HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-25 Board of Selectmen HandoutMASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
STORM ALERT
COMMUNITY ADVISORY - OCTOBER. 25,2005,12:00 P.M.
As the rain continues, the MWPA sewer collection system is filling up. The Deer Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant has reached its peak capacity of L2 billion gallons per day.
Thu Emergency Operations Center remains open. The telephone number at the FOC is 617-305-
5970.
MWRA continues to monitor its sewer flows and elevations if you need data in the area of your
local community.
The forecast calls for continued heavy rainfall throughout the day. Please be especially aware of
potential sanitary sewer overflows, sewer back-ups and flooding in those areas of your system
typically affected by large rainfall events and high sewer flows.
All MWRA facilities are operational and staff are prepared to address sewer transport and
treatment needs. If, for any reason, the EOC cannot be reached, please call the MWR.A
Operations Control Center at 617-305-3940.
Oq
ti0 ' d T6: 2T S006 S6 130 6ti8V-8&-M-Z ; x e3 10dAW/S213d SNODUd 3d0
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Sousa, John
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Schena, Paula; McIntire, Ted
Cc: LeLacheur, Bob
Subject: Traffic Signal at Woburn and Lowell
In case you receive calls from concerned residents, the traffic signal at Woburn and Lowell St. has been
turned askew from its correct position due to the high winds and storm. Please be advised that DPW has notified
the Police Dept of this situation to have it repaired. Thanks to Bob LeLacheur for notifying us about the problem.
John Sousa
10/25/2005
Page 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: cnj4@aoi.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:54 AM
To: Luisa.Paiewonsky@state.ma.us; Bob.Frey@state.ma.us; jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us;
rick.marquis@fhwa.dot.gov; Schubert, Rick; canthony@cdmtitle.com; jebarnes@mit.edu; bruen-n-
bruen@comcast.net; rep. paulcasey@hou.state.ma. us; dac@cummings.com;
jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Ian.Durrant@state.ma.us;
rep. mi kefesta@hou.state.ma. us; jgallagher@mapc.org; mgallerani@ci.stoneham.ma.us;
rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us;
rep. bradleyjones@hou.state.ma.us; g-r@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net;
akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net;
paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.motter@fta.dot.gov; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us;
maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; sueandmikes@comcast.net; psodano@stonesav.com;
rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansuilivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us;
rtisei@senate.state. ma.us; billwhome@juno.com; swoelfel@mbta.com
Cc: jblaustein@mapc.org; mary.burggraff@hou.state.ma.us; melissa.calian@hou.state.ma.us;
tricia@iynchassociates.net; dcooke@vhb.com; ddizogiio@mbta.com; mdraisen@mapc.org;
Margaret. Dwyer@state. ma. us; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us; rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us;
Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; Town Manager; Michael. Lindstrom@state. ma.us;
blucas@mapc.org; elutz@hshassoc.com; amckinnon@hshassoc.com;
John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; Kenneth.Miller@state.ma.us; carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us;
jpurdy@louisberger.com; Reilly, Chris; wschwartz@neighborhoodamerica.com;
kstein@hshassoc.com; Tafoya, Ben; frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us;
mossywood@juno.com
Subject: MHD Spends Thousands on Eminent Domain Software
Bob,
The attached letter establishes two points. These are:
1. There is no substantial difference between a planning study and an engineering study (i.e., an
issue discussed during the Task Force meeting on October 19, 2005).
2. The Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) spent a considerable sum on eminent domain
software, but nothing on software for highway accident analysis. For example, the MHD spent
approximately
. $55,000 on software to expedite the eminent domain seizure of homes
. $50 for tracing paper/magic markers so that the Task Force could help redesign the
interchange
. $0.00 for highway accident analysis software to make highways safer (another issue from
Oct. 19th)
Clearly, the MHD is more concerned with their eminent domain process rather than highway safety.
"Just follow the money." This is a repulsive case of hypocrisy and hutzpah.
Regards, Jeff
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force
21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867
10/25/2005
Bob,
After 16 meetings of the Task Force, it is troubling that some Task Force members do not
understand the difference between an engineering studv and a planning studv. The two types of
studies share a common ground. Neither the previous engineering study nor the current planning
study can provide the following estimations for a proposed interchange design: (1) accident
reduction percentage per year, (2) difference in travel time for home-to-office commuting through
the interchange for a typical commuter and (3) cost to design and build the interchange. These
items are Safety (S), Time (T) and Money (M) estimates, STM respectively.
The Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) has consistently stressed that the 193/95
interchange is the busiest and has the highest crash rate in 'the state. However, after 8 years and
$1M of "study" funding, the MHD cannot account for STM estimates to fix these problems. In
essence, there is no substantial difference between the current planning study and the previous
engineering study.
During the Task Force meeting on October 19, 2005, you and Jay Corey made the argument that
the MHD could not possibly be bothered to develop safety engineering software in spite of the
$IM and 8 years spent on two studies. With all due respect, may I draw your attention to the fact
that the MHD (Right of Way Division) spent approximately $55K for software to better facilitate
the eminent domain urocess. This software was purchased from Bentley. (Please see reference
below for cost details). Apparently, the MHD has time and money for eminent domain software to
seize property, but not a dime for engineering analysis software to make highways safer.
Regards, Jeff
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Member: PRESERVE, 193195 Task Force
21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867
781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cni4 cr.aol.com
October 25, 2005
References
Eminent Domain Software from Bentley Website:
httn://www2.bentlev.comleornorate/media room/default.cfm?obiectid=0A52EFF5-68A4-4BC3-
813FDBAAEA3 65E3D&method=disn lav
Eminent Domain Software Cost Estimation:
(A) I called the Bentley company on the cost: $18K to purchase + $2.1K per person for training; (B) For
estimated initial cost paid by the NM = [$18K (purchase) + $2.1K per person x 3 people (estimation) for
training] = $24.3K: (C) Estimated staff time to operate software for 1 year = [$25 per hour (mid level
program administrator) x 400 hours per year x 3 people] = S30K; (D) total estimated first year cost =
$24.3K + $30K - $55K
Staff time to operate eminent domain software for 8 years (length of time 193195 interchange has been on
project status) is S30K Der year x 8 nears = 3240K
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbteikner, Peter
From: Burns, Greg
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:17 AM
To: 'sandpdane@comcast.net'
Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Mr. Dane:
It is the Fire Department's policy to dispatch the Ladder Truck for service calls such as a car lock out. The Ladder
Truck has two Firefighters assigned to it at all times. If we remove one Firefighter from the truck to respond to a
car lock out it eliminates the truck's ability to function at an emergency scene. By sending the Ladder Truck intact
with two Firefighters, we keep it in-service to be able to respond to the next emergency call.
In fact, we routinely divert the Ladder Truck from a service call to an emergency such as a reported fire, motor
vehicle accident or medical call. Since both Firefighters are together the truck arrives on scene capable of
performing in an emergency. If we change our policy in an effort to same a minimal amount of fuel we would
have Firefighters arriving on scene without the equipment or personnel to handle an emergency call. This will
place the public and Firefighters at risk.
Thank you for your question.
Chief Burns
Reading Fire Department
781.944.3132
10/25/2005
rG 60 C/ f,
Arlington • Ashland • Bedford • Bchnont • Boston • Braintree • Brooldinu Burlington • Cambridge • Canton • Chelsea • Chicopee • Clinton
Dedham • Everett • Framingham • Hingham • Holbrook • Leominster 'J MAVRA V Lexington • Lynn • Lvnnlicld • Malden • Marblehead • Marlborough
Medford • Melrose • Milton • Nahant • Natick • Needham • Newton ADVISORY o N~>rtld,m•m,g,t • Norwood • Peabody • Quincy • Ratdolph • Reading
Revere • Saugus • Somerville • South Hadley • Souihburongh • Suntehatn BOARD Stoughton • Swampscott • Wakefield • Walpole • Waltham
Watertown • Wellesley • 1Veston • Westwood • 1Vcymouth • Wilbraham Wilmington • Winchester • Winthrop • Woburn • Worcester
P~.J
October 21, 2005
Fred Laskey _
Executive Director
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
w
100 First Avenue
Boston, MA 02129
Dear Mr. Laskey:
In accordance with Section 8 of Chapter 372 of the Acts of 1984 (MWRA Enabling Act) and
MWRA Policy OP. 10: 'Admission of New Community to Waterworks System', the MWRA
Advisory Board has affirmatively voted to support the application by the Town of Reading to
become a member of the MWRA Waterworks System. The Advisory Board submits the
following recommendation, unanimously approved at the October 21, 2005 meeting of the
Advisory Board:
Whereas the Town of Reading meets the admission criteria set forth in MWRA
Policy OP.10: 'Admission of New Community to Waterworks System'
including but not limited to the safe yield of the watershed system, on the advice
of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, is sufficient; that no existing
or potential water supply source for the community has been abandoned;
effective demand management measures have been implemented; adoption of a
water management plan; and, the proposed expansion provides for no negative
impact on the interests of the current forty-seven user communities, water
quality, the interests of the watershed communities and achieves economic
benefit for existing user communities.
Therefore, the MWRA Advisory Board recommends the application of the
Town of Reading to become a member of the MWRA water distribution system
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Reading must continue to protect and maintain all local sources of supply.
2. Reading will continue to maintain all reasonable conservation measures, abide by
all applicable conditions as stipulated within the Water Resources Commission
approval of Reading's request under the Interbasin Transfer Act to join the
MWRA Waterworks System and abide by MWRA regulations for leak detection.
Joseph E. Favaloro, Executive Director
11 Beacon Street • Suite 1010 • Boston, MA 02108-3020 • Telephone: (617) 742-7561 • Fax: (617) 742-4614
Website: ~v\ v .mv raadvisoryboard.com • Email: niwra_nb01n\vra.stnte.ma.us
3. Payment of an entrance fee will be made to the MWRA consistent with MWRA
policies and procedures in the amount of an estimated $3,285,242.
4. Annual usage will be capped at 219 million gallons.
5. That Reading and the MWRA develop an enforceable water supply agreement
stipulating appropriate terms and conditions of service.
6. Upon the acceptance of the Town of Reading application to join the MWRA
Waterworks System by the MWRA Advisory Board and the MWRA Board of
Directors, Reading will be eligible for funding through the Local Pipeline
Assistance Program. Reading is qualified for program funds based on 1) said
community's percentage of MWRA water use as a portion of total community
use; 2) proportional share of total MWRA community based unlined pipe; and 3)
prorating available funds to the number of years remaining in the program. The
provision of interest-free loans through the Local Pipeline Assistance Program
shall be in addition to the $250 million currently allocated within the MWRA
Capital Improvement Program. Existing community allocation levels will remain
unchanged. The MWRA staff summary seeking approval for Reading to join the
MWRA Waterworks System shall include a separate section that establishes the
level of funding Reading will be eligible for under the Local Pipeline Assistance
Program.
This motion received unanimous approval of the Advisory Board's Executive Committee on
October 14, 2005 and the Operations Committee on September 27, 2005. Please share this
correspondence with members of the Board of Directors in anticipation of a November vote
on the Town of Reading application.
Sincerely,
Katherine Haynes Dunphy, Chairman
MWRA Advisory Board
cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Reading Town Manager
Edward McIntire, Jr., Director of Public Works, Reading
John Gall, Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
Michael Hornbrook, MWRA, Chief Operating Officer
Pamela Heidell, MWRA, Policy and Planning Manager
Stephen Pritchard, Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Chairman of the MWRA Board of
Directors
p-ck- W
of R~gor~
Town Reading
k 16 Lowell Street
Reading, AlA 01867-2683 r.
39r INCORp0t
Fax: (781) 942-5441
Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us
PUBLIC WORKS
(781) 942-9076
October 24, 2005
Dear Residents:
Due to a clerical error, Berkeley Street residents were never notified of the road reconstruction
work going on at the present time by the Town of Reading and its contractor, Brox Industries.
We apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. Work is expected to take about
three weeks to complete, weather permitting. Work will commence each day at 7:00 A.M. and
end at approximately 4:30 P.M. Please use caution when traveling along the street during the
construction period.
Vehicles will not be allowed to nark on the travel wav during construction. Vehicles parked on
the street during the hours of construction will be towed at the owners' expense.
During this project, on your day for collection of rubbish, all rubbish must be at the curb
by 6:30 A.M.
The Town of Reading will be working diligently to expedite the work on your street and we
thank you for your continued support. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue
please feel free to contact the Town of Reading Engineering Division at (781) 942-9082,
Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 4:45 P.M.
Again, please accept our apologies for the delay in receiving this notice. Additional information
and updates regarding the road construction can also be found on the Town's website at:
www.ci.readiniz.ma.us (look for the "What's New" link at the top of the page)
6
EQV pct
2004 EQV Per capia
EQV pct.
2004 EQV Percapita
k
2002EQV
2004 EQV
'EQV pct
change
2004 EQV Per capita
percapita rank
2002 EQV
2004 EQV
change
pernpita
rank
2002 EQV
2004 EQV
change
per capita
ran
Methuen
2,770,350,300
4,088,755,700
47.6
44,638
243
Princeton
387,285,400
458,549,100
18.4
132,682
142
Tyngsborough
1,006,876,400
1,287,374,400
633
900
117
27.9
23
6
113,625
761
326
183
24
Middleborough
1,408,031,200
1,965,218,300
39.6
20,722
234
Provincetown
1,402,074,400
1,903,987,400
35.8
546,495
12
Tydngham
95,188,100
,
,
.
4
,
145
628
114
Middlefield
400
38
838
41
676
400
7.3
545
289
Quincy
7,703,163,600
10,355,818,700
34A
116,114
175
Upton
675,671,100
874,640,500
29.
,
0
Middleton
,
,
1,013,676,500
,
,
1,350,234,600
33.2
8,781
106
Randolph
2,215,087,100
2,902,727,300
31.0
93,504
240
Uxbridge
895,636,100
1,275,737,900
754
000
3
42.4
27
9
108,444
146
301
195
113
Milford
2,129,624,900
2,897,353,600
36.0
27,309
198
Raynham
1,170,062,500
1,537,544,500
31A
125,248
156
Wakefield
2,838,695,100
,
3,6
0,
.
,
Eli
Millbury
798,374,000
1,105,282,700
38.4
13,168
274
Reading
2,692,902,800
3,409,324,100
26.6
143,975
120
Wales
100,839,000
129,106,600
6
185
500
28.0
30
7
73,024
142
514
293
123
N
0
Millis
240
000
735
957,825,200
30.3
8,015
169
Rehoboth
961,304,200
1,343,589,600
39.8
125,323
155
Walpole
2,529,159,600
,
,
3,30
.
,
°
Miliville
,
,
169
683
100
240
555
200
41.8
2,856
273
Revere
2,960,729,900
4,085,723,600
38.0
86,022
261
Waltham
7,455,289,200
8,289,720,700
11.2
140,330
125
c
J,
Milton
,
,
176
463
900
3
,
,
814
4
066
900
28.0
26,010
101
Richmond
258,502,200
304,131,400
17.7
188,901
71
Ware
455,054,500
580,226,300
27.5
59,068
328
Monroe
,
,
,
19,258,000
,
,
,
15,112,000
-21.5
96
100
Rochester
434,339,800
641,246,900
47.6
129,886
149
Wareham
1,916,534,000
2,847,668,900
48.6
136,024
135
Monson
448
197
600
559
386
600
24.8
8,534
315
Rockland
1,242,905,300
1,648,259,300
32.6
91,438
246
Warren
205,927,800
274,879,000
33.5
56,536
332
Montague
,
,
644
800
465
,
,
402,100
556
19.5
8,456
311
Rockport
1,351,302,200
1,652,765,700
22.3
211,459
54
Warwick
48,599,700
54,822,900
128
72,806
294
Monterey
,
,
244,231,100
,
315,683,400
29.3
939
22
Rowe
421,354,100
425,727,800
1.0
1,223,356
5
Washington
39,688,500
50,351,400
26.9
93,071
242
Montgomery
55
999
900
71,999,500
28.6
707
209
Rowley
656,592,400
795,313,200
21.1
142,683
122
Watertown
4,015,722,400
5,184,911,600
29.1
157,802
99
Mt. Washington
,
,
52,618,800
59,584,700
13.2
130
15
Royalston
77,017,600
95,514,000
24.0
73,079
292
Wayland
2,428,949,400
3,022,665,800
24A
228,315
47
Nahant
762
900
561
672
466
800
19.7
3,638
76
Russell
88.964.300
107,705,200
21.1
64,187
320
Webster
884,241,000
1,229,850,600
39.1
73,485
290
Nantucket
,
,
186
285
100
10
,
,
900
13
575
803
33.3
10,416
4
Rutland
413,044,700
584,782,800
41.6
85,896
262
Wellesley
7,153,728,900
8,211,971,900
14.8
307,899
26
Natick
,
,
,
4
539
112
900
,
,
,
400
5
807
362
27.9
32,384
80
Salem
3,164,867,500
4,223,735,800
32.6
100,210
216
Weilfleet
1,395,529,700
1,832,154,600
31.3
648,780
10
Needham
,
,
,
5,139,824,700
,
,
,
6,285,224,900
22.3
29,197
52
Salisbury
766,497,000
1,069,166,200
39.5
134,402
138
Wendell
49,372,400
58,194,500
17.9
57,790
568
330
84
New Ashford
22,710,000
24,652,800
8.6
247
217
Sandisfieid
134,012,700
156,925,900
17.1
191,607
69
Wenham
624,886,300
759,879,500
21.6
170,
New Bedford
278,457,000
3
4,687,147,600
43.0
94,087
343
Sandwich
2,627,505,100
3,535,920,600
34.6
170,062
85
W. Boylston
543,952,900
721,285,500
32.6
94,794
1
33
235
148
New Braintree
,
543
200
61
88
255
900
43.4
1,002
251
Saugus
2,834,262,900
3,715,984,100
31.1
140,677
124
W. Bridgewater
762,770,500
890,140,200
16.7
30,2
New Marlborough
,
,
237,420,600
,
,
375,468,100
58.1
1,493
39
Savoy
40,778,000
46,950,900
15.1
65,758
313
W. Brookfield
241,779,300
310,230,000
759
475
800
28.3
33
9
79,936
179
079
283
81
New Salem
57
640
400
455
80
700
39.6
954
272
Scituate
2,565,482,500
3,388,379,600
32.1
186,667
73
W. Newbury
566,984,800
,
,
.
,
Newbury
,
,
913,361,600
,
,
1,147,457,200
25.6
6,852
88
Seekonk
1,253,757,400
1,618,380,300
29.1
118,389
171
W. Springfield
1,617,927,000
1,990,099,700
23.0
71,116
299
Newburyport
100
2
319
323
446,900
2
887
24.5
17,504
92
Sharon
2,069,021,300
2,553,637,200
23,4
145,623
115
W. Stockbridge
240,167,100
292,249,800
21.7
203,092
64
Newton
,
,
,
15,856,203,000
,
,
19,131,654,600
20.7
83,880
48
Sheffield
387,515,500
454,767,900
17.4
136,567
132
W.Tisbury
1,652,350,200
1,980,075,700
502
900
3
296
19.8
23
0
764,213
776
177
8
83
Norfolk
837
000
980
134
200
1
276
30.1
10,500
164
Shelburne
147,371,000
175,575,200
19.1
85,148
265
Westborough
2,680,822,700
,
,
,
.
,
N
Adams
,
,
476
276
200
,
,
,
400
530
503
11A
14.430
351
Sherbom
924,085,100
1,062,601,100
15.0
251,682
38
Westfield
2,086,451,200
2,437,331,800
16.8
60,459
326
.
N. Andover
,
,
3,227,431,200
,
,
4,010,449,200
24.3
27,837
119
Shirley
405,496,700
517,704,600
27.7
79,160
284
Westford
2,803,270,300
3,392,535,800
21.0
159,656
98
Attaborough
N
352
947
100
2
3,088,677,900
31.3
27,826
189
Shrewsbury
3,257,882,400
4,240,111,400
30.1
129,465
150
Westhampton
118,933,700
160,305,300
34.8
105,534
199
.
Brookfield
N
,
,
,
243
056
300
600
332
760
36.9
4,786
302
Shutesbury
142,235,600
164,514,400
15.7
90,046
247
Westminster
616,565,600
820,698,700
33.1
114,799
178
.
Reading
N
,
.
300
1
846
290
.
.
334
445,800
2
26A
13,999
90
Somerset
1,657,377,800
2,124,420,700
28.2
113,886
182
Weston
3,818,619,800
4,657,064,600
22.0
399,679
19
.
Northampton
,
,
,
674
200
1
933
,
,
401,455,900
2
24.2
28,979
276
Somerville
5,548,714,800
7,316,371,300
31.9
95,114
232
Westport
1,647,587,400
2,248,684,500
36.5
154,485
102
Nouhborough
,
,
,
1,596,170,600
,
2,049,852,800
28.4
14,246
121
S. Hadley
962,554,500
1,166,625,300
21.2
67,638
307
Weshvood
2,795,016,900
3,415,448,600
222
240,947
42
Northbridge
472
700
862
1
212
173,700
40.5
13,521
248
Southampton
354,887,800
449,485,000
26.7
80,337
280
Weymouth
4,260,870,000
6,006,779,000
41.0
109,705
194
-
Northfield
,
,
272
951
100
,
,
300
407
400
10.1
3,046
220
Southborough
1,653,815,500
2,094,098,400
26.6
227,570
49
Whately
135,725,000
169,345,500
24.8
107,181
197
Norton
,
,
406
281
600
1
,
,
600
874
212
1
33.3
18,557
213
Southbridge
646,149,400
901,458,500
39.5
51,814
338
Whitman
857,931,400
1,234,860,800
43.9
86,107
259
Norwell
,
,
,
1,568,451,600
,
,
,
2,100,057,200
33.9
10,166
60
Southwick
619,348,500
747,966,000
20.8
81,987
278
Wilbraham
illi
b
1,134,487,000
334
900
175
1,330,176,400
700
231
432
17.2
32
0
96,909
94
694
225
236
Norwood
3,046,263,400
3,971,917,100
30A
28,844
130
Spencer
658,273,800
912,387,500
38.6
76,478
288
ams
urg
W
,
,
,
,
.
,
Oak Bluffs
1,631,184,300
2,157,846,200
32.3
3,797
11
Springfield
4,855,465,800
5,778,583,600
19.0
38,038
350
Williamstown
645,390,700
791,662,900
199
922
900
3
22.7
27
5
95,003
147
946
233
112
Oakham
118,925,200
152,061,300
27.9
1,765
258
Sterling
704,942,900
933,598,600
324
123,345
160
27
Wilmington
d
n
Wi
h
2,509,464,300
351
996
600
,
,
,
898
000
581
.
65
3
,
58
724
329
Orange
308,803,800
377,327,100
22.2
7,530
6
470
342
14
Stockbridge
Stoneham
440,638,800
330
448
800
2
675,752,500
900
2
866
503
53.4
23
0
300,068
129
326
152
en
o
nc
Winchester
,
,
3,972,708,800
,
,
4,929,810,000
.
24.1
,
233,718
45
Orleans
Otis
2,329,530,500
301,311400
3,170,624,000
388,310,400
36.1
28.9
,
1,360
29
Stoughton
,
,
,
2,311,451,700
,
,
,
3,008,543,100
.
30.2
,
110,499
190
Windsor
66,476,000
73,310,500
10.3
85,146
266
Oxford
769
781
000
951
200
1
081
40.6
13,700
285
Stow
805,107,800
1,030,019,300
27.9
169,300
86
Winthrop
1,335,485,300
1,785,075,300
33.7
97,893
222
Palmer
,
,
200
611
384
,
,
,
820
400
758
24.1
12,708
327
Sturbridge
715,102,800
961,222,300
34.4
116,554
174
Woburn
4,404,487,500
5,479,323,300
24A
144,181
118
Paxton
,
,
003
200
333
,
,
457
103
600
37.3
4,487
208
Sudbury
3,068,275,800
3,753,910,600
223
217,505
51
Worcester
7,248,688,400
9,694,617,900
33.7
55,410
336
Peabody
,
,
741
400
5
080
,
,
6,554,296,700
29.0
49,668
144
Sunderland
224,031,400
259,356,700
15.8
68,468
306
Worthington
100,361,100
112,846,600
12A
86,872
235
145
255
116
Pelham
,
,
,
237
500
102
400
120
894
18.2
1,427
269
Sutton
732,940,400
1,035,311,200
41.3
118,933
170
Wrentham
1,282,331,200
1,590,469,400
24.0
,
,
,
,
,
Yarmouth
3,607,112,000
5,141,693,000
42.5
203,744
63
Pembroke
1,563,979,500
2,032,853,800
300
17,541
176
Swampscott
1,935,451,100
2,319,769,600
700
1
564
489
19.9
24
0
160,416
705
96
97
226
Total
223
700
640
879
023,318,200
616
27.3
126,952
Pepperell
864,252,100
1,094,802,600
26.7
11,418
229
Swansea
1,262,048,900
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
Peru
46,580,100
55,689,500
19.6
812
305
Taunton
3,187,799,600
4,540,568,000
42A
80,155
281
Petersham
105,797,900
132,977,500
25.7
1,209
193
Templeton
354,914,400
474,821,500
33.8
66,474
310
Phillipston
109,180,400
150,033,700
37.4
1,638
244
Tewksbury
3,003,930,000
3,772,192,300
25.6
126,503
153
°
Pittsfield
2,248,345,900
2,551,381,300
13.5
45,023
331
Tisbury
1,644,281,900
1,950,346,400
18.6
508,830
13
C
Plainfield
50,064,800
58,877,100
17.6
603
223
Tolland
93,953,400
127,564,500
35.8
298,746
28
sv
Plainville
649,926,800
887,996,500
36.6
7,914
186
Tapsfield
861,663,600
1,131,668,700
31.3
181,532
79
Cn
°
Plymouth
5,556,961,800
7,531,137,000
35.5
53,789
127
Townsend
626,927,000
796,650,900
27.1
85,505
263
Plympton
271,875,500
352,159,600
29.5
2,702
147
Truro
1,247,555,200
1,714,704,000
37.4
796,796
7
25
to
Table 1
.-e
c
Page 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Emily Levin [elevin@ipswichriver.org]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:45 PM
To: jchelgren@wenhamma.gov; wmarquis@mail.danvers-ma.org; manager@andoverma.gov;
selectmen@andoverma.gov; cwheeler@hamiltonma.gov; mhickey@hamiltonma.gov;
abenson@town.boxford.ma.us; manager@town.wilmington.ma.us; Town Manager; Reading -
Selectmen; gbalukonis@northreadingma.gov; Ira S. Singer;•cligh@comeast.net;
tm@town.ipswich.ma.us; selectmen@town.ipswich.ma.us; Gibbs, Glenn; ksmith@topsfield-ma.gov;
hgriffin@northreadingma.gov; Reilly, Chris; plan-cons@town.wilmington.ma.us;
Idaley@townofnorthandover.com; lphillips@town.boxford.ma.us; jdnelson@hamiltonma.gov;
planning@andoverma.gov; ebalansky@mail.danvers-ma.org; kteel@wenhamma.gov;
tcassidy@beveriyma.gov; Izambernardi@beverlyma.gov; amaxner@beverlyma.gov;
JWaish@Salem.com; amaxner@beverlyma.gov; LHansen@wenhamma.gov; Kristan Tarricone;
conservation@andoverma.gov; jhankin@hamiltonma.gov; jrwhit1001@aol.com;
paul.carter@kodak.com; mrizzo@baysideengineering.com; kevin.mchugh@osc.state.ma.us;
chem1935@aol.com; fml@nii.net; adamtroupe@hotmail.com; Ross Povenmire; Michele Girard;
amckay@townofnorthandover.com; pmerrill@townofnorthandover.com; plan-
cons @town.wilmington.ma.us; Winifred McGowan; Fink, Fran; mtrudeau@northreadingma.gov;
Pike Messenger; drich@topsfield-ma.gov; Ispiliman@topsfield-ma.gov; piperwally@yahoo.com;
wgoldman@draper.com; 'gmellinger@yahoo.com'; picottiz@cdm.com; sragalevsky@kl.com;
risrls@comcast.net; thomas.warren@noaa.gov; Dave Standiey; David Pancoast;
'then ry@town.ipswich.ma.us'; water@topsfieldpublicworks.org; mclark@northreadingma.gov;
Public Works; dpw@town.wilmington.ma.us; whmurciak@townofnorthandover.com;
skenney@hamiltonma.gov; ghannable@hamiltonma.gov; dpw-water@andoverma.gov; dpw-
sewer@andoverma.gov; ryoung@mail.danvers-ma.org; water650@wenhamma.gov;
alantaubert@comcast.net; jsherman@lynnwatersewer.org; rdawe@lynnwatersewer.org;
acapano@lynnwatersewer.org; rtina@lynnwatersewer.org; dtravers@lynnwatersewer.org
Subject: Reminder: Ipswich River Restoration Conference
Municipal managers and board members,
The Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) invites you to attend the Ipswich River Restoration
Conference on Saturday, November 5 at North Shore Community College in Danvers, MA. The
registration deadline for the free conference is this Friday, October 28.
The conference will feature a keynote address by Douglas Foy, Secretary of Commonwealth
Development, a talk by Congressman John F. Tierney, and informative presentations on the state of the
river, water conservation, and low-impact development.
The conference launches IRWA's new Restoration Program., which aims to find win-win solutions to
restore the health of the Ipswich River. Through this program, we are offering technical assistance to
help watershed towns implement and obtain funding for water conservation, stormwater management,
and low-impact development activities. The Restoration Program will also collaborate with towns to
identify priority sites for on-the-ground restoration work, such as dam removals, culvert improvement,
and wetland restoration.
Emily Levin, IRWA's new Restoration Program Manager, is available to give presentations at town
meetings and discuss restoration opportunities. Please contact Emily at 978-887-2313 or
elevinnibswichriver_ g for more information about the restoration program or the conference.
We hope to see you on November 5.
10/24/2005
(9
Page 2 of 2
Emily Levin
Restoration Program Manager
Ipswich River Watershed Association
978-887-2313
elevin@ipswichriver.orq
Emily Levin
Restoration Program Manager
Ipswich River Watershed Association
978-887-2313
elevin@ipswichriver.ora 10
10/24/2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2005
Article
Title
Sponsor Page #
1
Reports
Board of Selectmen
2
Instructions
Board of Selectmen
3
Amend Capital Improvements Program
Board of Selectmen
FY 2006 - FY 2015
4
Approve Payment of Prior Year's Bills
Board of Selectmen
5
Amend the FY 2006 Budget
Finance Committee
6
Authorize a Rubbish Contract for
Board of Selectmen
Greater than 3 Years
7
Establish Storm Water Management
Board of Selectmen
Enterprise Fund
8
Rescind Debt Authorizations
Board of Selectmen
9
Debt Authorization for RMHS
School Committee
10
Authorize Debt - Water Main Projects
Board of Selectmen
11
Transfer Balance of Summer Avenue
Board of Selectmen
Water Main Project
12
Appropriation of Contributions from
Board of Selectmen
Developers for Various Projects
13
Sale of Land - Oakland Road
Board of Selectmen
14
Land Swap - George Street
Board of Selectmen
15
Authorization to Purchase Land on
Board of Selectmen
Kieran Road
16
General Bylaws Amendment to Section
Board of Selectmen
2.2.1, Rules 4 and 8
17
General Bylaws Amendment to Section
Rules Committee
2.2.1, Rule 19 re: Robert's Rules of Order
18
General Bylaws Amendment to Section
Board of Selectmen
2.1.6, Notice of Town Meetings
19
Zoning By-Laws Section Amendment to
Board of Selectmen
4.8.6.2 re: Permitting Underground
as a Courtesy
Propane Storage in Aquifer Protection
District
Article Title Sponsor Page #
20 Zoning By-Laws Amendment to Allow for CPDC
Mixed Uses in the Business B Zoning
District
21 Rezone Certain Parcels Located Within CPDC
Woburn, Sanborn, Haven and Linden
Streets to Commercial
22 Amend Section 4-4 of the Charter to Petition
Change to a 5 Member Zoning Board
of Appeals
APPENDIX
Conduct of Town Meeting
0
29
u
at Reacliti9 GiS
LOCUS OF
WARRANT ARTICLES
TOWN MEETING
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading:
By virtue of this Warrant, I, on notified and warned the
inhabitants of the T own of Reading, q ualified to vote on T own affairs, to m eet at the
place and at the time specified by posting attested copies of this Town Meeting Warrant
in the following public places within the Town of Reading:
Precinct 1 J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street
Precinct 2 Registry of Motor Vehicles, 275 Salem Street
Precinct 3 Reading Police Station, 15 Union Street
Precinct 4 Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue
Precinct 5 Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street
Precinct 6 Austin Preparatory School, 101 Willow Street
Precinct 7 Reading Library, Local History Room, 64 Middlesex Avenue
Precinct 8 Mobil on the Run, 1330 Main Street
The date of posting being not less than fourteen (14) days prior to November 14, 2005,
the date set for the Subsequent Town Meeting in this Warrant.
I also caused an attested copy of this Warrant to be published in the Reading
Chronicle in the issue of
Thomas H. Freeman, Constable
A true copy. Attest:
Cheryl A. Johnson, Town Clerk
1
cly
SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
(Seal)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss.
To any of the Constables of the Town of Reading, Greetings:
In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are hereby required to
notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote in elections and
Town affairs, to meet at the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium, 62 Oakland
Road, in said Reading, on Monday, November 14, 2005, at seven-thirty o'clock in the
evening, at which time and place the following articles are to be acted upon and
determined exclusively by Town Meeting Members in accordance with the provisions of
the Reading Home Rule Charter.
ARTICLE 1 To hear and act on the reports of the Board of Selectmen, Town
Accountant, Treasurer-Collector, Board of Assessors, Director of Public Works, Town
Clerk, Tree Warden, Board of Health, School Committee, Contributory Retirement
Board, Library Trustees, Municipal Light Board, Finance Committee, Cemetery Trustees,
Community Planning & Development Commission, Conservation Commission, Town
Manager and any other Board or Special Committee.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround: The following reports are anticipated for the Subsequent Town Meeting,
and generally will be given at the beginning of the first session on November 14. State
of the Schools, Master Plan; Nurse Advocacy; Cities for Climate Protection; RMLD;
Health Insurance; Hospital Development Committee. To the extent possible a copy of
these reports will be attached to this warrant report.
Finance Committee Resort: No report
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 2 To choose all other necessary Town Officers and Special
Committees and determine what instructions shall be given Town Officers and Special
Committees, and to see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing or transfer from
available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate for the purpose of funding Town Officers
and Special Committees to carry out the instructions given to them, or take any other
action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround: There are no known instructional motions at this time. As a general rule,
Instructional reports are reserved for the last evening of Town Meeting, and the
Moderator requests that any Town Meeting member who intends to offer an instructional
motion let him know at least one session in advance so that he can let Town Meeting
members know that in advance.
Finance Committee Report: No report.
Bviaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 3 To see if the Town will vote to amend the FY 2006 - FY 2015,
Capital Improvements Program as provided for in Section 7-7 of the Reading Home Rule
Charter, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Background: An amendment will be required in order to consider under article 9 the
addition of approximately $400,000 in debt for the RMHS culvert. The Town bylaw
requires that for any expenditure of capital funds to be approved by Town Meeting that
item needs to appear on the Capital Improvement Program. Unless the Capital
Improvements Program is amended, Town Meeting will not be able to consider any
action under Article 9.
Finance C ommittee Report: The Finance Committee recommends moving forward
with the amendment to the Capital Improvement Program to increase the debt
authorization for the RMHS project in an amount equal to what the cost of replacement
of the culvert in the Birch Meadow field area actually cost. FINCOM's vote in favor of
this article was 7-0-0.
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 4 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the payment during Fiscal
Year 2006 of bills remaining unpaid for previous fiscal years for goods and services
actually rendered to the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround: There are no prior year's bills to be paid, and therefore the article will be
indefinitely postponed
Finance Committee Report: No report.
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 5 To see if the Town will vote to amend one or more of the votes
taken under Article 15 of the April 25, 2005 Annual Town Meeting relating to the Fiscal
Year 2006 Municipal Budget, and see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing or
transfer from available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate as the result of any such
amended votes for the operation of the Town and its government, or take any other
action with respect thereto.
Finance Committee
Backaround: The following budget amendments are proposed:
B25 015 Community Services Expenses
E1 111 Police Salaries
1 B12 1552 I Veterans Aid
F6 1303 I DPW - Highway Expenses
F8 313 DPW-Parks & Forestry
Expenses
J3 Library Technology
J8
1 ( Town Building Improvements
Total General Fund
L2
400 DPW - Water Expenses
1 L2
400 DPW - Water Expenses
L2
405 DPW - Water Expenses
L4 400 DPW - Water Capital
L4 400 DPW - Water Capital
I Total Water
$ 600 Participation In the "Cities for
Climate Change program
$35,000 School Resource Officer - %2
year (7
$34,000 I Cost of Veterans Benefits
$4,000 I Traffic Control Signs
$1,800 Fence- Sturges Park
-$10,000 Transferring to J8 to do
carpeting
$10,000 1
$75,4001
1
$9,500 1 Leak Detection
$5,650 1 Stearns & Wheeler
$25,800 Raw Water Mag Meter,
Flocculator Repairs
$41,000 Pavement Recon.- Bancroft
Ave.
$65,000 Reimbursement to the School
Department for RMHS
construction delays - 20" Birch
Meadow water line
$146,950 1
Further issues that will need to be addressed at the Annual Town Meeting
include the following:
• Energy Costs
• Health Insurance Costs
• SPED costs
Finance Committee Report: The Finance Committee recommended the above
transfers by a vote of 7-0-0. The General Government amendments will come from Free
Cash, with a current balance of approximately $2.6 million. The Water Expenses will
come from Water Reserves, with a current balance of over $1 million.
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report
ARTICLE 6 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Mass. General Laws
Chapter 30B, Section 12, to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract,
including all extensions, renewals and options, for the collection of rubbish and
recyclables for a period greater than three years but not exceeding 20 years upon such
4 J
terms and conditions determined by the Town Manager, or take any other action with
respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround: The Town's current contracts for rubbish collection with Waste
Management and the curbside collection of recyclable materials with Atlantic North
expire at the end of FY 2006. This article authorizes the Town Manager and Department
of Public Works to solicit proposals for a contract that exceeds three years in duration.
This allows the Town to explore different options for rubbish and recycling services and
determine whether any cost savings may be achieved by entering into a long-term
contract.
Finance Committee Report: The FINCOM voted to recommend this article by a vote of
7-0-0. This will give the Town the flexibility of bidding this item for as many years as
feasible, and allow the Town to make the best decision on a contract for services for as
many years as are advantageous to the Town. The Town Manager will make a
presentation to the Finance Committee prior to awarding the contract.
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 7 To see if the Town will vote to accept the provisions of Chapter
44, Section 53FY2 of the Massachusetts General Laws establishing the Town's Storm
Water Utility as an Enterprise Fund effective Fiscal Year 2007, or take any other action
with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround:
The Town of Reading is required to comply with the NPDES Phase II Storm
Water General Permit established by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). This permit requires the Town to develop and implement a Storm Water
Management Plan that reduces the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system.
After obtaining coverage under the Permit, the Board of Selectmen instructed the
Water, Sewer, and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee to evaluate and
recommend a method to properly fund this program. After looking at a number of
options, the Committee recommended that a Storm Water Utility be established and
funded through an enterprise fund.
Storm Water Utilities have been used throughout the country as a means to
properly fund the operation, maintenance and improvement of storm water drainage
systems. Since the early 1970's, over 500 Storm Water Utilities have been established.
Throughout their history, Storm Water Utilities have been challenged in court arguing
that the storm water fee is a tax. A substantial body of case law has been developed
nationally that supports the collection of storm water fees. Town Counsel has reviewed
the proposed Storm Water Utility and has rendered an opinion that the imposition of the
storm water charge is a valid fee and not a tax.
PROGRAM COSTS
The preliminary budget for the program breaks down as follows:
Operating Budget $203,000
23
Capital $285,000
Expenses $ 53.000
Total Budget $541,000
The average cost per dwelling unit would be approximately $60 per year, or $15
per quarter. This would be billed on the quarterly utility bill that currently includes water
and sewer utilities
In developing this budget, it was assumed that all storm water program costs
would be included. The operating budget includes such items as street sweeping, catch
basin cleaning, ditch maintenance, detention basin maintenance and vehicle
maintenance related to these efforts. The capital plan includes drainage system
mapping, illicit discharge detection, general drainage system improvements and vehicle
purchases related to these efforts. Also included were costs for capital projects that
have long been programmed but not funded such as the Saugus River and Aberjona
River improvements.
RATE SETTING METHODOLOGY
The basic premise of the rate setting methodology is that costs of the program
will be based on impervious surfaces. The amount of impervious surface on a lot
directly correlates to the volume of runoff the site produces. This is the most common
method of assessing storm water fees throughout the country. Also a consideration is
that the more a property is developed, the higher the potential for contributing pollutants
to the waterways of the Town.
A rate methodology has been developed utilizing GiS technology that is both
equitable and easily implemented. The rates are based on the amount of impervious
area on any given lot.
Undeveloped Property
No storm water fee.
Rationale: Property in its natural condition is serving its best purpose with respect to
storm water management. Undeveloped property absorbs and filters
storm water reducing the volume and improving the quality of storm water
runoff.
Single and Two Family Homes
All single and two family homes will be charged a flat fee.
Rationale: The Town o f R eading d id a n e valuation o f i mpervious s urfaces o n 4 24
single-family and 359 two-family residential properties. This analysis
found that the average impervious surface for both the single and two
family homes on each lot is 3,200 square feet. While impervious surfaces
ranged from a low of 1,087 square feet to a high of 9,127 square feet, it
was felt that a flat rate was appropriate for the following reasons:
1. Because of the relatively low cost of the program (approximately $60
per dwelling unit), the effort to evaluate every property in Town would
not be cost effective, and the costs f or k eeping t he data c urrent (a
new set of aerial maps every three years) would drive up the overall
cost of the program.
2. Each property generally receives the same benefit.
3. The pollution potential from each lot is roughly equivalent.
6)
Multi-Family Properties
Multi-family properties consist of three-family and larger developments. These
include all apartment buildings, condominium developments, rooming houses, etc.
Multi-family properties will be charged based on the total impervious area of the lot.
Rationale: Multi-family properties can vary widely in size and amount of impervious
area per unit. These properties tend to be more like commercial
properties than single family homes. Basing these assessments on total
impervious surfaces is the most equitable way to distribute costs. In no
case will the total assessment for a multi-family property exceed the
assessment for a single-family house on a per unit basis.
Industrial/Commercial Properties
All industrial/commercial properties will be charged based on the total impervious
area of the lot.
Rationale: Industrial and commercial properties vary widely in size and levels of
impervious surface. Basing the assessment on total impervious area is
the most equitable way to distribute costs. In no case will any property
be assessed for less than a single-family home.
ABATEMENTS
In an effort to encourage property owners to minimize the amount of runoff from their
properties, which will help reduce the amount of pollutants entering the Towns
waterways, some type of abatement program will be instituted. Guidelines will need to
be established for abatement eligibility; however, the following are some of conditions
that will be considered.
1. Residential properties that install infiltration systems or other means to reduce runoff
will be eligible for an abatement of up to 50% of their total assessment.
2. Commercial/industrial/multi-family properties that install and maintain state-of-the-art
storm water treatment and infiltration systems will be eligible for an abatement of up
to 50% of their total assessment.
Finance Committee Reoort: The FINCOM, by a vote of 2-5-0, does not recommend
the subject matter of this article. The FINCOM is concerned that there may be a legal
challenge to the issue of whether the funding of this article would be considered a fee or
a tax.
Bvlaw Committee Renort: Do Not Recommend 0-3. The Bylaw Committee opposes
this article. The article if approved and implemented would move a portion of the Town's
operating budget to this new enterprise. The funding of the enterprise account would be
via an additional amount on the water and sewer bills. The portion of the budget moved
to this enterprise fund would be replaced by other spending. The Bylaw Committee
believes the approval and implementation thereon of this article will increase costs to the
property owners of the Town.
ARTICLE 8 To see if the Town will vote to rescind authorized but unused debt
for the sewer system as authorized by Article 12 of the May 3, 2004 Annual Town
Meeting, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround: On May 3, 2004, under Article 12, Town Meeting authorized the issuance
of $209,385 in debt for sewer inflow/ infiltration reduction projects to be funded through a
non-interest bearing loan from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's Local
Financial Assistance Program. Subsequently, the MWRA actually issued a $208,550
non-interest-bearing loan to the Town. This article allows the Town to rescind the $835
difference between the authorized and actual amounts of the loan that occurred due to a
typographical error in Article 12.
Finance Committee Report: The FINCOM voted to recommend this article by a vote of
7-0-0. This is a housekeeping matter so that the Town does not keep unused debt on its
books.
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 9 To see if the Town will vote to amend the vote taken under Article
5 of the January 13, 2003 Special Town Meeting to appropriate by borrowing, or transfer
from available funds, or otherwise, for the purpose of making extraordinary repairs
and/or additions to the Reading Memorial High School at 62 Oakland Road, including
the costs of engineering and architectural fees, plans, documents, cost estimates, and
related expenses incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith, said sum to
be expended by and under the direction of the School Committee; and to see if the Town
will vote to authorize the School Building Committee, the School Committee, or any
other agency of the Town to file applications for a grant or grants to be used to defray
the cost of all or any part of the cost of the project; and to see if the Town will vote to
authorize the School Committee to enter into all contracts and agreements as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Article; provided however that any borrowing
authorized by this Article and any appropriation subject to this Article shall be contingent
upon the passage of a debt exclusion referendum question under General Laws Chapter
59, s 21c within 90 days of the close of this Special Town Meeting, or take any other
action with respect thereto.
School Committee
Backaround:
Finance Committee Report: The FINCOM by a vote of 0-7-0 does not recommend
further authorization of debt for this project until a later date when the exact status of the
contingency fund for the project can be determined.
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
School Committee Report:
ARTICLE 10 To see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate by borrowing,
or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, pursuant to Chapter 44 Section 8 (5) and
(6) of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purpose of constructing and
reconstructing water mains, including the cost of engineering services, plans,
documents, cost estimates, bidding services and all related expenses incidental thereto
and necessary in connection therewith, said sum to be expended by and under the
direction of the Town Manager; and to see if the Town will authorize the Board of
Selectmen, the Town Manager, or any other agency of the Town to apply for a grant or
grants, to be used to defray the cost of all, or any part of, said water system
improvements; and to authorize the Town Manager to enter into any and all contracts
and agreements as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Article, or take
any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Background: The Town completed a comprehensive evaluation of the Town's water,
distribution system in 2001 and developed a 20-year capital improvement program
based on those recommendations. The projects proposed to be funded under this article
are all included in the capital improvement plan and are necessary to improve water
distribution system hydraulics and improve overall fire flows. All debt servicing costs for
these projects will be paid from the Water Enterprise Fund. This article authorizes the
Town to borrow $2.0 million to fund the following water main reconstruction and
construction projects:
FY 2006
High St. (Woburn St. - Lowell St.)
FY 2007
Auburn St. - Bancroft Ave.
FY 2008
Haverhill St. (Franklin St. - Batchelder Rd.)
FY 2009
Haverhill St. (Franklin St. -Wakefield St.)
FY 2010
Ivy St. Loop Main
FY 2010
Causeway Rd. Loop Main
The construction of these projects will take place over several years. This article
will simplify the authorization process by not requiring further Town Meeting action for
supplemental appropriations if actual bid prices exceed cost estimates for individual
water main projects. It will also allow the Town to apply unexpended funds or savings
from one water main project toward another if required. This would avoid requiring the
kind of action required below under Article 11.
„`~+y,~ 7ry:Ga.U~ w ~ JN' 1 1~1mHfR%'~ ~ ~ 1~H "ryh
LARTICLEfO•HighStreet ,h N fARTICLEfO -AuburnStreet
u d v*kE A
Proposed
Water Main y~
v.l N
x
0 a~ ~ o o 'u
°I p Proposed a+ a
r; Water Main y a
9 ~.0-A
ARTICLE 10 • Haverhill Street
from Franklin St to Batchelder St
1 g~
n
a
h
w fi
Y~'','^^. mr'er
Proposed
Water Main
h i p ARTICLE 10 • HaverhAl street
from Franklin St to Wakefield St
gg ~ rN' ~F. J~ I~
?f Proposed
V~J Y Water Main
ARTICLE 10 • Ivy Lane
rs + to Delmont Street
Y ~
Y: N
D ~T
1
PSY4£~ p
tT ptE-SAW1
k
%
le MY STIVE RL
At It, I.
Finance Committee Report: The FINCOM voted to recommend this article by a vote of
7-0-0. These projects are part of a comprehensive plan to improve the Town's water
distribution system. They are included in the 10 year Capital Improvement Program.
Bundling them as proposed will ensure that the projects can be implemented as
scheduled, without having to add to or rescind minor amounts of money. This process
will also allow the Town to consider bidding some of these projects as a package to get
the best prices.
Bviaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 11 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Chapter 44, Section 20 of
the Massachusetts General Laws, to appropriate the balance of $3422.74 remaining on
the completed Summer Avenue water main reconstruction project, authorized by vote
under Article 11 of the Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting of April 22, 2002, as an
addition to the sum authorized by vote under Article 13 of the Warrant for the
Subsequent Town Meeting of November 10, 2003, for the purpose of constructing a
replacement 20 inch diameter water main extending from Bancroft Avenue at the
intersection of Hartshorn Street, northerly to approximately the intersection of Forest
Street and Colburn Road, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround: A balance of $3,422.74 remains unexpended in the Summer Ave. water
main project approved by Town Meeting under Article 11 at the Annual Town Meeting on
April 22, 2002, The Town completed the Summer Avenue water main reconstruction
Water Main'
441" Proposed
ki- ARTICLE 10 • Causeway Road ~
10
~ r
r ~
project during spring 2003. This article allows the Town to transfer the unexpended
balance to a similar water main reconstruction project, the 20-inch water main
replacement in the Birch Meadow area. This amount will be used to defray a portion of
pavement reconstruction work for the 20" main project.
Finance Committee Report: The FINCOM voted to recommend this article by a vote of
7-0-0. The left over moneys that were authorized for the Summer Avenue water line
project are required to be spent on a "like" project, and there is a need for the additional
funds on the Birch Meadow project.
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 12 To see if the Town will vote to appropriate contributions from all or
any one of the following or other developers:
e Walkers Brook Crossing
♦ Johnson Farms
o Maplewood Village
Archstone Development
for purposes including but not limited to street design, road improvements, sidewalk and
curb improvements, trail improvements, water and sewer improvements, or any other
related improvements as approved by the Town Manager, or take any other action with
respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround: The developer of the Maplewood Village development on Salem Street is
making a contribution to the Town of $12,000 to extend a pedestrian trail in the area
through Town property. The funds will be used for materials to construct the trail. It is
anticipated that these funds will be available to the Town prior to the November 14 start
date of Town Meeting.
Finance Committee Report: Action Pending
Bviaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 13 To see if the Town will vote to transfer the care, custody, and
control to the Board of Selectmen any and all of the following parcels of land which are
in the care, custody, and control of the School Department and/or the Board of
Selectmen; and to see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to sell,
exchange or dispose of, upon such terms and conditions as they may determine, all or
any part of the following described parcels of land on Oakland Road, and to discontinue
any and all public and/or private ways as the Board of Selectmen deem necessary
abutting such parcels of land:
Map 123, Parcels: 16-32, 34, 48-54, 58-62, 139
Or take any other action with respect thereto.
11
Board of Selectmen
Background: This property consists of approximately 130,000 square feet of land
across the street from the Reading Memorial High School. The property was taken a
number of years ago for tax title. The Board of Selectmen has been delegated the
responsibility of disposing of tax title property by Town Meeting. However, because of
the location and extent of this property, the Board is interested in Town Meeting input as
to the disposal of this land. Lots 22, 23, 24, and 34 are in the care custody, and control
of the School Department and the School Committee has not agreed to transfer them at
this time.
The land is "high and dry" and appears to have no constraints to development.
There is extensive ledge on the property, but this is not unusual in New England. The
site is served by all utilities with an adequate capacity to serve any potential use. Under
the current S15 zoning, the property could yield 6 or 7 building lots.
Proceeds from the sale would go into the "sale of real estate" fund, and these
funds would be available to Town Meeting to appropriate for capital expenditures, debt
service, or to fund unfunded pension liability.
A proposal to sell this property several years ago was not moved forward
because of the unknowns of building a new or renovated Reading Memorial High
School. That school project is now well under construction, and there is no need for this
property related to the school project.
The Board of Selectmen will be able to place conditions on the sale that would be
most advantageous to the Town, and at the same time maximize the sales price.
Finance Committee Report:
12
ARTICLE 93
~a
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 14 To see if the Town will authorize the Board of Selectmen to
transfer lands of the Town including portions of George Street in excess of a 40' wide
right of way to an abutting property owner or owners; and to see if the Town will
authorize the Board of Selectmen to accept from an abutting property owner or owners,
portions of private property to establish a right of way of George Street of not less than
40', both actions under such terms and conditions as the Board of Selectmen may
determine, or take any other action with respect thereto,
Board of Selectmen
Background: When the Greystone 40b development was approved, a "quirk" in the
right of way of George Street was discovered. The purpose of this article is to straighten
out the property lines of property abutting George Street, so the portion of George Street
is established as a 40" right of way, and the remainder is conveyed to 2 abutting
property owners. We hope to have the legal description of this transfer complete for the
November 14 session of Town Meeting.
Finance Committee Report: No report.
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 15 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectman to
acquire by purchase, eminent domain, gift or otherwise, a parcel of land containing
approximately 10.4 acres located on Kieran Road shown as Lot 2 on Board of
Assessor's Map 205 currently believed to be owned by Hillcrest Realty, Inc., said land to
be used for open space, water supply, and for conservation purposes in accordance with
the provisions of Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 8C, to be under the care,
management and control of the Town of Reading Conservation Commission and further
to be dedicated in perpetuity to purposes stated in Article 97 of the Amendments to the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts including the protection of water
resources and shall be fully protected by all provisions of Article 97 and shall be open to
the general public for appropriate outdoor/recreational use consistent with 310 CMR
22.00; and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to enter into any and all agreements
upon terms and conditions as they may determine to be necessary to carry out the
acquisition of such parcel and the purposes of this Article; and to see if the Town will
authorize the Board of Selectmen, Town Manager and/or the Conservation Commission
to apply for a grant or grants, to be used to defray the cost of all, or any part of the
purchase price for such parcel of land, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround:
The purpose of Article 15 is to authorize purchase of a 10.4-acre parcel of land
off Kieran Road known as "Dividence Meadows" for conservation and water supply
protection in perpetuity. Dividence Meadows is Parcel 2 of Assessor's Map 205. The
13 3
land is dominated by a red maple swamp and contains a stream channel that is tributary
to the Ipswich River. The land is undeveloped.
Dividence Meadows lies within a Zone II recharge area for the Reading public
wells. It abuts the Town Forest on three sides and would add to the substantial Town
land holdings that protect the wells and the Ipswich River watershed. The parcel
provides the potential for expansion of the existing public trail network in the Town
Forest, including access for school children from the nearby Wood End Elementary
School and access from abutting residential neighborhoods. The wooded swamp,
stream channels, and floodplains within the parcel provide significant wildlife habitat, and
the parcel has been identified by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
as "unprotected core habitat" on the Massachusetts BioMap. Because of its unique
characteristics, the parcel is also identified in the Reading Open Space and Recreation
Plan as a "land of concern" for preservation.
The Conservation Commission voted during their meeting of September 14, 2005
to support Article 15. The Commission also voted to submit an application to the MA
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs for a Drinking Water Supply Protection Grant
that would cover up to 49 per cent of the cost of acquisition. The Town Forest
Committee and Department of Public Works are committed to serve as active partners
with the Conservation Commission to develop and maintain appropriate trails and signs.
The appraised value of the property is $34,000. The motion will ask for that
amount plus an amount required to effectuate the purchase, and to place the necessary
sign on the property - under $40,000 total. If successful in the grant, the Town would be
reimbursed approximately $16,600 of the purchase price.
To~ii:Foresf:..
Finance Committee Report: The FINCOM voted to recommend this article by a vote of
ARTICLE 15
14 3
7-0-0. FINCOM has also asked that staff explore whether the funds for this project could
be appropriated from Water Reserves rather than come from Free Cash.
Bvlaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 16 To see if the Town will vote to amend Article 2.2.1, Rules 4 and 8
of the Town of Reading General Bylaws as follows:
Rule 4. The following words shall be inserted after the word "Charter," "petitions
for a special act or local acceptance by Town Meeting of a state statute" so it shall read
as follows:
Rule 4. Prior to a debate on each Article in a Warrant involving changes in the
Bylaw or Charter, petitions for a special act or local acceptance by Town Meeting of a
state statute, the Bylaw Committee shall advise the Town Meeting as to its
recommendations and reasons therefore.
Rule 8. Substitute the phrase "Non-Town Meeting Member" for "inhabitant" in the
text and insert a new sentence after the first sentence as follows: "A proponent of an
article may speak only on such article after first having identified himself to the
Moderator and obtaining permission of Town Meeting to speak." As amended, Rule 8
shall read as follows:
Rule 8. Any Non-Town Meeting Member may speak at a Town Meeting having
first identified himself to the Moderator as an inhabitant of the Town. A proponent of an
article may speak only on such article after first identifying himself to the Moderator and
obtaining permission of Town Meeting to speak. No Non-Town Meeting Member shall
speak on any question more than five (5) minutes without first obtaining the permission
of the Meeting. Non-Town Meeting Members shall be given the privilege of speaking at
Town Meetings only after all Town Meeting Members who desire to speak. upon the
question under consideration have first been given an opportunity to do so.
Or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Backaround:
These changes are required in order to make the Bylaws conform with the
recently approved changes to the Reading Home Rule Charter.
Under Rule 4, the scope of articles to be reviewed by the Bylaw Committee is
expanded, reflecting the longstanding practice of the Committee.
Under Rule 8, it makes it clear that it is not just "inhabitants" of the community
who are permitted to address Town Meeting.
Finance Committee Report: No Report.
Bvlaw Committee Report: The Bylaw Committee recommends the subject matter of
this article by a vote of 3-0-0.
15 3~
ARTICLE 17 To see if the Town will vote to amend Rule 19, Section 2.2.1 of the
Town of Reading General Bylaws by deleting the words "Robert's Rules of Order
Revised, so far as they may be adapted to Town Meeting" and replace them with the
words "Town Meeting Time Third Edition" except that to lay on the table shall only
require a majority vote, so that Rule 19 will read as follows:
"Rule 19. The duties of the Moderator and the conduct and method of
proceeding at all Town Meetings, not prescribed by law or by rules set forth in this
Article, shall be determined by rules of practice set forth in Town Meetina Time Third
Edition except that to lay on the table shall only require a majority vote."
Or take any other action with respect thereto.
Rules Committee
Backaround: The Rules Committee has voted to ask Town Meeting to amend Rule 19
to provide that "Town Meeting Time Third Edition" will be the guide to Reading's Town
Meeting. Town Meeting Time is tailored to provide rules for Massachusetts Town
Meetings, where-as Roberts Rules of Order is more generic and relevant to other types
of businesses and organizations. The Rules Committee initially voted to put this article
on the warrant, and charged a sub-committee to examine all the differences between the
two. The charge was to keep the rules as close as possible to the status quo. The only
difference is the tabling issue, noted in the article.
Finance Committee Report: No Report.
Bvlaw Committee Report: The Bylaw Committee recommends the subject matter of
this article by a vote of 3-0-0.
ARTICLE 18 To see if the Town will vote to amend Article 2, Section 2.1.6 of
the Town of Reading General Bylaws by substituting the word "providing" for the word
"'mailing" in the last line so it shall read as follows:
2.1.6 The Board of Selectmen shall give notice of the Annual, Subsequent or
any Special Town Meeting at least fourteen (14) days prior to the time of
holding said Meeting by causing an attested copy of the Warrant calling
the same to be posted in one (1) or more public places in each precinct of
the Town, and either causing such attested copy to be published in a
local n ewspaper o r p roviding a n a ttested copy of s aid Warrant to e ach
Town Meeting Member.
Or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Background: This change in the Bylaw is required in order to bring the Bylaw into
conformance with current practice. Since the early 1990's the Town has asked Town
Meeting members to pick up their copy of the Town Meeting warrant report at the Police
Station, rather than incur the expense of mailing the report.
Finance Committee Report: No Report.
16 3
Bylaw Committee Report: Recommend 3-0 with proposed change. The Bylaw
Committee recommend that added after the word providing "in a manner such as
electronic submission, holding for pickup, or mailing".
ARTICLE 19 To see if the Town will vote to amend Sections 4.8.6.2.4.6 and
4.8.6.2.4.14 of the Zoning By-Laws to add the bold language as noted below:
4.8.6.2 Prohibited Uses:
4.8.6.2.4.6. storage of Toxic or Hazardous Materials as defined in Section 4.8.3 and
liquid petroleum products, with the exception of liquid propane products for normal
household use, allowed and used in accordance with all local, state and federal
laws and regulations; unless such storage is (remainder of section is the same).
4.8.6.2.4.14. Underground storage tanks containing Toxic and Hazardous Materials as
defined in Section 4.8.3 related to activities in Section 4.8.6.1 except for liquid propane
products for normal household use allowed and used in accordance with all local,
state and federal laws and regulations.
Or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Background:
The current Zoning By-Laws relating to the Aquifer Protection District
unnecessarily forbid the storage of propane for normal household use in underground
tanks. As currently written, the by-laws also forbid all underground storage tanks even
those containing non-toxic items such as water. The proposed changes will more
specifically forbid underground storage of toxic and hazardous materials with the
exception of liauid propane products.
Propane Facts:
♦ Recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a "Clean
Fuel." Propane is commonly used for heating throughout the U.S. especially in
regions where oil and natural gas access is low.
® Per Mass. D.E.P.,
• Underground storage of propane poses no danger of contamination for air,
water or soil. (It should be regarded as equivalent to natural gas for safety
and environmental purposes.)
• Propane is included in Toxic and Hazardous Materials M.G.L. 21 C solely
because it is flammable like natural gas.
♦ Propane solutions allow homeowners in the aquifer district a clean heating
alternative to the expense and delay of natural gas.
s MA State Fire Marshall approves underground propane storage tanks. Local Fire
Departments issue tank permits.
Like natural gas, propane tank and piping specifications are regulated by the
National Fuel Gas Code.
17
35
o Unlike above ground tanks, underground storage tanks are protected from damage
from weather and temperature changes, tree limbs, cars, lawn equipment, etc.
♦ Modern installation techniques (specialized tank coating, overfill valves, sand beds
and sacrificial anode bags) protect the tank exterior and provide for a minimum tank
lifetime of 40 years. Propane does not corrode the inside of storage. tanks.
e Underground propane storage does not require digging and patching of Town roads.
® Underground storage tanks are invisible to the neighborhood, preserving the
historical and architectural character and property values.
♦ Propane is a by-product of the oil and gas refining processes. 80% of the propane
available in the U.S. is produced by Americans.
The storage of propane for normal household use in underground storage tanks
does not conflict with or violate the intent of the Aquifer Protection District.
This proposal has been reviewed by the Conservation Administrator, the Fire
Chief, and the DPW, and none of these Departments has a problem with the proposed
changes. In fact, the Fire Chief is of the opinion that having the tanks buried reduces the
threat of problems to the tanks form snow plowing, falling tree limbs etc. In the event of
a tank failure, propane volatizes into the air, and does not present a threat of
groundwater contamination.
This article applies to the Aquifer Protection District on the Zoning Map, which is
shown on the following map:
N 4 mot.
~✓~.~~~.f. \ "~rv.< i Pte. ,
w
S AF
cS2Q..
\ YNfl EN RD
~2 U ' 1
/ ~ lx rV1^' ~L~~~ t
Sts I f V
701~1 y, M 11:1
ARTICLE 19
ww~~r
+
tv r ~tYG
0
tc,
fi
Finance Committee Report: No Report.
Bvlaw Committee Report: Recommend by a vote of 3-0-0.
18 v
CPDC Report The Town Manager requested that the CPDC recommend to Town
Meeting a zoning amendment to the Aquifer Protection District by law, in response to a
resident petition to the Selectmen to allow for underground storage of propane as
prohibited. After input from the Fire Chief and Conservation Administrator, research on
applicable local and federal laws and review by Town Counsel the final language was
recommended forward by the CPDC to Town Meeting.
The CPDC held a public hearing on September 26, 2005, duly advertised and
noticed, and the subject matter of this article was recommended by a vote of 4-0-0.
ARTICLE 20 To see if the Town will vote to add a mixed use overlay district to
the Zoning By-Laws and Zoning Map.
Definitions:
The addition of the following definition:
2.2.21.2. Mixed Use: The combining of retail/commercial and/or service uses
with residential or office use in the same building or on the same site.
4.2.2. Table of Uses:
Under PRINCIPAL USES - Other Uses, the inclusion of the Mixed Use District as
follows:
RES RES RES BUS BUS BUS IND
S-15 A-40 A-80 A B C
S-20
S-40
Mixed Use No No No No SPP No No
4.6 Mixed Use Overlay District
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 conformance with the objectives of the 2005
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 it determines such change will result in an improved design of the
development. This authority continues subsequent to occupancy.
4.6.3 Permitted Uses
Only the following types of uses 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.
19
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 (Example,
Private Recreation
Garages
Travel Agency, Lawyer, Beauty Salon, Bank)
No less than 20% of the total number of residential 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. If 20% of the total residential units are
affordable, 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:
Up to 0.8 FAR
Total Units and/or Contribution
1.
$48,000 or 1 unit
2.
$96,000 or 1 unit
3.
$144,000 or 1 unit
4.
$192,000 or 1 unit
5.
1 unit
6.
1 unit plus $48,000 or 2 units
7.
1 unit plus $96,000 or 2 units
Greater than 0.8 FAR but less than 1.0 FAR
Total Units and/or Contribution
1.
$60,000
2.
$120,000
3.
$180,000
4.
1 unit
5.
1 unit plus $60,000, or 2 units
6.
1 unit plus $120,000, or 2 units
7.
1 unit plus $180,000, or 2 units
20
(9
Contributions would go to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The affordable
units must be subject to Use Restrictions to ensure that t he 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 Applicant shall provide for CPDC approval an
affirmative fair marketing plan for the affordable units. The minimum square footage of
living 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 by-law 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 lot 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
Minimum lot frontage shall be 40 feet.
4.6.5.3 Maximum Front Yard
The maximum front yard shall be 20 feet, 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 2 structures in the
development on 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 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%, and shall meet the requirements
of Section 6.2.12 of these by-laws.
4.6.5.8 Maximum Floor Area
Maximum floor area ratio shall be 0.8, except as otherwise provided in
Section 4.6.3.
21 V
4.6.6 Mixed Use Developments
The m ixture of u ses s hall n of b e constrained i n a ny way; h owever, residential
units are prohibited from the front of the 1St 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 the CPDC
reducing and/or waiving 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
One curb cut providing access to the development from any public way
may be required. Additional curb cuts may be required as deemed necessary by
the p ermitting a uthority. A d evelopment h aving f rontage o n 2 o-r 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
1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
Garages
TBD
Municipal Uses
Exempt
4.6.6.5 Granting of Relief from Parking Regulations
In those instances where the Applicant has made a concerted effort to
provide all the required number of parking spaces, the CPDC may require an
22 &
impact f ee f or each parking space not provided. T he money may be used f or
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
(d) 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 CPDC finds that the
development is in harmony with the purpose, and intent of this Section and that it con-
tains a compatible mix of uses sufficiently advantageous to the Town to render it
appropriate to d epart from t he requirements of t he b y-law otherwise a pplicable to t he
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 without a public hearing. The
CPDC shall make a finding whether a requested amendment is deemed to be major or
minor. A major amendment shall require the filing of an amended Special Permit
application and public hearing.
4.6.10 Existing Structures
4.6.10.1 Change in Use
A Special Permit may be granted to legally existing nonconforming
structures, 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 4.6.6.4 unless waived by CPDC.
4.6.10.2 Additions
23 9
A Special Permit may be granted to legally existing nonconforming
structures, as of the date of the passage of this by-law, applying for a change of
use and an addition tot he 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.
Or take any other action with respect thereto.
Community Planning and Development Commission
Background: In response to public and Town Government input throughout the
process to update the 1991 Master Plan, the Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC)
has identified zoning reform to allow mixed use in the downtown as an objective of the
2005 Master Plan. As part of their efforts to implement certain priority action items, the
CPDC reviewed the regulatory landscape to decide how best to proceed with
establishing mixed use in the downtown.
Subsequently the Town Manager requested that the CPDC bring forward a
mixed use bylaw targeting the downtown for Subsequent Town Meeting, 2005. In
response the CPDC conducted 4 zoning workshops for the public, 1 joint zoning
workshops with the Selectmen and several working group meetings, during which model
and existing bylaw language was reviewed and refined to incorporate the need to
address anticipated parking and housing issues. The CPDC also reviewed input and
testimony by MPAC members, citizens and property owners during their deliberations of
the zoning amendment language.
The CPDC decided upon recommending a bylaw whose intent was to establish
a Mixed Use Overly District that allowed by Special Permit from the CPDC an alternative
pattern of land development to the pattern permitted in the underlying Zoning District.
Such district is intended to create mixed commercial, residential, and open space areas
consistent with the character and identity of the Town and in conformance with the
objectives of the Town of Reading 2005 Master Plan.
Principally, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Selectmen's 2005
Mission Statement the proposed by-law seeks to allow mixed use and residential
redevelopment in the downtown Business B district that would allow better use of
currently underutilized space without compounding existing parking and circulation
issues. Specifically, the proposed by law intends to achieve this goal by creating areas
where the visual and physical dominance of the automobile is made secondary to
pedestrian needs; pedestrian and commercial activity is encouraged by creating a
pleasant, rich and diverse experience, and traffic is reduced by providing opportunities
for retail services, housing, employment and intermodal transportation in close proximity.
24
1 e..21
r Articl
Proposed
Addition to
Business B
Zone.
y, ,
a
Finance Committee Report: No Report.
ARTICLES 20 & 21F
i-
N
IND
0 100200 400
Feet
Bylaw Committee Report: The Bylaw Committee recommends the subject matter of
this article by a vote of 3-0-0.
CPDC Report: The CPDC held a public hearing on September 26, 2005, duly
advertised and noticed, upon which the subject matter of this article was recommended
by a vote of 4-0-0.
ARTICLE 21 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Map of the Town
of Reading by placing the following properties into the Business B Zoning District:
Plat 64, Parcels: 21, 21 a, 22, 23, 24
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Community Planning and Development Commission
Background: The Town Manager requested that the CPDC recommend to Subsequent
Town Meeting, 2005 the expansion of the Business B zoning district to allow for
commercial uses permitted in that district on the subject properties, several of
which reside in a residential district and contain nonconforming commercial (office)
25
N3
uses. After review of the zoning map change the CPDC recommended forward the
zoning map amendment as proposed to Town Meeting.
Finance Committee Report: No Report.
Bvlaw Committee Report: The Bylaw Committee recommends the subject matter of
this article by a vote of 3-0-0.
CPDC Report: The CPDC held a public hearing on September 26, 2005, duly
advertised and noticed, upon which the subject matter of this article was recommended
by a vote of 4-0-0.
ARTICLE 22 To see if the Town will vote to approve an amendment to the
Reading Home Rule Charter to amend Section 4-4 to increase the membership on the
Zoning Board of Appeals from 3 regular members and 3 associate members, to 5
regular members and 2 associate members, so that Section 4-4 of the Reading Home
Rule Charter will read as follows:
Section 4-4: Board of Appeals
There shall be a Board of Appeals consisting of 5 members and 2 associate
members appointed by the Board of Selectmen for three (3) year terms so arranged that
as near an equal number of terms as possible shall expire each year.
The Board of Appeals shall have the powers and duties of Zoning Boards of
Appeal under the Constitution and General Laws of the Commonwealth and such
additional powers and duties as may be authorized by the Charter, by by-law, or by
Town Meeting vote.
Or take any other action with respect thereto.
By Petition
Background:
The d esign of a 11 future structures, i ncluding 4 OB p rojects, must b e i n keeping
with the neighborhood to protect its historic village pattern. The designs must be
approved prior to the granting of permits. The Town must mandate by regulations the
number of stories developers may build in future developments.
This article proposes to increase the ZBA from 3 to 5 members in order
to provide more oversight of the site plans by the permitting authority prior to approval.
The current process involving negotiation by Town officials should be replaced with more
thorough review by a larger ZBA that is directly responsible for negotiating improved
design, increased setbacks and lower building height, etc., in the interest of protecting
abutters and neighbors of future developments.
The property of abutters and neighbors' of the current Spence Farm development
has been enormously violated.
Finance Committee Report: No Report.
Bvlaw Committee Report: Action Pending
26
l
and you are directed to serve this Warrant by posting an attested copy thereof in at least
one (1) public place in each precinct of the Town not less than fourteen (14) days prior to
November 14, 2005, the date set for the meeting in said Warrant, and to publish this
Warrant in a newspaper published in the Town, or by mailing an attested copy of said
Warrant to each Town Meeting Member at least fourteen (14) days prior to the time of
holding said meeting.
Hereof fail not and make due return of this Warrant with your doings thereon to
the Town Clerk at or before the time appointed for said meeting.
Given under our hands this 27th day of September, 2005.
Camille W. Anthony, Chairman
Richard W. Schubert, Vice Chairman
Joseph G. Duffy, Secretary
James E. Bonazoli
Ben Tafoya
SELECTMEN OF READING
Thomas H. Freeman, Constable
27
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Sousa, John
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:42 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Cc: McIntire, Ted
Subject: Revised AMR Sysytem Expenses
Peter:
Please find a revised total of expenses incurred for our radio read system. The
total paid to Northrop Grumman has decreased by $8,420.63 from the first
spreadsheet that I sent you. The reason is that I was looking at it purely from an
accounting standpoint of what was paid to the company. After reviewing
the invoices with Dave Willms, I realized that David Lee had purchased 3 handheld
units, software, and a maintenanace agreement from Northrop for the old "plug-in"
system. These handheld units were reprogrammed later to be compatible with the
new RAMAR system. Since the handheld data terminals were not part of our
contract with Northrop for the "drive-by" AMR system, we will only receive back the
portion of the service agreement charges that covers the RAMAR system and not
on the handhelds. We still use the handheld units for repairs and for capturing
individual reads.
John
10/24/2005
Northrop Grumman/ RAMAR Drive-by Meter Reading System Expenses
Northrop Grumman
Date
Invoice No.
Description
Amount
07/02/02
C070208444
4500 Transponders, 2 HandTrackits, 2 Configits
$
222,910.00
08/02/05
0080208531
3000 Transponders
$
144,000.00
08/29/02
C082908750
Training & Installation June 24-27, 2002
$
4,250.00
08/29/02
C082908683
100 Transponders
$
4,800.00
09/12/02
C070208444
Payment of FastTrackit (deducted on 7/2/02)
$
16,750.00
11/04/02
C110408886
150 Transponders
$
7,200.00
08/27/03
D082709980
75 Wall Transponders
$
3,600.00
09/24/03
D092410078
25 Pit Units
$
1,311.25
08/27/03
D082709979
Mobile antenna kit
$
90.30
05/17/03
D051700055
Maint: Software/Hardware 7/30/03-7/29/04
$
1,780.00
04/27/04
E042710945
Maint: Software/Hardware 7/30/04-7/29/05
$
1,780.00
04/26/05
F042612342
Maint: Software/Hardware 7/30/05-7/29/06
$
1,780.00
07/29/04
E072911258
24 Pit Transponders
$
1,258.80
09/01/05
F090112797
20 Blue Tower Transponders
$
1,201.00
Subtotal
$
412,711.35
National Metering Services, Inc.
06/24/02
RM 2002-1
Install 1400 Transponders
$
23,275.00
07/01/02
RM 2002-2
Install 2100 Transponders
$
34,912.50
07/17/02
RM 2002-3
Install 1808 Transponders
$
31,017.50
07/22/02
RM 2002-4
Install 1500 Transponders
$
26,718.75
07/26/02
RM 2002-5
Install 659 Transponders
$
11,738.44
01/03/03
Retainage on Contract 02-13
$
6,719.06
Subtotal
$
134,381.25
Allied Computer Brokers
5/23/2005 4617 Haz. Waste Recycle/Disposal Fee $ 248.72
2562 Lithium batteries- Transponders
TOTAL EXPENSE FOR NORTHROP GRUMMAN/ RAMAR SYSTEM: $ 547,341.32