The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-07-11 Board of Selectmen HandoutPage 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: CONSMC@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 12:00 PM To: Town Manager Subject: stop sign grove st Hi, I live on Grove St (beyond Forest St) and feel a 3 way stop sign is not needing. I also walk/and drive on Forest St. regularly and have never even thought a 3 way stop sign was needed. I do feel a traffic light is needed off the ramp of 93N onto rt.129. It is very difficult to take that left sometimes and have seen some almost accidents..SUE GARDNER 0 7/10/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: denise.peddle@verizon.net Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 12:47 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Stop Sign Grove/Forest Another Stop sigh on Grove St is absurd. Nobody obeys the one at Grove and Franklin. I have come close to more accidents than I can recall. If you would put the police out there to enforce the laws we already have you would be much better off. At least the one at Franklin is at the beginning of thr dead end part of Grove but at Forest where so much traffic for the Country Club and Compost travel on the weekend I can't see the point. I see more accidents happening. Please try enforcement first. Denise Peddle 273 Grove St 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Elizabeth Ward [eward@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 8:47 PM To: Schena, Paula; Hechenbleikner, Peter At the last meeting I was told that members of the working group were asked to define a range of retail square footage that would be acceptable. Based on the current legal access to the property the largest retail project that would be acceptable to me would be between 100,000 and 150,000 SQ. If a second access or a different access were available I could possibly consider a larger size. Can you please include this in any range that is presented from the working group. Thank you and I'll see you Tuesday night. Thomas Loughlin, P.E. 0 1 LT Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Brad Latham [blatham@latham-lamond.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:49 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Peter: Thanks for your response about tonight's BOS meeting and that there will not be public input. Dick Marks sent a letter explaining why retail square footage of 320,000 square feet is necessary. Has that letter been provided to the Selectmen? I do not see it listed on the agenda correspondence list. If you need replacement copies, please advise. Thank you. Brad 0. Bradley Latham Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C. 643 Main Street Reading, MA 01867 1-781-944-0505 FAX 1-781-944-7079 This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 7/11/2006 ldonq%l Hechenbleikner, Peter From: John Sasso [sassojl@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:35 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: Addison Wesley Wroking Group 7-11-06.doc Peter, I will be unable to attend the BOS meeting. I reviewed the latest draft and it appears to capture all of the additional items we discussed (although the financial section had a distinct third item that required a detailed analysis of the entire project financials and not just the real estate deal). I have provided some general feedback to Ben separately. Nice Job Peter and Thanks!!!! John Sasso -----Original Message----- From: Schena, Paula [mailto:pschena@ci.reading.ma.us] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 3:46 PM To: btafoya@comcast.net; blatham@latham-lamond.com; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Howard, Richard; bonazoli@comcast.net; jlenox4l@comcast.net; sassojl@comcast.net; lsimard@suffolk.edu; Nick Safina; Reilly, Chris; stevenmclaughlin@comcast.net; Sullivan, Neil; eward@ix.netcom.com Subject: FW: Addison Wesley Wroking Group 7-11-06.doc This is the material that is going to the BOS in their packets. This item is on the BOS agenda on Tuesday July 11 at B:50 PM in the Selectmen's meeting room. Please take a good look and make sure I included the consensus items from our June 29 meeting. I hope to, see you on the 11th. Pete -----Original Message----- From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 3:40 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: Addison Wesley Wroking Group 7-11-06.doc <<Addison Wesley Wroking Group 7-11-06.doc>> 1 0 Depending on when we get information in to this office, the item may or may not actually be listed on the agenda, or may just be copied to the Board of Selectmen for their reading packet the evening of the meeting. I have given them the material you sent, butjust to make sure, I will give it to them again for tomorrow's meeting. Pete From: RRRED [mailto:info@rrred.org] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:48 AM To: Town Manager Subject: My E-Mail to You of June 28, 2006 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner, I am writing to you because I just saw the Agenda for tomorrow evening's Board of Selectmen's Meeting. I noticed that under the correspondence section my letter to you of June 28, 2006 was not listed as having been received. I thus wanted to check with you to make sure that my letter and attached real estate studies were received and reviewed and that they would be listed on tomorrow night's agenda. Please get back to me to let me know. Thanks, Susan DiGiovanni 34 Chute Street Reading, MA Dear Board of Selectmen, Mr. Hechenbleikner, et al, I am writing to you to respond to two recent letters that were presented to you by Jay Lenox and Dennis Collins, two standing members of Reading CARE. Firstly, I do not agree with Mr. Lenox's statement regarding a possible 40B development at the Addison Wesley Site. Facts are facts: 1) Currently, the town of Reading has 675 units of "affordable housing" out of a housing stock of 9,274 units, which equals an affordable housing ratio of 7.20%. To reach the 10% Affordable Housing level, the Town of Reading needs 253 units of affordable housing. 2) The 40B laws are quite clear, either a town has met their 10% affordable housing quota or they haven't, and as stated by Reading's own Town Planner, Reading hasn't. 3) The towns of Bedford, Burlington, Lexington, Peabody, and Salem have all surpassed the 10% affordable housing barrier as they have all had large sized 40B ANNI& developments recently built or permitted within their town. In light of this, aggressive 40B developers (like Archstone, AvalonBay, Lincoln Properties, JPI, Beacon Residential, and others) are now focusing their efforts on towns (such as Reading) that have not yet reached the 10% affordable goal. 4) In Mr. Lenox's own words, the State housing representative told him yes, that 300 units could be built on 8 acres of land, and the current 40B proposal presented to Pearson calls for a usage of 9 to 10 acres of land. An example of this is Avalon at Newton Highlands, in which 294 units (totaling over 368,000 square feet) were developed on only 7.8 acres of land. 5) 40B laws allude to the fact that a development must be "economically feasible" for a developer, thus since the town of Reading "only" needs 253 units of affordable housing, it is more than likely that the State Housing Agency would give a developer the right to build 300 units of affordable housing, as the housing plan currently presented to Pearson takes into account the "economic viability" of the project. 6) In 2010, the census will change, and towns such as Reading will be forced to increase the number of affordable units within the town, as. the number of overall housing units within the town will have significantly increased between 2000 and 2010. I also have concerns about the comments by Mr. Lenox and Mr. Collins reaardina the current suburban office market conditions. I am a commercial real estate broker and I know that the suburban office market is still light years away from producing any new office buildings, let alone a 600,000 square foot office complex. 1) The suburban office market still suffers from vacancv rates of between 200/0 and 22% and suburban office rents are in the $18.00 to $20.00 ranae. Given the rising construction costs, it would take rents of greater than $38 to $40 per square foot combined with office vacancy rates of less than 8% to 10% to cause any new office buildings to be constructed, and we are still years and years away from both of those figures. CB-Richard Ellis Survey - 2Q-2006: Shows a Route 128 North vacancy rate of 19.5% and asking rents of $19.01 per square foot. Meredith and Grew Survey - IQ-2006: Shows a Route 128 North(west) vacancy rate of 22.1%. Spaulding & Slye Survey - 1Q-2006: Shows a North vacancy rate of 19.0% and an asking rent of $18.22 per square foot. 2) There is 175,000 square feet of vacant office space in the former TASC building at Walkers Brook Drive, and it will take some time for that building to become substantially (or even partially) leased. 3) The half empty buildings that Mr. Collins is referring to as having been recently sold are all being sold for less than replacement cost (i.e. less than it would cost to low"Im CV build those buildings today), so why would someone build a new building when they can buy an already built one for less than half the cost? 4) Pearson has officially been marketing this site for sale for years, and if an experienced office developer thought that they could build an economically viable office complex on this site, then they would have already stepped up. Gale International previously had this site under agreement and went through the permitting process to enable them to build a 600,000 square foot office park and a 300 room hotel, after which they walked away from the deal. Gale is now buying existing office buildings in Bedford, Billerica, and Andover for $80 per square foot. It would cost them over $250 per square foot (all in) to construct a new office building in Reading (or anywhere else), thus building new office space does not make any economic sense, either today or anytime in the near future. I am just sending this letter to you to show what I think are important facts regarding both 40B developments and the current suburban Boston office market. As Mr. Lenox is not opposed to "affordable housing", neither am I. I just don't think that another 300 units of affordable housing, all-at-once, is the right thing for the Town of Reading, especially when we have a project before us that will be a quality amenity to the town, will generate over $1,000,000 per year in Real Estate tax revenue, and will create over 1,000 new jobs. Thank you very much for your attention and your hard work on this matter. Sincerely, Susan DiGiovanni 34 Chute Street .Reading, MA 01867 6) Second Quarter 2006 Office Close-in Suburbs North 48 3,208,857 306,011 306,011 41,299 9.5% 9.5% 1.3% 14,126 (39,120) $17.34 Route 128-North 167 15,278,118 2,975,084 2,897,885 384,533 19.5% 19.0% 2.5% 129,733 106,586 $19.01 Route 495-Northeast 43 4,725,267 1,594,313 1,582,669 255,169 33.7% 33.5% 5.4% (150,364) (242,936) $14.66 Route 3. North 151 13,337,466 3,522,750 3,006,615 1,048,214 26.4% 22.5% 7.9% 7.680 327,117 $13.88 Metro North 1 409 36,549,708 8,398,158 7.793,180 1,729,215 23.0% 21.3% 4.7% 1,175 151,645 $16.10 Route 128- West 311 24,153,428 3,947,595 3,298,780 743,793 16.3% 13.7% 3.1% 9,655 179,474 $25.29 Framingham - Natick 83 7,196,268 1,105,564 956,517 148,692 15.4% 13.3% 2.1% (97,399) (207,083) $19.46 Route 495 - Route 2 West 56 4,231,142 974,365 834,748 194,960 23.0% 19.7% 4.6% (124,523) (26,729) $16.27 Route 495-Mass Pike West 117 11,318,332 2,834,894 2,467,033 883,861 25.0% 21.8% 7.8% (87,714) 81,668) $16.80 Metro West 1 567 46,899,170 8.862,418 7,557,078 1,971,306 18.9% 16.1% 4.2% (299.981) (136,0061 $20.96 Route 128 - South I 178 13,604,898 2,169,076 1,642,466 276,261 15.9% 12.1% 2.0% 254,764 (60,481) $19.13 Route 495-South 33 2,134,999 434,820 209,341 89,579 20.4% 9.8% 4.2% 52,011 64,484 $14.49 Metro South I 211 15,739,897 2,603,896 1,851,807 365,840 16.5% 11.8% 2.3% 306,775 4,003 $18.631 10verall Suburban Office 1 1.187 99.188.775 19,864.472 17,202.065 4.066.361 20,0% 17.3% 4.1% 7.969 19.642 sie.631 CBREINewEngiand h lttm (9 M E R E D I T H 1ST QUARTER 2006 STATIST ce R&D G R E W Square Feet (SF) Direct SF Sublease SF Net Market Supply Available Available Vacancy* Absorption Boston 56,773,762 5,784,336 1,376,050 12.6% 434,216 Back Bay 11,403,378 926,218 455,755 12.1% (15,645) Financial District 32,411,260 3,480,670 832,328 13.3% 224,941 Charlestown 2,640,358 302,237 43,940 13.1% 86,175 Crosstown 1,165,000 103,700 20,000 10.6% 0 Fenway/Kenmore 1,878,740 57,575 0 3.1% 19,956 North Station 1,804,692 246,633 3,056 13.8% 74,987 South Boston Waterfront 4,743,127 590,186 15,147 12.8% 37,355 South Station 727,207 77,117 5,824 11.4% 6,447 Cambridge 18,417,558 2,160,356 564,929 14.8% 250,136 Alewife Station/Route 2 2,586,655 474,845 12,000 18.8% 6,050 East Cambridge 13,846,169 1,565,251 545,912 15.2% 236,300 Harvard Square/Mass Ave. 1,984,734 120,260 7,017 6.4% 7,786 Suburbs 120,207,680 21,770,439 4,169,786 21.6% (360,435) Inner Suburbs 5,623,935 743,310 49,271 14.1% 23,384 Route 128 North 8,219,325 1,732,002 350,900 25.3% (7,444) Route 128 Northwest 20,177,811 3,814,019 635,217 22.1% (279,058) Route 128 Mass Pike 25,020,000 3,590,268 530,778 16.5% 103,061 Route 128 South 12,547,652 1,747,439 335,320 16.6% (160,366) Route 495 North 24,274,193 5,549,404 1,033,367 27.1% .8,294 Route 495 West 17,899,867 3,332,685 1,084,499 24.7% (86,452) Route 495 South 4,458,130 1,012,071 150,434 26.1% 15,508 Worcester 1,986,767 249,241 0 12.5% 22,638 TOTALS 195,399,000 29,715,131 6,110,765 18.3% 323,917 *Including sublease space Meredith & Grew 1 160 Federal Street I Boston, MA 02110 1 617.330.8000 1 www.m-g.com For more information or to be placed on our mailing list, please contact: Mary S. Kelly, Chief Research Officer Phone: 617.330.8059 E-mail: mskelly@m-g.com Tenant Advisory I Landlord Representation I Retail Services 1 Investment Sales I Capital Markets Meredith aF Grew Counseling & Valuation I. Development & Advisory Services I Property & Asset Management Services Worldwide Real Esfale Services IB Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Marks, Dick [Dick.Marks@srweiner.com] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:56 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Park Square at Reading Attachments: 25680001.pdf 25680001. pdf (156 KB) Pete: Lac- 9(if r, tw ai I would be obliged if you would share this communication with the working group. Many thanks. Dick This message (and any associated files) is the property of S. R. Weiner and Associates Inc. and W/S Development Associates LLC and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by calling our corporate office at 617-232-8900 and deleting this message from your computer. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain. viruses. Therefore, S. R. Weiner and Associates, Inc. and W/S Development Associates LLC do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version of this message. Any views or opinions presented in this message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. 1 D 07/06/2006 17:40 IFAX FAXQSRWEINER-COM S.R. WEINER AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED July 6, 2006 BY TELECUPIER Mr, Peter 1. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Re: Park Souare at Reading Dear Peter: 4 Dick Marks [91001/002 0 W/S DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES LLC The Addison Wesley Working Group has given much consideration to the appropriate density of retail development at the Addison Wesley site, I understand that the Working Group has compared our proposed density to certain other retail projects. We believe that the density that should be allowed on this site should be determined based on the impacts, both positive and negative, that that density will produce and the degree to which any negative impacts can be mitigated, rather than trying to compare one site to another. Nonetheless, since the working group has compared our proposal to some selected sites, we thought it might be helpful for the group to have some additional sites to consider. Attached is a chart comparing the density of our proposal - both retail only and the total commercial use as well - to a variety of other selected locations. This chart shows that the density of our proposal is considerably less than the density of a variety of other retail projects in the Greater Boston area. We thought it might also be instructive for our proposal to be compared to some existing standards in your Zoning By-Law. In the Business C District, lot coverage is permitted at up to 60%; our proposal comes in at about 25%. In terms of floor area ratio, which is a more refined measure of density, there are no standards applicable to the business zones; however, for a-large PUD (which is permitted in the Industrial Zone), your Zoning By-Law permits an FAR of up to .55 and the CPDC has the right to increase that to .70. By comparison, our project weighs in at approximately .34. In each case, our proposal is far less dense than your existing standards. I would be obliged if you would share this information with the Working Group. Cordially, R chard A. Marks Enclosure 1330 B OYLSTON STREET • CHESTNUT HILL • MASSACHusE rTS 02467 PHONE 61 7-232-8900 • www.srweiner. co rn i3 N O O N O O 9 M x x U a T 0 v x N W w ad c w 0 0 0 N O O N O Park Square at Reading Density Comparisons Select Centers July 6, 2006 Floor Area Sq. Ft./Acre, Project Land Area (in (in square feet) acres) Retail Retail and Office Retail Retail and Office Park Square at 26` 320,000 390,000 12,308 15,000 Reading Linden Square 18.4 260,000 280,000 14,130 15,217 (Wellesley) The Crossing at 33.5 475,000 475,000 14,180 14,180 Walker's Brook Chestnut Hill 19.12 297,374L 361,655 15,553 18,915 Shopping Center Legacy Place 39.55 623,685 708,925 15,770 17,925 (Dedham) Chestnut Hill Square 11.43 295,000 295,000 25,809 25,809 The Atrium at 2.89 225,500 225,500 78,028 78,028 Chestnut Hill 1 Includes land under Jacob Way 2 Includes 13,618 expansion of supermarket (to be built in 2007) Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Cormier, Jim Sent: Monday, July % 2006 3:29 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: X-walk - parking - Woburn Street Michelle is working w/ Engineering and DPW to get an area lined to prohibit parking too close to the xwalk. Jimmy From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:18 AM To: Halloran, Michelle; Cormier, Jim Subject: X-walk - parking - Woburn Street Have we gotten the no parking posted near the crosswalk on Woburn near Bancroft? To give adequate site distance to the crosswalk? Pete D 7/11/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Schena, Paula Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:33 PM To: David Talbot (Talbot.david@qmail.com); George Rio (grio2@aol.com); gilr97@comcast.net; John Russell ahrx642@comcast.net); Katsoufis, George; Thurlow, Julie; Tom Quintal (tquintal@comcast.net) Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Meeting - Downtown Parking Task Force Hi All: In hope that Julie is available I am scheduling the first meeting for July 19 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room at Town Hall. Paula Schena 7/11/2006 VID ~pSW1CN R1~R AOM rip ec~ Nssociab-°~'- . ver -'~aters~~' he Ips "'YJ esents its ' Sara 2006 to e ssa~wefts ,ase of tie to cease ~,ecisian ns Its act°l'`s to s • I of the rvo ~,e, and a recla10, -iveT Bas's erva~on` aid its Ipso? c` e water coils ds • ~mprov rive fvoll lam protect D M A tia 7 yq'a ~n ® 0 ~cte Zme~adta2 02~~ X020 M V PATRICK M. NATALE Committees: REPRESENTATIVE Election Laws THIRTIETH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT Children and Families WOBURN - READING - STONEHAM Telecommunications, Utilities 8 Energy ROOM 167, STATE HOUSE TEL. (617) 722-2810 FAX. (617) 722-2846 l @h i k July 6, 2006 nata e ou.state.me.us .rep.patr c IV cti Mr. Ben Tafoya r Board of Selectmen 40 Oak Street CD Reading, MA 01867 N Dear Ben, w Recently, the Conference Committee released their version of the 2007 Fiscal Budget Year. The enclosed document serves to inform you of the financial expenditures voted for important local programs in your area. I know that many local programs rely on state aid and need additional funding to continue providing valuable services within their community. I will continue to work on increasing funding to help improve these vital programs. I hope that you find the enclosed information helpful. Please feel free to contact me at 617-722-2810, if you have any questions about the budget or need assistance with any other issues or concerns that may arise. Sincerely, £r Patrick . Natale Esq., LL.M State Representative 30')' Middlesex District PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Alk loo-pik QV - State Representative Patrick M. Natale Tie Commonwealth of Massachusetts FY07 READING FY06 Cherry FY07 Governor's FY07 House FY07 Senate Conference Sheet Estimate Proposal (House 2) Final Final Committee Education: Chapter 70 School Transportation Retired Teachers' Pensions Charter Tuition Assessment Reimbursement Charter School Capital Facilitv Reimbursement' Offset Receipts: School Lunch School Choice Receivina Tuition Sub-Total, All Education Items General Government: Lotterv Aid Additional Assistance Local Share of Racino Taxes Reaional Public Libraries Police Career Incentive Urban Renewal Proiects Veterans' Benefits Exemptions: Vets. Blind & Surv Spouses Exemptions: Elderlv State Owned Land Offset Receipts: Public Libraries Sub-Total, All General Government Total Estimated Receipts 6,290,157 6,939,462 7,073,980 7,042,859 7,119,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,235 11,547 33,190 29,135 28,684 1,453 2,561 0 4,055 0 10,816 9,771 9,771 9,771 9,771 0 0 0 0 0 6,311,661 6,963,341 7,116,941 7,085,820 7,158,345 2,083,179 2,461,971 2,461,971 2,461,971 2,461,971 1,534,901 1,534,901 1,534,901 1,534,901 1,534,901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185,641 197,831 197,831 197,831 197,831 0 0 0 0 0 3,258 41,418 41,418 41,956 41,956 41,841 42,475 42,475 42,475 42,475 23,092 21,586 21,586 21,586 21,586 53,780 44,914 39,056 44,914 44,914 29,134 28,741 29,507 29,671 29,507 3,954,826 4,373,837 4,368,745 4,375,305 4,375,141 10,266,487 11,337,178 11,485,686 11,461,125 11,533,486 AB Recommends MWRA Reserve Rate Stabilization At its June 28 meeting, the Authority's Board of Directors approved the FY07 Current Expense Budget (CEB) at $557 million, with an associated rate increase of 4.9%. The approval followed extensive review and discussion by the Advisory Board, which had recommended reduced spending and increased non-rate revenue totaling $12.1 million to be used to reduce future rate revenue requirements. The Authority agreed to the Advisory Board's key recommendation to convene a working cominittee, comprised of MWRA and Advisory Board staff, members of the MWRA Board of Directors and the Authority's Financial Advisor, to develop a rates management strategy. The budget incorporates increases for debt service payments, utility costs, maintenance and personnel-related expense. The 4.9% rate increase reflects the inclusion of $18.75 million in debt service assistance. FY06 Year to Date Spending YTD Current and Capital Spending Totals More Than $600 Million Through May 2006, the Authority reported spending on the capital program of $144.2 million. Two-thirds of the spending ($96.9 million) was for Wastewater projects, including $43.9 million on the Combined Sewer Overflow Program. Another $45.7 million was for Waterworks projects. Current expenses totaled $474 million more than three times capital spending. Debt service expense is nearly twice new capital spending. The year-end variance reports are expected to be available in August. Capital Spending to be $224 Million in FY07 The Authority's Board of Directors also approved the Capital Improvement Program budget for FY07 at $224 million ($205.8 million in project spending plus $18.5 million in contingency funding). Spending for the ten- year program is budgeted at $1.26 billion. Wastewater spending accounts for 54% of all future spending, at $687 million. Waterworks spending is budgeted at $441 million, Business and Operations Support at $22 million, and contingency allowances are set at $113 million. The capital program complies with the capital spending cap approved by the Board of Directors in June 2003. In response to the Advisory Board's comments that the availability of the comprehensive Master Plan is essential in preparing the next capital budget and spending cap, the Authority has again committed to the preparation of the Plan and to a presentation to the Board of Directors during the first quarter of FY07. The Authority also agreed to all $8.7 million of the Advisory Board's comments and recommendations. Dominating capital spending is the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Program, at a new total cost of $811.75 million (net of contingency allowances). Nearly $351 million is projected to have been spent through FY06, leaving $461 million to be spent in the coming years (nearly 43% of all future spending), 80% of that in just the next four years. The largest single contract in the budget is the North Dorchester Bay tunnel contract, estimated at $180 million, to be awarded this summer. Also included in the final budget was a new phase for the Infiltration/Inflow local Financial Assistance Program, providing an additional $40 million in grants and interest-free loans to wastewater communities. MWRA Advisory Board - Phone: 617-742-7561 - Fax: 617-742-4614 - Email: rachael.dane@mwra.state.ma.us Web Site: http://www.mwraadvisoryboard.com CONSERVATION COMMISSION Phone (781) 942-6616 Fax (781) 942-9071 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 AGENDA Reading Conservation Commission Meeting Selectmen's Meeting Room, 7:00 PM Wednesday, duly 12, 2006 7:00 Old/New Business 7:30 Public Hearing, Notice of Intent, Glenn Anthony, 39 Sunset Rock Lane, DEP 270-474 RGB 2006-12, addition to house 7:40 Public Hearing, Notice of Intent, Steven Baczek, 46 Glenmere Circle, DEP 270-477, RGB 2006-17, addition to house 7:50 Public Meeting, Request for Determination of Applicability, Laurie McCarthy, 55 Azalea Circle, RGB 2006-18 8:00 Public Hearing, Notice of Intent, Peter Zanni, PRZ Properties, Inc., end of Fairchild Drive, DEP 270-475, RGB 2006-13, new single-family house and site work 8:15 Public Hearing, Notice of Intent, Shirley Day, 410 and 420 Franklin, DEP 270-476, RGB 2006-14, new single-family house and site work Old/New Business: • 287 Lowell Street, P & S store - Permitting history ® Pondview Lane, Order of Conditions, DEP 270-345, RGB 2000-52 - Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance and bond release • Pondview Lane, Order of Conditions, DEP 270-467, RGB 2005-46 - Revised site plan for approval, Lots 8, 9, and 10 • 105 Belmont Street, Determination of Applicability, RGB 2005-39 - Request to close file • Archstone Reading, West Street, Order of Conditions, DEP 270-412, RGB 2003-46 - revised drainage plan? • Commission membership - Officers for 2006-2007, MACC dues, contact list • Adams Way subdivision, Order of Conditions, DEP 270-333, RGB 2000-8- Disposition of bond money • Reading Memorial High School, Order of Conditions, DEP 270-416, RGB 2003-51 - Status of work, site plan revisions • Dividence Meadows acquisition - Request for Reimbursement • Site Visit Reports • Minor Projects • Minutes for approval • other... (This agenda is prepared in advance and may not list all items for the meeting.) Other Correspondence Superseding Determination, 7/5/06, from DEP for 10 Torre Street Letter, 7/6/06, F. Fink to N. Diranian, re: 15 Timothy Place . Notes to Commission. July 6. 2006 SITE VISITS- MONDAY July 10. Begin at 6:00 PM at 55 Azalea 55 Azalea - Note distance between back of existing screened porch and deck at swimming pool. Note presence of shed beyond rear lot line. Note distance from proposed work to BVW. Note distance from existing pool to edge of lawn to the north and to the west. See enclosed draft Findings and Conditions. 105 Belmont - This was a small addition on rear of house. Grass has come in. I authorized owner to remove hay bales and plant area underneath with grass seed. Looks finished to me. Pondview Lane - Check whether Dave Murray removed the silt fence and catch basin filters at the north end of the road. Check Lots 8-10. They should not be working or else should be building according to the original approved plans. I sent each Lot owner and Dave Murray an individual letter stating the expectations for each person. I also copied everyone on all the other letters, so that each would have a complete picture. No one has answered or called. 287 Lowell -See enclosed memo providing recent permitting history. If you want to take a second look with this, information in hand, this would be the time. I think the Commission clearly expressed concerns about the ZNV standard and extent of mowing allowed, but they did not come back in the spring as intended to determine the final resolution of the matter. Next meeting dates: July 19, August 16, August 30. Fran will be away July 22 August 6 BEARINGS 39 Sunset Rock - Draft OOC in packet. 46 Glenmere - Draft OOC in packet. 55 Azalea - See enclosed draft Findings and Conditions. Certain information does not add up. End of Fairchild - Revised plans in packets?? I called Peter Zanni 7/5 and have not heard back. 410-420 Franklin - Revised plans, new letter from Bill Bergeron, 6/28 letter from Brad Latham, and information from Historical Commission on Preservation Restrictions are in packets. Clayton Jones has not submitted the comments he had on 6/28. New plan has less wetland impact than original plan, more drainage calculations. I have not yet reviewed details. Will ask Town Engineer for comments and bring my own to hearing. I might e-mail them in advance if time allows, so please check your e-mail next week. OLD/NEW BUSINESS • 287 Lowell P & S - See memo and historical records in packet. • Pondview Lane - Bond release (I goofed. The bond was $10.000 not $20,000. Need to reconsider how much to release. ) Sent letters to Dave Murray and Lot 8-10 owners about issues they need to resolve. • 105 Belmont DA RGB 2005-39 - I inspected. Grass is in. Owner will remove hay bales and seed underneath. Recommend closing file. • Archstone - They might submit revised drainage plan. • Officers for 2006-2007, MACC dues , contact list - Please check your contact information on the list I sent out last time and let me know if there are any corrections or updates. • Adams Way - We held $4500 in bond money. We paid $2500 for as-built survey and installation of ZNV markers on Lot 2. Town Manager has asked that the remainder be transferred to the appropriate staff time. I am working with Town Engineer, Planner, and others to add up all the hours that staff and Town Counsel spent after Ed Oteri left town. Will bring final itemization for your approval July 12. 9 • RMHS - Received e-mail from Dave Capaldo today and sent a reply. I copied all of you on the reply, so please check your e-mail. Is it time to begin issuing daily fines to the contractor for failure to provide the information needed? • Dividence Meadows - The closing took place on 7/29 and the papers were recorded at the Registry. Now we need to fill out and document the reimbursement form for the grant. I will .bring details on July 12. • Site Visit Reports - Work at 141 Belmont is proceeding, looks okay. • Minor Projects -Nothing new yet. • Minutes for approval . MISC Packets include two new RDA's for 8 Margaret and 8 Strawberrv Hill Lane. These will be on the July 19 agenda with site visits July 17, so please save them for next time. The Strawberry Hill lot is near the vernal pool. The small squares on the site plan are the vernal pool habitat/zone of natural vegetation restricted area within the lot that was established in the Order of Conditions for the house. Good news! DEP did not see any canals at 10 Torre Street! The enclosure includes their cover letter and the first two pages of the Superseding DA. The other pages of the SDA were blank except for the signature at the end. We'll see what the owner decides to do next. 9 SELE ~,ETT~ vs, VVOV,'f-av, S-tGN SH PATE NEE S, tS w - Jt~ VC- 46 A/ I ~PAovY'~ "As 1 E op 0~2 EST -Fop A1_ MSS StG1~T- S~` pAT 1 NxNlt, jZ (plea {e prix