Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-22 Board of Selectmen Packet' , 0~~ Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18, 2006 TO: Board of Selectmen FROM. Peter I. Hechenbleikner RE: Main Street northbound at Birch Meadow Drive TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 . Please see the attached memo from George Zambouras that, indicates that the State will be modifying the signal at this location to provide a dedicated left turn on northbound Main Street. This should improve the safety at this location and the change is supported by the Parking, Traffic and Transportation Task Force. PIH:hn Attachment '61• Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Zambouras, George Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:00 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: Halloran, Michelle; Cormier, Jim; McIntire, Ted Subject: Traffic Counts at Birchmeadow/Main Attachments: Birchmeadow_MHD_Counts.pdf Pete Attached is a copy of the traffic counts MHD performed at Birchmeadow and Main Street last December. In speaking to traffic engineer Mike Karas, he indicated that they would be installing a dedicated left turn phase at the intersection. They plan to do the work within their maintenance budget but could not give me a time frame of completion. I also asked about the LED's, which they spec in all their new or signal repairs. He said that they switched because of the cost savings. Claimed that if an intersections normal electric cost was $1000/year with LED's it's a little over $200. Indicated payback is a little over two years. Did say that when they first came out they did cost around $400 to repair but are now less. George 8/17/2006 / a 3o* Gtr w.e.ENCE 99- $1 g4t+ rAf.ADow 0l! "Wim 04 b;, 11 K W v V I/ U Awl E NG E F'- A . Massachusetts Highway Department Statewide Traffic Data Collection City/Town : READING File Name : Reading 1 Location : Rte 28/Lawrence/Birchmeadow Site Code :00050411 Counter # : 134-1119, 134-25 47 Start Date : 12/01 /2005 Project TDC S05-041. Page No : 1 Grou ps Printed- Cars Route 28 _ ~y7 From North Lawrence Rd. _ From East I R Route 28 From South --j I Birchmeadow Dr. eFrom,West Start Time Right Thru 11 Left ( App' Right hru 101-eft App' ( ight I Thru I ~ Left I App' fight , Thru I keft App. Int. Total Total Totai Total Total 07:00 AM 85 200 0 285 2 1 4 7 0 48 39 87 20 0 23 43 422 07:15 AM 94 257 0 351 0 4 1 5 0 46 32 78 15 1 54 70 504 07:30 AM 85 247 1 333 0 3 6 9 0 56 20 76 25 0 34 59 477 0.7:_45 AM 16 242 1 259 2 0 _ 2 4 0 68 20 88 10 1 6 17 368 Total 280 946 2 1228 4 8 13 251 0 218 111 3291 70 2 117 189 1771 08:00 AM 25 231 0 256 1 4 0 5 0 71 28 99 14 0 10 24 384 08:15 AM 22 227 0 249 0 0 0 0 0 87 27 114 31 2 15 48 411 08:30 AM 19 137 0 156 1 0 2 3 0 76 19 95 30 0 12 42 296 08:45 AM 7 145 1 153 0 0 1 1 1 79 . 18 98 14 0 13 27 279 Total 73 740 1 8141 2 4 3 91 1 313 92 4061 89 2 50 141 1 1370 BREAK 02:00 PM 38 87 0 125 1 0 1 2 0 130 20 150 5 0 20 25 302 02:15 PM 40 116 0 156 0 0 1 1 2 141 43 186 39 1 74 114 457 02:30 PM 35 147 2 184 2 0 0 2 3 101 21 125 28 0 65 93 404 02:45 PM 19 120 1 140 0 3 0 3 1 156 24 181 33 3 39 75 399 Total 132 470 3 6051 3 3 2 8 6 528 108 6421 105 4 198 3071 1562 03:00 PM 25 123 1 149 1 0 2 3 0 144 19 163 20 1 28 49 364 03:15 PM 19 126 1 146 1 0 1 2 0 154 21 175 30 0 21 51 374 03:30 PM 32 120 1 153 0 0 0 0 1 176 20 197 16 1 22 39 389 :45 PM 03 22 _ 131 0 153 0 3 0 3 0 97 13 110 17 0 24 41 307 _ Total 98 500 3 _ _ 0011 2 3 _ ^ 3 81 1 571 73 645 83 2 95 1801 1434 Grand Total 583 2656 9 3248 11 18 21 50 8 1630 384 2022 347 10 460 817 6137 Apprch % 17.9 81.8 0.3 22.0 36.0 42.0 0.4 80.6 19.0 42.5 1.2 56.3 Total % 9.5 43.3 0.1 52.9 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.1 26.6 6.3 32.9 5.7 0.2 7.5 13.3 I C 9t a Massachusetts Highway Department Statewide Traffic Data Collection City/Town : READING File Name : Reading 1 Location : Rte 28/Lawrence/Birchmeadow Site Code : 00050411 Counter # : D4-1119, D4-25 47 Start Date : 12/01 /2005 Project TDC S05-041 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Trucks Route 28 Lawrence Rd. Route 28 eirchmeadow Dr. From North From East From South ( From West Start Time Right I Thru I Left I ApP Right I Thru I Left ( App. I Right I Thru I Left ( I Right I pa Thru I Left I a ( To tal tal To l To l Tot Total 07:00 AM 0 8 0 8 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 4 2 0 0 2 15 07:15 AM 0 11 0 11 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 17 07:30 AM 3 13 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 11 1 0 0 1 28 07:45 AM 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 2 0 1 3 24 Total 3 47 0 50 2 0 0 2 1 21 4 261 5 0 1 61 84 08:00 AM 1 10 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 18 08:15 AM 1 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 13 08:30 AM 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 2 0 0 2 16 08:45 AM 1 13 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 1 0 3 4 29 Total 3 41 1 451 0 0 0 01 1 21 3 251 3 0 3 61 76 BREAK 02:00 PM 0 6 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 11 02:15 PM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 6 02:30 PM 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 0 0 1 13 02:45 PM 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 12 Total 0 21 0 211 1 1 0 21 0 16 0 161 3 0 0 3 42 03:00 PM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 12 03:15 PM 1 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 1 2 15 03:30 PM 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 13 03:45 PM 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 9 Total 1 25 0 261 0 0 0 01 0 18 1 19 1 0 3 41 49 Grand Total 7 134 1 142 3 1 0 4 2 76 8 86 12 0 7 19 251 Apprch % 4.9 94.4 0.7 75.0 25.0 0.0 2.3 88.4 9.3 63.2 0.0 36.8 Total % 2.8 53.4 0.4 56.6 1.2 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.8 30.3 3.2 34.3 4.8 0.0 2.8 7.6 ins' Massachusetts Highway Department Statewide Traffic Data Collection City/Town : READING File Name : Reading 1 Location : Rte 28/Lawrence/B irch meadow Site Code : 00050411 Counter # : D4-1119, D4-25 47 Start Date : 12/0 1/2005 Project TDC S05-041 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Buses Route 28 Lawrence Rd. I Route 28 I Birchmeadow Dr. From North From East From South From West Start Time' Right I Thru I Left I Total I Right I Thru I Left I ToApp tal I Right I Thru I Left I ToApp. tal I Right I Thru I Left I ToApp. tal I Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 07:15 AM 1 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 07:30 AM 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 BREAK Total 1 12 0 131 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 1 0 1 21 15 08:00 AM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 1 BREAK Total 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 1 BREAK 02:00 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 02:30 PM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 ,K* BREAK Total 0 5 0 51 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 4 0 0 41 9 03:00 PM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 03:15 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 03:30 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 03:45 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 5 Total 0 9 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 61 0 0 0 01 15 Grand Total 2 26 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 5 0 1 6 40 Apprch % 7.1 92.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 83.3 0.0 16.7 Total % 5.0 65.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 2.5 15.0 12.5 0.0 2.5 15.0 Massachusetts Highway Department Statewide Traffic Data Collection City/Town : READING File Name : Reading 1 Location : Rte 28/Lawrence/Birchmeadow Site Code :00050411 Counter # : D4-1 119, D4-25 47 Start Date : 12/01 /2005 Project TDC S05-041 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Trucks - B uses Route 28 Lawrence Rd. Route 28 I Birchmeadow Dr. From North I From East I From South From West Start Time I Right Thru I Left I Total I Right ( Thru I Left Total I Right ( Thru I Leh I Total Right I Thru I Left I Total I Total 07:00 AM 0 11 0 11 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 4 2 0 1 3 19 07:15 AM 1 14 0 15 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 21 07:30 AM 3 19 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 11 2 0 0 2 35 07:45 AM 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 2 0 1 3 24 Total 4 59 0 63 2 0 0 2 1 21 4 26 6 0 2' 8 99 08:00 AM 2 10 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 19 08:15 AM 1 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 13 08:30 AM 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 2 0 0 2 16 08:45 AM 1 13 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 1 0 3 4 29 Total 4 41 1 46 0 0 0 0 1 21 3 25 3 0 3 6 77 BREAK 02:00 PM 0 7 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 12 02:15 PM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 4 9 02:30 PM 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 2 18 02:45 PM 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 12 Total 0 26 0 261 1 1 0 21 0 16 0 16 7 0 0 71 51 03:00 PM 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 19 03:15 PM 1 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 1 2 17 03:30 PM 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 14 03:45 PM 0 8 .0 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 14 Total 1 34 0 351 0 0 0 01 0 23 2 251 1 0 3 4 64 Grand Total 9 160 1 170 3 1 0 4 2 81 9 92 17 0 8 25 291 Apprch % 5.3 94.1 0.6 75.0 25.0 0.0 2.2 88.0 9.8 68.0 0.0 32.0 Total % 3.1 55.0 0.3 58.4 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.4 0.7 27.8 3.1 31.6 5.8 0.0 2.7 8.6 I c7% Massachusetts Highway Department . Statewide Traffic Data Collection City/Town : READING File Name : Reading 1 Location : Rte 28/Lawrence/Birch meadow Site Code : 00050411 Counter # : 134-1 119, 134-25 47 Start Date : 12/01 /2005 Project # : TDC S05-041 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks - Buses Route 28 Lawrence Rd. Route 28 Birchmeadow Dr. From North I From East ( From South I From West Start Time I Right Thru I Left I Total I Right Thru I Left I ToApp. tal I Right I Thru Left I ToApp tal I Right I Thru I Left I ToApp tal I Total in, 07:00 AM 85 211 0 296 3 1 4 8 1 50 40 91 22 0 24 46 441 07:15 AM 95 271 0 366 1 4 1 6 0 50 33 83 15 1 54 70 525 07:30 AM 88 266 1 355 0 3 6 9 0 66 21 87 27 0 34 61 512 07:45 AM 16 257 1 274 2 0 2 4 0 73 21 94 12 1 7 20 392 Total 284 1005 2 1291 1 6 8 13 271 1 . 239 115 355 76 2 119 1971 1870 08:00 AM 27 241 0 268 1 4 0 5 0 77 29 106 14 0 10 24 403 08:15 AM 23 235 0 258 0 0 0 0 0 91 27 118 31 2 15 48 424 08:30 AM 19 147 0 166 1 0 2 3 1 77 21 99 32 0 12 44 312 08:45 AM 8 158 2 168 0 0 1 1 1 89 18 108 15 0 16 31 308 Total 77 781 2 8601 2 4 3 91 2 334 95 431 i 92 2 53 1471 1447 BREAK 02:00 PM 38 94 0 132 2 0 1 3 0 133 20 153 6 0 20 26 314 02:15 PM 40 120 0 160 0 0 1 1 2 142 43 187 43 1 74 118 466 02:30 PM 35 159 2 196 2 0 0 2 3 105 21 129 30 0 65 95 422 02:45 PM 19 123 1 143 0 4 0 4 1 164 24 189 33 3 39, 75 411 Total 132 496 3 631 4 4 2 101 6 544 108 6581 112 4 198 3141 1613 03:00 PM 25 130 1 156 1 0 2 3 0 156 19 175 20 1 28 49 383 03:15 PM 20 135 1 156 1 0 1 2 0 159 21 180 31 0 22 53 391 03:30 PM 32 130 1 163 0 0 0 0 1 178 20 199 16 1 24 41 403 03:45 PM 22 139 0 161 0 3 0 3 0 101 15 116 17 0 24 41 321 Total 99 534 3 6361 2 3 3 81 1 594 75 6700 84 2 98 184 1498 Grand Total 592 2816 10 3418 14 19 21 54 10 1711 393 2114 364 10 468 842 6428 Apprch % 17.3 82.4 0.3 25.9 35.2 38.9 0.5 80.9 18.6 43.2 1.2 55.6 Total % 9.2 43.8 0.2 53.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.2 26.6 6.1 32.9 5.7 0.2 7.3 13.1 1g Massachusetts Highway Department Statewide Traffic Data Collection City/Town : READING File Name : Reading 1 Location : Rte 28/Lawrence/Birchmeadow Site Code : 00050411 Counter # : D4-1119, D4-2547 Start Date : 12/01/2005 Project # : TDC S05-041 Page No : 3 Route 28 Lawrence Rd. Route 28 Birchmeadow Dr. From North From East From South From West Start Time Right I Thru Left I I Right I o a Thru I Left I To e Right I Thru I Left I T tai Right I Thru I Len ( o a I T l t t T l Total t Peak Hour From 11:45 AM to 03:45 PM - Peak' of 1 Intersection 02:15 PM Volume 119 532 4 655 3 4 3 10 6 567 107 680 126 5 206 337 1682 Percent 18.2 81.2 0.6 30.0 40.0 30.0 0.9 83.4 15.7 37.4 1.5 61.1 02'15 40 120 0 160 0 Volume 0 1 1 2 142 43 187 43 1 74 118 466 Peak Factor 0.902 High Int. 02:30 PM 02:45 P M 02:45 P M 02:15 PM Volume 35 159 2 196 0 4 0 4 1 164 24 189 43 1 74 118 Peak Factor 0.835 0.625 0.899 0.714 Route 28 Out In Total 1 776_11 85511X144311 17711911 5321-J -41 Right Thr Le. ft c - ~ T - ~ " p r• c ~ North _ r v ` E - t / ~ 12/1/2005 2:15:00 PM 1211/2005 3:00:00 PM 1 2 A - 3 c m zi m 25 N F Cars - - n O - Trucks Buses r''-a N fit' cn - 4, T r Left Thru -Rl W 1 1071 5671 1 61 1 1 6611 680 1 13411 out In Total RnkWA I c9• Massachusetts Highway Department Statewide Traffic Data Collection Cityrrown : READING. Location : Rte 28/Lawrence/Birchmeadow Counter # : D4-1119, D4-2547 Project # : TDC S05-041 File Name : Reading 1 Site Code : 00050411 Start Date : 12/01/2005 Page No :2 Route 28 Lawrence Rd. I Route 28 Birchmeadow Dr. From North I From East From South From West Start Time I Right Thru Left I App- I Right I Thru Left App. I Right I Thru I Left I APP Right I Thru I Left Total To tal tal To Peak Hour From 07:00 AM to 11:30 AM - Peak ' of 1 Intersection 07:00 A M Volume 284 1005 2 1291 6 8 13 27 1 239 115 355 76 2 119 Percent 22.0 77.8 02 22.2 29.6 48.1 0.3 67.3 32.4 38.6 1.0 60.4 07:15 95 Volume 271 0 366 1 4 1 6 0 50 33 83 15 1 54 Peak Factor High Int. 07:15 A M 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 07:15 A M Volume 95 271 0 366 0 3 6 9 0 73 21 94 15 1 54 Peak Factor 0.882 0.750 0.944 Route 28 Out In Total 1 3641 1291 1 16551 2841 10051---L-2-1 Right Thru Left 0 1 O ~ q` - - J' North ~i O W c ` N 2 ~ E 12!1/2005 7:00:00 AM 1-- 2 - S m 5 0 ° - n L°- R 12/1/2005 7:45:00 AM Cars _ a ° 0 Trucks N 6f Buses 1 F+ Left Thru Right 1 1151 ( 23 91 _111- 1 ~ ~ 1 094 11 1 3551 1 144 91 Out In Total RoUhL2A App. Int. Total Total! 197 1870 70 525 0.890 70 0.704 Allk COW APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006 Council on Ai7ing Term: 3 years Appointine Authoritv: Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) Vacancy Elizabeth Cronin, Chr. Sally M. Hoyt Carole N. Scrima Carol Patterson Edwina Kasper Barbara A. Powers Ruth Goldberg Stacy Bertocchi Marguerite Bosnian 403 Pearl Street 221 West Street 709 Gazebo Circle 128 Grove Street 75 Village Street 25 Belmont Street 11 Bond Street 250 High Street 46 Putnam Road Orig. Date (96) (04) (04) (03) (98) (00) (02) (05) (05) 1 Vacancv Term Exp. 2009 2007 2007 2007 2009 2008 2009 2008 2008 2009 Candidates: Margaret Havey *Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment COUNCIL ON AGING Term Three years AWointing Authoritv Board of Selectmen Number of Members Ten Members whose terms are so arranged that as nearly an equal number of terms as possible shall expire each year. All members shall be inhabitants of the Town and at least two members shall be over 60 years of age. Meetings Regular meetings are held on the second Monday of each calendar month at 6:30 p.m. unless a legal holiday when the meeting will be held the following Monday unless otherwise designated. Authoritv Reading Charter - Adopted March 24, 1986 Purpose The Council on Aging shall have all the powers and duties given to Councils on Aging by the Massachusetts General Laws, by the Reading Home Rule Charter, by Bylaw or by Town Meeting vote. Included are the following: To ascertain needs of residents 60 and over, to conduct and sponsor programs and disseminate information addressing those needs, to directly assist individuals and to be advocates for the elderly of Reading at the community, State and National levels. 3a (..:..L.WED 'A"N CLERK :..r,LJI "u.. P•lASS. APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS/COMMITTEES/C.OMMI9SIONS IUD JUL S i /A iw- 4 Name:_ &,ff-'e Date:.-2 ~ (Last) (F' st) (Middle)- Address: _ Occupation: t Tel. (Home)X Tel. (Work) (Is this number listed? ) A . # of years in Reading: Are you a registered voter in Reading? e-mail address : q4~--t ,2c y ato ' 19 )e ~ Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Advisory Council Against the Misuse and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs 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 ontributory Retirement Board ~ouncil on Aging Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's 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 Commit tee Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee West Street Historic District Commission Other Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: 3a3% APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 189 2006 Cultural Council Term: 3 years (6 years maximum) Appointine Authority Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) Vacancy Anne W. Hooker Karyn S. Storti Vacancy Kathleen Kelly Elizabath Whitelam Vicky Schubert 87 Village Street 31 Green Street, #8 36 Grove Street 7 Gilmore Avenue 119 Winthrop Avenue Orig. Date (02) (02) (03) (05) (06) 2 Vacancies Term Exp. 2007 2008 2008 2008 2009 2007 2009 Candidate Jacqueline Steele *Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment 34V CULTURAL COUNCIL Term Three years Appointing Authoritv Board of Selectmen Number of Members Seven Members to be appointed to no more than two consecutive terms Meetings Held monthly Authority January 1, 1987 revision of the Massachusetts Arts Lottery Council Guidelines consistent with the Town of Reading Charter and applicable Bylaws. The Cultural Council is established by Chapter 10, Section 58, of the Public Laws. Pursuant to this law, no elected or other official may serve on the Cultural Council. PUrUOSe The Reading Cultural Council is the local agent for the distribution, receipt and evaluation of applications for funds from the Massachusetts Cultural Council. It will also act to serve as a resource for the dissemination of information as well as to encourage activities related to furthering and stimulating interest for the ' arts in the community. 3k~~ I4 CLE4ZK APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS Mb JUL -b Name: (Last) Address: 3U (Fi(st) ~7 w i oc t it R0( Occupation: k mA e - Are you a registered voter in Reading? Ves Tel. (Work) (Is this number listed?) /\)D # of years in Reading: 10 e-mail address: Tf:• Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Advisory Council Against the Misuse and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Aquatics Advisory Board Audit Committee Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee Commissioner of Trust Funds Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging X Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves _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 Citizen Advisory Board Solid Waste Advisory Committee Telecommunications and Tochnology Advisory Committee Town Forest Committee Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee West Street Historic District Commission Other Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: F Date: VSA, (Middle) 0 Tel. (Home) ~0 - IL W 00V0 3,~'g' oF~~94r•~ - , j Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street 639'rNcoR44P Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 TOWN MANAGER Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us (781) 942-9043 VOLUNTEER VACANCY TOWN OF READING CULTURAL COUNCIL A volunteer vacancy with a term expiring June 30, 2008 exists on the Cultural Council. The Cultural Council is the local agent for the distribution, receipt and evaluation of applications for funds from the Massachusetts Cultural Council. It also serves as a resource for the dissemination of information as well as to encourage activities related to furthering and stimulating interest for the arts in the community. Interested persons may, apply at the Town Clerk's office, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts by August 2, 2006 or until the position is filled. CJ-` 03 C, ✓t `r 3~~ Friday, July 14, 2006 To: Paula Schena ~cQ~r Due to personal reasons, I will not be returning as a member of the Cultural Council. It was a pleasure serving and I hope to do so again. Sincerely, ,;olur~~ GAU Valerie Alagero 8 C= 6-- V Un 3 .~'S~ LEGAL Ifi 'ICE 1y OF ' J o go~tic , C f s39rINCOR40~~~ TOWN OF`REAIiD. IPI.G r, To the Inhabitants of the Town of Reading: . Please take notice that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading will hold the follow- ing public hearings on Tuesday, .August: 22, 2006 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell: Street, Reading, Massachusetts: Parking Regulations on Cand earl Street between Belmont Thorndike Streets 8:00 p.m. Establishing Fee, for Solicitors . 8:30 p.m. All interested 'parties may appear in person, may submit their comments in writing, 'or may email town manager@ci. reading.ma.us. . By order of Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager 8/15 ya~~ Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Cormier, Jim Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:05 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Pearl St. Peter, , I appologize, I can't reach Michelle. I know she queried the residents, and the general feeling was they were fine with parking on one side. I can't remember for sure which side to regulate, but I'm pretty confident we were going to propose regulating the side where the residences are and allow parking on the side where the field is. I would recommend up to Thorndike St. I'm pretty sure this is what Michelle and I spoke about. So, officially i'II say regulate the West side of Pearl St., No Parking from Charles to Thorndike. Jimmy Chief James W. Cormier Reading Police Department 15 Union St. Reading, MA 01867 781-944-1212 8/18/2006 qa L' 22,107 v 3a b°' ?Qt 332 82 9 20 014 222.96 - p b"u ° 26 29 31 1aB6s Ra.a.~ ~~;~.65 A 4 S 27 w - r35 p254 g11~ ~ 94A • N u 2 13 r 6727 a, 0 1 34 ~i 83.00 Q4.40 S 12.276 01 24 wa 41377 w w 45.124 a' t 10 350 32 w 388 d V' r r964 k 1,9 Awl OS o• 1. g01 10 1,00 C p=OL 32 V /J ry 20,271 1 10,080 ~ M0;A59 I- o o r9 Zr J ~ s.~ ~`y~~' `P° ~26302.85 '~i40 " ¢ -l(+=+-,9 6 3 ~s~s a~ ,96 d p o 6 V ~5a~1 O cro 9 1117 n 4 lb- 113 ~ ' o g 0 7~ a~,,o ~ti. 4 it) /8 23 14,2259 X00, r ISO / 14 8,29 o w '62 2 948 6 m 8 ~a 3\ 12,1 60 X884 A 15 36 ,,9 Oba ~s$ w 16,691 Q 10 ' X2.35 38 0 i1,6 3 0o ACMs ~9. 'ss 1 a 37R °R C1 t9 11, o tc 31 \ q/;~ 0 120 10,3 ~S .7~7 f Atli 37k, ~3x C~ X10 0/ f~7 • 9s 69~se A "I ?s~° 11,E ant 1 A~ L s 2000 w a 20,552 11,34 i - s d 3 V✓ " ' g80° peg ° ' '"~e~ 0 17 s, 1~~ 2460870000000090 2460880000000380 2461040000000010 CIREGNA ELISE M BRENNAN PATRICIA A TRUSTEE FORBES-SCOTT JANET STEVEN MICHAEL LOPICCOLO BRENNAN FAMILY TRUST KEVIN W SCOTT 48 PEARL STREET 43 PEARL ST 52 PEARL ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 2461040000000020 2461040000000030 2461040000000040 DAMERJIAN DAVID CARD THOMAS M SR ROWE MARK T LIESJE DAMERJIAN KIMBERLY M CHELF PAULA A ROWE 56 PEARL STREET 58 PEARL ST 64 PEARL STREET READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 2461040000000050 2461040000000060 2461040000000070 MANNEY MATTHEW P GILSON LAWRENCE S TAYLOR ANDREW V 66 PEARL ST ELIZABETH S GILSON SUSAN E DAVEY READING, MA 01867 70 PEARL STREET 76 PEARL ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 2461040000000080 2461040000000090 2461040000000100 ALLEN BRENDON WINTER JANET F TRUSTEE HOSSEINI ABDOLLAH E JEANNE C ALLEN WINTER FAMILY TRUST 65 CHARLES ST 7 FAIRMOUNT RD 69 CHARLES ST READING, MA 01867, READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 2461050000000080 2461050000000090 2461050000000100 WHITE NOAH WARD TERRENCE J ETAL TRS READING SENIOR LIVING JENNIFER MARSELLA-WHITE 57 PEARL ST NOMINEE TRUST ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4 THORNDIKE ST 57 PEARL ST 75 PEARL ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 2461050000000110 2461050000000120 DALTON WILLIAM H JR RUSSELL ALFRED S DEBRA A DALTON BARBARA 0 RUSSELL 91 PEARL STREET 168 BELMONT ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 jit, q dft Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Frank Petras [ediongwd@beilatlantic.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:40 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Parking Regulations on Pearl Street Longwood Place at Reading would like to submit the following comments relative to the proposed parking regulations on Pearl Street. It is our opinion that the increased traffic and parking issues that result from the regular soccer games and practices at the Longwood field, must be remedied. Parking on both sides of Pearl Street only exacerbates this problem. We would be in favor of any enforced parking regulations that would keep Pearl Street safer and less congested during these heavily used time periods. We would suggest that parking only be allowed on the even side of Pearl Street. This would open up Pearl Street to traffic more during those busy times. It should be noted that any parking regulations that go into effect are only going to be effective if the youth soccer league alters its game schedule so that there are not significant "crossover" periods between any two games. A greater buffer between games would alleviate a lot of the current problems of parking, congestion and traffic incidents. We would like to request that a notice be posted along with the parking signs, indicating that parking on our property is prohibited only for those that live, work or are visiting Longwood Place. Since we lease the soccer field to the Town, many -soccer patrons feel that our parking area is in fact part of the soccer field parking. There are in fact only 15 spaces reserved for that purpose right out in front of the field. Everything else on our site is private for our elderly residents nad their visitors. We hope all of this will be strongly considered, for our sake and that of our neighbors who we know have endured a lot of issues over the last several years. qqs 8/15/2006 Page 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Feudo, John Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:44 PM To: 'Mike Sheedy' Subject: FW: Parking Regulations on Pearl Street Hi Mike, Please make sure you are extra cautious going forward into the Fall with Longwood. There are changing parking regs over there to restrict parking to only one side of the street on Pearl. I am counting on you to make sure that your coaches/families know and follow respectfully. Longwood is really looking for RUSC to go, to a Memorial Park type schedule where there is open time in between games to handle traffic. Let talk more about that. We can't afford to lose longwood because of neighborhood complaints. It won't take much to have the plug pulled on this field. Anything you can do as an organization to help this situation will in turn benefit everyone involved. As always I appreciate your leadership of the RUSC and hope this is the last of the issues at Longwood. John From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:39 PM To: Feudo, John Subject: FW: Parking Regulations on Pearl Street From: Frank Petras [mailto:edlongwd@bellatlantic.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:40 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Parking Regulations on Pearl Street Longwood Place at Reading would like to submit the following comments relative to the proposed parking regulations on Pearl Street. It is our opinion that the increased traffic and parking issues that result from the regular soccer games and practices at the Longwood field, must be remedied. Parking on both sides of Pearl Street only exacerbates this problem. We would be in favor of any enforced parking regulations that would keep Pearl Street safer and less congested during these heavily used time periods. We would suggest that parking only be allowed on the even side of Pearl Street. This would open up Pearl Street to traffic more during those busy times. It should be noted that any parking regulations that go into effect are only going to be effective if the youth soccer league alters its game schedule so that there are not significant "crossover" periods between any two games. A greater buffer between games would alleviate a lot of the current problems of parking, congestion and traffic incidents. 8/16/2006 &fq4% Page 2 of 2 We would like to request that a notice be posted along with the parking signs, indicating that parking on our property is prohibited only for those that live, work or are visiting Longwood Place. Since we lease the soccer field to the Town, many soccer patrons feel that our parking area is in fact part of the soccer field parking. There are in fact only 15 spaces reserved for that purpose right out in front of the field. Everything else on our site is private for our elderly residents nad their visitors. We hope all of this will be strongly considered, for our sake and that of our neighbors who we know have endured a lot of issues over the last several years. 8/16/2006 -MM 40.• r LEGAL~1 &Ilcp ~o OFRF~'N y w~ rs39+INCOR40~4~ TOOWN OF REAp1C~ r, To 'the 'Inha'bitants of the Town of Reading: Please take notice that the Board of :Selectmen of the Town of Reading will hold the follow- ing'public hearings on Tuesday, .August. 22, 2006 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room,, 16 Lowell: . Street, Reading, Massachusetts: Parking Regulations on Pearl Street between Belmont and Thorndike Streets 8:00 p.m. • Establishing Fee for Sol'i.citors 8:30 All interested 'parties may appear-in person, may submit their comments in writing, 'or may email town manager@ci. reading.ma.us. . By order of Peter.l. Hechenbleikner Town Manager 8/15 y4l. Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Cormier, Jim Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:44 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: solicitors fee Pete, I would recommend a $25 per solicitor fee, and each solicitor is required to fill out an application. Chief James W. Cormier Reading Police Department 15 Union St. Reading, MA 01867 781-944-1212 From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:14 PM To: Cormier, Jim Subject: solicitors fee What fee are you proposing that eh Board of Selectmen adopt? The heating is on Tuesday. Pete II sfo 10 a 8/18/2006 Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse Meeting August 16, 2006 The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner. Present were Kathleen Walsh representing the YMCA, Superintendent of Schools Pat Schettini, RMHS Principal Joseph Finigan, Nancy Linn Swain representing the Recreation Committee, Health Administrator Jane Fiore, Police Chief James Cormer, Police Officer Michael Saunders, Board of Selectman Ben Tafoya, James Dowd representing Austin Prep, David Michaud representing the School Committee, and students Kelsey Finigan and Christina Solimini. Also present were Recreation Administrator John Feudo and Town Counsel Ellen Doucette. The Town Manager explained that the Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse, Inc. (RCASA) is being formed pursuant to a motion of Town Meeting and a working group process that recommended the establishment of a private, non-profit corporation whose goal is to "reduce substance use among youth and, over time, among adults by addressing factors in Reading that increase the risk of substance abuse and promoting factors that minimize the risk of substance abuse." The Town Manager, Superintendent of Schools, Chairman of the School Committee, and Chairman of the Board of Selectmen have been working for several months with Town Counsel trying to establish this group. The first order of business will be to approve the By-Laws, the second will be to approve Officers, and the third will be to approve the Articles of Organization. Following that work, the Articles of Organization will be filed with the Secretary of State's Office, the Town will request State and Federal tax ID numbers, and the Town will file for 501 (C) (3) status with the Internal Revenue Service. On motion by Schettini seconded by Cormier. the Board Members voted to approve the By-Laws with modifications as proposed by a unanimous vote. On motion by Cormier seconded by Walsh, Peter Hechenbleikner was appointed as President by a unanimous vote. On motion by Cormier seconded by Tafova. Pat Schettini was appointed as Treasurer by a unanimous vote. On motion by Schettini seconded by Tafova, James Cormier was appointed as Secretarv by a unanimous vote. On motion by Tafova seconded by Schettini. the Articles of Oreanization as prepared by Town Counsel were approved by a unanimous vote. q C ) 0 Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse Meeting - August 16. 2006 - Page 2 A nominating committee consisting of Kathleen Walsh, David Michaud and Joseph Finigan were appointed to come back to the next meeting with a proposed slate of members of the Board of Directors who would fill out the positions appointed by the RCASA Board - including two members at large, a medical provider, a pharmacist and a representative of the media. Any members of the Board who have recommendations should get in touch with members of the nominating committee directly. A 5:00 meeting time is a good meeting time for members of the Board. The next meeting will be called by the President once all of the necessary paper work has been completed. The Board members signed the By-Laws as adopted, and signed the Articles of Organization. On motion by Schettini seconded by Tafova, the RCASA Board of Directors adjourned the meeting of August 16. 2006 at 5:39 u.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Secretary 4 Cy' READING COALITION AGAINST SUBSTANCE ABUSE, INC. (RCASA) BY-LAWS ARTICLE ONE ESTABLISHMIENT 1.1 NAME: The name of the charitable organization is READING COALITION AGAINST SUBSTANCE ABUSE, INC. (RCASA). The Board of Directors may establish a DBA name (Doing Business As) for the organization that is consistent with the purpose of the organization. ARTICLE TWO PURPOSE 2.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: READING COALITION AGAINST SUBSTANCE ABUSE, INC. is formed as a response to the worldwide, national, State and local substance abuse problem. The Coalition's ongoing goal is to: reduce substance use among youth and, over time, among adults by addressing the factors in Reading that increase the risk of substance abuse and promoting factors that minimize the risk of substance abuse. In addressing this goal the RCASA will educate members of the Reading community about substance abuse and engage the community in addressing this critical issue. The Committee's long-range goal is to develop and/or recommend implementation of programs that will aid in the PREVENTION, EDUCATION, TREATMENT, and ENFORCEMENT of all forms of substance abuse in the Town of Reading. In meeting this purpose, the RCASA may raise funds, apply for grants, enter into partnerships to achieve its mission, and otherwise promote the purposes of the organization. The RCASA, in order to accomplish its goals, will solicit community involvement in the activities of the coalition. ARTICLE THREE ADDRESS 3.1 ADDRESS: The organization shall maintain a mailing address in Reading, MA which reads: RCASA 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 and/or suitable address as is from time to time appropriate. ARTICLE FOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS 4.1 GENERAL POWERS: The affairs of RCASA shall be managed by a Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall consist of those positions outlined in Section 4.3 of these bylaws, all of whom shall be individuals living in Reading, or y,~3• a parent or custodial guardian of a child in school in Reading, or a member or employee of any organization or business providing services to residents of Reading. 4.2 NUMBER OF DIRECTORS: The Board of Directors shall consist of 21 members who shall serve staggered 3 year terms so arranged by the Board of Directors that as close to 1/3 of the terms will expire on September 30 of each year. The Directors shall begin serving at the close of the Annual Meeting. 4.3 MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS: The Board of Directors will be comprised of a consortium of organizations in Reading dealing with the issues of substance abuse. The Board shall be comprised of • Two (2) Members-at-Large (preferably with children of school age) elected by the remaining members • The Superintendent of Schools or his designee, • I Representative of the School Committee appointed by the Chair of the School Committee • 2 Student Representatives appointed by the Principal of Reading Memorial High School • 1 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School Representative appointed by the Superintendent of the Northeast Metropolitan Vocational school • 1 Austin Preparatory School Representative appointed by the Headmaster of the School 1 Representative from the Reading Schools Health Education program appointed by the Superintendent of Schools • I School Administrator appointed by the Superintendent of Schools • The Town Manager or his designee • 1 Board of Selectmen Representative appointed by the Chair of the Board of Selectmen ® The Police Chief or his designee • The School Resource Officer or other Police Officer appointed by the Chief of Police • The Chairman of the Board of Health or designee appointed by the Chairman • The Chairman of the Recreation Committee or designee appointed by the Chairman • I Medical Provider appointed by the RCASA Board of Directors • 1 Pharmacist appointed by the RCASA Board of Directors • 1 Representative of the Clergy Association appointed by the Clergy Association • 1 Representative of the Burbank branch of the YMCA appointed by the Executive Director of the YMCA • I representative of the media appointed by the RCASA Board of Directors 4.4 BOARD MEETINGS: Meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held monthly unless otherwise voted by the Board of Directors. The President may call additional meetings as needed. There will be a minimum of at least one-half (1/2) of the number of existing Board members plus one (1) to be considered a quorum fora Board of Directors' Meeting. itc y. 4.5. ANNUAL MEETING: The Annual Meeting of RCASA shall be a community meeting held in September of each year and shall serve as the Annual Meeting for the purpose of conducting necessary business. Reports of the Officers, the Board of Directors, and of all Standing Committees shall be given at the annual meeting. 4.6 EXECUTIVE OFFICERS: Executive Officers of the organization shall be members of the Board of Directors, and only residents of the Town of Reading shall serve as Executive Officers. Those officers shall be President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. Executive Officers shall be elected annually by the Board of Directors and their terms shall begin at the conclusion of the Annual Meeting, except that the term for the Treasurer will coincide with the fiscal year. No individual shall fill more than one Executive Office at one time. 1 PRESIDENT: The President has the responsibility to see that all orders and resolutions of the Board of Directors are placed into effect. The President shall set the agendas for Board of Directors meetings and the Annual Meeting. The President is responsible for all correspondence between the organization and outside individuals or groups. The President shall perform other duties from time to time as delegated by the Board of Directors. The President shall be an ex- officio member of all committees except the nominating committee. 2 VICE PRESIDENT: The Vice President shall, in the absence or at the direction of the President, perform the duties and exercise the power of the President. The Vice President shall perform duties as may be assigned by the Board of Directors. 3 SECRETARY: The Secretary shall keep a list of all members along with those persons' addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. The Secretary shall keep Minutes of all meetings, and shall be responsible for mailing of notices and agendas of Board of Directors meetings and the Annual Meeting.. 4 TREASURER: The Treasurer shall be custodian of all funds governed by the Board of Directors and shall keep on deposit all bills and disburse funds at the direction of the Board of Directors. All checks and disbursements issued by the organization shall be signed by the Treasurer and the President. The Treasurer shall keep a full account of receipts and disbursements with such accounting to be presented at each of the Board of Directors meetings and at the Annual Meeting, and a summary to be included in the Annual Report. The Treasurer is responsible for arranging for an annual audit, directed by the Board, with such audit to be completed at the conclusion of the fiscal year. The fiscal year shall be October 0 through September 30th, inclusive. 4.7 VACANCIES, REMOVALS AND/OR RESIGNATIONS: Any Executive Officer or Director may be removed for cause by the affirmative vote of three- quarters of the full number of Directors authorized under section 4.3 of these bylaws. Any Director or officer may resign from the organization at any time with or without cause with no approval needed by the organization. Such IN c,S• resignation shall take place thirty (30) days after the date of postmark by written resignation addressed to the Secretary of the organization. If an officer or Director has three (3) unexcused, consecutive absences of the monthly meetings , the office may be declared vacant by the Board of Directors. 4.8. APPOINTMENTS: The President shall have the power to nominate candidates for openings that may arise on the Board of Directors, and the Board shall act upon such nominations. 4.9 DIRECTORS NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE: No member of the Board of Directors shall be personally liable for any debts, liabilities, or other obligations (absent fraud) of RCASA. This exemption from liability shall not apply, to the extent that such liability is imposed by applicable law: a. for any breach based upon a violation of the director(s) loyalty to RCASA; b. for acts or omissions not undertaken in good faith or which involve a conflict of interest, intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of the law; and c. for any transaction from which a director derives an improper personal benefit. All persons, corporations, or other entities extending credit to, contracting with, or having claim against RCASA, may look only to the funds and property of the corporation for the payment of any such contract or claim, or for the payment of any debt, damages, judgment, or decree, or of any money that may otherwise become due or payable to them from RCASA No amendment or repeal of this by-law provision shall operate to exempt a director from liability with respect to any acts or omissions of such director which occur prior to the amendment or repeal. 4.10 INDEMNIFICATION: To the extent legally permissible and only to the extent that the status of the corporation as an organization exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code is not affected thereby, RCASA shall indemnify each of its directors, officers, employees and other agents (including persons who serve at its request as directors, officers, employees or other agents of another organization in which it has an interest) against all liabilities and expenses, including amounts paid in satisfaction of judgments, in compromise or as fines and penalties, and counsel fees, reasonably incurred by him in connection with the defense or disposition of any action, suit or other proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in which he may be involved or with which he may be threatened, while in office or thereafter, by reason of his being or having been such a director, officer, employee or agent, except with respect to any matter as to which he shall have been adjudicated in any proceeding not to have acted in good faith in the reasonable belief that his action was in the best interests of the corporation; provided, however, that as to any matter disposed of by a compromise payment by such director, officer, employee or agent, pursuant to a consent decree or otherwise, no indemnification either for said payment or for any other expenses shall be provided unless such compromise shall be approved as in 4 the best interests of the corporation, after notice that it involves such indemnification: (1) by a disinterested majority of the directors then in office; (2) by a majority of the disinterested directors then in office, provided that there has been obtained an opinion in writing of independent legal counsel to the effect that such director, officer, employee or agent appears to have acted in good faith in the reasonable belief that his action was in the best interests of the corporation; or (3) by a majority of the disinterested members entitled to vote, voting as a single class. Expenses, including counsel fees, reasonably incurred by any such director, officer, employee or agent in connection with the defense or disposition of any such action, suit or other proceeding, may be paid from time to time by the corporation in advance of the final disposition thereof upon receipt of an undertaking by such individual to repay the amounts so paid to the corporation if he shall be adjudicated to be not entitled to indemnification under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 180, Section 6. The right of indemnification hereby provided shall not be exclusive of or affect any other rights to which any director, officer, employee or agent may be entitled. Nothing contained herein shall affect any rights to indemnification to which corporate personnel may be entitled by contract or otherwise under law. As used in this paragraph, the terms "directors", "officers", "employees", and "agents" include their respective heirs, executors and administrators, and an "interested director" is one against whom in such capacity the proceeding in question or another proceeding on the same or similar grounds is then pending. 4.11 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Whenever a director or officer has a financial or personal interest in any matter coming before the board of directors, the affected person shall a) fully disclose the nature of the interest and b) withdraw from discussion, lobbying, and voting on the matter. Any transaction or vote involving a potential conflict of interest shall be approved only when a majority of disinterested directors determine that it is in the best interest of the corporation to do so. The minutes of meetings at which such votes are taken shall record such disclosure, abstention and rationale for approval. 4.12 FISCAL YEAR: Except as the Board of Directors may otherwise determine, the fiscal year of RCASA shall end each year on September 30. 4.13 PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY: At all meetings of the Board of Directors, in matters of procedure not governed by these By-Laws, the current revised edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall prevail. ARTICLE FIVE - NOMINATIONS FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 5.1 NOMINATING COMMITTEE: During the month of June, each year, the Board shall appoint a Nominating Committee to select candidates for the 2 Members at large positions on the Board of Directors, as well as the other positions on the Board that are appointed by the Board of Directors that are at the time open. All nominations shall be in writing to the Board of Directors. The c~. 7 Nominating Committee may make recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding candidates for open positions. ARTICLE SIX COMMITTEES 6.1 STANDING COMMITTEES: Standing Committees shall include: Education, Finance, Publicity, Membership, Fund Raising and By-Laws. Each standing committee shall be chaired by a Director of the RCASA. 6.2 ADDITIONAL COMMITTEES: Additional committees or subcommittees of standing committees may be formed by the Board as needed. Membership, chairmanship, and tenure of these committees shall be determined by the Board. ARTICLE SEVEN AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS 7.1 AMENDMENTS: These By-Laws may be amended by four fifths (4/5) vote of the full authorized membership of the Board of Directors voting at any regular meeting or special meeting at which a quorum is present, except that the membership and method of appointment or election of the Board of Directors shall not be changed. Each Director shall be provided with a written copy of the proposed amendments prior to the meeting. ARTICLE EIGHT CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY 8.1 AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS: RCASA shall have the power to enter into contracts with other corporations, whether such corporation is for profit or not for profit, but only for those contracts which are in furtherance of RCASA's statement of purposes. Except as otherwise authorized by the Board of Directors, all deeds, leases, transfers, contracts, bonds, notes, checks, drafts, and other obligations made, accepted or endorsed by RCASA shall be signed by the president and by the treasurer. ARTICLE NINE DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATION 9.1 DISSOLUTION: , Except as may be otherwise required or permitted by law, RCASA may at any time authorize a petition for its dissolution to be filed with the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pursuant to Section 11A of Chapter 180 of the Massachusetts General Laws by the affirmative vote of a majority of the directors of the corporation then in office;, provided, however, that in the event of any liquidation, dissolution, termination, or winding up of the corporation (whether voluntary, involuntary, or by operation of law), the property or assets of the corporation remaining after providing for the payment of its debts and obligations shall be conveyed, transferred, distributed, 4eg. and set over outright to one or more educational, charitable, religious or literary institutions or organizations, created and organized for non-profit purposes similar to those of the corporation, contributions to which non-profit institutions or organizations are deductible under Section 170(c) of the Code and which qualify as exempt from income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of such Code as such sections may, from time to time, be amended or added to or under any successor sections thereto, as a majority of the total number of the directors of the corporation may by vote designate and in such proportions and in such manner as may be determined in such vote; provided, further, that the corporation's property may be applied to charitable, religious, literary or educational purposes in accordance with the doctrine of cy pres in all respects as a court having jurisdiction in the premises may direct. THESE BY-LAWS ADOPTED at a meeting of the general membership on: Date: August 16, 2006 Signed: President Vice President Secretary Treasurer Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director qC9. OFR~q~I _v Town of Reading :gym 16 Lowell Street o j two J 639'1NC0111 0 Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.read!ng.ma.us . MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18, 2006 TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner RE: Affordable Housing Trust Fund TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 The Affordable Housing Trust Fund has approximately $300,000 in it. We have been working with the Reading Housing Authority on their proposed development on four units between 75 Pleasant Street and the Senior Center. We have met with the Department of Housing & Community Development about the financing of this project. The Housing Authority may need up to the $300,000 from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for this project. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund was set up by a home rule petition by the Town. It requires a joint vote by the Housing Authority and the Board of Selectmen to expend funds from this source. I am requesting that the Board of Selectmen vote on record that it would be amenable to considering use of up to $300,000 of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for this project. This vote will then be part of the package that the Housing Authority submits to the DHCD for funding this project. PIH:lm y~. Board of Selectmen Tracking Loq for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Project/ Identified Problem Resp. Select. Action Needed Follow-up Dept. Liaison Date . .........1.{.S`4 i....N y*y , r ~v. ,i4R` vrvrrvv vq Traffic Issues Peesy-eR Deteur-s The T9WR sheuld have an PeNse ARtheny 9evelep ad We Heard et- 03/311/06 SeleetMea-)e{isy, eF-as a TM werkin"recedure Ash Street at Main Develop a process to acquire Town land and build new connection Mgr. directly between Ash and Main Street, eliminating the grade crossing Anthony Action required by 2010 to 9-31-06 maintain the whistle ban. Contact new property owner; work with META 11/29/05 Develop a Engineer Bonazoli , Need to scope a study and 12/31/06 comprehensive then seek funding for it. traffic study for the Woburn Street, High Street, Lowell Street, Main Street area i/3/05 met Pellse Benazeli Review with 12:171712=i HeaFiR 03/34/06 Gan we get 3 way stop at scheduled .lacy 44 4844 8/18/2006 1 Board of Selectmen Trackinq Loq for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Project( Identified Problem Res p. Select. Action Needed Follow-up Dept. Liaison Date Develoument Projects 1/1/90 Gazebo Circle Overflow of detention basin - Engineer Bonazoli The Town Engineer has 12/31/06 flooding has occurred in done a study and neighborhood during severe determined the course of storms correction. The total 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. I/1/00 Pitman Bike Path Release of State Funds - State Planner Tafoya Need for Town to access 9-31-06 has funded in previous funds Dark/recreation bond bill 1 /1 /05 Addison Wesley Complete Traffic Presentation • Planner Tafoya 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 Jordan's Furniture Lighting has impacted Town Anthony Town has hired lighting 03/31/06 neighbors due to height of Mgr, and consultants. F-agade IightlRg fi t B n z li Gensultant is to et baGk to thFu ures x o a o g Some corrective 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 as comnleta 1/1/85 Downtown Status of 100% design Engineer Anthony 100 % Design October 14. 04/15/06 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 State Wate ,-r,T'^^}ment DPW BeRazeli Review GGSt and benefit e f 0218106 Want ' buy4R v 8/18/2006 2 q Aft2' Board of Selectmen Tracking Loq for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Proiectl Identified Problem Oewntswn RaFking lask-ef-park+n9 regulations Rt. 128/1-93 Interchai Monitor and advocate for Reading's interest in keeping any improvements to the interchange to a low impact for Reading Imagination Station Needs to be refurbished 1-93 Containment How do we avoid another gasoline spill impact on Reading's well fields Res p. Select. Action Needed Follow-up Dept. Liaison Date RIFE Ta#sya businesses; sehedule for 0648/86 f another 'RfeFmal Fneeting with Anthony meFGhaRtG, and then Town reps are meeting with ongoing & Town Engineer to develop a Schubert draft position paper for Board of Selectmen consideration in September- Public Hearing is scheduled in Reading for nrtnhar 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. DPW Bonazoli Consultant presentation to the 06/30/06 Board of Selectmen on 10-18- 05; follow up 2-17-06; On hold until a decision is made on what to do about water supply. With Town decision to go all MWRA, TM has referred the study to the IRWA with a request that they move forward to Implement the recommendations a - A3 AF E 8/18/2006 3 Board of Selectmen Tracking Loci for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Protect/ Identified Problem Res p. Select. Dept. Liaison 75 PlBa6aRt t T_ewW Tafoya histerisal heuse Manager Fall 2005 Barrows School parking Timothy Place encroachment on .right-of-wav Sale of Oakland Road land 6/15/06 MWRA Buy-in Lack of off-street parking for staff Property owner has built improvements into the ROW of the private street The Town owned tax title land across Oakland Road from eh RMHS is surplus to the Town's needs. Process the MWRA buy-in for the Town's full MWRA use Engineer Bonazoli Inspectio n& Counsel Town Manager, Town Planner DPW Tafoya Action Needed Follow-up Date 83/3fF86 the 13e8Fd of Selestmen to build heafing 3 7 86 We met with the principal - 06/30/06 she would like the basketball court used for parking during the school day. TM sent a cost estimate from DPW to the Superintendent of Schools.. Enforcement to be started the week of August 21 Bonazol Engineer hired. First 06/30107 i threshold of filing NPCto MEPA met. MEPA decision on NPC expected mid October. Preparing filing for WRC 8/18/2006 4 q0e q6 Board of Selectmen Tracking Loa for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Project/ Identified Problem Res p. Select. Action Needed Follow-un Dept. Liaison Date Policies/Requlations 4/1/04 Petroleum Bylaw Regulations to be formulated Fire & Goldy Fire Department has been Town doing data collection and Counsel posting to an electronic spread sheet. New Town Counsel (Judy Pickett) is reviewing Bylaw and will outline next steps to the Board. Stop Signs BOS delegated approval of PTTF Anthony stop siqns to Town Manaqer Memorial Park Controversy over allowed uses Town Anthony At its July 25 meeting with Counsel 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 September. Hours of Currently only regulated by Construction CPDC - if Police are to enforce, it needs a bylaw 9120/05 Mandate Should the Town develop a landscaping to save bylaw or subdivision water regulations Develop an l-mRn ir Develepmwi CerRrRiseien Pslisy eR Beard of RP1PRtrnPR appeiRtMeRta' TeWR AGGel4Rt8FVt 11/1/05 'lost' dogs on weekends t GeFRfRl6eieR 03131/06 03/31/06 11/01/05 Town Tafoya Referred back to the Board 01/31/06 Manager of Selectmen by Town Meeting. Board of Selectmen to review Town Meeting tape and determine how to proceed. Planning Tafoya Refer to CPDC as part of 06/30106 Master Plan implementation; Town is applying for a grant for an educational program on landscape maintenance PlaRRer Tafoya Establish by bylaW Or DORM f 03107-186 Develop a process for Chief Duffy Develop procedure 03/31/06 addressing the issue of Cormier dealing with "lost" dogs when the ACO Is not available Meet with Veriz and hay Town ARthgR r AganaQef 7 aRd fOF eable Tewn gReinee 8/18/2006 5 Mi. So, ,Oro Board of Selectmen Tracking Loci for Current Issues/Projects Date Issue/Project/ Identified Problem Res p. Select. Action Needed Follow-uu Dept. Liaison Date V3106 DSP Fe r Set up f suppiy Tewfl ARthen Manager Meeting held A 26 06 vvfvtYVty DeGi6ien by Beare ef Develop a housing Understand the 40 R and 40 Town Tafoya Housing Forum scheduled 10/24106 production plan S programs, and utilizing Planner for September 28 with them and other efforts, CPDC, RHA, ZBA, Board of develop a housing Selectmen, CofC and others production plan to eliminate First part will be the vulnerability to presentation on 4011 and unwanted 40B projects. 40S; followed by discussion on draft housing production plan. Need to provide .75% per year (66 units) Citizen Complaints 4130/06 Drainage on ditch has silted up and is not DPW Haverhill Street free-flowing - backs up and affects neighbors property MBTA has put up billboards at Town the depot with no notice to the Manager Town 8/18/2006 6 Goldy work to be done this fall as 06/01/06, part of the storm water management proqram Tafoya Tafoya and TM met with COO of MBTA. He is going to get info on what the revenue to the T is from the billboards. He did not feel that the T would be wiilinq to remove them TM is finding Info from other communities that have historic depots. 4.2 4 August 17, 2006 Drew Dolben Dolben Development 25 Corporate Drive, Suite 210 Burlington, MA 01803 Dear Mr. Dolben: r i DRAFT As you know, via an exchange of e-mails, we had agreed to split the $30,000 bond that was posted by Dolben Development for correction of drainage issues at the Summit Village (Gazebo Circle) development. Since that time, the Town Engineer has done a comprehensive report on the drainage at this site. A copy of the report is attached. A summary of the report indicates: 1. The drainage system as designed was not adequate to handle the storm water from the site. 2. The drainage system as constructed was not in accordance with the design. 3. Some of the on-site drainage on the roadways was incorrectly constructed in that the catch basins were not recessed appropriately and therefore storm water on the site bypasses the catch basins in a heavy storm. The total cost of correction is approximately $55,000 per the Town Engineer's estimate. Based on the above, I am rescinding my offer to split the bond proceeds with you. The Town through the Planning Commission has voted to take the full bond to do the drainage work. CPDC was updated on the Town's position on August 14`" and consistent with the prior decision to take the bond, supports the attached course of action. We request your agreement on this matter so that we can move forward with the drainage improvements. In the event that you do not agree, the Town will pursue whatever legal recourse is available to us to have Dolben Development pay for the full cost of this corrective action. Sincerely, Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager PIH:hn Attachment qRW 7 40 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, AM 01867-2683 Fax: (781) 942-5441 PUBLIC WORKS Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us (781) 942-9077 August 14, 2006 Chris Reilly, Town Planner CPDC Members Re: Summit Village Drainage Dear Mr. Reilly and CPDC Members, As you are aware the detention basin at the Summit Village Condominium's has experienced overflows that have caused flooding on Hopkins Street and to abutting private properties. The revised drainage analysis of the site prepared Allen & Major Associates, Inc. dated June, 1995 indicated that the detention basin was designed to store and infiltrate the sites runoff tributary to the detention basin (and Hopkins Street) thereby effectively reducing the majority of the development's discharge to Hopkins Street to zero. As designed, the basin's only outlet would be an emergency overflow spillway that was set at an elevation that would enable the basin to contain run off up to and including the 100-year storm event. The design as approved proposed a detention basin having an effective storage volume (at the overflow spillway elevation) 37,679 cubic-feet. We have recently completed an as-built of the detention basin and a hydraulic analysis of the site and surrounding area. The basin's as-built volume, at the overflow elevation, was determined to be only 13,373 cubic-feet or 24,306 cubic-feet less than the intended design. This reduction in volume reduces the effective storage capability of the basin to 35.5% of its proposed design capacity. The loss in capacity results in increased basin water levels at all storm events and discharges from the overflow spillway at storm events of 10-year and greater. This along with other site features identified below, in my opinion, is contributing to the flooding that has recently occurred in the area. The hydraulic analysis of the detention basin was performed using the sites original design water shed areas and parameters. As the current analysis is performed on different software than the original design, the model was calibrated to the original design conditions to afford a comparison of results. The model was run to determine outflow and storage for the original detention basin design, as-built detention basin conditions and the detention basin with proposed modifications. A summary of the results are identified in the table below. 4.~g' C:\Documents and Settings\gzambouras\My Documents\CPDC\SummitVillage Drainage2A.doc Summit Village Detention Basin Summaries Basin Peak Storage Elevation (cf) Oriqinal Design 2-Year Storm 1 289.50 1 10,923 1 10-Year Storm ( 290.60 I 22,412 25-Year Storm 1 291.15 1 29,962 1 100-Year Storm 1 291.52 1 I I 39,036 I As-Built Conditions 2-Year Storm 292.29 1 12,133 10-Year Storm 1 293.35 1 18,830 25-Year Storm 1 293.58 ( 20,528 100-Year Storm 1 293.77 1 I' I 21,938 1 I Prop. Modifications 2-Year Storm 1 291.35 I 11,280 10-Year Storm 1 292.79 1 23,400 I 25-Year Storm 1. 293.70 I 32,287 100-Year Storm ( 294.12 I 36,434 Available Percent Storage of Design Total @ Overflow Storage Rate (cf) (cfs) 37,679 ( N/A I N/A 1 01 N/A 1 01 I N/A 1 01 I I N/A I 01 I 13,373 35.5% 111.08% 1 01 1 84.02% 1 10.981 1 68.51% 1 16.871 1 1 56.20% 1 I 22.041 1 29,419' ( 78.08% 1 1 103.27% 1 0.831 1 104.41% 1 1.061 1 107.76% 1 2.191 1 93.33% 1 7.931 Outflow Volume (ac-ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0.279 0.515 0.77 0.149 0.32 0.45 0.711 ' Includes upper basin storage volume A survey of the site "was performed during recent heavy rainfalls. It was determined that in addition to the deficiencies identified in the detention basin size, several catch basins, along the north westerly roadway, were not receiving roadway gutter flow. The slope of the roadway and grading of pavement in the areas adjacent to the catch basin permitted a significant volume of runoff to by-pass several catch basins and flow directly to Hopkins Street. This resulted in a significant volume of runoff that was not being detained by the detention basin. In review of the analysis performed and site inspection several corrections would be necessary to reduce the level of flooding in the area. These are schematically shown on the attached sketch and are identified below. y.¢9' C:\Documents and Settings\gzambouras\My Documents\CPDC\Summit Village Drainage2kdoc • Extend the existing Hopkins Street drainage system to enable servicing of the detention basin. • Install an outlet control structure on the detention basin with a piped outlet to the extended Hopkins Street drainage system. • Modify the existing detention basin by installing an intermediate earth dam thereby creating a two stage basin. This will enable storage within the upper end of the existing basin which is currently not utilized. • Increase the elevation of the emergency spillway by 1 foot. When coupled with the improvements above this will increase the effective storage capacity to 36,434 cf at the 100-year overflow level. • Elevate the driveway opening of 165 Hopkins Street to limit gutter flow form entering the property. • Modify the pavement grading (adjacent to catch basins) and install gutter inlets of approximately 6 catch basins within Gazebo Circle. The estimated cost for the above improvements is identified in the following table: Cost Estimate Summit Village/Hopkins Street Drain Modifications Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 12" RCP Drain I I 1 2651 1 L.F. 1 1 $40.001 $10,600.00 Drain Manhole 1 11 Ea. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Outlet Structure 1 21 Ea. 1 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 12" Flared Ends 1 31 Ea. 1 $350.00 $1,050.00 Detention Basin Modifications I 1 I L.S. 1 $8,000.001 $8,000.00 Re-grade Detention Basin 1 15001 Sys. 1 $3.601 $5,400.00 Loam & Seed 1 15001 Sys. 1 $6.501 $9,750.00 Rip Rap 1 2251 S.F. $12.001 $2,700.00 Connection to Existing Structure 1 11 L.S. 1 $350.001 $350.00 Catch Basin Alterations 1 61 Ea. 1 $325.001 $1,950.00 Catch Basin Curb Inlet 61 I I Ea. 1 I $250.001 I $1.500.00 Sub Total ( $49,800.00 Contingency I 10%1 $4.980.00 Total Cost ( ( $54,780.00 y~io6, C:\ Documents and Settings\gzambouras\My Documents\CPDC\Summit Village Drainage2A.doc The existing $30,000 performance bond being held for.the project is in a joint account between the Town and the Developer. I am therefore requesting that the Community Planning and Development Commission authorize the release of the performance bond to the Town of Reading DPW to perform the improvements identified above or as further determined and approved to improve flooding in the area. jpa I I a C:\ Documents and Settings\gzambouras\My Documents\CPDC\Summit Village Drainage2A.doc i 0 ! 1'1..1.. P orn N, = NN PROP. REV/SED TOP OF BERM ELEV. 294.00 - a~-~7 p W 2g3 93 _ i b 92 PROP. OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE PROP. EMERGENCY 0 VERFL OW REVISIONS & RIP RAP OP. DRAIN TENSION SUMMI T W LA GE PROPOSED DRAINAGE EXTENSION DA TE.- 811106 - SCALE NTS F I f1'.'l 7/ 11tl1/ 1', C A_. i PROP. UPPER DE7EN710N SASYN MODIRCA770VS rf fAt `AIX ~I j PROP. REMED 70P - OF BERM EZ£K 294.00 ~ tl to I SUMMI T VIL L A GE PROP. IN7FRMEDIAIE BERM & OUTLET PIPE & RIP RAP PROP. AMWflAN BASIN GRADING MODIRCA nOW PROPOSED DETENTION BA SIN MODIFICA TIONS DA TE- 811106 N SCALE NTS MAW 3s> Orig Desig Post Ilia 4S Orig Design P ign Post Vb Orig Design Post Va & IV Exist Detention Basin (Design) Aft (Subcat Reach on Link Drainage Diagram for hopkins-design Prepared by (enter your company name here) 8/14/2006 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems > CS> hopkins-design Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 2 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Subcatchment 1 S: Orig Design Post Vb Runoff = 0.62 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Depth= 0.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.700 69 Pavement/Lawn Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct overflow Subcatchment 2S: Orig Design Post Va & IV Runoff = 5.76 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.371 af, Depth= 1.54" Runoff by. SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Area (ac) CN Description .2.900 82 Pavement/Lawn Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct overflowlpiped Subcatchment 3S: Orig Design Post IIIa Runoff = 4.33 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.278 af, Depth= 1.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type If 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Area (ac) CN Description 1.900 85 Pavement/Lawn Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct overflow Subcatchment 4S: Orig Design Post HID Runoff - 0.56 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth= 0.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" hopkins-design Type 1124-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Area (ac) CN Description 0.820 66 Pavement/Woods Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct hopkins-design Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4 HydroCADO 7.00 sin 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 1 P-D: Exist Detention Basin (DesigrPeak Elev=289.50' Storage=10,923 cf Inflow=11.26 cfs 0.739 of Discarded=2.80 cfs 0.727 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=2.80 cfs 0.727 of ~ Q~ N hopkins-design Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 1 P-D: Exist Detention Basin (Design) 1. Outflow based on original design parameters. 2. Basin volume based on original design. 3. Overflow weir set to 5 fee wide. 3. 105 feet was added to Original Design Elevations to covert original data to Town of Reading Survey Datum. Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.40" for 2 Year event Inflow = 11.26 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.739 of Outflow = 2.80 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.727 af, Atten= 75%, Lag= 21.8 min Discarded = 2.80 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.727 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 289.50'@ 12.37 hrs Surf.Area= 8,074 sf Storage= 10,923 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 52.3 min calculated for 0.721 of (98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 43.2 min ( 881.4 - 838.2 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 287.00' 71,003 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sQ-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) . 287.00 0 0 0 289.00 5,663 5,663 5,663 291.00 15,246 20,909 26,572 293.00 29,185 44,431 71,003 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 292.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 2 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface.area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.79 cfs @ 12.37 hrs HW=289.50' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.79 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=287.00' (Free Discharge) L-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Controls 0.00 cfs) 4,elq 0 hopkins-design Type lI 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 1 P-D: Exist Detention Basin (DesigrPeak Elev=290.60' Storage=22,412 cf Inflow=21.16 cfs 1.374 of Discarded=4.63 cfs 1.355 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=4.63 cfs 1.355 of ~ yo• N hopkins-design Type 1124-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by {enter your company name hero} Page 7 HVdroCAD® 7.00 sin 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 1 P-D: Exist Detention Basin.(Design) 1. Outflow based on original design parameters. 2. Basin volume based on original design. 3. Overflow weir set to 5 fee wide. 3. 105 feet was added to Original Design Elevations to covert original data to Town of Reading Survey Datum. Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.61" for 10 Year event Inflow = 21.16 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1.374 of Outflow = 4.63 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 1.355 af, Atten= 78%, Lag= 23.5 min Discarded = 4.63 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 1.355 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 290.60'@ 12.39 hrs Surf.Area= 13,339 sf Storage= 22,412 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 61.7 min calculated for 1.355 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 53.4 min ( 874.9 - 821.5 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 287.00' 71,003 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)_.isted below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 287.00 0 0 0 289.00 5,663 5,663 5,663 291.00 15,246 20,909 26,572 293.00 29,185 44,431 71,003 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices - 1 Primary 292.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 2 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=4.63 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=290.60' (Free Discharge) t-2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 4.63 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=287.00' (Free Discharge) t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Controls 0.00 cfs) L jp hopkins-design Type 11 24-hr 25 Year Rainfall=5.60" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8 HydroCADO 7.00 sh 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8114/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 1 P-D: Exist Detention Basin (Desigrf eak Elev=291.15' Storage=29,962 cf Inflow=27.39 cfs 1.782 of Discarded=5.66 cfs 1.759 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=5.66 cfs 1.759 of 6% 0 hopkins-design Type 1124-hr 25 Year Rainfall=5.60" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9 HydroCAD® 7.00 sln 001066 ©1986-2003 Aoplied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 1 P-D: Exist Detention Basin (Design) 1. Outflow based on original design parameters. 2. Basin volume based on original design. 3. Overflow weir set to 5 fee wide. 3. 105 feet was added to Original Design Elevations to covert original data to Town of Reading Survey Datum. Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth = 3.38" for 25 Year event Inflow = 27.39 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1.782 of Outflow = 5.66 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 1.759 af, Atten= 79%, Lag= 24.1 min Discarded = 5.66 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 1.759 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=.0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 291.15'@ 12.40 hrs Surf.Area= 16,310 sf Storage= 29,962 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 66.2 min calculated for 1.744 of (98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 58.1 min ( 872.6 - 814.5 ) # Invert Avail.Sto rage Storage Description 1 287.00' 71,003 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismaticyisted below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store CUm.Store . (feet) (so-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 287.00 0 0 0 289.00 5,663 5,663 5,663 291.00 15,246 20,909 26,572 293.00 29,185 44,431 71,003 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 292.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth, Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 2 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=5.66 cfs @ 12.40 hrs HW=291.15' (Free Discharge) t-2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 5.66 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=287.00' (Free Discharge) t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Controls 0.00 cfs) hopkins-design Type 1124-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10 HvdroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 1 P-D: Exist Detention Basin (DesigrPeak Elev=291.52' Storage=38,036 cf Inflow=33.72 cfs 2.203 of Discarded=6.54 cfs 2.175 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=6.54 cfs 2.175 of ~ ~ 1y. hopkins-design Type// 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Page 11 HydroCADO 7.00 sin 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 1 P-D: Exist Detention Basin (Design) 1. Outflow based on original design parameters. 2. Basin volume based on original design. 3. Overflow weir set to 5 fee wide. 3. 105 feet was added to Original Design Elevations to covert original data to Town of Reading Survey Datum. Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth= 4.18" for 100 Year event Inflow = 33.72 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 2.203 of Outflow = 6.54 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume= 2.175 af, Atten= 81 Lag= 25.0 min Discarded = 6.54 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume= 2.175 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 291.52'@ 12.42 hrs Surf.Area= 18,842 sf Storage= 38,036 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 70.9 min calculated for 2.157 of (98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 63.0 min ( 871.8 - 808.8 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 287.00' 71,003 of Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)_isted below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (so-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 287.00 0 0 0 289.00 5,663 5,663 5,663 291.00 15,246 20,909 26,572 293.00 29,185 44,431 71,003 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 292.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 2 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=6.53 cfs @ 12.42 hrs HW=291.51' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfltration Controls 6.53 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=287.00' (Free Discharge) t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Ar 15 3s> 4S> Orig Design Pt Exist Detention Basin (As-Built) 1S ) ,sign Post Vb 2S Orig Design Post Va & IV dft Subcat) Reach Pon Link Drainage Diagram for hopkins-as-buiit4 Prepared by {enter your company name here} 8/14/2006 HydroCAIM 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems Orig Design Post Ilia hopkins-as-built4 Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here} . Page 2 HydroCAD® 7.00 stn 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Subcatchment 1 S: Orig Design Post Vb Runoff = 0.62 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Depth= 0.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.700 69 Pavement/Lawn Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct overflow Subcatchment 2S: Orig Design Post Va. & IV Runoff = 5.76 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.371 af, Depth= 1.54" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type it 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Area (ac) CN Description 2.900 82 Pavement/Lawn Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct overflow/piped Subcatchment 3S: Orig Design Post Ilia Runoff = 4.33 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.278 af, Depth= 1.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Area (ac) CN Description 1.900 85 Pavement/Lawn Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct overflow Subcatchment 4S: Orig Design Post HID Runoff - 0.56 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth= 0.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" hopkins-as-built4 Type.// 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3 HydroCAD® 7.00 s(n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Area (ac) CN Description 0.820 66 Pavement/Woods Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct 14 hopkins-as-built4 Type 1124-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Star-Ind method Pond 7PAB: Exist Detention Basin (As-BLPeak Elev=292.29' Storage=12,133 cf Inflow=11.26 cfs 0.739 of Discarded=1.91 cfs 0.734 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.91 cfs 0.734 of it 3o hopkins-as-built4 Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 7PAB: Exist Detention Basin (As-Built) 105 feet was added to Original Design Elevations to covert original data to Town of Reading Survey Datum. Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.40" for 2 Year event Inflow = 11.26 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.739 of Outflow = 1.91 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 0.734 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 28.1 min Discarded = 1.91 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 0.734 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 292.29' @ 12.48 hrs Surf.Area= 5,488 sf Storage= 12,133 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 66.1 min calculated for 0.728 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 61.9 min (900.1 - 838.2 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 287.00' 23,651 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregulars isted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 287.00 7 10.9 0 0 7 288.00 53 29.8 26 26 72 289.00 1,706 353.9 687 713 9,969 290.00 2,641 389.0 2,157 2,870 12,077 291.00 3,786 433.8 3,196 6,066 15,039 292.00 5,080 467.3 4,417 10,483 17,484 293.00 6,508 500.4 5,779 16,262 20,078 294.00 8,306 584.0 7,389 23,651 27,313 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 292.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 2 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.89 cfs @ 12.48 hrs HW=292.26' (Free Discharge) "~--2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.89 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=287.00' TW=289.00' (Fixed TW Elev= 289.00') t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 4 01310 hopkins-as-bu!K4 Type l/ 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Page 6 HvdroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 7PAB: Exist Detention Basin (As-BtPeak Elev=293.35' Storage=18,830 cf Inflow=21.16 cfs 1.374 of Discarded=2.47 cfs 1.087 of Primary=10.98 cfs 0.279 of Outflow=13.46 cfs 1.366 of u ~3y. hopkins-as-built4 Type I! 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4,70" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Page 7 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 7PAB: Exist Detention Basin (As-Built) 105 feet was added to Original Design Elevations to covert original data to Town of Reading Survey Datum. Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth= 2.61" for 10 Year event Inflow = 21.16 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1.374 of outflow = 13.46 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 1.366 af, Men= 36%, Lag= 13.2 min Discarded = 2.47 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 1.087 of Primary = 10.98 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.279 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 293.35' @ 12.23 hrs Surf.Area= 7,133 sf Storage= 18,830 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 59.3 min calculated for 1.355 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 55.6 min ( 877.1 - 821.5 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 287.00' 23,651 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregularyisted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet)' (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 287.00 7 10.9 0 0 7 288.00 53 29.8 26 26 72 289.00 1,706 353.9 687 713 9,969 290.00 2,641 389.0 2,157 2,870 12,077 291.00 3,786 433.8 3,196 6,066 15,039 292.00 5,080 467.3 4,417 10,483 17,484 293.00 6,508 500.4 5,779 16,262 20,078 294.00 8,306 584.0 7,389 23,651 27,313 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 292.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 2 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.43 cfs @ 12.23 hrs HW=293.27' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.43 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=9.95 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=293.29' TW=289.00' (Fixed TW Elev= 289.00') t-1 =Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 9.95 cfs @ 2.5 fps) ~ X33 . hopkins-as-built4 Type 1124-hr 25 Year Rainfall=5.60" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Page 8 HydroCADO 7.00 sln 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 7PAB: Exist Detention Basin (As-BtPeak Elev=293.58' Storage=20,528 cf Inflow=27.39 cfs 1.782 of Discarded=2.62 cfs 1.258 of Primary= 16.87 cfs 0.515 of Outflow=19.49 cfs 1.772 of Arlo 1A IRA& JIP' hopkins-as-built4 Type 11 24-hr 25 Year Rainfall=5.60" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9 HydroCADO 7.00 sin 001066 © 1986-2003 Aoplied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 7PAB: Exist Detention Basin (As-Built) 105 feet was added to Original Design Elevations to covert original data to Town of Reading Survey Datum. Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth = 3.38" for 25 Year event Inflow = 27.39 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1.782 of Outflow = 19.49 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.772 af, Atten= 29%, Lag= 11.7 min Discarded = 2.62 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 1.258 of Primary = 16.87 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.515 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 293-58'@ 12.19 hrs Surf.Area= 7,546 sf Storage= 20,528 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 54.4 min calculated for 1.758 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 50.8 min ( 865.3 - 814.5 ) # Invert Avail.Storaae Storage Description 1 287.00' 23,651 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)-isted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 287.00 7 10.9 0 0 7 288.00 53 29.8 26 26 72 289.00 1,706 353.9 687 713 9,969 290.00 2,641 389.0 2,157 2,870 12,077 291.00 3,786 433.8 3,196 6,066 15,039 292.00 5,080 467.3 4,417 10,483 17,484 293.00 6,508 500.4 5,779 16,262 20,078 294.00 8,306 584.0 7,389 23,651 27,313 # Routinq Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 292.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 2 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFiow Max=2.61 cfs @ 12.19 hrs HW=293.56' (Free Discharge) t-2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.61 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=16.61 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=293.57' TW=289.00' (Fixed TW Elev= 289.00') t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 16.61 cfs @ 3.1 fps) hopkins-as-built4 Type 1l 24-hr 900 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 001066 O 1986-2003 Aaplied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 7PAB: Exist Detention Basin (As-BLPeak Elev=293.77' Storage=21,938 cf Inflow=33.72 cfs 2.203 of Discarded=2.74 cfs 1.422 of Primary=22.04 cfs 0.770 of Outflow=24.78 cfs 2.192 of hopkins-as-built4 Type ll 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Page 11 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Aoplied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006, Pond 7PAB: Exist Detention Basin (As-Built) 105 feet was added to Original Design Elevations to covert original data to Town of Reading Survey Datum. Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth = 4.18" for 100 Year event Inflow = 33.72 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 2.203 of Outflow = 24.78 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 2.192 af, Atten= 27%, Lag= 10.1 min Discarded = 2.74 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.422 of Primary = 22.04 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.770 of Routing by Star-Ind, method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 293.77'@ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 7,889 sf Storage= 21,938 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 51.1 min calculated for 2.174 of (99%.of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 47.7 min ( 856.5 - 808.8 ) # Invert Avail.Storaae Storage Description 1 287.00' 23,651 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregulars isted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sa-ft) 287.00 7 10.9 0 0 7 288.00 53 29.8 26 26 72 289.00 1,706 353.9 687 713 9,969 290.00 2,641 389.0 2,157 2,870 12,077 291.00 3,786 433.8 3,196 6,066 15,039 292.00 5,080 467.3 4,417 10,483 17,484 293.00 6,508 500.4 5,779 16,262 20,078 294.00 8,306 584.0 7,389 23,651 27,313 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 292.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 2 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.69 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=293.69' (Free Discharge) L--2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.69 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=20.25 cfs @ 12.17 hrs HW=293.70' TW=289.00' (Fixed TW Elev= 289.00') L-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 20.25 cfs @ 3.4 fps) N j3~. 4S> Orig Design P 3S> Orig De i Post Ilia New Up er is Orig esign Post Vb 2S. 14P Orig Design Post Va & IV Prop. Det. Basin Revisions2 Subcat Reach on Link Drainage Diagram for hopkins-as-built-alterations Prepared by {enter your company name here} 8/14/2006 iiydroCADO 7.00 sln 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems skins-as-built-alterations Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" repared by {enter your company name here} Page 2 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 001*066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Subcatchment IS: Orig Design Post Vb Runoff = 0.62 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Depth= 0.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.700 69 Pavement/Lawn Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct overflow Subcatchment 2S: Orig Design Post Va & IV Runoff = 5.76 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.371 af, Depth= 1.54" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span='0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type ll 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Area (ac) CN Description 2.900 82 Pavement/Lawn Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct overflow/piped Subcatchment 3S: Orig Design Post Ilia Runoff = 4.33 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.278 af, Depth= 1.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Area (ac) CN Description 1.900 85 Pavement/Lawn Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, direct overflow Subcatchment 4S: Orig Design Post IIID • Runoff - 0.56 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth= 0.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt 0.20 hrs Type 11 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" A hopkins-as-built-alterations Type// 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Page 3 NydroCADO 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8114/2006 Area (ac) CN Description 0.820 66 Pavement/Woods TG Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 . Direct Entry, direct hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 1124-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing. by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 1413: Prop. Det. Basin Revisions2 Peak Elev=291.35' Storage=7,738 cf Inflow=7.60 cfs 0.691 of Discarded=1.53 cfs 0.538 of Primary=0.83 cfs 0.149 of Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=2.36 cfs 0.686 of Pond'15P: New Upper Peak Elev=298.40' Storage=3,542 cf Inflow=4.88 cfs 0.322 of Discarded=0.23 cfs 0.047 of Primary=1.38 cfs 0.274 of Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.61 cfs 0.321 of a hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 1124-hr 2 Year Rainfal1=3.20" Prepared bj {enter your company name here} Page 5 HydroCAD® 7.00. s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Aoplied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 14P: Prop. Det. Basin Revisions2 Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow- Depth= 1.31" for 2 Year event Inflow = 7.60 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.691 of Outflow = 2.36 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.686 af, Atten= 69%, Lag= 28.4 min Discarded = 1:53 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.538 of Primary = 0.83 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.149 of Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 291.35@ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 4,397 sf Storage= 7,738 cf Plug-Flow detention. time= 38.2 min calculated for 0.681 of (99% of inflow Center-of-Mass det. time= 34.5 min ( 875.9 - 841.4 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 287.00' 31,269 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)_.isted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sa-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sa-ft) 287.00 7 10.9 0 0 7 288.00 53 29.8 26 26 72• 289.00 1,706 353.9 687 713 9,969 290.00 2,641 389.0 2,157 2,870 12,077 291.00 3,931 432.2 3,265 6,134 14,930 292.00 5,262 454.5 4,580 10,715 16;565 293.00 6,420 472.1 5,831 16,546 17,943 294.00 7,622 489.5 7,012 23,558 19,359 295.00 7,800 500.0 7,711 31,269 20,322 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 288.00' 2.0" x 75.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 286.72' S= 0.01717 n= 0.015 Cc= 0.900 2 Primary 289.50' 6.0" x 75.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 286.72' S= 0.0371 n= 0.015 Cc= 0.900 3 Secondary 293.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 4 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.52 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=291.33' (Free Discharge) t 4=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.52 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.83 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=291.33' TW=289.00' (Fixed TW Elev= 289.00') ~ )"o 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.04 cfs @ 2.1 fps) t2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.78 cfs @ 4.0, fps) Secondary OutF(ow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=287.00' (Free Discharge) `~--3=Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir (Controls 0.00 cfs) Aff hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 24-hr 2 Year Rainfal1=3.20" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Page 6 HydroCADO 7.00 s1n 001066 ©1986-2003 Aoplied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 15P: New Upper Inflow Area = 2.720 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.42" for 2 Year event Inflow = 4.88 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.322 of Outflow = 1.61 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.321 af, Atten= 67%, Lag= 17.0 min Discarded = 0.23 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.047 of Primary = 1.38 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.274 of Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0:000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 298.40'@ 12.29 hrs Surf.Area= 1,654 sf Storage= 3,542 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 16.5 min calculated for 0.321 of (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 15.1 min ( 850.0 - 834.9 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Descriotion 1 294.00' 12,537 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular~isted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store W et.Area (feet) (sa-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sa-ft) 294.00 117 46.0 0 0 117 295.00 364 98.7 229 229 728 296.00 642 117.3 496 726 1,066 297.00 1,096 166.6 859 1,585 2,188 298.00 1,487 180.8 1,287 2,871 2,618 299.00 1,910 194.9 1,694 4,565 3,079 300.00 2,403 217.0 2,152 6,717 3,832 301.00 2,905 231.2 2,650 9,367 4,386 302.00 3,442 245.4 3,170 12,537 4,975 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 294.00 6.0 x 40.0 long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 293.50' S=0.0125'1' n=0.015 Cc= 0. 900 2 Secondary 301.00' 3.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.6 0 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 3 Discarded 0.00' 0.008300 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.22 cfs @ 12.29 hrs HW=298.26' (Free Discharge) 1-3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.22 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.36 cfs @ 12.29 hrs HW=298.26' TW=293.70' (Fixed TW Elev= 293.70') 't-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.36 cfs @ 6.9 fps) y Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=294.00' TW=293.70' (Fixed TW Elev= 293.70') t-2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) ffB M M6 ILA hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 11 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7 HvdroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Svstems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 14P: Prop. Det. Basin Revisions2 Peak Elev=292.79' Storage=15,304 cf Inflow=13.56 cfs 1.287 of Discarded=2.14 cfs 0.960 of Primary=1.06 cfs 0.320 of Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=3.20 cfs 1.279 of Pond 15P: New Upper . Peak Elev=300.52' Storage=8,096 cf Inflow=9.08 cfs 0.593 of Discarded=0.37 cfs 0.086 of Primary=1.68 cfs 0.506 of Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=2.05 cfs 0.592 of hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 1124-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8 HydroCAD® 7.00 sin 001066 ©1986-2003 Aoplied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006, Pond 14P: Prop. Det. Basin Revisions2 Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.44" for 10 Year event Inflow = 13.56 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1.287 of Outflow = 3.20 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 1.279 af, Aften= 76%, Lag= 33.3 min Discarded = 2.14 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.960 of Primary = 1.06 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.320 of Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 292.79'@ 12.56 hrs Surf.Area= 6,173 sf Storage= 15,304 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 53.0 min calculated for 1.279 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 49.7 min ( 883.4 - 833.6 ) . # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 287.00' 31,269 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular} isted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sa-ft) 287.00 7 10.9 0 0 7 288.00 53 29.8 26 26 72 289.00 1,706 353.9 687 713 9,969 290.00 2,641 389.0 2,157 2,870 12,077 291.00 3,931 432.2 3,265 6,134 14,930 292.00 5,262 454.5 4,580 10,715 16,565 293.00 6,420 472.1 5,831 16,546 17,943 294.00 7,622 489.5 7,012 23,558 19,359 295.00 7,800 500.0 7,711 31,269 20,322 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 288.00' 2.0" x 75.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 286.72' S= 0.0171 n= 0.015 Cc= 0.900 2 Primary 289.50' 6.0" x 75.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 286.72' S= 0.0371 T n= 0.015 Cc= 0.900 3 Secondary 293.50' 5.0' long x 1,0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 4 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.14 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=292.78' (Free Discharge) t--4=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.14 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.06 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=292.78' TW=289.00' (Fixed TW Elev= 289.00') t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.06 cfs @ 2.6 fps) 2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.00 cfs @ 5.1 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=287.00' (Free Discharge) t-3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Ell OAK a~~ hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 11 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 ADplied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 15P: New Upper Inflow Area = 2.720 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.62" for 10 Year event Inflow = 9.08 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.593 of Outflow = 2.05 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.592 af, Atten= 77% , Lag= 22.7 min Discarded = 0.37 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.086 of Primary = 1.68 cfs @ Volume= 12.38 hrs 0.506 of Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ , 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 300.52'@ 12.38 hrs Surf.Area= 2,664 sf Storage= 8,096 cf Plug-Flow detent ion time= 30.3 min calculated for 0.592 of ( 100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 29.2 min ( 848.3 - 819.0 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 294.00' 12,537 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)..isted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 294.00 117 46.0 0 0 117 295.00 364 98.7 229 229 728 296.00 642 117.3 496 726 1,066 297.00 1,096 166.6 859 1,585 2,188 298.00 1,487 180.8 1,287 2,871 2,618 299.00 1,910 194.9 1,694 4,565 3,079 300.00 2,403 217.0 2,152 6,717 3,832 301.00 2,905 231.2 2,650 9,367 4,386 302.00 3,442 245.4 3,170 12,537 4,975 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 294.00' 6.0" x 40.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 293.50' S=0.0125'1' n=0.015 Cc= 0.900 2 Secondary 301.00' 3.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 3 Discarded 0.00' 0.008300 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.37 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=300.50' (Free Discharge) Z-3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.37 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.68 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=300.50' TW=293.70' (Fixed TW Elev= 293.70') t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.68 cfs @ 8.6 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=294.00' TW=293.70' (Fixed TW Elev= 293.70') Awk "~--2=13road-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 61 U a ML P R hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 1124-hr 25 Year Rainfall=5.60" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Page 10 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/1412006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 14P: Prop. Det. Basin Revisions2 Peak Elev=293.70' Storage=21,471 cf Inflow=17.28 cfs 1.674 of Discarded=2.52 cfs 1.216 of Primary=1.18 cfs 0.418 of Secondary=1.01 cfs 0.032 of Outflow=4.71 cfs 1.665 of Pond 1513: New Upper Peak Elev=301.46' Storage=10,816 cf Inflow=11.73 cfs 0.768 of Discarded=0.44 cfs 0.107 of Primary=1.80 cfs 0.622 of Secondary=1.31 cfs 0.038 of Outflow=3.55 cfs 0.767 of hopkins-as-built-alterations Type Il 24-hr 25 Year Rainfall=5.60" Prepared by (enter your company name here} Page 11 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 14P: Prop. Det. Basin Revisions2 Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth' = 3.18" for 25 Year event Inflow = 17.28 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1.674 of Outflow = 4.71 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 1.665 af, Atten= 73%, Lag= 28.2 min Discarded = 2.52 cfs @ 12.49 hrs; Volume= 1.216 of Primary = 1.18 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.418 of Secondary = 1.01 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 0.032 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 293.70'@ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 7,264 sf Storage= 21,471 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 61.1 min calculated for 1.665 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 57.9 min ( 886.3 - 828.4 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 287.00' 31,269 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)_isted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 287.00 7 10.9 0 0 7 288.00 53 29.8 26 26 72 289.00 1,706 353.9 687 713 9,969 290.00 2,641 389.0 2,157 2,870 12,077 291.00 3,931 432.2 3,265 6,134 14,930 292.00 5,262 454.5 4,580 10,715 16,565 293.00 6,420 472.1 5,831 16,546 17,943 294.00 7,622 489.5 7,012 23,558 19,359 295.00 7,800 500.0 7,711 31,269 20,322 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 288.00' 2.0" x 75.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 286.72' S= 0.0171 n= 0.015 Cc= 0. 900 2 Primary 289.50' 6.0" x 75.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert = 286.72' S= 0.0371 T n= 0.015 Cc= 0. 900 3 Secondary 293.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.6 0 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 4 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.50 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=293.66' (Free Discharge) t-4=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.50 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.17 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=293.66' TW=289.00' (Fixed TW Elev= 289.00') T--2=Culvert 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.06 cfs @ 2.9 fps) (Barrel Controls 1.11 cfs @ 5.7 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.87 cfs @ 12.48 hrs HW=293.66' (Free Discharge) L3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.87 cfs @ 1.1 fps) hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 1124-hr 25 Year Rainfall=5.60" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Svstems 8114/2006 Pond 15P: New Upper Inflow Area = 2.720 ac, Inflow Depth = 3.39" for 25 Year event Inflow = 11.73 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.768 of Outflow = 3.55 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.767 af, Atten= 70%, Lag= 17.0 min Discarded = 0.44 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.107 of Primary = 1.80 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.622 of Secondary = 1.31 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.038 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 301.46'@ 12.30.hrs Surf.Area= 3,150 sf Storage= 10,816 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 33.7 min calculated for 0.760 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 32.6 min ( 844.9 - 812.4 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storaqe Description 1 294.00' 12,537 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregularl.isted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 294.00 117 46.0 0 0 117 295.00 364 98.7 229 229 728 296.00 642 117.3 496 726 1,066 297.00 1,096 166.6 859 1,585 2,188 298.00 1,487 180.8 1,287 2,871 2,618 299.00 1,910 194.9 1,694 4,565 3,079 300.00 2,403 217.0 2,152 6,717 3,832 301.00 2,905 231.2 2,650 9,367. 4,386 302.00 3,442 245.4 3,170 12,537 4,975 # Routinq Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 294.00' 2 Secondary 301.00' 6.0" x 40.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 293.50' S=0.0125'/' n=0.015 Cc= 0.900 3.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 3 Discarded 0.00' 0.008300 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.42 cfs @ 12.30 hrs HW=301.27' (Free Discharge) L3=Exfiltration (Exfltration Controls 0.42 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.78 cfs @ 12.30 hrs HW=301.27' TW=293.70' (Fixed TW Elev= 293.70') Z1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.78 cfs @ 9.1 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=1.15 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=301.27' TW=293.70' (Fixed TW Elev= 293.70') 't-2= Broad-C rested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.15 cfs @ 1.4 fps) hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 13 HvdroCADO 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.20 hrs, 121 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 14P: Prop. Det. Basin Revisions2 Peak Elev=294.12' Storage=24,492 cf Inflow=21.26 cfs 2.079 of Discarded=2.66 cfs 1.358 of Primary=1.23 cfs 0.470 of Secondary=6.70 cfs 0.241 of Outflow=10.59 cfs 2.069 of Pond 15P: New Upper Peak Elev=301.82' Storage=11,962 cf Inflow=14.42 cfs 0.948 of Discarded=0.46 cfs 0.122 of Primary=1.83 cfs 0.699 of Secondary=5.88 cfs 0.125 of Outflow=8.17 cfs 0.946 of hopkins-as-built-alterations Type// 24-hr 900 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 14 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/1412006 Pond 14P: Prop. Det. Basin Revisions2 Inflow Area = 6.320 ac, Inflow Depth = 3.95" . for 100 Year event Inflow = 21.26 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 2.079 of Outflow = 10.59 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 2.069 af, Atten= 50%, Lag= 19.3 min Discarded = 2.66 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1.358 of Primary = 1.23 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.470 of Secondary = 6.70 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.241 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak E1ev= 294.12'@ 12.35 hrs Surf.Area= 7,644 sf -Storage= 24,492 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 56.6 min calculated for 2.051 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 53.2 min ( 874.8 - 821.6 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storaqe Description 1 287.00' 31,269 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregulars fisted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 287.00 7 10.9 0 0 7 288.00 53 29.8 26 26 72 289.00 1,706 353.9 687 713 9,969 290.00 2,641 389.0 2,157 2,870 12,077 291.00 3,931 432.2 3,265 6,134 14,930 292.00 5,262 454.5 4,580 10,715 16,565- 293.00 6,420 472.1 5,831 16,546 17,943 294.00 7,622 489.5 7,012 23,558 19,359 295.00 7,800 500.0 7,711 31,269 20,322 # Routinq Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 288.00' 2.0" x 75.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 286.72' S= 0.0171 T n= 0.015 Cc= 0.900 2 Primary 289.50' 6.0" x 75.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 286.72' S= 0.0371 T n= 0.015 Cc= 0.900 3 Secondary 293.50' 5.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 4 Discarded 0.00' 0.020833 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.65 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=294.06' (Free Discharge) t 4=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.65 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.22 cfs @ 12.35 hrs HW=294.08' TW=289.00' (Fixed TW E1ev= 289.00') • 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.07 cfs @ 3.0 fps) E2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.16 cfs @ 5.9 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=6.17 cfs @ 12.36 hrs HW=294.09' (Free Discharge) Z--3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 6.17 cfs @ 2.1 fps) hopkins-as-built-alterations Type 11 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 15 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 001066 O 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 8/14/2006 Pond 15P: New Upper Inflow Area = 2.720 ac, Inflow Depth = 4.18" for 100 Year event Inflow - 14.42 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.948 of Outflow = 8.17 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.946 af, Atten= 43%, Lag= 13.0 min Discarded = 0.46 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 0.122 of Primary = 1.83, cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.699 of Secondary = 5.88 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.125 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.20 hrs Peak Elev= 301.82'@ 12.24 hrs Surf.Area= 3,345 sf Storage= 11,962 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 31.7 min calculated for 0.946 of (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 30.6 min ( 837.5 - 806.9 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 294.00' 12,537 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)-fisted below Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) .294.00 117 46.0 0 0 117 295.00 364 98.7 229 229 728 296.00 642 117.3 496 726 1,066 297.00 1,096 166.6 859 1,585 2,188 298.00 1,487 180.8 1,287 2,871 2,618 299.00 1,910 194.9 1,694 4,565 3,079 300.00 2,403 217.0 2,152 6,717 3,832 301.00 2,905 231.2 2,650 9,367 4,386 302.00 3,442 245.4 3,170 12,537 4,975 # Routinq Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 294.00' 6.0" x 40.0' long Culvert RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 293.50' S=0.0125'/' n=0.015 Cc= 0.900 2 Secondary 301.00' 3.0' long x 1.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 Coef. (English) 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.85 2.98 3.08 3.20 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31 3.32 3 Discarded 0.00' 0.008300 fpm Exfiltration over entire Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.45 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=301.68' (Free Discharge) t--3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.45 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.81 cfs @ 12.25 hrs HW=301.67' TW=294.12' (Fixed TW Elev= 294.12') t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.81 cfs @ 9.2 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=5.44 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=301.74' TW=294.12' (Fixed TW Elev= 294.12') t--2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 5.44 cfs @ 2.4 fps) ~y am vp 6ji Board of Selectmen Meeting July 25, 2006 For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which any item was taken up by the Board. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Ben Tafoya, Vice Chairman James Bonazoli, Secretary Stephen Goldy, Selectmen Camille Anthony and Richard Schubert, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Town Counsel Ellen Callahan Doucette, Police Chief Jim Cormier, Paula Schena and the following list of interested parties: Bill Brown, Michelle Hopkinson, Catherine Gleason, Robin Hamilton, Jim Cori, Tim O'Connor, Attorney Brad Latham, Mr. and Mrs. Patel. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Selectman Richard Schubert noted that at the Selectmen's last meeting, the Board reviewed the report from the Addison-Wesley Working Group. They discussed traffic and square footage, and he apologized for not stepping up to the plate in recommending a certain amount of square footage. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that nobody could make a decision because there is no criteria to base it on. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that last week's Globe NW had an article regarding the Town of Acton forming a committee to invite assets into their business districts. The article talks about windows in businesses, etc. She also noted that she can relate to this with the bare windows in Walgreen's, and she will share this article with the Board. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that he is still waiting for the meeting with Jordan's and the neighborhood. He also noted that the sale of the property across from the RMHS needs to be added to a future agenda. Selectman Camille Anthony asked for an update on Timothy Place and Gazebo Circle. Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that the Action Status Report needs to be reviewed. He also noted that he will be attending the Governor Drive Groundbreaking for Habitat for Humanity. Public Comment - Bill Brown noted that there is nothing to discuss regarding the Oakland Road property - it is zoned S 15 which gives you 10-house lots. Just put the property on the market. Michelle Hopkinson of 21 Sherwood Road noted that the Addison-Wesley Working Group document was lacking criteria. She feels that it was a lost opportunity for the Board to indicate what size project they want. She requested that the Board of Selectmen reconsider the range of the square footage. sa Board of Selectmen Meetina - July 25. 2006 - Paae 2 Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that the Town Manager recommended that the Board send the report on and when it comes back, determine whether or not we want it. Michelle Hopkinson noted that 320,000 square feet is 50-60 stores. She also noted that the Town's Master Plan recommends no rezoning until the I-93/1-95 Interchange is complete. She asked if the over 55 housing could be considered. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that the Selectmen cannot get involved in that because it is private property. Assistant Town Manazer's Report: The Assistant Town Manager gave the following report: • RCTV: Verizon customers now have access to RCTV on Channels 31, 32 and 33. Thanks to Bill Connors and Kevin Furilla. • Construction Noise: Woburn Mayor Tom McLaughlin has scheduled a meeting of attorneys to discuss construction after 8:00 p.m. at the Avalon site on West Street. He understands the Town's concerns about excessive noise, and will let us know by early next week about the resolution. • Plavarounds: Birch Meadow Playground. off Bancroft Avenue is scheduled for reconstruction in mid-September. The last piece (the swing set) of the playground at Memorial Park is scheduled for late Summer. • YCC: Thanks to Verizon for sponsoring the most recent edition of Your Community Connection that went out last Friday, and for Maureen Knight and all of the contributors. • Police Business Manaaer: 140 applications were received for this new position. A team consisting of Chief James Cormier, Lt. Mike Cloonan, Human Resources Administrator Carol Roberts and myself narrowed this down to nine candidates for interview, and a short list of finalists will undergo a final round of interviews on Friday. • Buduet Process: FINCOM and representatives of all Town departments have met since late June to discuss the annual budget process. Of particular note is a scheduled Financial Forum on October 4th at a location to be determined. Technolosv Activities: RMLD, Schools and Town staff joint meeting Vendors for web site redesign and peripheral functionality Vendors for financial platform Discussion/Action Items Follow-Ub - Memorial Park - Town Counsel Ellen Callahan Doucette was present. She noted that the Memorial Park was deeded to the Town in 1917. She spoke with Attorney Rourke and the question is if we can get two heirs with residual property rights. Attorney Rourke contacted two insurance companies, and one title insurance company stated that all the neighbors should also sign off. Ellen Doucette indicated that she does not feel that this is the best way to proceed. She noted that the Town got the sign off for a swimming pool in 1990 but Attorney Rourke indicated that it wasn't legal so it was a good thing we didn't move forward with the swimming pool. Selectman Richard Schubert asked if it would be best to move forward to court, and Town Counsel indicated that it would be best to move forward. say' ' Board of Selectmen Meetine - July 25. 2006 - PaLre 3 A motion by Anthonv seconded by Goldv to direct Town Counsel to take actions necessarv to prepare a cv pres petition for Memorial Park was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Hearing - Animal Control Fees - The Secretary read the hearing notice. There was discussion among the Board about how low the fees are. The Board requested additional information on what the Town costs are including health, Dog Officer, the number of kennels, the number of inspections. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that he would like to see the late fees increased but keep the registration low. A resident noted that he licenses his dog every year on time, and he does not want to be punished because other people don't abide by the rules. A motion by Goldv seconded by Bonazoli to close the hearing establishing the Animal Control Fees was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Schubert seconded by Goldv to approve the Animal Control Fees per Section 5.6 of the General Bvlaws as follows: License Fees $10.00 female/male spayed/neutered $20.00 female/male un-spaved/un-neutered $10.00 late fee for animals licensed after March 31st, plus $5.00 per month late fee for each month the animal is unlicensed after April 30th $150.00 for kennels with 4 to 9 does at the same address which sum includes the inspection fee $200.00 for kennels with 10 or more does which sum includes the inspection fee Fine $50.00 fine in addition to all other fees and late fees due if the animal is unlicensed as of June 1st was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Hearing - Stob Intersection - Curtis at George Street - The Secretary read the hearing notice. Police Chief Jim Cormier noted that the residents requested a stop sign on Curtis Street, southbound at George Street. Selectman Camille Anthony asked if there is an issue when stop signs don't meet the State criteria, and Chief Cormier indicated that there could be. Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that he drove by the area and it naturally calls for a stop sign at that location. 5~3~ Board of Selectmen Meeting - Julv 25. 2006 - Page 4 Tim O'Connor noted that the stop sign will force the people to stop and then they will be at an appropriate speed when they enter the development. He also presented the Board of Selectmen with a petition signed by 25 people who are in favor of the stop sign. Robin Hamilton noted that she is a proponent for both stop signs. Chief Cormier noted that stop signs should not be used to control speed. Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that a combination of high speed and restricted view does warrant a stop sign. A motion by Schubert seconded by Goldv to close the hearing on the installation of a stop, sign on Curtis Street at George Street was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Goldv seconded by Schubert to amend the Town of Reading Traffic Rules and Regulations adopted by the Board of Selectmen on March 28, 1995 by adding to Article 6, Section 6.12 the following: Street Curtis Street was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Location George Street- southbound drivers Removal of Trees - Birch Meadow re: Artificial Field - The Assistant Town Manager noted that the Superintendent of Schools was notified that there is debris from a couple of trees on the artificial turf, and that is compromising the drainage system and the material. The trees should be removed. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that the trees on both sides of the board need to come down and also the small tree. He also noted that he is not in favor of removing the trees. There was a lot of discussion during the High School planning regarding removal of trees. The trees add to the setting and the trees are healthy. He feels that it is important to preserve the tree line. He doesn't understand how the field condition is being compromised, and noted that some trees have already been lost due to the water main project. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli suggested planting a better specimen further back. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that the artificial turf was a very expensive project, and she is concerned that the trees are compromising the drainage system. The Assistant Town Manager noted that the root system is compromising the field. The Schools weren't originally interested in getting rid of the trees but were told by an outside company that it will create problems down the road. The memo from Bob Keating indicates that the trees should have been taken down before the field was created. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that the School Department took down hardly no trees to put in the field. Artificial turf is expensive. He feels that the trees should be removed to protect the field because the twigs can damage the turf. S°` 11' Board of Selectmen Meetine - Julv 25. 2006 - Patze 5 Selectman Richard Schubert indicated that it is important to understand the issue. He would like the turf company and the Tree Warden to come in and explain. A motion by Anthonv seconded by Goldv to approve the removal of up to three trees that abut the artificial turf at Birch Meadow was approved by a vote of 3-2-0. with Schubert and Tafova opposed. A motion by Schubert seconded by Goldv to instruct the Tree Department to replace the removed trees with "seasoned" trees at a ratio of 2:1- if thev take down three. thev need to plant six. at the closest safe distance from the fields as possible to preserve the tree line was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Discussion on Potential Package Store License Transfer - Northside Liouors to JK Market on South Main Street - Attorney Brad Latham and Mr. and Mrs. Patel, the store owners of 212 Main Street were present. Attorney Latham noted that the Patel's relative possesses a package store liquor license on north Main Street which was burnt out. They wish to move the package store into JK's Market. They plan on continuing the grocery activity and obtain a liquor license in a portion of the store separated by a glass petition. There will be visual control, a scanning mechanism for age identification and an onsite Manager. Selectman Camille Anthony asked if there will be a register in the liquor area, and Mr. Patel indicated that there will not. Selectman Stephen Goldy asked if he would consider one, and Mr. Patel indicated that he would if that is what the Selectmen want. He also noted that there will always be two employees in the store. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that JK's Market had previously applied for a liquor license, and the Selectmen did not approve the license because it would be mixed in with groceries and there was no petition. A lot of people were upset when the Board granted a liquor license to the Atlantic Market because there was too much advertising and children in the store. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that liquor problems have created considerable dialogue in the community. When a person goes into a liquor store, they are there for one thing. He will not support a combination use as presented. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that he has difficulty with the mixed use. Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that this is precedent setting as well. He also noted that the Board denied Mobil on West Street. He does not want his children to see the advertising when they go in that store, and he does not take his children into a liquor store. Attorney Latham thanked the Board for their time. ,ray Board of Selectmen Meeting - Julv 25. 2006 - Paae 6 Master Development Plan - North Side Open Space Plan - The Assistant Town Manager noted that the Town Manager is recommending that the Board establish a committee to develop a plan for the north side open space. The Town is in the process of acquiring the property at 1471 Main Street that directly abuts the Bare Meadow conservation land, and the Town will eventually have additional land at the Water Treatment Plant. This is a significant amount of land and could be used for cross country skiing, trails, biking, etc. The Town Manager is recommending a committee consisting of members from the Recreation Committee and Recreation Division, Conservation Commission and Conservation Division, Town Forest Committee, Department of Public Works, abutting and nearby residents, and recreation and sports groups in the community. Selectman Camille Anthony suggested having the committee consist of all citizens and have the other committees consult. The Assistant Town Manager noted that some of the committees need to have representation, and an organization such as REI could be used as a consultant. The Assistant Town Manager noted that we have already received an e-mail from Fred Alexander who is waiting to volunteer. Chairman Ben Tafoya suggested adding "interested residents," and feels that we don't need a large number of people from committees or departments. Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that the Conservation Commission should be part of the committee. He also suggested including the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and nonprofits. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that staff should not be discounted if they are excited about this. The consensus of the Board was to move forward to draft a policy for formation of this committee. Selectman Camille Anthony suggested that the membership include seven "interested residents." Review Town Position on KENO - The Assistant Town Manager noted that someone in Town is inquiring about a license for KENO. If someone applies and the Town denies, then the Town loses a certain amount of lottery receipts equaling approximately $20,000425,000. He also noted that KENO is the most rapidly growing portion of the lottery, there are specific rules, and the Town cannot discriminate if the applicant meets the criteria. KENO is only allowed in restaurants with a liquor license. Once one license is granted, then all who apply and qualify will receive a license. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that this would be selling the character of the Town and he is not interested. Selectman Stephen Goldy agreed with Selectman Richard Schubert. He noted that the Town has substance abuse problems and KENO could also become a problem. r Board of Selectmen Meetinc - Julv 25, 2006 - Paae 7 Vice Chairman James Bonazoli agreed with Selectmen Schubert and Goldy. The Assistant Town Manager reminded' the Board that if someone applies and the Selectmen deny, the Town will lose that percentage of KENO amount. The consensus of the Board was that they are not interested. Selectman Stephen Goldy suggested that the Selectmen schedule their community walk for Septeinber 16, 2006 and that date was open for everyone. Approval of Minutes A motion by Schubert seconded by Bonazoli to approve the Minutes of June 13. 2006 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Anthonv seconded by Schubert to adjourn the meeting of July 25, 2006 at 9:50 p.m. was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary 50 070 L I C ~4( CFS A MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY yo Charlestown Navy Yard 100 First Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02129 ~ 9 SSACHUS~ Telephone: (617) 242-6000 Facsimile: (617) 788-4899 Frederick A. Laskey Executive Director August 3, 2006 0 Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner s Reading Town Manager 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 w Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: This letter supports Reading's Notice of Project Change to MEPA to increase withdrawals from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). The MWRA has determined that the Town of Reading's full reliance upon MWRA would have insignificant impacts on existing MWRA communities, the donor basins and the maintenance of reasonable in-stream flow in the Chicopee and Nashua River basins. Further information is provided below. A Declining Rate of Interbasin Transfer The previous admission of Reading to MWRA was extensively addressed in the MEPA process, and was previously approved under the Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA). In the ITA approval of June 5, 2005, the Water Resources Commission found that reasonable in-stream flow in the river from which the water is transferred would be maintained. Even with the additional demands of Reading now proposed, the amount of water that is proposed to be transferred in 2006 and beyond is less than historic MWRA demands and is less than the projected system demand assumed in previous analyses for interbasin transfers. Reading was previously admitted to the MWRA waterworks system upon projected annual withdrawals of 1.2 mgd from May-October, and a maximum daily withdrawal of 3.8 mgd. Reading's additional withdrawals would average an additional 1.67 mgd, on an annualized basis, over the previously approved transfer (the previously approved transfer, if annualized, would result in 0.6 mgd). The maximum day withdrawal would not change. The analysis that was previously included in the MEPA documentation assumed MWRA's existing baseline demand was 251 mgd (the average annual demand for 1997- 2001). In 2005, MWRA's service area demand was 225 mgd, and the annual average use over the 2001-2005 was 230 mgd; this is more than 20 mgd less than the 251 mgd value used previously to assess effects on the donor basins and existing MWRA communities. Reading's additional demand of 1.67 mgd represents less than ten percent of the drop in demand that has occurred in the past five years alone, and is an even more insignificant gal a Printed on 100% Recycled Paper fraction of the decrease in the amount of interbasin transfer that has occurred since the MWRA was created, and also since the ITA was enacted. Conservative Projections of Existing and Projected Service Area Demand MWRA's analysis of future demand conservatively starts with a baseline demand of 230 mgd for 2006 and includes an additional demand of 13 mgd resulting from population and employment growth in the existing service area for the year 2030. The 13 mgd is based on population and employment projections of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and the Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Commission for the existing service area (which includes Reading and the Dedham-Westwood Water District, recently admitted MWRA water served communities). Adding 13 mgd to the average annual demand of the MWRA water service area for the five preceding years results in a demand estimate of 243 mgd in 2030. The proposed additional demands of Reading, added to projected demands of other known prospective applicants, namely the Weymouth Naval Air Station Redevelopment and Wilmington added to the future service area demand results in a demand of 248 mgd. This is less than the baseline demand assumed in the 2002 analysis used in the previous Environmental Impact Report. Note also that roughly 5 mgd is the cumulative total of the proposed additional demands of Reading, coupled with the Naval Air Station Redevelopment and Wilmington; the cumulative new monthly demands of these communities on MWRA would range from approximately 4.0 mgd in October to 5.6 mgd in July. However, since the MWRA reservoir system is multi-year reservoirs with 4-5 years of storage, varying monthly demands have insignificant impacts on the system. Effects of Demand and on Safe Yield, Quabbin Reservoir levels, and Long-term Reservoir Performance Measures MWRA evaluated the impacts on the reservoir system on withdrawals ranging from 240 mgd to 300 mgd. As noted above, the demand for the existing service area projected out to 2030 is 243 mgd, and the cumulative additional withdrawals from Reading and other known prospective applicants is approximately 5 mgd. Therefore, a withdrawal of 250 mgd in the context of various reservoir performance measures is addressed below. Safe Yield Safe Yield is defined as the quantity of water that can be supplied on a continuous basis during a critical drought. MWRA's Safe Yield is 300 mgd. With the decline in demand in MWRA's existing service area, MWRA can easily serve additional communities without affecting its ability to stay well within the safe yield of the watershed system. Ouabbin and Wachusett Reservoir Levels The figure below shows the demand and reservoir pattern level for the period 1950 through 2000. It shows that the lowest reservoir volumes occurred near the end of the most severe drought period as a result of drought induced demand levels and low 8~y~ watershed yields over an extended period of time. The additional withdrawals due to Reading and other prospective applicants, added to the demand for the existing MWRA service area projected out to 2030, is still below withdrawals typically experienced from 1960 to 2000. From 1960 to the present, at demands in the 250 mgd range, Quabbin Reservoir has remained 80% full or more. MWRA Annual Average System Demand 360 500 I I !Y v v ICI 200 150 100. I . ....._,.,_I I . I_ 1950 1960 1970 1960 1990 2000 Quabbin Reservoir Level Full) 80.00Yo ~ y 6IY 50.00% yy 40.00% 1 20.00^: 0.00% Jan-50 Jan-60 Jan-70 Jan-50 Jan-90 Jan-OD Varying levels of demand do not typically result in changes in water levels at Wachusett Reservoir, where MWRA's first operational objective is to maintain Wachusett's elevation in a narrow operating band. The range of elevations was established because it provides adequate supply to meet customer demands, minimizes shoreline erosion, provides adequate free board to minimize spillway activations (and the possibility of downstream flooding), and improves water quality by submerging gull roosting areas near the intake. This operating range is maintained by local Wachusett watershed yield as well as transfers, as needed, of water from Quabbin Reservoir to Wachusett Reservoir via the Quabbin Aqueduct. A second objective is to maintain acceptable water quality at the intake. MWRA has historically maintained water quality by mixing Wachusett water with higher quality Quabbin water, which is transferred through the Quabbin Aqueduct. Through reservoir modeling and testing MWRA has also observed the benefit of transferring water between reservoirs particularly between May and October. During this time of the year the reservoir's thermociine has developed which allows water transferred from Quabbin to move as an interflow from the aqueduct's point of discharge to the Cosgrove Intake, providing a more rapid and stronger effect. Having the higher quality water at the intake is particularly important during this period due to the relationship between warmer temperatures and disinfection processes. 190* 30 Other Reservoir Performance Measures In addition to the traditional measure of safe yield, MWRA evaluated the long-term impacts on the reservoir system using system performance measures that were developed in the "Trigger Planning Study." These measures identified in the Trigger Planning Study included: safe yield, supply shortfall, severity, maximum pool descent, and resiliency and drought actions. MWRA used a STELLA model (Stella Research Software Package Version 5.0) to evaluate the impact of varying demands on the Trigger Planning Performance Measures identified above. At demands ranging from 240 mgd to 300 mgd, changes in demand influence only maximum pool descent and the number of months spent in the various drought stages as defined by the MWRA Drought Status Control Program. No other performance measures are impacted. These performance measures were evaluated using the entire historical record. Further information is provided below. Maximum Pool Descent Maximum Pool Descent is defined as the maximum deviation of the pool at Quabbin Reservoir below a specific target pool level at a specific water demand. It is indicated as the elevation of the pool at the maximum deviation, during the most severe drought. The trigger planning study recommended limiting this descent to 470 ft since at that elevation the reservoir ceases to function as a single unit. At a demand of approximately 250 mgd, Quabbin's maximum descent would still be above 500 feet, well above the level at which performance could be affected, and within its normal operating range. Further, at varying demands from 240 mgd to 280 mgd, Quabbin Reservoir would stay above elevation 490. Drought Actions Drought Actions are defined as the number of months that Quabbin Reservoir levels remain in each of the stages of the MWRA Drought Management Plan. The Plan has actions associated with various categories related to percent full status of Quabbin Reservoir. The various stages consist of below normal, drought warning, as well as Stage I through Stage 3 drought emergencies. The Table below summarizes MWRA's Drought Management Plan, including Target Use Reductions and MWRA response activities. TIX 4 Stage Normal Operation Below Normal Drought Warning Drought Emergency Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Trigger Range (Quabbin % Full) 80-100 65-90 50-75 38-60 25-38 Below 25% Target Water Use Reduction 0 Previous year's use (Voluntary) 5% (Voluntary) (Mandatory Restrictions) 10% 15% 30% The Figure below illustrates the impact of demand on the number of months in Drought Emergency Stages 1, 2, and 3. 100 - 90 • 0) 0 Stage 1 0) 80 - ® Stage 2 - 70 • s CD O - r- - C 40 -tn-1994; -Comm-ittee recommended 24 months in 30 - _threshald C O Current aC 10 • - ed level ,an ) F EL 220 230 240 250 260 270 260 290 300 310 320 Demand (mgd) This figure shows that at a demand of 240 mgd, customers would experience one drought Stage 1 months. If the additional demands of Reading and other known prospective applicants are considered, and a 2030 demand of approximately 250 mgd is assumed, the number of drought emergency months would increase by three months for a total of 4 drought emergency months. This is also indicated in the table below. The analysis includes hydrological data for the drought of the sixties. This single drought is responsible for all the drought actions during the period of record. 5 s Demand 240 mgd 250 mgd ( 260 mgd ( 270 mgd ( 280 mgd ( 290 mgd 300 mgd Number of Months In Drought Emergency Stages Drought Drought Drought Emergency Emergency Emergency Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 1 10 10 4 5 8 24 56 69 10 0 0 (0 10 (4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demonstration of Ability to Meet All Required Releases The additional supply of water to Reading (or other known prospective applicants) would result in no perceptible effect on stream flow for the length of the rivers below MWRA withdrawal. Varying water demand at the levels associated with their cumulative demands has no impact on MWRA's ability to maintain required minimum stream flows. Whether MWRA system demand is 230 mgd (the baseline 2001-2005 demand), 248 mgd (baseline water demand plus projected growth plus Reading and other known prospective applicants), or 300 mgd (the level of demand in the 1980s), minimum instream flows and discharges required by the 1927 Acts of Massachusetts and 1895 Acts of Massachusetts and 1929 War Department permit are met. MWRA's controlled discharges are primarily dictated by statutorily required minimum releases and other operational practices that have been put in place to optimize water supply and water quality. For example, when Wachusett watershed yields are sufficient to maintain reservoir elevations within the normal operating range, and transfers of additional water for water quality purposes are made, additional releases from valves at the Wachusett Dam are often made to maintain adequate freeboard. These releases exceed the required minimum releases. The addition of a community to the MWRA system at the level of demand contemplated will not in itself require any change in the operation of the MWRA system and will not impact reasonable instream flow or required releases or other water uses in the Swift and Nashua River basins. Summary The admission of Reading to MWRA was extensively addressed in the MEPA and ITA process for Reading's admission to MWRA as a partially supplied community. It was found that reasonable in-stream flow in the river from which the water is transferred would be maintained. MWRA believes that an additional 1.67 mgd of demand from Reading should not change this conclusion. In fact, even with this new demand, MWRA would be is transferring less water out of the basin than the amounts analyzed in previous applications for admission of new communities to the MWRA waterworks system, due to continuing and significant declines in demands from MWRA's existing service area. lga4 0 MWRA is committed to providing continued technical analysis and support as the MEPA process unfolds. Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Pam Heidell at (617) 788-1102 or myself at (617) 788-4359. Sincerely, ike Hornbrook, Chief Operating Officer Cc: Kathleen Baskin, EOEA Ted McIntire, Reading Joseph Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board Jon Beekman, SEA Pam Heidell, MWRA Stephen Estes-Smargiassi, MWRA Town of Reading ~~o s0 16 Lowell Street 63.9 a"oa0 Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us August 9, 2006 Ms. Amy Roth Mass DEP 1 Winter Street, 10th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Roth: TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 Attached with this letter are the Town of Reading's applications, in priority order, for: 1. Technical assistance funding for the planting of shade trees on south Main Street in Reading; and 2. Auto Hybrid Upgrade. Reading is a new participant in the Cities for Climate Protection Program. We have a very committed core of volunteers, and an enthusiastic Town government looking for ways to improve our environment locally, while having a positive impact on the wider environment. We are looking at these grant programs not only as a way to promote a cleaner environment, but also as a way to make a very public statement to our community on the importance of this program. Also attached are letters 'of support from the Town of Reading's Board of Selectmen, Conservation Commission, Department of Public Works and the Chamber of Commerce who strongly support these efforts. We look forward to hearing from you on our grant application and to working with the Bureau on an ongoing basis to accomplish our mutual goals. in erely,1 N P er I. Hechen Ieikner Town Manager cc: Representative Brad Jones . Representative Patrick Natale Senator Richard Tisei 0 i0v August 3, 2006 Reading Board of Selectmen Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Board of Selectmen: 70Y f;CB" -7 A,s 11: 68 Ll C3c4 As you know, earlier this year I contacted Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner regarding a piece of legislation filed by Rep. Paul Casey on my behalf requesting that a portion of Route 28 (from Franklin St. to the North Reading line) be designated as Tolerance Road after an incredible experience I shared with Rachel, my eight year old daughter, last year. One of the purposes of the bill is to recognize the awful hatred committed against former Boston Celtic legend Bill Russell back in the 60's while lie lived in Reading. It was very important to me to have the Town of Reading involved in this process from the beginning. I realize the acts of bigotry that took place four decades ago do not represent the feelings of all residents of Reading today. This is their opportunity to fight back and right a terrible wrong that still haunts your wonderful town and many others in the Greater Boston area. My wife and I came very close to purchasing our first home in Reading in 1996 (we ended up in Stoneham) and have many friends who live there. Over the years we've taken our two daughters to Capri Pizza, Calareso's, Christopher's, Burbank YMCA, and Imagination Station to name a few of the wonderful places that Reading offers. I'm asking that you allow the people of Reading to immediately vote on this issue concurrently with my legislation on Beacon Hill. Let the town provide Rep. Jones and Sen: Tisei with an overwhelming message of support for this landmark so they can expedite matters at The State House. Mr. Russell does so many incredible things with children and this symbol will educate not only the children of Reading but also everyone who travels on or hears about "Tolerance Road". Benjamin Franklin once said, "Let us not look back in anger, or forward in fear, but around us in awareness." Today's society needs more tolerance. Mr. Heckenbleikner informed me that there was some concern with the term tolerance, which resulted in a neutral position on the part of the Board, so I think it's important to define it to give clarity. Tolerance is defined as: a fair (free from bias or dishonesty) and permissive attitude toward those whose race, religion, beliefs etc. differ from one's own. Tolerate is defined as: to allow w/o hindrance or permit, to put up with. There is a clear difference between these two words. Tolerance indicates acceptance and respect. According to the Town of Reading Human Advisory Committee, it's role is to provide advice to the Board of Selectmen on how the community can encourage an environment of tolerance, understanding and harmonious racial, ethnic, religious, cultural and gender relations within the Town and among its citizens, prevent discrimination or the perception of discrimination on the basis of color, age, gender, religion, disability, culture, national origin, ancestry or sexual orientation within the Town or among its inhabitants and enhance its ability to mediate differences arising from the aforesaid relations. This is a perfect opportunity to enforce these rules and show the black community and others that past actions do not reflect the present attitude. When I met Mr. Russell at Fenway Park on May 25, 2006 and told him about my legislation he thanked me and said, "through giving we receive strength". Let's give the greatest winner in the history of sports and one of our great leaders something that will strengthen not just Reading but all of MA. I would like to be involved in this process to whatever extent possible and would like the opportunity to speak directly to the residents of Reading and hear any of their concerns. Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Please contact me at 617-803-3393 or at bobsansone(a,comeast.net. Sincerely, Bob Sansone Bob Sansone 22 Wilson Road Stoneham, MA 02180 Cc: Town Mgr. Hechenbleikner Human Relations Advisory Committee Rep. Jones Sen. Tisei Rep. Casey Rep. Natale Reading Community Television Reading Daily Times Chronicle gcy' Goals: Adopted February 13, 2001 Contact the Human Relations Advisorv Committee ESTABLISHMENT OF HUMAN RELATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Adopted February 13, 2001 Section - Human Relations Advisorv Committee Page 1 of 2 There is hereby established by the Board of Selectmen a nine member Human Relations Advisory Committee. The Human Relations Advisory Committee shall provide advice to the Board of Selectmen on how the community can encourage an environment of tolerance- understanding and harmonious racial, ethnic, religious, cultural and gender relations within the Town and among its citizens, prevent discrimination or the perception of discrimination on the basis of color, age, gender, religion, disability, culture, national origin, ancestry or sexual orientation within the Town or among its inhabitants and enhance its ability to mediate differences arising from the aforesaid relations. The Human Relations Advisory Committee shall: • Engage in out reach to such groups which may have suffered from or been the object of such discrimination or may perceive themselves to have been the object of the same; Provide a safe place where individuals or groups may air their concerns or complaints as to the existence of such discrimination or where concerns as to the potential existence of such discrimination within the Town or community at large or the perception thereof may be discussed; Identify perceived problems of such discrimination or human relations conflicts within the Town and be a resource or referral agency to assist the parties or mediate among the parties so as, to the extent possible, permit the resolution of the same at the local level; and • Promote and encourage understanding, tolerance and diversity and the recognition of human and civil rights in the Town and community and sponsor educational programs and the celebrations of events for that purpose The Human Relations Advisory Committee shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the Board of Selectmen. Members shall reside in the Town or have their place of business in the Town. Membership on the Human Relations Advisory Committee shall include the following: • one member shall be a member of the Board of Selectmen or its designee; • one member shall be the Chief of Police or his/her designee,; • one member shall be designated by the School Committee • http://www.ci.reading.ma.us/personnel/hrae.htin 8/3/2006 k Reading, Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pagel of 3 Reading, Massachusetts rom~vi~Cipehdtta~"theaeer6cyclopeaa ns/mapsources/index.php?params=42.52585 N -71.109939_E_type:city_region:US) Reading is a town in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, United States. The population was 23,708 at the 2000 census. Reading, Massachusetts Settled: 1639 -Incorporated: 1644 Zip Code(s): 01867- Area Code(s): 339 / 781 Official website: http://www.ci.reading.ma.us/ Location Contents e 1 Geography ■ 2 Demographics ■ 3 Community Facts ® 4 Notable figures ® 5 External links Geography Reading is located at 42°31'33"N, 71°6'35"W Location in Massachusetts .V Government County Middlesex County Form of Representative town meeting Government Executive office Town Manager Geography Area Total 9.9 miz / 25.7 kmz Land 9.9 miz / 25.71an2 Water 0.0 mil / 0.0 kmz Coordinates 42°31'32" N 71 °05'45" W (http://kvaleberg.com/extensions/mapsources/index.php? params=42_31_32_N_71_05_45_W) Elevation 129 ft / 39 m Time zone Eastern (UTC-5) Summer (DST). Eastern (UTC-4) Population Total (2000) 23708 Density 2388.3/mi2 / 922.1/km2 (http://kvaleberg.com/extensions/mapsources/index.php?params=42_31-33_N_71_6_35 W city) (42.52585, - 71.109939)GRl - According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 25.7 km2 (9.9 miz). None of the area is covered with water. Demographics As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 23,708 people, 8,688 households, and 6,437 families residing in the town. The population density was 921.8/kmz (2,388.3/miz). There were 8,823 housing units at an average density e g AS L4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading,_Massachusetts 8/3 06 ,p_ l;;-\_ Reading, Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 3 of 343.1/kM2 (888.8/miz). The racial makeup of the town was 96.47% White, 0.36% Black or African American, 0.06% Native American, 2.21% Asian, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 0.21% from other races, and 0.65% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.84% of the. population. There were 8,688 households out of which 36.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 63.5% were married couples living together, 8.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 25.9% were non- families. 22.4% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.9% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.71 and the average family size was 3.22. In the town the population was spread out with 26.3% under the age of 18, 5.1 % from 18 to 24, 29.8% from 25 to 44, 24.6% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 39 years. For every 100 females there were 93.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 88.3 males. The median income for a household in the town was $77,059, and the median income for a family was $89,076. Males had a median income of $61,117 versus $39,817 for females. The per capita income for the town was $32,888. About 1.7% of families and 2.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 2.7% of those under age 18 and 3.2% of those age 65 or over. Community Facts ® The Burbank Arena skating rink and the Bear Hill condos are built on top of decommissioned missile silos. ® Reading was an early and active participant in Boston's METCO program, which brought African- American and inner-city students from Boston to attend grades K-12. Reading's participation in the program continued without incident, even when other suburban communities started turning their backs on Boston's black student population and dropping out of the program. ® Reading is home to the Burbank Ice Area where, in July 2000, youth hockey dad Tom Junta engaged in a fight with a Lynnfield hockey dad, Michael Costin, over his son's stick practice, resulting in Costin's death. On January 11, 2002, Junta was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. ■ African American Basketball player Bill Russell lived in Reading in the 1960s next to a as station o Main Street, but later moved a more upperclass part of town. Due to his J race, vandals broke into the aketball player's home and damaged t ske townspeople. Russell le aged his property, and his residency was petitioned against by a smail group of after several ears. ® e u mg that housed t le ibrary from 1718 to i=, located at 16 Lowell Street, was founded by Andrew Carnegie. The old building (http://www.necarnegies.com/mareading.htm) is now a part of Reading Town Hall, and the Reading Public Library now resides at 64 Middlesex Avenue. e In 2005, Reading made an attempt to enter the Guinness Book of World Records by passing a library book the furthest distance in history. Though the old record would have been demolished, shoddy paperwork and bad public relations led to Guinness declining the attempt's authenticity. Notable figures ■ Reading was the birthplace (February 19, 1902) of renowned banjo player Eddie Peabody. ■ Folk musician Mark Erelli is from Reading. ® Brad Whitford, who replaced Ray Tabano (aka Crazy Raymond) as the second guitarist of Aerosmith is from Reading, Ma. s The infamous Charles Stuart, and his pregnant wife Carol DiMaiti Stuart, were both residents of Reading when he murdered her. o Moses Nichols an officer during the American Revolutionary War was born in Reading. ■ Hollywood actress JoAnne McGee (http://imdb.com/name/nm0569086/) External links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading,_Massachusetts 8/3/2006 Serving Burlington, Reading, Wakefield, Winchester, Woburn Reading ambulance involved in ::..motor vehicle accident on Montvale Ave. A.. Reading ambulance wa involved in a traffic .accident yesterday ahemoon while trans- porting a patient to Winchester Hospital. Above, a tow truck driJ ver pushes the dam aged car into the park- ing' 'tot 'of • Dunkin Donuts on Montvale Ave qn the marl ran )w reopened after this car was involved in the accident. The ambu- lance suffered minor. damage..'anil success fully. transported.' the .patient,.1 Photo by ioelirowrtphotos.cotn •'=tom Sinca 1870 r-ily 0-d Section of Route 28 from Franklin Street to North Reading line, site of racist incident 'years ago involving. Boston Celtics legend Bill Russell By PAUL FEELY think long and hard about the world we live in." Sansone wrote a letter to State Rep. Paul READING - A portion, of Route 28 (Main Casey, Senator Richard Tisei, and Gov. Mitt Street) in Reading will soon be called 'Tolerance Romney asking for a portion of Route 28 in Road', if a Stoneham man is successful in his Reading (from Franklin St. to the North Reading quest. line to be renamed Tolerance Road to recognize Stoneham resident Robert Sansone has peti- • tolerance over ignorance and to celebrate the tioned the Massachusetts Legislature to officially, importance of race relations. designate the section of Route 28 from Franklin Street up to North Reading as 'Tolerance Road', after a unique experience his daughter had while on a recent trip to Florida. Have you ever been in a situ- ation where you were a minor- . ty?" writes Sansone, while recap ping the events of that day. P g ' it x from s eakinwould be very A. letter "Statistically aI'D Robert unusual for that Sansone to happen in about his Stoneham if you are in the 95% efforts white majority. ppears 'Well imag a ovine what it be like if ' 'your were Sight years old and thousands of miles away from home, and along with your younger sister (and parents) you we're the only white children pooiside in the middle of an African American Sansone chose Main Street in Reading for the family reunion as relatives from all over the location due to terrible racist incident that he country gathered at the Ft. Lauderdale Sheraton. ' remembered. occurring there during his child- That is exactly what happened to my daughter, hood, one that involved a hero, of his, Boston Rachel and her sister'Hannah (five) last June . Celtic legend Bill Russell,.a former Reading res- (approx. 75 people poolside).' ident. "How Rachel handled that situ- ation was one of the' proudest * ROAD on page A•2 moments of my life (not just as a parent) and it really mad eDeer. lur~~s~ . foxes,::a.;; ReadingA..... < x`18} . .del _-...•,,~fi, `xz <s •-:,'9':: Commu, ni sprit was ah.~~%e and weA. at `Night b-e ore the Fourth' event Dear Editor, All those who came down to l(arit Park on the evening of July Ord saw firsthand that communi- ty spirit is alive and well in Reading. For the second year the "Night Before the Fourth Committee" hosted a movie night, and this time new festivities were added. .The committee wishes to thank all; those that helped create a great event. Eddie Dee put on a display of diverse musical talent. He kept. thii audience entertained, with 11.0 hilt sets. Creative Arts played a big role as: Jennifer and Dennis Hart patiently and expertly painted faces for nearly three hours. ' The Friends of Reading Rei:reation joined us this year, sporsoring the music arranging for many of our business part- ners, and providing a volunteer staff. roses P To-the Editor: - Deaf- Fellow. Reading P.esidents: Have you traveled north from Burlington on 128 recently? Do you wonder what all that construction is? Guess what? It is a "Life Style Malt" and only four miles from the proposed Mdison-Wesley site! ask you to contemplate IIIAT traffic and retail com- nefitinn vis-a-vis the A-W site. Charlie McDonald was on hand with his telescope giving astron- omy lessons and tips. . Of course there would be no outdoor movie without Reading Community Television (RCr'V) which provided not only the pro- jection equipment, but also the expertise to put it all together. Local businesses contributing include The Home Depot, provid- ing bug spray and Jordan's Furniture with popcorn. Slush .was brought by The Inside Scoop and holiday trinkets came cour- tesy of The Hot Spot and RCTV. As the night came to a close many of the neighbors stayed at the park, helping us. break down the screen, sound and projection systems and decorations. . It was a great night in Reading and we hope to keep this new hol- iday tradition going and,growing. Ace Foulds, Alan 'Foulds and Phil Rushworth - The Night Before the Fourth Committee .irY.=Square one million dollar tax rev- enue??? Remember that the devel- opers are BUSINESSMEN first and foremost. Do you really believe that their best interests are those of the Town of Reading? Use that good old-fash- 'ioned New England common sense to guide'you to the con- clusion that a "Life Style Mall" at the A-W site is a los- ing proposition for, our town, from everyperspective.- Continued from Page Al ~ 1 7 Sime5 CJruide FRIDAY, JULY 7, 2006 eRoad "I started thinking about my Gold Yledal for the USA in the fast experience regarding peo- 1956 Olympics and NBA ple of another race that really Championships in Boston. How stood out,' writes Sansone. "It humiliating! wasn't a personal experience "9s you can well imagine but a story I heard as a child ' Rachel was very disturbed by that made me very sad. It was that story as were the dozens of about the awful hatred that for- people in Reading we visited mer Boston Celtic legend Bill one day at the Reading High Russell faced in Boston and School field and at Dandelion's specifically Reading during his on Main Street. Those people career in the 50's and 6o's, we met overwhelmingly sup. Bigots broke into his Reading ported our efforts and signed a home and put racist graffiti on petition for Tolerance Road. An his walls and defecated on his email of support was also sent bed because of his skin color. to the State House by Reading . Then when he tried to move Town Manager Peter from his home to a new home Hechenbleikner, who has been across town, some neighbors extremely cooperative through- filed a petition trying to block out.this process.". the move. When that failed, The bill, known as HOUSE. other neighbors. banded togeth- No. 4971, reads as follows: • er to try to purchase the home "By Mr. Casey of Winchester, that Russell wanted to buy. I petition (subject to Joint Rule subsequently learned that white '12) of Robert Sansone that the security guards at the Boston Department of Highways be Garden would actually ask Mr. directed to designate Route 28 Russell for 'his identification as "Glory Road" in celebration' before allowing him into : the of racial harmony, diversity and, building before his Celtic tolerance. Transportation." games.. This was after he The'requested name of-the already won two NCAA ' road has since been changed to Championships fbr the "Tolerance, Road' from 'Glory University of San Francisco, a Road'. Audit:: State. not' using license The following list shows a timeline for action on the bill thus far: 04/24/06 H Referred to the committee on House Rules -HJ 1`101 . 05/15/06 H Reported. referred to the committee on Joint Rules, reported, rules sus- pended and referred to the com- mittee on Transportation -HJ 1646 05/18/06 S Senate concurre -SJ 17°.A Public Hearing date Jun 1 am at 11:00 in Room B-1 : 06/21/06 H Bill reporte favorably by committee an referred to the committee o. House Steering, 'Policy an Scheduling -HJ 1785 ®Capsulte Continued from Page Al. problems to be unbearable. . A plane flown by Harry R. Wheeler of North Reading was forc; to make an emergency landing in Melrose. The fag they had beei flying through had been too thick to see, but when he started. t land his engine died. Wheeler and his passenger were not injurei in the accident, but the plane was not in good condition. 100 Years, Ago (1906) Hotel kitchen goes up in fai, proprietor ok July 7,1906. Ida E. Burleigh accidentally caused a kettle of ho fat to burst into flames at the Hotel Elmwood. Soon the entire rooii was afire, and thanks to Frank H. Martin, the proprietor Ida sur vived the fire. Frank used a fire extinguisher to eliminate thi flames, and Ida was able to escape with only burned arms. 71ii hotel kitchen was completely destroyed. Mr. Kennedy, the owner of a chain of grocery stores, was drivi6i in his car when an electric car hit it, causing his leg to break in twi places: The three men traveling with him were able to jump out o the car before they were injured. ' A retired Miss Eliza P. Hood died of smoke inhalation after threat enou h a ainst deadbeats fire began in her sister's home. The oil stove, which had been burn g g ing in the kitchen caught fire and was put out by George D. BOSTON (AP) - Enforcers of state Auditor Joseph DeNucci's Putnam, captain of the No. Main St. Hose. Despite Miss Hood's olc the state's deadbeat parent office. age, she had been considered in'normal health before the incident. laws are failing'to use often Delinquent parents in ' ' enough one of most powerful Massachusetts owe about $1.5. NOTICE OF MORTGAGEE'S These premises will be sold tools in their box of incentives billion total in, unpaid child , and SALE OF REAL ESTAT& and conveyed subject -to - the threat of a loss of a dri- support. . with the benefit of all rights, ver's license, according to an "License ,suspension should By virtue and in execution of rights of way, restrictions, ease' audit released Thursday. only be used as a last resort, . the Power of Sale contained in a ments, right of ways, covenants Under state law, any parent because it could deprive a par-. ' certain mortgage given' by liens or claims in the nature of who is at least 56 days delin- ent of the means of getting to Beverly Walsh to Champion liens, improvements, public quent in his child support pay- work," DeNucci said In a state. Mortgage Company, Inc., dated assessments, any ; 'and., all ments - or who owes more than ment. "However, there are , unpaid taxes, tax titles; tax liens,. May 24, 2001 and recorded with $500 in back child support . can many cases in which a warning . the Middlesex County (Southern* water and sewer liens, and any have his driver's license 'sus- can get the attention of a deli n- District) District of the Land other municipal assessments of pended. • quent parent." Court tiled as Document No. liens or existing ,encumbranceg. ' But during a single two.: ' h ' The'--. : 'Child Support . -of record which are irf.foiee•attd, 1164530 as noted on Certificate. vn : pylori X h able; li month period, t e state s Child.: e' t f t S Di Enforcement Division falls j c of Title No.. 204980 of which `are app j; m ~1geQ t, arizorA say d 2 i rt :'over Gt M , O orcem uppor En . n vislo r 4 , letters'to OnT sent but warnin .under the state Department of• • - -J_-- , , tamp on. o . moreQage, gage,; blf ( 4 Ire" 'a Division of Key'Ba)tk;. National. ,not Wererice'"1Gyl q 4 g _ r ni f6a nuarl'v 27 ((00: Tin,,.. f " ' li Association,successor .ta this, ; tlons;;ti"easements- prove•i n, successor "i . mon • n evenue 'Mxiryimelii)rntticle FRIDAY, JULY 7, 2006 A15 'I i 7 - Thy story belmd tl~~ st~ry 0-1 1~ng To_rleanc~ Road' bear Editor, Tolerance Road Have you ever been in a situa. tion'where you were a minority? Sfatutically speaking it would be yerg.unusualfor that to happen .to Stoneham if you are in the 9M white majority. -Well imagine what it would be Uke'if you were eight years old and. thousands of miles away from home, and along with your younger sister (and parents) you were the only white children loolside in the middle of an Rfi^ican American family reimfon as relatives from all over the country gathered at the Ft: Lauderdale Sheraton. That' is- exactly what happen to my daughter Rachel and her sister Hannah (five) last June (approx. 75 people poolside). = How Rachel handled that situ- ation, was one of the proudest moments of my life (not just as a parent) and it really made me think long and hard about the world we live in. It prompted a letter to State Rep. Paul Casey, Senator Richard Tisei, and Gov, Mitt Romney asking for a por- ~ my Padula earns l ighest honors at . Skidmore. College SARAl'OGA SPRINGS, NY Amy Padula, Class of 2006 at Skidmore College, earned highest honors for the spring semester. She is the daughter of Alan and barbara Padula of Hanscom Avenue, Reading. Highest honors are award- ed for a quality point ratio of During my pursuit of support for this project, I was fortunate enough to meet with John Pearson, President of the Big Brother Association of NMA Bay (I had the wonderful experience of being a big brother for seven years during the oo's & 9o's). Because of his position, he has been fortunate enough to meet 41r. 'Russell on a couple of occa- sions, as W. Russell is a Board Member of the National Mentoring Partnership. 'Mr. Pearson offered me the opportu. nity to hear Bill Russell speak at a mentoring breakfast at Fenway Park in May.. After the event was over, I introduced myself to Mr. Russel( and told him about Rachel's experience and my con- sequential project. tie was very gracious and thanked me and said "through giving we receive strength". I responded.by saying "right now I feel' incredibly strong", shook his hand and thanked him for making an impact on my life since his expe- riences opened my eyes and introduced me to the world of tot. erance. Isn't this something you would want for your children, especial- ly with the issues of immigration and the challenges today's soci- ety presents. To learn more about tolerance, please visit www.toIeranc.e,org <http://www.telerance.org> . Another part of this is the hopeful implementation of a stu- dent exchange program next year at Rachel's :school, St. Patrick's in Stoneham with Our Lady of Perpetual Help Mission Grammar in Roxbury where the son of two co-workers attends. This will give children of differ- ent backgrounds a chance to embrace their similarities and learn'about their differences. A woman named Sachi Ferris, who founded vrxw,bordercrossers.or <http://vnvw.bordercrossers.or > in NY, has offered to come u to Boston to meet with boL schools to help get the prograr started since her organization already has .300 student involved. My final objective is to. have legislation passed to incorporate the teaching of tolerance into the educational curriculum of MA. I have already met with an aide it the Committee of Education. ai the State House about this. and hopefully there will be many more discussions in the near future Efforts like this require team= work, The future of tomorrow, our children of today, `need our. help. Please contact Rep. Paut Casey: • Rep.PaulCasey®Hou.State.MX .US, 619,722.23130 , - Rep. Patrick . • Natale. Rep.PatrickNatale@ Hou.State.M, A.US, 617-722-2810 Rep. .,Bradley ;':';;Jones: Rep.BradleyJones ®huu.state.m.l a.us , 617-722-2100; and Senator Richard Tise Richard.Tisel0state.m5.us., 617.% 722.1206 or visit http://www.mas's.gO'V.2 is/ and ask them to support.House, No. 4971; Toler ance.Road.'' a. We are veryfortunate to be'rep-- resented. by these. quality indi--"? viduals, i can say that unequfv orally firsthand, Please feel free to send'me a,'. copy of your email along, with,, any questions to tolydacom-„i cast net <mailtoitolyda: co - rn Sincerely, Bob Sansonb' ;C.;• ?°.;;;I 2Z Wilson Road Stoneham, MA,o2180: pM AUT0WOo771 ►1t~Y,170.Y(}p', Full Service Auto Repair . _ 7, gig tion of. Route 28 in Reading (from Franklin St. to the North Reading line; reason explained below) to be renamed Tolerance Road to recognize tolerance over ignorance and to celebrate the importance of race relations. Rep. Casey filed House No. 49^1 and it has already been initially approved by the House and Senate, resulted in me testifying at the State House (with Rachel seated by my side) in front of the Joint Committee on Transportation, which issued a favorable recommendation and moved it to the House Steering, Policy and Scheduling Committee, where it presently sits. Hopefully, with the contin- ued cooperation of the State House it will become law before the end of this session. Rachel's initial feelings were of uncertainty. She felt differ- ent, like she didn't belong and asked it she could go back to the room. After a short conversa- tion about how it didn't matter what someone's skin color was and how happy everyone must be to see relatives they haven't seen in years or maybe ever, she was property educated and two hours later I had to drag her away Skidmore recognizes acad- emic excellence in several ways. In addition to making the Dean's list (for achieving highest honors or honors), a student may be elected to the Periclean Honor Society or to the Skidmore chapter of Phi Beta Kappa. Founded in 19o3, Skidmore College is a coeducational, liberal arts college that enrolls approximately 2,400 student,. The college grants from the pool and dozens of her new friends. (Note: Tolerance is defined as the fair (w!o bias) and permissive attitude toward those whose race, religion, beliefs, etc., differ from one's own. ' This is not to be confused with tolerate, which means to allow w/o hindrance, permit or put up with.) While that was happening I befriended a little boy, who couldn't have been, older than seven, as he struggled his away around the side of pool. Several times I reached in and grabbed his arm as he let go and started to go under. We ended up on the same elevator back to our rooms and as fate would have it, we got off on the same floor. As his family went one way down the hall and ours the other, he pro- ceeded to turn around and yell out to me that he would see me at the pool tomorrow. I explained regrettably that we were leaving in the morning. That prompted an exchange I will never forget. He put up his little hand and said "bye friend". I did the same. It was one of those moments that will last for- ever. Before going to sleep that night, I played the events of the day over and over in my head and thought about the incredible lesson Rachel learned. Something she could never learn in Stoneham. I also thought about that little boy and the won- derful exchange we had. Then I started thinking about my first experience regarding people of another race that really stood out . It wasn't a personal expe- rience but a story I heard as a child that made me very sad. It was about the awful hatred that forrmr Rn<tnn Celtic ipapr"i Rin home and put racist graffiti on his walls and defecated on his .bed because of his skin color. Then when he tried to move from his home to a new home acrosn town, some neighbors riled a petition trying, to block the move. When that faded,.other neigh- bors banded together to try to purchase the home that Russell wanted to buy. I subsequently learned that white security guards at the Boston Garden would actually ask Mr. Russell for his identification before allowing him into the building before his Celtic games. 'This was after he already won two NCAA Championships for the University of San Francisco, a Gold Medal for the USA in the 1956 Olympics and NBA Championships in Boston. * Ilow humiliating! . As you can well imagine Rachel was very disturbed by that story as were the dozens of people in Reading we visited one day at the Reading High School field and at Dandelion's on Main Street. Those people we met overwhelmingly supported our efforts and signed a petition for -Tolerance Road. An email of support was also sent to the State House by Reading Town Manager Peter flechenbleikner, who has been extremely cooper- ative throughout this process. (I am also pleased to say that Reading High. School partici- pates in. a METCO program to bring some diversity into town.) MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION August 16, 2006 Ms. Camille W. Anthony Board of Selectmen Chair Town of Reading 16 Lowell St. Reading, MA 01867 Dear Ms. Anthony, Uc &t ONE WINTHROP SQUARE, BOSTON, MA 02110 617-426-7272 • 800-882-1498 . fax 617-695-1314 . www.mma.org 20136' 111!G 17 AM I(: 141 The Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) is pleased to announce an exciting new venture - the MMA's Statewide Essay Contest for 6th Graders. This new initiative is designed to raise public awareness, promote the attributes of good local government and encourage future leaders of Massachusetts to take an active interest in their community activities. "If I were elected leader of my community, I would make a difference by..." What: The MMA will launch a pilot essay contest this fall with plans to broaden the contest to every community in 2007. The MMA invites your community to consider being one of 50 initial cities and towns to participate in this contest. We are sending this letter to the chief municipal official in each community and the first 50 communities to respond will participate in our pilot year. The full program will be expanded to all 351 communities next year. When: Complete the enclosed commitment sheet and return it to the MMA by September 5. In September, the MMA will send you and your school leaders an essay contest kit, which includes instructions and materials. We will be asking your school leaders to distribute the essay materials to your 6th graders. Students may also access all contest materials and a study guide to local government via our website: www.mma.org. Why: The essay contest will be fun for students and demands little time or preparation from the teacher. It is viewed as an independent student project but can be incorporated into a teacher's lesson plan. The MMA is available as a resource to any teacher, school or municipal official. Who: All sixth graders in your community are invited to participate. The MMA will award prizes to the first place winner and regional standouts at the MMA's Annual Meeting & Trade Show, January 12-13, in Boston. Every student who participates will be eligible for a prize. All teachers whose students participate will be entered into a random drawing for a prize. The contest deadline for students is October 27th. If you have any questions, please contact MMA Member Services Coordinator, Ellen Stoolmacher, at (800) 882- 1498 x161. We are excited to engage and encourage students to think creatively about local government. We hope you will join our effort by signing up your community today! Thank you for your time. Sincerely. Geoffrey Beckwith Executive Director Massachusetts Municipal Association Mayor Mary Clare Higgins President Massachusetts Municipal Association cm,:, E011 Community Leadership Commitment Active involvement of elected officials and the chief administrative officer is key to the contest's success. You are the main catalysts of your communities. We'll count on you to publicize the essay contest, generate enthusiasm for local government, and help make one of your 6th graders the possible first winner of the MMA's statewide essay contest! Your support is crucial in several key areas: • Publicize the MMA's essay contest in your community through working with your superintendent, principals and teachers. Alert the PTA, school board, and community groups. • Promote the contest im community and school newsletters. • Visit your 6th graders to promote the MMA essay contest. Talk about community service, local government commitment to citizens and the importance of good leaderslup. A classroom visit from a municipal official has a profound impact on the quality of information students and teachers possess about local government. • Announce the community's participation in the essay contest to local newspapers and raise awareness of the important services local government provides Massachusetts citizens. (Salltple press releases and letters to the editor will be provided by the MMAJ • Award a certificate of participation to each entrant (blank certificates provided by MMA) as a way to connect your community to the contest and students. (Optional) I Commit My Community TODAY! As the chief municipal official of my community, I commit my city or town and will encourage our 6th graders to participant in the MMA's 2006 Statewide Essay Contest. Please Print: Name: Address: Title: Fax: Phone: Email: Date: Fax back to the MMA By SEPTEMBER 5: (617) 695-1314 Questions? Contact Ellen Stoohnacher at the MMA at (800) 832-1498 x 161 g ej 20d A;UIG 17 Art 11: t 4 00 haystack d. Reading, A 01061 August 16, 2006 To the Editor: I have been firmly opposed to a MUM mail at the A- LO THIS!! The obvious and most feasible solution Is still avalla and that is to deny the zoning change. This would be the logical decision and accordingly, l urge the to governors to deny the zoning change for the AM p e n. since Dear Fellow Residents G~~~LS I am writing regarding the proposed development at the Addison Wesley site. I am a long time Reading resident and let me start by saying: I do not have any affiliation with the developer. A point often missed when these letters are written or phone calls are made. I am against the current development as proposed by W/S Development (Park Square at Reading). We are at point in our town history where a piece of property, once developed, will have lasting implications for generations of Reading residents. The fact that the developer does not have the proper zoning gives us a unique opportunity to express or, concerns about such issues as land use, traffic impact, mitigation and financial considerations. An Addison Wesley Working Group (AWWG) was formed to address these such issues. The AWWG is comprised of members of the Board of Selectmen, members of the Community Planning and Development Committee (CPDC) and members of the community who were considered both proponents and opponents of the plan set forth by W/S Development. The mission of the working group was straightforward: 1) Advise the Board of Selectmen on the community's view of the appropriate development for the Addison Wesley site. 2) Once certain criteria had been established, have the property owner and/or developer respond to the community vision of the appropriate development of the site. 3) Evaluate the property owner /developer's response and recommend to the board of selectmen whether the community should move forward with rezoning based on their response. Before the working group was formed the developer was proposing a development consisting of 320,000 square feet or retail, 70,000 square feet of commercial and roughly 50,000 square feet of residential. After many hours and weeks of work by the AWWG, a document was formed that could be used as a guideline for any developer when trying to ascertain what specific criteria was in the best interest of the community at large. This document was forwarded to the developer. It is important to note that although there was no consensus by the AWWG as to an exact figure of allowable retail development, there were clearly a range of opinions discussed. The average of this range was 188,750 to 235,000 square feet of retail. On August 9th, the AWWG had the chance to meet with the developer. W/S Development was able to respond to the criteria set forth in the AWWG document and present their latest proposal. This proposal consisted of 320,000 square feet or retail, 70,000 square feet of commercial and roughly 50,000 square feet of residential. That's right, it was the same proposal that the developer had presented prior to the formation of the AWWG. Actually, it was worse. The AWWG set criteria of a maximum of three restaurants with liquor licenses to be as far away from residential homes as possible. The developer came to the meeting asking for six restaurants and even going so far as to put a restaurant behind houses on Curtis Street. The AWWG set criteria for a 50-foot landscaped buffer. The developer's proposal did not change from his original 25-foot landscaped buffer. The average range of retail (188,750 to 235,000 square feet) was not even discussed. The developer has stated at the meeting and through various letters that they were of the opinion that most of the criteria in the AWWG document was met. In fact, every time a specific number was given by the AWWG that was not in the developer's original proposal, the developer missed that number. By agreeing to issues of lesser importance, the developer thought he could take a pass when it comes to the most important issues. By the developer agreeing with such issues as store hours, placement of lighting, garbage pickup and delivery times they can not take a pass when it comes gj 1 • to density, traffic, buffers and overall size of the project. The latter being the very issues that affect our quality of life in Reading. So why did the developer choose this course? It became apparently clear to me during their presentation that they are in a development crisis with what's going on at the Colonial in Lynnfield. The upcoming development at the Colonial in Lynnfield, as they stated, will include a 600,000 square foot Lifestyle center. This is without a doubt their competition for tenants and traffic, competition that makes no distinction for quality of life issues for Reading residents. The developer even stated, if allowed, they would want more than six restaurants. Can you envision any residential neighborhood in Reading with six restaurants in their backyard? This would make it the densest area of alcohol serving establishments in the town, almost doubling the current number of liquor licenses. Not to mention that these establishments would be accessed through residential neighborhoods. Late night restaurant and bar crowds exiting onto our streets would be a common occurrence. I for one would rather drive to the new Lifestyle center at Colonial in Lynnfield then bring the estimated additional 18,000 to 22,000 vehicles trips per day onto the streets of Reading. During the holiday season, it will be a pleasure to drive back to Reading from the traffic that will certainly be clogging the streets on either side of us at the new center in Lynnfield and the 180,000 square foot Lifestyle center at Wayside Commons in Burlington. Wouldn't it be nice to retain the qualities of Reading that attracted us to buy our homes here by being one of the remaining north shore towns that hasn't been overdeveloped by the newest fad in retail shopping? Although not part of the working group procedures, certain members of the AWWG also spent the time to research similar Lifestyle center locations. Seven different similar Lifestyle centers were compared. A spreadsheet was developed that stated the obvious: on a per acre basis, based on the amount of retail square footage the developer is proposing (320,000), the Addison Wesley site is the biggest Lifestyle center per comparable acre developed. This is such an important finding because now you can compare apples to apples when it comes to Lifestyle centers. If Addison Wesley is developed as proposed it will be bigger, on a per acre basis, than Hingham MA, Canton CT, Bow NH, Burlington MA, Dedham MA, Dedham MA with cinema and office, Millbury MA and Wayland MA. Keeping in mind that the Addison Wesley site has one point of entrance and exit you can start to see my concern about the size of the proposed development. I would suggest that a true sense of size could be obtained by taking a ride to the new Lifestyle center being built in Burlington (Wayside Commons). The proposed development at Addison Wesley is twice as big. Can we do better? I do know that, contrary to what the developer has said, other interested parties have contacted the landowner (Pearson). One of these parties being in the 55 and older housing industry and another one being a mixed use developer. If W/S Development should choose leave, I would hope Pearson has had the chance to hear our concerns and would begin communication with developers that enhance our quality of life not diminish it. Peter Lattanzi Jr. Ash Hill Road ti "AS 190e /'"~sr G 1 c EcS READING DOWNTOWN STEERING COMMITTEE, Inc August 11,2006 To: Corporate Officers, Directors and active DSC Members. Subject: Notice of Annual Meeting The Annual Meeting of the Corporation will be held at noon on Wednesday August 23, 2006 in the Town Hall Conference Room. Luncheon will be served. Selectman Liason Camille Anthony, Town Manager Peter Heckenbleikner, the new Town Engineer George Zambouras and Town Planner Chris Reilly have been invited. The planned agenda is: Call to Order. Peter Simms, President. Treasures's Report. John Crosby, Treasurer.; Election of Directors: (see attached) xl= Three directors are up for re-election this year: John Crosby Virginia Adams o' Ron Boucher Election of officers. Old Business - Review of past year's activity - Streetscape status and Schedule - Town Engineer New Business - Plans and programs for the next year - Active Town developments - Chris Reilly. - Anticipated Town Changes - Peter H. Adjournment John H. Russell, Clerk of the Corporation. 91 Spruce Rd. Reading, MA 01867 Tel: (781) 944-9229 e-mail: jhrx642@comcast.net ?J 0 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Historical Commission Town of Reading Legal Notice HISTORICAL COMMISSION (781) 942-6661 Fax (781) 942-9070 This is to serve notice that the Reading Historical Commission, under the authority and requirements of Section 5.13 Demolition of Structures of Potential Historical Significance of the General By-Laws for the Town of Reading, Massachusetts, shall hold a public hearing on the demolition of the Potentially Significant Structure, as defined in Section 5.13.2.4, at 75 Pleasant St. Under the requirements of Section 5.13.3.3, a positive Initial Determination was made as to significance by the Historical Commission. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:30 PM, in the Berger Room at Reading Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street. Please direct public inquiry to Chris Reilly, Town Planner in the Community Development office. Kathryn M. Greenfield, Chairman Reading Historical Commission ?1 0 LICis Hechenbleikner, Peter From: peter.t.bowman@yerizon.com Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 11:16 AM To: peter.t.bowman@verizon.com Subject: Verizon's Proposal Dear Municipal Official: We understand that Comcast is soliciting municipal officials to protect cable monopolies by opposing limited changes to existing regulations that would bring cable competition to Massachusetts consumers faster. Verizon's proposal with the Cable Division of the Department of Telecommunications and Energy asks that municipalities make a decision on competitive cable franchises within a set time limit. We've suggested that the licensing process can be accomplished in 90 days. Under this proposal, a municipality's authority to manage rights of way, collect franchise fees and negotiate other franchise terms and conditions including local access channels would remain unchanged. It's no surprise that some would oppose competition. In communities throughout the U.S. where there is video competition, cable rates are plummeting. Every day the cable monopolies keep us out of the market is a great day for them, and a bad day for consumers. A recent study showed that by delaying cable competition, Bay State consumers lose out on $165M a year in savings on their cable bills. Verizon continues to work diligently under current rules to obtain local franchises, and we know local officials want cable competition for their residents. But we also know there's reasonable improvements that can be made to make this process more productive for competitors and communities alike. Please put consumers first and resist the call to support cable monopolies. Sincerely, Peter T. Bowman Vice President - External Affairs MA/Ri 1 9X O Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter r From: Jay Lenox Ulenox41 @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:05 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Fw: Thank you Original Message From: Jav Lenox To: cwanthonvO-ci.read ina.ma.us ; btafova anci.readina.ma.us ; ibonazolifti.readina.ma.us Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:02 AM Subject: Thank you Camille Anthony, James Bonazoli, Ben Tafoya: Thank you for demonstrating strong leadership at Wednesday night's Working Group Meeting and showing concern for abutters and the Town of Reading. It was very important for the members of our community to know that our elected officials are willing to stand up to multi-million dollar developers and to do what is right for the town of Reading. As demonstrated, once again at Wednesday's August 9th Working Group meeting, W/S Development clearly does not respect the values of the town of Reading. They continue to employ deceptive and underhanded practices to generate support for their dense retail development with the intent of making as much money as possible for themselves. I hope we can continue to work together as a community to bring the best possible development to the Addison Wesley/ Pearson site. Thank you for showing your support. Catherine Gleason 8/15/2006 g~. Hechenbleikner, Peter From: RRRED [info@rrred.org] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:38 PM To: Town Manager; Reilly, Chris; Reading - Selectmen Cc: Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us; Rep. Brad leyJones@hou.state.ma.u s; Rep.PatrickNatale@hou.state.ma.us Subject: Park Square at Reading Attachmen ts: ReadingLetter-to-Editor SD 8-14.doc Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner, Selectmen, and others, Page 1 of 1 I am forwarding to you a letter regarding my thoughts on the proposed Park Square at Reading project. I think that this will be a great project for the town as it will add tremendous tax revenue to our town coffers, it will increase home values, will provide over 1,000 permanent jobs, and will increase our quality of life as it will be a tremendous amenity for all of our residents. Please read my attached letter which has further details on my thoughts on this subject. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Susan DiGiovanni 34 Chute Street Reading, MA 01867 gr*1 0 8/14/2006 Peter Hechenbleikner August 12, 2006 Town Of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Fellow Reading Residents, Town Officials, and Others, I am writing to you regarding the Park Square at Reading project. I am a long time Reading resident and I am strongly in favor of this development as I believe that it would be great for the Town of Reading in many ways. I have spoken with numerous people throughout our town and from these discussions I know that this project has widespread support. Unfortunately, despite this widespread support, I am afraid that this development may get derailed by the words and actions of just a few. The developer (W/S Development Associates) has been working hard on this project for two years now. They originally put together a mixed use development consisting of 400,000 square feet of specialty retail space and 40,000 square feet of second floor office space, but due to neighborhood concerns they downsized the project and reapportioned the space to the current size of 320,000 square feet of specialty retail space and a 70,000 square foot health and wellness center (to be located on the second floor). As many of you know, the Town has put together a Working Group to address various parameters of this project. The Working Group has been working hard and they have given much feedback to.the developer. The developer took this feedback and incorporated it into the project, and they are in agreement with 95% of the parameters that the Working Group came up with. Last Wednesday the developer gave a presentation to the Working Group and others in which they tried to address the 3 or 4 areas in which they were not yet in agreement. Some members of the Working Group and members of our own Board of Selectmen proceeded to lambaste the developer for only discussing the various points of disagreement and for not outlining the numerous points of agreement. Rather than taking up valuable time simply stating what they had agreed upon, the developer tried to be efficient in their presentation by only spending time on what still needed to be agreed upon This developer has worked diligently and earnestly and residents of this Town should be outraged at the actions that they have been faced with. Regarding retail square footage, the Working Group originally told the developer to come in with "their best plan (i.e. smallest size)" so that there would not be any future haggling, and when the developer did just that (reducing their retail square footage by 80,000 square feet), the project opponents keep asking them to make it smaller and smaller. Who isn't being earnest in this scenario? Every week the project opponents come up with another reason why this project is "bad" for the Town of Reading. Initially, opponents kept saying that the design of the shopping center was great, but that the traffic would never work. Once the developer's traffic engineer designed roadway improvements to facilitate the traffic to and from the center and his findings were reinforced by the Town's own traffic engineer (who said that not only did these improvements provide good traffic flow but they actually make the intersection safer than it is today), the project opponents said that this was "just another strip center". Now the project opponents are touting crime as a reason not to support this center. Give me a break. Those Whole Foods shoppers will be a real threat to society and I am sure that we'll have to watch out for massive crime waves coming from the families buying books at the Barnes & Noble. The Home Depot Shopping center has been open for a while now, and I don't see that part of town turning into the Wild, Wild West. 94J~ (2) Alternatives. The hotel market is dead and the office building market is barely breathing. That leaves two alternatives, retail or high density housing. If there were other viable alternatives for sites such as these, then the town would have taken advantage of these other alternatives on their own land site which was developed into the Home Depot/Jordan's property. Those against the project will tell you that high density 40B housing is not a "real threat", but once again they are mistaken. Under Massachusetts 40B laws, either a Town has 10% of its housing stock as affordable units or it doesn't. Right now, Reading has 675 units of affordable housing, which leaves it 253 units shy of the 10% mark. Furthermore, many other towns along Route 128 have already surpassed the 10% affordable housing mark (including Burlington, Lexington, Bedford, Peabody, and Salem), making those towns that haven't attained the 10% affordable housing mark (such as Reading), even bigger targets in the eyes of 40B developers. Additionally, the current owner of the property (Pearson Education) has gone on record as saying that they have been approached by various 40B developers who have actually made them offers on the property in hopes of building an affordable apartment complex on the back 9 acres of the Addison Wesley Site. The project opponents would also have you believe that 40B projects have a maximum size of 300 units under new 40B housing laws. Tell that to the neighbors of Woburn's 781 unit Kimball Court development whose owner is currently petitioning to add another 150 units to its property. Tell that to the neighbors of the Archstone project on Cambridge Street in Woburn which was approved for 540 housing units, and whose approval was just reaffirmed by the Superior Court. As I stated earlier in my letter. Park Sauare at Reading will be a great nroiect for the Town of Reading. but I am trulv fearful that a small minority is going to derail this nroiect which a strong maioritv of the Town truly wants. Park Square at Reading has a chance to be a great development that will add tremendous tax revenue to our town coffers, increase home values, will provide over 1,000 permanent jobs, and that will be a tremendous amenity for our residents. Let's not have this development derailed by the continuous actions of a small group of people. Sincerely Susan DiGiovanni 34 Chute Street Reading, MA 01867 gam. Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter n From: andreagarb@comcast.net Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 11:08 PM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Disturbing email Attachments: rostoff.doc Dear Board of Selectmen and Town Manager, I have attached a very disturbing email I received that originated from W/S Development representative Mr. Rick Rostoff. I believe this speaks to the professionalism and ethics of this developer and its agents hired to secure this project on their behalf. Mr. Rostoff attacks the BOS as well as members of the community who have a legal right to express concerns on this or any other town related matter. I do not believe that any developer who continually resorts to tactics such as these should be welcomed into our community. Andrea Garbarino 781-944-2709 IV. l• 8/15/2006 Nancy and Joe, Hi. I am the guy that called you around 6:00 P.M. on Saturday. I am sorry if I disturbed you during dinner time. I work as an advisor to the developer of Park Square at Reading and I had chatted with you once before. I don't know if you saw Wednesday night's meeting regarding Park Square at Reading, so I am writing to update you on W/S Development's presentation to the working group and the accompanying aftermath. In actuality, it was not the best presentation that W/S has ever given. That was mainly due the fact that they made a tactical presentation error. Since they were in agreement with 95% of the items that the Working Group came up with, W/S Development decided to focus their presentation on the 3 or 4 things that they were not in agreement with and/or that were still unsettled. In light of that, they started out their presentation by simply. stating that they were in agreement with 95% of the items on the Working Group document. They then went into the 3 or 4 items that were not yet in agreement on: 1) the size of the retail component of the project, which W/S Development feels must be at least 320,000 square feet in size to be successful. 2) Landscape Buffer: W/S Development has proposed a 100 foot no build buffer zone between the abutter's property lines and any buildings (which is what Reading Zoning laws call for). As part of this 100 foot buffer, W/S has proposed making the first 25 feet a landscape buffer, but the Working Group wants this landscape buffer to be 50 feet. W/S says that this 50 foot landscape buffer would be impossible in many areas due to the terrain and the clearance needed for emergency vehicles, etc. 3) Number of Restaurants: The Working Group proposed that the project not have more than three restaurants with liquor licenses, while the developer would prefer to possibly have 4 or 5 full service restaurants with liquor licenses. 4) The second largest store: Both the developer and the Working Group agreed that there would only be one large store (Whole Foods Market), not to exceed 63,000 square feet. After that, the WG wants the next biggest store to not be more than 31,500 square feet in size and only one of these, while the developer would like to be able to have 2 stores around 31,500 square feet in size (i.e. Barnes & Noble and Crate and Barrel). Thus in a nutshell, the developer and the town are almost completely in agreement on most of the major points of this development. Despite this fact, a few members of the Board of Selectmen became outraged that W/S Development did not go through each item of the 40 or so items that everyone was in agreement with. Because of their outrage, Selectman James Bonazoli lambasted W/S for what he called "not listening to the WG" and wasting everyone's time and he scolded them in a 5+/- minute tirade. That was followed by Selectwoman Camille Anthony..going_.off on a tirade of her own saving that W/S had a v ~ ~ nerve "buying" three of Reading's Town lawyers and that they were the worst company she ever dealt with. She said that they were like little children who would shake their heads yes and then do what they want. When Camille started in with her speech, the members of Reading CARE started hooting and hollering and clapping their hands. This was all over the fact that W/S chose not to go through each item of agreement on a line item by line item basis. Needless to say, the meeting ended on a contentious note. Because of this contentious ending, two things have (or will) occurred. Firstly, Reading CARE is no doubt going to try to leverage this bad ending by plastering both Reading newspapers with letters alluding to "how bad the presentation was" and how the Board of Selectmen don't want this project (which isn't true as James Bonazoli and Steve Goldy are both in favor of Park Square at Reading). Secondly,. W/S Development was extremely offended and taken aback by the treatment that they were given, and they are now contemplating abandoning their project and terminating their option to purchase the Addison Wesley site. The only way that the letters of Reading CARE can be offset and that W/S Development can be convinced to stay with the project is to have concerned Reading residents such as yourself immediately send in a letter (or e-mail) of support to both newspapers and to Reading Town officials. Selectmen Bonazoli (who has apologized and now regrets his words and actions) and Goldy have said that they both support the project, but it is really hard when everyday they receive a-mails and letters from Reading CARE members (although there are only about 10 of them), yet they hardly receive any communications from the Park Square supporters (although they know that there are plenty of them out there). Because of all these reasons, I am asking you to submit a supportive e-mail to both Reading newspapers (the Reading Chronicle and the Reading Advocate) and to the Town officials. Their e-mail addresses are: Reading Chronicle: read Inochronicleacomcast. net Reading Advocate: read InaCalcnc.com Time is of the essence as I know,that Reading CARE has already submitted numerous a-mails to the paper regarding this topic. Also, if your e-mail is not received by the Reading Advocate by 10:00 A.M. on Monday morning, it will not make it into next Thursday's newspaper (since it is only a weekly paper it would be delayed another week). Once again, thank you for your time and support and I hope that you can find the time to put together this really Important e-mail. Sincerely, Rick Rostoff Spectra Realty Assnciates.-__Lr_oiectAdvi_s r. pri. Park Square at Readinq 01(978) 741-3338 C) (508) 527-5127(See attached file: Reading Town Contacts.doc) c &vf Hechenbleikner, Peter From: S t Dennis Collins [dxcollins@comcast.net] 2006 2:18 PM Au ust 15 Tuesda -C ITIVVV~ en : g , y, To: Anthony, Camille; James Bonazoli forwarding account Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Fw: Last Wednesday's Meeting Regarding Park Square at Reading Attachments: Reading Town Contacts.doc R Reading Town ontacts.doc (47 . James / Camille I was forwarded this email - it was not addressed to me, but in the event you hadn't seen this, I thought you should be aware of it and encourage you as elected officials to be steadfast in keeping the developer's "feet to the fire" to.meet a consensus on what's best for Reading as a whole. I applaud your public expression of dissatisfaction in their dealings. We were on vacation when the most recent WG meeting was held and I have not yet had a chance to see the meeting on RCTV. While I cannot comment on the meeting and what transpired, I am concerned by non-resident benefactor Mr. Rostoff's audacity to continue to pit our residents against each other and continue to use residents to do his and SRW's bidding. How dare he encourage someone he "had chatted with once before" to submit a letter of support to the editors on his behalf based on a filtered viewpoint of an extensive public meeting. As you know, this is perhaps one of the largest development projects that Reading has ever considered and one that will affect us for years to come. I find it hard to believe that a firm such as SR Weiner made a "tactical presentation error" - skirting those issues was absolutley intentional. They tout their experience in deals like these and the many successes they have enjoyed. They are masters of pushing deals and marketing spin and know full well that instead of legitimately addressing a mutually beneficial deal, they are inciting a reaction to a poorly designed community relations ploy. Those of us more closely watching this process know that the 5% unresolved issues mentioned are the most important issues to residents - particularly abutting residents - but their marketing spin of touting 95% agreed upon items speaks to their approach to dealing with us - a clear case.of "smoke & mirrors." Having read emails and discussed this project with supporters it is clear to me that he has filtered SRW's information to them throughout this process. This should not be . tolerated and, at the very least, be exposed. The people he is reaching out to (including those he "chatted briefly with") are relying on his filtered information. Instead of encouraging residents to view the scheduled repeat of the meeting (which he knows full well is after the editorial deadline), and draw their own intelligent, informed conclusions from it, he begs their intercession to gain free, uninformed opinions and media exposure to ensure his commission. He and the developers apparently took Reading residents for fools in thinking a development of this magnitude would be approved without opposition or negotiation and is continuing to take us for fools by encouraging "supporters" to take a position based upon this email. SRW's approach, and more specifically this blast email, is insulting and wrong. The developers should on their own do their due diligence in resolving every issue and on their own convince all of us of a mutually beneficial package - they are either unable or unwilling. In either event, it is obvious that this project is more about their profit than our residents' quality of life. For the record, I don't see an upscale mall enhancing our quality of life. O Mr. Rostoff's email is a clear indication of a bad deal (and now a bad 1 relationship) getting worse. Desperation tactics and misinformation dissemination are not the actions of a sincere, concerned developer seeking a "partnership" with a community. I hope you and all of our public officials are mindful of the basis of the passion of support or opposition. Those most passionately opposing the project are those most directly adversely impacted and, in my opinion, those that most directly suffer from the effects deserve the utmost consideration. Thank you. Dennis Collins 12 Beech Street 781-779-2839 Info about Park Sq in Reading. From: ParkSquare2006@aol.com [mailto:ParkSquare2006@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 6:40 PM Subject: Last Wednesday's Meeting Regarding Park Square at Reading Hi. I am the guy that called you around 6:00 P.M. on Saturday. I am sorry if I disturbed you during dinner time. I work as an advisor to the developer of Park Square at Reading and I had chatted with you once before. I don't know if you saw Wednesday night's meeting regarding Park Square at Reading, so I am writing to update you on W/S Development's presentation to the working group and the accompanying aftermath. In actuality, it was not the best presentation that W/S has ever given. That was mainly due the fact that they made a tactical presentation error. Since they were in agreement with 95% of the items that the Working Group came up with, W/S Development decided to focus their presentation on the 3 or 4 things that they were not in agreement with and/or that were still unsettled. In light of that, they started out their presentation by simply stating that they were in agreement with 95% of the items on the Working Group document. They then went into the 3 or 4 items that were not yet in agreement on: 1) the size of the retail component of the project, which W/S Development feels must be at least 320,000 square feet in size to be successful. 2) Landscape Buffer: W/S Development has proposed a 100 foot no build buffer zone between the abutter's property lines and any buildings (which is what Reading Zoning laws call for). As part of this 100 foot buffer,.W/S has proposed making the first 25 feet a landscape buffer, but the Working Group wants this landscape buffer to be 50 feet. W/S says that this 50 foot landscape buffer would be impossible in many areas due to the terrain and the clearance needed for emergency vehicles, etc. 3) Number of Restaurants: The Working Group proposed that the project not have more than three restaurants with liquor licenses, while the developer would prefer to possibly have 4 or 5 full service restaurants with liquor licenses. o AML 4) The second largest store: Both the developer and the Working Group agreed that there would only be one large store (Whole Foods Market), 2 not to exceed 63,000 square feet. After that, the WG wants the next biggest store to not be more than 31,500 square feet in size and only one of these, while the developer would like to be able to have 2 stores around 31,500 square feet in size (i.e. Barnes & Noble and Crate and Barrel). Thus in a nutshell, the developer and the town are almost completely in agreement on most of the major points of this development. Despite this fact, a few members of the Board of Selectmen became outraged that W/S Development did not go through each item of the 40 or so items that everyone was in agreement with. Because of their outrage, Selectman James Bonazoli lambasted W/S for what he called "not listening to the WG" and wasting everyone's time and he scolded them in a 5+/- minute tirade. That was followed by Selectwoman Camille Anthony going off on a tirade of her own saying that W/S had a nerve "buying" three of Reading's Town lawyers and that they were the worst company she ever dealt with. She said that they were like little children who would shake their heads yes and then do what they want. When Camille started in with her speech, the members of Reading CARE started hooting and hollering and clapping their hands. This was all over the fact that W/S chose not to go through each item of agreement on a line item by line item basis. Needless to say, the meeting ended on a contentious note. Because of this contentious ending, two things have (or will) occurred. Firstly, Reading CARE is no doubt going to try to leverage this bad ending by plastering both Reading newspapers with letters alluding to "how bad the presentation was" and how the Board of Selectmen don't want this project (which isn't true as James Bonazoli and Steve Goldy are both in favor of Park Square at Reading). Secondly, W/S Development was extremely offended and taken aback by the treatment that they were given, and they are now contemplating abandoning their project and terminating their option to purchase the Addison Wesley site. The only way that the letters of Reading CARE can be offset and that W/S Development can be convinced to stay with the project is to have concerned Reading residents such as yourself immediately send in a letter (or e-mail) of support to both newspapers and to Reading Town officials. Selectmen Bonazoli (who has apologized and now regrets his words and actions) and Goldy have said that they both support the project, but it is really hard when everyday they receive e-mails and letters from Reading CARE members (although there are only about 10 of them), yet they hardly receive any communications from the Park Square supporters (although they know that there are plenty of them out there). Because of all these reasons, I am asking you to submit a supportive e-mail to both Reading newspapers (the Reading Chronicle and the Reading Advocate) and to the Town officials. Their e-mail addresses are: Reading Chronicle: readingchronicie@comcast.net Reading Advocate: reading@cnc.com Time is of the essence as I know that Reading CARE has already submitted numerous e-mails to the paper regarding this topic. Also, if your e-mail is not received by the Reading Advocate by 10:00 A.M. on Monday morning, it will not make it into next Thursday's newspaper (since it is only a weekly paper it would be delayed another week). Once again, thank you for your time and support and I hope that you 3 ~~3 can find the,time to put together this really important e-mail. Sincerely, Rick Rostoff Spectra Realty Associates - Project Advisor On Park Square at Reading 0) (978) 741-3338 C) (508) 527-5127(See attached file: Reading Town Contacts.doc) 4 ~~a Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Jay Lenox Dlenox41 @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:11 AM To: reading@cnc.com; readingchronicle@comcast.net; Reading - Selectmen Subject: Thank you - Letter to the Editor To the Editor; We wish to thank the members of the Board of Selectmen for demonstrating strong leadership at the August 9th Working Group Meeting and showing concern for the Town of Reading. It was very important for the members of our community to know that our elected officials are willing to stand up to multi-million dollar developers and to do what is right for the whole town. We hope we can continue to work together as a community to bring the best possible development to the Addison Wesley/ Pearson site. Thank you for showing your support. Jay Lenox and Catherine Gleason 8/15/2006 gA . .Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Leigh Anne Bell [leighbell@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:02 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square Development Camille, James, Stephen, Ben and Richard, I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of this town. I am in support of this project or something similar to this project. I really think that something like this would be an asset to this town. Not only creating tax revenue but also creating many jobs for people in this area. I personally would like my children to be able to work close to home when they become of working age. I currently work at Jordan's. I also know many other residents of this town and surrounding towns who work not only at Jordan's but the surrounding businesses. (Despite the comment that was written or said at a recent meeting that all the employees are from Lawrence). I am not sure what those who are opponents of this project expect to see at this site. I don't know many builders of high density housing that would ask the town and their residents what they would like to see.in the development. That obviously didn't happen on West Street, considering the buildings are as close to the abutters as they could possibly be. How would the residents of South Street feel about that. I know that fulfilling our 40B requirement would also have its benefits when it comes to federal and state aid. However, I know many people who moved to this town from larger cities because it is small town, with an excellent school system. What happens if we add another 400-700 units of high density housing? With 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units, surely families with children will move in. Will that mean we would need to redistrict? Those same people who are opposing this project, I am sure would oppose being moved from their neighborhood school. I really hope that you all will think about the long term affects of any decision that is made. I hope you think about all of the reasons why you moved here (or stayed here, if you grew up here), why you wanted to be a selectman and what your goals are for this town. Thank you for your time, Leigh Anne Bell jib & 8/17/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Marianne Downing [mariannedowning@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:55 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Reading - Selectmen Cc: 'nomall01867% 'Jay Lenox' Subject: FW: Addison Wesley Working Group Meeting of 8/9/2006 - letter to the Editor Hi folks, Page 1 of 4 -e Jay Lenox of Reading CARE spoke today with Ben Tafoya, who asked that I forward this below letter to you. I had sent it out yesterday to the Reading Advocate and the Daily Times Chronicle as a "letter to the Editor" (my first, believe it or not). In it, I tried my best, based on what I heard at the 8/9/06 working group meeting, to summarize all the places where I think that the developer did not meet the guidelines set forth in the Working Group Report. Regards, Marianne Downing From: Marianne Downing [mailto:mariannedowning@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:00 PM To: 'reading@cnc.com'; 'readingch ronicle@comcast. net' Subject: Addison Wesley Working Group Meeting of 8/9/2006 - letter to the Editor The following is a letter to the editor relating to the Addison Wesley project. If your newspaper has questions you can reach me at 781-944-3447 (an unlisted number). Please do not publish my phone number if you choose to publish this letter. Thank you. 16 August 2006 To: Reading Daily Times Chronicle Reading Advocate From: Marianne Downing, 13 Heather Drive, Reading, MA Re: W/S Development's response to Addison Wesley Workgroup Report I attended the August 9, 2006 meeting between the Addison Wesley Working Group and W/S development and have been following this issue closely since it first arose in 2005. Because this issue is so important to Reading and because so many Reading residents are unable to attend all of these meetings or watch the proceedings on cable, I had hoped that the local newspapers would provide more complete and more timely coverage of what transpired. Unfortunately, the coverage of this recent meeting seems to be provided best by letters to the editor. So here goes. One of the major points argued by W/S development at the August 9th meeting (and parroted consistently in the letters to the editor from their supporters) is that they feel that their latest proposal meets all but "three or four" of the guidelines of the Addison Wesley Working Group report. W/S development and their supporters seem dismayed that an alleged "vocal minority" focus on these "three or four" points of non-compliance and not the "many" ways they meet the guidelines. W/S argument that it merely misses on "three of four points" is at best disingenuous, and at worst completely 8/17/2006 44 Page 2 of 4 . dishonest. Reading deserves better. In fact, W/S Development presented a proposal that deviated from the Addison Wesley Working Group report in numerous ways, both in spirit and in substance. I found at least ten significant deviations, only three or four of which were addressed at the meeting. Moreover, what they are proposing and say that they "must have" exceeds what they have built in their lifestyle centers in Hingham and Canton. For example: . (1) Section 1.2 of the Report, entitled "Amount of Use Permitted" cited a range proposed by the Working group of 188,750 to 235,000 sf. W/S openly admitted that they will not meet this requirement and instead proposed 320,000 sf, which they touted as a "net reduction" in retail space. In fact, in addition to the 320K of retail, they are proposing a wellness center of about 60k feet which they don't classify as "retail" but which would have a customer base and hours similar to retail. So, now we are up to what is really at least 380K of "retail-like" uses, possibly more. W/S spent the bulk of their hour or so of speaking time defending their need to have a project of this size, noting that a significantly larger lifestyle center of 600,000 sf is being proposed for Lynnfield and that the Reading site needs to be large to be "competitive" with Lynnfield and attract the "best" tenants. If you were a retail tenant or customer and had the choice between (a) a 600K site in Lynnfield with great access and very little traffic or hindrances to get in (the Colonial site is adjacent to at least 2 exits off the highway and itself has numerous access points, many of which have right hand, not left hand turns), or (b) sitting in traffic (8000 cars a day on average) to get into and out of a 320 K site via a single access point, which would you choose? My point is that making the site bigger is not-going make it more viable if people are stuck in traffic getting in and out - they'll simply drive up or down the road to more stores and easier driving. (2) Section 1.3 of the Report, entitled "Conditions or Special Considerations," states that "Maximum size for largest retail unit 63,000 sf (1 unit); next largest 50% of largest or 31,500 sf (I unit); next largest 50 % of 2nd largest of 15,750 sf (remainder) not including restaurants". W/S admitted that they are proposing a 63,000 sf Whole Foods, then they also want at least 2 stores with a square footage of 30,000 square feet or more (examples they suggested include Barnes and Noble and Crate & Barrel). In comparison, the Whole Foods in Hingham is only 35,000 sf, the Crate and Barrel is 30,000 sf, and the Barnes and Noble is 24,892 sf. Canton's Barnes and Noble is 25832 sf. -Clearly this developer can build successful lifestyle centers having store sizes that accommodate the Working Group document guidelines - they did so in Hingham and Canton. Why did they not offer such store sizes to Reading? Why must Reading, with a smaller and more densely packed overall site having a single access point, and abutting homes on 2 of 4 sides, have to have larger stores than Hingham and Canton, each of which has a larger site with multiple entries and exits, and little to no abutting homes? (3) Section 1.3 of the Report also states that the maximum number of restaurants with liquor licenses should be three. W/S admitted that they really want instead at least 5 to 6 restaurants with liquor licenses, and their proposal presented on 8/9/2006 shows at least 4 such restaurants. In contrast, Hingham and Canton each appear to have just three restaurants having liquor licenses, and neither development appears to abut a residential area, where the long hours (up to midnight), odors, and noise of such restaurants can have a negative impact. Why must Reading, a smaller site than either Hingham or Canton, have 5 or 6 restaurants with liquor licenses, especially when the proposed shopping center abuts numerous homes (and especially where W/S plans to locate some of these restaurants right next to homes - see #10 below)? (4) Section 1.3 of the Report also states that it is preferable that a residential component be included and that this residential component be "at least 20% affordable (so it counts as part of the Town's affordable housing stock); rental is preferable; location as a transition at both South Street and Curtis; maximum of 2 BR units)." W/S admitted its deviation on this point, proposing instead about 44 non-Ow" 8/ 17/2006 4~" Page 3 of 4 rental townhouse units, of which 10% (4-5) would be affordable. This proposal effectively adds 40 market rate units to Reading's total of non-affordable stock. This means that Reading's total burden for providing additional affordable housing actually will increase from what it is now- a result that I'm sure neither the proponents nor opponents of Park Square wants. (5) Section 1.3 of the Report includes a guideline for open space that "would include buffer; may include islands in parking and pedestrian areas, and may include "urban" opens spaces like plazas, gazebos, etc." W/S's proposal of 8/9/06 appears to have a net reduction in open space as compared to its April 2006 proposal, with no new open space areas seen. With the additional parking levels and housing added, the only open space appears to be the buffers, the existing no build area, and the fingers of land extending between some abutting homes. W/S indicated that approximately 75% of the 24 acre property will be paved over/impervious, which doesn't sound like very much open space. (6) Section 2.0 of the Report addresses Traffic/Access and provides a guideline to "Measure the total delay for the total route - not just at one or 2 points -measure at each signal." W/S did not discuss this or any other detailed traffic data and did not provide a total delay that could include, for example, coming from 28S to 28N (2-4 new traffic lights on top of the existing ones). (7) Section 2.0 of the Report also includes a guideline that "Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access from off site to the site, and within the site should be required". In contrast, in the 8/9/2006 proposal, W/S said it eliminated an onsite walking path due to the concerns of one abutter (but W/S did not relocate or reconfigure the walking path). No mention of bicycle access within the site was made, and it was not visible on the proposal that was presented. (8) Section 3.0 of the Report addresses Impact and provides buffer guidelines: "Landscaped Buffering from residential district: Residential use - 25', Retail use - 50', Loading Area - 50' " W/S admitted that they could not meet this requirement everywhere in the project and admitted that in some spots the buffering might only be 25'. This is an important deviation that deserved further explanation, especially if areas such as loading areas have a buffer of only 25'. W/S did not indicate where these reduced buffering spots would be and did not indicate whether this reduced buffering would be adjacent to retail, residential, restaurants, loading, fire lanes, etc. (9) Section 3.0 of the Report also provides a guideline for "Location of loading/delivery areas: As far from residences as possible". W/S did not mention its non-compliance this requirement and it is pretty obvious why: the 8/9/06 plan shows that the entire truck access road for Whole Foods, and all of the Whole Foods shipping docks (and dumpsters), abuts at least 5 homes on South St. This is the same configuration that W/S showed in its 4/11/06 plan. Positioning what is arguably the noisiest and most intrusive spot in the entire shopping center in such a way that is abuts a number of homes does not seem to fit W/S's repeated assertion that they are a "good neighbor". In contrast, in the Canton lifestyle center, the Shaws is bordered by a turnpike road, several parking lots, and other stores, so no residential areas are subject to loading dock and tractor trailer noise. Hingham likewise appears to have its Whole Foods loading docks not abutting residences. W/S easily could have located its shipping dock in another spot on the Reading site, such as within the below grade parking lower parking level of its garage, but doing so might slightly reduce customer parking. In choosing between maximizing the number of cars that can fit on this site and relocating the shipping dock to minimize noise to abutters, W/S clearly chooses its customers over its "neighbors". (10) Section 3.0 of the Report also provides a guideline for Location of uses, stating simply "Restaurant Uses away from homes". W/S blatantly ignored this guideline, as it did in its selection of the location of its loading docks. The 8/9/06 W/S proposal shows at least 1 restaurant abutting 1-2 a Curtis street homes (separated only by the mystery-sized buffer & access road behind the restaurant). 8/17/2006 SN Page 4 of 4 W/S did not indicate where it would locate the 2 additional restaurants it wants. Again, W/S did not mention its non-compliance with this requirement, and when I pointed this out to them at the meeting, they had no answer or justification for doing this. Instead, W/S spent time touting the fine restaurants it wants, such as Legal Seafood, P.F. Chang's, and a major steakhouse - places that tie in conveniently with the zoning amendment that W/S recently put before town meeting, wherein W/S asked to be exempt from Reading's smoke and odor ordinances. I guess W/S hopes that anyone within a half mile of their site will be drawn to these restaurants by the ever-present stenches of flying seafood, Chinese food, and grilled meat. Everyone likes a quick whiff of delectable cooking smells, but should nearby residents have to put up with such strong odors every day, all day and into the night, year round? Especially when existing Reading restaurants are able to comply with the rules? The supporters of W/S development continue to contend that "we can work it out" with the developer. Yet, over and over again, through nearly 5 months of Working Group meetings, W/S has provided only the thinnest veneer of cooperation, sneaking more and more development into each new proposal that they give us. Supporters point out that "Reading needs the money". Reading will ALWAYS need money. No matter how much development our town takes on, I can assure you that the town boards will find a way to spend all of it and beg for more. Supporters point out how "lucky" Reading is to have such a "quality" developer take notice of our little town and want to build here, and that we need to act fast and do what they want before they pack up and leave us. If the Reading location is indeed the retail sweet spot that W/S says it is, then surely many retail and other developers would be willing to do what it takes to propose a retail or other project that is acceptable to the town and worthy of the gift of a zoning change. The question is, can W/S step up to the plate? Reading deserves nothing less. Marianne Downing 13 Heather Drive gQy 8/17/2006 C ~ Hechenblefter, Peter 4 From: Garbarino, Al [AI.Garbarino@fmr.com] Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:21 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Addison-Wesley/Pearson Project Board of Selectmen and Peter, I have attached the following letter for your review and consideration. I had previously sent it to the Chronicle. Thanks, Al Garbarino Dear Fellow Reading Residents, Town Officials and Others, On Wednesday, August 9, W/S Development presented their latest proposal of the mall they are seeking to build on the Addison-Wesley/Pearson site to the town's Working Group. After going through their usual attempts to convince the town that somehow this is not a mall, the developer then fielded questions from members of the Working Group and Reading citizens. It quickly became apparent that the overwhelming consensus was the latest plan was just more o.f the same and failed to meet the most important aspects of the Working Group document. The evening ended with two of the three citizen members of the Group present and three members of the Board of Selectmen severely criticizing the developer's efforts, and questioning their tactics, their willingness to become the true partner with the town that they claim they desire to be and whether they are the right developer for this important piece of property. It clearly was not the ending that the developer nor their supporters were expecting but one that was absolutely warranted by their unwillingness to listen to the town. Since that meeting, the few supporters of the developer that have spoken out about the meeting have taken the unfortunate tact of attacking the members of the Working Group and Board of Selectmen who simply performed their jobs by giving their input on the project, as well as the Reading CARE group and anybody else that has the nerve to question this project or the developer. It is clearly a case of "shooting the messenger" and the town would be much better served if they would re-direct their anger at its true source, that being the developer and their continued use of the underhanded tactics they employ. The most egregious example of this mis-directed anger appeared as a letter on these pages on Tuesday, August 15, written by the chairperson of the RRRED group. It was so full of damage control, spin and blatant misrepresentations that it would be comical if the consequences were not so serious. Clearly everyone has the right to their opinion and, unlike the letter's author, I have believed from the start that honest open debate on this project would benefit the town and help facilitate a mutually acceptable solution. I do have an issue, however, with someone not revealing their true alliances or affiliations when expressing their opinions. The author of this letter, in addition to being the chairperson of RRRED, is also a commercial real estate broker who, on her company's website, lists this developer as someone she "works with." In my opinion, in addition to identifying herself in her letter as a "long time Reading resident" she also should have included this affiliation. Let the people who's opinion she is trying to sway decide for themselves if the fact this developer is a client of hers represents a conflict of interest. The item in the letter I found most offensive, however, was the claim that "now opponents are touting crime as a reason not to support this center." As the person who Alum 1 MF IM brought this up at the meeting I feel personally insulted by this ridiculous insinuation that this is a new topic. I have personally brought this same topic up in multiple public forums and have seen it written about on these pages countless times by others. It has been a consistent theme the "opponents" have stressed because, and I know this may come as a shock, it is truly a concern of ours. It is not some kind of ploy to derail this project. As I have stated in the past, I am the father of six children and live 4 blocks from-the site. I have real concerns about my two soon-to-be-driving-age teenagers and their friends sharing our roads with people piling out of the 5 - 6 restaurant/bars at night. I have real concerns about my children walking to school or riding their bikes to friends' houses now being exposed to an additional 16,000 to 22,000 additional car trips per day. It is not my opinion that malls generate crime but fact based on studies. These are not tactics being used to artificially sway opinion but real concerns of many residents. I find it reprehensible that a fellow resident would have the nerve to dismiss my concerns out of hand in order-to make her point. Then of course there had to be reference to the old standby threat of 40B being the only alternative. This "lesser of two evils" argument gets re-visited every time the mall project is being questioned. As has been stated numerous times, building a mall on this site does nothing to change our 40B status. At best, it just moves the potential to other parcels in town. What is the benefit of that? In fact, the developer's latest proposal ignored the Working Group's request to include affordable rental units to help decrease the town's exposure, substituting the more profitable for-sale units which worsen the situation. Where is the author's outrage over that? Lastly, I know for a fact that the owner has been approached by other developers looking to build items other than 40B, so that threat rings hollow. It is clear that the PR firm that the developer is using to drive this campaign has decided the best way to salvage Wednesday night's meeting is to claim the dissenting opinions are from "just a few" people and by stating repeatedly that the developer met "95%" of the Working Group's criteria. These are both laughable concepts. As a vocal and visible opponent of this project, I assume I fall into the category of "small group of people" referenced in her letter. As such, I can assure you that the voices you hear speaking out and writing against this project do not represent individual opinions but rather those of the hundreds of people who are against it. Feel free to visit the CARE website at www.nomallOl867.com <http://www.nomallOl867.com/> for a list of registered supporters and decide for yourself if it is a "few" people. I was present when the principal of W/S Development came up with the 95% number and it clearly was meant as an estimate with no mathematical backing. The inaccuracy of the number aside, the supposed "50" they missed represented the most important and controversial issues identified by the Group. It would be analogous to a homeowner soliciting bids for work on their house and choosing a contractor who met 95% of their criteria and "only" missed price, schedule, quality of materials, and color. Who would do that? Why should we do it here? In summary, the letter sent on Tuesday and others like it that have been sent to various town officials should serve as a case study as to how this developer conducts themselves. If they, and their supporters, spent their time and energy really addressing the issues that are important to the town rather than attempting to discredit both them and the people stating them, they probably would not be in the situation they are in now. I urge. you to contact the developer directly and let them know there are more than a few people against both them and the project. Urge them to make good on their threat to pack up and leave town. Let's put them and the divisiveness they have brought with them behind us and move forward as a community to find a true partner for this project.. Al Garbarino 2 gay Hechenblefter, Peter From: kmc14blue@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:11 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square at Reading Page 1 of 1 c g CJ To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to you in favor of the proposed project, Park Square. I think a development like this is something all citizens of Reading can benefit from. Honestly a housing development of any type is the last thing we need! Please keep pushing for this project. Reading could use the tax break, the employment, not to mention the road work that would come with the project. Thank You, Karen Cronin 'Okk q/1 0 8/18/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Fiore, Jane Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:26 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: FYI WNV Page 1 of 1 CSC lef Peter, Nothing to be too concerned about. One of our gravid traps showed WVN in a small number of culinex pipens on 8/17 from DPH Lab. The area storm drains have been treated. New light traps are placed at the site and I will be putting an educational piece in the Chronicle for tomorrows paper and on the web tonight. NO HUMAN cases. There are 5 towns with positive WNV mosquitoes - Reading, Saugus, Melrose, Lynn, Newton Jane Jane M. Fiore, RN,CHO Health Services Administrator Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 781-942-9061 f781-942-9071 8/17/2006