a "food store" as a retail vendor, such as a grocery store, supermarket, shop, club, outlet, or warehouse-type seller, that sells food to consumers to be eaten elsewhere (which must include meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, and other specified items), and that may sell other items usually found in grocery stores. Holders of licenses to sell wine at food' stores could sell wine either on its own or together with any other items they sell. The licensing authorities in any city or town of up to 5000 residents could issue up to 5 licenses for food stores to sell wine. In cities or towns of over 5000 residents, one additional license could be issued for each additional 5000 residents (or fraction of 5000). No person or business could hold more than 10% of the total number of the licenses that could be issued under the proposed law. Such licenses would not be counted when applying the laws that limit the number of other kinds of alcoholic beverage licenses that may be issued or held. Any applicant for a license would have to be approved by the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, and any individual applicant would have to be at least 21 years old and not have been convicted of a felony. In issuing any licenses for food stores to sell wine, local licensing authorities would have to use the same procedures that apply to other licenses for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Except where the proposed law has different terms, the same laws that apply to issuance, renewal, suspension and termination of licenses for retail sales of alcoholic beverages which are not to be consumed on the seller's premises, and that apply to the operations of holders of such licenses, would govern licenses to sell wine at food stores, and the operation of holders of such licenses. Local authorities could set fees for issuing and renewing such licenses. A YES VOTE would create a new category of licenses for food stores to sell wine, and it would allow local licensing authorities to issue such licenses. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws concerning the sale of wine. QUES'T'ION 2: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 3, 2006? SUMMARY This proposed law would allow candidates for public office to be nominated by more than one political party or political designation, to have their names appear on the ballot once for each nomination, and to have their votes counted separately for each nomination but then added together to determine the winner. of the election. The proposed law would repeal an existing requirement that in order to appear on the state primary ballot as a candidate for a political party's nomination for certain offices, a person cannot have been enrolled in any other party during the preceding year. The requirement applies to candidates for nomination for statewide office, representative in Congress, governor's councillor, member of the state Legislature, district attorney, clerk of court, register of probate, ~bZ 2 register of deeds, county commissioner,. sheriff, and county treasurer. The proposed law would also allow any person to appear on the primary ballot as a candidate for a party's nomination for those offices if the party's state committee gave its written consent. The proposed law would also repeal the existing requirement that in order to be nominated to appear as an unenrolled candidate on the state election ballot, or on any city or town ballot following a primary, a person cannot have been enrolled in any political party during the 90 days before the deadline for filing nomination papers. The proposed law would provide that if a candidate were nominated by more than one party or political designation, instead of the candidate's name being printed on the ballot once, with the candidate allowed to choose the order in which the parry or political designation names appear after the candidate's name, the candidate's name would appear multiple times, once for each nomination received. The candidate would decide the order in which the party or political designation nominations would appear, except that all parties would be listed before all. political designations. The ballot would allow voters who vote for a candidate nominated by multiple parties or political designations to vote for that candidate under the party or political designation line of their choice. If a voter voted for the same candidate for the same office on multiple party or political designatim lines, the ballot would remain valid but would be counted as a single vote for the candidate on a line without a party or political designation. If voting technology allowed, voting machines would be required to prevent a voter from voting more than the number of times permitted for any one office. The proposed law would provide that if a candidate received votes under more than one party or political designation, the votes would be combined for purposes of determining whether the candidate had won the election. The total number of votes each candidate received under each party or political designation would be recorded. Election officials would announce and record both the aggregate totals and the total by party or political designation. The proposed law would allow a political party to obtain official recognition if its candidate had obtained at least 3% of the vote for any statewide office at either of the two most recent state elections, instead of at only the most recent state election as under current law. The proposed law would allow a person nominated as a candidate for any state, city or town office to withdraw his name from nomination within six days after any party's primary election for that office, whether or not the person sought nomination or was*nominated in that primary. Any candidate who withdrew from an election could not be listed on the ballot for that election, regardless of whether the candidate received multiple nominations. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would allow a candidate for public office to be nominated for the same office by more than one political party or political designation at the same election. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws concerning nomination of candidates for public office. 3 a63 QUESTION 3: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 3, 2006? SUMMARY This proposed law would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state's subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the relevant state agencies about all terms and conditions of the provision of child care services under the state's child care assistance program and its regulations. Under the proposed law, these family child care providers who provide state-subsidized child care would not be considered:public employees, but if 30% of the providers gave written authorization for an employee organization to be their exclusive representative in collective bargaining, the state Labor Relations Commission would hold a secret mail ballot election on whether to certify that organization as the exclusive representative. Parts of the state's public employee labor relations law and regulations would apply to the election and collective bargaining processes. The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in a strike or other refusal to deliver child care services. An exclusive representative, if certified, could then communicate with providers to develop and present a proposal to the state agencies concerning the terms and conditions of child care provider services. The proposed law would then require the parties to negotiate in good faith to try to reach a binding agreement. If the agreed-upon terms and conditions required changes in existing regulations, the state agencies could not finally agree to the terms until they completed the required procedures for changing regulations and any cost items agreed to by the parties had been approved by the state Legislature. If any actions taken under the proposed law required spending state funds, that spending would be subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Any complaint that one of the parties was refusing to negotiate in good faith could be filed with and ruled upon by the Labor Relations Commission. An exclusive representative could collect a fee from providers for the costs of representing them. An exclusive representative could be de-certified under Commission regulations and procedures if certain conditions were met. The Commission could not accept a decertification petition for at least 2 years after the first exclusive representative was certified, and any such petition would have to be supported by 50% or more of the total number of providers. The Commission would then hold a secret mail ballot election for the providers to vote on whether to decertify the exclusive representative. The proposed law states that activities carried out under it would be exempt from federal anti-trust laws. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state's subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the state. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws concerning licensed and other authorized family child care providers. 4 6;2~ G / QUESTION 4 THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon the President and Congress of the United States to end the war in Iraq immediately and bring all United States military forces home from Iraq? • 20th Middlesex Representative District 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 seven (7) days prior to November 7, 2006, the date set for the State Election in said Warrant, and to publish this Warrant in a newspaper published in the Town. Hereof fail not and make return of this warrant with your doings thereon at the time and place of said voting. Given under our hands this 10th day of October, 2006. Ben Tafoya, Chairman James E. Bonazoli, Vice Chairman Stephen A. Goldy, Secretary Camille W. Anthony Richard W. Schubert BOARD OF SELECTMEN A true copy. Attest: Cheryl A. Johnson, Town Clerk Robert H. Prince, Constable a~~ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading: By virtue of this Warrant, I, *on October 2006, notified and warned the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote in elections and Town affairs, to meet at the place and at the time specified by posting att ested copies of this State Election 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 Sumner 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 seven (7) days prior to November 7, 2006, the date set for the State Election in this Warrant. I also caused an attested copy of this Warrant to be published in the Reading Chronicle in the issue of October 2006. Robert H. Prince, Constable A true copy. Attest: Cheryl A. Johnson, Town Clerk pb6 6 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 PCI 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 Background: The following reports are expected to be given under this article: • RMLD annual report • Report on Affordable Housing Planned production • Status of MWRA water purchase • Substance Abuse • State of the Schools Finance Committee Report: No report. Bvlaw Committee Reoort: No report. 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 Backaround: Finance Committee Report: No report. Bvlaw Committee Report: No report. 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 Backaround: Finance Committee Report: No report. Bvlaw Committee Report: No report. 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 Backaround: The town has $160,756 in unpaid bills related to the severe flooding that occurred in May of 2006. FEMA and our insurance company will reimburse 100% of these bills. There were 2 ways to handle the costs related to the flooding. One would have been to declare an emergency at the time of the flooding and deficit spend. The second way is to appropriate funds, as we are doing in this motion and show the anticipated reimbursements as a one time local receipt. Finance Committee Report: Bvlaw Committee Report: No report. 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 Backaround: Finance Committee Report: Bvlaw Committee Report: No report. ARTICLE 6 To see if the Town will vote pursuant to Chapter 44, Section 53EY2 to authorize the use of a revolving fund for the purpose of: • Operating public health clinics and any related expenses which fund shall be credited with receipts from clinic fees and third party reimbursement administered under the authority of the Health Services Administrator acting with the approval of the Town Manager; and to determine the total amount of expenditures during Fiscal Year 2007 which may be made from such fund, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen Backaround: Finance Committee Resort: Bvlaw Committee Report: ARTICLE 7 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Mass. General Laws Chapter 308, Section 12, to authorize the School Committee to enter into a contract/lease, including all extensions, renewals and options, for the provision of educational banking services to serve the Reading 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 Backaround: Finance Committee Reoort: No report. 4 2 Gy Bvlaw Committee Report: No report. School Committee Report: No report 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 Backaround: The purpose of this Article is to make Chapter 90 funds for road improvements available to the Town. The Article authorizes debt in anticipation of receipt of the grant but the Town has never sold debt for these projects. The current amount of $167,995 is a supplemental Chapter 90 allocation that increases the current fiscal year allocation to $536,511 available for highway construction. Finance Committee Report: Bvlaw Committee Report: No report. ARTICLE 9 To see what sum the Town will transfer from 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, to the Sale of Real Estate Account, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen Background: In January of 2003, the town signed a contract with DEP establishing a "Closure Account" to fund the necessary activities to achieve the rudimentary closure of the Landfill should the developer fail to complete the closure according to DEP requirements. On March 21, 2006, we received notification from DEP that they had issued a Closure Certificate for the Reading Landfill. According to the agreement, upon the issuance of a Closure Certificate, the Town is allowed to transfer all the remaining funds in the Closure Account to the Sale of Real Estate account. That amount with accumulated interest is $2,415,420. Finance Committee Report: Bvlaw Committee Report: No report. yGS 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, an additional sum . of money 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 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(s), loan(s), exclusion(s), and/or other sources of additional funding 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 Background: Finance Committee Reoort: Bvlaw Committee Report: School Committee Resort: 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 Background: Every child deserves a right to play and to enjoy the experience of just being a kid. Children, regardless of their abilities should be able to play at a playground to the highest level of their own ability. The Community .Playground at Wood End will be universally accessible to children of all abilities. So often children with disabilities are prevented from taking part in typical playground activities, costing them opportunities for great developmental gains and the opportunity to just have fun. The Community playground at Wood End has been designed to be a true Reading community playground that meets several objectives: • Allow adults and children with physical disabilities full access to a Reading Playground • Expand the playground as planned, so that there is a walking distance playground in all areas of town. • Provide all community members a safe, challenging area to rest and play while using the ball fields. 2~~ In addition, to these stated objectives there is now the additional benefit of having an alternate playground in town while plans are made to renew the Imagination Station area. Given the unexpected return of almost $50,000 from the school department budget, and the fact that the $200,000 recreational grant from the state has already been allocated to two artificial playing fields, we ask Town Meeting to allocate these funds to play for the specialized surfacing needed to provide full access. The Community Playground at Wood End **BudgeVFinancial Statement 10-Sep-06 Playground Construction Estimated Costs Playground Equipment & Installation $69,900.00 ADA Compliant Walkway with Donor Bricks $7,600.00 Fencing $5,600.001 Wood Fiber Fill $5,400.00 Rubberized Surfacing to Provide True Handicapped Access $37,000.001 Benches $2,000.00 Replacement Tools $500.00 Fundraising Costs* $2,000.00 Total Budgeted Costs $130,000.00 • Please note that the Wood End PTO has donated $2,454 which is being used for fundraising exf • We are a 100% volunteer organization. As such our expenses are minimal EXPENSES through September 10, 2006 Mailings $730.00 Printing $650.00 Website Domain Name $25.00 Envelopes/Stamps $50.00 Total Expenses to Date $1,455.00 DONATIONS through September 10, 2006 Money Received from Individuals & Families $49,218.00 Money Received from Businesses $10,843.00 Money Committed from Individuals & Families but not yet received $1,000.00 Money Committed from Businesses but not yet received $1,200.00 Grants Received $9,000.00 CVS/Pharmacy $5000 Eastern Bank $1000 Home Depot $3000 Government (local & state & federal) Z,G7 Wood End PTO Donation $2,454.00 These funds are being received as expenses are incurred. Total Funds Committed/Received as of September 10, 2006 $73,715.00 Finance Committee Report: Bvlaw Committee Report No report. 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, Assessor's Map 191, Parcel 47, presently owned by Stephen A. and Julie A. Voegelin, as shown on a plan entitled "Plan of Land in Reading, MA Showing Easement Abandonment", prepared by Middlesex Survey Inc. Land Surveyors of 131 Park Street, North Reading, MA 01864 dated September 20, 2006, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen Backaround: The purpose of this Article is to authorize the Board of Selectmen to abandon an unused drainage easement located within the property of 37 Joseph Way. The property owner at 37 Joseph Way has requested that the Town abandon an unused drainage easement located within their property. The easement was established during the creation of the original subdivision and was never utilized. Additional sewer, drainage and utility easements were subsequently established and taken by the Town which follows the actual course of the installed utilities. Since the original easement is not used and no longer needed, the Department of Public Works recommends that the portions of the original easement lying outside the limits of active easements be abandoned. LOT 4T ; JOSEPH WAY f fJ wnios ~ DETAIL uttUiV E~DENENt >«n« Jos ....~FElDINOtMASS»..~.. wAY ~'`«ao¢iaTUiwiec; i,voew+.mro V Finance Committee Report: No report. Bvlaw Committee Report: No report 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: Map 123, Parcels: 16-32, 34, 48-54, 58-62, 139 and to discontinue as the Board of Selectmen deem necessary any and all portions of the following public ways that lie within or abut those parcels: Cold Spring Road, Grandview Avenue, Tower Road, Chestnut Street, Oakland Road or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen Backaround: Finance Committee Report: No report. Bvlaw Committee Report: No report. ARTICLE 14 To see if the Town will accept the provisions of Mass: General Laws c. 39, Section 23D as to all adjudicatory hearings conducted by all Town Boards, Committees and Commissions, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen Backaround: In Mullin v. Plannina Board of Brewster 17 Mass.App.Ct. 139 (1983), the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that any member of a municipal board who does not attend a public hearing as well as all continuations thereof, on an application in which the board will ultimately render an adjudicatory decision, e.g. the grant of special permits, variances, subdivision approval, etc. will be disqualified from participating in the decision making process, i.e., they cannot deliberate or vote on the matter. The result of this rule is that in situations where the public hearing may be extended over time, a board may lose its voting members and may have to begin anew the entire public hearing resulting in an inefficient process, or be confronted with the possibility that the relief requested will be constructively granted. To resolve this issue, the Legislature recently enacted M.G.L. Chapter 39, §23D which, upon local acceptance, allows any board member who misses one meeting to participate in the process upon the following conditions: 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 cl:6~ z audio or video recording of the missed session or a transcript thereof. This written certification becomes part of the record of the hearing. Finance Committee Resort: No report. Bvlaw Committee Resort: ARTICLE 15 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, backhoes and/or other heavy equipment. "Construction" shall also include the starting of any machinery related to the above; deliveries, 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: • 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; • 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays; • None on Sundays and legal holidays. 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. 10 ZG/~ 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. 5.3.8.7 - 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. 5.3.8.8 - 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 $300.00 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 made the subject matter of non-criminal disposition proceedings commenced by such agent under M.G.L. c. 40, § 21D. Board of Selectmen Background: Finance Committee Report: No report. Bvlaw Committee Report: ARTICLE 16 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:" 11 q., C, 0 5.2.10 Sight Trianqles 5.2.10.1 Definition 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'/2 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 bylaw, the Downtown business district is defined as that portion of the Business B Zoning District that is generally bounded by the MBTA 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%2 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 Backaround: After receiving numerous complaints relating to sight lines at intersections throughout the community, the Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force reviewed the option of a sight triangle by-law. It was discovered that other communities in the area have similar by-laws. The purpose of the by-law is to enable the town to regulate a segment of property at intersections so as to offer vehicle operators and pedestrians an unobstructed view of an intersection. On Corner lots, an area 25 feet in either direction intersected by a straight line is the area covered, obstructions taller than 2 °/2 feet or lower than 8 feet would be regulated. (see below) 12 Finance Committee Report: No report. Bvlaw Committee Report: 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. 13 Sight triangle 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 James E. Bonazoli, Vice Chairman Stephen A. Goldy, Secretary Camille W. Anthony Richard W. Schubert SELECTMEN OF READING Robert H. Prince, Constable 14 zGI ti Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Fred Van Magness [vanmagness@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:22 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Reading - Selectmen Subject: Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant Here we go again I read in this weeks Advocate that the Warrant once again is looking at noise. I have the following comments: . Restrictions to only Saturday but not Sunday for homeowners is very problematic. If there is such a large Jewish faith in Reading that we closed the schools for Yom Kippur, then saying there can be no work on a Sunday excludes all these people from working on their homes at any time during a weekend, as Saturday is their religious day and Sunday is a day for work. Hopefully ones religion will not dictate when they can work on a weekend. I would recommend that the By-law be changed to allow work on a persons home during weekends and non-religious holidays. . Restrictions to exclude any work on a holiday is also very restrictive. I can see restrictions for religious holidays... Easter, Christmas, etc., but not all holidays. Restrictions on Legal Holidays is overly handicapping many people. . Restrictions to not allow work on the OUTSIDE of the home on Sundays and holidays is also very restrictive. There are only so many weekends of good weather that people can use to do outdoor work on their property or homes. Please do not make things so difficult that they cannot maintain there homes...inside or out. I would recommend that you just change the language to say work on the inside or outside of a residential home is restricted to 7am-8PM on weekdays, and 7am-5PM on Saturdays, and 8am-5PM on Sundays and non-religious holidays...and spell out the religious holidays that are no work days. Also say that any complaints of excess noise during Sundays and non-religious holidays will be at the discretion of the Police to shut down as a nuisance. Try not to over regulate. It is the contractors on big projects you are out to regulate ...do not try and put everyone into the same box, Start with something workable and see how it goes. You can always go back for more restrictions if things do not work out. Let's not try, through tough regulations, to kill a fly with an ICBM missile. As far as the sight triangles are concerned... GOOD LUCK explaining this one. You better have lots of pictures and examples of what will not be allowed. Then be prepared to go across the town and notice all violators. You cannot just wait for the phone calls to come in. That isn't fair to anyone, to have a regulation but selectively enforce it..... I see this as another item of pitting neighbor against neighbor ...how many of these are we/you going to endure... Addision Wesley, Construction Hours, Sight lines, etc. etc For my money this is going to be a real tough issue. Please try and be REASONABLE...... thanks Fred Fred Van Magness 10/6/2006 Z~ Board of Selectmen Tracking Loq for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Project/ . Identified Problem Res p. Select. Action Needed Follow-uo Dept. Liaison Date ..........y~,~,} cr " ~x Traffic Issues Ash Street at Main Develop a process to acquire Town. Anthony Action required by 2010 to 9-31-06 land and build new connection Mgr. maintain the whistle ban. directly between Ash and Main Contact new property owner; Street, eliminating the grade work with MBTA crossing 11/29/05 Develop a Engineer Bonazoli Need to scope a study and 12131/06 comprehensive then seek funding for it. traffic study for the Because the downtown Woburn Street, High improvement program will Street, Lowell Street, have an impact on this Main Street area neighborhood, and that impact cannot be determined until the Downtown Improvement project Is complete, this Item will be programmed for consideration in the FY 2009 budoet. 9/26/2006 1 ~ Board of Selectmen Tracking Log for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Proiectl Identified Problem Res p. Select. Action Needed Follow-w Dept. Liaison Date Development Proiects 1 /1 /90 Gazebo Circle Overflow of detention basin - Engineer Bonazoli The Town Engineer has done 12131106 flooding has occurred in a study and determined the neighborhood during severe course of correction. The total storms cost is estimated to be $55,000. The bond is $30,000. In the past we were willing to share the bond with the developer. I am now in the . process of informing the developer that we will take the entire bond and do the work. We will begin the work this fall. Will look at changes to Zoning Bylaw to require interim as-buiits to ensure drainage completion. Corrective action is out to bid with construction to be done this fall. Fundino from the bond and the storm t ! Ri l f St t F d St t R f W water enterprise fund. S 3 1 06 ke Pa h VV9 P tFnR-R - ease o a e un s a e e eya arner -a . - 1/1/05 Addison Wesley has fuRded in pFeylew ll Complete Traffic Presentation - Planner Tafoya #uRds Traffic study submitted 9-14- 05/04/06 05; Peer review complete by early October; Then schedule Board of Selectmen meeting with notice to public. AWWG has continued to meet and anticipated final report will be Anna nn At inimt ')'A Jordan's Furniture Lighting has impacted Town Anthony Town has hired lighting 03131/06 neighbors due to height of Mgr. and consultants. Some corrective fixtures Bonazoli work has been done. Met at the site on August 17, 2006, and told the developer if he completes work as recommended by the consultant then the Town would sign off on the lighting - -Mm 1.fc 1/1/85 Downtown Status of 100% design Engineer Anthony 100 % Design October 14. 04115/06 Improvements submission and approval; MHD review. ENF submission. determination of what if any Tree Hearings. Bidding items will not be funded by the summer 2006. Project Is out State to bid - we are still working on how to meet the Town's "non-participating costs" of estimated $600,000. This may require Town Meeting action after the bids are In. 9/26/2006 2 c;2J Board of Selectmen Tracklnq Loq for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Proiect/ Identified Problem Res p. Select. Action Needed Follow-uD, Dept. Liaison Date Rt. 128/1-93 Monitor and advocate for Anthony Town reps are meeting with ongoing Interchange Reading's interest in keeping & Town Engineer to develop a any improvements to the Schubert draft position paper for Board interchange to a low impact for of Selectmen consideration in Reading September- Public Hearing is scheduled in Reading for r)r.Mhar')5 Imagination Station Needs to be refurbished Recreati Bonazoli Recreation Committee is 06/30/06 on recommending demolition and reconstruction. Board of Selectmen will review the site during their "Walk and Talk" on September 16. Action scheduled by the Board of Selectmen on September 26. 193 GeRtalwnent Hew do we r DPW Denazeli 06139186 Reading's well fields 05i fellow up 2 17- 06; On h MWRA, TIVI has referred the stud to the IRWA with y to ir+t$lerfteRt-tire 8/22/06 Develop a lighting The Town needs to have Plannin Bonazol Hire a consultant to develop 12/31106 section o f the established standards and g and i a draft bylaw Zoning Bylaw processes for reviewing site Town lighting for new Manage developments r Fall 2005 Barrows School Lack of off-street parking for Engineer Bonazoli We met with the principal - she 06/30/06 parking staff would like the basketball court used for parking during the school day. TM sent a cost estimate from DPW to the Superintendent of Schools.. TM will follow up with Superintendent of Schools to see if they want to move forward on this project. Timothy Place Property owner has built inspectio Enforcement to be started the encroachment on improvements Into the ROW n & week of August 21 Ticket right-of-way of the private street Counsel served by RPD. Ticket not paid - issue is headed to court. Sale of Oakland The Town owned tax title land Town Tafoya Include as part of 11-13-06 Road land across Oakland Road from eh Manager, September 16 "Walk and Town RMHS is surplus to the Town Talk". This Is an article on Meeting Town's needs. Planner the November 13 Town Meeting warrant. 12 L. A 9/26/2006 3 Board of Selectmen Tracking Log for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Protect/ Identified Problem Resp• Select. Action Needed Follow-up Dept. Liaison Date WRA Buy-in Process the MWRA buy-in for DPW Bonazoli Engineer hired.' First threshold 06/30/07 6115/06 M the Town's full MWRA use of filing NPC to MEPA met. MEPA decision on NPC expected mid October. Preparing filing for WRC 9/26/2006 4 aJ N Board of Selectmen Tracking Log for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Proiectl Identified Problem Res p. Select. Action Needed Follow-uD Dept. Liaison Date 11, W1W"ii!11:::EWWWWWW Policies/Reaulations 411/04 Petroleum Bylaw Regulations to be formulated Fire & Goldy Town Counsel Step Signs f PTT F= Anthen r Memorial Park Controversy over allowed uses Town Anthony Counsel Hours of Currently only regulated by Town Goldy Construction CPDC - if Police are to Manager enforce, it needs a bylaw 9/20/05 Mandate Should the Town develop a landscaping to save bylaw or subdivision water regulations the.A.G -0 OG net Planning Tafoya addFessing the issue e dealiRg with " available Ghie€ Duffy Cefn}ier Fire Department has been 03/31/06 doing data collection and posting to an electronic spread sheet. New Town Counsel (Judy Pickett) is reviewing Bylaw and will outline next steps to the Board. Meeting scheduled for this Thursday, September 28 At it's July 25 meeting with 11/01/05 Town Counsel the Board of Selectmen authorized Town Counsel to move forward with the filing of the cy pres petition. This will be done by mid GPnJerL1bgr Referred back to the Board of 01/31/06 Selectmen by Town Meeting. Board of Selectmen to review Town Meeting tape and determine how to proceed.SG to review tape and provide to the Board of Selectmen a summary of Town Meeting concerns - by 9-5.06 Refer to CPDC as part of 06/30/06 Master Plan implementation; Town is applying for a grant for an educational program on landscape maintenance Tafoya to talk to CPDC about including this In Master Plan Implementation discussion Develep presedure 03~1F06 ~2,4,!~ 9/26/2006 5 Board of Selectmen Trackinq Loq for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Protect/ Identified Problem Res p. Select. Dept. Liaison Develop a housing Understand the 40 R and 40 S Town Tafoya production plan programs, and utilizing them Planner and other efforts, develop a housing production plan to eliminate the vulnerability to unwanted 40B projects. Action Needed Follow-uo Date Housing Forum scheduled for 10/24/06 September 28 with CPDC, RHA, ZBA, Board of Selectmen, CofC and others First part will be presentation on 40R and 40S; followed by discussion on draft housing production plan. Need to provide .75% per year (66 units). Meeting scheduled on Cor draMllar 9R Citizen Complaints 4/30/06 Drainage on ditch has silted up and is not DPW Goldy work to be done this fall as part 06/01/06 Haverhill Street free-flowing - backs up and of the storm water affects neiahbors oroaertv management oroaram MBTA has put up billboards at Town Tafoya Tafoya and TM met with COO the depot with no notice to the Manager of META. He is going to get Town info on what the revenue to the T is from the billboards. He did not feel that the T would be willino to remove them TM is finding info from other communities that have historic depots. Tafoya sent letter to reps and Senator. z~ 9/26/2006 6 15 highest priority work items - 2006 From Town Manager's Goals and Objectives for FY 2007 (not in priority order) 1. 1-4 and 4-5 - Develop and implement a process to evaluate and improve the financial computer platform which is used by all departments, with a goal of implementing this process for FY 2008/2009. Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director and Town Accountant. This process has beaun. 3 vendors are beina previewed in October. Town Meetina is being asked to fund $20.000 for a consultant at the November Town Meetina. 2. 1-4.2 - Develop a capital improvement program process involving all stakeholders; 1-5.2 - Identify issues and capital and maintenance needs for each facility performed by all Department Heads with the Facilities Director. Assistant Town Manager/ Finance Director. The ATM has implemented the new CIP software. The Facilities Director has developed the CIP for all buildings. He has been workina with the buildina "users". In addition. the Facilities Department has hired an enerav Manager and a committee made up of many of the users has been formed. 3. 1-5.3 - Develop preventive maintenance plan (Facilities Director with input from Department Heads); 1-5.4 - Develop calendar based schedule of maintenance activities; 1-5.5 - Ensure that the Facilities Department has proper financial resources to achieve mission. Fire Chief, DPW Director, and Facilities Director The Facilities Department has purchased a software program. and is Duttina buildinas into the software as circumstances and fundina permit. The Town Hall. Police Station. and Senior Center have been out in to the Droaram to date. 4. 1-6.1 - Conduct employee Technology Training in Word, Excel, Outlook, Power Point, the web, and Access. Conduct an in-house resources inventory; then seek outside resources as necessary. Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director. The inventorv has been conducted. The Technoloav Committee has met to review manv issues includina trainina. web oaae desian. records management system, and financial meratina platform. 5. 2-2.4 - Conduct training on Emergency Preparedness for Key employees & elected officials updated annually. Fire Chief. A "table-toD" exercise is scheduled for October. The Health Division has been doing training. Kev staff throuah the supervisor level have been trained in Incident Manaqement and other kev areas of Homeland Securitv. 6. 3-1.1 - Establish and foster internal communications, through retreats and other mechanisms. Town Manager and Library Director. The next Department Head retreat is scheduled for October. and will include all Department Heads as well as the Superintendent of Schools. the GM of the RMLD. the school Director of Finance and Human Resources. and the Facilities Director. Kev topics will be "Civility in the Communitv" and "Sustainability in the community". Page 18 of 20 updated 09/26/06 g -e- 7. 3-1.3 - system for employee communications and information (benefits, policies). Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director This will be part of the chance in the web pace. with a sub-pace for emplovees. 8. Educate elected and appointed Boards & staff on respective roles, responsibilities and relationships. Town Manager. Trainina including Ethics trainina. best practices in aaendas and meetinas. and development of a feedback mechanism for in person viewing of meetings as well as electronic viewina of meetinas will be done in Januarv. 9. 3.1.7 - For Town Boards/Committees/Commissions (BCC) develop an internal feedback mechanism for the public to provide systematic comment on the conduct of the Town's volunteer government. Town Manager and Library Director. See 8 above. 10. 3-1.8 - Develop a system of interconnectiveness with calendars of members of Boards/Committees/Commissions. This should be similar to the Microsoft Exchange program in use for Town employees, to facilitate better planning of meetings involving the volunteer portions of Town government. Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director. We are now using Microsoft Exchanae more completely. and will have further capabilitv through the WAN and/or web page. 11. 3-1.10 - Develop and document the budget process involving Boards & staff, including all Departments (Town and School) and major Boards/Committees/Commissions. Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director The Assistant Town Manaaer has been working with School Department and the Finance Committee on puttina together a revised budoetina svstem. The next Financial Forum meetinq is scheduled for October 18 and will be part of the implementation of this svstem. 12. 4-2 - Develop a process and plan of how the Town will address the additional affordable housing needs in the community. Town Planner The September 28. 2006 Housina Forum will focus on understanding the 4011 nd 40 S processes, review the kev elements of a Planned Production plan. and move forward with a Special Town Meeting in Januarv on imolementinq kev elements of this plan. 13. 4-3.1 - Conduct an evaluation of the Reading Public Library building as well as library services. Library Director The RPL Director is taking an on-line course on Strateaic Plannina for Libraries. That will be completed by the end of October. The Librarv Director will then look for a facilitator to beain the process. 14. 4-4.2 - Identify consultants and scope the cost of conducting such a study. (DPW Management Study). DPW Director Samole RFP's have been received. By mid October an RFP will be finalized and advertised. We are considering establishment of an advisorv arouo to work with the consultant, includina staff. union representatives. FINCOM representative. and communitv representatives. Page 19 of 20 updated 09/26/06 15. 5 - (Quality of Life) Implement the recommendations of the Initiative Against Substance Abuse. Town Manager The Readinq Coalition Against Substance Abuse has been formed. Tax filings and other administrative issues are underway. The School Department and Police Department were successful in securinq a 2 vear COPS qrant which will help offset the cost fo the SRO and provide for other security matters. Staff responsibility is assigned for each work item. This is generally a Department Head, and it is recognized that other staff within each Department may be responsible to the Department Head for all or any part of the assignment je3 Page 20 of 20 updated 09/26/06 OF'R. Town of Reading o . ' two 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen „ FROM: Peter 1. Hechenbleikner DATE: October 6, 2006 RE: Selectmen's Agenda, October 10, 2006 TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 1 a) There is a vacancy for a Republican member of the Board of Registrars. Kris Holmes has applied and is a Republican. The Town Clerk would like to have this position filled prior to the election if possible. lb) There are two vacancies on the Northern Area Greenway Committee one representing the Recreation Committee and one representing the Town Forest Committee. The Recreation Committee has nominated Frank Driscoll, and the Town Forest Committee has nominated associate member Joan Hoyt. You have interviewed both people previously and we have not asked theirs to be at the Tuesday meeting. 2a) Representatives of the package store industry requested time under public comment to talk about question one on the November ballot. You have received material in your packet regarding this matter. 2b) The material in your packet is the Warrant for the State election. Please note that we propose to have the election at 55 Walkers Brook Drive. The Primary election at this site worked well. We would expect approximately three times the number of voters at the general election. We will provide additional police to monitor and direct traffic, additional signing to make the parking locations clear, revise the parking access, and provide for additional queuing within the voting area. All staff feels that we can make this work well at this location. 2c) Enclosed in your packet is a draft of the Warrant Report for the Subsequent Town Meeting. We will be supplementing this material for you on Tuesday. Article 10 will be discussed separately by the Board of Selectmen at a joint session with the School Committee and . the Finance Committee at your October 17 meeting. APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 6, 2006 Board of Reeistrars Term: 3 years Appointing, Authority Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) Harry Simmons Gloria R. Hulse Vacancy Cheryl A. Johnson Candidates: Krissandra Holmes 17 Pine Ridge Road 107 Sanborn Lane 4 Summit Drive *Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment Orig. Date (06) (92) (96) 1 Vacancv Term Exp. 2008 2009 2007 Indef. eCL. i BOARD OF REGISTRARS Term Three years Appointing Authoritv Board of Selectmen Number of Members Four Members, three appointed by the Board of Selectmen and the Town Clerk as the fourth member. Two shall be members of the Republican Party, and two shall be members of the. Democratic Party. (Note: Must be a registered voter of the Town. Must have been enrolled in the political party he/she is appointed to represent for at least two years prior to appointment. Must not hold another elective office, except as a member of a Home Rule Charter Commission or as a Town Meeting Member.) Meetings As needed Authority Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 51 Puruose To certify names on nomination papers, initiative petitions, referendum petitions, recount petitions and public policy petitions. Registration of new voters, conduct election recounts. Update and posting of voting lists and processing absentee ballot application. Oversee the annual Town census and . prepare lists generated from census infonnation. .l a:~- OF R,- y wn of Reading nor. ~a 16 Lowell Street s39: txc°Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 TOWN MANAGER Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us (781) 942-9043 Volunteer Vacancy Town of Reading Board'of Registrars A vacancy with a term expiring June 30, 2007, for a Registrar (Republican) exists on the Board of Registrars. The purpose of the Registrars is to certify names on petitions; register new voters; conduct election recounts; update and post voting lists; process absentee ballot applications; and oversee the annual Town census and prepare lists generated from census information. Interested persons may apply at the Town Clerk's office, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts by 5:00 p.m. on October 6, 2006 or until the vacancy is filled. r„ t_;, i O G1 4! September 19, 2006 Effective September 19, 2006, I, Robert Cusolito am resigning from the Reading Board of Registers. t~ Sincerely, ~~~N Robert Cusolit/'✓l PP,evi 1 ~ta,~ Zm FELP 22 AM I1:3 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS Name: FS (Last) ~~Sfiwn ie)4 (First) (Middle) Address: '77 T10` LA/ Occupation:_,_ 7-Zlf Are you 'a registered voter in Reading? YES Date: 9/ d h I/ If Tel. (Home)_°?f/- Tel. (Work) (Is this number listed?)' # of years in Reading: e-mail address:_&h/,SS a &YhG G Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Animal Control Appeals Committee Aquatics Advisory Board Audit Committee. Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee Cities for Climate Protection Commissioner of Trust Funds Community Plamiing & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging Cultural Council -Custodian of Soldiers' & Sailors' Graves Economic Development Committee Finance Committee -Historical Commission -Housing Authority Human Relations Advisory Committee Land Bank Committee _MBTA Advisory Committee -Metropolitan Area Planning Council -Mystic Valley Elder Services -Recreation Committee RMLD Citizens Advisory Board Telecommunications and Technology ^Advisory Committee -Town Forest Committee -Water, Sewer and Stonn Water Management Advisory Committee West Stre t Historic District Commission / Other Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: / ~T/.sl.brAv7 -N 1,0x0/,y PS /6/460/s-~: (7,z o,6 1O,~ APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 6, 2006 Northern Area Greenwav Task Force 2 Vacancies Aauointin2 Authoritv: Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) Brant Ballantyne (CPDC) Will Finch (Conservation Commission) Vacancy (Town Forest Committee) Vacancy (Recreation Committee) Marsie West (Finance Committee) Frederick Alexander (Resident) Charles Donnelly Moran (Resident) David Williams (Resident) Mark Rumizen (Resident) Candidates: Joan Hoyt (Town Forest Rep) Francis Driscoll (Recreation Rep) s APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS Name: tA 0\/ A -J-oa A - (Labt) (First) (Middle) Address: q n0-W0AArj 'j . Date: (01(a 06 Tel. (Home)IS - - vH\-'N Tel. (Work) (Is this number listed?) Occupation: l voi str_to. # of years in Reading: u ~ Are you 'a registered voter in Reading? 4S e-mail address: ~ ioc LV as J -0. Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Animal Control Appeals Committee Aquatics Advisory Board Audit Committee Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee Cities for Climate Protection Commissioner of Trust Funds Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging Cultural Council Custodian of Soldiers' & Sailors' Graves Economic Development Committee Finance Committee r-z Historical Commission Housing Authority -7) Human Relations Advisory Committee Land Bank Committee ' MBTA Advisory Committee A -Metropolitan Area Planning Council _Mystic Valley Elder Services ~9 Recreation Committee - N _RMLD Citizens Advisory Board Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee Town Forest Committee Water, Sewer and Storin Water Management Advisory Committee -West Street Historic Dp istri ct Commission Other -~`Ytilo yin ~h~ tort ~'~tr:? t~ t~!tY1t ' C Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: 6 Z Schena, Paula From: Feudo, John Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 9:21 AM To: Schena, Paula Subject: NAG Paula, Frank Driscoll has been appointed by the Recreation Committee to serve on the NAG task force. He is aware that he needs to be sworn in. John John Feudo Recreation Administrator Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 (781)942-9075 ~3 Ccomcast : } 11: 47 October 4, 2006 Board of Selectmen Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Members of the Board: In keeping with our ongoing efforts to communicate with you regularly about key aspects of our service, I would like to inform you about an upcoming redesign of Comcast's monthly bill statements. This improvement to the bill is in response to customers' feedback recommending we make the bill easier to read and understand. There are no price adjustments in the amount of the bill. This is a billing format change only. Starting in October, customers will receive the newly formatted bills. Comcast is changing the way we deliver service and making it even easier and more convenient for customers to interact with us. In response to customer feedback, we're introducing this redesigned billing statement that is clearer, simpler and more informative than the current statement. For example, we have added icons for each of our services, increased font sizes for easier review, and provided additional detail on previous payments and credits. This bill reformatting effort is the latest customer service enhancement from Comcast. Comcast will continue to implement customer service improvements based upon technical innovation, cost and feedback from our customers. Our goal is to offer the best quality, choice and value in home entertainment, by continually investing in our network, improvements to customer care and in new technologies. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 978-207-2264 should you have any questions about this information or about our service in general. Respectfully, ~ o Jane M. Lyman Manager of Government & Community Rela ions 30--- Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter V(Z/ From: Charlie [charles.b.powers@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 12:59 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Pearson Development Thank you very much for voting against the W/S Development proposal. My husband and I feel very strongly that this would be unfair to the exisiting businesses in the town. Thank you again for listening to the residents of Reading. Charles & Barbara Powers 25 Belmont St. 3b 10/2/2006 Addison Wesley Property Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter J From: Meade, John F. [JMEADE@PARTNERS.ORG] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:21 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Property Hello, As a resident of Reading for over 10 years it is very encouraging to see our elected officials voting in a manner that represents the desires of the town residents. Thank you very much for voting down the proposed (over)use of the Addison Wesley property. My neighbors and I firmly believe that project would have had a significant negative effect on our residential community.. Thank you for voting that proposal down. John Meade 11 Ash Hill Rd. Reading 10/2/2006 1-1 CI/ Hechenblefter, Peter From: crwhit99@aol.com Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 1:46 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Proposed Addison Wesley Development Dear Board of Selectmen, Thank you for opposing W/S Develiopment's proposed Addison Wesley development. I think that the proposed development is much too large for the available space and road capacity and not in Reading's best interest. Sincerely, Carolyn R. Whiting 17 Chestnut Road Reading MA 01867 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. 1 3G Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Sent: To: Subject: Cowell, Doug [Doug.Cowell@analog.com] Sunday, October 01, 2006 10:57 AM Reading - Selectmen W/S Development proposal at the Addison Wesley Dear Board of Selectmen, I wish to take this moment to thank your board personally for the decision to reject the proposal for development for the Addison Wesley site. Reading unique character, public safety and community spirit is at stake in this issue. I fully support and applaud your recent vote and hope a more responsible proposal will come from your actions. Respectfully yours, Resident Doug Cowell Doug Cowell PSCM Buyer Analog Devices Inc. 617-761-7133 1 3 e- Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Michael Sweeney [michaelsweeneyl @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:18 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Development Dear Selectpeople, I wanted to write a quick note to thank you for your recent decision on the Addison Wesley project. I do agree that it does not fit with the community and feel we can find a much better match that will provide other.much needed services other than more shopping! I know we have enough of that in the surrounding areas and love to support the local bussinesses when I can as well.Can this parcel of land be subdivided to make it more accessible for smaller business adventures other than a huge conglomerate? Thanks again and I am glad to see that you continue to work on insuring the best future for Reading. Margie Sweeney 93 King Street, Reading MA 3f. 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Mike Zahlaway azahlaway@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 1:42 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Thanks ! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. Your conscientious efforts in developing Reading's tax base, while promoting what will fit in keeping with the communities character is much appreciated. Forever is along time and what is ultimately built on this site will be there for the rest of Reading's collective lives. Your prudent approach , along with the help of the CPCD , is proving to be a valuable resource . There is a Rudyard Kippling story, I believe, between a snake and it's prey which I would like to draw an analogy with. The snake and, let's say, a rabbit are having a conversation which goes a long quite cordially when the snake, all of a sudden bites the rabbit. The rabbit asks the snake " Why did you bite me?" The snake replies "Because it is my nature". WS development is the snake and the community of Reading is the rabbit. If given the opportunity, even though there has been a great deal of cordial conversation , WS will develop the site because it is" in their nature" . They may not be snakes but Reading's best interests is not part of their agenda. Sincerely, J.M Zahlaway 31 Pine Ridge Road 3q 10/2/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: nancy schena [schena2@hotmail.com] / Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 1:58 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: WS Development Just a note of thanks for your thoughtful and insightful consideration regarding the opposition to the Mall at Addison Wesley site. I hope to see Reading continue its small town flavor and support of our downtown businesses. Again, many thanks for supporting those of us who would have been negatively impacted by this proposal. Nancy and Chuck Schena 1 3.1 ~l Hechenblefter, Peter From: Diane Chapin [dichapin@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 7:14 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Decision Thank you all so much for your decision regarding the Addison Wesley property. I do believe this is the correct decision for the town of Reading. Diane Chapin 1 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: J&MRichards [richardsjmle@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 7:44 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: appreciation of negative vote Thank you very much for your decisions in voting against the mall proposal at the Adison-Wesley site. I feel that you made the right decision for the Town and am terribly relieved to hear the result of this vote. Sincerely, Mary F. Richards 50 Pinevale Ave. Reading 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 qv Hechenblefter, Peter From: Robbin Ayer [RobbinAyer@crd.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:54 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Site Proposal Thank you for demonstrating true community leadership regarding the Addison Wesley Development proposal. In your vote last Tuesday, you conveyed the needs of the majority of Reading citizens, what is, and what is "not" best for our community. Keep up the good work. Robbin Ayer 238 South Street Reading, MAO 1867 3K 10/2/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dee Vigeant [dvigeant@comcast.net] Monday, October 02, 2006 3:28 PM jeremy.sclar@srweiner.com Reading - Selectmen Development Proposal for Reading 1_/ C-1- Dear Mr. Sclar: As a resident of Reading for the past thirty-five years, I am proud of this town. I have seen many changes, some to preserve the history and flavor of the community, and others to foster its growth; somehow, all the changes over the years have worked compatibly toward both progress and preservation. Our town governance structure has been uniquely, consistently in tune with the needs and wishes of the townspeople. My children grew up here and now are raising their own children. Many of my children's former classmates are also raising families in Reading. Three and four generations have invested a great deal of time, energy and money in the development and character of this town. We care about our neighbors, the welfare of our children, and the safety of our streets, and we enthusiatically patronize our local businesses. While we support wholesome and progressive changes that will enhance Reading 's existing resources and promote future improvements, we do not support the current W/S Development proposal for the Addison Wesley Pearson site. Last Tuesday evening the 4-1 vote of the Reading Board of Selectmen against the proposal site was an accurate reflection of the position of the majority of our townspeople. We applaud the vote of the Board and firmly believe that a proposal can be made that is more appropriate for Reading, one that will not jeopardize the current character and quality of the community. I trust that W/S and the Reading Town Manager, Board of Selectmen, and citizens will develop an alternative that satisfies the concerns of all. Sincerely, Mary D. Vigeant 1 3L Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Carolyn Goldy [carolyn@sgoldy.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 6:07 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: no mall To The Board of Selectmen, Thank you for your vote against the proposed mall in Reading. I chose to move to Reading from Medford, Ma to get away from the city life. Reading was like a "little secret" in the middle of surrounding cities (a comment someone said to me about Reading not being overdeveloped). I agree with that statement but find with all the recent development around town our little secret is now slowly disappearing. Again thanks for your vote against the proposed development. Sincerely, Carolyn Goldy 42 Berkeley St 3M 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Michelle Asselin [michelleasselin@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:23 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: w/s delvelopment Thank you for your vote against the Addison Wesley proposal. I know that there will be a better solution for this land than a large mall. I am a supporter of the Reading CARE Group. Thank you again, Michelle Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. 30 10/2/2006 Page 1 ofs Hechenbleikner, Peter 41(!-" From: Dennis Collins [dxcollins@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:47 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Thank You TO: Reading Board of Selectmen FR: Dennis Collins, 12 Beech Street, Reading RE: No Support Vote for W/S Proposed Project Thank you to those selectmen who gave a no vote on the issue of supporting the US proposal as it stands. I am astounded, however, that a unanimous vote was not rendered given Mr. Bonazoli's emotional public display of dissatisfaction with the developer's lack of effort in addressing the scope of the proposal as recommended by the AWWG. A unanimous vote would have been a more courageous stand for your body to take and would have sent a more firm and clearer message to the developer that they should have taken more serious steps toward creating a mutually beneficial proposal. They either are unable or unwilling to mitigate and after months of wasted AWWG and other meetings Mr. Bonazoli believes they need more time and more opportunity to restate their already declared position that they will not deviate from their original plan. What more needs to be hashed out? As a result, we are now forced to prolong an already arduous process because the developer sees a flicker of hope in Mr. Bonazoli's position. My concern from the beginning, as I stated at the time, was that by shoring up resident, and other support before the town had an opportunity to mitigate their original proposal, the developer gains the upper hand and weakens our position as a community to negotiate. And, here we are with a disjointed board facing a wealthy influential developer who spotted a weakness. I urge the board to maintain its steadfast position and remind Town Meeting Members and Reading residents of the developer's lack of cooperation and disingenuous conduct throughout this process. Thank you again to those who saw the document for what it is - a meaningless document - and especially for your leadership. Sincerely, Dew X. 610 1" Dennis X. Collins 12 Beech Street ,-6-01 10/3/2006 The Lesser of Two Evils Instead of relying on the constant barrage of "developer-filtered", misleading and incomplete information disseminated by the developer and their supporters, particularly as it relates to the "ominous threat of a monstrous 40B development," I decided to research the issue to determine for myself the legitimacy of this threat. As a matter of course in any development deal such as this, the 40B threat scare tactic is a standard "wild card" pulled by most developers who are faced with community resistance, especially when the resistance is warranted and greater than expected. Unfortunately this developer has enlisted the support of residents through the use of this threat to essentially market their proposal as "the lesser of two evils" instead of honestly and cooperatively working with residents, the AWWG and town officials to earn our trust and confidence on their own merits. I believe we deserve better. I apologize for the length of this letter, but this subject and related information is extensive. My intention is to offer a better understanding of 40B as it stands today and an insight into the developer's use of this polarizing threat to heighten our anxiety to force us to accept their proposal. I gathered information from the internet as well as by communicating with public officials, business leaders and developers, all of whom have experience with this issue. Incidentally, developers 1 spoke with candidly admit that the threat of 40B is a standard tactic employed by developers - in some cases perhaps it's real, but in everv case it's a scare tactic. I'll start by saying that as a result of many 40B developers' abuse of 40B zoning protections many guideline changes had been recently implemented to help municipalities more effectively manage the process and development sizes. I offer links to back up information for review. Keep in mind that the existing 40B projects in Reading and surrounding communities were well underway and approved before these new "municipal friendly" changes took effect back in January, so Avalon in Woburn, and others like it, are not subjected to the new regulations and should not be considered a frame of reference when analyzing the potential at ANV. Any new 40B development at A/W would fall under the new guidelines. Please refer to the Mass Housing Partnership www.masshousina.com and Citizens Housing & Planning Association www.chaoa.oral for more detailed information, but here's what I found: Communities have some level of control over proposed 40B developments Zoning boards and other town officials often work with developers to modify the project. Furthermore, the zoning board may include conditions and requirements on any aspect of the project such as height, density, site plan, utility improvements, or long-term affordability-provided these conditions do not make the development economically unfeasible. 40B developments, under new guidelines, limit a 40B developer to building 300 units. Therefore, the threat of building a high density development of 600 units as purported is simply that, a threat. Although mentioned in a recent letter to the editor that Woburn is facing the expansion of the existing Kimball Court 40B development, the author failed to mention that the development was initially approved under the previous guidelines and the expansion proposal was filed under the existing permit. The below article link clearly states that the developer of that project is circumventing the current municipal friendly regulations by filing the expansion under the existing project approval and permits. The issue is more fully explained in the Boston Globe article from which I presume she took the Woburn City Planner's verbatim quote that she cites in her letter to the editor last week. (refer to the following March 12, 2006 Boston Globe article www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/12/complex-may_add_l50-units/) 40B developments are typically sited on "inexpensive," underutilized parcels of land in order to make the projects economically feasible. Addison Wesley, while underutilized, is certainly not inexpensive. 40B developers seek such projects because of the looser zoning related restrictions they are otherwise subjected to and are willing to sacrifice a percentage of market rate units to take advantage of the more expeditious 40B process and less onerous zoning obstacles, especially under the previous guidelines. In the end, if there's no money in the deal the speed of the process makes no difference, particularly if the acquisition price is too high and the number of units to be built is restricted. 40B developers, as a concession for taking advantage of this process, must agree to a maximum 20% profit margin on for- sale units and 10% per year on rental units while at the same time are reauired to produce units of "hiah quality" desiqn. Not very highly motivating incentives for a developer. A 300 Unit 40B development on a 9 acre subdivision of the Addison Wesley project is unlikely. When the question if 300 units could be put on a 9 acre site was posed to the state agency overseeing 40B the response was essentially that since "quality" as much as "quantity" is the issue with respect to the new 40B guidelines and that while this is a hard question to answer without the full scope of information on the project, there is a reasonable expectation -particularly given the recent guidelines changes - that the lot size for a 300 unit development should be 20 - 30 acres or even larger in order to retain the high quality design requirement. This is how the new municipal friendly guidelines and the encouraged state agency cooperation allow for, and contribute to, municipal mitigation and another level of control. 40B developments are essentially designed to provide affordable housing for workina class families in communities throughout the Commonwealth as opposed to low-income housing or section 8 or voucher housing - which is an entirely separate issue. With respect to Section 8 housing in Reading, I learned that the residents who benefit from this government-subsidized program are many of our elderly residents who reside in Reading elderly complexes that are designated by the aovernment as Section 8 3E;2 subsidized housing. As our population ages and inner city low income populations increase, the money funding that program is severely restricted and set-aside for the neediest. Furthermore, As a result, converting a typical housing development to section 8 housing under this program is very involved and convoluted, making it highly unlikely to happen because this type of conversion is simply not viable for a management company or property owner since the financial resources to fund this program are severely limited and the demand among the neediest for available resources continues to grow. 40B developers and their developments are highly scrutinized and are subjected to local, state and federal government oversight. As a May 2006 letter from the State Inspector General to the Town of Acton regarding an Acton 40B developer's attempt to circumvent the 20% profit margin shows, 40B developers are under a microscope. (refer to www,mass.gov/ig/publ/acton40b.pdf) As a "rule of thumb" 1 learned that 40B developers put a dollar cap of $40 - 50K per unit as a land acquisition figure (upfront cost to buy land before construction) for a 40B development to be considered economically feasible. Archstone on West Street is a case in point. Archstone paid $6,000,000.00 for Spence Farm and being a farm it needed minimal demolition, excavation and grading to prepare for construction without major demolition and related proper disposal expenses as would be required by the Addison Wesley site. Here is a "cocktail napkin" analysis of scenarios: Archstone $6,000,000.00 purchase price for land divided by the 204 units constructed = $29,500.00 per unit (Meets the "rule of thumb" for land acquisition cost feasibility.) Addison Wesley - full site development $24,000,000.00 (rumored asking price) divided by maximum units allowed 300 = $80,000 per unit (Not including demolition, disposal and preparation for construction - doesn't appear to be even remotely feasible.) Addison Wesley - 9 acre "proposed" subdivision $9,000,000 (rumored subdivision at $1 MM per acre) divided by the mitigated 120 units = $75,000 (Not including demolition, disposal and preparation for construction - doesn't appear to be even remotely feasible.) It was announced at last Tuesday's Board of Selectmen's meeting that roughly 100 units at Archstone are occupied and from those units, 7 children have enrolled in our public school system - certainly not a drain on our schools. It is anticipated that perhaps an additional 7 -10 might enroll from the remaining units when occupied. I've also learned that a handful have enrolled from the Johnson Woods development. Given all this, it seems obvious to me that the prospect of Addison Wesley being a feasible, or even real, potential site for a high density, 600 unit, overcrowded, drain on our public education and safety personnel "monstrosity" is simply an attempt by the developer and its supporters to heighten the anxiety of this issue and force us to make a "lesser of 2 evils" choice for their proposal. This unnecessary hype further polarizes our community and is prolonging the arduous process that they requested through the AWWG and one through which they have had many opportunities to demonstrate any level of cooperation or interest in being a good neighbor and partner with the community. They have already conceded that they are unwilling to mitigate and so the discussion should be over, yet they continue to hang the 40B threat over anxious residents. We deserve better than that. As a result of the exposure of this issue, interest has been generated for this property for a variety of opportunities - I have personally spoken with a developer who has drafted a feasible mixed-use component scenario. Our town officials continue to investigate and research viable alternatives and partners that will work cooperatively with them to shape this parcel for all our benefits - not simply for a developer and its financially benefiting supporters. Again, I gathered this information for my own education on the issue to determine the legitimacy of the 40B threat and not make a blind decision of support or opposition based solely on hype and the slick marketing information I've received by the developer and the "developer-filtered" information by its representatives. As for me, I would welcome hard-working middle-class families and their children seeking a better quality of life and education (as our family is one of them) than subject my friends and abutting neighbors to the severe traffic congestion and reduction in quality of life that any type of mall inherently brings. At the same time, I understand the importance of managing an excessive 40B housing development project that would negatively affect our town's budget and adversely disrupt our public school system. After this research, I'm comfortable in determining that a "devastating," "monstrous," "over-burdensome" housing project is simply a polarizing threat by the developers. Now that the town has the ability to responsibly shape a 40B development through the recent "municipal friendly" regulations and the expression of interest by a variety of developers in this property, I'm confident we will not have to settle for the lesser of any evil. Dennis Collins 12 Beech Street 3-0/' Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Marie Hickey [greenjasmine@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 7:39 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Thanks Thank you so much for your wise decision concerning the shopping mall. I for one do not think it would be fair to the citizens of the town that live in that vicinity to be forced to live among restaurants, LIGHTS, noise, pollution, odors (from the restaurants and cars) and traffic in a RESIDENTIAL area. I would forget about any further traffic studies concerning the proposed shopping mall-everyone knows that it will cause other problems such especially crime- auto theft, shop lifting, etc. and a hangout for kids. Who needs that? Housing for over 55 is a great idea for the citizens of our town who have paid taxes and wish to down size. This would bring in more families to share in the benefits of living in such a fine town. May I also add that I wouldn't consider the proposed project as an "upscale" mall-that is a matter of opinion. That term was used to "sell" the idea. Thank you again for your decision-you have restored my faith in the future of our town. Respectfully, Marie Hickey 3P 10/2/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: jkreppein@excite.com Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 7:21 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Thank you LJ I wanted to say thank you for your vote rejecting the most recent mall proposal. I have been following this situation closely (though not as closely as my wife) and am pleased to see that I am well represented by my selectmen. Thank you for considering not only the town character and well being, but also the values of many residents most important investments, their homes. Thanks again and keep up the good work. Mr. Jamie Kreppein 15 Pratt St 781-944-4247 Join Excite! -.http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! 3q 1 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: kgranara@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 7:11 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Ll I would like to thank you all for demonstrating such leadership for the town of Reading in voting down the W/S Development proposal. Thank you, Kristen Granara 3k 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 L Hechenblefter, Peter From: Diane Alexander [dma25@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 6:43 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Thank you To all who voted down the proposed mall this past Tuesday evening: Thank you so very much for all of your dedication, time, and conviction. Your efforts are so very much appreciated by my husband and I. We moved to Reading three years ago for a quieter lifestyle. If a mall came to town when we were relocating we most definitely would not have chose to move here. We also agree that an over 55 (like Brooksby Village) would be a phenomal choice for Reading. It would take care of it's current empty nesters who want to stay where they have been for years and giving Reading tax revenue. Perhaps green-space could also be in the blue prints. We do not need to loose anymore parks to development. Thank you again selectmen for all of your hard work. Keep up the fight! Sincerely, Diane Alexander 3S 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: chickadeehilldaycare@comcast.net (8 Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:00 PM To: selectmen@ci.reading. ma. US. Subject: Park Square at Reading To the Board: We are writing to thank your for your demonstration of leadership in your recent vote regarding the development at the former Addison Wesley site. We believe that a "lifestyle center" is not the right choice for Reading. It is time to explore other options and stop wasting time with this developer. W/S Development is clearly not interested in true cooperation with this community. There are developers out there who are, and can bring the right sort of development to Reading. Lets start looking! Sincerely, Alison and Derrick Evangelista 48 Bear Hill Rd 3-1-*" 10/2/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Marlene McArdle [marienemcardle@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 12:58 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Project on South Street Hello, As a resident of Maple Ridge Road I am very much opposed to the Mall that was propsed and am thankful that the Board of Selectmen voted it down. I could not imagine what this project would have done to destroy our small community. I also think when we consider the amount of open retail space at Redstone in Stoneham it is telling as to where our economy is now. The vacant stores there have been vacant for years and I am sure that is revenue lost to the town that they planned on to help their town budget. Again i thank you for your decision Marlene McArdle 3L) Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: John & Joanne McHale pomchale@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:57 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Mall Thank you very much for your NO vote for the proposal regarding the mall. I was originally open to the idea, but have now seen the effects of new developments in our town. I firmly believe that the traffic, noise, and safety issues would change the character of Reading forever. We need to find a compromise solution for that area. A retail mall in NOT the answer. Again thank you for your vote. Joanne McHale 14 Wentworth Road 3V 10/2/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Sent: To: Subject: ROBERT LAUTZENHEISE [riautz1@verizon.net] Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:32 AM Reading - Selectmen vote Thank you very much for your vote on the AW proposal. It was surely in the best interest for Reading. The Lautznheisers L C/ 3w 1 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: joseph laliberte ghlib@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:08 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Decision Thank you for your wise vote. We are most grateful. Lea and Joe LaLiberte. 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: RBHolt85@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:29 AM 1. To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Thank you for your vote re: Mall Dear Selectman: I would like to personally thank you for all of the time and consideration you have given to the proposed shopping center and applaud your recent 4-1 motion against this development. Rhonda & Bobby Holt 46 Fairview Ave. 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Joann Takehara Sanford Uo.take@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 10:44 PM rE To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: thank you Thank you for listening to the residents of Reading by voting against the Park Square development. I believe you have worked in the best interests of the town. Joann M. Takehara 3z 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 2 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: albertjames@comcast.net Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:10 PM / To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: FW: Board of Selectmen reject W/S Plans I read the notice below from Jay Lenox, and have decided to do as he suggested. I feel that Reading needs to do something to lower the tax burden on it's many residents. If this mall plan doesn't go forward, then what other "viable" alternatives does Reading have to generate revenue, without further burdening the citizens? I don't think another housing development is a good alternative either, or is it? Al Forwarded Message: From: "nomall01867" <nomal101867@comcast.net> To: "nomaI101867" <nomall01867@comcast.net> Subject: Board of Selectmen reject W/S Plans Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:47:15 +0000 Reading CARE Endorsers; On Tuesday night the Board of Selectmen voted 4-1 against a motion to approve the W/S Development proposal at the Addison Wesley Pearson site. In doing so the Board sent a very clear message to the community, the land owner and the developer that 40- 60 stores on 320,000 square feet of retail space and 70,000 of commercial office something twice the size of the recently opened Wayside Commons in Burlington, is not the right proposal for our town. Please forward the Board a note to thank them for their demonstration of leadership at selectmen(cDci.readina.ma.us. This' is a very important step in finding an alternative use (over 55 housing or true mixed use) for the site. However, W/S Development and.their local lawyers, despite the lack of endorsement from any Reading'Board, can still prepare an article for a special town meeting or Spring Town Meeting requesting the zoning change. The developer continues to tell our elected leaders that they have heard from the 'majority' of Reading citizens and that those citizens feel a W/S built mall would be great for Reading. It is clear to us that they have not heard from a 'majority', but rather a few folks that call over and over again. Please call W/S Development at 617- 232-8900, ask for Jeremy Sclar, President, or Dick Marks and tell them what you think is best for Reading. Or email Jeremy at ieremv.sclare.srweiner.com. Within the coming months, the Town Manager will work with the Board of Selectmen to create a design 'charrette' to examine uses for the site that would work best for the community and CPDC is actively working on a housing plan that would bring controls to our affordable housing situation. Also on Tuesday night the Town Manager confirmed the number of school aged children coming from Archstone is currently seven (7) total students - 4 at Barrows, 2 at 10/2/2006 'z co, Page 2 of 2 Parker and 1 at the High School. There had been some rumors in town that Archstone is already sending 20 or 30 kids to Barrows, that information is incorrect. When Archstone is fully occupied the projection is it will generate 12 kids in the Reading School system with Johnson Woods generating many fewer school aged children. We must maintain our efforts getting facts out. Our ranks have doubled since August 30th. We need to continue signing on new endorsers. Please forward this note to friends and neighbors that would like to endorse Reading CARE or ask them to visit www.nomaII01867.com to sign-up. Thank you for your continued support. Jay Lenox Reading CARE 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner Peter From: Alice R Modica [armodica@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 7:47 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Joy! Thank you - thank you. We had not realized that the Lifestyle development was to be about twice the size of Wayside Commons! 3 10/2/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Pirate! Steve Theo [steve@piratepirate.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 6:18 PM / To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Park Square at Reading Dear Reading Board of Selectmen and Peter Hechenbleikner, I am a new (December 05) resident of Reading and am loving the community so far. One of the things I am excited about is the possibility of Park Square at Reading. As a young- professional/business owner I can see myself spending a lot of time shopping, eating, entertaining, etc at a place like Park Square. In fact, because the Derby Street Shops are so much nicer than many of the malls/shopping areas we have on the north shore I frequently drive all the way to Hingham to shop and/or have business meetings/lunches/dinners. In fact I have bought my last 4 computers for business and personal use at that Apple Store (even though I could have gone to Burlington, Cambridge, etc) because I love the atmosphere. I would much rather save the gas money and put my $ into a center like this in my own community though. Please vote YES for Park Square! Thank you for reading! Stephen Theodoridis 22 Union St #3 Reading MA 01867 1 3c.L- Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: NatalieLP@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 7:46 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Town Manager Subject: Park Square development Dear Selectmen/Women, I have been very disappointed in the process of the Park Square Development. For the first time in 18+years that I have lived in Reading, I am starting to consider living somewhere else. I am tired of the negativity and the letters to the editor stating what a bad project this would be without any alternative proposal being put forth. What is your recommended alternative? Do we have alternative plans? I encourage you to find a solution that will put something nice in that area without resorting to more housing. Sincerely, Natalie Petrillo 99 Fairchild Drive Reading add 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 'I Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Nancy Reid [lindgren-reid@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:13 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square at Reading vote I am dismayed at the short sightedness the selectmen made in voting down the Park Square at Reading proposed development. I am firmly in favor of this development and want you to know that I am in favor of it proceeding. We already have Archstone apartments and 4 drug stores. Isn't it time we did something positive and more upscale for the town of Reading? With hopes that this project can move forward again. Nancy Reid 45 Linnea Lane Reading Nancy Lindgren Reid LINDGREN REID DESIGN tel: 781-942-7889 fax: 781-942-2853 lindaren-reidO-comcast.net www.lindgren-reid.com j e. e- 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Nancy Reid [lindgren-reid@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:12 PM q(~l To: Town Manager Subject: Park Square at Reading vote I am dismayed at the short sightedness the selectmen made in voting down the Park Square at Reading proposed development. I am firmly in favor of this development and want you to know that I am in favor of it proceeding. We already have Archstone apartments and 4 drug stores. Isn't it time we did something positive and more upscale for the town of Reading? With hopes that this project can move forward again. Nancy Reid 45 Linnea Lane Reading Nancy Lindgren Reid LINDGREN & REID DESIGN tel: 781-942-7889 fax: 781-942-2853 lindaren-reid0comcast.net www.lindgren-reid.com 3o:~, 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Fran Sansalone [fransan@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:12 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Town Manager; read in g@cn c.com; Reilly, Chris; readingchronicle@comcast.net Subject: A second chance Members of the Board of Selectmen, Town of Reading - The ongoing Park Square discussion continues to command a piece of the public consciousness. Town Meeting is coming up and other concerns and issues will demand our attention as citizens and elected officials, but I urge you to continue conversations with W/S Development. I continue to believe that Park Square is a reasonable commercial development that will benefit the Town of Reading, adding economic vitality while truly enhancing an area that is currently an eyesore. I have been in favor of this development since April 8, when I visited the Derby Street Shoppes in Hingham, and talked at length with representatives of W/S Development. Many statements have been made over the past few months, all containing a grain of truth. Park Square will generate more traffic, but it is traffic that is being planned for and will be accommodated through re-engineered roads and intersections. Yes, the life style center will create more jobs - nobody knows the exact number, but more job opportunities are a good thing for our town. Yes, my fellow town residents who live on the south side of town will see more activity in an area that abuts their neighborhood - but the impact has been significantly redefined by both the Working Group and W/S Development. Yes, Park Square will be a significant presence on south Main Street, but it will be wonderful to have local access to high-end retailers and restaurants. The developers have demonstrated a patience and spirit of accommodation that is truly amazing and impressive. I urge the Board of Selectmen and other Town officials to maintain professional and courteous communication with W/S Development, and focus on creating a positive outcome for all involved. I do believe a good outcome is possible - one that injects commercial and financial energy into our town while honoring legitimate concerns and issues. By continuing honest discussions and efforts to find common ground, we can create a win-win outcome. I encourage you to participate in that process. Sincerely, Fran Sansalone Town Meeting Member, Precinct 7 Fran Sansalone I fransan(cDcomcast.net 3 qq 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Lisapt13@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:14 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: park square Dear Board of Selectmen: I am writing to inform you of my dissatisfaction with the board's 4-1 vote against recommending the Park Square project. The minor concern of size of the project overall should not have been enough to squash all further discussion and plans with this developer. Surely with a property of this size , any and all suggested projects will seem too big, just on the basis of the acreage . But working with Weiner is more likely to create a useful and beneficial development than to just assume that anything else would be better. Moreover it is simply unrealistic to think that a housing development of any kind would do other than try to cram as much housing in there as possible. Archstone is an example of what we are likely to get. As to traffic problems, that too is a problem that is workable; moreover, much of the outcry is without merit. When working on a committee to address anticipated traffic problems as a result of Wood End Elementary school, many of the same arguments were put forth. The fact is, no one likes change or even a modicum of traffic increase. But as the Wood End situation proved, much of the outcry regarding traffic was unfounded and needless. I urge you to reconsider your position on this matter. The four who voted against this project were, in my opinion, incorrect. Regards, Lisa Tighe 85 Eastway 3,h 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Thare [ampooh@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:16 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square Our vote is yes to Park Square and the taxes it will generate for the town of Reading. Anne and Thare MacDonald 39 Middlesex Avenue ~fC 3)1 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: peirce29@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:22 PM To: Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square I was extremely disappointed at the attitude and the outcome of your vote at the BOS meeting last week. It was obvious to me that most of you made your personal decisions as to the "best" outcome for Reading instead of being objective and really looking at the "best" outcome for this town. I am not naive enough to think that 40B is a "threat by the evil developer" that is unwarranted. I believe it is the only other viable option for the property owners if this Lifestyle Center or Mixed Use Village doesn't succeed. I am also sure that another large housing complex in Reading will do nothing but harm to our already overburdened school system. Additionally, these kinds of complexes promote kids congregating in groups, which often leads to trouble. And, like anything else, it will also generate traffic. I also believe that most of you have made little to no effort to really sit down with the developers. The Working Group, which should have been a group that met with the developers, was a complete FARCE. The group spent their time deciding what they want, with no respect to having face to face discussions with the developers. Several of you made the comment that the developer kept corning back with the "same ol, same of". Well, what do you expect?! You have never sat down with them to give them real productive feed back or viable options to their plans. Do you expect them to read your minds? "It's too big" isn't good enough. In my opinion, four restaurants is the right amount, maybe more. I'm sick and tired of having to wait 45 minutes every time I want to go out to dinner. Personally, I'm really looking forward to being able to walk up to the Lifestyle Center - maybe for Sunday Breakfast at one of the restaurants, maybe just to enjoy the area, maybe to shop. How about the thought of my daughter being able to get a part time job in one of the shops, where I know she'll be in a safe high end place rather than the Shell Station on the other end of town. I live on South Street. This is right in my back yard. I FULLY support the development of the Lifestyle Center, and I know MANY Reading residents do as well. I hope the developer will bring this to Town Meeting where the real voices of Reading will be heard. Sincerely, Jeannie Peirce Checkout 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. 355 10/3/2006 Hechenbieikner, Peter From: Fred Van Magness [vanmagness@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:28 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Site I've tried to stay out of the "fray", but after watching the final vote last week, I feel the BOS must continue to seek a suitable solution to the development. I do not want 40B.... I do not want another Archstone. We fooled around with the West St. land and lost Marriott.... and the town lost long term in getting Archstone, in my opinion. The landfill almost got away from us before some stood up and took charge. If Dan Ensminger and Peter Heckenbleikner had not worked hard to get a reasonable solution to that whole site, we would be still looking at the trash weeds. Some in town wanted boutiques.... what we got was much better long term. Leadership is tough and often frustrating... but the BOS needs to take the initiative to set up a sit down working meeting with the developer, face to face, and keep all the opposing and in-favor groups out of the discussions. In other words, roll up the sleeves and sit down to work together to see if some common ground can be had. I heard frustration from some members of the board, but feel you need to try one last time and put your personal frustrations aside and be proactive in trying to reach a reasonable solution for the whole town. There must be something that works for both the town and the developer... only by sitting down together can you get to a possible solution. Both sides need to have some flexibility. We can only go so far since we don't own the land. Forget th:e task force approach... it only delays things further and usually leads to no results. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't. Fred Van Magness, SR. 243 Franklin St., Reading 1 3KK Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: nancyortiz@comcast.net Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:34 PM / To: Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square To the Town Manager and Selectmen: Thank you for all our hard work on deciding the best use of the Addison Wesley site. I know it has been a trying past few months. I would like to state once more that I am strongly in favor of the Park Square at Reading project. The 128 location is one of the last few (if not the very last) site for commercial development of this type. I see no advantage to placing housing right next to Route 128. Housing should be placed closer to the schools, not on the border of 128. (Those students would have to be bused to the high school and more redistricting would need to be done for the elementary schools.) More important, Reading will be grateful to have the tax revenue a few short years from now and, as each month passes, that revenue is being lost. As a veteran of many failed override attempts, I believe that if this land is developed as housing as opposed to commercial development, an override will be even more difficult to pass as those opposed will point to this error of judgement as reason to oppose an increase in taxes. At the very minimum, the Park Square proposal should be brought before town meeting. Town meeting members are usually a good measure of town sentiment and I believe the majority of the town is in favor of this development. Sincerely, Nancy Ortiz 3 LL. 10/3/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Hazelle McWilliams [hmcwilliams@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:47 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Let Park Square continue To the Board of Selectmen, As a Reading resident, I am writing to let you know that I feel that your vote against the Park Square proposal was wrong and does not reflect my wishes for the town. I don't feel that the selectmen are representing the wishes of the people that voted for them and I think that you should reconsider the Park Square proposal which would be a benefit to residents of the town. Hazelle McWilliams Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Hazelle McWilliams [hmcwilliams@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:52 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Let Park Square continue Dear Peter, As a Reading resident, I am writing to let you know that I feel that the selectman's vote against the Park Square proposal was wrong and does not reflect my wishes.for the town. I don't feel that the selectmen are representing the wishes of the people that voted for them and I think that you should reconsider the Park Square proposal which would be a benefit to residents of the town. Hazelle McWilliams 1 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Leigh Anne Bell [leighbell@verizon.net] I Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:49 PM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Park Square I am writing in support of the Park Square project. I have to say that I was a bit alarmed when I read the articles in both local papers and heard various things around town that were said at Tuesday's meeting. My biggest question is why after two years of planning and studies do you want to FINALLY meet with the developers. If you didn't like what they proposed shouldn't that have been done sooner than this? Camille, if you don't want the same ole same ole - why haven't you initiated meetings sooner? Why weren't the developers ever invited to working group meetings. Now that everyone has wasted time and money over the past two years you want to form a design charette? Wouldn't that basically be another working group? Many of the residents in this town want to know who you are working for? You keep saying that you don't want this "mall". If this project is turned down in its entirety, we face putting a project in there that will look like Avalon in Woburn. Have you seen that monstrosity? (Speaking of Avalon - don't most of those residents need to cut through Reading to get to their home? Won't they use our town services? What about that traffic or calls to our fire and police department?) There is so much talk about changing the feel of this town with this proposed project. It would change the feel of this town. However, it would change in a much more positive way in terms of social avenues, tax dollars, employment opportunities. Much more so than adding several hundred housing units. We are in times of change. It would be so beneficial to have those tax dollars added to our revenues. I just hope that you vote in a way to keep this project alive and come up with a compromise for mixed use as opposed to another housing development. Thank you for your time, Leigh Anne Bell 300 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: murph786@comcast.net Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:00 PM To: reading@cnc.com; readingchronicle@comcast.net; Reading - Selectmen To the Editor, I think it is interesting that a fellow resident and business associate of W/S Development, Ms. Susan DiGiovanni, has written several letters on behalf of the developer about the possibility of affordable hosing being built at the site of the proposed mall. In neither communication has she offered constructive ideas for what the town could do to prevent unfriendly 40B applications. The town is actively working on a plan production for 40B development which will allow the Town to hold off any unfriendly development. In fact, the town is currently taking steps to develop a housing plan which will prevent precisely the kind of overdevelopment with which Ms. DiGiovanni and her developer friends are threatening our community. Again, fear should not be a selling point for a shopping mall. The fact is the Woburn 40B development Ms. DiGiovanni referenced in her recent "I'm Scared" letter was proposed long before the new regulations were in place. In 2003 and 2005 the state's Department of Housing issued new regulations regarding the parameters for size of 40B developments precisely to avoid the kinds of problems that Woburn has faced in developments that were proposed in previous years. Facts can be an antidote to fear. In a public meeting on Thursday, September 28 the town was discussing a proposed housing plan to allow for slow growth to hold off further unfriendly 40B projects. Despite Ms. DiGiovanni's contention, the town planner showed the town at 7.6% or 200 units short of its affordable housing goal. That meeting is showing on RCTV so people can watch for themselves. In the end this shopping mall proposal needs to rise or fall on its own merits. Building a shopping mall in order to avoid 40B is not going to solve the problem of 40B. A shopping mall is NOT going to help the town to get to its 10% "affordable housing" requirement. We could just wind up with a shopping mall AND a 40B development. Theresa Murphy 301 q 10/3/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: John McWilliams Ohmcwilliams@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:59 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: In favor of Park Square I am writing to say that Iam in favor of the proposed lifestyle mall development on the Addison-Wesley property and am disappointed in your 'No' vote of last week. I would like you to consider that I. along with many Reading residents, would like our view on this to be reflected by you, the selectmen. Please reconsider your decision and welcome W/S Development in to fully present the proposal and then allow the town meeting to vote on it. Regards, John McWilliams 1 Virginia Circle. Reading 3YK Pagel of2,. Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Chris Goodman [cgoodyl2@gmaii.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:42 PM G- G To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Town Manager Subject: Park Square at Reading I am in favor of the Park Square at Reading project, although I have not attended meetings or called any of you to let me know. I have done my research on the details of the project in order to form my opinion. I know of dozens of friends and neighbors that are also in favor as well. I believe the decisions to date have been influenced by the campaigns of the CARE group. I have met members of the group to hear their opinions. From what I have seen, these group members are extremely emotional about this project for one reason or another. Although I can understand their feelings, I do not believe that their vote should count more than any other person in town. I believe that this. decision should be made by the residents of Reading. That includes those that are passionately opposed as well as those that have not yet voiced their opinions at all. If this issue is brought up for vote and is subsequently voted down, then this debate will end fairly. If the town votes in favor, then the same will be true. I urge you to continue the due diligence necessary to make the best decision for the entire town. ass 10/3/2006 Page lof 2- Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Chris Goodman [cgoody12@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:00 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Town Manager Subject: Re: Park Square at Reading To make sure that my opinion is added to the record, my name is Chris Goodman and I reside at 714 Pearl St. My point below is that the decisions to date have been strongly influenced by a group of emotionally passionate individuals. It is important that their opinion not carry any more weight than my opinion or my neighbors or anyone else. If we were to only listen to the individuals of the CARE group than we would be weighting the opinions based on a their personal attachment to this issue. Why not weight opinions based on tax contribution or longevity in town or IQ or age. Or how about we make sure that everyone's opinion matters equally. On 10/2/06, Chris Goodman <cgoodvl2n.amail.com> wrote: I am in favor of the Park Square at Reading project, although I have not attended meetings or called any of you to let me know. I have done my research on the details of the project in order to form my opinion. I know of dozens of friends and neighbors that are also in favor as well. I believe the decisions to date have been influenced by the campaigns of the CARE group. I have met members of the group to hear their opinions. From what I have seen, these group members are extremely emotional about this project for one reason or another. Although I can understand their feelings, I do not believe that their vote should count more than any other person in town. I believe that this decision should be made by the residents of Reading. That includes those that are passionately opposed as well as those that have not yet voiced their opinions at all. If this issue is brought up for vote and is subsequently voted down, then this debate will end fairly. If the town votes in favor, then the same will be true. I urge you to continue the due diligence necessary to make the best decision for the entire town. 3 sSZ 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Rhonda Cerbone [rmc07@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:48 PM t1 c To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square I beg you to please sit with the developer of Park Square and see if you can come to an agreement. As I drive along route 93 1 see 3 high density housing unit's in construction and another one off of 128 in Peabody. Do we really need another high rise apartment complex in Reading? And with all the other's being built we could end up with a lot of vacant property . Please consider this!! Also more than 75% of our town wants Park Square over the high density housing the small group opposed are the abutters. Of course they don't want it they own property right there I can't say that I blame them but the fact of the matter is the property is for sale and something is going to be built there so we need to do what's best for Reading. I believe this group who is opposed doesn't want anything-to go on the property and no doubt they already have a plan to fight high density housing to. And fight that for two years as well plan to see a lot of them no matter what happens. I feel like this is the land fill situation all over again, we were going to get fields for our kids to play their games at and because we fought for so long they walked away only to be asked back and we lost our fields Lets not make the same mistake. THE RIGHT DECISION FOR READING IS PARK SQUARE NOT HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. MOST OF READING FEELS THIS WAY. PLEASE MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION. Thank You Rhonda Cerbone 57 Lilah Lane 31-1, 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: wepaskerian@worldnet.att.net Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:07 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: 'Barbara Paskerian' Subject: Park Square at Reading Importance: High Dear Selectmen, I have been following the battle between "Reading CARE" and "RRRED" and am perplexed about your recent BOS vote last week. If the town of Reading does not move forward regarding this project it will have a very negative effect on the majority of the community. This project will bring "new life" to Reading. High density housing will make our schools overcrowded and the people who are against Park Square will be the first ones to complain that their children are being redistricted or in large classrooms. You (BOS) need to at least let the developer have the opportunity to come and meet with you to put this project together. Our town is already bursting at the seams in terms of housing. The residents need a place to go with their families to eat, shop, walk, and maybe find a part-time job that is local. We need a place that we can be proud of, a place where we can gather but be close to home. Please reconsider and hear this project out and get the true wishes of the community. Park Square would be a terrific asset to the town. Sincerely, Barbara Paskerian Reading Resident 3 uv 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Kate Obenedetto1 @verizon.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:29 PM L' j c" To: Town Manager Dear Peter, 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. Sincerely, Kate Benedetto 5 Lindsay Lane Reading, MA 3 V✓ 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: TONY PELUSI JR [a.pelusijr@comcast.net] ff Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:07 PM v~ To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: park square Greetings all, Well the vote has been taken and the selectmen are on record with their view of this project and that is good. In our democracy those who disagree with the decision of our elected leaders are often afforded the opportunity to present their case to the populace for their consideration. Since it appears that is what W/S would like to do I urge this honorable body to support our democratic process and allow them this opportunity. In fact in my view this is not only the right thing but also the noble thing for the board of selectmen to do. After all what is the fear? And is that fear a legitimate reason to prevent our governmental process from working as intended? Thank you and, Be Well, Tony Pelusi Jr., JD, CPCC, ACC BreakInOut Coaching 781.944.9449 www.BreakInOut~com It is wonderful who we can be if we are always being 3W~ 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Steve [sgtucker4l @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:41 AM To: Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen / Subject: Park Square at Reading I must say that I am disappointed that the Park Square at Reading project has been rejected however after observing the various meetings, I am not surprised since it appeared the two groups most actively involved were opposed from the start. I would be interested in knowing why the CPDC was not brought into the discussion at all. Steve Tucker 41 Mt Vernon St satucker41 Ca.comcast.net 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Peter Squeglia [suasponte@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:31 AM To: , Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square Importance: High Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner and Board of Selectmen members: First, I want to thank you for the amount of time you have spent thus far regarding the Park Square at Reading. It is an important issue for the town and one that requires further attention from you, Town Meeting members, and residents. I am writing to let you know that I support this project. In talking with my peers, I believe there are many other people in town, like me, who also support the project. I suspect the group you most likely haven't heard a lot from are the parents of young children in town, with children in school, homework to attend to, games and practices to make, etc. (thus, the reason I'm sending this email at 6:00 a.m.). If these other parents are like me, they barely get two minutes to shower, let alone write an email or attend a meeting. I support the project for many reasons, the three top being: 1) The Park Square development presented by the developer would be a nice addition to town, as it is pretty much tucked out of the way of the MAIN flow of town traffic and appears to offer an aesthetically appealing store front/open space plan; 2) the current owners of AW have bee more than patient with the amount of time the town has taken to review the proposal by its potential buyer and they are not going to wait for ever - if we don't act now on the Park Square at Reading, we are opening the opportunity for a very undesirable development to take the place of the current AW; and 3) Park Square at Reading would bring in additional commercial tax revenue to a town that is significantly dependent on its residents for tax income. As the'Town Manager and Selectmen, your positions require that you. understand the need of the townspeople before making decisions on our behalf - I urge you to consider and understand that you haven't heard from everyone and that the Park Square at Reading process needs to continue to move forward so that you can continue to hear additional voices and make the BEST decision for the town. Thank you for your time in reading this email and considering my above-mentioned points. Sincerely, Erin Squeglia 3H1 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: James Wilder Owilder4321 @yahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:12 AM / C/ To: Reading- Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Addison Wesley Development I live close to the Addison Wesley site and I want to voice my support for the Park Square project. It appears the only alternative to a retail development is more high density housing. The absolute last thing I want to see in Reading is more apartments. What sets Reading apart from many of the surrounding towns is the lack of apartments. Woburn, Burlington, etc...; all have high numbers of apartments and leads to more kids in the schools and let's be honest, lower class people living in town. What happened at Spence Farms must not be repeated at Addison Wesley. Please consider the feelings of the majority of the town, not just the loudest 20%, when you vote on the Park Square project again. It is a good opportunity to bring high quality shopping and dining close to home. James Wilder 19 Maple Ridge Road Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail. 3 Zz 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Boucher Family [boucher7@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 6:12 PM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: For park Square To all, Count this as a united family for Park Square - - We love shopping and eating local - and it would not change the amount we shop downtown (dry cleaner, Sense of Wonder, Atlantic, frame shop, Venetian Moon, Savory Taste) - Great place for kids to get jobs - I do not beleive it will significantly alter traffic patters as long as exit onto 128 is smooth - Do not think hotel or residential alternative can be forced - tired of analysis paralysis in this town - just had working committee and now another study is requested. - I do not beleive the selctment vote is proportional on how the town feels. Please consider/reconsider your votes...... lets move forward. thanks, Beth and Dave Boucher 3&'R G- 10/2/2006 Page 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter II From: RRRED [info@rrred.org] y Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:34 PM To: Town Manager; Reilly, Chris; Reading - Selectmen Subject: Last Tuesday Night's BOS Vote Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner, Mr. Reilly, and Board of Selectmen members, I am writing to you as the Chairwoman of RRRED. Myself and other members of our resident group are extremely dissapointed in your vote of last Tuesday night. We feel that this-is a project of utmost importance to the Town of Reading and that it did not receive proper discussion at your last BOS Meeting. The Addison Wesley Working Group worked hard for months and months to put together that agreement, yet you did not spend any time discussing the specifics of that document or the response document that the developer had submitted to you. The AWWG document was created with a tremendous amount of community input and energy, and that should be the basis for moving forward. To spend more of the staff's and resident's time and tax payers' money to create a design charette is simply duplicating the already achieved efforts of the Working Group, and that is wasteful and unacceptable. Additionally, what happens when you are busy putting together this design charette and Pearson informs you that they have put their land under agreement to a 40B developer (which is going to happen). You ran into hiccups and hurdles when you were putting together the development at the Landfill Site (which the Town actually owned), yet you were able to work that project through. Please use the same determination and foresight that you did in that project to make a viable project work at the Addison Wesley site. Sincerely, Susan DiGiovanni 34 Chute Street Reading, MA 01867 READING RESIDENTS for RESPONSIBLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (RRRED) Are Extremely Disappointed in the Board of Selectmen's Vote on Park Square at Reading and They Urge the BOS to Have Further Discussions on the Current Proposal Reading, MA (September 28, 2006)-RRRED (Reading Residents for Responsible Economic Development) and its over 800 members. are extremely disappointed in the September 26th vote of the Board of Selectmen. After the Addison Wesley Working Group had worked so hard for over 5 months to come up with a plan whose numerous points were in almost total agreement with the proposal for Park Square at Reading, the Board of Selectmen took less than 45 minutes to vote down the proposal by a 4 to 1 margin. Susan DiGiovanni, Chairperson of RRRED, says "we are extremely disappointed not only in the vote of the Board of Selectmen, but in the fact that the BOS did not give sufficient time to discussion of W/S Development's current proposal. The Addison Wesley site is a very, very important matter for the Town of Reading, and RRRED and its many members feel that the Board of Selectmen needs to give this project its proper due". 10/2/2006 ✓ 19 Page 2 of 2 Previous to Tuesday night's meeting, the Working Group had asked W/S Development to submit a formal written response to the Addison Wesley Working Group document, showing what points the developer was in agreement with and what points they weren't. As requested, the developer submitted this written report which showed that they greed with 45 out of the 49 various points outlined by the Working Group. Despite these many points of agreement, the Board of Selectmen moved right to a vote without even discussing the various points outlined in this document. At this Board of Selectmen's meeting, Selectman Steve Goldy said he felt that the Board of Selectmen should invite the developer of Park Square at Reading to a Board of Selectmen's meeting to discuss with them their current proposal on a face-to-face basis. Goldy said, "let's tell the developers that this is what the town envisions and ask them if this is something that they can do". Selectmen Bonazoli agreed, saying "that the best developments in this town have occurred through a roundtable discussion, and that is what should happen here". Given the importance of this project, RRRED agrees with the comments of Selectmen Goldy and Bonazoli, and RRRED asks that the Board of Selectmen invite the developer to a meeting to get the terms of. this project worked out. This is a project of great importance to the Town of Reading and we have a very experienced and responsive developer that has put together a proposal that meets almost all of the various points of concern laid out by our Town leaders. Since Town officials, members of the Working Group, and the developer have put in so much time and effort and have come to an agreement on so many points, it would be a shame for them to not put in a bit more time to see if these remaining items can be worked out. As Reading residents who know the importance of this project, we ask the Board of Selectmen to continue to work together with the developer to put together a project that works for all parties. It took many years for the Town to work out the proper development plans for the town owned landfill site, but with persistency and hard work they were able to do it. Selectmen Camille Anthony and Richard Schubert were part of that process and they had the fortitude and the foresight to put together that development, and we urge them to use the same efforts in coming to an agreement here. For more information on RRRED, and to join up with our group of-over 800 Reading residents, please visit our website at www.RRRED.ora or e-mail us at info ccDRRRED.ora. 3~b,z 10/2/2006 L Xf Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Beth Battye [ebattye@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 5:04 PM To: Town Manager Cc: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square I am disappointed to read that the selectman's vote was 4 to 1 against this division. I think this would be a great addition to Reading. It is unfortunate that so many people in Reading want this, and this is being voted against by the selectmen of Reading. Why doesn't someone take a poll of Reading residents on who is for it and who is against it. I am confident that you will find that more people want Park Square to happen. There are going to be traffic issues, just like there were at Walker's Brook the first and second week after Jordan's openend, but after that, it is a breeze. The developer is willing to work with the town of Reading. The next.developer probably won't and we will have one big apartment complex with the population overcrowding our schools and community. Please rethink your decision. 3ccc.- Page 1 of 1 11L Hechenblefter, Peter f From: Bob & Marie Westwater [rmwestwater@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:00 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square at Reading As seniors, who have lived in Reading for forty years, we would like to inform you that we support the Park Square Project. With the vote last week, we feel as though the Selectmen are letting us seniors down. Most of us are on fixed incomes and a project like Park Square would be a welcome relief to this town. PLEASE do not make another mistake as the monstrosity on Spence Farm. We seniors cannot afford the burden of another school, and please don't insult our intelligence and say that it will not happen. With the way the market is today, a majority of these apartments will be going to Section Eight living and that means more children coming into our town. All we ask is, just listen to what the builder has to say and act like adults. If you can't decide, bring it to Town Meeting and let the residents decide, because it's apparent that some of our Selectmen are voting on personal reasons, not factual ones. Please act like mature adults and come to a realistic decision. Sincerely, Marie and Bob Westwater 47 Mark Avenue Reading,MA 01867 3A9 10/4/2006 Page 1 of 1 ZJ/C1__ Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Peter V Cerbone [pvc08@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:19 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square Dear Selectmen, My wife and I have written several communications in support of the Park Square Development and I feel compelled once again to show my interest and support to see the old Addison site developed into a commercial property that the town can feel proud about. After many months of hard work it seemed that the town and developer were very close to agreeing on the specifics, but unfortunately the personal feelings of a few toward the developer quickly turned the relationship 'sour.' It's time to show the town the leadership that you were entrusted with and see this project through by making a thoughtful decision given all the hard work that went into the review process by both sides. Let's think of the consequences if we don't take the time to plan what we want at this site. I do not want to see another high-rise housing development squeezed on every last bit of land. If you think Park Square would be a drain on Town resources, guess again! Now is your opportunity to show some leadership. Let's do what's best for the whole town. Respectfully, Peter and Rhonda Cerbone 10/4/2006 Page 1 of 1 yG Hechenbieikner, Peter From: david oconnor [disco1392@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:28 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: in favor of park sq. Dear Selectmen, We are writing to let you know I am truly disappointed in your lack of listening to so many people in Reading. It is as if all the work by the Work Group, all the work by RRRED members, and all of your voices mean nothing to them. We are in favor of Park Square!! Thank you, Lisa O'Connor & David O'Connor 3~ 10/4/2006 Page 1 of 1 1f(fl- Hechenblefter, Peter From: Tom Rosenstein [tom@ckpost.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:32 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Town Manager Subject: Park Square at Reading I'd like to voice my concern that I do not see our Town Selectman upholding their responsibility to our town in its efforts to manage our growth properly. While the Park Square project is a controversial topic and an important issue for our town to analyze., I believe the Town Selectman our being held hostage to a very vocal minority. As our town finances struggle to keep up with the costs of healthcare, as well as state & federal mandated expenses, we must look for alternative revenue sources beyond the continued increase of private property taxes. Simply put our officials must manage around the three forces which will impact the future success of our town: 1. Household tax base 2. Commercial tax base 3. The quality of our infrastructure - including schools, police, fire and public works projects All three of these forces impact the quality of our town and its livability. It's our town officials' job to strike the right balance. While the Park Square project may impact a few residents and their perceived property values, the cost of raising household property taxes and the deterioration of our infrastructure impact ALL of our residents. Additionally, the owners of the Addison Wesley property have a legal right within the bounds of the zoning laws and town's discretion to do what they wish with the property. Given the state of the commercial property market, they will look for the highest profit and the least risk choice. At that moment it is the Park Square plan. While I applaud our officials decisions to keep the site's impact reasonable for the neighborhood and traffic concerns, it is not at all clear to me that there is any indication our town officials have given the developer any signs of a possible compromise. It is your job as our elected officials to negotiate to a reasonable place for our town, our tax base and this private property owner. We have all just witnessed the large, urban-like expansion of our new housing projects. We are already feeling the pinch of the additional resource drain of these new residences with 23+ students added to our classrooms and the other drains on our infrastructure. As a town we have very few parcels of land which will support an increased commercial base. The Park Square project, on the edge of our town, should have the least amount of impact on our town's quality of life. Perhaps as an upside, it may even attract additional visitors to Main St, Reading where we seem to have commercial businesses shutting down weekly. I appreciate your time reading this and I ask you to proactively find a compromise for this project so our town can prosper again. Sincerely, Tom Rosenstein $~4iq 10/4/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Elizabeth DeMarco [edemarcoo@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:27 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Park Square Project October 3, 2006 As Reading residents and taxpayers, we are disappointed that the Board of Selectmen has voted against the Park Square Project. We feel this project would be a benefit to the community both economically and socially. Please reconsider your vote! ! We do not feel you are representing the majority of Reading residents on this matter. Sincerely, Steven and Elizabeth DeMarco 265 High Street 3ti~,b 10/3/2006 Park Square Project Page 1 of 1 q , Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Kozlowski, Norman F. [Norman. Kozlowski@getronics.com] Sent: . Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:59 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square Project To the Board of Selectmen, It's been very exciting to watch the town dynamics surrounding the Park Square Project. We had a camp on the left, its adversaries on the right and both had absolutely the right solution to our dilemma. Over time I observed the left working with the right resulting in some positive dialog. Once the dust had settled 1 felt we had a near win win solution on the table that just needed final tweaking. I was disappointed in your quick negative vote the other night that ended the hard work both groups had put into trying to produce positive results for the town. Had you allowed the developer to address the groups' final requests I feel certain it would have produced. that win win scenario the town was hoping to achieve. Since neither you nor I can predict the future, we voters had to rely on your critical thinking and analytical skills to help guide the town to a solution. You Board of Selectmen were caught in between that hard place, once made; your decision would be absolutely wrong to at least one of those passionate minority groups, but hopefully right for the town's majority. As a voter I'm now standing back and evaluating your actions. I saw your frustrations, but as elected town officials I was hoping to observe a leadership group rise above personal emotions and addressing the facts of the matter at hand. Instead in the end you demonstrated to me you were only human, your quick negative vote and unwillingness to listen to the developer showed that each of you had picked a side and were no longer independent of the issue. I always believed that as an elected town official your duty is to work for the good of the entire town. Attentively listening to both sides of each issue in detail, especially one of this magnitude, is your absolute responsibility. Please keep in mind those voters who watch your meetings on cable and chat on a daily basis are constantly evaluating your abilities to do what's best for their town. Hopefully the majority's final evaluation of your performance will be presented to you in the form of a positive or negative vote at the poles. As a Precinct 7 voter and one how has analyzed both sides of this argument, I was hoping you would allow the developer to address the last round of requests, by not doing so you have not let this issue create it own natural closure. Thank you for your time regarding this very important town matter. Norm Kozlowski 3-1 j I 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Greg Cunha [newenglandappraisal@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:54 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc:, RRRED Subject: Park Square Reading In regards to the recent events of this proposal, I went to the nearby development of Wayside Commons in Burlington,MA to get a feel of the whole scheme of things. 1 feel strongly that the Town of Reading should support the Park Square Reading as the Burlington development is a beautiful) facility and we as Reading residents could experience the same type of shopping without even leaving town. I have lived here since 1978 and my family loves the community and we all feel that this proposal should go forward. I hope that you will reconsider you recent vote as there is obviously is a lot of positive resident sentiment towards this project. Greg Cunha & family 35~~ 10/3/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Selectpersons, David Rail [rail@visidyne.com] Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:35 PM Reading - Selectmen Town Manager Park Square /-/C----- Once again I will add my voice to the choir that is FOR the Park Square at Reading development. As I don't really understand the process (do you?), and as I am left astounded that all the results from the "working group" are to be thrown away, I really have wonder who is representing the MAJORITY of Reading residents.who WANT this project to be built at the A-W site. It is my understanding that the developer is nearly in complete agreement with criteria defined by the working group. If the Board would just consider sitting down with the developer (in a constructive as opposed to an adversarial way), then I believe a solution can be found that will be satisfactory to all parties. It would be a serious shame to let this matter be dropped so cavalierly. Sincerely, David L. A. Rall 11 Mark Avenue 3K~~ Page 1 of 2 f~ Hechenbleikner, Peter From: carol.shattuck@christmastreeshops.com Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:34 PM To:' Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen Subject: Retailers Can Make Good Neighbors Re: Park Square @ Reading My career in retail tells me many things about public hearings, meetings, etc. and how difficult it is to walk the fine line when reviewing and overseeing your community's needs. I was able to catch a few of you last week to express my thoughts on what I see this project in Reading doing for the community. I am sorry I only got to speak with Peter, Camille and Ben, but my schedule prohibited me from reaching all of you so here goes. As for the rest of you I bet you really missed my input»» Just kidding... 1. I see the project as something this community really needs to bring some cohesiveness to Reading. I do not see the Park Square@ Reading Development as a detriment in any way to the downtown retail area. Actually with shuttles between the downtown and the south side of town both retail worlds can benefit from each other. 2. Park Square could provide a focal point for meeting family, friends while shopping, dining, etc. I have heard the comment that I can visit the new malls in Burlington and now possibly Lynnfield. I could, but I would miss out on meeting people I knew. We have lacked in Reading a common meeting area. Perhaps some would say it does not matter, but I believe the person who confronted me in my Sleepy Hollow community and is new to town wants more. Honestly, I think this individual is right it is time for change. 3. Multi use provides options for everyone.... senior citizens who can't drive could be shuttled to shop. Teenagers who want jobs could be employed. Individuals who want to stay in Reading could live there (if over 55 housing was approved). 4. Today our treasured conservation land does not provide us with a safe means for taking walks. A common area such as Park Square could provide that for many of us as well. 5. Lastly my deepest concern with this project is .....the land we are debating is quite valuable to this community.... we have to make every vote count and plan accordingly. Make sure it is a positive for this community. Eveyone knows how I feel.... shame of me for not being there when Archstone was passing through zoning. I was asleep at the switch, but I suspect I was not the only one who was. I am opposed to another Archstone. 6. As for the meetings I saw pluses and minuses on both sides (I watched on my local cable), however, as some of you already know I observed they could have and should have been controlled better. I believe not controlling them slowed down any progress which was made. Hopefully you have not shut the door on this type of development. From my conversations with you, I believe you remain open and want to move forward if some of your concerns are met and brought to closure (size, traffic,etc) 3 10/3/2006 Page 2 of 2 Finally, as I stated in my telephone calls last week you represent all of us not just a neighborhood. I honestly believe the majority of town wants you to make this work for them. Hopefully you can resume and move forward. THANKS. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e- mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof. Thank you for your compliance. 10/3/2006 "Selectmen to ponder next move...." Page 1 of 1 C Hechenbleikner, Peter From: D'Alessio, Joe M. Odalessio@jhancock.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:42 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: "Selectmen to ponder next move...." Sensitivity: Personal Dear Board of Selectmen, I first would like to commend you for taking a formal stance at the September 26th meeting on the Addison Wesley proposal. This issue has been looming over our community for a year if not longer. Secondly I believe the vote in the negative was the smart and only choice and had to be made. You had to send the message that we care about our community and that the blatant disregard of our wishes and concerns could not be overlooked. The developer has had numerous opportunities to present a proposal that would meet our towns master plan and totally disregarded the countless hours that the working group spent. Any defense in that they were not represented is another slap in the face to Reading, as at every working group, meeting their attorney was present in the back of the room taking extensive notes. I am now very disappointed to read the front page of the Daily Times tonight (10/4) that at last nights meeting the discussion continues and will be on the agenda again for October 17th. How can something that the overwhelming majority voted down, would continue to be discussed? Is it because "a high volume of e-mails" were received to plead the case that 45 minutes of discussion is not enough time to make the decision? I find that statement ridiculous as we all know each and every member have spent a lot more than 45 minutes on this proposal pondering the difficult vote. Should I solicit residents to send emails on the contrary, wasting all of our time? Lets not forget that the developer has stated publicly that they can not go below 320k square feet of retail, which the majority of you have stated that is too large. Why do you believe now that anything has changed? Is it because you believe they can do better even though they had the chance on August 9th and did not? If they do reduce the retail size then did they lie to the community? Why would we even entertain any more discussions with this developer? How many chances should we give them? Do they not read the papers or watch TV, have they approached any of you with a new proposal that comes closer to our master plan? They have every right to proceed to town meeting with any proposal, why not let them and let it be decided then. Prolonging this process is tearing our community apart!!! I no longer enjoy reading the local paper as it disgusts me how the community has reacted and the personnel attacks that are being made. I moved to Reading 13 years ago and I live on Curtis Street, yes I purchased my home next to an office building, not a mall. 1 am starting to question if I should remain in Reading, not because of the threat of a mall or 40b development in my backyard, but due to the way this whole process has been handled. I welcome responses to any of my questions and am more than happy to discuss why you believe it is necessary to delay this process. The motion and vote was made, stand behind your decision and move on! Joe D'Alessio 58 Curtis Street Town Meeting Member Precinct 3 781/942-7109 10/5/2006 Addison Wesley Project... Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Carmen Redfearn [redfearnfamily@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:22 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Project... Dear Selectmen, Page 1 of 1 I just wanted to let you all know that I am in favor of the proposed project at the Addison Wesley site and I hope that you will continue to work toward making that a reality for our town. I'm hopeful that the final points of contention can be worked out and we can enjoy this new project in the near future. Thank you. Sincerely, Carmen C. Dutile-Redfearn 194 High Street Reading 3 ate, V%-~ kvt 2- 10/5/2006 Page 1 of 1 6, 6 /C Hechenblelkner, Peter From: David Ventola [dpventola@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:35 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Thank you for the vote on the Addison Wesley Site Hello, Just a short note to thank you for the recent vote on the Addison Wesley Site. 1 am in favor of developing this site in a manner appropriate for Reading. I do not believe the current proposal by the developer is appropriate for Reading. If the developer modifies the plans to meet the guidelines provided by the Board of Selectman I would then support the proposal. Best regards, David Ventola 22 Strawberry Hill Lane Reading, MA 01867 phone 781-944-4243 email: dpventola(o)comcast.net 10/4/2006 Page 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Michelle Hopkinson [michelle.hopkinson@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:43 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Comments on AWP Dear Board and Mr. Hechenbleikner, I realize you have received many emails regarding the Mall proposal. I'm sure you must be glad that at least people can email you now instead of call you at home. I will try to keep my comments brief and to the point. 1 also hope they will be useful as you move forward. I have been thinking about the follow up meeting that Mr. Goldy would like to have with the developer. Has the board identified the expectation of the meeting yet? Here are some thoughts 1 hope you are considering before you take the next step. 1. THE MESSAGE MUST BE CLEAR- I am concerned there is a lack of consensus on the Board. The only flaw in the working group document was the lack of consensus. As I (we all) predicted, W/S stuck to the 320K square footage even though there was a huge range and a majority of the group were in favor of a much smaller project. You can take the developer's interpretation as a message that you must be very clear on your expectations. think it will be difficult for the board to come to this consensus as long as Mr. Bonazoli will not compromise on the 320K mark. I still don't understand how Mr. Bonazoli could give a vote in favor of the proposal that he 4 weeks earlier had been most disappointed in among all the members of the AWWG. What has happened since then? I must ask to place the burden on Mr. Bonazoli to provide the rest of the board/community at large, the evidence to back his decision. If his decision is based on financial need of the community, then I would expect he would want a fiscal impact report himself. 2. FINANCIAL IMPACT IS NOT CLEAR- Since the beginning of this process, W/S development has touted the $1 million in revenue for the town. If you look at their website, the latest report they have is from May 2006. They added a residential component that they are not committed to. They determined that approximately 6% in annual service costs can be assigned to all non - residential land uses. The formula used did not specify a retail development but "non-residential" uses. There is a significant difference between a commercial and retail impact on a community. Have any of you discussed or considered the impact this mall would have on our Chapter 70 funding? I think you will find that we end up hurting our education funding not helping it. What will the actual bottom line be? This property is underutilized. No matter what project is generated for this property, it will bring in a significant increase in tax revenue. The question is how much impact will it be on the community services? 3. QUALITY OF LIFE - I believe that there is a delicate balance between fiscal opportunities and Quality of Life. In each of our lives, we need to make choices. What are we willing to sacrifice in order to make more money? Do we take a job that takes us away from our family but makes more money? What is the town willing to sacrifice to make a few bucks? As you shape your vision, please review the master plan again. 4. WORKING ON AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION-What did you think about Peter H.'s idea of a "charrette" process to shape a vision? It would be a great solution to get the community involved in the process. Do you think it would actually help to de-polarize the community? The town needs to move on to a better "plan B" assuming the mall process is at a halt. We need to be ready to move forward. From discussions, it sounds like a great over 55 development with a mixed use balance would work. The town would receive additional tax, working towards 40B, and most likely retaining the chapter 70 funding. Please consider Mr. Tafoya's idea of using some members of our community with expertise to assist you. 5. REZONING CONCERNS- The AWP was rezoned once already, the company backed out. We just witnessed it again in Woburn with Decathalon closing up and leaving a site open for anyone, even Walmart. Is that what we want for Reading? This site is very unique in its location, size, and access. This must be considered in the zoning changes. FYI- have you noticed that every time something does not go the developer's way, Susan de Giovanni (REDDD), 310/5/2006 ool5 1 Page 2 of 2 starts up with the false 40B scare tactics. It's just another example of what this town is dealing with. Instead of working with the town, they use scare tactics. Could you address the true facts regarding 408, please? Their plan should work on its own merits. Putting a high density mall in will not resolve our 40B housing issue. It will just move it somewhere else. As you ponder your meeting with W/S Development, please define your strategies and your goals for this meeting. Is it for closure? Is it to move forward? Please send a clear message to the developer. Well, that was my two cents. As always, thank you all for your time, energy, and attention to this issue. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. Respectfully, Michelle Hopkinson 3(2, 062 10/5/2006 Page 1 of 2 of Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:47 AM To: 'Andy Murphy'; Reading - Selectmen Cc: middlesexeast@comcast.net Subject: RE: MWRA Andrew Thanks for your email. The issue of water supply is indeed one of the major decisions that the Town has been faced with in recent memory. The Board of Selectmen took a long time, as did town Meeting, to determine what, in their judgment, was the best course of action for the community, balancing economic, financial, water quality, environmental, and other concerns. The decision made - to join the MWRA for all water costs - is the least cost option in the short run (25 years), so that if the decision were reconsidered and the Town decided to build it's own water plant, the costs tot the rate payers would be even higher than what we are currently projecting. There is no provision in the Reading Home Rule Charter to defer such decisions to a binding vote of the Town unless the decision of Town Meeting was challenged by petition within 7 days of their action. The Board of Selectmen is considering various measures including additional use of reserves to keep any rate changes to the minimum possible level. As to the issue of communities wanting to get into or out of the MWRA, I know only of communities trying to get into the MWRA water system - including Dedham/Westwood, and Wilmington. Many local water supplies are facing the same kinds of concerns as Reading, and the management of the MWRA and the quality of their water are excellent. Thanks for your continued interest. This has not been an easy process or decision, but now that the decision has been made we are working as hard as we can to implement it in the least cost manner possible. Pete Hechenbleikner From: Andy Murphy [mailto:andy.murphy@converge.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:13 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: middlesexeast@comcast.net Subject: MWRA To: Reading Board of Selectman Fr: Andy Murphy I am writing to express my dissapointment at the evolving discussions and potential engagment with MWRA. I am concerned that a project of this magnitude has not been put to the voters in the town. I can appreciate the amount of information that has been provided to the town via Town Meeting, RCTV, and notices in our water bills, but I feel the impact of the rate setting exercise that you are about to decide is going to send an unexpected and disturbing message to the residents of Reading. A 30 to 40 percent rate increase in the first quarter of it's implementation will only be a small percentage of the overall increase that will burden the ratepayers during the first two years of the program. As projected by the town manager, we can expect consistent, significant rate increases during the first few years, at which time, it will taper off to gradual 10/4/2006 3eeP' Page 2 of 2 increases. I have never seen a gradual anything (especially a tax, which this essentially is) in this state. 1 am not convinced that the people of Reading fully understand the consequences of what has been in discussion for the better part of two years. Yes, there have been numerous studies done (including the $1,000,000 study that the town did for which we have no recourse to recoup that expenditure), but had there been full disclosure on the types of increase that we are likely to see in the next few years, I feel confident that the town residents would likely opt to maintain control of our water source and not put the town's reliance in the hands of a beaurocratic, quasi-public state agency controlled by politicians who have already demonstrated fiscal incompetence on so many issues. We have built a tremendous infrastructure in this town over the last few years, through the construction of the new High School, elementary school, and major improvements to our other town controlled buildings. The town has demonstrated an appetite for overrides and fees where it is deemed to be valuable and as contributing to improving the quality of life for our families. Some residents could argue that monies spent to construct a new school does impact them specifically, but they understand what it means to the community in total, as well as, some indirect benefits through increased property values etc. There are neighboring towns that are suing to be released from their obligation to MWRA. Did anyone talk to the leaders of those communities? The outcome can not be based solely on analytics from a financial standpoint. It deserves common sense, not just dollars and sense. Town Meeting members sacrifice much of their time, and dedicate themselves to the cause, but this is simply too large an issue to expect them to carry the burden and speak on behalf of all residents. It is having this in mind that I ask you to reconsider that this very important issue be put to the voters and residents of this town for a vote, if not in November, then at a special election. If not re-considered, this will'go down as one of the biggest mistakes this town has made and one that we will pay the price for years to come. The legacy of the current town adminstration will likely be measured by the implementation of a well defined strategy, execution and with the support of the community. If the current proposal is forced on people without the benefit of a majority vote (regardless of the Town Meeting legislative body that has been deemed sufficient by the town), there will always be a residual negativity that will reflect poorly on your individual public service long after you have been voted out. Regards, Andrew P. Murphy 3 Zachary Lane Reading, Ma. 01867 781-779-2300 This electronic message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above and may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, dissemination or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. 3rPP21 10/4/2006 Page 1 of 2 4~/ Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Jay Lenox Ulenox41 @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:21 AM To: James Bonazoli forwarding account Cc: Reading - Selectmen Subject: W/S Development Proposal James, At the BOS meeting on Tuesday night you said you and the developer are confused, quite honestly it is obvious. First off, who are your constituents? The developer or the people of Reading. I don't think you understand how confused our fellow residents are. They are being fed half-truths and they see one of their leaders acting like lobbyist for a developer. Each meeting you have mentioned how you have 'spoken' with the developer. You did it again Tuesday. Please tell me how much time you have spent talking with people that oppose the mall in relation to the time you spent working with the developers themselves. Your actions are casting a very negative light over all that sit on the Board, the Town Manager and the effort of the Working Group. People are talking about the poor leadership in this town. It is unfair that this perception is being applied to Peter, Camille, Rick, Ben and Steve. You mentioned that the Board has not written the developer a formal letter. Well, HAS THE DEVELOPER FORMALLY ASKED TO COME BACK? I don't think they have. You are driving this. I am getting many calls asking why you have put yourself in this position. The public perception is that there is something going on behind the scenes between you and the developer that is making you behave in this fashion - their words, not mine. Please explain to me what has changed about the developer from the August 9th Working Group meeting when you said they ( the developer) "blew it" to the present date . The developer was given many, many chances, including August 9th, to come back with something smaller and more appropriate for our community. THEY have made the business decision to continually come back with a proposal that includes a 40-60 store, 320,000 sf retail shopping mall. The developer has been talking about the same tired proposal for months. You were so mad you were in tears on August, 9th. The 1-4 vote does not preclude the developer from coming back to the table. They can come back to discuss a plan that the Board of Selectmen deem appropriate for our community. Bringing them back to talk about the current proposal again is wasting everyone's time and it is eroding the confidence the community has in its leadership. You must tell the public that you understand the developer can come back, but on Reading's terms. You must make it clear to the public that you agree that the current proposal is not the right fit for the Town and it is time to move on. I look forward to hearing from you. Jay Lenox 10 Sylvan Road 781-944-1041 ~ 0~ cv~ 10/5/2006 Page 1 of 2 ti C Hechenbleikner, Peter From: bonazoli@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:58 AM To: Goldy, Stephen; Anthony, Camille; Schubert, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Tafoya, Ben; Schena, Paula Subject: FW: Re: W/S Development Proposal Forwarded Message: From: bonazoli@comcast.net To: "Jay Lenox" <jlenox4l@comcast.net> Subject: Re: W/S Development Proposal Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:54:25 +0000 Jay Thanks for the note. I'm sorry you and your wife continue to feel that there is something "going on behind the scenes". , It is obvious unless I and others agree with CARE's points people will say that. Which is sad. Anyway I speak to the developer when they call me and as you know there are far more people opposed that I have talked to. I don't think there is a spot or function in town that I have gone to that I have not talked to people for and against. So I am more informed of both positions than perhaps any one. I guess my question is what is everyone so afraid of having a round table discussion with the developer? Even Tom Loughlin and Steve Goldy wondered why this has never happened. As you were in the room Tuesday night you heard me say I'm not looking for the this discussion to be around the same proposal if that is what the board wants. The problem is I don't believe the town has acted professionally. We are all in business Jay. None of us would work at arms length or like to be kept at arms length like this. Up or down at least the board should have an open discussion with the developer and the property owner. Even on August 9th that didn't happen. I have received even more calls and emails of residents who are baffled by last weeks meeting and have no clue what the next steps are. That is what I am trying to get the board to do Jay is outline what our terms are. Also my problem with the current proposal has nothing to do with size. My problem with the current proposal is exactly why we need a round table discuss. You must admit no one (yes Jay hard to believe including myself) has sat with the developer to go over the plans. We have done that with every other development to one degree or another. So I ask again what is everyone afraid of? Original message From: "Jay Lenox" <jlenox4l@comcast.net> James, At the BOS meeting on Tuesday night you said you and the developer are confused, quite 3QAKk 10/5/2006 Page 2 of 2 honestly it is obvious. First off, who are your constituents? The developer or the people of Reading. I don't think you understand how confused our fellow residents are. They are being fed half-truths and they see one of their leaders acting like lobbyist for a developer. Each meeting you have mentioned how you have 'spoken' with the developer. You did it again Tuesday. Please tell me how much time you have spent talking with people that oppose the mall in relation to the time you spent working with the developers themselves. Your actions are casting a very negative light over all that sit on the Board, the Town Manager and the effort of the Working Group. People are talking about the poor leadership in this town. It is unfair that this perception is being applied to Peter, Camille, Rick, Ben and Steve. You mentioned that the Board has not written the developer a formal letter. Well, HAS THE DEVELOPER FORMALLY ASKED TO COME BACK? I don't think they have. You are driving this. I am getting many calls asking why you have put yourself in this position. The public perception is that there is something going on behind the scenes between you and the developer that is making you behave in this fashion - their words, not mine. Please explain to me what has changed about the developer from the August 9th Working Group meeting when you said they ( the developer) "blew it" to the present date . The developer was given many, many chances, including August 9th, to come back with something smaller and more appropriate for our community. THEY have made the business decision to continually come back with a proposal that includes a 40-60 store, 320,000 sf retail shopping mall. The developer has been talking about the same tired proposal for months. You were so mad you were in tears on August, 9th. The 1-4 vote does not preclude the developer from coming back to the table. They can come back to discuss a plan that the Board of Selectmen deem appropriate for our community. Bringing them back to talk about the current proposal again is wasting everyone's time and it is eroding the confidence the community has in its leadership. You must tell the public that you understand the developer can come back, but on Reading's terms. You must make it clear to the public that you agree that the current proposal is not the right fit for the Town and it is time to move on. I look forward to hearing from you. Jay Lenox 10 Sylvan Road 781-944-1041 10/5/2006 Page 1 of 2 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Paul'Missert [PauIM@prostartinc.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:29 PM To: reading@cnc.com; read ingchronicle@comcast.net; Reading - Selectmen Subject: FW: letter to the Editor RE: Addison Wesley Development (please read) Importance: High To the Editor: What to Finally do about the Addison-Wesley Development After some careful thought, it seems to me that the Board of Selectmen, CARE and RRRED are similar in that they want to make sound and informed decisions and comments about what is responsible and appropriate development for the Addison-Wesley/Pearson site. The representative Working Group that was formed also had the same goal. They factored in and received input from all sides, and passed along comments and recommendations to the Board of Selectmen. Then, last week a vote was taken and the BOS decided just 1 in favor and 4 against the W/S Developer's proposal. There are clear reasons why that vote came out the way that it did. Concerns about Traffic have been (and should be) the biggest concern for any development on that site. To widen the small area in front of the Route 128 exit/on ramps to 7 lanes, and then plan to have traffic entering and exiting through those 7 lanes (with just one way into and one way out of the development) is the definition of Bottleneck. Not to mention that these 7 lanes, and the accompanying traffic lights which are often RED, will be just one exit back from the busiest interchange (128/93) in the state. Moreover, this traffic concern is compounded (rightly so) by the uncertainty of what Mass Highway plans to do to try and improve the bottlenecks that already exist at that Interchange. Engineering people, might tell you that they can make it work, but COMMON SENSE tells me it won't! There are also legitimate concerns about dropping such a large Mall/Lifestyle Center footprint on top of a thickly settled/well established neighborhood. Raised environmental concerns about light and noise pollution, trash accumulation, waste water and loss of green space are very real. So are the concerns about the burden/cost this development will have on town services (police, fire, utility...). People also need to think about what negative impact this development will have on our local small businesses (retail, grocery, eating establishments). Furthermore, I personally don't see how a big development will help us rejuvenate and invigorate our downtown area. Reading is just a small bedroom community with a very desirable look and feel. I don't understand people who want to invite urban crawl (Mall crawl), into our town. One thing that sticks in my mind is that the "No Mall" people aren't saying "No Retail" or "No Restaurant". They simply look at the piece of property, contemplate what the developer wants to put there (given the restrictions/concerns I just mentioned), and have concluded that it just won't work! In considering the proposal to rezone for retail at the Addison-Wesley site, town planners and any prospective developer should have looked at the issues and concerns of the residents up front, and started the dialogue off with a MINIMAL proposal for retail, and then if it made sense, scale up from there. Instead we got a huge/dense proposal, and it took a major grass roots effort of local residents to say "Hold on a minute! Let's shine a light on this proposal and get a working group together to take a closer look.". Thank goodness for that! What's interesting is that I've talked with W/S Development representatives and talked with Pro-Mall residents and to be honest, no one has been successful at convincing me that their proposal works and belongs where they want to put it. They've run a great publicity campaign and it sure sounds nice and looks pretty the way they present it, BUT they fail to make my concerns go away. They cannot change the major flaw/premise of 128/93 traffic, or the one way in one way out problem, or the negative environmental and neighborhood impact. (...and I haven't even gotten into declining property values of homes that suddenly find themselves next to Malls). 3s_ss) 10/5/2006 Page 2 of 2 More importantly, we need to focus on what we want our legacy to be. Things like an improved and renewed downtown, pride in schools, pride in neighborhoods and the look and feel of our town is Paramount. Bringing or approving an oversized retail mall into Reading is not what I want to brag to my friends about, or hang my hat on. I have no interest in making the list of towns with a Mall. think Saugus, Danvers, Burlington, Woburn, Medford, Cambridge, Methuen and even Salem NH). 1 can visit those places quite easily and don't want or need this in my hometown. As residents of Reading, we have some hard choices to make about how to develop this property. However, if we approve the proposal that W/S Development has put before us, and any component of their proposal (traffic, tenants, actual net gain in tax revenue, cost of services etc..) is off the mark, then it's us residents who are going to be left holding the bag, and that makes me EXTREMELY nervous. I'd like to see the town be very careful going forward to make sure that any new proposal is feasible, makes common sense and can generate town wide consensus for the people who are paying attention and CARE. The current proposal has obviously not accomplished that. It's time for W/S Development to start over from scratch or walk away. Furthermore, It's counterproductive (and frustrating) to continue going round and round with this current developer. Instead, we need our Board of Selectmen to step up and show strong leadership by utilizing the Working group's findings (and the legitimate concerns that were raised), and come up with a clear vision of what will work/fit, and be in the best interest of our community, regarding the development of this property. I would prefer to see the BOS set the framework for any retail rezoning proposal at Addison-Wesley, rather than reacting to what this or any other developer says they want to put there, when basically the developer's bottom line/profits are their primary motivating factor, and any negative impact on our community and expressed resident's concerns are of less or no importance to them at all. Paul Missert Red Gate Lane 3 10/5/2006 Page 1 of 1 L/G Hechenblelkner, Peter From: mazgeder@aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 6:31 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square I am extremely opposed to the Park Square Mall. I recently moved back to Reading to raise my family in a wonderful community that has small town charm and values. I am also a commuter who uses the 128/93 interchange to get to Boston. Last Christmas season, I was literally stuck in gridlock traffic in that area around 9:45 in the morning. If Reading were to build this mall, it would not only create more of a nightmare in this area, it would also create a traffic nightmare in the town of Reading. Look at all the traffic the Wayside Mall in Burlington has created on 3A, which was already a traffic nightmare. We don't want that for Reading!!! I also want to thank you very much for all your hard work and consideration to this matter! ! ! Respectfully, Marilyn Foley 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. 10/5/2006 61c Hechenblefter, Peter From: lisa.pinkham@pfpc.com Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:53 PM To: read ingchron icle@comcast. net; reading@cnc.com; Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen Good Afternoon I just wanted to add a voice in support of the Park Square at Reading initiative. I firmly believe that this project is good for the community, by providing more of a benefit to more of the people in and around Reading than more housing would. We are talking about a plot of land between Route 28 and Route 128 - what better way to develop it than by building a beautiful space that can be accessed and appreciated by all - not to mention adding revenue for our town and helping to keep our tax dollars down? With the tremendous number of new housing units that have been, and continue to be, added in town the multi-purpose commercial development that has been proposed is a welcome change. Please let's not let a vocal minority outweigh the reasonable majority, let's do what's right for the community and allow Park Square to continue. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Lisa Pinkham The contents of this email are the property of the sender. If it was not addressed to you, you have no legal right to read it. If you think you received it in error, please notify the sender. Do not forward or copy without permission of the sender. '500 J 1 qc, Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Jay Lenox Dienox@interactiveprint.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:54 PM To: James Bonazoli forwarding account Cc: Reading - Selectmen Subject: W/S Development Proposal James, This situation has nothing to do with "being afraid" of another meeting with the developer. This is a business situation and a leadership issue. People are afraid of weak leadership and the prospect of the developer recognizing a weakness on the Board to buy more time to spread their half-truths through their lobbying effort. The abutters and neighbors that elected you have been living with this proposal for two years. We should afford them the respect they deserve and move on from this proposal. As you said we are all in business. That is precisely my point. The AWWG document specified what was expected from the developer. In your own words the document was chock full of "Softballs". The developer failed to meet EVERY numeric requirement set by the AWWG document. You told them they blew it and you were right. Would you continue to work with an employee, vendor or customer that failed to respond to your requests over time after you clearly and repeatedly told them what they should do? Would you work with a contractor for your home that said they have met all your requirements except the size and cost of the project? Of course you wouldn't. You said "The problem is I don't believe the town has acted professionally". After over one year of meetings and presentations, in an attempt to ramrod the zoning amendments through Town Meeting, the developer filed a Citizens Petition to get Article 26 on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant. When they determined they did not have enough votes they asked for their own Article to be tabled. Then, on Town Meeting floor, they tried to manipulate the process by leveraging new regulations by trying to refer Article 26 back to a committee that had already rejected it. Then the developer requested the Working Group. After five months of meetings that involved hundreds of hours of citizen volunteer's time the Working Group generated a document that by your own admission, the developer ignored. And you are telling me the TOWN has acted unprofessionally? Why are you creating an excuse to continue this process with this developer? You also said "I'm not looking for the this discussion to be around the same proposal". Then why don't you define what you want and let the developer respond to your vision? Why are you so reluctant to be proactive instead of reactive? No one is holding anyone at "arms length". The developer has presented the plan to meeting after meeting starting in December of 2004, including an early and late Working Group session. The developer has had representation at EVERY meeting. They have had access to tapes of EVERY meeting. August 9th was there chance to demonstrate to the community that they could build something that was in keeping with the character of our community. They made the business decision to propose the exact same plan they presented in April. Now they are using you to prolong this process. The developer has had their chances. For the good of the community it is time for you to demonstrate leadership by agreeing with the majority of the BOS that the current proposal is unacceptable. THEN bring them in to talk about what would work for the people you were elected to represent. Jay Lenox 10 Sylvan Road 781-944-1041 1 ~ V V k--' 4/C_ Hechenblelkner, Peter From: newenglandbones@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 3:10 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Park Square at Reading I was very disappointed to hear of the recent vote on the above project conducted by the Board of the Selectmen. I really believe that this was a development that would only enhance our community, but once again it seems our process is always dictated by a small minority defining whatever is "politically correct" at the time, and like a flock of sheep, the board followed. The process we use to review, consider, approve, disapprove the development of our town is out of control. From granting a reduced tax status to one developer, and then bowing to a small neighborhood on how a commercially zoned piece of land should be handled or not handled is a disgrace. If it is low income housing developers that this town wants, then they can have it in that neighborhood. I am sick of these narrow minded groups of people completely controlling and intimidating anyone who voices something to the contrary. Some of the residents of that South St neighborhood should be ashamed of themselves on how they completely took over your process and pushed you to a vote that is not good for this town. If this is how the Board of Selectmen is going to operate, don't ever ask me for a Prop 2.5 over-ride again, because I will never vote for that. The Park Squre project was a very classy project. The Town of Burlington is reaping the benefits of a similar project (now that is a town that is open to good ideas that fund the tax base instead of home owners carrying the whole load). Wake up please! I'm begging you. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Sincerely, Arthur W Leary 23 Jessica Circle kii 3 u0w 1