The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-09-20 Board of Selectmen Packet1 ti �� Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Joan Langsam Belangsam@brackeftlucas.com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:56 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: Memorial Park No, not when a deed is to a munipality for a muinicipal use there is a specific exemption in chapter 183. Joan - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hechenbleikner, Peter [ mailto:phechenbleikner@ci.reading.ma.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:12 PM To: Joan Langsam Subject: Memorial Park A resident who is a realtor has indicated that deed restrictions in MA expire after 50 years. Is that applicable in this instance? Pete H Merganser Capital Management, LP & Corporation Boston, MA Partner & Principal 1993 -2005 Responsible for credit risk exposure for all clients, usually $2 -3 billion worth of bonds Lent to high quality organizations that were often ignored by larger investment firms Emphasized a deep understanding of an organization's essence, not merely their financials Responsible for entire portfolio management for all clients with longer- maturity objectives Built investment portfolios to look significantly different than investment benchmarks As promised to clients, achieved consistent long -term returns in the top 25% of all managers Continuously cited by clients for ability to understand their objectives and constraints Made customized presentations to a diverse audience, ranging from pension fund officers to retired nuns Highest success rate at firm in winning new business during final presentations Technology Consultant 1987 -1992 The Shareholder Services Group (Boston, MA) senior business analyst State Street Bank & Trust Co. (Boston, MA) global portfolio analyst Babson College (Wellesley Hills, MA) designed five -year strategic plan used by the school to integrate information technology into the MBA curriculum, cited by U.S. News & World Reports Bose Corporation (Framingham, MA) created PC based system to both identify foreign - exchange risk and to recommend various manufacturing and financial hedging strategies Avalon Investments (Norwalk, CT) traded futures and options based on proprietary computer models Salomon Brothers New York City, NY VP, Bond Market Research 1986 -1987 Served as municipal bond quantitative expert under the direction of Dr: Henry Kaufman Headed municipal bond analytical software efforts under the direction of Dr. Martin Liebowicz Established short-term trading strategies for the municipal bond trading desk Authored municipal investment strategies in the firm's highly regarded bond market publications Lehman Brothers New York City, NY VP, Municipal Bonds 1982 -1986 Invented the Lehman. Municipal Bond Index which serves as the industry performance benchmark Voted by municipal institutional investors as top quantitative market analyst Produced pioneering analysis which improved portfolio returns by up to 300 basis points annually Designed and presented strategic municipal market seminars throughout the country Real Decisions Corporation Stamford, CT Computer Consultant/Programmer 1980 -1982 Designed and implemented several DEC mainframe financial systems for Lehman Brothers Worked closely with several African Ministries of Finance on debt - rescheduling systems Education Certified Financial Analyst (CFA) . 1997 Babson Graduate School of Business (MBA) Wellesley, MA 1991 Selected by students and faculty as graduation speaker Colgate University (BA) Hamilton, NY 1980 �'i -" ZD t.AJ �--� Robert W. ULacheur, Jr., CFA 47 County Road Reading, MA 01867 (781) 942 -9805 lelacheursrdcomcast.net Merganser Capital Management, LP & Corporation Boston, MA Partner & Principal 1993 -2005 Responsible for credit risk exposure for all clients, usually $2 -3 billion worth of bonds Lent to high quality organizations that were often ignored by larger investment firms Emphasized a deep understanding of an organization's essence, not merely their financials Responsible for entire portfolio management for all clients with longer- maturity objectives Built investment portfolios to look significantly different than investment benchmarks As promised to clients, achieved consistent long -term returns in the top 25% of all managers Continuously cited by clients for ability to understand their objectives and constraints Made customized presentations to a diverse audience, ranging from pension fund officers to retired nuns Highest success rate at firm in winning new business during final presentations Technology Consultant 1987 -1992 The Shareholder Services Group (Boston, MA) senior business analyst State Street Bank & Trust Co. (Boston, MA) global portfolio analyst Babson College (Wellesley Hills, MA) designed five -year strategic plan used by the school to integrate information technology into the MBA curriculum, cited by U.S. News & World Reports Bose Corporation (Framingham, MA) created PC based system to both identify foreign - exchange risk and to recommend various manufacturing and financial hedging strategies Avalon Investments (Norwalk, CT) traded futures and options based on proprietary computer models Salomon Brothers New York City, NY VP, Bond Market Research 1986 -1987 Served as municipal bond quantitative expert under the direction of Dr: Henry Kaufman Headed municipal bond analytical software efforts under the direction of Dr. Martin Liebowicz Established short-term trading strategies for the municipal bond trading desk Authored municipal investment strategies in the firm's highly regarded bond market publications Lehman Brothers New York City, NY VP, Municipal Bonds 1982 -1986 Invented the Lehman. Municipal Bond Index which serves as the industry performance benchmark Voted by municipal institutional investors as top quantitative market analyst Produced pioneering analysis which improved portfolio returns by up to 300 basis points annually Designed and presented strategic municipal market seminars throughout the country Real Decisions Corporation Stamford, CT Computer Consultant/Programmer 1980 -1982 Designed and implemented several DEC mainframe financial systems for Lehman Brothers Worked closely with several African Ministries of Finance on debt - rescheduling systems Education Certified Financial Analyst (CFA) . 1997 Babson Graduate School of Business (MBA) Wellesley, MA 1991 Selected by students and faculty as graduation speaker Colgate University (BA) Hamilton, NY 1980 �'i � 0 � II. A ASSOCIATES, INC. 5 Middlesex Avenue, Suite 20A Wilmington, MA 01887 (978) 658 -6246 FAX (978) 658 -5367 September 14, 2005 Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Maplewood Village Mr: Hechenbleikner: - As Lottery Agent for the affordable units at Maplewood Village, I am writing regarding errors in the discount rates on three deed riders for units that closed within the past few months. On June 15, 2005, Unit 2 in Building 243 was conveyed, however, the attorney neglected to fill in the discount rate determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). In July of this year, Units 2 and 6 in Building 261 closed within a week of one another. The discount rates from the State for the two units were swapped on their respective deed riders. To correct these mistakes, DHCD has prepared Amendments to the Deed Riders, which have been signed by the State and the new owners. The documents also require the signature of the Chief Elected Official from the Town of Reading. Enclosed please find the three Amendments with original signatures. I ask that you forward them to the Board of Selectmen for endorsement by the Chairman. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, or need additional information, I can be reached directly at (978) 758 -0197. Very truly yours, sten E. Costa President I C'3 LOCAL INITIATIVE PROGRAM Amendment to Deed Rider WHEREAS, the Town of Reading, the Department of Housing and Community Development and Geraldine Cataldo and Sabino Cataldo (the "Parties ") agree that the Discount Rate, representing the percentage that the original sales price bore to its then fair market value, was 50.5 % of that fair market value but the space for this percentage was left blank in a Deed Rider recorded with the Deed to Geraldine Cataldo and Sabino Cataldo , and recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds, Division of Registered Land as Document No. 01377043 on Certificate of Title No. U17484. NOW THEREFORE, in order to correct the error and in consideration of the foregoing, the Parties agree and stipulate that the words "Discount Rate equal to %o of the appraised fair market value of the Property" on page 2 of the Deed Rider shall be corrected and are hereby amended to read "Discount Rate equal to 50.5 % of the appraised fair market value of the Property." In all other respects the Deed Rider shall remain the same and continue in full force and effect. Executed as a sealed Instrument this of , 2005 Town of Reading By: Name: Title: Department of Housing & Comm ity Development J Wallis Gumble, Director Al xander Whiteside Duly authorized designee Geraldine Cataldo Sabino Cataldo It COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF ,ss. On this day of ' 2005, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared , The Chief Elected Official of the Town of Reading, and proved to me , through satisfactory evidence of identification which was ,that he is the person whose name is signed on the foregoing Amendment to Deed Rider and acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose and that it is his/ her free act and deed. Notary Public My Commission Expires: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ss. On this4�- day of August, 2005, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Alexander Whiteside, the Chief Counsel of the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) duly authorized designee of the Director, and proved to me , through satisfactory evidence of identification which was my personal knowledge, that he is the person whose name is signed on the foregoing Amendment to Deed Rider and acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose and that it is the free act and deed of DHCD. V N 'pub cvdI;; II IX My C ;` 1Fk r� lee arch 24, ?OOb COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of 1 S-e ss rr�� !;4- On this J l day of k a m e, it' , 2005, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Geraldine Cataldo and Sabino Cataldo, and ved to me ,through satisfactory evidence of identification which M A Df i �' e e" e e h S that they are the persons whose name is signed on the foregoing Amendment to Deed Rider and acknowledged to me that tb.ey signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose and that it is her free act and deed. tary Public My commission expires: KRISTEN E. COSTA Notary Public Commonwealth of Massachusetts My Commission Expires November s, 2007 Pumpage & Rainfall Since Restrictions In Effect July 28th to Sept. 12th wot A, 3.00 - 0.50 2.90 - 2.80 - 0.45 2.70 -- `6 r k 0.40 2.60 2.50 - 1 0.35 2.40 0.30 2.30 2.20- 0.25 44 2.10 .52 -- 0.20 w 2.00-- 1.90 0.15 1.80 LA L - - - 0.10 1.70 - - - - - - - - - - 1.60 - 0.05 Xx- 1.50 0.00 P Q - G , i , ; ; '2� � a w w w Finished Water —a— Finished Water Winter Avg. 1994 - 2004 Nov, March (1.736) —)K—Rainfall I`d - To: File CC: Bill Connors, John Sousa From: Peter Hechenbleilmer, Town Manager Date: September 13, 2005 Re: Procurement of Telephone Services After considering various options for the procurement of telephone communication services for Town Departments, I have determined that it would be in the best interest of the Town of Reading to award a sole-source contract in accordance with MGL c. 30B, section 7(c) to: Conversent Communications, 300 Congress St., Suite 401, Quincy, MA 02169 This determination is based upon the following information: 1 During a meeting on August 22, 2005, Jim. Ek from Verizon indicated that ' their central office which serves the Town of Reading is either unable or unwilling to provide PRI services (for Caller ID) for the Town's new PBX system. This has created a hardship situation for the Town since outgoing calls from Town Departments are displayed as "out of area" to individuals and businesses that subscribe to Caller ID services. This creates a potential public safety threat since essential calls such as Reverse 911 and Parental Notification calls from the School Department could be unintentionally blocked since they appear as "out of area". 2. The Town also needs the ability to provide telephone communication connections between the School Department Central Office and various school buildings that do not have a PBX with CENTREX functionality. 3. After investigating alternative providers of telephone communications services, the Town has determined that the only telephone services company that can meet both of the Town's needs is Conversent Communications. Please refer to the attached letter. A pr ved bvt\ Peter 1. Hechenbleikner Town Manager/ Chief Procurement Officer I'G1- IM.G.L - Chapter 30, Section 7 Page 1 of 1 PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TITLE III. LAWS RELATING TO STATE OFFICERS CHAPTER 30B. UNIFORM PROCUREMENT ACT Chapter 30B: Section 7 Sole source procurements Section 7. (a) A procurement officer may award a contract in an amount of less than $25,000 or any contract for the procurement of library books, school textbooks, educational programs, educational courses, educational curricula in any media including educational software, newspapers, serials, periodicals, audiovisual materials or software maintenance without competition when, after reasonable investigation, the procurement officer determines in writing that only one practicable source for the required supply or service exists. The procurement officer shall procure a proprietary item by competition if more than one potential bidder or offeror for that item exists. (b) The procurement officer shall record all sole source procurements, specifying each contractor's name, the amount and type of each contract, a listing of supplies or services procured under each contract, and the basis of the determination that the contractor was the only practicable source for the required supply or service. (c) A procurement officer may procure without competition water, gas, electricity, sewer or telephone services from a regulated industry company as defined in section three of chapter twenty - five if the procurement officer certifies in writing that only one practicable source exists. Return to: ** Next Section ** Previous Section ** Chapter Table of Contents ** Legislative Home Page i1. 1' httn- / /www.mass. aov /legis /laws /mgl/30b -7.htm 9/13/2005 h I r-I 00 I� IN IN I� IN IN I� 1 4�� o g o� on o o as 0 pp to Qu d' • C40 �m N�a �� FAX: (781) 942 -9071 Email: townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street ► � "% -N a " o l DATE: September 13, 2005 TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter 1. Hechenbleikner RE: Master Plan Advisory Committee Presentation TOWN MANAGER (781) 942 -6643 This matter is scheduled for the Board of Selectmen's Meeting on September 20th. As the Selectmen have requested, we are giving this to you in adequate time to review it. Please bring this material with you for the meeting on the 20th PIH:hn Attachment Purpose 'i . ,• • 0.7 S1 LA eme tit �► . .� a= ° "� r L�� ! ,e x F�l • � 0 o Next Steps Meeting Minutes Downtown Mixed Use Zoning Date: August 20, 2005 Time: 9:30 am Place: Town Hall Conference Room Attendees: George Katsoufis, John Sasso, Dick Howard, Jonathan Barnes Agenda & Discussion (1) Review of last meeting activities & actions We summarized the accomplishments from last meeting and reviewed the actions as follows: a) George to provide updates to the draft Zoning By-Law to Chris — Completed b) Dick to provide wording to address non-conforming uses - Completed George to obtain detailed 'information on current buildings — Completed d) John to summarize information discussed regarding the zoning calculations for parking, the potential for impact fees and a comprehensive plan for addressing the resulting parking situation Completed Chris was able to incorporate the changes proposed by Dick (8/15/05 Draft By-Law). A summary listing of the remaining proposed changes are attached to these minutes. George provided a broad summary of the information to date to put this effort into perspective: • COM properties are 50% of TOTAL properties in BUS-B/Downtown (603,000 SF) • For these COM properties: Realized FAR=0.57, Realized Average Coverage=44%, Realized Bldg Floor Area— 341,000 SF • For these COM Bldgs Floor Area: On the First Floor--267,000 SF (78%) • Current Employee Parking needs: 341,000 x 2 spaces/1000 = 680 spaces (estimate) (2) Existing Residential Uses We briefly discussed the possibility that this by-law could potentially have affects to existing residential uses in the downtown. While this may happen based on the passage of this by-law, we expect market forces to dictate and the special permit process will provide the ability for the town to review each impact. We also agreed to modify the purpose of the by-law to add justification and wording for why this by-law is being added and the objective to maintain the character and identity of the town. (3) Affordability We discussed the issue of affordability in the by-law. We agreed that changing the level to 20% was an acceptable change and to provide an incentive to the developer, we would add a bonus to floor area ratio (allow an increase to 1.0 from 0.8) for a 5% increase to 25% affordable. We need to ensure in any case that these units will count and therefore must address LIP requirements. (4) Non-Conformity We discussed Dick's proposed changes for dealing with existing structures that would be non-conforming based on the new by-law and agreed that we would allow them to apply for a special permit under one of two conditions (simply using an existing structure or allowing an addition) as long as they met the John Sasso Page 1 8/22/2005 Meeting Minutes Downtown Mixed Use Zoning Proposed Changes to Draft By-Law (By-Law Draft 8-15-05) 4.6l This paragraph needs to be replaced with paragraph that is more to Specific suggestions include referring to the Master Plan objectives and include the concept o[ maintaining' character and identity. 4.62. Remove the word 'Iodnatriul"bn the firatsentence. Change "Planning Board" hn'"CPDC" iuthe second sentence. 4.6.3. This section should bc changed to reflect the requirement forrooidcztiu|tubnolude2O% affordability at a FAR of 0.8, and 25% affordability at a FAR of 1.0 (address LIP requirements). Also, retail with Drive-through windows should be prohibited. Wu also need to segregate out the Permitted uses us follows tohe consistent with the paz}dzgdufinidouetu4.h.8.4. Residential Commercial/Office Multifamily Dwellings Business and Professional Office Apartments Research Facility Condominiums Personal Service Shop (Travel /\oeocy` Retail Lawyer, Beauty Salon, Bank) Retail Store Private Recreation Restaurant Garages Municipal Uses lJtlibnn Post Office 4.0.4. Board" to^YPI)C" 4.6.5. Eliminate this paragraph 4.6.6. Add these requirements aou new row bo Table 5.l2. 4.0.0.l. Minimum should bc 10,000 SF and the method used for slim lots should NOT be the "ellipse" but the "±brozolu" between area and perimeter (conform to section 52.l of the 8y-[avvu). 4.6.0.2. Frontage =40 tt 4.6.6.3. Eliminate 4.6.6.5. ...in the development (}P THE SAME LOT and the orooe—. 4.0.0.6. FIeio}d= 38 tt 4.6.6.7. Coverage =40Y6 4.0.6.9. F.A.R. =0.0 4.0.7. Eliminate (unless you want to point to the standard curb-cut engineering requirements for the Town uo included iuthe Zoning Rvkmv) 4.0.0. The mixture of uses ianot constrained bo any way, however, residential units are prohibited from the front of the lat floor AND yurldng garages are prohibited from the front of the lot. 4.6.8.4. Parking requirements are: Residential Retail 550-700 8F= l space/unit 1.5 apuooa/1000 8F 701-1000 8F=2 spucoahodt Garages Commercial/Office TBD 3.5 spaouo/1000 SF Municipal U oa Exempt from Parking Requirements? 4.6.12. 1. Change the wording to read omfollows: "... provided that parking for the existing uses and parking for the new uses meets the requirements of section 4.6.Q.4." 4.O.l2.2. Change the wording tn read aafollows: "... provided that the footprint of the building structure remains unchanged or does not exceed 40% lot coverage, whichever is greater, and the FAR of 0.8 is not os000dod. PuddoO for the existing uses bothe existing structure and parking for the new uses and the additional increased floor area must meet the requirements of section 4.6.8.4." We may be able to simply this wording. John Sasso Page 3 8/26/2005 9P �� 4.6 MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT NOTES 4.6.1 Purpose -Mixed Use allows by Special Permit from the CPDC an alternative pattern of land development to the pattern normally permitted in the underlying District. It is intended to create mixed commercial, residential, and open space areas where the visual and physical dominance of the automobile is made secondary to pedestrian needs; to encourage pedestrian activity by creating a pleasant, rich and diverse experience for pedestrians; to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution by providing opportunities for retail services, housing and employment in close proximity; and to encourage the sharing of parking lots and driveway curb cuts, minimizing the amount of paved parking surface area, and reducing traffic congestion. 4.6.2 Authority The CPDC shall be the Special Permit Granting Authority for :r,ndust+i 1 Mixed Use developments. The CPDC-..an =' afd may vary the dimensional and parking requirements of his Ssection 4.6, if, in its opinion, such change will result in an improved design of the development. This authority continues subsequent to occupancy. 4.6.3 Permitted Uses The following types of uses (and none other) shall be permitted in Mixed Use developments. These uses may be commingled into a single structure or structures or may be located in separate structures on the site. Residential Multifamily Dwellings Apartments Condominiums Retail Retail Store Restaurant Municipal Uses Utilities Post Office Commercial /Office 1: Business and Professional Office Research Facility Retail Personal Service Shop (Travel agency, lawyer, Beauty Salon, Bank) G Dea1'C taur ant Child Care Faeflity Bad Private Recreation IN4 unle-ipal Use Underground and Above Ground Utilities Garages No less than 205% pefeent of the total nurnber of units shall be affordable to households at or below 800/0 eRt of the median household income for the Boston Metropolitan Area as determined by the most recent calculation of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. At 20% affordable of total residential units the FAR shall. be no greater than 0.8; at 25% affordable the :FAR shall. be no greater than 1.0. The affordable units must be subject to Use Restrictions to ensure that the units remain available in perpetuity, exclusively to persons with qualifying incomes. The units must be sold or rented on a fair and open basis and the owners of the units must adopt an affirmative fair marketing plan. The minimum area for any of the residential units within the Mixed Use Overlay District shall be no less that 550 square feet and the maximum area shall not exceed 1000 square feet. The average size shall be 750 square feet (plus or minus 25 square feet). Residential Units shall be developed under the Local Initiative Program of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development or another subsidy program that allows the housing to count towards the affordable housing requirements of Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Law. 4.6.4 Parking Facility Para Section 4.6.10 of this bylaw applies with respect to the C.PDCP!anning Be 's consideration of the grant of a Special Permit for the Mixed Use Overlay development. EMUTWEITME �. ■ • y 0 s 4.6.6 Dimensional Requirements The dimensional requirements below shall apply. i 4.6.6.1 Minimum contiguous area of the Mixed Use development Minimum contiguous area of the Mixed Use development shall be 10,000 square feet4-aefe-s-. The site of any new principal structure shall confoiln to Section 5.2.1 of the Zoning BY- Laws.shall be eempletal wi "-n n Miieh ellipse-,hall? 1. Be eeRV!etely wit-bin the let; 2.14a-ve an a-yea of at least 3 aer-es. 4.6.6.2 Minimum Lot Frontage (TABLE 5.1.2) Minimum lot frontage shall be 40200 feet. 4.6.6.4 Maximum Front Yard TThe maximum front yard shall be 20 Weet., and there is no minimum front yard. 4.6.6.5 Minimum Rear Yard Minimum rear yard shall be 15 feet and there is no minimum-side yard. There shall also be at least 15 feet separation between any two structures in the development in the same lot and the areas behind and between all structures shall be clear and accessible to the Town's fire suppression vehicles. 4.6.6.6 Maximum Height Maximum height shall be 42 feet. 4.6.6.7 Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum lot coverage shall be 40%-3-5 percent. 4.6.6.8 Minimum Landscaping Minimum landscaping shall be 25 percent, and shall meet the requirements of Section 6.2.12 of these bylaws. 4.6.6.9 Maximum Floor Area Maximum floor area ratio shall be -59 peracnf:0_8. 4.6.8 Mixed Use Developments The mixture of uses shall not be constrained in any way, however, residential units are prohibited from the front of the I" floor and parking garages are prohibited from the :front of the lot. In all Mixed Use developments adequate off - street parking shall be provided. The CPDC .m Be and the applicant shall have as a goal for the purposes of defining adequate off-street parking, malting the most efficient use of the parldng facilities to be provided and minimizing the area of land to be paved for this purpose. In implementing this goal the CPDCBoard shall consider complementary or shared use of parking areas by activities having different peak demand times, and the applicant shall locate adjacent uses in such a manner as will facilitate the complementary use of such parking areas. Implementation of such complementary use of parking areas may result in permitted reductions in the parking requirements. 4.6.8.1 Parking Locations Parking may be provided at ground level, underground or in a parlting garage. Parking garages can be free standing or as part of buildings dedicated to other permitted uses. Parking spaces must be assigned to specific uses (including shared uses) at the time of the submission of the Final Plan. 4.6.8.2 Parking at Buildings Parking shall be primarily located at the rear or at the side of buildings. 4.6.8.3 Curb Cuts There shall be only one curb cut providing access to the development from any public way. A development having frontage on two of more streets may be permitted additional curb cuts if deemed necessary by the Planning Board. Whenever possible there shall be shared curb cuts with adjacent developments. 4.6.8.4 4-.6-.&4-Parking Requirements Are: Unit Residential 550-700 sq. ft.= I space per unit 701 -100 sq. ft. =2 spaces per unit Commercial/Office 3.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Garaaes TBD Municipal Uses Exempt There shall be 1.5 pa4dng spaees--foi each dwelling unit. (4.6.8.5 Granting of Relief from Parking Regulations Section concerning the granting of relief from parl-cing regulations by the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not apply.) See pia .,p NOT SURE THIS IS LEGAL-HOLD FOR TC REVIEW 4.6.9 Application Any person who desires a Special Permit for a Mixed Use development shall submit 14 copies of the application in such form as the CPDCPIatming Bo may require which shall include the following: 4.6.9.1 Development Statement A Development Statement shall consist of a petition, a list of the parties in interest with respect to the tract, a list of the development team and a written statement describing the major aspects of the proposed development. 4.6.9.2 Development Plans Development plans bearing the seal of a Massachusetts Registered Architect, Registered Civil Engineer or similar professional as appropriate and consisting of: (a) Site plans and specifications showing all site improvements and meeting the requirements set forth for a Site Plan under Section 4.3.3. (b) Site perspective, sections, elevations 1/8 inch = 1 foot. (c) Detailed plans for disposal of sanitary sewage and surface drainage; and (a) Detailed plans for landscaping. 4.6.9.3 Additional information as the Board may determine. 4.6.10 Planning Board Findings A special permit shall be issued under this Section if the CPDCP1anng Boa1f1 finds that the development is in harmony with the purpose, and intent of this Section and that it contains a compatible mix of uses sufficiently advantageous to the Town to render it appropriate to depart from the requirements of the Bylaw otherwise applicable to the District in which the development is located. 4.6.11 Amendments After approval, the developer may seek amendments to the approved plan. Minor amendments may be made by a majority vote of the CPDCPlanning-Bo . It shall be a fording of the Planning Board, not subject to dispute by the applicant, whether a requested amendment is deemed to be major or minor. A major amendment shall require the filing of an amended special permit application. 4.6.12 Existing Structures 4.6.12.1 Change in Use A special permit may be granted to existing non - conforming structures, including those with a valid building permit, as of the date of the passage of this By -Law applying for a change of use in the Mixed Use Overlay District provided that parking for the remaining existing and new uses meets the requirements of the ,,, deflying uses is „ ent a Section 4.6.8.4 4.6.12.2 Additions A special pen-nit may be granted to existing nonconforming structures, including those with a valid building permit, as of the date of the passage of this By -Law applying for a change of use and an addition to the structure provided that the footprint of the building structure reamins unchanged or does not exceed 40% lot coverage whichever is eiater, and the FAR of 0.8 is not exceeded. �,a of n 80 is not exee.,de . parking requirements for the Tomaini g existing uses in the existing stricture and new uses with additional increased floor area must meet the requirements of Section 4.6.8.4. p1list meet the ,- equir -e ents of the 'R'I:SCtiOT..LyTITg zoR'Ir17g Ehstnot and pu.fkaiib reqair-emenis for the new uses and t additional TowN of READIN 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-9012 Fax: 781-942-9071 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Email: creilly@ci.readi:ng.ma.us MEMORANDUM Date: September 16, 2005 To: Selectmen CC: From: Chris Reilly, Town Plann r C RE: MASTER PLAN PRIORITY A a) Per Selectmen Tafoya's request enclosed for SOS review are the proposed Master Plan priority action items that involve Selectmen participation. CR Docurnentl Created on 09/16/0510:26 AM CHARACTER AND IDENTITY ACTION STRATEGIES HOUSING ACTION STRATEGIES Objective 111. Pursue an Increase in Town Involvement and Investigate Additional Funding Vehicles to Achieve Housing Goals. Communicate Housing Goals to Residents. 1. Create new Housing Partnership (IIP) with the objective to coordinate housing related action strategies under the Master Plan. • Board of Selectmen appoints HP members (June 2006) 2. Pursue additional funding for housing using the Community Preservation Act (CPA) • Board of Selectmen appoints new CPA Committee to not only prepare the recommendation for implementing the CPA but also to identify the programs to be funded by it (September 2006) C ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTION STRATEGIES Objective 2A: Establish an Economic Development Commission Action 1: Determine structure of the Commission A. Town Manager and Town Planner study the various options available under state law and recommend to the Board of Selectmen the type of Economic Development Commission (EDC) to best meet the Town's development needs and to leverage additional State and Federal developmental grants. B. Target: Winter 2006 Action 2: Establish the Commission A. The Board of Selectmen take the necessary steps to establish the EDC and appoint qualified and dedicated citizens to the commission. Objective 3Aand 3B combined: Improve South Main St. Streetscape Action 2. Obtain funding for streetscape improvements. A. Town Planner, supported by the Board of Selectmen, will pursue all possible State and Federal grants to hire consultants (landscape architects and traffic engineers) to generate detailed streetscape beautification plans for the area from Washington St. south to I95/128. B. After completion of the initial plans, the Town Planner, supported by the Board of Selectmen, will pursue State and Federal funds to implement the plans OPEN SPACE ACTION STRATEGIES Goal 3 Make recreation and open space accessible to all C. Make public aware of the importance of public and private conservation land and open space Action Item 6: Support public awareness events such as Earth Day and Town Forest Day ;j 1 Selectmen, Recreation Committee (Annual, May) Goal 4: Identify new funding and acquisition sources for recreation and open space A. Re- consider the Community Preservation Act Action Item 1: Develop Ad Hoc Committee Selectmen, CPDC, Finance Committee (January, 2006) B. Develop new sources of recreation funding, apply for grants and self -help funds and create a Friends or Stewardship program to help maintain open spaces Action Item 1: Develop and implement a developer impact fee program for financing improvements and additions to recreational facilities Recreation Committee, Finance Committee, Selectmen (January, 2006) Action Item 3: Biennially recruit volunteers for fund- raising Recreation Committee, Selectmen (Biennially, March) TRANSPORTATION ACTION STRATEGIES OBJECTIVE 1B: Develop a comprehensive Town -wide Parking Plan to address satellite employee parking, alternative locations for garages in Downtown with respective zoning amendments and revisit public parking regulations. ACTION ITEM 1: In collaboration with other adjacent bedroom communities, attempt to initiate a town -based transit non -profit (TNP) whose purpose would be to: (a) collect and publicize commuting and transportation data (census, employment, traffic), (b) produce mini - studies /reports that address future transportation and parking needs (seniors, events, town- employees, other regional programs), (c) gain representation in regional transportation organizations and (d) investigate funding sources for local transit initiatives. • Board of Selectmen to appoint TNP members (June 2006) ACTION ITEM 2: Identify parking concepts for Downtown. • Town Manager to review the current parking regulations in Downtown • When formed, Economic Development Commission to hold joint meeting with the BOS to map out potential areas for new municipal garages /lots and calculate their capacity (November 2005) r OBJECTIVE 4B: Develop a sidewalk improvement priority list, complete all needed sidewalk extensions and improve crossings in areas where safety is a concern. ACTION ITEM 3: Based on citizen representation from each of the 5 elementary school districts and from the Downtown district, form a Town -wide Parking and Traffic Ad -Hoc Advisory Committee (PATAC) to: a. document sidewalk needs, b.advocate walking to School to citizens and c. map out prevalent accident locations d. streamline the recommendations of the Town -wide Traffic Study. • Board of Selectmen appoints PATAC members (June 2006) OBJECTIVE 6C: Develop a Town and /or a regional transportation organization to address increased transportation needs via car pooling, van pooling, HOV /transit dedicated highway lanes and other forms of local /regional commuting measures. ACTION ITEM 5: Assume an active role advocating Reading's transportation interests in the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the North Suburban Planning Council, the MBTA Advisory Board and other regional planning initiatives. • Representatives to these organizations to report bi- yearly to Board of Selectmen. Continue active participation to the Task Force of the I93 -I95 Interchange Planning Initiative by the Massachusetts Highway Department. M I 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-9012 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@d.reading.ma.us COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: September 16, 2005 To: Selectmen CC: PH From: Chris Reilly, Town PlaZrmer RE: MIXED USE BYLAW FOR t UENT TOWN MEETING 05 Enclosed is the latest mixed use by-law draft (marked and clean) including revisions from the 9.12 CPDC/BOS zoning workshop. The BOS should review, include any revisions and vote to recommend to the CPDC before their 9.26 zoning public hearing. A V Z:j Documentl Created on 09/16/05 9:46 AM 4.6 MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT NOTES 4.6.1 Purpose Mixed Use allows by Special Permit from the CPDC an alternative pattern of land development to the pattern normally permitted in the underlying District. It is intended to create mixed commercial, residential, and open space areas consistent'with the character and identity of the Town and in conforrnnce with the objectives of the master plan 4.6.2 Authority The CPDC shall be the Special Permit Granting Authority for Mixed Use developments. The CPDC may vary the dimensional and parking requirements of Section 4.6, if, in its opinion, such change will result in an improved design of the development. This authority continues subsequent to occupancy. 4.6.3 Permitted Uses The following types of uses (and none other) shall be permitted in Mixed Use developments. These uses may be commingled into a single structure or structures or may be located in separate structures on the site. Residential Multifamily Dwellings Apartments Condominiums Retail Retail Store Restaurant Municipal Uses Utilities Post Office Commercial /Office Business and Professional Office Research Facility Personal Service Shop (Travel agency, lawyer, Beauty Salon, Bank) Private Recreation Garages No less than 20% of the total number of units shall be affordable to households at or below 80% of the median household income for the Boston Metropolitan Area as determined by the most recent calculation of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. At 20% affordable of total residential units the FAR shall be no greater than 0.8 ; at 25% affordable the FAR shall be no greater than 1.0. The following Table shall be used as the basis to determine the affordable unit requirement: Total units and/or Contribution 1. $48,000 2. $96,000 3. $144,000 4. $192,000 5. 1 unit 6.. 1 unit plus $48,000 7. 1 unit plus $96,000 The affordable units must be subject to Use Restrictions to ensure that the units remain available in perpetuity, exclusively to persons with qualifying incomes. The units must be sold or rented on a fair and open basis and the owners of the units must adopt an affirmative fair marketing plan. The minimum area for any of the residential units within the Mixed Use Overlay District shall be no less that 550 square feet and the maximum area shall not exceed 1000 square feet. The average size shall be 750 square feet (plus or minus 25 square feet). Residential Units shall be developed under the Local Initiative Program of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development or another subsidy program that allows the housing to count towards the affordable housing requirements of Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Law. 4.6.4 Parking Facility Section 4.6. 10 of this bylaw applies with respect to the CPDC's consideration of the grant of a Special Permit for the Mixed Use Overlay development. 4.6.5 Dimensional Requirements The dimensional requirements below shall apply. 4.6.5.1 Mipimum contiguous area of the Mixed Use development Minimum Contiguous area of the Mixed-Use development shall be 10,000 square feet The site of any new principal structure shall conform to Section 5.2.1 of the t Zoning By- Lays. 4.6.5.2 Minimum Lot Frontage (TABLE 5.1.2) Minimum lot frontage shall be 40 feet. 4.6.5.3 Maximum Front Yard The maximum front yard shall be 20feet, and there is no minimum front yard. 4.6.5.4 Minimum Rear Yard Minimum rear yard shall be 15 feet and there is no minimum side yard. There shall also be at least 15 feet separation between any two structures in the development in the same lot and the areas behind and between all structures shall be clear and accessible to the Town's fire suppression vehicles. 4.6.5,5, MWmum Heigh Maximum shall be 42 feet. ' 4.6.5.6 Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum lot coverage shall be 40% percent. 4.6.5.7 Minimum Landscaping Minimum landscaping shall be 25 percent, and shall meet the requirements of Section 6.2.12 of these bylaws. 4.6.5.8 Maximum Floor Area Maximum floor area ratio shall be 0.8, except as otherwise provided in 4.6.3. 4.6.6 Mixed Use Developments The mixture of uses shall not be constrained in any way, however, residential units are prohibited from the front of the 1" floor and parking garages are prohibited from the front of the lot. In all Mixed Use developments adequate off - street parking shall be provided. The CPDC and the applicant shall have as a goal for the purposes of defining adequate off - street parking, making the most efficient use of the parking facilities to be provided and minimizing the area of land to be paved for this purpose. In implementing this goal the CPDC may consider complementary or shared use of parking areas by activities having different peak demand times, and the applicant may be required to locate adjacent uses in such a manner as will facilitate the complementary use of such parking areas. Implementation of such complementary use of parking areas may result in permitted reductions in the parking requirements. 4.6.6.1 Parking Locations Parking may be provided at ground level, underground or in a parking garage. Parking garages can be free standing or as part of buildings dedicated to other permitted uses. Parking spaces must be assigned to specific uses (including shared uses) at the time of the submission of the Final Plan. 4.6.6.2 Parking at Buildings Parking shall be primarily located at the rear or at the side of buildings. 4.6.6.3 Curb Cuts Only one curb cut providing access to the development from any public way may be required. A development having frontage on two of more streets may be permitted additional curb cuts if deemed necessary by the CPDC . Whenever possible there shall be shared curb cuts with adjacent developments. 4.6.6.4 Parking Requirements Are: Residential 550 -700 sq. ft. =1 space per unit 701 -1000 sq. ft. =2 spaces per unit Commercial/Office 3.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Garages TBD Municipal Uses Exempt 4.6,6.5 Granting of Relief from Parking Regulations' Jn.those instances where the applicant has made a concerted effort to provide all the required number of parking spaces, the CPDC may accept an impact fee of $20,000 for each parking SPace not provided. The money may be used for short or long term parking solutions for the Town. 4.6.7 Application Ariy person who desires a Special Permit for a Mixed Use development shall submit 14 copies of the application in such form as the CPDC may require which shall include the following: q, n'4 4.6.7.1 Development Statement A Development Statement shall consist of a petition, a list of the parties in interest with respect to the tract, a list of the development team and a written statement describing the major aspects of the proposed development. 4.6.7.2 Development Plans Development plans bearing the seal of a Massachusetts Registered Architect, Registered Civil Engineer or similar professional as appropriate and consioting of: ' (a) Site plans and specifications showing all site improvements and meeting the requirements set forth for a Site Plan under Section 4.3.3. (b) Site perspective, sections, elevations 1/8 inch = 1 foot. (c) Detailed plans for disposal of sanitary sewage and surface drainage; and (a) Detailed plans for landscaping. 4.6.7.3 Additional information as the CPDC may determine. 4.6.8 CPDC Board Findings A special permit shall be issued under this Section if the CPlJC finds that the development is In harmony wlth1h6 pcirpiise,' d _ 114 of th p &ctiar# and that it contains a'compatible'riiix of uses' sufficiently advantageous to the Town to render it appropriate to depart from the requirements of the Bylaw otherwise applicable to the District in which the development is located. 4.6.9 Amendments I. After approval, the developer may seek amendments to the approved plan. Minor amendments may be made by a majority vote of the CPDC. It shall be a finding of the Planning Board, not subject to dispute by the applicant, whether a requested amendment is deemed to be major or minor. A major amendment shall require the filing of an amended special permit application. 4.6.10 Existing Structures 4.6.10.1 Change in Use A special permit may be granted to existing non - conforming structures, including those with a valid building permit, as of the date of the passage of this By -Law applying for a change of use in the Mixed Use Overlay District provided that parking for the existing and new uses meets the requirements of Section 4.6.8.4 4.6.10.2 Additions A special permit may be granted to existing nonconforming structures, including those with a valid building permit, as of the date of the passage of this By -Law applying for a change of use and an addition to the structure provided that the footprint of the building structure remains unchanged or does not exceed 40% lot coverage, whichever is greater, and the FAR of 0.8 is not exceeded. 4.6 MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT NOTES 4.6.1 Purpose Mixed Use allows by Special Pen-nit from the CPDC an alternative pattern of land development to the pattern normally permitted in the underlying District. It is intended to create mixed commercial, residential, and open space areas consistent with the character and identity of the Town and in confon-nnee with the objectives of the master -plan where the vistial and phy deminanee of the automobile is made seeeiidafy te pedesti-ian needs; to eneaufage pedestrian aetiv4y by ei:eafing a pleasant, r-ieh and divei:.- for- pedestfians; to r-eduee tr-affie eongestion and air- pollu4ieia by providing oppoAunities for- retail --es, housing and-eniploym-ent in close- ; and to eneaufage the sharing of parki*g let-s —And r-1141'reway eurb outs, mipAmizing the amotmt of pa�ved paAdng surfaee ar-ea,--and redueing tr-affie eeagesfien-. 4.6.2 Authority The CPDC shall be the Special Permit Granting Authority for -Mixed Use developments. The CPDC may vary the dimensional and parking requirements of Section 4.6, if, in its opinion, such change will result in an improved design of the development. This authority continues subsequent to occupancy. 4.6.3 Permitted Uses The following types of uses (and none other) shall be pennitted in Mixed Use developments. These uses may be commingled into a sitigle structure or structures or may be located in separate structures on the site. Residential Multifamily Dwellings Apartments Condominiums Retail Retail Store Restaurant Municipal Uses Utilities Post Office Commercial /Office Business and Professional Office Research Facility Personal Service Shop (Travel agency, lawyer, Beauty Salon, Bank) Private Recreation Garages No less than 20% of the total number of units shall be affordable to households at or below 80% of the median household income for the Boston Metropolitan Area as determined by the most recent calculation of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. At 20% affordable of total residential units the FAR shall be no greater than 0.8_; at 25% affordable the FAR shall be no greater than 1.0. The :foll.owin.g Table shall be used as the basis to detennine the affordable lout requirement: Total units and /or Contribution 1. S48,000 2 S96,000 3 S144,000 4. S192,000 5. 1 tout 6. 1 unit plus $48,000 7. 1 unit plus $96,000 Di t table 1 (2) 4 and.10, vef4eha's 1. The affordable units must be subject to Use Restrictions to ensure that the units remain available in perpetuity, exclusively to persons with qualifying incomes. The units must be sold or rented on a fair and open basis and the owners of the units must adopt an affirmative fair marketing plan. The minimum area for any of the residential units within the Mixed Use Overlay District shall be no less that 550 square feet and the maximum area shall not exceed 1000 square feet. The average size shall be 750 square feet (plus or minus 25 1 square feet). Residential Units shall be developed under the Local Initiative Program of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development or another subsidy program that allows the housing to count towards the affordable housing requirements of Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Law. 4.6.4 Parking Facility - Section 4.6. 10 of this bylaw. applies with respect to the CPDC's consideration of the grant of a Special Permit for the Mixed Use Overlay development. 4.6.5 Dimensional Requirements The dimensional requirements below shall apply. 4.6.5.1 Minimum contiguous area of the Mixed Use development Minimum contiguous area of the Mixed -Use development shall be 10,000 square feet The site of any new principal structure shall conform to Section 5.2.1 of the Zoning By -Laws. 4.6.5.2 Minimum Lot Frontage (TABLE 5.1.2) Minimum lot frontage shall be 40 feet. 4.6.5.3 Maximum Front Yard The maximum front yard shall be 20feet, and there is no minimum front yard. 4.6.5.4 Minimum Rear Yard Minimum rear yard shall be 15 feet and there is no minimum side yard. There shall also be at least 15 feet separation between any two structures in the development in the same lot and the areas behind and between all structures shall be clear and accessible to the Town's fire suppression vehicles. ® b square feet). Residential Units shall be developed under the Local Initiative Program of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development or another subsidy program that allows the housing to count towards the affordable housing requirements of Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Law. 4.6.4 Parking Facility -Section 4.6. 10 of this bylaw applies with respect to the CPDC's consideration of the grant of a Special Permit for the Mixed Use Overlay development. 4.6.5 Dimensional Requirements The dimensional requirements below shall apply. 4.6.5.1 Minimum contiguous area of the Mixed Use development Minimum contiguous area of the Mixed-Use development shall be 10,000 square feet The site of any new principal structure shall conform to Section 5.2.1 of the Zoning By-Laws. 4.6.5.2 Minimum Lot Frontage (TABLE 5.1.2) Minimum lot frontage shall be 40 feet. 4.6.5.3 Maximum Front Yard The maximum front yard shall be 20feet, and there is no minimum front yard. 4.6.5.4 Minimum Rear Yard Minimum rear yard shall be 15 feet and there is no minimum side yard. There shall also be at least 15 feet separation between any two structures in the development in the same lot and the areas behind and between all structures shall be clear and accessible to the Town's fire suppression vehicles. AS 4.6.5.5 Maximum Height Maximum height shall be 42 feet. 4.6.5.6 Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum lot coverage shall be 40% percent. 4.6.5.7 Minimum Landscaping Minimum landscaping shall be 25 percent, and shall meet the requirements of Section 6.2.12 of these bylaws. 4.6.5.8 Maximum Floor Area Maximum floor area ratio shall be 0.8, except as otherwise provided in 4.6.3.-. 4.6.6 Mixed Use Developments The mixture of uses shall not be constrained in any way, however, residential units are prohibited from the front of the 1" floor and parking garages are prohibited from the front of the lot. In all Mixed Use developments adequate off-street parking shall be provided. The CPDC and the applicant shall have as a goal for the purposes of defining adequate off-street parking, making the most efficient use of the parking facilities to be provided and minimizing the area of land to be paved for this purpose. In implementing this goal the CPDC pLayshall consider complementary or shared use of parking areas by activities having different peak demand times, and the applicant Maysha4l be required to locate adjacent uses in such a manner as will facilitate the complementary use of such parking areas. Implementation of such complementary use of parking areas may result in permitted reductions in the parking requirements. 4.6.6.1 Parking Locations Parking may be provided at ground level, underground or in a parking garage. Parking garages can be free standing or as part of buildings dedicated to other permitted uses. Parking spaces must be assigned to specific uses (including shared uses) at the time of the submission of the Final Plan. 4.6.6.2 Parking at Buildings Parking shall be primarily located at the rear or at the side of buildings. 4.6.6.3 Curb Cuts 'T'''eFe s a4 '^e -Oenly one curb cut providing access to the development from any public way inay be required. A development having frontage on two of more streets may be permitted additional curb cuts if deemed necessary by the CPDC Planning Beard. Whenever possible there shall be shared curb cuts with adjacent developments. 4.6.6.4 Parking Requirements Are: Residential 550 -700 sq. ft.= 1 space per unit 701 -1000 sq. ft. =2 spaces per unit Commercial/Office Retail 3.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Garages TBD Municipal Uses Exempt 4.6.6.5 Granting of Relief from Parking Regulations '1 Seetion b " granting of FCil ef II from pUrl czcr r�. Fjutu ivit.� .may apply.) hi those instances where the applicant has made a concerted effort to provide all the required number of parking spaces, the CPDC may accept an impact fee of $20,000 for each parking space not provided. The money may be used for short or long term parking solutions for the Town 4.6.7 Application Any person who desires a Special Permit for a Mixed Use development shall submit 14 copies of the application in such form as the CPDC may require which shall include the following: 4.6.7.1 Development Statement A Development Statement shall consist of a petition, a list of the parties in interest with respect to the tract, a list of the development team and a written statement describing the major aspects of the proposed development. 4.6.7.2 Development Plans Development plans bearing the seal of a Massachusetts Registered Architect, Registered Civil Engineer or similar professional as appropriate and consisting of: (a) Site plans and specifications showing all site improvements and meeting the requirements set forth for a Site Plan under Section 4.3.3. (b) Site perspective, sections, elevations 1/8 inch = 1 foot. (c) Detailed plans for disposal of sanitary sewage and surface drainage; and (a) Detailed plans for landscaping. 4.6.7.3 Additional information as the CPDCDeaird �g. 2'w may determine. 4.6.8 CPDCP!anning Board Findings A special permit shall be issued under this Section if the CPDC finds that the development is in harmony with the purpose, and intent of this Section and that it contains a compatible mix of uses sufficiently advantageous to the Town to render it appropriate to depart from the requirements of the Bylaw otherwise applicable to the District in which the development is located. 4.6.9 Amendments After approval, the developer may seek amendments to the approved plan. Minor amendments may be made by a majority vote of the CPDC. It shall be a finding of the Planning Board, not subject to dispute by the applicant, whether a requested amendment is deemed to be major or minor. A major amendment shall require the filing of an amended special permit application. 4.6.10 Existing Structures 4.6.10.1 Change in Use A special permit may be granted to existing non - conforming structures, including those with a valid building permit, as of the date of the passage of this By -Law applying for a change of use in the Mixed Use Overlay District provided that parking for the existing and new uses meets the requirements of Section 4.6.8.4 4.6.10.2 Additions A special permit may be granted to existing nonconforming structures, including those with a valid building permit, as of the date of the passage of this By -Law applying for a change of use and an addition to the a`` structure provided that the footprint of the building structure remains unchanged or does not exceed 40% lot coverage, whichever is greater, and the FAR of 0.8 is not exceeded._D^rk4ng ,•e„,,,, eat existing for the itses iii the axisfiiig floor- area must of Seel o,-, 4.6.8.4. fl, Li -- RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO U.S. SENATE BILL 1504 A Resolution of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading expressing opposition to Senate Bill 1504 known as the `Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act" (S. 1504), urging Congressional Representatives to refrain from any form of support or co- sponsorship of S. 1504 and to vote in opposition to S. 1504, and directing that this Resolution be forwarded to the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation, and the President of the United States; WHEREAS: On August 2, 2005, Senators John Ensign and John McCain introduced the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005 (S. 1504); and WHEREAS: The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading opposes the passage of S. 1504 because: ♦ The bill would preempt all local authority over the provision of cable and video services within the community, including the ability of the local government to provide appropriate oversight to entities conducting business within their jurisdiction and in the local public rights -of -way; s The Town's negotiated contract with its cable operator(s) would be abrogated under the terms of the bill; . ♦ The bill would substitute a new compensation methodology on the parties to the Town's existing franchise contract, depriving the Town of the agreed -upon bargain by lowering the existing franchise fee and replacing it with a fee which must be justified as being "reasonable" in the eyes of the user, limited to management costs (which denies the rights of the property owner to obtain fair and reasonable compensation for the use of public property for private gain), and not in excess of 5 %; e These requirements and restrictions would result in the creation of a subsidy to the cable and telecommunications industries, at the expense of the Town's tax payers; The bill would further substantially reduce the revenues that are now includable in the definition of "Gross Revenues" so that even if the franchise fee did in fact remain at 5 %, the Town's revenues from the fee would be significantly less due to the smaller revenue base: o The bill would substantially reduce the amount of capacity which may be required by local governments to meet their public, educational and government ( "PEG ") access needs, while striping the Town of the ability to obtain capital support for the use of PEG capacity — part of the bargain contained within the Town's negotiated franchise agreement — with the result that the community's cable - related needs and interests would not be met; o The bill would deprive local citizens of the ability to address local issues locally, by removing to the state all customer service issues, and further by denying consumers any form of recourse for any actions of a communications provider; ♦ The bill would eliminate any build -out requirements for any video service provider, thereby allowing providers to discriminate based on the wealth of the local neighborhoods they choose to serve; The bill would preempt any state or local law that is not generally applicable to all businesses, thereby potentially preempting any law applicable to only certain classes of businesses, such as utilities and rights -of -way users (such as requiring undergrounding of facilities and ensuring electric code compliance); ♦ The bill would prohibit the Town from imposing any fee for issuance of rights -of -way construction permits yet would require the Town to act on requests for permits in a timely manner as determined by the FCC, thereby insinuating inappropriate federal government involvement in the basic day -to -day management of local rights -of -way; ♦ The bill would prohibit municipalities and their utilities from providing communications services without giving a right of first refusal to private industry, and would then grant industry unfettered access to all municipal facilities and financing in the event private industry chooses to provide services; ♦ The bill would deprive the Town of the authority to establish and maintain government owned and operated networks known as institutional networks that may be utilized by first responders and other government officials in the day -to -day management of the Town's business; ♦ The bill would permit broadened preemption of local zoning decisions relating to the placement of cell towers, depriving the Town of the authority to ensure that such towers are safely and appropriately located in the areas to provide the greatest degree of services without necessarily posing a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare; and s The bill would eliminate the protection the Town currently has against liability for damages and attorney's fees in lawsuits brought by communication service providers against local governments, a type of litigation that the bill would seem to invite service providers to bring. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading that for the reasons stated above, the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading declares its opposition to S. 1504 and urges the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation and all other members of Congress to oppose S. 1504. The Board of Selectmen hereby directs that this Resolution be forwarded immediately to the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation, other members of Congress as deemed appropriate, and to the President of the United States. Signed this 20th day of September, 2005. BOARD OF SELECTMEN Camille W. Anthony, Chairman Richard W. Schubert, Vice Chairman Joseph G. Duffy, Secretary James E. Bonazoli Ben Tafoya ACM: ACM Position ouIDR3l46 8l349 and Sl5U4 I- tx �u 6/,� ACM Position on HR3146, S1349 and S1504 The members of the Alliance for Community Media request that you announce your support for media localism that builds diverse communities across our nation. ��m��a�� &�e ae�kthat Dmvu strongly oppose House 3146, Senate 1349 proposed by Senator Ensign last week -- Each of these bills is a National Video Disenfranchisement Act — undoing years of progress in connecting the people of our communities to important local institutions and services. These bills are anti-competitive taking resources away from our local communities and giving them to giant and remote corporations without fair compensation. These bills are technically flawed and unworkable in the real world. We request that the Congress take the time to develop a reasoned framework that will serve the public interest and function effectively for years to come. The cable bills before Congress are wrong for three reason: The Bills Take Resources From Our 0 Communications Facilities - While the bills continue some aspects of franchise fees to municipalities, they eliminate essential communications facilities our local governments have negotiated as part of franchise agreements. Gone will be the distance learning this affords our schools. Gone will be the institutional networks used for public safety and homeland security. Gone will be the resources which have provided for cheaper, more efficient delivery of health and social services. m Franchise Fee Off-Sets - Under the Ensign bill franchise fees—fees paid in recognition of the value of public rights-of-way -- are eliminated. Instead, cities and towns are reduced to recovering the cost of maintaining rights-of-way for use by these corporations. Even collection of real costs is limited to 596 of gross revenue or less. This means that none of what used tuba called the franchise fee will be available to support Public Access, Educational Access or Government Access programming. Funding will be eliminated for public networks including public safety communications. These Bills Are Technically Deficient: • Jurisdiction — PEG - The|ma|cable franchise isthe negotiation and enforcement tool for communities. Under the proposed legislation, there is no entity to determine PEG channel capacity, placement, interconnection or support. The City has no relationship to the provider' Furthermore, while the bills anticipate creation of PEG capacity in towns where there is none, they do not identify a negotiating partner to establish the request—and if they did, the partner would have nn authority from which to negotiate the community interest. • Jurisdiction -- &kight-Of-Way - Loca|connnnunitiesanareduoedtohaving little legal enforcement authority over a national corporation operating in their public roads. Local differences of opinion in the placement of poles, equipment of the digging up of roads may have to be settled at the state level, by the FCC or in the courts instead of attama-to-facemeetings. • Jurisdiction -- Ensign -This bill in particular designates that the cable provider can dig up the public roads without notifying the city, much less obtaining permission, in the case of an undefined "emergency" -- an unacceptable derogation of the city's public safety obligations. • One Size Does �Not Fit All - Our communities are beautifully diverse. One national regimen cannot possibly cover the technical, communications, cultural and construction needs n[ all cities, large and small. The Borough of Manhattan, New York alone has more than 550,000 cable subscribers, TA a �� / ACM ACM Position *oB0X3l46,Sl349 and Sl5U4 more than 5,000 producers of Public Access, one of the most ethnically diverse communities in the world, very broad, permissive community standards, extremely dense geography, and the most intense media coverage in the country. The Town of Rhinebeck has under 10,000 total population -- a population 358 times geographically less dense than Manhattan, has more sensitive community standards, has less commercial coverage of local issues, less demand on public channel capacity, greater likelihood of satellite penetration and different opportunities for economic development. A one-size-fits-all approach to franchise negotiations does not adequately allow either of these two New York Cities to determine what use of its publicly owned rights-of-way best serves the local public need. Further, a national franchise authority moves us rapidly toward the creation of a single, homogenized national culture—one with little difference between Hollywood CA and Hollywood, FL. 0 Channel Capacity - Nowhere is the term "ohanno|"dofined. This deficiency will lead to confusion and litigation between all parties. This lack of clarity shows the haste in which these bills were patched together. Currently, achanne| occupies 6MHzbandwidth. Five channels would occupy3OMHz bandwidth. As systems digitize, more "channels" occupy less bandwidth. A digital signal typically occupies 1/10th as much space now and may occupy 1/100th as much in the near future. The commitment to public interest bandwidth in payment for nights-of-way would, therefore, shrink as the system capacity grows! More importantly, the number of functions associated with a channel are increasing as the size of the signal decreases. A "channel" such as Disney, for instance, may include programming as we currently understand it, but may also include interactive services, sales, side-bar information sources, audience measurement -- it is impossible in 2005 to imagine what may constitute a channel in2O2O. These Bills Are Anti-Competitive: • All three bills absolutely favor the existing cable and telecommunications providers over all potential competitors at a time when the Supreme Court decision in "Brand X" signals that neither has 'open platform" obligations for their information services. Every community will be controlled by one or two dominant players who have legal authority to act as gatekeepers for most voice, data and video to the home. This is non-competitive and anti-democratio. • The Ensign bill awards "veto" control to any corporation over municipal development of communications facilities — without any corporate commitment to create that structure! This absolutely eliminates the need bo compete. The community has no legal ability to ask for content or services and loses the ability to provide them on its own -- a fundamental means of encouraging the commercial provider to do so. How The Bills Can Be Fixed: The simplest solution for telecom entry into cable ishn mirror existing cable franchises in each locality. It eliminates the burden of negotiating new agreements from scratch. This is fair to telecom, fair to existing cable providers, fair to PEG operations and, most importantly, fair to your constituents who own and maintain the land upon which these enormous profits are to be made. (For a successful example of this, see the agreements between Time Warner, RCN and the Borough of Manhattan, /VK) 0 Solution - Rnanda|supportfor Public, Educational and Government (PEG)Access must be maintained—including both operating and capital support as outlined in the existing federal laws. 0 Solution - Municipal use of channels should maintain system proportionality with 2004 levels or 30 MHz, whichever is qreater. OU / 083/20051:56 YM ACM: ACM Position wolR3l46 Sl34g and Bl5U4 0 Solution - Non-monetary payments of the franchise agreements, including public networks and other community media infrastructure must beprotected. 0 Solutiom - Franchise fees, if limited to5%, must stand alone. They should not be offset by other values, nor should they be tied artificially to unrelated costs of the municipality. These fees are in recognition that great profits are being made on land ownedbythepeop|enfthetown — inedditiontoanycnstsofnmaintenance. Competition is good, but it must be smart. These bills lack adequate rudder. A balance must be struck between community need and corporate desire. This balance cannot be reached if every means for the community to speak as a group is eliminated. The Alliance for Community Media and the hundreds of thousands of organizations we support and represent throughout this great country implore Congress to maintain the wise and proven policy of Local Franchising Authorities for cable broadband and other broadband service. It is a system which has for more than thirty years encouraged diversity in programming and structure based on the needs of our local communities. It is a system that has encouraged vibrant competition and innovation, while allowing local government to serve constituents more efficiently. As you consider proposed legislation, please protect the existing policy of community reinvestment through Public, Educational and Government (PEG)Access, including those funds and bandwidth being used for public purposes, by: • Allowing the local community which owns the public right-of-way to franchise and determine the best use of the community's property. This principle must be protected by Federal law. • Dedicating 1096 of public airwaves and capacity on communication facilities that occupy public rights-of-way for PEG use for local programs, community-based education, free speech, political processes and diverse points ofview. • Mandating funding of 5% of gross revenues from all infrastructure or service providers and spectrum licensees to support PEG equipment, facilities, training and services. 0 Making PEG access universally available to any consumer of advanced telecommunications services capable of full-motion video. Please feel free to call on the Alliance office, or our members at any time for information or for support in changing these bills. 3 of 3 9/13/2005 1:56 PM gos 65, q,io -ns ffl��Z To: Peter Hechenbleilmer, Town Manager CC: John Sousa From: Edward McIntire, Jr.i Date: September 9, 2005 Re: RAMAR Meter Transponders The Town of Reading contracted with Logicon, now owned by Northrop Grumman, on November 8, 2001 for the purchase of a Radio Frequency Meter Reading System, which would allow us to capture water meter readings electronically. The system included computer hardware, software, and transponders. Shortly after the system installation began in June 2002, a number of transponders manufactured by RAMAR, LLC. began to fail. By August 2002, 400 defective transponders were replaced. Northrop Grumman assured the Town that although they had become aware of manufacturing quality control issues with earlier versions of transponders, their field experience demonstrated that newer versions would be more reliable. During 8 meter reading cycles between January 2003 and January 2005, Town personnel identified transponder failures ranging from 300 to 981 per cycle. This has required Town staff to spend numerous hours developing lists of locations requiring replacement units, accompanying contract installers to these locations, updating database information for each account, and shipping failed units back to RAMAR. September 9, 2005 With the assistance of Town Counsel, we received a commitment from Northrop to replace all early Model V4 units remaining in Town (5200) between Mar. 9 and May 10, 2005 with newer Model V6 units. Northrop completed this installation through a subcontractor, National Metering Services. Following this replacement project, the results from our town - wide reading on May 16 -17, 2005 indicated that the majority of transponders were functioning except for 1.80 accounts, indicating an improvement. However, this improvement proved to be temporary. During our reading process in mid - August, 315 transponders were not functioning correctly. There have also been numerous delays in obtaining replacement transponders from Northrop Grumman. Our Public Works staff has had to deal with many frustrated residents who received estimated water and sewer bills. Many of these same residents have also expressed a lack of confidence in the accuracy of our meter readings. Despite the Town's patience and good faith efforts to allow Northrop numerous opportunities to correct the problem, they have failed to do so. They have continued to repeatedly replace transponders with newer models but have failed to improve overall system reliability. Therefore, we recommend that the Town pursue any necessary legal action to recover expenses involved in purchasing an alternative brand of transponders that is compatible with our existing water meters. �v a BRACKETT & LUCAS COUNSELORS AT LAW 19 CEDAR STREET WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01609 508- 799 -9739 Fax 508- 799 -9799 GARY S. BRACKETT ELAINE M. LUCAS JOAN E. LANGSAM JOHN G. GANNON M. YVONNE GONZALEZ* JAMES T. MASTERALEXIS STEVEN C. FLETCHER ** ELLEN CALLAHAN DOUCETTE DONNA GORSHEL COHEN HEATHER C. WHITE *Also Admitted in CT * *Also Admitted in ME and CO September 9, 2005 Cheryle Morgan, Esq. Northrop Grumman Corporation 13825 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 120 Herndon, VA 20171 RE: Town of Reading Contract No. 02 -06 Dear Ms. Morgan: hr)S WINCHESTER OFFICE 165 WASHINGTON STREET WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01890 781- 729 -1500 Fax781- 729 -5444 E -Mail: ECDoucette @brackettLucas.com F+9 E3 v, , C10 M `V . M ,ae Please be advised that the Town of Reading continues to experience a high rate of failure with the RAMAR TransPondITs provided by Northrop Grumman in accordance with the above - referenced contract. Despite attempts by the Town and Northrup Grumman to resolve this situation, this high failure rate continues unabated. The Town has deemed the high failure rate of the TransPondITs to be unacceptable, and has now authorized this office to pursue any and all legal recourse available on its behalf. As such, the Town's Director of Public Works has informed me that neither he nor anyone on his behalf will engage in further discussions with Northrop Grumman and /or its agents, and has requested that all fi.irther communication regarding this issue be conducted by and through this office. Sincerely, 1 Ellen Callahan D 0 tt ,ON September 12, 2005 N 8 Town of Reading Board of Selectman 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867„ Dear Board Members: a 0 As you may be aware, I, along with members of my neighborhood, have been working through the public process in an effort to site STOP signs at Avalon Road and Louanis Drive. The traffic impact of the increased Woburn retail densities (Kohls, Lowes etc.) coupled with disruption caused by the new apartment project on West Street, have resulted in enormous re- routing of traffic during peak commuting hours. Perhaps more problematic from a public safety perspective is the fact that this re- routed traffic is less familiar with the residential nature of Louanis Drive and Avalon Road and tends to travel at very high rates of speed. In addition, we are concerned that once the traffic signal is in place at the intersection of West and South Streets, even more traffic will "cut- through" Louanis Drive to avoid waiting at that stoplight. In a conversation I had with Town Manager, Peter Hechenbleikner, on August 24, 2005, I was very troubled to learn that, as part of the fact - finding in order to determine the need for STOP signs, the Town chose to measure traffic counts during July and August. Due to the fact that these tend to be vacation months, schools are not in session, many residents are away and portions of West Street were closed to through traffic, it is the opinion of members of this neighborhood that the traffic counts gathered would not be an accurate representation of the traffic. I did specifically request that rather than submit data that is flawed/skewed for the reasons mentioned, this data be held until such time as the traffic study could incorporate peak fall weeks as a true measure of the traffic flow. When school is back in session, businesses are back to peak staffing and retail shopping activity picks up, the traffic in our neighborhood does too. Since we will soon be on the agenda to meet with you to discuss this issue, I wanted to make you aware of the inadequate nature of the traffic data in advance. Thank you for your consideration. S' erely, Sheila Krekorian Tully 52 Avalon Road 781 -944 -9817 cc: Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Page 1 of 5 Hechenbleikner, Peter ... Subject: RE: Jordan's/trucks-update 9/2/05 MU If you read the decision below - the last sentence - retail use deliveries are permitted between 6 am and midnight. What is otherwise restricted by this decision are non-retail related deliveries and pick-up, and trash removal. Pete After occupancy of a building, the hours for non-retail deliveries and pick-up (excluding customer pick- up) or trash removal to or from any building shall be limited to the following hours: Monday through Friday inclusive 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM; Saturdays 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Sundays and legal holidays, none. Retail uses at this site shall have no deliveries, pick-up during the hours of midnight to 6:00 AM. - - - -- Original Message----- From: Bill Toppi [mailto:bilitoppi@hotmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:59 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; sdml@bigfoot.com; patdevito@senatortisei.com Cc: DLaVancher@lifeplansinc.com; JSeagrams@aol.com; paul.humphries@verizon.net Subject: RE: Jordan's /trucks- update 9/2/05 Peter, Then why does the permit say 7AM..par31 Bill From: 'Hechenbleikner, Peter" <phechenbleikner@ci.reading.ma.us> To: 'VillToppP'<billtoppl@hotmallcom>,<Sdml@blgfootcom>,<patdevito@senatortiselcom> CC: <DLaVal7cher@llfeplanslnc.com>,<JSeagrams@aolcom>,<paulhumpl7r!es@verIzon-net> Subject: RE.- Jordan s/trucks-update 912105 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 200512.•58.•55 -0400 The trucks, by bylaw and CPDC permit, are permitted to be there after 6 am. Pete Hechenbleikner - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Bill Toppi [mailto:bilitoppi@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 8:52 AM To: sdml@bigfoot.com; patdevito@senatortisei.com Cc: DLaVancher@lifeplansinc.com; JSeagrams@aol.com; paul.humphries@verizon.net Subject: Re: Jordan's/trucks-update 9/2/05 This morning I rose early (@6 AM) and positioned myself with my trusty binoculars ready to ID that early truck. WhIe sipping my coffee I heard the vehicle at 6:45 and ran to the widow. You can manage my surprise when I discovered that the truck was LEAVING the lot. I did not hear it arrive, so it either got their before 6:30 or was there all night. I could not read the lettering on the cab but the trailer read "XTRA". Oh yes I went to bed late, for me, around 11:30 and the parking lights were blazing away like it was the grand opening. Jordan's pink neon was off however. 9/7/2005 q 3P Page Iof6 f c 6 o Hechenblelkner, Peter Subject: RE: Jordan'sitrucks-update 9/2/05 ThankaBiU- |thought it was good discussion also. Yes - the Domho midnight |ebown-wide. |n fact in the remainder of the community, trash trucks can also operate ae early aaGam. | have the names ofo couple of lighting consultants, and passed Scott a note asking for any names hehas. If you have the names of any consultants I'd be happy to include them in seeking proposals. Pete Original Fromm: Bill To '[maiho:bi|Ko '@hotmai|.cnn] Sent: Wednesday, September 07,2005 3;39PM To:Hachenbkjkner Peter Subject: RE: Jordan's/trucks-update 9/2/05 Peter TdO see that now. T suppose that iG not just for Walkers Brook? Par 3] does say that but doesn't specify Saturdays like the 7 AM rule. Good meeting last night Bill From: "H4chen/lelkne�/e�r, nxzus> To: ��7oA�" cmn> Subject: RE. Jordan Vtrucks-update 912105 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:22,23 -0400 If you read the decision below - the last sentence - retail use deliveries are permitted between 6 am and midnight. What is otherwise restricted by this decision are non-retail related deliveries and pick-up, and trash removal. Pete After occupancy of pick-up) or trash removal to or from any building shall be limited 0o the following hours: Monday through Friday inclusive /:000mm/:uuPM; Saturdays 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Sundays and legal holidays, none. Retail uses at this site shall have no deliveries, pick-up during the hours cf midnight to6:OOAM. ----- Original Message ----- From: B0T000 [moUto:bU hotmai|.conl Sent: Tuesday, September 06 2005 8:59 AM To: necnanom/nner, Peter; soml@o/g/oot.com;puuuev/uu@sem'u/use/.wv/// Cc: DLeVancher@|ifap|ansinc.conn;]Seagsxmno@ao|.corn| pau|.humnphheo@mehoon,nat Subject: RE: ]ordan's/trucks-updata9/2/UG Then why does the permit say 7AM..par3l 9/7/2O05 V. Lf Coo LPage 1 of 1 L ( C -f Hechenbleikner, Peter To: Fred Van Magness Subject: RE: RE: New "Fee" proposal for Water Thanks Fred. I'll pass this along to the BOS. Pete - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Fred Van Magness [mailto:vanmagness @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:40 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Van Magness (Home -243); Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE : New "Fee" proposal for Water This message is from Fred Van Magness, Senior Dear BOS Member, I have read recently that the BOS is considering a "Fee" of some $61 +/- per property owner for storm water management. While there may be some important objectives to be achieved, I think the BOS needs to consider the fact that the taxpayers of Reading have recently approved: An Override to help with town expenses New schools and renovations thereto.... taxes are up over $500 per average property Funds / plans for a new water treatment facility Funds to join MWRA Residents are getting hit hard financially from many directions, what with gas /energy prices running unabated and the prospects for people to pay dearly for heating their homes this winter. If this program is so wonderful or feels so good, then the BOS needs to stand up and be counted by funding it directly from the Tax levy. Do not back door it through a "Fee" or within an Enterprise Account. Once you get into the creative business of "Fee's ", where will you or future BOS stop? Fees are, in my opinion, bad politics.... plain and simple. At least if it is funded in the Tax levy, then people can get some potential refund via Federal Income Taxes. My bet is that if it was to be funded via the Tax levy, then other projects would be higher on the BOS priority list than this one. A "fee" is typically charged to users for a service ... use the service and pay the "Fee ". If you don't use the service, then pay NO "FEE ". A Tax is something that is passed on to all proportionately .... everyone benefits and therefore pays their fair share. Hard to say this fits the "Fee" criteria above. I would hope the BOS decides, in their representative leadership role of all taxpayers and residents, to remove this item from the subsequent Town Meeting Warrant. Fred Fred Van Magnes, SR 9/8/2005 Hechenbleikner, Peter To: darla_kay @comcast.net Subject: FW: �Voo-cf End/Franklin St. Traffic Darla and Kevin I am the appropriate person to address your questions to. You are to be commended for walking, but of course have to make the decision of whether it is safe for you and your children at this time. Ideally we would have sidewalks on the entire street, and as you are aware, we are working towards that, with the first priority being Sunset Rock Lane to William, and to Fox Run Lane. We will be making progress on other sections next year. Please see the Police Chief's comments below which address some of your issues. With respect to the signs and the school zone sign with the speed board, they are on order. The regulatory signs are supposed to be shipped tomorrow and delivered next week. We will have them installed as soon as they arrive. The flashing school zone sign with speed board is also on order - I don't have a delivery date yet but we're tracking it down. Thanks for your interest and please bear with us - we are working on these issues as fast as money and staff time allow. Pete - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Cormier, Jim Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:53 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: Wood End/Franklin St. Traffic Pete, We had temorarily put an officer at the entrance to Emerson to reinforce the one way regs., this will not, at this point, be a permanent position. We did however notice a speed issue there, and are addressing it. We will have radar done there beginning at 7:30am for the next week and see how we go from there. We were going to set up our speed board there, but it is such a shady area and we did not want to take up the sidewalk space that we put it on the other side of the school zone by Pasture Rd. I realize this is not the speed board she's reffering to, but we did consider it. If there is anything else in the email you would like me to adddrss I would be more than happy. Jimmy Cormier Police Chief - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:22 PM To: Cormier, Jim Subject: FW: Wood End/Franklin St. Traffic - - - -- Original Message---- - From: darla—kay@comcast.net [mailto:darla—kay@comcast.net] I M1 Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:01 AM To: Town Manager Subject: Wood End/Franklin St. Traffic Mr. Hechenbleikner, We're writing with serious concerns about the school traffic on Franklin St. We live at 288 between Fox Run and Emerson on the South side of the street. For the last three days we've been walking with our neighbors and their children to Emerson St. and up to Wood End. Although it is a short distance to Emerson, the speed of cars on Franklin St. (many over the posted limit) combined with a uneven and sloping shoulder is overwhelming for the children (there are 5 in our group). Why have the speed boards not been installed? Why was there no police detail at the bottom of Emerson street today? When are the cross walks going to be painted on the roads along with signs? Each day these things go undone is a day our children are not being provided with a safe environment to travel to school. Walking is being encouraged be school officials and it's our preferred way to get to school but myself and others are going to be left with no choice but driving to school if walk ing continues to be unsafe. Hopefully you are the appropriate person to address this e-mail to. If it should also be sent elsewhere please let us know. Sincerely, Darla and Kelin Whipple, 288 Franklin St. N N��, a' • DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY AND THE AIR FORCE JOINT FORCE HEADQUARTERS MASSACHUSETTS NATIONAL GUARD OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL 50 MAPLE STREET MILFORD, MA 01757 -3604 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Construction and Facilities Management Office Town of Reading Board of Selectmen Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 -2601 Re: Camp Curtis Guild Field. Maintenance Shop (FMS) Project Dear Selectmen: September 1, 2005 As you may recall, the Massachusetts Army National Guard ( MAARNG) is proposing to construct a fifteen million dollar Field Maintenance Shop (FMS) facility at Camp Curtis Guild (CCG). The purpose of the proposed FMS is to provide efficient maintenance support for the vehicles and equipment that are authorized to CCG, and it is needed to address current vehicle maintenance facility deficiencies at CCG. The proposed FMS was introduced at a public meeting during the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process for the project in 2004. Since that time the MAARNG has completed studies to identify and characterize environmental resource areas (ERAs) within the southern portion of CCG. At the completion of these studies, information about the nature and extent of these areas was shared with the towns of Reading, Lynnfield, and Wakefield with Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) filings, which were submitted to each town's Conservation Commission. These ANRADs sought confirmation of the boundaries of the resource areas and associated buffer zones in the southern portion of CCG so that the FMS project could be designed to avoid, minimise, and mitigate potential alterations to these areas. Orders of Resource Area Delineations (ORADs) were subsequently issued by each of the towns, including Reading. Since the completion of the ANRAD processes in the three towns, the design of the FMS facility has been advancing and I am writing today to inform the Board of Selectmen that the MAARNG, in consultation with the Reading Conservation Commission (RCC), and based upon their input, has successfully designed the project to avoid alteration of resource or buffer areas within the Town of Reading. Because there will be no alterations of wetland resource areas or buffers within Reading, the MAARNG will not be filing a wetlands Notice of Intent for the project with the RCC. However, the MAARNG recognizes that there are other environmental issues that have been raised by the RCC with respect to historical activities at CCG, and I wish to make you aware that the MAARNG has retained the professional services of URS Corporation (URS) to work with the RCC to help us come to some resolution and closure on those issues. This separate project is currently underway, and we anticipate that it will be completed shortly. With this letter, I am also making the Board of Selectmen aware that the MAARNG will be scheduling an open house at CCG this fall, which the public will be invited to attend. Our hope is that this event will offer our neighbors in Reading, Wakefield, and Lynnfield an opportunity to better understand the MAARNG's ongoing mission and activities at CCG. In closing, I note that the MAARNG has deeply appreciated the assistance offered by the RCC during the recent ANRAD process. We look forward to the successful completion of the FMS project, to resolution of the historical issues identified by the RCC, and to a continued cooperative relationship with the Town of Reading. Having operated and trained at CCG since the early 1900's we have tried and will continue to strive to be good neighbors, environmental stewards and productive members of the local community and economy. COLONEL MASSACHUSETTS ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Say. GARY S. BRACKETT ELAINE M. LUCAS JOAN E. LANGSAM JOHN G. GANNON M. YVONNE GONZALEZ' JAMES T. MASTERALEXIS STEVEN C. FLETCHER" ELLEN CALLAHAN DOUCETTE DONNA GORSHEL COHEN HEATHER C. WHITE *Also Admitted in CT "Also Admitted in ME and CO Annmarie Rourke, Esquire Carragher, Fox & Roarke, P.C. 229 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 -3697 BRACKETT & LucAs COUNSELORS AT LAW 19 CEDAR STREET WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01609 508 -799 -9739 Fax 508- 799 -9799 Re: Town of ReadinWSearch for Heirs Reading Memorial Park Dear Ms. Rourke: L (C P WINCHESTER OFFICE 165 WASHINGTON STREET WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01890 781- 729 -1500 Fax 781- 729 -5444 Email: jelangsam@BrackettLucas.com Please respond to the Winchester office. September 6, 2005 w 8 v� ~v e Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager for the Town of Reading, has authorized an additional sum of $1,000.00 for the further research needed to identify the heirs of the grantors of a gift of land (Memorial Park) to the Town of Reading. Please forward your bill for the initial $1,000.00 to my attention. I thank you for your attention to this matter and look forward to hearing from .you. Very truly yours, /Joan Langsam JEL: sj s cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager L (C goi �N --�► Municipal Sixty Temple Place (800) 882-1498 Boston, • • FAX • •• PLEASE HOLD THIS DATE: OCTOBER 18,2005 MMA TO RELEASE MAJOR REPORT AND HOST FORUM ON REVENUE SHARING AND THE FUTURE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ECONOMY September 8, 2005 Dear Local Leader, I am writing on behalf of the MMA-Board of Directors to give you advance notice of a special MMA- sponsored economic study and statewide forum on Tuesday morning October 18 2005 at the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston. This event will focus on the compelling need for reinvestment in revenue sharing and strong cities and towns in order for the Massachusetts economy to compete and thrive. Please mark your calendar so that you can attend. A formal letter of invitation with the specific agenda and registration form will be sent to you within the next several weeks. Because of meeting space limitations and security requirements at the bank, we wanted to give you a preliminary notice of this event. Here is an outline of the MMA economic project and October 18'h forum for local leaders: The Need for a New Partnership: Massachusetts needs to break free of the current annual cycle of uncertainty regarding local aid and return to a stable and adequate level of revenue sharing to .provide the local services that are necessary for a high quality of life, and to allow us to reduce our reliance on the overburdened and regressive property tax. Local aid is a vital aspect of the state's economic competitiveness and success, and Massachusetts must develop a long -range framework to rebuild an adequate, stable and dependable level of state fiscal support, and win reform and greater local power in key management areas such as local option taxes, health insurance, and unfunded mandates. Economic Study: The MMA has engaged Professor Barry Bluestone and the Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University to conduct an independent comprehensive analysis of the historical trends in local aid, the treatment of local aid during times of fiscal crisis, and a comparison with selected states that are competing with us for population and jobs. The study will break out school and municipal aid, track reliance on the property tax, and integrate the findings, with key economic principles regarding attracting and retaining jobs and people in Massachusetts. October 18, 2005 Statewide Forum: The MMA will host the October 18, 2005 forum at the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston to release the report and launch an on -going campaign to educate state, business and opinion leaders and the general public. Because of meeting space limitations and security requirements at the bank, invitees will be limited to Mayors, Chairmen of . Boards of Selectmen, Town and City Managers and Administrators, and Council and Board of Aldermen Presidents. Northeastern University will release the report's findings and we will have other key presentations. Beyond the forum, we will integrate the economic report into our advocacy efforts, our 2006 Annual Meeting, and our election 2006 project to inform all candidates for state office of the need for a new and stronger state -local fiscal partnership. This will be an event..you won't want to miss! Please watch for your invitation and register as soon as it arrives. Sinc y; o Geoff Be with Executive Director S ko C - ftl 1P First Congregational UNITED CHURCH Of CHRIST READING, MASSAGHUSETTS September 13, 2005 Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner, 2m5 SEP 14 AM 9: 38 I spoke to you briefly last week concerning the parking, speed etc., issues in our neighborhood. After speaking with both Reverend's they asked if I could write and apprise you of a growing problem we have here at the church. Presently we have our own staff of five, CAK staff which varies as they have teachers coming and going and Reap's staff of three plus a Van for the children. I myself get here at 7:00 in the morning and by 7:30 six to eight parking places are already taken up on Sanborn Street. I have noticed that the people are either parking for the train or to work downtown. We do have a couple of handicapped spaces out front, but that does not help the elderly that are not legally handicapped but that cannot walk a great distance, and we really don't have enough spaces for the staff. When there is a funeral service here the participating funeral home gets cones out around 6:30 so we can park people for that. Is there any way we could designate some of the spaces, at least on our side of the street for Church Staff or Churchity parking only? We would be open to any suggestions you could gives Administrator l� a ...Spirit-led worship, warm welcome and sanctuary for all. 25 Woburn Street <,- Reading, MA 01867 Y www.churchofreading.org -<> 781.944.0205 (phone) 781.944.8887 (fax) riA b / C (SLA Steven J. Sadwick, AICP 138 Prospect Street a Reading • Massachusetts o 01867 (781)- 942 -5824 sadwick@comcast.net September 15, 2005 Mr. Marc Draisen, Executive Director Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place Boston, MA 02111 Re: Draft Population and Employment Projections Dear Mr. Draisen: I have reviewed the draft Population and Employment Projections on behalf of the Town of Reading and provide my comments below to the questions of your August 30, 2005 request. The estimates for Reading's future population and employment appear to be reasonable estimates based on past trends and the projection methodology utilized by MAPC. Trends that are not reflected, but by nature are somewhat unpredictable, include the effects of any comprehensive permit activity in the Town. Some additional changes since 2000 on development activity include two significant comprehensive permit projects along West Street. Additionally, from a commercial development perspective the Walkers Brook Crossing retail area has recently been completed. The former Addison - Wesley site is currently being discussed for reutilization as a retail center. As for the Traffic Analysis Zones, unfortunately I was unable to review the maps that were sent to the Town offices. I am assuming that standard planning and transportation modeling were used in developing the TAZ projections. In general, I have the following observations/ questions regarding the projections: 1. In footnote 2 there is a discussion on the change in projection models from what was utilized in 2003. How significant is the difference in the results? 2. Under the discussion on data, state -level annual births and deaths from 1989 -2001 were used to calculate natural increases. Why was such a short period of time used? Is it possible that anomalies could be present? Additionally, annual birth rate multipliers were created using the 3 -year timeframe and multiplied by 5 to create five -year birth rates. While the methodology is footnoted, would it have been possible to use actual numbers from a 5 -year historical analysis? 3. Net Migration Is there a relationship between under -18 age cohorts and adults in migration calculations? In other words, the under -18 will not migrate without adult migration. 4. The econometric modeling for the employment projections appears to be a very rigorous analysis of available data and use, of best estimates. I commend the MAPC for their work on these estimates and appreciate the opportunity to review the draft. Sinc Iy- Steven I adwick, AICP Town of Reading MAPC Representative cc: Town der Town Planner Page I of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter To: RNRchambercom@aol.com Subject: RE: Parking meetings Mt. Vernon St Carol There was a site walk last Saturday, to which all property owners in the area bounded by Woburn, Sanborn, High, and Middlesex were invited. There were no decisions made - any decisions will be by the Board of Selectmen at a public hearing. There was discussion about a lot of things including parking restrictions. I'll pass this not along to the BOS. Pete - - - -- Original Message---- - From: RNRchambercom@aol.com [mailto:RNRchambercom@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 9:33 AM To: Town Manager Subject: Fwd: Parking meetings Mt. Vernon St Peter, I received this email from Lisa Vouras, DIVID and I don't know the answer, but thought maybe you could answer this and I can get back to her. Thanks, Carol Hughes, Executive Director Reading-North Reading Chamber of Commerce PO Box 771, Reading, MA 01867 P#781-944-8824 Fax#781-944-6125 www.readingnreadingchamber.org "Our Business is your Business" ski 9/13/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: molar85@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 8:56 AM To: RNR Chamber Commerce Subject: Parking meetings Mt. Vernon St - Do you know of any parking meetings upcoming with regard to the Mt. Vernon, Chute ST. Bancroft area coming up in relation to making the area of Mt Vernon resident only? We are increasingly concerned about the lack of parking space for my very dedicated staff who although most do not live in the Community, strive to provide services to the local residents. We have heard through the grapevine that there is an upcoming meeting in the regard. We were never notified of the meeting to make Chute street one way which has made it difficult for some of our patients. Lisa Vouras DMD 85 Woburn Street Reading, MA 01867 PH 781-944-4940 Fax 781-944-0445 Net: molar85@comcast.net 9/13/2005