HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-31 Board of Selectmen PacketTown of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2685
FAX: (781) 942-9071
Email: townmanager&i.reading.ma.us
TOWN MANAGER
(781) 942-9043
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner
DATE: May 26, 2005
RE: Selectmen's Meeting - May 31, 2005
4a) As the Board may remember, we have talked about upgrading Imagination Station.
Recreation Administrator John Feudo along with a couple of members of the Recreation
Committee have been working on this to determine what upgrades are needed, what the
approximate cost would be, and how this would be accomplished. The action requested
would be for the Board to give some direction as to how to proceed.
4b) As we have reviewed our parking regulations, we discovered that we do not have a
restriction on parking on Walkers Brook Drive. Clearly, the entire length of Walkers
Brook Drive on both sides should be no parking, standing or stopping any time.
4c) As part of the discussion with Walgreens, we talked about what the parking regulations
should be in Hardnen Yard and the Parker Street parking lot. The attached regulations
would be effective upon the completion of the Hardnen Yard lot work by Walgreens.
4d) The Board of Selectmen had participated in a Health Insurance Forum and heard
presentation and began discussion about what modifications to the Town's health
insurance program for active and retired employees might be possible. The proposed
policy would establish a task force as was suggested at that foram. The timeframes are
fairly tight, but are required if we are going to have any affect on the renewal for next
March. All of the parties recommended in the task force are important to its operation.
With each body appointing its own members, we should be able to get the task force
moving as quickly as possible.
Following the approval of the task force policy by the Board of Selectmen, we suggest
that the Board appoint two members to this task force.
4e) The attached approval of easement agreement between Walgreens and the Town is
required in order for Walgreens to proceed. Once the construction is completed, then the
transfer of land can take place. The suggestion is that it be done through a taking by
eminent domain, since that clears up any issues of ownership that could arise at a later
date.
4f) Attached are the two instructional motions that were approved by Town Meeting. I have
on the agenda for your next meeting establishment of committees pursuant to the
instructional motions.
PIH/ps
Memo
Date: 05/25/05
To: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
CC: Frances Fink, Conservation Administrator
From:John Feudo, Recreation Administrat r
RE: Hunt Park Final Stage
At the Board of Selectmen's November 23, 2004 meeting there was a vote to accept
"option C" for the second phase of the Hunt Playground project. At that meeting, Mr.
Coumounduros mentioned that the final phase of the project would include, upon
approval, black chain link fencing around the complete structure as well as 3 - 4
Town standard benches within the area (Please see attached). The Board seemed
to believe this was a reasonable request for safety purposes and supported it in
concept at the time. Please let me know what the necessary steps should be as we
move forward.
I am happy to report that phase II will be completed by the middle of June -weather
permitting.
/Cl
6' Player Bench w/back - Inground - Diamond
H
Page 1 of 1
.ui.a
We accept the following #
mayor credit cards...
Store ome
Wabash Valley SG403D - 6' Player Bench w/back - Inground -
Home Diamond
Checkout
Your Profile
Color Guide
Fabric Guide
jSearch: _
Categories
Benches
Tables and Chairs
Shelters
Sandboxes
Color choices:
Swings
-Leg Color- i
11-
-Seat Color- io''
Tree Grates
Basket Trucks
Mounting Plate
Covers
Bike Loops
Planters
Receptacles
Top Lids
Ash Urns
Ash/Trash Units
Umbrellas
ADA Products
Click on the product image to zoom in
and out.
Quantity: Price:
1 $346.00
View Instructions in PDF Format
6t& shopp ng,cart
Signature player benches are the perfect solution for athletic fields and
facilities. They have the same sturdy build, but have an added 5" to the
overall width of the seats, giving a total seating space of 15". Use them on
the field or in the locker room. Choose between our diamond or perforated
patterns, with or without back, and our four different mounting options.
Optional mounting plate covers can be used on any inground or surface
mount option (set of two for 6' & 8' models; set of three for 10' & 15'
models). 15' models are shipped in two 7 1/2' sections. All color choices can
be found here.
Wabash Valley Manufacturiria, 2005
C Z..,.-
Notes
■ Wall mount leg(s) shown
■ Available ting legs:
Surface Mount Wall Mount
Options
■ Sm Mounting Plate Covers (set of
4
http://www.wdbashvalley.com/item.wws?sku=SG403D 5/25/2005
Ills
W
z
a.
0
T ! ,IL
Ocab
Oft
GOOD OLE IT-NCR CO. 84 MAIN STREET
N. .12EADING, b2, 01864 (978) 664--2855
PIROPCSAL/COISITR,CT
Custozamr Information:
PETER (HUNT PARK)
PLEASANT ST.
READING, MA 01867
Scope of Work:
340' OF 4' AIL BLACK CHAINLINK hr/ 1-41X
8' DOUBLE EWING GATES. SEE SPEC 5HEET FOR
STOCK.
03/24/200°
oo•
e•
3C~ ~ :C
ETE:R FOR LOCATION
TFMM& AND CONDT.TIGiNS:
1. All orders are ce:stom made and quarantued to
be as apecifiod. Any changes will inzurs additional
barges.
2. Customer is responsible for indicating any
sprinkler linos , electrical limes or other
euslerground it:emm deemed as pere.onal property.
3. Customer to provide the, following:
.A.. Wato7: source (active spigotl .
B. Fleclsickal power outlet (live).
C. Perm:lts it required.
D. Indicati.oa of legal aiu-vey ma:kingn.
4. The customer. is responsible, for damagan and or
additlona:L charges xesultinc fro:a failue:e to do
any of the above conditions.
GOOD OLE FSNCE CO. Will not a--. any
responsibilit;r concerning the accuracy of property
lines not clearly marked.
GOOD OLE BENCE CO_ agrees to cuara:ztae abova
fence to be tree from def®cts in materials and
workmanship for two years.
PAYMENT TM W :
installation wilL be scheduled upo:~ receipt of a
deposit for 1,12 (50k) of the total amount and
signature of this contract unless ot•:er tertus have
been arranged by C-.OOD 015 FENCS CO..
The final payment, including way wathorireed
Contract Amount: $ 4270.63
Deposit: $ 2135.32
Balance Due! : $ 2135.31
Job Location-
781-640-7351
Chan;-GS, will be duua immediately upon completion of
the installation.
A f'inanoo charge oe 1 1/2% per nonth, which is an
annuli percentage rate of 18%, shall be applied to
accounts that are not paid within -0 days after
cCmp3ation of work. The customer agrees to pay all
intesest aml any costs lu[=rrgd in the collection
of eis debt including all attoraoy fees.
A13 matariala will romaia the ;proparty of COW
OLF FMCM CO. until payment has bean received in
full. Right of access and removal is granted to
WM CLE PUTCR CO. in the event of non-payment
under the terms of this contract.
A13 agrem;anta are contingent upon strikes,
accieants or delays hayond our control.
This propoeal may be wi--hdrawn by us it not
accer•tod in 30 days.
Appxtved & Accepted by Customer:
X,-
Custater Dace
Acoijited by GOOD OLE FENCE; CO.:
Salesperson Date
lcq
r -,j . .
INA OINA rION SrA rION
R6,FuRRIsHmeNr zoos
Imagination Station Task Force
Frank Driscoll
Patrick Fennelly
John Feudo
yA1
I NAG®NA T/ON 5rA r®®N
REPAIR AND REPLA CE
hnagination Station has become one of the staples of the Reading community. The
structure is approaching 15 years of age and is in dire need of a facelift. There are
essentially two options for the refurbishment of the playground structure itself and they
are outlined below:
Option #1: Replace the existing wood (contact
points only) with synthetic fiber timbers.
Estimated Cost Range: $40,000 - $50,000 (Decking
Materials Only)
Advantages:
➢ Slip resistant and water proof
➢ Strong and durable
➢ Will not splinter
➢ Works like wood, so it can be drilled, cut and sanded.
➢ 50 year warranty for splintering, buckling, warping etc.
Disadvantages:
➢ Costly
➢ Heats up on hot days. Hot to the touch.
➢ May be subject to staining
➢ Entire structure would need to be rebuilt with uniform material
LI A 2
Option #2: Replace all splintered wood and cover
non-splintered wood with polymeric coating
*EPL is a water based, highly concentrated polymeric coating, formulated to protect
wood from water and sun in an outdoor setting.
EPL Cost: $190 per 5 gallon unit (Approximately 60
gallons needed)
Estimated Cost Range: $2500 - $3200
Addition costs for wood materials to replace removed wood- $4000 -
$7000 (Depending on Composite or Pressure treated wood)
Advantages:
➢ Forms a barrier that prevents direct skin contact with wood preservatives
➢ Prevents fungus and splinters for years to come
➢ Can be mixed with sand to make surface slip resistant
➢ Can be used over previously used coating products
Disadvantages:
➢ Some lumber would still need to be replaced
➢ Structure would need to be power washed
➢ Still have rusted screws and nail to replace
➢ Recommended to be re-coated each year
➢ Labor intensive
y93
Playground Fill Options: Range $2,840 - $17,040
Imagination Station would need approximately 180 Cubic yards of fill.
Wood Carpeting - $2,840 Delivered
Fiber Hardwood - $3,061 Delivered
Poured in place Rubber - $17,040 Installed
Items to be re laced:
Item
ty
Per Unit
Total Cost
Notes
Tire Swing
1
244.00
$300.00
Delivered
Wireless Tires
14
40.00
$560.00
+Delivery
* 150 Ft chain tubing
1
$50.00
*Hardware (chains, screws, hooks, etc.)
1
Vary
$300.00
*Signage
3
$300
$900.00
Total costs
$211.0.00
*estimated costs
Recommendations:
-We have investigated similar structures and found the EPL material to be inconsistent
with its application. We also found in Belmont, Trex synthetic decking was used on most
contact points. The task force recommends using synthetic composite decking on all
contact points (including hand rails) and high traffic areas. We recommend completing
one section at a time and setting a schedule of areas to be completed..
-Strap swing bays should be modified to meet MIIA Risk Management
recommendations.
-The entire playground needs to meet ADA requirement. A handi-cap accessible
pathway is needed to allow traffic to the swing bays on the ball field side. Add play
components that are accessible on ground level. This objective can be accomplished
through the use poured in place rubber surfacing.
-Designate a picnic/bench area where food is allowed near the area.
4Ay
SummaYV ofRange o Costs:
Decking
Option #1 Composite Decking
$40,000 - $50,000
Option #2 Polymeric Coating and wood replacement
$6,500 - $105200
Playground Fill
$2,840 - $17,040
Playground Items and Hardware to be replaced
$2,110 - $3,000
Total Project Range: $11,450 - $70,040_
yg.1'
la! j
Y
17
i
l' L li 1
i t Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !yi~ f~.. ~./J. ~•2 x.-41 ~ f
f
.K _
y ~ Yt'+R•
xri t .T
; I
a4 ~ i / ~
7
7
l
t
-
.
'
J~°.
1 Y:. iuu
err art ..l
'1...1... -
~ /J ~~G.M oNT
yA
~EX /l~ ~~~MONT
q ti7
EpL lN $EtmO1jr
_ y~8
LEGAL. NOTICE
!
TOWN-OF-READING
To the Inhabitants. of the
Town of Reading:
Please take notice that. the
Board of Selectmen of the Town
of Reading will hold the - follow-
ing. public hearings on Tuesday,
May 31,. 20.05 in the,,
Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16.
Lowell Street, Reading, i
Massachusetts:
No. parking on V1lalkers !
Brook Drive
8:30 m.
• Harnden Yard and Parker
Street Parking Regulations
8:45 p.m.
• Establish a. Health
Insurance Task Force
9:15 p.m.:
All interested parties may
appear in person, may submit.
their comments in writing,: or
may email, townmanager@.ci.
reading.ma.us.
By order of
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
ns ;
ybl
LOCATION ORDER LISTING
#LOC.
LOCATION NAME
MAP
PLOT
OWNER
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0046
0009
idA&.-BROOK L.L.C.
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0046
0010
5 ALTY LIMITED PARTNER
0008
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0057
0001
CUMBERLAND FARMS INC
0025
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0046
0001
S & K REALTY LIMITED PARTNER
0055
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0046
0008
WALKERS BROOK L.L.C.
0079
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0046
0003
BOSTON GAS COMPANY
0087
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0046
0007
MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC
0088
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0057
0027
BLACKSMITH ENTERPRISES II
0095
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0046
0006
ARISTONICS CORPORATION
0098
WALKERS
BROOK
DR
0057
0028
MCMANUS ROSE M
WALNUT
ST
0002
0009
WALNUT
ST
0002
0018
KARANDANIS STANLEY M
WALNUT
ST
0002
0021
T9WN 9F READING
jql
WALNUT
ST
0009
0009
LOBDELL HARVEY J TRUSTEE
t1`(
WALNUT
ST
0017
0007
GRAMZOW WILLIAM F III
0000
WALNUT
ST
0001
0001
LATHAM KENNETH C JR
0008
WALNUT
ST
0012
0013A
SHEEDY MICHAEL L
0012
WALNUT
ST
0012
0013
COFFEY ROBERT
ybz-
TOWN OF READING
Voted: The Traffic Rules and Regulations-adopted by the Board of
Selectmen on March 28, 1995, for the Town of Reading, are hereby
amended by adding to Article 5, Section 5.3 the following
regulation(s).
"NO PARKING"
STREET LOCATION
WALKERS BROOK DRIVE BOTH SIDES FROM LAKEVIEW AVE.
SOUTHEASTERLY TO THE WAKEFIELD TOWN LINE.
DATE OF PASSAGE SELECTMEN'S SIGNATURES
TOWN CLERK OF READING
TOWN CORPORATE SEAL
L/
READING NEIGHBORHOOD MAP
Legend
,ji Town Boundary
Railroad
Roads
Bridge
Paved
Unpaved
Parcels
Buildings
I_..~._.._j Sidewalks
Driveway
r Retaining Wall
ooooo Wall
nsreuun Path
ueue Trail
Fence
®®o Hedge
Trees
^nr-- Streams
Open water
Wetlands
Map by: Town of Reading
Map date:
Data are for planning
purposes only.
0 100 200 4001
q6 I/
W
o
J
74~
C4ee,-r 14 e..d
CAD sales inc.
EXIT 39
P.O. BOX 487
READING, MA 01867
(617) 9447760
May 25, 2005
Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner,
128 Sales Inc. is committed to insure the unobstructed traffic flow on Walkers Brook
Drive. With the recent development of the town landfill, traffic volume has increased
substantially. Please find enclosed two copies of letters that we have sent to all of the
transporters that deliver vehicles to our facility. Please find a list enclosed.
v,.
MjM
. V
V
`sre
We have also paid for additional signage to be located at the front of our property stating
that loading and unloading of vehicles on Walkers Brook Drive is not allowed.
Please feel free to contact me with any comments and or suggestions to assist the town in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Frank McLaughlin
General Manger
128 Sales Inc.
q1D G
128sales inc. EXIT 39
P.O. BOX 487
READING, MA 01867
(617) 9447760
November 18, 2004
E And L Transport Company L.L.C.
35005 Michigan Ave
Wayne, MI 48184
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that this letter is a follow up to the telephone conversation that our
company 128 Sales Inc. had with you concerning the delivery of vehicles to our
dealership. At that time we stated that all vehicles were to be delivered to our middle
driveway and not on the street. The town of Reading has informed us that unloading on
Walkers Brook Drive will no longer be tolerated.
This letter is written documentation to you that your drivers are still not practicing this
policy.
Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter at 781-942-5326.
467
128 sales inc. EXIT 39
P.O. BOX 487
READING, MA 01867
(781) 944-7760
Fax: (781) 944-1053
www.128ford.com
April 4, 2005
Dear Sir or Madam:
It has been a number of months since we informed you that unloading vehicles in the
road in front of our dealership was no longer going. to be tolerated by the town of
Reading.
Unfortunately, a number of drivers continue to ignore this policy.
We have been informed by town officials, that violations of this policy will no longer be
overlooked. From this date forward offenders will be ticketed and fined.
Please inform your drivers, once again, that they must back trailers onto our property and
unload there.
Any questions of this policy should be directed to me at 781-944-7760.
General Manager
128 Sales Inc.
.48 sales inc. EXIT 39
P.O. BOX 487
READING, MA 01867
(781) 944-7760
Fax: (781) 944-1053
www.128ford.com
E and L Transport Company, 35005 Michigan Ave, Wayne MI 48184
Supreme Auto Transport Inc, 7300 Miller Place, Suite B, Longemont CO 80504
Dennis Fink Trucking, 4871 Route 9-G, Germantown, NY 12526
Tuckers's Enterprises Inc., 207 Trexler Ave, Darlington, SC 29532
Tonne Transport Inc., 6636 Burnt Knob Road, Murfreesboro, TN 37129
Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight Inc, 215 South I It" Street, Minneapolis,MN 55403
Select Transport, 9633 South 48th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85044
Direct Transport Inc., 3802 West Wendover Ave, Greensboro, NC 27407
East Coast Auto Movers, 189 V.F.W. Drive, Rockland, MA 02370
Carsarrive Network Inc., 103 Westpark Drive, Suite D, Peachtree, GA 30269
D&W Auto Transport, 5073 Almaville Road, Smyrna, TN 37167
Jim D Hunter Trucking, 14455 South 248th E Ave, Coweta, OK 74429
Accurate Auto Carriers Inc, 1006 Packard Drive, Howell, MI 48843
Barnhart Auto Transport, 30787-407th Ave, Avon SD 57315
Sun State Auto Transport, 3480 Webber Road, Malabor, FL 32950
Scott Transportation Inc., 232 Main Street, Suite 10, Fort Fairfield, ME 04742
Diversified Automotive Inc, 100 Terminal Street, Charlestown, MA 02129
Pace Auto Transport Inc., 2425 East Crystal Lake Road, Twin Lake, MI 49457
Beck Transportation, 12 Soward Street, Hopedale, MA 01747
yb 9
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF. READING
.To the Inhabitants of the
Town of Reading:
Please take notice that the
Board of Selectmen of the Town
of Reading will hold the follow-
ing.public hearings on'Tuesday,
May 31,. 20.05 in the.:
Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16
.Lowell S.tre.et, Reading,
Massachusetts:
• No. parking on Walkers
Brook Drive
8:30 p m.
• Hamden Yard and Parker
Street Parking Regulations
8:45 p.m.
- i
• Establish a. Health
Insurance Task Force
9;15 p.m.
All interested parties may
appear in person, may submit,
their comments ]n' writ ing',, of..'!
.may email townmanager@ci.
reading.Ma.us.
By order of
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
C- I
READING NEIGHBORHOOD MAP
t 2~ ~ ,i n Ew I I ~ ~ ~
f
1_JNI,N STREET - -
i. ~
l I i il~ f'~I 1111 ~1 Vha ilk
ys x.:144
r_ l •Z 1,
w
11, V
11
~i ~ ~ t ~l'I' I lil ' r"'
: ~ Flu l~.~_` ~ C4
,
' I 11~171if Ili: Y-i
f
u <nu1
SALE%,` -hEET
!'I L
~r n I~~~I''~I ~~I~IVI~ ICI r~ sir
fll i ,iii ,I j•'',:~
{jjj ~ t , f .1 , , f C ,
_ ~~~111 I Iff I ~I,,Ui:.I . r
v
5l l ✓ i u\ Iii J4f f ' y' ~ 1•
I+~ily+ ~ IIII~I~I III'II~ fl
J Z vyr ~I f ~ t k _..i
~~'~~N ~I Id ,4I
Pill
'A A
5 (I + r~ ffl~I ~~n~in i.u fv z~.._~~~': I~i~ ~tl,a
onto
G
c k `
GREE,
R;S7REe
I
~U W
v
w I q tj~t V i~ ` ji~j✓
>
MIT,
el Q - i~.« HAVER ` r ' "t'i ~j'Ilhtij' l✓ !f 9 piii l ~y
r
:
it 1171
117
Legend "
Parcels
son no o Trail
Town Boundary
~
Buildings
x x Fence
Railroad
Sidewalks
• • • Hedge
Roads
[M
Driveway
C~3 Trees
Bridge
-
Retaining Wall
Streams
Paved
ooooo
Wall
r.~ Open water
Unpaved
1111101111
Path
Wetlands
Map by: Town of Reading
Map date:
Data are for planning
purposes only.
0' 70 140 280
Ft
I C, 4.0
f D °m°m°v~nm(D o LL
(N MM N m m m N F
h h h Ir N h it fr h h h h h h th h O h t`- h h h tO h h N h 0 O N h h N h h CO h h
OoOOOOOO ICONCDNrNNCDNCONN(fl NCONNCO CO t0O C0 (0 rl to NN CD C0 c0 0Wto NNrCO CO
Z N N N N 00 N N NNNNN NNNCDN co NNNODNNNN 0 ON0 N 00000NNCONNNN
!.,._,I ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0
O
W
d
I
z
~~n2E2~m2 0~:22:E 2222222~2222222~22~2~z2n2z2;2w22~22
C) z
z 0
Y Y F-
zo
a°o 0< C7 C4 C3 C7 U' C'3 C7 C7 C7 C7 C3 C7 C7C3C)=C3C9UZG7tJmC7WC7ccOUOZO C3UWOC3ZC7C7
U=wWZC7CcZmz UZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WZZZCCZZ_WZmzzooo ZZ W ZZOZZ
O cO~OYOW QO Om~ ZOOCCOOF OO
WLLr a: O
ZW Fo OOOO0OOOOOOOOOOOZOOOm
0¢} O~ O O U) ~ W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W o<<<0 W W W W W W W W W W>- W WSW WOW W
a: m Cc Ir Cc cc ff mccOCmccirirCCm(1:Ir mM!7) m'3: CC [COCZCC~zZJmOUmmmm[L
msJm~z~m 0
S J >
o LL - M
O d = N
W O W
F- F- m (L F- F W W W CC
F- m L-jw,r, a ZU ~N (1) v~iw ¢Q CD ¢ oowz
uWi mW0 wmw ¢ F- F F-Z w F-F F- mOF ~F-Z ~ O Z ~W m ~ O c~n cq
a; ~~`w OaP- C5 F CC~Z[C F-~zF-mc~i)m F ~wz >zcn U)cnz U) U) mcn 00~C ~uOu~J U) OJJ
OJ~SSZSZw ow9ozywzw-j,'tz'Zw zW J W Q(1) fr W wcAY-Joo W zW wzZJ W W
Q¢ `!'ZZI-O~ 0O UOz OYO XO mQ w¢wY-' Y °>°Z0F-¢~m o3:~
m 20W CL ¢ 10 W- O ¢W m ~¢w Ow8mJW 5~ dd¢U(,~dU m-j -2 -JCL3:(L ca Q'O¢ZNZOUW ~MdIL W Z) LL 0- D EL :D -i 'hNNCDNCONtOp NCD CQON N(0 (DMLLD C00-OCD O(NONLL Jd'N OeFNMCMOMmCDN
2, tnOr N+- m O r O M N N Imo- N r r- IL OU Ndr W 0 M M M N 0 W LO tOM COrhr(Ohrr
rr 0 0
F- U) U)
W
Q ¢
Z u) U) IQ- W W U)
W U)
:D cr: CC M 0w O W- F- O J 0 d W W
Z'm W } a pU)~ J cr z 0 ° W °zZ O
wm (o Uc¢j ¢u r,:5 o~c~~JJ U =O-j Y a,~~¢ 00 ¢ J - cc N~ j C-¢ (,70~-EQr Cn O_¢ o o 0 X L(' w0arch aoa:0 ctQ 0=
U O U4~~ m~ t- z
w W Q U ~j ¢ZJJUJ= IjcsU~~ ~YZJ x
Z' z= z ZCC - rmwnWz C7dJ O Cc UccIr > W5 cco ='S
'd ¢ dp dQ0=FOF > z3: 000 O¢00~ ¢ 00=0 d= OO
- - C- U) U ¢ 0.. m U) a= U O U U F- U m F- F-
p O al O O CL-
m
W O 2 J Cl)
m ¢ -i cc CC J W
O O Z ° U) U) 0 a: F- U) F-
~¢~OU¢°~O= H d F F J MOUE- w U
o< a°m 2200 w J IL d ¢ 2 J ¢dU J
mm CoZU Z00 Z ¢ W W C UF-(.7 fta C7 d C7 U)OU }~}.(~Uw Ur 00 JC'3C7
cry C7C7mZZmZ J Z?~mm ZE- W Z LL W W OZ zaUZ ZF-Z°= ZMd 0zZ
z?Z=zaOZ W Q W tAZ0 U)-Ec-gyp ~zU) O 'SZ¢YCC6CLd W fnJ-wt=,OOQ Z 00
zzz°goz~ TYMI-TDWmWWam>- <m<3:0aW°oc=zu4i~wd=Wd¢~°WZ= °aWW
gagozoZa QQI-d~w~¢O W O(rW w~zowE Tom°2F-2LOUTXlru) W <cc w 2cC
° apo< w 2:E C7 U~i¢D 2 LL CLQLL ~ ZOLL¢¢z LL ~~OC7 LL Z z OLL U' p ZLL LL
g° D. U Z 0 O =OD J Om Z0 dO¢> LLp~Oz > 00
f- w
CJccz< wWL O L OZ=Iro w-QU)ccz>O~cnZ zZV)wZ0¢ZJU) zWOZZJwo~p~~-=zwz~~zz
w,oYZ~g~ow ~00zd~Ww¢w pomp ~zY cc _3 CC m w¢OdO0 9000W¢UNCC~~Owv0000
up) 3': 3:oz30 o~0> W CCLLUOC~F-~JF-c~~OmU' F =mUcAdF ~~U[C=~coF 7F ZO~mF F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 o d¢ d a m o 0 0 o d o¢ ~Sxf d of m o
0oc) r r
0OO0r0(0~000O 0 00O00000000O 0C 00O00OO0O0O0NC0O OOWON0 O0OO 0 NON OOOON OONrt0O00000C 0 0 0o
0
~ d O O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
°o r O O O O O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
N H O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N J - O O o 0 o 0 0 0 O o o O O O o o O 0 O O 0 O o O 0 0 o O O O o 0 o O O O O O O O O
t, IN COCO NLO COCD LO CD NNNOCD CO NNNCD tflNNtn CpNCO LO LO LO CD CO LO CD LO N'c!'It 'V'd' V''d'
IL hhhhCD hhNthhhh Nhhh lh h h N h h(0 h h h N N CD h r, (D h N P- N m N co NN
p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O C) CDC) o O o O O O O o o o O O o o o O o o O o 0 0 0 o Co
LL W W N M W CO N N CD N N N CD N (D (D (0 N CD N N N CD (D CO (D CD N N CD CD CD N CD co CD (D co CO CD CD
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
L f G r/
0
z t-
O ~
W J
W
Q Q
LL W
O
O
V
m
Q
O
m
W
fA T
Q m
LL 0
O W
LL
¢ a
W
O CL
co a
qc
N O m It m W W r (L
-'N N N N rr h h h h h h h o h h h to h h h h h h ao h O h h h lh h h m h h h h h h h h h h h hh
o0000000 (O O to CD CD co co (D W co O O(o(D(D(o O O O r O Lo (o co (D O CO O h0 O(o cO 0 W O O W W MOO
O O W T aD a2 00 O dD 00 n2 O o co D2 W 00 DJ W O0W W W CO CO N CO O O C7 W O O W W CO O O 00 OD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
W
F-
Q
N
I
Z
~:E 2E 22:~E :R 2 02r> :R :~2222222:2 :2 2222255; 222222222222222222222
0
z
z0
❑
~°o Rwc7C7C3C7C7C7c7C9WCJU' C9C'3C3C7C7(3C7C7C7C9~C7C7C~C7C7C7~C7C9C7t9C7C7C7C9C7C7C4C'3C7
iWWzow~Z UZ_Z_ZZ_Z_zZ_Z_LL.Z_zZ_Z_Z_zz_zzzzzwzzzzZZpZZzzzzzzzzzzz
W WtiOZ=ECO 1¢❑¢d❑d¢❑¢¢❑¢❑a❑a❑❑ W ❑❑❑<[~Q❑Q❑❑Q❑Q❑❑Q❑Q❑dOdJ❑❑c❑c~~c❑<~~¢❑~❑{S❑¢❑¢0❑❑<~❑❑QDQ❑❑Q❑¢❑❑
} p 21.- Z
022: tli W W W W W W W Q W W W W W W W W W W W WSW W W W W W W w LLf W W w w W W W W w w
(n~Jm~m Oaaaaaaaa~aocaaaaococaaarrUC~ocrraarc~ccrcocaarcrcaococccaa
t=
O
0
J
S
O
w tT, O W W
cc w
W oz cc w 11
CD 0 CC cc
Wa O z
I1W (an y j
CC 0 s>2pwiEgD~-
z 7
U ((.3 z0W
W
OFg m 0 ccv°Oto
U
Z t-
o~
Q J
W
IZ Q
OW
O
U
a
w p
~ Q J
2 W O U
0 Z
a16p CO zxo
O
o o- z QZQ O Q
Zz=z J(mryz
zzOzmzz
ga0LL M zona
H «
❑ p O a
WWW(Dcc z¢
M z=j0
Yzw-f CDE
Z ¢ 0 0 rit
z3: 2
o F-
LU- a W W ~ a
W W ¢
W
a F- W a F- W W z I- F-
w F- F- F- F Ia F- U) a F- U) C/) CC U) Er w U)
F- F- a F- << F- F- f- F- F- F- >
zu) Z(nZc/) F- zF- cn F-u)F-F-tnF-Pa(/~~ F (ncf) (n FU-U w w <
CC¢ d¢¢ c¢~~ Z<U) Z Uz co U) ❑zJ J+-J W ZZZ
W> W>Q~Q W O>QM>1-~U)>Z¢2Y>p W xW FJ-n QMQ
J¢ J Q J H W J m Q W J❑ W d 0 0 0 Q d W a m Q 03 p 3: a QW
Z a x n .r a= J a J= J J- J T J J Z S a J d¢ x- O m O} S J
r cD d~ '~i' a-rr Q N a W~0- JJW OIL a0ao~J J~Ua
~N O cc 10) N th OMN 0M"t'N W W h Nco h(oON(o Oco tD ODN
OrMrMrMd)r W CMmrr a) mNhMrMrr arNNtL)
a
F-
a
O
z
H
J
N a
a
W W
Z W
FQQ-
O Y
W
J Z Q
wozo0 W
(nom-r-QZd m
-WiQUdN
m 2¢
g
z 2(9z W
0 :D
d d d Z
Y~W d
d
a
J co
LL (n
W (ry }
O (A Fn 0
J W
9 CL
1- > Z
Q
Z J U
x<td z
000 0
Z
a >
W J
} WZ~
Y aUtn
a m :E
FL _N Z W
a U) J w z
0 }
4QZ-y,JULL
FC CC EC -
Wnd:EdIT-
W
CC ~j
F- w
U) (f) fr
w U)
M F- F- F- W F- W > F-
W W._-WF-(n ¢ZM
v Z Q z> J w z¢ Z
a (qWd w W-❑W
rn=-J =0p¢xJx
rha h0JaUatD
rNdO' NOh ~T N COMN
U
N
0
O
W Y
O
dUd
LLI
Q Z
Z U)
U -¢i
J
¢ O
U) F- W
J
< Fc (L :D
w _j
C❑
❑
CS ¢VC7W_
Q 0Z
a z O p ¢
U -a-,0
Cl)
a 0
m F-
x Q)
JQ d F- O F- ~d a D W Z Qa CCU za
a
Ywi C) d cWnw aw-1 x ❑~UzsOom z~z~>-U-WW 5O Qz
Z F- W W J P <w a- :E zOZZp OQ o
QwM❑o ~v7~~o< -'U¢=w~W<W:Ej¢ujj~~- ¢sU~°T~~w~z0w
U-W : W¢>Z¢Wm~ J<M<Oar¢O>WJzOw0a0-WONZw Jcc QOz
:EEL
❑OZ)wa.oQ}-a¢F-~n<zm0¢~TFoZ)~2LLCr ~I!- 8000OJIL;;zWZ0 0- :E
0 W z m w¢ p0 0z J cc D 5; <
(D Cl) w p¢ Z-~ O Q =IZ m w o -,QW O --D x Z}¢ U J Z 0 -r
W Z F
F-F-F- x=❑ W Qz W-W J-JCC❑U❑¢ Z O (n
`;OOQOTQOUwoO<:< 3u¢W¢=WwWw¢u.00pNz<:5zOz¢zapQa0x
OMM200002M W m(nJYm❑>(n[CaC'302 cn F-2F- ~ ~=UF-Q)PDF-x1-03:
0 0 pp o o d o 0 0 0¢ o 0 0 o d o 0 0 0 o aS 0 0 0 0 0 0 «S cef o m o 0 0 0 ~S o o xS O o
't' 9 ow h M d' N N W m w to O
h
M M 'ci' N h N M CD W r O O O O m o r o O OD O W O N
`
Or h
N N O O O h O r o O O r r O r NON h O r
O
0-0- O N r O CO
0000000 O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O r O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p
O
j
O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
O
H
. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
❑ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
ttt
u
i Ito to to LD O O O O O O O O O O O to W to Oto to Lo O O O O O O O O O O O O O to O O O co U)
a O O O O h O O h O O O O h h O O O I- O O h O (D O CO h h h O O O h h O O h O O h O O h O
a
0000 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I (o(OCO COOCO CD CDOOOOOOCO COOto CD CO CD (o OCD CO (DOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO(o
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0
N
h w t- ti h N 1` 1- O 1` O N 1- t- h tl- t-
to h CO - O W N (D w o (o o (o (o co (o co
M M W N W W O W W M N W o C2 W CO Co t7D M
r
O O O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q Q Q d Q Q} Q¢ Q Q Q} d Q Q Q Q Q
}
a: Y Y
Z tmo Z W Z Z O Z Z O Z O Z Z Z Z Z
EiY O W 0 0} O O m F- 0} Z O -0000
MWMMMMZaMMIL'Z Z-jcr~ma:ir
w
w ?
o
N
0
rn w
Er
WZ
w
w > Z W
O F F F d¢ I-
W MwwwwzF-¢O
En
0
>
~Z www
Q HJ
v -J
OM W WwWO pJz
O
wO tjWwZQ
t
wU00==2CCO
<
ma 03::E5;
mJ
O J (D(o ^LL Or J~
O to Mto 1~N(y ct
O)tn t()NNO~~~ dD m 10
mtr~
Mtl-
toN O(o ~V'T
N M M NN(o
M
Cl)
zh
Q co
w
W
U) D
Q
Cl)
~
W N
CC CC
J u'
U)
F }
Cl)
1-
LL W
W
ZO W ~ W
W 1- p F- W
Z:
U
Z 0~ W for J CC/--) W
J
Ozn ILL LL CC
Q M
dccaa mY
2
Q
- d J~¢<J(~>
¢
LLi1
W 2
- H¢
2M
J
H11:ZU~
06
0W=
W 4'
.:c z>-
¢ [O
cc
Y
Fr J Y U °
¢Z
}U¢gQp i;3 00
cc
Oa00¢~ D¢
D000002=CC
co o. 2SCL6 w0
JUUU¢F- - F-
U
~ J
O F
= w
¢ W J d 7
~ C) M (D Z
(3 fDak0C7z}Q 0Z)Z
Ir oCcCL -jJZ wSO J
YQO WA -O¢ _
MOQOW CL¢OZWu~i QC~ W m W
<MWMWW=O¢M F Q~z ¢a
2F-CCF-O>U=~ M q; W = W
00
¢ Eo LL 0 LL Z z U- 0 EL p[
O
W QOZJYwOI-CCm-~OZOJ=¢
-~Z00cr Cc :r
0¢Ow0¢O~Nrr0 ZO~Q
co¢F-22m0MMM2 mF- F- Um
O d Q¢ o -f M O o 0 o 0 o Q d xl o o 0
(AN wo
O ' NO0O r w- woO O 0NdW' hOOO OO NN (oO Otf) (T to -t O
r r O N N
0 0 0 O O O O O r
In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N O O o 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 CIO 0 0000
0000000000000000000
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(MD r r1 0 Lo Lo w ccoo((D w to h(ow hr w w two C09
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO O (o O O O CO CO Co Co Co (o O O (o Co CO 0 CD
Nd' d'd''ct d'[F d'rt t' ~ d' d' ~~h ~t C rY
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
=~s
kt7
KD
Z
¢o
w
= w
t-
to y
co
mm
0 LL W
wp 0
U.
o
cc CL
wo Ir
U m a,
qc (P
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF- READING
To the Inhabitants of the
Town of Reading:
Please take notice that. the
Board of Selectmen of the Town
of Reading will hold the - follow-
irig.public hearings on Tuesday,
May 31,. % 20.05 in the.;
Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16..
Lowell Street, Reading, i
Massachusetts: i
• No.'parking on Walkers
Brook Drive
i
8:30 p:m.
I
• Hamden Yard and Parker
Street Parking Regulations
8:45 .m.
• Establish a. Health
Insurance Task Force
0:15 m:
All interested parties may
appear in person, may submit;
their comments In writing',, or
.may email town manage r:@ ci.
readin'pa.us,
. ; By order of
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
N G~{ MIMI
qC1
DRAFT
Policy establishing an ad hoc Health Insurance Task Force (Task Force)
There is hereby established a nine (9) member ad hoc Health Insurance Task Force (Task
Force), to make recommendations to the Town Manager on options and efforts to contain health
insurance costs for Reading employees and retirees, as well as to make any recommendations
about needed changes on a State or Federal level to stabilize the cost of health insurance.
The Task Force membership of 9 members shall be established as follows:
➢ Two members from the Board of Selectmen appointed by the Board of Selectmen;
➢ Two members from the School Committee appointed by the School Committee;
➢ Two members from the FINCOM appointed by the FINCOM;
➢ Two members from the Insurance Advisory Committee appointed by the Insurance
Advisory Committee
➢ One resident of the community, appointed by the Board of Selectmen, who does not
represent the above groups, and who has broad experience in community affairs and/or
expertise in finance, health insurance, or other areas of expertise which, in the opinion of
the Board would be helpful in meeting the ad hoc committee's mission.
The mission of the ad hoc Health Insurance Task Force (Task Force) is to advise the Town
Manager on what, if any, options exist at this time to contain the cost of health insurance for
employees and retirees of the Town of Reading for the coming year(s). The Task Force will:
1. Develop a work plan and schedule for accomplishing the Mission of the ad hoc
committee,
2. Become thoroughly familiar with the Town's current health insurance program
structure and costs;
3. Become familiar with State and Federal law governing health insurance for municipal
employees and retirees;
4. Review health insurance programs utilized in other communities of similar size and
location as Reading;
5. Determine what options for health insurance are currently available in the
marketplace which will meet the mandates of law and cover all eligible Reading
employees and retirees;
6. Advise as to options which might be considered for bidding the Town's health
insurance program in the summer/fall of 2005 towards award and implementation
effective March 1, 2006;
7. Advise the Board of Selectmen as to what recommendations may be made for
changes in State and/or Federal budget, laws, or regulations, which would have the
effect of stabilizing health insurance costs.
Staff will be assigned by the Town Manager to work with the Committee. The Task
Force will be considered to be part of the Department of Finance for administrative purposes.
The services of Town Counsel, and other expertise will be available through the Town Manager.
The Task Force will make a report to the Town Manager no later than September 1, 2005, and
will make a final report to the Board of Selectmen no later than December 31, 2005, except as the
Board of Selectmen may extend that date.
Adopted May 31, 2005
t,~d Z
AGREEMENT
Agreement between MCGRIFF READING LLC, a limited liability company, with a mailing
address 54 Jaconnet Street, Suite 203, Newton, MA, (MCGRIFF) and the Town of
Reading, Middlesex County Massachusetts, a municipal corporation, with a place of
business at 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA, acting by and through its Board of Selectmen
(TOWN) as follows:
RECITALS:
A. MCGRIFF has offered to give to the TOWN a portion of real property, which is
shown as Parcel 5a and a northeasterly portion of Parcel 6 as is shown on
Reading Assessor's Map 76 and as is described more fully in the proposed deed
which is attached and marked Exhibit A and as is shown on the plan attached
and marked Exhibit B, subject to certain perpetual rights reserved by MCGRIFF
as are stated in Exhibit A for the benefit of the abutting real estate retained by
MCGRIFF and MCGRIFF and its successors in right, title and interest to that real
estate. The acceptance of such gift has been authorized by the May 5, 2005 vote
of the Reading Town Meeting on Article 23 on the 2005 Annual Town Meeting
Warrant.
B. The TOWN shall annex the Premises to and use them as a portion of the existing
municipal parking lot known as the Harnden Yard Parking Lot and as a driveway
connecting that parking lot to Pleasant Street.
NOW therefore, to accomplish the foregoing and for the mutual promises contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
Conveyance: MCGRIFF agrees to convey the Premises and improvements it makes
thereon to the TOWN by deed in the form attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A"
and/or agrrement to the Premises being taken by eminent domain for $1.00.
MCGRIFF shall convey a good and clear record and marketable title, free from
encumbrances, except: (a) existing municipal by-laws and regulations; (b) current
taxes which are not yet due and payable; and (c) the rights reserved by MCGRIFF as
are stated in Exhibit A. The conveyance or taking shall occur when all of the Pre-
Conditions listed in paragraph 6 below have been satisfied. The TOWN will record
the deed at the Registry within ten days after the deed has been delivered to the
TOWN.
2. Improvements: MCGRIFF will complete the following improvements (Improvements)
to the Premises, consistent with the plans as approved by the Community Planning
and Development Commission (CPDC) as part of its site plan approval for the
Walgreen's project: grading, drainage, curbing, asphalt, lighting and painted parking
spaces so that the Premises are integrated into and are a permanent part of the
municipal parking lot which, the Premises abut. Improvement work need not be done
unless and until the conditions listed in the Pre-Conditions (a) and (c) listed in
paragraph 6 below have been satisfied.
yE►
3. Timin : Time is of the essence as to the dates contained in this Agreement.
4. License: The TOWN grants MCGRIFF license to complete the improvements as
described herein to the extent they require access to or work on the TOWN
property.
5. Liability-Costs: All improvements shall be undertaken by MCGRIFF and at the
MCGRIFF's sole risk and expense.
6. Pre-Conditions: MCGRIFF shall deliver the deed to the TOWN when and if all of the
following pre-conditions ("Pre-Conditions'D have been satisfied:
a. Walgreen's Eastern Co., Inc. proceeds with the project.
b. MCGRIFF completes the Improvements on the Premises as described in
paragraph 2 and the building and other improvements on the land retained by
MCGRIFF, called the "Grantor's Property" on Exhibit A.
c. MCGRIFF obtains a building permit to construct the Walgreen's store
consistent with the site plan as has been approved by the CPDC.
MCGRIFF shall use diligent and reasonable efforts to satisfy conditions (b) and (c), once
condition (a) has been satisfied.
7. Miscellaneous: This Agreement executed in multiple counterparts is to be construed
as a Massachusetts contract, is to take effect as a sealed instrument, sets forth the
entire contract between the parties, is binding upon and enures to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective heirs, devisees, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns, and may be canceled, modified or amended only by a
written instrument executed by both MCGRIFF and the TOWN. This Agreement shall
not prevent MCGRIFF from obtaining amendments to the above-referenced site plan
approval or obtaining other governmental approvals. MCGRIFF may assign this
Agreement to another entity if that entity performs the obligations of MCGRIFF as
are stated herein.
Signed and Sealed on May _ 2005.
TOWN of Reading, MCGRIFF READING LLC
Acting by and through its
Board of Selectmen
by:
as Manager, not individually
qE Z
OF I?
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2685
~w
I.-/NCO
FAX: (781) 942-9070
Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us
ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
May 5, 2005
TOWN CLERK
(781) 942-9050
ARTICLE 3 - On motion by Paula D. Koppel, Precinct 8, it was voted to instruct the Board of
Selectmen to construct an ad hoc task force to confirm the needs of frail seniors and determine
the resources necessary to provide nurse advocacy. for frail residents in Reading.
Objectives:
® Explore the role of local government in nurse advocacy
m Confirm needs and appropriate levels of funding
Explore alternative approaches for funding including the Hospital Trust Fund and town
budget
® Present report on the work and recommendations of the task force to the Selectmen and
Finance Committee. Report also presented to -the town meeting members at the fall Town
Meeting.
Suggested Task Force Composition:
® Director of Elder/Human Services
m Member of Council on Aging
A "frail senior" from the Reading community
• Representative of Community Parish Nursing
® Reading Senior Housing representative
Selectman
® Chairman of ad hoc committee of the Hospital Trust Fund
• Member of the Finance Committee
® Town meeting member
A true copy. Attest:
Cheryl . Johnso
Town Jerk
q F1
OFRE9O~~
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2685
6391NCORe¢P
FAX: (781) 942-9070
Website: www.d.reading.ma.us
TOWN CLERK
(781) 942-9050
ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
May 5, 2005
ARTICLE 3 - On motion by Ronald M. D'Addario, Precinct 6, it was voted to instruct the
Selectmen to form a committee to research the program "Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)," a
project of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), to determine
whether Reading should participate in the program. The committee recommendations could be
available for fall town meeting.
The "Cities for Climate Protection Campaign" works with cities, towns, and counties to
reduce the pollution that causes global warming. The program is comprised of 5 actions:
1. Conduct a local emissions inventory of greenhouse gas emission.
2. Adopt an emissions reduction target.
3. Identify local actions that achieve the target.
4. Implement action plan policies and actions.
5. Quantify and report benefits created.
In the United States 154 cities, towns, and counties participate in the program at present.
Those cities and towns located in Massachusetts include, Amherst, Arlington, Barnstable,
Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Falmouth, Gloucester, Lenox, Lynn, Medford, Natick,
Newton, Northampton, Salem, Shutesbury, Somerville, Springfield, Watertown,
Williamstown, and Worcester.
The ICLEI concludes that its members "cut 20 million tons of global warming pollution and
cut $400 million from energy and fuel costs for their communities."
A true copy. Attest:
Chery A. John on
Town Clerk
Board of Selectmen Meeting
May 4, 2005
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which
the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which
any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:32 p.m. in the Town Hall Conference Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Richard Schubert, Vice Chairman
Camille Anthony, Secretary Joseph Duffy, Selectmen James Bonazoli and Ben Tafoya,
Public Works Director Ted McIntire, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Peter Tassi, Town
Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Paula Schena and the following list of interested parties:
Consultant John Gall, Kerry Mackin, Gail and John Wood, Stephen Crook, Richard Moore,
Steve Oston, Jamie Maughan, Will Finch, Gina Snyder.
Discussion/Action Items
Continued Discussion, MWRA Water Buy-In - Chairman Richard Schubert noted that John Gall
collected data on water consumption and handed out a tabular sheet and graphic chart. He also
noted that the trend is a decline in water use in Reading.
The Town Manager reviewed the latest version of the ITA conditions. He noted that we agree
with the first condition of using 1 mgd from the Ipswich River from May through October, and
to purchase up to 219 mg from MWRA.
Consultant John Gall does not agree with Item 1(b) and feels that it should be removed. Vice
Chairman Camille Anthony indicated that issue should be under the emergency section.
Kerry Mackin, Executive Director of the Ipswich River Watershed Association, noted that the
WRC incorporated this to allow the Town to pump more than 1 mgpd from the Ipswich River.
The Town Manager asked what happens if the 219 mg are used before October, and Ms. Mackin
noted that a Notice of Project Change would have to be filed. The Town Manager indicated that
would take years.
Chairman Richard Schubert noted that if we are limited to 219 mg, then we would default to the
Ipswich River which is our primary source of water.
The Town Manager noted that the Town's first proposal was through September. If we get to
that point, then we have to institute full restrictions. He requests that this issue be very clear as
far as what we do.
Ms. Mackin noted that the application is not clear on what action will be taken and this requires
follow up action. Public Works Director Ted McIntire noted that he doubts that we would go to
the MWRA to purchase more water when we can get it from the basin. There is a 10% charge
by MWRA for emergency use.
60,A~
I
Board of Selectmen Meeting- May 4, 2005 - Page 2
Ms. Mackin noted that there could be a drought and the Ipswich River could be at zero. The
Town shouldn't be required to use the Ipswich River.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony noted that the Town could look at the Ipswich River, go to the
MWRA, or look at other sources. She also noted that DEP is in charge of the basin, and we can
withdraw so many number of gallons from the river. DEP will be looking at the numbers, not
the M:WRA.
Ms. Mackin noted that she can live with us listing our options as long as we don't prioritize
them. Chairman Richard Schubert noted that changing the word "shall" to "may" will take care
of that issue.
Selectman James Bonazoli noted that on Pages 25-29 of last week's packet, that sole source
should be changed to primary source.
The Town Manager noted that the idea is to average the use over the year but not daily. Ted
McIntire indicated that we cannot get precise enough for a 1% variance. Water Treatment Plant
Supervisor Peter Tassi indicated that we could do a 5% variance. He noted that the employees
have a multitude of duties and do not stand in front of the meter all day. Ms. Mackin noted that
she will not go to 5% but will go to 2%.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony noted that we will only be allowed to take 1 mgpd out of the
river, and she asked if that would be an average. The Town Manager suggested taking this
language out because we file a monthly report with the State.
Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that there will be a significant change on the draw on the river, and
we will be shifting from a demand base to a supply base.
Ms. Mackin noted that she would be happy to delete the sentence beginning "However,
infrequent occasions of de minimus......"
The Town Manager reviewed Section C which is to define unforeseen isolated emergency. He
noted that there could be situations when we are not receiving water from the MWRA, and it is
not declared an emergency by the DEP. He recommends ending the sentence after
"circumstance" and begin the next sentence at "Unforeseen..."
Ted McIntire noted that drought is one of the conditions that DEP issues conditions.
The Town Manager noted that #2 deals with stream flow and triggers, and noted that Kerry
Mackin rewrote the entire section. The beginning of #2 is editorial and should begin with "In
order to ensure...." Ms. Mackin indicated that she does not agree with the purpose.
Chairman Richard Schubert noted that why we are doing this and what we are doing are two
different pieces. Ms. Mackin suggested eliminating all purposes up to "Town shall amend..."
The Town Manager noted that we have to leave in the language that the Water Resources
Commission puts in.
s~z
Board of Selectmen Meeting - MU 4, 2005 - Page 3
Chairman Richard Schubert asked how the community would be notified of water restrictions.
The Town Manager noted that there is reverse 911, cable, newspapers, etc.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony asked what the other communities do. Ted McIntire noted that
all of the permits are under appeal. None of the other communities are decreasing their draw on
the Ipswich River by 1 mgpd.
Gail Wood noted that she has a problem with Kerry Mackin's calculations based on previous
water use, and that we'll be taking 60% less water so the calculations have to be redone. She
also noted that the reason Wilmington has stopped pumping some wells is because their wells are
polluted. She feels that the restrictions will not help the basin because the water is coming from
the MWRA, not the basin. She indicated that if the residents will have to pay 5% more for water
and we tell them they can't use the water, then a hearing should be held before deciding to go
forward with this.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony asked who is the largest withdrawer from the Ipswich River.
Ms. Mackin noted that Salem/Beverly are the largest, but are restricted not to pump from the
river in the Summertime. She also noted that Lynn and Peabody are not allowed to pump in the
Summertime. Vice Chairman Camille Anthony noted that these are big communities that are
siphoning off the water during the Winter.
The Town Manager noted that Section 2A is trying to micro-manage the Town's water
restrictions. Going by that in August during 95% of the time, we will only be able to water
outside four hours, one day per week.
John Gall and Kerry Mackin discussed the trends in water use, and how her calculations would
have affected the Town's use.
Selectman James Bonazoli asked where the water gauge is located, and Ms. Mackin indicated
that it is located in Middleton.
Selectman Ben Tafoya asked how many stages we needed, and suggested keeping it at three
stages to keep it simple.
Chairman Richard Schubert noted that we have compliance with a simple system. The Town
Manager noted that the more restrictive we are, the more people will drill wells and we can't put
restrictions on private wells.
Jamie Maughan noted that the outdoor water use restrictions are enforced because you can see it
when the residents are violating them.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony noted that if we go with what Kerry Mackin proposes, then we
will go all Summer with one day to water per week, and the community will want to know why
we did this.
SA3
Board of Selectmen Meeting - May 4, 2005 - Page 4
Peter Tassi noted that according to the Mass. General Laws, we have a right to the water in the
Ipswich River Basin and we shouldn't give it up.
The Town Manager noted that the Town is doing this because it is the right thing to do. If the
DEP puts restrictions on water usage, it won't be more severe than what we have now. He also
noted that the Water Resources Commission wants the Board of Selectmen's direction tonight.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony noted that this is a huge shift in policy, and suggested a
position paper. The Town Manager noted that the Water Resources Commission will issue a
permit, and the Town can then decide if they want to move forward with it.
John Wood, member of the Water, Sewer and Storm Water Advisory Committee, noted that the
Town should not accept Kerry Mackin's suggested restrictions before the appeals are heard in
court. He also noted that the Town is working to reduce water usage, and is historically low in
per capita use. He suggests moving forward with what staff has recommended.
Ted McIntire noted that whatever is in the application will be a requirement for the Town. We
had committed to stricter restrictions in the original application that had an end date of
September.
Selectman Ben Tafoya suggested taking a joint position and accept the restrictions because the
Water Resources Commission will want some level of restrictions. Chairman Richard Schubert
noted that the Board of Selectmen sets policy for the Town and this will take their power away.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony noted that it is not in the best interest of the Town to move
forward with the current contract. This is a water policy decision for the rest of our life and not a
path we want to take.
Selectman Joseph Duffy noted that he could go along with hand held watering daily and one day
of sprinkler. He feels that we need to save the river and keep costs down.
Selectman James Bonazoli noted that he feels there should be triggers in the contract.
The Town Manager noted that the concern is to have as much flexibility, and the Water
Resources Commission's concern is for us to make 2.9 mg last through the end of October.
Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that he can live with restrictions if that's what it takes to get us over
the hill.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony noted that she is not against restrictions, she just wants to keep
the control.
Richard Moore, member of the Water, Sewer and Storm Water Advisory Committee, noted that
if the restrictions are put in the contract and the Town wants to change them, then all of the
Commissions would have to approve it again.
~Ay
Board of Selectmen Meeting - May 4, 2005 - Page 5
Steve Oston, member of the Water, Sewer and Storm Water Advisory Committee, suggested
noting if the stream flow is low, then we will enforce stricter restrictions. Ted McIntire noted
that was our original proposal. The Town Manager noted that there were two triggers - one
would reduce outdoor water use hours by 25%, and the other would reduce the hours by 50%.
Ms. Mackin noted that based on tonight, she will not accept the situation with the Town having
all of the control. She indicated that she will win in court. She is willing to look at specifics but
will not go to three days per week. She suggested putting a reopener clause in the contract.
The Town Manager indicated that he will utilize the Water Resource Draft with the
modifications approved tonight.
A motion by Anthony seconded by Duff to adjourn the meeting of May 4, 2005 at 11:25
p.m. was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
BAs
Board of Selectmen/CPDC Meeting
May 9, 2005
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these minutes reflects the order in which
the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which
any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:45 p.m. in the Multi-purpose Room, Parker Middle School, 45
Temple Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were CPDC Members Neil Sullivan, Chair,
Jonathan Barnes, Susan DeMatteo, Richard Howard, and John Sasso. Selectmen Ben Tafoya,
Richard Schubert, Camille Anthony, James Bonazoli, and Joseph Duffy. Also Present: Chris
Reilly, Town Planner; Michael Schloth Richard Askin, Project Manager, W/S Development
Associates LLC, Attorney Mark Favaloro, representing W/S Development Associates LLC, Bob
Frazier, Vice President of Development, W/S Development Associates LLC, Brian Sierra, Vice
President of Lifestyle Centers, W/S Development Associates LLC. The following people signed
the Attendance Sheet: Mr. Richard Roketenetz, Ms. Jean Roketenetz, Ms. Mary D. Avery, Ms.
Diane A. Weggel, Ms. Marianne McLaughlin-Downing, Mr. Christopher Diemer, Mr. Brad
Fuller, Ms. Angela Binda, Ms. Heidi Bonnabeau, Mr. Joe Westerman, Mr. Frank Touserkani,
Mr. William Pike, Mr. Bill Webster, Mr. Rick Rostoff, Mr. David Zeek, Mr. Michael Giacalone,
Neil Sullivan called the CPDC to order at 7:45 PM. All members were present. He explained that
this meeting was a joint zoning workshop between the CPDC and the Board of Selectmen and
then handed the control of the meeting to Selectman Richard Schubert.
Joint Zoning Workshop: CPDC and Board of Selectmen
Downtown mixed-use zoning amendment - Due to a lack of time this item was not visited.
Addison-Wesley Zoning Amendment - Selectman Richard Schubert called the Board of
Selectmen to order. All members were present.
He explained that this although this was not a public hearing the public would be given a chance
to speak at the end if there was time. Selectmen Schubert asked the public to please refrain from
commenting during the developers' presentation and the Selectmen's and CPDC members'
discussion. He explained that the CPDC members must leave in time to preside over a public
hearing at the Police Community Room at 9:30PM.
Developers' Presentation. - Mr. Frazier noted that they had been busy gathering traffic data with
special attention to the "cut through" problem. He said that due to time constraints his team
would be presenting only a summary of their traffic findings tonight. He said that they were still
at the start of the process and that the DRT alone could take six months or more to complete. He
then handed the presentation over to project manager Richard Askin.
Mr. Askin said that the development team had decided to give the project the name "Park Square
at Reading". He then began a slideshow about "Lifestyle Centers" showing how different their
proposal was from a typical mall.
Sbl
Board of Selectmen/CPDC Meeting - May 9, 2005 - Page 2
Mr. Brian Sierra, Vice President of Lifestyle Centers, then spoke briefly. He too stressed the
difference between his team's proposal and the Burlington Mall. He said that the tenant mix will
be small - no "Big Box" companies and upscale with a focus on service and distinction. He
added that their Lifestyle Center will be 1/4 to 1/3 the size of the Burlington Mall and cover an
area roughly 10% of what Burlington Mall and its grounds cover.
Mr. Askin continued. He said that their largest tenants would be along the lines of a Talbots
("junior anchors"). Parking would be convenient to all stores because the stores encircle and
face the parking lot. Landscaping would be employed to keep the development intimate and
pedestrian-friendly. He suggested the possibility of summer concerts. He concluded by
reminding his audience that five years ago the same site was rezoned for use as a 6,000 square
foot hotel project but the Lifestyle Center would only cover 4,000 square feet.
Traffic Studies - Mr. Askin next presented a summary of his team's traffic studies to date. The
study focussed on two points:
1. the intersection of Main and South Streets,
2. "cut-through" traffic.
Mr. Askin suggested that the first point might be improved by the addition of dedicated lanes
turning north and south onto Main Street at the intersection. He presented two drawings of two
different examples of possible "traffic lane geometries". Neither was definitive and others may
be considered. He noted that Pearson had suggested plans for an improved intersection five years
ago.
Before going into possible solutions to the "cut-through" problem, Mr. Askin presented a
handful of charts to explain where the traffic might come from if the Lifestyle Center was built.
In short, the charts showed that roughly 80% of the traffic would come from Rt.128. A smaller
amount would come from the north up Main Street (Rt. 28). Smaller still would be the amount of
"cut-through" traffic coming down South Street.
Next, Mr. Askin presented a chart that rated the "Level of Service" of the roads servicing the
Addison/Wesley property: He explained that Levels of Service ratings run from "A" (the best) to
'Y' (failure) and that in this case the roads were rated based on both the time of day (morning
and evening) and the use of the Addison/Wesley site (current, office/hotel, and retail).
Currently, in both the morning and the evening, the area roads are rated "IT". If Addison/Wesley
became an office park, the morning and evening ratings would both be "D".
If "Park Square at Reading" were to be built the morning rating would be "C" and the evening
rating would be "D". Saturdays would rate worse since midday peak then would be as much or
greater than peak office park hours.
He then offered a few "traffic calming" suggestions for the cut-through traffic. Speed Table: a
raised section of road. Used to cut traffic speed and volume. Gateway: the "strategic placement"
of various features usually found in a gated community to discourage through traffic.
Sb Z-
Board of Selectmen/CPDC Meeting - May 9, 2005 - Page 3
Mr. Askin summed up the traffic study by saying that their proposal would make the cut-through
traffic no worse and the intersection better.
Buffer - Before ending his presentation, Mr. Askin said that the plans for the buffer between
"Park Place at Reading" and the 26 or so homes that would boarder it should be ready by early
June.
Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager, noted that five years ago Addison/Wesley was rezoned
(Business C) to allow a hotel or office park to be built there. The market for hotels and office
parks tanked and has not improved in the meantime. On the other hand, there is a market for
retail and residential properties. This developer wants to build a retail center. The developer has
completed a traffic study and the data will be studied and discussed in future meetings. The data
will be available for review on the planning website. The developer now requests that we rezone
the property for retail. The project can't move forward until the property is rezoned.
Town Planner Chris Reilly said that the developer had made three presentations to the CPDC to
date. The last, on February 15th' was open to the public. It was made very clear at that meeting
that the public's #1 concern is traffic. Traffic is one of the responsibilities of the Selectmen in
their capacity of Road Commissioners so he advised the CPDC to meet with the Selectmen in a
joint zoning workshop to discuss the matter. The developers made a promise at the February 15th
meeting to make a study of the traffic. They are here to show that they have fulfilled that
promise.
Selectman Camille Anthony was confused why rezoning was even being discussed before the
matter of access to the property is resolved and she also had concerns regarding traffic. The
Town Manager replied that the reality of the situation is that there is only one way to access the
property.
Selectman Schubert said that we must be aware of the limitations of the access and of our
opportunities to improve it. No matter how the site is used, access will be a problem. Do we not
rezone and accept the access as is, or do we rezone and work with the developer to improve the
access we have?
Selectman Tafoya was disappointed that after four meetings with the developer we still have not
had a thorough discussion of the traffic situation. Also, how did the developers design their
traffic study? What assumptions have they made? He too has questions regarding access of the
site from Rt.128. He asks if the town has made any effort to actively seek developers who may
want to build something other than a retail center?
Richard Howard said that the hotel project of five years ago took six months of traffic studies,
discussions of intersection reconfigurations, public meetings ...and when it was all worked out
and we were on the verge of proceeding, the market tanked. We still have the data from that
project. That project had a different traffic dynamic but can it help us today?
Attorney Mark Favaloro noted that the developers are prepared to present their traffic study data
in full but it would take at least three hours to do it properly and it was their understanding that
563
Board of Selectmen/CPDC Meeting - May 9, 2005 - Page 4
tonight's meeting would be a high-level discussion of the project. Also, all traffic issues were
fleshed out in 2000 during the Pearson project. Today - because it is a retail project - we do have
to look at weekend and weeknight scenarios too, but the access problem is not a new issue.
Selectman Anthony agreed that plenty of work was done back in 2000, but she emphasized that
this is a different situation. We're dealing with a retail center not an office park. Office parks
have only two bad traffic times: the morning and evening rush hours.
Attorney Favaloro agreed and added that the traffic studies will show that most of the traffic will
come from Rt. 128 and not down South Street as "cut-through" traffic.
The Town Manager reminded the Selectmen that there is no market for hotels or office parks.
There is a market for retail and residential. Regarding the accuracy of the traffic study, he said
that it would be peer reviewed by an expert of the town's choice hired at the developer's
expense.
Selectwoman Anthony said that according to an article she had recently read, the hotel industry
is up to pre-9/11 levels. Hotels could be coming back. She also noted that Walkers Brook Drive
is supposed to have very good access but when it opened traffic was a "morass".
Selectman Schubert noted that the site isn't perfect but its what we have to work with. Walkers
Brook was a different situation. The town owned the landfill it was built on. The town does not
own the Addison/Wesley site. We don't have the same control over the situation. It's up to us to
signal the direction the town should take with the Addison/Wesley project.
Selectman Tafoya said that we need a thorough discussion of the direction of Reading's
economic development. We need to develop our own options for both publicly and privately
owned properties. He is willing to head a task force to look for developers who may have
projects that would fit Reading better.
Richard Howard had a question for the developers. Could they look at the feasibility and impact
of adding a residential component to the project? It could help us to evaluate the best use of the
site.
Selectman Schubert said that the last comments sound like points the Master Plan would cover
and asked if someone from the CPDC could speak briefly on the Master Plan.
John Sasso said that he and other members of the Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAQ
have been working on the Master Plan for over a year now and it is still difficult to say what
direction we'd like to see Reading take. We have many ideas. An economic development task
force is something we'd like to see. Reading has few remaining open lots and developers will
target them. We need guidance to their best use. We hope the Master Plan will be the framework
to provide such guidance.
Selectman Schubert said that Richard Howard's suggestion raises the issue of "mixed-use". We
have traffic data from the hotel project in 2000, and traffic data from the current retail center
Sb Y
Board of Selectmen/CPDC Meeting - May 9, 2005 - Page 5
proposal. Can the developer provide us with traffic data on a possible mixed-use of the site?
Does the developer have any experience with mixed-use?
Mr. Frazier said that he did have experience with mixed-use projects and he was certainly willing
to have his team look into adding some kind of residential component to the Addison/Wesley
project, but:
• Most people don't like them because of 40B.
• You also have potential problems with parking. In the evening, the people who live there and
the visiting shoppers both are trying to find places to park.
• Most communities seem to like the retail component but not so much the residential because
of the impact more residents could have on their schools, etc.
• Usually with such projects we build next door to residential properties so the residential
developer can present the retail center as an amenity for the residential buyers.
The Town Manager summarized the discussion so far.
• We want access to the complete traffic study.
• We want to have the traffic study vetted by an expert of our choosing.
• We would like to know what business plan drove the traffic study
• We would like to see alternatives modeled mixed-use alternatives included.
At this time CPDC adjourned to continued their meeting at the Police Station.
James Bonazoli noted that we need to learn from the Jordan's experience. He also noted that we
need to think about the Route 128/I-93 intersection. He asked for an update on the meetings and
Rick Schubert and Camille Anthony indicated that meetings are still being held on this potential
project, but that there were no plans proposed at this time.
Chairman Richard Schubert opened the meeting to the public.
Walter Begonis from 289 South Street spoke regarding the Hingham project. He noted that there
are highways on three sides including Route 3, and the rest of the area is commercial. There is a
service road. He went on a Sunday afternoon in February and all of the parking spaces were
filled. The neighborhood does not want the traffic, lights or noise from such a facility. He's in
favor of a mixed use facility on the site. The study that was done five years ago was five years
ago and there is a different situation now. Perhaps you should be looking at a retirement
community with other uses. The Town should not pay for Pearson's buy-out of Addison
Wesley. The traffic study should be broad enough to include not only South Street, but Route
128/Route 28 intersection, Summer Avenue, Hopkins Street, Walnut Street, etc. He noted that
the traffic from the election last November could happen every Sunday at this site.
George Katsoufis is a member of the Master Plan Advisory Committee felt that there were three
elements that need to be consider: downtown viability, traffic and housing policy. The
development has a regional interest in the community as a local interest and we would need to
balance the two.
Board of Selectmen/CPDC Meeting- May 9 ,2005 - Page 6
Angela Bender of 10 Orchard Park Drive spoke. She got a notice of the development even
though it's in a Business C a distance away from her. She's interested in the economic impact
on the Town. This could put a strain on services. It would increase tax revenues. The multiplier
affect from locally owned businesses is greater than for regional chains. Marshfield,
Massachusetts did a study indicating that growth doesn't necessarily mean more tax dollars.
She's in favor of smart growth.
Steve Morrison of 178 Walnut Street asked how people would know about meetings such as this
(the Town Manager noted that it was noticed, advertised, included in websites). He also noted
that if we close off South Street, cut through traffic may use other locations.
Bill Brown, 28 Martin Road indicated that we could have a 40b project on this site. The Town
Manager outlined the process for a 40b project.
Mr. Schubart from Sturgis Road noted that he didn't see the last meeting on TV. He should use
channel 22 for information. South Street and 128 had four accidents. With Addison Wesley
expanded they could build a second building 70 feet high. We should eliminate the 90 foot
height that's allowed within a zone. We should put a stop sign at the corner of Jacob and South.
We should put in signs that say no left turn. There are other ways to make improvements.
Jim Doherty from Curtis Street spoke about the desirability of a mixed use and diversity on the
site for the economic sustainability of the site. When the current zoning was put into place we
thought it was the right thing it would be developed, and it has turned out not to be. We need to
do an economic model with different percentages of use. With regard to the level of service at
South and Main he doesn't think it is currently an F. It was in level service A when Addison
Wesley did their study.
Michael Jacoloni of Orchard Park Drive has about the legal recourse if the property is not
rezoned. In addition to traffic in the neighborhood, he asked what the impact would be on
downtown. He noted that there would be negative impacts around the Addison Wesley property
with the development.
David Zakem, 176 Pearl Street, spoke. He felt the Town should seriously consider the proposed
development. It would make living in Reading fun. He misses upscale retail development and
thinks it would be desirable use in the community.
Mary Ann Downing of Heather Drive noted that 3 '/z miles up the road, Burlington is putting in a
similar development on Route 3A - the Ratheon property. We could get specific traffic counts
from that.
Frank Kazatomis, 21 George Street, noted that the neighborhood fought the 40b development
next to them for six years. He felt the Town of Reading is not required to consider rezoning this
property. He noted that there were questions about the hotel industry, but it is not dead. It is
hard to get rooms during the week. Engineers can simulate anything. We need to have a peer
traffic review.
Board of Selectmen/CPDC Meeting - May 9, 2005 - Page 7
Joel Westerstein from Avon Street feels that zoning is necessary to protect the inhabitants. The
proposal doesn't match that description. As consider solutions, we need to aware of the demand
for increased services. He suggested that we consider an increase in the business tax rate.
George Katsoufis noted that we want to consider a design overlay district for mixed use on the
site.
Joe Duffy asked about the construction at the Red Stone Plaza. The developer indicated that as
redevelopment of the site which they lease and manage, but do not own. Duffy asked whether
there is a conflict of existing vacancies there and trying to build a new center here. The
developer noted that the proposed development is much different than Red Stone Plaza. The
eight buildings that are currently vacant there are prepared for redevelopment.
James Bonazoli asked if they were part of the Burlington project. They are not.
Stan Kanatolis from 197 South Street was concerned about traffic at West and South Street. He
asked how much residential uses were required to support the retail use. He also asked how
many vehicle trips were required to support them all. He asked about the possibility of access
directly from Route 128.
Mr. Schubarth had experience with similar facilities in Branston, Missouri.
There was discussion about next steps:
1. A traffic study presentation needs to be made to the CPDC and the Board of Selectmen.
2. Other alternatives of mixed use need to be reviewed. The developer agreed to both.
On motion by Anthony seconded by Tafoya, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. on a vote
of 5-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
g67
Board of Selectmen Meeting
May 10, 2005
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which
the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which
any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Richard Schubert, Vice Chairman
Camille Anthony, Secretary Joseph Duffy, Selectmen James Bonazoli and Ben Tafoya,
Police Chief Jim Cormier, Finance Director Beth Klepeis, Human Resources Administrator
Carol Roberts, Public Works Director Ted McIntire, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Peter
Tassi, RCTV Executive Director Phil Rushworth, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Paula
Schena and the following list of interested parties: Gary Nihan, Marcel Dubois, Gene Nigro,
Richard Moore, John Gall.
Reports and Comments
Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Vice Chairman Camille Anthony requested that
goals be put on a future agenda. She noted that there was correspondence from the east side
neighbors, and correspondence on Safe Routes and sidewalks on Franklin Street in the
Selectmen's packets.
Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that he and the Board met last night with CPDC regarding
Addison-Wesley. He also noted that there was correspondence regarding traffic enforcement on
West Street, and he requested that Jordan's lighting be put on the next Selectmen's agenda.
Selectman James Bonazoli noted that he will be taking a tour of the cemeteries with the
Cemetery Board.
Selectman Joseph Duffy noted that the Reading Municipal Light Board has reorganized, and
Andrew Herlihy is a new Chairman, Robert Soli is the Vice Chairman and Ellen Kearns is the
Secretary.
Town Manager's Report
The Town Manager gave the following report:
♦ Railroad horn blowing - There is no documentation of Reading being a quiet zone. The
MMA has sponsored a petition to retain the quiet zone. The DTE inspected each crossing.
Ash Street is dangerous and there has been a vehicle accident there. We were informed on
Wednesday that the whistles will start blowing on Monday. The Town is eligible to retain
the quiet zone as long as we make progress. The plan is to eliminate the crossing by bringing
Ash Street out to Main Street before the crossing. The whistles will stop blowing on June 24,
2005.
♦ State Budget - State aid is probably increasing by $20,000 - $30,000.
♦ Town Meeting follow-up is scheduled for May 31, 2005.
♦ May 17th meeting for bond approval - Water projects.
so,c i
Board of Selectmen Meeting=May 10, 2005 - Page 2
♦ Reading has received its 20th annual recognition as a "Tree City USA". Congratulations are
due to the DPW Parks and Forestry Division under Bob Keating's leadership. They are able
to do this with some major constraints on staff and funding.
♦ We are in the process of re-paving Woburn Street.
♦ Police Memorial Week is the week of May 15, 2005. The Board of Selectmen will have a
Proclamation re: PMW at the Tuesday, May 10th Board Meeting.
♦ Also at the May 10th Board of Selectmen meeting, Chief Cormier will have his ceremonial
badge pinning at approximately 7:45 p.m.
♦ Selectmen Forums have been scheduled for 6/21, 9/20 and 12/6.
Legislation has been approved for the easement on Longwood Road for three residential
abutters.
♦ Reading Friends and Family Day will take place on Saturday, June 25th right outside of
Town Hall and the Upper Common. If you or your department would like to participate with
an information table or program, please contact John Feudo at Ext. 074 or email him at
jfeudo@ci.reading.ma.us. There is currently over 30 different groups and organizations
involved. Should be a fun day for all involved!
♦ On Saturday, May 21, 2005, the Police Department will host its annual Open House from 10
a.m. - 12 noon. The Honor Guard will be on hand to give tours.
♦ House Bill 2121 - Safe Routes to School Program.
e CAB representative Fred Van Magness is not applying for re-appointment.
♦ Arnold Rubin called and is removing all of the auxiliary signage for beer and wine.
We are receiving calls regarding a large mobile billboard. This is against our bylaws and we
are taking action.
♦ Regarding the lighting at Jordan's, the Town Manager will have to go out at night and see if
they are abiding by what they said they would do. Chairman Richard Schubert noted that it
would be best to hear from the abutters. Vice Chairman Camille Anthony noted that the
Town should be following up with either a meeting or a letter. She also asked for a report on
the number of trees planted and the number of trees removed.
Proclamations/Certificates of Appreciation
Proclamation - National Police Memorial Week - Police Chief Jim Cormier was present to
receive the Proclamation.
A motion by Duffy seconded by Anthony to proclaim the week of May 15th as Peace
Officer's Memorial Week in Reading was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Proclamation - VFW Poppy Week - A motion by Duffy seconded by Tafoya to proclaim the
week of May 22-28, 2005 as V.F.W. Poppy Week was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Proclamation - National Physical Fitness Month - Gary Nihan was present to receive the
Proclamation.
A motion by Duffy seconded by Bonazoli to proclaim the month of May as National
Physical Fitness Month was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
scZ.,
Board of Selectmen Meeting - May 10, 2005 - Page 3
Personnel and Appointments
Badge Pinning - Chief Jim Cormier - The Town Manager noted that Jim Cormier was sworn in
when he started duty and this badge pinning is a formality with the Board of Selectmen. Jim
Cormier, his family and friends were present, and Jim's father did the badge pinning.
Master Plan Advisory Committee - The Town Manager noted that the Historical Commission is
recommending Virginia Adams as their representative on the Master Plan Advisory Committee.
Bonzoli moved and Duffy seconded to place the following name into nomination for one
position as the Historical Commission representative on the Ad Hoc Master Plan Advisory
Committee with a term expiring December 31, 2005: Virginia Adams. Mrs. Adams
received five votes and was appointed.
Discussion/Action Items
Approval of Borrowing from MWRA re: Sewer I/I Hearing - Finance Director Beth Klepeis was
present. The Town Manager noted that the Town has approved borrowing for I/I and 40% will
be from a grant and 60% will be an interest free loan.
Beth Klepeis noted that we are borrowing $418,385 and will pay it back over five years.
A motion by Tafoya seconded by Bonazoli that the Board of Selectmen are hereby
authorized on behalf of the Town to enter into and to execute a Financial Assistance
Agreement and a Loan Agreement with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (the
"MWRA") and any other agreements as may be deemed necessary in connection with the
issue and sale of an interest free loan in the aggregate principal amount of a $418,385
Sewer Bond (the "Bond") to MWRA; and
That the Bond is authorized pursuant to Chapter 44, Section 7(1) of the General Laws, as
amended and supplemented, authorized by a vote duly adopted by the Town under Article
12 at the 2004 Annual Town Meeting ($209,385) and $209,000 being a portion of the
$209,835 authorized by a vote duly adopted by the Town under Article 10 at the
Subsequent Town Meeting held on November 8, 2004; that it shall be an interest free loan
in the anrevte principal amount of $418,385, shall be dated as of its date of issue; and
shall be payable in the amount of $83,677 on May 15 in each of the years 2006 to 2010
inclusive was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Hearing - Classification and Compensation Plan - FY 2005 and FY 2006 - Human Resources
Administrator Carol Roberts was present. The Town Manager noted that he is asking the
Selectmen to modify the FY 2005 Classification Plan and to approve the FY 2006 Class and
Compensation Plans.
Carol Roberts noted that the School Crossing Guards formed a union and then withdrew. When
they were negotiating salary, a Grade 2 is what was offered. The Town Manager noted that
would be retroactive to September 1, 2004.
sc3
Board of Selectmen Meeting=May 10, 2005 - Page 4
Carol Roberts noted that with the retirement of the Finance Director, the position is being
reorganized as Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony asked why an Assistant Treasurer and Assistant Collector are
needed. The Town Manager noted that the Treasurer/Collector position was budgeted at 1.5
FTE. The Assistant Treasurer and Assistant Collector are Administrative Assistants. We will be
adding Clerks. We are only adding .50 FTE for the Assistant Town Manager position. The
Treasurer/Collector position is going from a Grade 11 to a Grade 15. The Town Manager noted
that the Treasurer/Collector position has been filled but we still need to fill the Finance Director
position.
The Board of Selectmen requested additional information including FY 2005 organizational
structure, job descriptions, and a classification chart showing comparables.
A motion by Anthony seconded by Duffy to approve the Crossing Guards FY05
Classification from a Grade 1 to a Grade 2 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
A motion by Anthony seconded by Duffy to continue the hearing on the FY05
Classification Plan was approved by a vote of 5-0-0
The Town Manager noted that Carol Roberts did a review of all non-union positions.
Carol Roberts noted that there are 66 non-union job titles with 111 employees. The employees
reviewed their job descriptions and then were rated by the Municipal Rate Manual. A survey
was then done of 13 communities and she uses the average to the midpoint. Nine positions are
changing as a result of the survey. She also noted that if a position is moving up a grade, then it
goes back a step. If they are moving more than one grade, then it will be done over two years.
She noted that four positions are being eliminated. The Veterans' Agent title is being changed to
the Veterans' Services Officer.
The Town Manager noted that the Cell Monitors, Veterans' Services Officer, Animal Control
Officer, Library Division Head, Office Manager, Human Resource Administrator and Recreation
Program Coordinator positions are all being upgraded.
The Board also requested additional information on these positions.
The Town Manager noted that the Board received a memo from the Town Clerk regarding
reclassification. He also noted that he will update the Board next week - this position is
classified correctly.
A motion by Anthony seconded by Tafoya to continue the hearing on the FY06
Classification and Compensation Plans to May 17, 2005 at 8:30 p.m. was approved by a
vote of 5-0-0.
SAY
Board of Selectmen Meeting - May 10, 2005 - Page 5
RCTV Agreement Status - The Town Manager noted that the Board of Selectmen negotiated an
agreement with RCTV. There were concerns regarding RCTV's ability to reach the terms of the
agreement. The Town has received the franchise money and has been distributing it to RCTV in
1/12 payments per month. All of the requirements have now been met. There is one issue with
4C 11 regarding pledging of assets. RCTV has indicated this may need to be done to acquire
another space if RMLD does not renew their lease.
President of RCTV Board of Directors Marcel Dubois noted that the contract is specific about
not pledging assets. There is nothing in the works currently but he wants to bring it to the Board
of Selectmen's attention. He also noted that their goal is to investigate a future home because
they are running out of space.
Chairman Richard Schubert noted that the Board will need to know the specifics before making
any changes.
Selectman Ben Tafoya asked if any other communities contacts were expiring with Comcast.
The Town Manager noted that we are working with Verizon coming to Reading. He could get a
list of communities undergoing renewals.
Marcel Dubois noted that the Selectmen's representative term expires in June.
Chairman Richard Schubert noted that a three month goal is to fill a vacancy to get the Board
back to seven members. He also noted that the letter indicates that the vote in May was seven
but actually should have been six.
Gene Nigro noted that the current Board is functioning well. The Selectmen and School
Committee reps are very helpful.
The Town Manager noted that the School Committee meetings and Town Meeting are not being
televised live due to construction. He also noted that Town Meeting needs to be live, and it is
Comcast's responsibility to provide a live signal.
Selectman James Bonazoli asked if there are any other locations where we have this problem.
RCTV Executive Director Phil Rushworth noted that at Parker Middle School, the connections
are too far away to hook up.
The Board directed the Town Manager to write a letter to Comcast indicating what the problems
are.
Hearing - Establish a Health Insurance Task Force - Chairman Richard Schubert noted that this
will be rescheduled for May 31, 2005.
Finalize Town Position - MWRA Purchase - Public Works Director Ted McIntire, Water
Treatment Plant Supervisor Peter Tassi, WSSWAC Member Richard Moore and Consultant John
Gall were present.
,SGS
Board of Selectmen Meeting=May 10, 2005 - Page 6
The Town Manager noted that the Water Resources Commission is meeting Thursday to review
the application and then will vote on June 9, 2005.
The Town Manager noted that it is important to be clear that if we purchase 219 mg before
October 31 st, then the Ipswich River will be the primary source of water.
Vice Chairman Camille Anthony asked if a drought was an emergency. Selectman James
Bonazoli noted that a drought is only declared by DEP, and a Town cannot declare a drought.
The Town Manager noted that Section 2 talks about stream flow triggers. If the USGS in South
Middleton is at or below 18.7 for three days straight, then the Town will have to enforce
restrictions. In Table 3, the trigger date has changed from the 15th to the 1St of the month. In
Table 4 in the first level, he has added "not less than" so we are not restricted. In the second
level, he has added "not less than" and taken out only hand held devices. The third level
addresses no hand held devices.
The Town Manager noted that Section 3 is not consistent so he crossed out the first sentence and
referenced Table 4.
Chairman Richard Schubert asked if the Board of Selectmen has the ability to change the policy
once it is adopted. The Town Manager indicated that they cannot because it becomes the
baseline.
Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that under the current policy, there are no tools to put restrictions in
place. He feels that we need an intermediate step based on stream flow to limiting outdoor water
use to once a week. The Town Manager noted that the Town has the flexibility to do that in the
way the contract is written.
Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that in 2002, the river had an event and the Town didn't respond to.
Chairman Richard Schubert noted that there was discussion in 2002. Ted McIntire noted that the
Selectmen reduced the hours at one point in response to a request. He also noted that Stage 1
now was Stage 2 then.
Selectman Ben Tafoya asked who takes responsibility for implementing the water restrictions,
and the Town Manager indicated that the Selectmen do and a policy should be written.
Selectman James Bonazoli indicated that he wanted an interim policy. Ted McIntire noted that it
should be sent to the WSSWAC for their review.
The Town Manager noted that he will come back with a schedule next week.
A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli to approve as a statement of the Town's
position on the buy-in to the MWRA Water system in the application pending before the
Water Resources Commission the draft conditions dated May 10, 2005, was approved by a
vote of 5-0-0.
,:~''G 4
Board of Selectmen Meeting- MU 10, 2005 - Page 7
Establishment of a Veteran's District - The Town Manager noted that State law states that if a
town has a population of 12,000 plus, then we are required to have a full-time Veteran's Agent.
The Town of Reading has never had a full-time Veteran's Agent. He wants to discuss forming a
district with Wilmington to share a full-time Veteran's Agent. He suggests that the Town
Managers be Commissioners of the district. His goal is for July 1, 2005.
The Town Manager noted that the Veteran's Officer can distribute aid to veterans or their
families, and can work with the community on celebrations. The only other alternative is to hire
a full-time employee.
Approval of Minutes
A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli to approve the Minutes of April 19, 2005, as
amended, was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Anthony to approve the Minutes of April 26, 2005 was
approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
A motion by Anthony seconded by Duffy to adjourn the meeting of May 10, 2005 at 11:00
p.m. was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
sG7
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Number: 2005-45 Fee: $50.00
TOWN OF READING
This is to certify that GETTY GAS STATION, 306 MAIN STREET, READING,
MASS., seating 0 customers
IS HEREBY GRANTED A
COMMON VICTUALLER'S LICENSE
in said Reading, Massachusetts and at that place only and expires December 31,
2005, unless sooner suspended or revoked for violation of the laws of the
Commonwealth respecting the licensing of common victuallers. This license is
issued in conformity with the authority granted to the licensing authorities by
General Laws, Chapter 140, and amendments thereto.
Pursuant to Section 3.7 of the Board of Selectmen's Policies, patrons are
not permitted to bring alcoholic beverages on the premises for their own
consumption and licensees are not permitted to keep alcoholic beverages
on the premises except for a small quantity that is used in the preparation
of certain specialty cooked foods.
All signs shall conform with the sign regulations of the Town of Reading.
In Testimony Whereof, the undersigned have hereunto affixed their official
signatures. ,,,•----ti
Date Issued: May 19, 2005
(04l
TOWN OF READING~l
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE
COMMON VICTUALLER
To the Board of Selectmen:
20
The undersigned hereby applies for a License in accordance with the provisions of the Statues relating
thereto
(Full name of person, firm or corporation making application)
DOING-BUSINESS AS `y/,/
STATE CLEARLY To 5
PURPOSE FOR
WHICH LICENSE Q
IS REQUESTED.
GIVE LOCATION
'BY STREET AND
NUMBER
NUMBER OF SEATS i2.
In said Town of Reading, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations made under
authority of said Statutes.
I certify under the penalties of perjury that I, to my best knowledge and belief, have filed all state tax
returns and paid all state taxes required under law. .
Sigeaiare of Individual or Corporate ame (Mandatory) By Corporate Officer
. (Mandatory, if applicable~
o'~-~vl 1633
Social Security # (voluntary)
or Federal Identification Number
This license will not be issued unless this certification clause is signed by the applicant.
Your social security number will be furnished to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue to determine
whether you have met tax filing or tax payment obligations. Licensees who fail to' correct their non-filing
or delinquency will be subject to license suspension or revocation. This request is made under the
authority Of Mass. G.L. c. 62C, s. 49A.
Fee Received:Signature of Applicant
S o6 '
Current Mailing Address
No.
4q-L.-
OF
r
. +
te
9
~s3sP INcoRi04~
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Number: 2005-13 Fee: $50.00
TOWN OF READING
This is to certify that JAI VAISHNODEVI & CHIRAL d/b/a NORTH SIDE
LIQUORS, 1349 MAIN STREET, READING, MASS., seating 0 customers
IS HEREBY GRANTED A
COMMON VICTUALLER'S LICENSE
in said Reading, Massachusetts and at that place only and expires December 31,
2005, unless sooner suspended or revoked for violation of the laws of the
Commonwealth respecting the licensing of common victuallers.
This license is issued in conformity with the authority granted to the licensing
authorities by General Laws, Chapter 140, and amendments thereto.
In Testimony Whereof, the undersigned have hereunto affixed their official
signatures.
Date Issued: May 19, 2005
TOWN OF READING
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE
COMMON VICTUALLER
To the Board of Selectmen: • - 20o5
The undersigned hereby applies for a License in accordance with the provisions of the Statues relating
thereto
(Full name of person, firm or corporation making application)
DOINGBUSINESS AS 4~d
STATE CLEARLY TO Z &V4
_4r~o
PURPOSE FOR
WHICH LICENSE
IS REQUESTED
GIVE LOCATION At a2
'BY STREET AND
NUMBER ~C-w O I S 6
NUMBER OF SEATS 0
In said Town of Reading, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations made under
authority of said Statutes.
I certify under the penalties of perjury that I, to my best knowledge and belief, have filed all state tax
returns and paid all state taxes required under law.
f
7„/'
Signature of Individual or Corporate Name (Mandatory) By Corporate Officer (Manda , if applicable)
9ZR75-1
Social Security # (voluntary)
or Federal Identification Number
This license will not be issued unless this certification clause is signed by the applicant.
Your social security number will be furnished to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue to determine
whether, you have met tax filing or tax payment obligations. Licensees who fail to'correct their non-filing
or delinquency will be subject to license suspension or re oc tion. s request is made under the
authority of Mass. G.L. c. 62C, s. 49A./%
Fee Received: S--0 , e) (D
Signature of Applicant
Current Mailing Address Telephone No.
10 b2
t"I c&S
2M5 MAY 16 PH 12: 38
May 12, 2005
Mr. Richard W. Schubert
Chairman, Board of Selectmen
Reading Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Mr. Schubert:
I am writing you on behalf of the residents on Avalon Road and Louanis Drive. We would like to
request the installation of a 2-way stop sign at the intersection of Louanis Drive and Avalon Road
as the increase in traffic and the speed at which the traffic flows through the neighborhood has
increased. As the volume of commuter traffic increases on West Street with the addition of the
apartment complex at the entrance of Louanis Drive in combination with the construction
presently underway at Johnsons Woods, we feel that our neighborhood is and will be used as a
"cut through" in order to avoid West Street congestion. We would also request a "Residents Only,
No Through Traffic" sign also be installed at the entrance of Louanis Drive to serve as a further
deterrence.
We have consulted numerous residents on South Street since the installation of the 4-way stop
signs. We were pleased to learn that there was a feeling from the residents that an overwhelming
reduction in speed and volume traveling down South Street had been achieved.
I have included for your reference signed petitions from residents on both Avalon Road and
Louanis Drive approving this proposal. I have also included a neighborhood diagram indicating
where we feel the stop sign placement would be most effective.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and please indicate when you feel that our
proposal will be scheduled to come before the town selectmen for approval.
With much appreciation,
The Residents of Avalon Road and Louanis Drive
cc:
Mr. Peter I. Hechenbleikner
Ms. Camille W. Anthony
Mr. Ben Tafoya
Mr. Joseph G. Duffy
Mr. James E. Bonazoli
g1qi
GY 3f041'3nld af, GY 3X1/Y3N/e SYY 'PY 7~b o I • pwJ 3b0 3nre -571 ""I- ,
I yN331PVN nOd'v 03 No InYO J11-11B -
p7509 ( 3Nr7D •7 7(D7/Jf %V YPpp
' %'NKOS i! nd3501` d ~ r I %/'f/p>~NYWYPN 3N1
: NNOL 3NL 30 - 'N n1v/•.~ %r Nnp/'
Itltl00 3HL tlOd- - 0009 - 15{}1 {Lx°t x4'zil
"Hoy LdnS 6-17 pp7":jf-7'J r gI~.N ~t1~9~
a 3HL d0 Ltlrd V UNIHO330 ASIR 3HL O N•B1,,"jw.
12" 03'113 ONI30 GI LN3H33fSV OIVS Ys YYl f y
IVtl3N30 3N1 30 iV tl31dtlH3 d0 n t8 SN177NN S S/77.,V 4 %•.4N1001 ,1 m I m
:'110I SIAOtld 3H1 Us Nn ONIOV3H d0 OMN'NO)YAY /f,. Q
ONtl NO/<YbOPNOJ N°/fJnb/SNOJ +N "MY tp
° p SV77,SId 3.J"P39 \
/e N33N13a >BSI Sd' d'paW SON N' O I
'lIJrO 9 S1N3N35tl3 d0 3ONVA3AN03 l" 37H
.1 62 195INVON 031VO LN3H33MDV r o Z 092 •A3t3 \9
nIp °YYJr B>"° }
13 r NI HLtl03135 F'I 61N3N3tlIn03tl 1S YY0 ~p/~ 5orz T3YJ f,N $
0N03 Ill u 1J3f Sn5 SI NV'.d SIHL /Y/7YNyY.! .y 19Nr1' f' "l 77lNJdYIyJ I I E S'Y' 506 OZ I
o y
JOIlIONOO d0 1N3W31tl1S m s3rJYly107
y I S'S Z6/ ZZ 3fnPN
M,LE;sS;SON(I'1,`• oo•t°x N.4C ox L6N bU Lt. S 107
'Bx'[E- EB'tFf M.BS 6C BON (7/Nb
oo'isx - ~ 0P'oJ ' 9x'txt •
L? (rs 00010. 02 -s) -M x:~n:eoN
a" (5ooz•73ii•f>N ~3y/
~ ~ m H W S3YJY 6T/ ~ ~ s d
( n ~ d~a~ 'jStL9E'L iF~dd' rgs'~'~f .rr'ssr o°
J m; - .-LN3W•~St>.9 39 N/G'L'!O E V9107 ono-, on'{Zm.. e6'ECtN '~s
H svlz •'A3't9 '3>N '
S3YJY 1'°% F T j 0~ •a 4:4ff•~-ea of fyY
Tt-as,sO,tDN - f3. OJBE Ssy m „544 / 9/~f~ Y0 V~~ OM
•J 3JVrY Nd3spr ao'o1i ° ° yL 107 / al . o , i} ► - _
m -i S-I • T313 3>N °0N m g • (is EGa Ez 0! SJ a Iniy / d ° 0 93 / / • ATU !'7N 11 s7nrcYO V
r<,•,SJ $ 3'3'££SOZ ~~sl 9`'0 i o i pd.. O~ 7~t/I~/ 6YYf2.T3'13 3'7N 5f l07 r m '.Y BNIYY~ 7 NNO/`
oo•6r.: N.vo;e6sox r 1 y8107
',ao•ar-. - ,oo'ott - N n ~ / \V ' S3D'7r 9t~0
sovz •Tn>'a>N - ~e $ ./qq~Y rt Y'S OO/OZ 1
s/nrsz p k~P \ , aqd a a v' / q Pf 1,97
x6107
`°f/t`hf , 9a 6t E %a• to `PoY 1N3W3SY3 "A \oz" jY
l .LC•Lrr P0~/., 3
t. C.66N °°'o4•tl gA'40'
N / I v I ° ym 3 ~~+NgIS6 57Y7 n'v 3NY7 77 RWOM //P
v3N of Y3Sr3Y7 %V OYYNr39
4c"•~'Of'.n~f
Selz .3>'H 1 f _ so'se•t rss'eE.t . CO`HVa`'-O'E.I,.J y .poc,_rao ° y5 00!'02 Q
m- . Bs sq i ll~\ 107 \ •e~,
53Y7Y£Z'0 ' - M1`a' Jill! Nr7r 33Y1 34P C, 2^ C2• RT i' ~ , " 7 •2' ,o1GI' ~'6.' \ `Y
~S8/l Z/ i (Nyoo - -AbYY0Il j1t'R,; 00'iE'fiV; ~~~~~Q//~ 4g y~~f MaTPf III
VO/ 107
\ m vu'e~! »IS ~ o` ~E3 ~.dS \\i. ,oie.eoz
'L.oo•cc o •n":SS;OGZ'7. e° Y~/ w b. IS i yf3 + \ \ °zf`3so. eE.e°x E p
oI~ b
11. .,stt'l
° smx •,3 %>u a dTE16b 0 rc';~e; sroi,
S3Uxr£Zov
1:d7+ ~ 3' ° , Y7Y ,^••6 S3YlY6f'0 ~ > E ~ p!•s~ \ ~ `af,'e.
~ O ° (35503'E2 02•SJ d ¢0<n!' y,J/'ra
'0 :lI!',6/69J \a sa b` ~,g ei'x\ snez •T3i337N n p r
( \~~~____,msro3z •T3t33'JN "x3'060 Z/
'T iA 6'0'12 •'A3t3 37H ) ! \ 53d7Y L
m s3Y7r£z rE/107 r/'/107 1 on7 s3Y9r o1° dNr77]YN9IINM L/r
m finaz •A3l, i7H $ a / y P\ p m, _ ,A A YY+•00/OJ. q
eb m saY~Yaz'0 L` Z/107 eC107 z ~;d Nps7anNrrv/o
M m r ~o~ ~1 r5/ 107 4~ l' S A N N Y r7/or> w z
nerd nno/' ta: s's/e°'zI M~ „ ~ ~ a ~
r// 107 1 71rz; - \ S ' t -so .PdfY 6L. e' \ ~I a aq N~e33 ~ ~ ok q ~ \ 3 z ll-
G$ ' i0 E 6F' L A - ' Z1%I 3.Cp. °t 2aN -CB e~. rM1 Z 1l /,~0~. ; F\ °t.OC.00N IL~ m -
.ol•1L N.x>.•6„6'0t" d~ Nryop;LON 36;3 cy. By/ 4 , i o ¢\V
6t'6oA V'g ?y'ar 3zL.. z ~i..
fr•9/n AI.
;it-.0y
ot~ qd3 \Y c 8 ~ l!'~ } \ zsdY7r °IYO
m j y~ Y+' cv>z T7t3 'e'7u l Z 1 /9' 107
®-y m S3Y7YLY 0 l 3NY7 77Y1131/NV S2,
Noln//6
ll wl -4 st :7 3].1Y9 Y' NNp/`
G/-107
$~Lt
4FpL
Citizen°s Petition for' way stop sign at corners of Louanis Drive and Avalon
Road in Reading, Massachusetts
Si niture of Resident
Address of Resident
~
15
0
~ ~ orb
r
3~
c.~
,
^
~
~
r
Ctt
Lo u A~u's v e
3q C~~~~,s Dr
Loucml( Or
~u
j4 t-l-rv c~
2 "3 a-,4
i
g p,3
Citizen's Petition for 3 way stop sign at corners of Louanis Drive and Avalon
Road in Reading, Massachusetts iLz NA
Sz A vlu od A-6
i
G
1/ GD~t _ R,4
y~p
V ~
(OQ
Avalon-, kol-
= z===
,ova n
(oo
kAw
x'10
~-A
F
.
f~l_.t C'd
ao f4V(A-(&. R r
RA
SCOTC
~/~fe~~ ~moTf2.Z/CZ
Sheila Sfc~~~ae(1~~i~
CYO- bera
I~G~'r Eck ~~U.~her~
Le's ji,o <6-),r1-<2,
yn t ~ 4 J
1 L 1...._(h GUI
&S(' J .Ct L~1 0,
gAY
Citizen's Petition for 3 way stop sign at corners of Louanis Drive and Avalon
Road in
Reading, Massachusetts
A"em/ r~ T L44 -
6 ► f .
s
a0 Avldvl ed
1,1A )P )e V 425 1;'
4-v
l.(G&JJ
~ar.~rut~,~r~e~~ a~~G?aldcce~u~e~d
~e ~e2tat~ved
" mate awe, ~a~tara 027.~.~' 7054
~oW
See
20'n MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
BRADLEY H. JONES, JR. READING • NORTH READING
STATE REPRESENTATIVE LYNNFIELD • MIDDLETON
ROOM 124
MINORITY LEADER
TEL. (617) 722-2100
Rep.BradleyJones@hou.state.ma.us
May 9, 2005
b'vii
Peter Hecnenblelkner, T ocVrrlvlallager David Ha:nion, Acting TG AdMiliniSuator
Town of Reading Town of North Reading
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street Town Hall, 235 North Street r-41
'
Reading, MA 01867 North Reading, MA 01864
Dear Town Managers:
Last fall I copied you on correspondence I submitted to the federal Surface Transportation Board
in opposition to the proposed construction of a solid waste transfer station in the Town of t'?
Wilmington. As you might recall, this project was proposed without substantial opportuniWor
comment by surrounding communities and without adequate assurances regarding the
environmental and traffic impact of the project.
I am pleased to report, that on May 2005 the Surface Transportation Board, dismissed New
England Transrail's petition,to locate and operate this facility.. Aside.from other problems, the
board found New England Transrail to have modified its initial proposal to include a threefold.
increase in the number of planned rail segments, the construction of three newly-planned rail
segments and the development of a previously undisclosed storage area on the Dense Aqueous
Phase Liquid containment area on site. With these changes, the project appeared to take on an
alarming new dynamic unrelated to transportation and focused on the on-site processing of
construction waste and solid waste. i enclose a copy of the board's decision for your review.
The board's decision is encouraging and represents a win for Reading and North Reading.
However, the project remains a viable option because New England Transrail may file a new
petition and provide more detailed information to the board concerning its plans. Even though
this is a federal issue, I will be monitoring the situation closely and I encourage your staff to do
so as well so we. are aware,of an y renewed efforts. As always, .I also welcome any coimin ents
from your communities regarding this project and howwe might assist'you. `
Sincer
i. .
Bradl . Jones; Jr ,
Min Leader
35712 SERVICE DATE - LATE RELEASE MAY 3, 2005
EB
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
DECISION
STB Finance Docket No. 34391
. NEW ENGLAND TRANSRAIL, LLC, d/b/a
WILMINGTON.AND WOBURN TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY
- CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION -
IN WILMINGTON AND WOBURN, MA
Decided: May 3, 2005
By petition filed December 3, 2003, New England Transrail, LLC, d/b/a
Wilmington & Woburn Terminal Railroad Company (NET) sought permission from the
Board to construct, acquire, and operate certain track located on and adjacent to. land
owned by Olin Corporation (Olin) in Wilmington and Woburn, MA. To meet the
Board's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Board's
Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) commenced a detailed analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project. After more than a year's work, and the
issuance of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Post-Environmental Assessment
(Post-EA), however, new information has been obtained indicating that the project that
NET now proposes differs substantially from the one NET presented to SEA during the
environmental review process. These material differences have compromised SEA's
environmental review and the Board's ability to adequately consider the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed action. NET could have provided the new
information to SEA much earlier. Consequently, we will dismiss this proceeding. The
dismissal will be without prejudice, thereby permitting NET to file a new petition based
on current and complete information.
BACKGROUND
NET filed a petition for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to construct approximately 2,700 feet of new
rail line, to acquire 1,300 feet of existing track, and to provide common carrier rail
service over approximately 4,000 feet of track located on and adjacent to the Olin-owned
parcel. The land is classified under the federal Superfund Program as a "Tier 1"
contaminated site, one that has suffered severe environmental degradation. As described
in the petition, NET plans to make improvements to the property to be acquired from
Olin, including the addition of a reload facility to facilitate the transload of various
commodities between truck trailers and rail cars. The Board served a decision on
March 2, 2004, tentatively finding that, subject to later consideration of environmental
impacts, the proposal met the standards of 49 U.S.C. 10502. The decision noted that,
8152.
STB Finance Docket No. 34391
upon the completion of an analysis of the environmental aspects of the proposal, a'f-nal
decision would be issued addressing environmental matters and determining whether to
allow the exemption to go into effect.
SEA prepared, and on August 4, 2004, issued, an EA reflecting information
provided by NET, consultations with appropriate agencies, comments from interested
parties, and independent investigation and verification by SEA staff. SEA then invited
public review and comment on all aspects of the EA. Many of those commenting
expressed concerns about NET's plans to handle solid and construction waste on this
degraded site. In supplemental information provided to SEA and the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) following the issuance of the EA,
NET for the first time indicated that it plans to engage in certain solid waste and
construction waste processing activities - such as grinding, baling and container-loading
operations - which NET maintains would facilitate the transloading of those commodities
from truck to rail.
Based on descriptions of the project provided by NET and the other information
available to it at the time, SEA prepared a detailed Post-EA, which was served on
December 22, 2004. The Post-EA responded to public comments on the EA, contained
additional analysis in response to the comments, discussed SEA's conclusions about the
project's environmental impacts, and recommended that the Board impose environmental
mitigation measures addressing a broad range of issues. Normally, issuance of the Post-
EA would terminate the envirornmental.review process and the Board would then
consider the EA,. Post-EA, and all the comments received in rendering a final .decision.
:Soon after issuance of the Post-EA, however, a number of parties (petitioning
parties) requested additional Board review of NET's proposed project. Specifically, the
Town of Wilmington (Wilmington) on January 27, 2005, the National Solid Wastes
Management Association, et al. (Associations) on February 16, 2005, and MADEP on
February 2, 2005, submitted filings challenging NET's construction petition. The
petitioning parties assert, among other things, that NET furnished SEA with inadequate,
incomplete, and misleading information about its proposal and that, therefore; SEA's
environmental analysis is incomplete. In particular, Wilmington points out that, while
SEA was undertaking its environmental review, NET had substantially modified its
proposal and had submitted the modified proposal to MADEP in a Construction-Related
Release Abatement Measure Plan and Focused Feasibility Study (Construction RAM)'
dated November 18, 2004, without notifying SEA that it had made these modifications.
Although NET eventually provided SEA with both a copy of the Construction RAM (on
' The purpose of the Construction RAM is to get the state approval that is
required for any construction and redevelopment in contaminated areas such as the Olin
site.
2
ga3
STB Finance Docket No. 34391
February 7, 2005) and a supplement to it,2 SEA did not have those materials until well
after it had completed its environmental analysis and the Post-EA had been issued.
SEA has since reviewed NET's Construction RAM and related materials and has
determined that the description of NET's project in the Construction RAM differs
markedly from the project described in NET's petition and presented to SEA during the
environmental review process. Specifically, NET appears to have modified its original
proposal to now include: (1) a threefold increase in the number of planned rail segments.
to serve the reload facility (from rehabilitation of the one existing track to the
construction of three new tracks); (2) the construction of three newly planned rail
segments to be installed over the Dense Aqueous Phase Liquid (DA-PL) containment area
on,the property; and (3) planned development of a previously undisclosed storage area on
the DAPL containment area. Furthermore, SEA was unaware during the environmental
review that NET intends extensive excavation of potentially contaminated soils within
the project area to construct a vault and to remove or cap existing chemical pipelines.
The petitioning parties also assert that NET primarily would function as. a
processor of construction waste and solid waste, not as a rail carrier, and that NET .'s
petition should therefore be rejected or denied. The petitioning parties further argue that,
even if the Board finds that NET properly invoked the Board's processes and would be a
rail carrier, NET's on-site processing of construction waste and solid-waste would not be
integrally related to rail transportation and, therefore, should not be preempted from state
and local regulation. Finally, they argue that, even if NET's construction waste and solid
waste processing activities fall within the broad definition of rail "transportation" in 49
U.S.C. 10102(9), those activities could nevertheless be regulated by the state and
localities under their retained police powers.
NET filed timely responses to each of these petitions,3 arguing, among other
things, that the additional design details in its Construction RAM did not need to be
submitted to SEA because the information it had earlier supplied to SEA was sufficient.
2 The supplement (which SEA received on or about March 1.5, 2005) is NET's
response to Wilmington's comments on the Construction Study.
s In response to NET's replies. to each, both Wilmington and the Associations
submitted additional filings. Under the Board's rules, however, replies to replies are
generally not permitted. 49 CFR 1104.13(c). These additional filings will therefore not
be considered.
gaq
STB Finance Docket No. 34391
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As with any project to construct, acquire, and operate a rail line, the Board must
weigh the possible transportation benefits of NET's project and its potential
environmental impacts. SEA must prepare environmental documentation so that the
Board. can fulfill its responsibilities under NEPA. Thus, we.must have complete and
accurate information about the project. Here, NET did not provide SEA with important
details about the project until after SEA had completed its environmental review and had
issued its Post-EA. In short, in its petition and the supplemental information provided to
SEA during the course of the environmental review, NET presented a version of the
project that is fundamentally different from the modifications that it submitted to
MADEP as part of the Construction RAM.
If NET had provided SEA with the project details contained in NET's
Construction RAM at the same time NET provided them to MADEP, SEA could have
considered the information in its environmental analysis. But NET was not forthcoming,
and so SEA was unable to consider whether the modifications would affect SEA's
analysis and conclusions and the proposed mitigation measures in the Post-EA.
It is not uncommon, for the specifics of a project to change somewhat as details
are worked out while the environmental review is progressing. Where SEA is kept
apprised of material modifications, it can adjust its review to take those changes into
account before issuing final environmental documentation. In this case, however,, either
NET changed its plans after SEA completed its environmental analysis or NET did not
fully disclose its plans to SEA in the first instance. In either event, the project before us
now is not the same project upon which SEA had based its EA and Post-EA. Therefore,
neither document can serve its intended purpose.
Accordingly, we cannot grant NET's petition for exemption on the basis of the
record now before us. Furthermore, because we are now faced.with a project that appears
to differ in material respects from the project we were originally asked to authorize, we
could not evaluate it adequately without adding to an already prolonged environmental
review process. The Board has an obligation to move forward and complete its
proceedings in a timely fashion. If, as is the case here, a petition.is modified to the point
that analysis already performed by the Board becomes substantially deficient and would
therefore require extensive revision, it is appropriate to terminate the proceeding. We
will do so here and dismiss NET's petition, without prejudice to NET's filing a new
petition or application based on the proposed project it evidently now seeks to undertake.
We are reluctant to dismiss a pending matter. Here the matter has been in the
environmental review process for a considerable period of time, and we recognize that
dismissal will set back consideration of whether the project should be approved. An
agency is required to supplement an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when there
are "significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns
and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts" (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(ii)). At the
same time, parties have a duty to kept the agency apprised of significant changes.
V v
4
STB Finance Docket No. 34391
_Chemical Weapons Working Group Inc v United States Department of the Army, 935
F. Supp. 1206, 1217 (D. Utah 1996) ("The duty to make certain.that decision makers are
presented with all relevant information is an ongoing one which does not end when an
initial EIS is prepared."). The applicant here has not fulfilled its duty to keep the Board
informed of significant changes in the project, and the project appears to be constantly in
flux. Therefore, we have no confidence that a supplement would result in the review
NEPA requires. Accordingly, dismissal without prejudice is an appropriate remedy.
Should it file a new, petition or an application, we expect NET to be as
forthcoming as possible with all project details. For example, to eliminate the current
confusion and uncertainty about the specifics of this project, NET should provide
information such as the length and location of all trackage to be constructed, the exact
types of structures to be built, the degree to which such construction would involve
excavation or the movement of any soil, and the locations where specific commodity
transloading activities would take place. Moreover, the information provided to the
Board should be wholly consistent with the information that NET presents to other
agencies. In the event of a new filing, NET should also describe in detail the proposed
grinding, baling, and other processes to which construction waste and solid waste could
be subjected at the Olin site, as well as NET's basis for asserting that those activities
should be considered part of rail transportation. Such information will enable the Board
to conduct its NEPA.analysis and to address the questions that have been raised about the
scope of the Board's jurisdiction, if any, over those activities. Because we will dismiss
NET's. petition without prejudice, it is not necessary at this time to further address the
issues raised by the various petitioner parties in this proceeding, or NET's request for a
protective order.4
This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of the human
environment or the conservation of energy resources.
it is ordered:
1. NET's petition for exemption is dismissed without prejudice.
2. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Chainnan Nober, Vice Chairman Buttrey, Commissioner Mulvey.
Vernon A. Williams
Secretary
' On March 7, 2005, NET requested a protective order (opposed by MADEP) to
govern documents included in NET's reply to the Associations' pleading.
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683
14
rA CU,
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942-9016 Fax (781) 942-9070
Mr. Brad Latham, Esq.
Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C.
643 Main Street
Reading, MA 01867
RE: Grant of Access Easements
Dear Mr. Latham:
May 13, 2005
Enclosed are the final access easements granted to Louis Peterson and Johnson Woods Realty
Corporation approved and signed by the Conservation Commission on May 11, 2005. Please
provide the recording information to the Commission when it becomes available.
Also enclosed are revised drafts of the access easements to Leary's and the Town of Reading. These
will be brought to the Commission during their next meeting on May 25, 2005 for approval. Please
let us know if you see a need for any further revisions before May 25.
Sincerely,
m4i;f 6-
Frances M. Finis
Conservation Administrator
cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
Chris Reilly, Town Planner
Joe Delaney, Town Engineer
Ted McIntire, Director of Public Works
Ellen Doucette, Brackett & Lucas, 165 Washington Street, Winchester, MA 01890
Edward Moore, Glover Property Management, Inc., 8 Doaks Lane, Marblehead, MA 01745
Fc- k
b (4 C~
IPSWICH RIVER
May 18, 2005
WATERSHED
ASSOCIATION
PO Box 576, Ipswich, MA 01938
978-887-2313 fax 978-887-2208
Karl Honkonen, Executive Director
Water Resources Commission
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02114
Ref: Town of Reading Application for an Interbasin Transfer of Water from AfffTA
Dear Mr. Honkonen,
The Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) is very grateful to everyone who has
worked so hard over the past five months to evaluate the concerns that IRWA raised regarding the
conditions of approval of Reading's interbasin transfer. This has been extremely challenging
situation, and we truly appreciate the sincere efforts that have been made to resolve the issues that
IRWA raised.
As mentioned at the May meeting, this has been an extraordinarily long process. From
2002 until last summer, staff expressed the view that if Reading wants the water, they have to
comply with the requirements: "The reason for the proposal is to `help' the Ipswich River, which
dries up during these months. Reading's good intentions aside, the application still needs to
comply with the criteria of the ITA." (Memo from Michele Drury to Frank Hartig seeking legal
opinion, 12/10/02). Last summer, staff drafted conditions reflecting those criteria and
requirements. However, the vote on those draft conditions was delayed for five months at
Reading's request, during which time the conditions were amended to meet Reading's demands
for less restrictive requirements. Since December 2004, when these changes to the staff
recommendation were made public, we have challenged those changes and attempted to reinstate
certain requirements of the earlier drafts that had been amended or deleted.
In regard to the requirement to limit the use of Reading's wells to 1 mgd from May
through October, this effort was largely successful, and we are grateful to you and the WRC,
EOEA and MEPA staff for that provision of the draft decision. However, despite the best efforts
of many people, resolution of the remaining issues, especially regarding outdoor watering
restrictions, remains elusive.
IRWA's goals here are to protect the Ipswich River and ensure that no adverse legal
precedents are set. If Reading is going to be allowed to have an interbasin transfer in order to
protect the river during low flow periods, then the Commission should insist that the river is in
fact protected and that an effective drought management program, including hand-held watering
only during low-flow periods, is implemented as required by the Commission's standards. `
dt
Review of the empirical evidence before the Commission, which I have presented in detail,
continues to demonstrate that Reading's program would have been ineffective, and indeed
inoperative, in almost all the low-flow situations that have occurred in recent years. The
Commission has the responsibility of conditioning this transfer so that result is not perpetuated.
IRWA respectfully submits the following comments, which pertain to the Conditions of
May 12, 2005 WRC draft decision and also reference the proposed amendments by Reading.
Condition 1:
1) IRWA reiterates our prior comments in regard to use of the Ipswich River wells during
extreme low-flow periods, when DEP has stated that they are not a "viable source."
2) The language proposed by EOEA reflects the requirements of the MEPA Certificate and
clarifying letter, limiting withdrawals from the Ipswich sources to 1 mgd from May 1-
October 31St except in unanticipated, emergency situations.
3) IRWA believes that Reading's proposed amendment to Section 1(a), which appears to
sanction and authorize withdrawals over 1 mgd from the Ipswich wells, is contrary to the
MEPA Certificate. We urge the WRC to reject the language proposed by Reading.
4) IRWA recommends that an emergency declaration by DEP be required in any case when
the requirement to file a Notice of Project Change is waived because of an unforeseen
emergency. IRWA also recommends including explicit clarification that increased water
use during a drought is not an unforeseen, unpredictable emergency.
Condition 2:
1) The statutory requirement to take all practical water conservation measures is the basis of
this condition. There is nothing in the Act to suggest that this measure is limited to
conserving only the MWRA water, nor that the MWRA purchase or a different
performance standard (eg_ monthly water use, seasonal ratio, or per capita use) can be
substituted for the Performance Standard requiring flow-triggered restrictions. As stated
previously, the WRC may not allow substitute measures when it is feasible to implement
the Performance Standard. Failure to require Reading to adopt an effective flow-triggered
conservation program is not an option under the law.
2) As stated in response to the earlier "Condition 2" proposed several months ago, IRWA
objects to this condition because its purpose is to exempt Reading from flow-triggered
restrictions that are required under the Performance Standards. We do not believe that
such an exemption is allowable under the Act, Regulations and Performance Standards.
3) We appreciate Reading's willingness to change the milestone dates. However, the
proposed water use volumes associated with each milestone date are so high that they do
not represent water use when all practical water conservation measures are being
implemented, as the Act requires. IRWA reiterates our prior comments and analysis that
water use under this provision, which allows odd-even day watering with sprinklers, is
much higher than use with flow-triggered restrictions requiring hand-held hoses only.
4) The proposed water use triggers would result in Reading being exempt from flow-triggered
restrictions about 90% of the time that flows are below 0.42 cfsm, based on USGS
streamflow data and Reading's recent water use statistics. Neither the Stage 2 nor Stage 3
restrictions would ever have been triggered at any time in the past 6 years under Reading's
proposal. Numerous periods of extremely severe low-flow/no-flow conditions in the river
would have been exempt from flow-triggered restrictions. This is an extremely broad
gdz
exemption, which serves to negate mandatory requirements under the ITA. The Act,
Regulations and Performance Standards do not provide for an exemption of this nature.
5) As discussed at the April WRC meeting, IRWA does not agree that the only purpose of
flow-triggered restrictions is to ensure that Reading's water use does not exceed 219 mg
before October 31St. However, Reading's proposal fails to meet even that limited
objective. For example, restrictions would be triggered on October 1St only if Reading
N1WRA purchase exceeds 212 mg by that date. If so, then there would be only 7 mg of
MWRA water to last until October 31St. This amount would be insufficient to meet
demand without exceeding a 1 mgd withdrawal from the Ipswich sources prior to October
31St. Based on Reading's own estimates of 1.7 mgd water use in October, there would be
a shortfall of about 14-15 mg.
6) Reading's proposed condition further weakens the requirements of the transfer by deleting
the requirement for restrictions on sprinkler use that was contained in the WRC drafts.
Reading's proposal is for odd/even day restrictions allowing 4-6 hours of watering per day
instead of 8 hours. According to numerous sources, cited previously, and in accordance
with DEP's findings and the WRC's own policies and guidance documents, odd/even day
restrictions are not as effective as the hand-held hose restrictions that Reading proposes to
delete. There is no information or evidence to suggest that reducing the hours will result in
meaningful change in the total amount of water used. Reading itself has said that having
both morning and evening hours was for the convenience of residents - not that the same
people watered for the total 8 hours. It is entirely possible that the reduced hours will not
significantly reduce the total amount of watering that occurs. Furthermore, as noted above,
the reduced hours are unlikely to be triggered. IRWA urges the WRC not to delete the
requirement for flow-triggered restrictions that allow hand-held hoses only.
7) As mentioned at the April meeting, the USGS streamflow gage real-time data is expressed
on an instantaneous basis, not as a daily mean. The town had expressed agreement with
IRWA at that April meeting that if flows fell below 0.42 cfsm on an instantaneous basis,
the restrictions would be triggered. Otherwise, there need to be daily calculations of the
mean, which is burdensome and makes oversight and enforcement difficult.
8) While IRWA does not believe that Condition 2 meets the requirements of the Act, if it is
approved or upheld, we are also concerned that this approach is both experimental and
precedent-setting, and as such warrants a reexamination within 2-3 years to assess its
effectiveness. A provision requiring a reexamination by the WRC should be included.
9) Provision 2(d) allowing Reading to grant waivers is extremely broad and vague, with no
standards nor review or approval process for the waivers. This language would render the
condition unenforceable, and should be deleted.
Condition 3:
IRWA strongly objects to Reading's proposed deletion of the requirement for hand-held hoses.
That provision should be reinstated.
Condition 4:
IRWA recommends that the language be amended to state that the WRC may review and amend
the threshold, whether or not the Town requests such review.
Condition 5:
Reopening consideration of the amounts pumped from the wells should be a requirement, not an
option, once the new water treatment plant is operational. Reading's claim that it is unable to q.43
operate the plant at volumes lower than 1 mgd is the rationale for allowing the continued use of
the wells at that level, despite the knowledge that the wells are not a viable source during low-flow
periods and they will continue to cause damage the environment during low-flow periods. The
new plant is being designed to allow use at lower levels. Once it is operational, reconsideration of
shutting off or much lower use of the wells during low flow periods should be mandatory.
Condition 10:
IRWA believes that the requirement of this provision is ambiguous. Under these terms,
submitting an explanation of high UAW is sufficient to avoid preparation of a plan to reduce it,
without clarifying that this only applies in the case of an extremely unusual occurrence. Water
main breaks and fires are typical components of UAW, and their occurrence is not sufficient
grounds to alleviate Reading of the responsibility to prepare a plan to reduce UAW, subject to
WRC approval.
Additional Comments:
IRWA also reiterates the legal issues that we raised in prior communications with the WRC, and
comments regarding findings in the draft decision and content of Attachment 1. We particularly
object to certain recent modifications, including the last sentence of page 5, which does not
conform with the MEPA Certificate; and the insertions on page 7, which imply that the WRC can
substitute other measures, such as purchase of water from MWRA, for effective flow-triggered
water use restrictions. We believe the WRC cannot do so, and that substituting the purchase of
water from MWRA for effective outdoor restrictions is erroneous because the purchase is not a
water conservation measure. In fact, because it will remove a constraint on water availability, the
purchase of water from MWRA is likely to lead to higher water use, not lower.
In summary, IRWA urges the WRC to base your decision squarely on the requirements of the Act,
Regulations and Performance Standards, in conformance with the policies that you and EOEA
have adopted. Flow-triggered restrictions and stricter, more effective water conservation measures
in stressed basins are fundamental components of several of these policies. There is no more
stressed reach in the Commonwealth than Reach 8 of the Ipswich River, where Reading's wells
are located. Exempting Reading from mandatory requirements under the ITA undermines and
sends the wrong message in regard to the WRC's intent to implement the policies that you and
other state agencies have adopted regarding protection and restoration of stressed rivers.
As recently as last summer, the WRC staff explicitly indicated that flow-triggered restrictions
allowing hand-held hoses only would be a requirement of approval of the interbasin transfer. Staff
noted that, though Reading was not required to apply for an interbasin transfer, approval of the
transfer would necessitate strict conditions in conformance with the ITA, its Regulations and
Performance Standards. These conclusions are as valid now as they were then. Instead, the
proposed decision grants a broad exemption, eliminating about 90% of the low-flow days from
being restricted; and the restrictions proposed by Reading incorporate only marginal changes to its
existing odd/even day restrictions instead of more effective hand-held only requirements.
IRWA is concerned about the proposed conditions because Reading's will continue to be the
second-highest groundwater withdrawal from the Ipswich basin in highly stressed periods, even
after the interbasin transfer, and its withdrawals will continue to damage the environment and
diminish flows downstream, affecting all the other communities and designated uses of the river.
Notwithstanding this fact, the proposed conditions of approval would exempt Reading from the ?d /
same outdoor water use restrictions that are being required of every other community in the
Ipswich basin, almost all of which will be withdrawing less groundwater from the Ipswich River
Watershed in summer than Reading. Condition 2 will undermine state policy and guidance
documents by providing for an extremely broad exemption from flow-triggered restrictions,
despite recognition that Reading's wells are a major stressor in the most highly stressed watershed
in the state; and by allowing odd/even day watering instead of more effective restrictions. We
urge you to reinstate flow-triggered requirements for hand-held hoses only during low-flow
periods, without exceptions and exemptions.
Again, our thanks to you and everyone who has worked so hard to try to resolve these issues.
Sincerely,
Ke)"7
Kerry Mackin
Executive Director
Cc: Mike Gildesgame, Department of Conservation and Recreation
ids
t /c bus
BRADLEY H. JONES, JR.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
MINORITY LEADER
~,aude a~~e~ufe~er~ta,L`cised
~atc ~ee, ~a~ta,~ 021.~.~' 1054
Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
Town of Reading
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Mr. Hechenbleiker:
M
20'h MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
READING • NORTH READING
LYNNFIELD • MIDDLETON
ROOM 124
TEL. (617) 722-2100
Rep.BradleyJones@hou.state.ma.us
May 18, 2005 S
w
>
w
It was a pleasure speaking with you by telephone the other day, regarding recent changes
to federal rules on the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings. It sounds
as though the town is already well prepared to deal with these new regulations.
Based on our conversation, I understand the town is considering filing an appeal of the
new rules prior to the June 24, 2005 effective date. The town also might have other
options, including the establishment of new quiet zones under the regulations or the
tolling of regulatory requirements for a period of years so that safety improvements may
be made to affected rail crossings. If you have not done so already, I encourage you to
visit http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318 for a copy of the new regulations and
explanatory documents, and to confer with town counsel as to potential legal options.
This is predominantly an issue between the town and the Federal Railroad
Administration. However, I am sensitive to the potential effect the new rules on train
whistles could have on safety and quality of life for Reading residents. Should there be
anything my office can do to assist the town as it prepares to operate under the new rules
or seek an exemption from them, please do not hesitate to contact me. _
Bra
..Min
Jones, Jr
.Leader,
~~l
Joan Doucette
5 F Street
Reading 01867
E-mail. jbrd8439@yahoo.com
Town of Reading
Town Manager Office
Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner
/405 211.
10 POO
05102105
The residents of Libby avenue request the Town of Reading to consider repairing
this severely damage street. This street is very old, it has been patched many times over
the years and has never been repaved. We would appreciate if you could send the town
engineers out to assess the currant conditions.
According to the engineering department there has never been any complaints
from residents in the past, therefore we would be on a very long waiting list.
Libby Avenue is a dead end street with probably at least 80 plus homes.
Residents use this street not only for motor vehicles, but many residents use it for
walking and the children for playing. It doesn't have sidewalks so that is why the street is
use for all of the above. It is quite dangerous and residents are apt to turn an ankle and
take a bad fall.
We would appreciate an assessment as soon as possible.
With kind regards
Residents of Libby Avenue and side streets.
name address
CK. 0 (S°._~
le/Z ~Ijw/1Z'
~ 1~ry I~An, ~
Sao
7~
gF I
C R 6X
TOWN OF READING
16 Lowell Street -
Reading, MA 01867-2683
Phone: 781-942-9012
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
May 24, 2005
0. Bradley Latham, Esq.
Latham, Latham and Lamond, I?C:
643 Main St.
Reading; MA 01867
Re: Johnson Woods Special Permit compliance
Dear Mr. Latham:
As previously ;indicated please be advised that Condition 32 of the PUD special permit for
Johnson Woods requires the following:
32. The Applicant shall submit lottery and fair housing marketing plans for the affordable
units, subject to approval of CPDC and Town Counsel, prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
The Town Manager has instructed me to remind you that no Certificate of Occupancy shall
be issued until this condition is satisfied in full.
Sincerely,.
Chris Reilly
Town Planner
Cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
Glen Redmond, Building Inspector
Ted Moore, Principle
Craned on 05/24/05 17-30 Phl
C:\\Iy Dowments\Lonpngwood Poultry F:um\PUD\eotrespondencc\nococreilly.doc
N
LL
V+
uj
V
uj
cn
J
tan
V
LL
r
U.
O
V
U~
i
Q
N T- Ln 00 0
00 r r r T r
P
d O 00 00 00 N 'I
ice- Lfl Il• ti I` rl-
r,
rI_ M C0 ~t N M
)
CD M M CM M M
M
O i- 0 0) 00 0
rp
t3 0 co I-- CD L() M
'
rl t M M co co
I~
691 :
ftf d r 6g 69. 69~ 69 64
69• Eg 61} E9 69 6r}
M
~
M 6f}
60.
E
a~
d 00 0) LCD N O U-)
00 LO LO LO LO LO
> d'co (0(DMO
NN
T~1 NN
LO co LO fl- O 0)
~
M (0 CD ♦CD CC CD
M rn6 11oc+i00
L6 CT r- r- rrr
O 69- N M It LO LO
I
Co h
ti I- t` I`
GPJ. U), 69-64E9-
E V
646469, 69~Eg69
V
C O V- Co r- CO LO
LO
co rI. O
O LO
d'NO)M(Dr-
O
rN00
N N
to M CD r C \L
0
d~ M 0)
r'- (D
M V- CD 0) N LO
_ N
00
~
0 L6 Co
69 vi-
06 -
69 6F} 64
64 U4
MMMMMM
M
M M M M M M
co (0
'D co co co co co 00
M
co co co co 00 00
M 0)
tv L( L() to L() U') M
I
Ln Ln Ln LLB L() Ln
d' 0
v ai w csi ai
E91 0 69 69 69 Eg 6F,} 69
ti
LO
M M M M M O)
69 69 69 69. 69. ER
r-_ It
LO r
O O
69
M a
d L L Cfl r- N CO T r
0 Co r-- I- I` I-
F- F- N
L w v ONM
o C)
~
0
0
~
cq
N
d
It
-It
d
d
_ ; E
T
a O
O
0
00
M
00
0 0 0 0 0
mrt 0000
0
r
` •F I
r p
0 r
~00
r, M
00
c 0)0)007
0 N N N N
r
N
E r
C0
V
U) > ~O ^p0
M 1
000
0
-
O.a LCrOO~Ntn
r co C
Nr(0
r rte
N
C 00 0
o (n
O M M -N M
-
CY) d
~
=
Q
~
-O L 'a d co 00 dt r`
0
co d; 0)
CD Lq
F' M tj~
rte` 00 00 Imo'. Q
N
It
T- N Lt)
U) It Ln
M N
t C14
3: =
r CO
.C L (M Ln L() Un LO LO LO
LC) L(7 M LO U-) U-)
r O
_ = 0MMOMMC7M
0
MMMMMM
C) 0
O O OM00MMMM
L(7
000MM0CD
r
~ = Q
Co (D -0
_
0
c
O
O
U O N
~~t(n0ZO
N a
-~irL~Q ~ C~
I-
Q*
~ i( ( Cl(
Town of Reading, Massachusetts
State Aid
Governor's Budget
House - Final
Senate W&M
2006
2006
2006
Budget
Projected
Over (Under)
Projected
Over (Under)
Projected
Over (Under)
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
Distributions and Reimbursements:
Chapter 70
6,082,107
6,278,435
196,328
6,290,157
208,050
6,290,157
208,050
School Construction
1,678,534
1,651,643
(26,891)
1,651,643
(26,891)
1,651,643
(26,891)
Charter Tuition Assessment Reimbursement
4,402
2,098
(2,304)
9,875
5,473
9,875
5,473
Charter School Capital Reimbursement
1,484
766
(718)
1,490
6
1,490
6
Lottery
2,024,445 '
2,083,179
58,734
2,083,179
58,734
2,083,179
58,734
Additional Assistance
1,534,901
1,534,901
1,534,901
1,534,901
Police Career Incentive
175,895
185,641
9,746
185,641
9,746
185,641
9,746
Veterans' Benefits
4,062
3,258
(804)
3,258
(804)
3,258
(804)
Exemptions: Vets, Blind, Spouse
44,789
41,841
(2,948)
41,841
(2,948)
41,841
(2,948)
Exemptions: Elderly
25,100
23,092
(2,008)
23,092
(2,008)
23,092
(2,008)
State Owned Land
42,231
50,977
8,746
50,977
8,746
54,353
12,122
Sub-Total Distributions and
Reimbursements
11,617,950
11,855,831
237,881
11,876,054
258,104
11,879,430
261,480
Offset Items:
Racial Equality
227,720
227,720
227,720
227,720
School Lunch
11,714
11,265
(449)
11,265
(449)
11,265
(449)
Public Libraries
27,483
27,430
53
29,134
1,651
27,430
(53)
Sub-Total Offset Items
266,917
266,415
502
268,119
1,202
266,415
502
Total
11,884,867
12,122,246
237,379
12,144,173
259,306
12,145,845
260,978
Supplemental aid fy 2005 added to lottery
g11
Town of Reading, Massachusetts
State Assessments
Governor's Budget
House • Final
Senate W&M
2006
2006
2006
Budget
Projected
Over (Under)
Projected
Over (Under)
Projected
Over (Under)
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
State assessments and charges:
Air Pollution Districts
6,573
6,702
129
6,702
129
6,702
129
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
6,247
6,424
177
6,424
177
6,424
177
RMV Non-Renewal Surcharge
11,680
13,100
1,420
13,100
1,420
13,100
1,420
Transportation Authorities:
MBTA
476,691
440,553
(36,138)
440,553
(36,138)
440,553
(36,138)
Tuition Assessments:
School Choice Sending Tuition
150
4,399
4,249
4,399
4,249
4,399
Charter School Sending Tuition
17,310
9,464
(7,846)
17,238
(72)
17,238
(72)
Essex County Tech Sending Tuition
Total
518,651
480,642
(38,009)
488,416
30,235
488,416
(34,484)
Z
SAT
C
O E
0 cn Ui
tCj p Q
(D J
0 0
O J
CD
N •N C
V
~ LL
tCi
z
w
w
M
c
a)
aEi
L
c
O
U
c
O
U
O
O
.C
U
m
C
O
O)
C
O -r-
Co
o C
IL O
ro [L
ro
.fl
a)
E
'17 >
O
O
tZ cn
U) ro
ro E
Q
co
U
2
O.n
>
<C ~
Oro
c
c
O
CO
"•O
"
U
C
U)
U ~
O
E
L
U-
m
U)
ro.
a)
c ~
1•C- o
0 C
CCd
~ G
06
t0 fn
A
LL
O
N
O
= C
CO LL
O
U.
N
O
T
N
O CL
O O
(0 CL
U-
CD
E
V y
W
LL
LO rl- mm
00
O O
0
N
CO
U O O I- a)
O O r
O
N
M
SC)0000(0
NM O r-
0o N
N
O
f~00NN'
N N•
co
0
to
c
O
C C
O N
cu -
t [2
O
Q
U
C 0 (Co N
O `E- F-
V Co=0=
wU(nw
OLpor.
C14 N (.0 0
L
I,
N d
0 Lo 0 ~
cq co
t~ N LOCH
ti O
N d
LCD
to
O Ltd O
rN- N
N
o-,r0r.
IN ti ~
N ~ N
M
CO
N
E
C
O
C
~ ;0
C
V
7 ~
a) 'Q
Q.~(1)Q
V p = rtti
W U
O
~.O O
~wU) U~
O- o O- O M- N M
r
E
`
0)
C
O
00(Y)
NO
0
0
N
M
0
0 0
0 0
LO
It
O LO
-
C \F
-Nil-
~
E
~
N
C
O'
00~
N0
M N'
LO
M M O
O0 M
00
d N LO
O LO
N r
M-00
)
dt
r
LO 0
tom
c.0
N 00 O O
cli
c
-7 i CT
M
N
00 (
r)
000
LO
d
O LSD
-
N
C) Lf) N
COG N
N ~M ~
M O
T
It CO) O
C,4 m
O Ln
N LN NO
O ll
M C
V
O C)
N- M
N O
T-MO- CY M 0 0) (D 000 0 C CO)
00
~
Ott
O0
OtirN
N, V
,;t
M
N
LO
I-
~d~NNN'
t6
N
C4
OL
f)
O
01
N
Cta
C)
MIO
T
X G
(6 0
- a) S
d a) C Co
U C O C
C U -Q L
ro ro J V C1 t
IZ' U C Q) .
C N (U N i
0 (U ro ~ co N m
of > c U) W U c i
se L C) N C ~
(U a) t6 O U cu a)
~.J< -jfZ'CLD > L
C
O
L
O CQ
~ vU
CD
N c y _ y
W -f O-N Q
Cp aa)) ,5 CO E
O d LO
C C V ""(j =
Opp 0 W
E a) U is
CD W
IX U? ' f1 C/1
O
O
N
O
N
A
co
Q)
to
ro
a)
Y a,
~ O
t!f O
d
d
06
t~ N
LL O
Q1
N
O
G)
to
~
0•~ N
U)
0
O
L i.+ T
Z
O
U' M
V
T
W Z
CL -A ef
LL
W
® p cu
U
0
•
s
>o
U n
Y♦
U) LL
0
V a
U-
V/
Q O O O N N O 00 to
ti `r N
(6 (6 cod
N
O
O o O N N 0 0
ti "zt
(D co m
t
O
O
N
m
m
V
~ N
E
N W
O N
Cn N
N
Q N
a+ Q
O
O
L) U)
O O O N ~t O O
ti~ -
(6(6 cri
r
O o O m r- O p C
CON (O00 FX
cmoOM Lr)
lr~
tt~
,It Nt
IT
CMOOM
Lo In
O
~m0OM
Lo to
tf)
•-OOT
(A M
N
O
0.
ro
0
E
U
O
_
(u
(n
O
-
U
O
j
c
C
C
U
c
(tf
N
O
=
~
tC
-
cu
U
0
cco
O
U
ccn
fn
Q
O
D
O
M
S
~
U
c
-ia
d+
Q
co
,
VI
=
p
L
V)
Co
P
~
.
~w
O
f
~
L
0
O
C
Q
CD
/
V i/
.
O
L
`
1~
m
U
o
~
c
LyLL
c
~
'C
u
i-
-
o
0
o
0
O
0
0
o
o
U
z
}
17
CL
WF
o
o
_
l-
i N
O
~
CL
(u
.Q
col
.Q
o O o O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
~amo0)..CG
m N co VO
N OQ
0) M 0 ti
n N
~ r T
N
O d' O
~ N
rr rn
tC
V -
q*
C
co
d'
T -
a
Co
Iq
O O O O
M
T t_
co
T-
Y
r
O
Q.
o
s
d o
E
c c 5
N `
i
o O F-
0 V)
= o
f- O
N tL~
(n 0 C,
C O
o~cn
Q =
c U
mm
._Er N~ I-
0+D
O
Q N Cu O
NN
W
_
^ N _C
V CU
tZ3iw C~ Q U 0
+O''
'
.z
H x
H W J
G c
O O t U~
N
tll F-
s✓
.Q
a
~5;
c/)tn
cnUW
%
t
F-
tnF-
wa
i
i
5 o
6 N
O
co
u
g ~
u (n
7 N
(U
:y
( & a
Agenda
PARKING/TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE
May 18-10:00 am
Arnold Berger Conference Room at Town Hall
Delaney Hechenbleikner Reilly McIntire Murphy Cormier
1 MBTA issues
Whistle blowing and quiet zones - DTE hearing on memorializing existing quiet zones.
The petition to the DTE from communities that have quiet zones, has been submitted,
inspection done, and signs placed. Grade crossing gate at Ash Street Discuss possible
interim improvements. JD has contacted DTE and FRA for information on
completing the required letter before June 3.
2 Projects
• West Street corridor - survey work complete; base plans done; design reviewed and
approved by Board of Selectmen. This is on the supplemental TIP. Will have
definitive 25% plans done by end of summer. Lots of clean-up to be done on the
plans - may need to hire a consultant to complete design. Follow-up on Board of
Selectmen meeting 11-19-02 Archstone to do a 3 lane cross section in their area, but
donate the ROW for an eventual 4ch lane if needed. Longwood to pay for the design
cost of the West/Willow/Summer intersection. JD is getting a proposal from a
consultant to do this work. We will use the $100,000 from Longwood for "traffic
Improvements" to fund the consultant through 25% design. Town Meeting has
approved the funding. Consultant hired.
• Main Street project for Downtown Hearing date is October 23, 2002. JD
comments to Beta Engineering. CR is trying to get plans for display at the library. JD
got HUGE electronic file - will try to get just the plan to put on the web page. See
attached questions/concerns - re trial of changes, and concerns about Lowell Street 1
way. Chris Reilly will set up a meeting of the DSC to review the concerns, and we
will get the next phase of the project moving forward when we are able to fund the
Gates Leighton work. Transcripts back from MHD. 75% design submitted. How do
we get MHD to pay attention to this? Tambone and Am. Legion have agreed to
easement - one other property owner declined. We have received 75% design
comments, and expect to have 100% design done by the end of July
• Curb and Sidewalk
• Additional curbing/sidewalk work to be considered this year:- Other
priorities
• Franklin Street
• Library parking lot exit
• John Carver opposite Intervale
• Vine from Mineral to High - pedestrian accident in this area
• Mineral from Vine to High;
• Willow Street (as part of paving);
• Linnea Lane
• Curbs on John Carver and additional sidewalk at Birch Meadow Drive
g~I
• Possible additional funding from Inwood Office Park - $245,000 - CR
will keep on top of permits. Residential uses approved by Woburn City
Council. Potential use of these funds for Franklin Street Sidewalk? For
rest of design of West Street?
* 128/93 - Task Force.
3 Traffic counter
• We will ask State for "Heavy Vehicle Exclusion" on both Linden and Bancroft - JD
to process paperwork. JD has filed application for heavy vehicle exclusion.
• Walnut Street in area of Sturgis Park (Pearson developer may have
speed counts - CR will check
4. Neighborhood Improvements program -
• Wilson Street and Pleasant Street - no funding
• Washington Street Park - curbing. Sidewalks - no funding
• Memorial Park neighborhood - Curbs on both sides of Harrison - no funding
• Landfill construction related projects .curb and sidewalks: John Street, Green Street,
Pleasant Street; 4 way stop at Elliott and Green, Village and Green, Pleasant and
Eaton. PH will follow up with the developer re money. JD will schedule site walk
and then hearing. We have the sidewalk/curb money for this project and it has
been appropriated by Town Meeting for construction. Community Meeting will
be held when traffic study is done - estimated date of completion end of May.
r
John Street
ighborhood Meei
5 Transportation Improvements Program
• Downtown is on the list for FY 2006.
• West Street is on supplemental list
6 Regulatory Issues
In
May05.doc
• Tracking system for traffic concerns
+ Willow Street - Change vertical alignment to remove the "bump" as we do
reconstruction and overlay on this road. Also include left turn Lowell to Willow signal in
project. - Consultant hired to do this project. Will cover signalization work, and
alignment at RR Hearing held - project is out to bid.
• Signal on Main somewhere between Washington and Summer - for pedestrian crossing.
• Wood End Working Group - Sunset Rock Lane and Roma Lane regulations -parking
• Traffic options for remainder of industrial area (Danis and Boston Stove redevelopment)
• Atlantic request for 2 hour parking Traffic patterns - George and Curtis
• Mail drop-off on Haven - can we move to add parking spaces No changes
recommended - PH will correspond with requestor
• "Aggressive Speeding" facts JC will follow up on information on the system - this
uses photography for enforcement.
• Sidewalk extension on West Street to 550. Funds are not available at this time. PH
will let requestor know. We can consider if there is a phase 2 of Johnson Farms
• Beech Street/Lakeview Avenue JC is going to get some more information.
• Avalon Road/Louanis Drive - request for "residents only - no through traffic" and
2 way stop sign. JD will get traffic counter out there to see what the traffic volumes
and speeds are.
• Request to remove "do not enter" signs on 3 streets off Salem Street PTTTF does
not al4ree - the restriction is doing what it needs to do. PH will let requestor know
• Chute Street - permanent 1 way No objections to doing this and it's not likely to
have much impact anywhere else in Town. The temporary 1 way during church on
Sundays is not written.
• Acceptance of Woodland Road as a public street - Petition pending
NOTE - bold is heading; BOLD underlined is new or follow up; v3=QsrQ;{4 is an
item that has been completed
85-3
05/20/05 FRI 13:44 FAX 617 482 7185 Metro Area Plang 1 I C 11002
Please Join the Metropolitan Area Planning Council,
the Schott Foundation for Public Education, the Rennie Center at MassINC,
Massachusetts Municipal Association, the Massachusetts Association of School
Superintendents, the Massachusetts Association of School Committees and the
Massachusetts Federation of Teachers for a
Summit on education Equity a Excellence
This will be an opportunity for senior-level municipal officials,
school officials, and state policy makers to discuss the key issues facing
school districts after the SJC's Hancock decision. We will also learn about the
State Senate's $200 million school funding initiative.
(Without a court mandate, homer can Massachusetts move forward with
an agenda of eqult excellence -foru ° school systems?
Date: Monday, June 6, 20105
Time; 10:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m., lunch will be sei
Place: Lombardo's of Randolph
6 Billings Street, Randolph, MA 02368
www.lombardos.com
Please RSVP with any guests by May 2 , 005 to Deanna Maranto
at (617) 451-2770 ac2044 or email: dmaranto@mapc.org
ri1aSC
]VIFY
Featured Speakers
m Paul Reville, Executive Director, Rennie Center at Masslnc
m Michael Wiseman, Lead Attorney, Hancock v. Driscoll
m Kathleen Kelley, Massachusetts Federation of Teachers
m Chairwoman Patricia A. Haddad, Joint Committee on Education
m Senator Ed Augustus, Vice Chair, Joint Committee on Education (invited)
m Geoffrey Beckwith, Executive Director, Massachusetts Municipal Association
Generously sponsored by
coo 1 Fo-uNDATiotIt for Punic Emc:ATiox
t ~ C 9a
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
UK UK
Frey, Bob (MHD) [Bob. Frey@state. ma.us]
Friday, May 13, 2005 3:21 PM
Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen,
Darlene; Casey, Paul; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike;
Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones,
Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Meaney, Paul;
Medeiros, Paul; Molter, Andrew; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Susan; Sodano,
Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve
Beaudoin, Carla; Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke,
Don; Dame, Chris; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel;
Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Town Manager; Lucas, Barbara; Lutz, Elaine;
Mauriello, Lauren; McKinnon, Anne; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen;
Purdy, Jim; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick;
Wood, Gail
1-93/1-95 ITF additional review materials
braining2. Interchange
doc problems.doc
Greetings Task Force Members:
Attached are two review documents for the alternatives brainstorming
session
at next Wednesday's (5/18) ITF meeting in Woburn. These are slightly
revised and updated versions of what we handed out at the March 5 ITF
workshop:
<<brainstorming2.doc>> <<Interchange problems.doc>>
Thanks,
- Bob
Bob Frey
Manager of Statewide Planning
Office of Transportation Planning
Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation
(617) 973-7449
bob.frey@state.ma.us
gL i
I93/I95 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Interchange Task Force Brainstorming Session #2
May 18, 2005
Note: First we will review the results of the first session from March 5th.
Questions and Suggestions for Breakout Groups
Each group will have several base maps of the interchanges along Rte 128 and an aerial
photograph of the wider area. You will also have a list of specific problems we need to solve
together, and a flip chart to make notes, sketches, or whatever.
You will also have tracing paper and markers. We suggest you use several lengths of tracing
paper as you brainstorm and then consolidate ideas toward the end of the hour.
1. Start by marking up an aerial and/or base map with constraints, like neighborhood edges, key
destinations within the area, and possible paths to reach those destinations, e.g., Lowe's, transit
service, particular neighborhoods, etc.
2. Select one or two problems from the list that the group wants to concentrate on. Use the
tracing paper to sketch possible solutions, such as relocating ramps, changing ramps, adding
lanes, new connections, etc.
3. List the advantages and potential difficulties with the approaches you explore.
4. Repeat for other problems. We will probably not have enough time to address every problem,
so pick the ones that the group thinks are important or an opportunity to try different approaches.
5. Near the end of the time, try to answer the following questions using the flip charts for
reporting back to the whole Task Force:
Questions:
A. What was the first problem your group chose to deal with and why?
B. What were the group's main concerns in exploring solutions? (examples - access to
particular destinations, takings, cost, other modes, etc.)
C. What are the main obstacles you encountered to solving particular problems?
D. What general approaches seem promising, given more time and engineering input?
E. What additional information is needed to make more progress?
FL ~
Office of Transportation Planning, LBG File: brainstorming2.doc 5/13/05
193/195 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Interchange Task Force Issues Document
March 18, 2005
Interchange Problems
1. Central interchange: four very short weave distances within the cloverleaf
2. Rte 128 between I-93 and Washington Street/Mishawum interchange:
a. short weaves in both directions.
b. northbound weave has restricted sight distances and accident hot-spot.
3. Rte 128 between I-93 and Rte 28 interchange:
a. short weaves in both directions.
b. lane drop in the northbound direction with insufficient merge distance.
4. I-93 northbound: northeast loop ramp to Rte 128 southbound backs up; this interferes
with southeast loop ramp from Rte 128 northbound to I-93 northbound
5. I-93 southbound: backups from off-ramps to Rte 128 (related to above problems)
6. Northeast and southwest loop ramps from I-93 have tight curves and obstructed sight
lines.
7. Washington/Mishawum interchange: intersections at ramps and at Washington/
Mishawum are congested, hindering access to/from the commercial area on both sides of
Rte 128.
8. Congestion at interchange (except on approach from the north) may hinder highway
access to commuter rail at Anderson.
Opportunities:
1. I-93 flows relatively well in the left lanes (except for incident-related delays); southbound
merge (slip ramp from Rte 128 NB) operates relatively well.
2. Available right-of-way width on Rte 128 between I-93 and Rte 28.
3. I-93 ramps at Exit 37C to/from Anderson Center operate well.
4. Commerce Way operates well except at Mishawum intersection.
Commuter rail service from Anderson and Mishawum and MBTA express buses (Routes
134, 354, and 355, Woburn; 132 Stoneham; and 136/137, Reading)
Constraints:
1. Neighborhood edges abut the interchange ramps in three quadrants.
2. Wetland area adjacent to southwest slip quadrant (Rte 128 NB to I-93 SB).
3. Business properties adjacent to both Rte 128 and I-93 in Woburn, as well as adjacent to
Rte 128 at the Rte 28 interchange in Reading.
Office of Transportation Planning, LBG Fite: Interchange problems.doc 5/13/05
L/C)3,j
Hechenblefter, Peter
From:
Frey, Bob (MHD) [Bob.Frey@state.ma.us]
Sent:
Monday, May 16, 2005 2:52 PM
To:
Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen,
Darlene; Casey, Paul; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike;
Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones,
Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Meaney, Paul;
Medeiros, Paul; Molter, Andrew; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Susan; Sodano,
Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve
Cc:
Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; Dame, Chris;
DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob;
Grzegorzewski, Josh; Town Manager; Lucas, Barbara; Lutz, Elaine; Mauriello, Lauren;
McKinnon, Anne; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen; Purdy, Jim; Reilly, Chris;
Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick; Wood, Gail
Subject:
reminder: 93/95 ITF mtg 5/18
draft CSC 2005
05-05.doc
Hello Again Task Force Members:
One last reminder for Wednesday's I-93/I-95 ITF Meeting:
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
4:30 PM - 6:30 PM
Shamrock Elementary School
Green Street
Woburn
And one last document for review (draft summary from the congestion
subcommittee meeting - we will discuss some of the congestion issues on
Wednesday):
<<draft CSC 2005 05-05.doc>>
Thanks,
- Bob
Bob Frey
Manager of Statewide Planning
Office of Transportation Planning
Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation
(617) 973-7449
bob.frey@state.ma.us
(?m I
I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study
Congestion Subcommittee Meeting
Thursday, May 5, 2005
11:30 AM
Reading Town Hall
Reading, Massachusetts
Attendance
Subcommittee Members:
Jay Corey Woburn City Engineer
George Katsoufis Reading Citizen
Anthony Kennedy Stoneham Selectman
Bill Webster THAG
MassHighway staff:
Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning, Study Project Manager
Adriel Edwards Planning
Consultant team:
Jim Purdy Louis Berger Group (Project Manager)
Keri Pyke Louis Berger Group (Project Manager)
Sudhir Murthy Trafinfo (Traffic Modeling)
Tom Stokes . Howard/Stein-Hudson (Traffic)
Elaine Lutz Howard/Stein-Hudson (Public Participation)
Meetinfy Summar
Welcome and Introductions
Bob Frey welcomed everyone to the first Congestion Subcommittee meeting, and thanked
Reading for hosting. He explained that the Congestion Subcommittee meetings are intended as a
forum to discuss the technical aspects of the study related to congestion and report back to the
ITF. He briefly reviewed the agenda:
1. Historical CTPS Congestion Data for the Interchange (George)
2. Review of Recent CTPS Travel Time Runs (Jim/Keri)
3. Microsimulation of Current Conditions (Sudhir)
4. Ramp Analysis Review (Keri)
5. Other Business (Bob)
Bob then invited George to begin the discussion of the first agenda item.
Office of Transportation Planning Page 1 of 8
Printed: 5/16/2005
I-93/1-95 ITF Congestion Subcommittee Meeting of May 5, 2005
Historical CTPS Congestion Data for the Interchange
George began his presentation of the historical congestion data, explaining it was assembled
from the Central Transportation Planning Staff's (CTPS) reports "Speeds and Travel Times on
Limited-Access Highways in the Boston Metropolitan Region" from 1994-1995 and 1999-2000.
Superimposed on an aerial photograph, highway segments in the immediate interchange area
were color-coded by average traveling speeds at certain peak times. George selected dark orange
to represent the slowest speeds from 0 to 29 miles per hour and very light orange to represent
speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour, with four other colors in between to represent 30 to 44, 45
to 49, 50 to 54 and 55 to 59 MPH. The peak times were each half-hour increment between 7:00
to 8:30 AM and between 4:30 and 6:00 PM. The slides offered a graphical representation of the
congestion on the highway segments in the immediate interchange area during the peak hours.
The slides showed congestion on Route 128 in the morning, building in Reading near the
approach to the interchange, and extending through the interchange toward Woburn and beyond
as the AM peak period continued. The conditions on Route 128 in the morning do not appear to
have changed much between 1994 and 1999. On I-93 in the morning, however, the darker colors
seem to have shifted somewhat north between 1994 and 1999. This may warrant further
exploration, but in both sets of slides I-93 southbound showed very congested conditions by 8:30
AM. In the PM, on Route 128 northbound, the dominant direction in the PM, the slides show
darker colors in the 1999 slides than in the 1994 slides, indicating worsening conditions. On I-93
in the PM, conditions are very similar in 1994 and 1999, however the rush seems to start a little
earlier in 1999, indicated by a darker color south of the interchange at 4:30 PM in 1999 that is
not present until 5:00 PM in the 1994 slide.
George explained that the intention of this presentation was to lay the groundwork for the 2004
travel time data that would soon be available from CTPS, and provide a starting point for a
regional analysis that he felt was important to supplement this local analysis. Bob commented
that that the 2004 data was already available and in fact had been presented in plot format at the
December 1, 2004 Traffic Data Subcommittee meeting. It would be presented again later today
by LBG. Tony asked if there was any way to tell how far the queues extend in order to validate
whether or not the queues start at the interchange as opposed to some other locations. George
said although his presentation only shows the immediate area, regional speed data is available for
the consultant team to examine. Jim Purdy pointed out that it is clear from the PM slides that the
I-93 queue starts at the interchange and extends back to Boston. He noted that on Route 128, the
queue is present on both sides of the interchange. To address the regional issue, Bob distributed
the "Volume to Practical Capacity" maps created by CTPS that show historical traffic volumes
on all Interstates and major highways in Eastern Massachusetts in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.
With thickening and darkening lines for the highways over the three decades, the maps represent
how the whole highway system has become more congested throughout, and the I-93/I-95
interchange in particular is becoming more congested at all four approaches. Bob explained that
these maps are a measure of general overall congestion in the region, but asserted that the I-93/
I-95 interchange remains a bottleneck. George reminded attendees that the interchange is not the
only issue contributing to congestion, citing the lane drops in the vicinity, and the morning data
that indicated a problem west of the interchange. George asked us to consider why the Masspike
does not have such a problem. Sudhir said CTPS also produces a land-use map that
complements this information well because it helps to show why the bottlenecks occur at the
locations they do. In most cases, dense development is a significant contributing factor.
Office of Transportation Planning Page 2 of 8
g~3
Printed: 5/16/2005
I-93/1-95 ITF Congestion Subcommittee Meeting of May 5, 2005
Jim agreed that the land usage explains why there is a slowdown at Route 2 on Route 128
(southbound in the morning), followed by temporarily improved conditions until Waltham,
which is another area of dense commercial development. Tom added that these locations also
correspond to current MassHighway projects, indicating MassHighway is concentrating on the
appropriate problem areas. Bob agreed. Jim added that since 2000, activities related to the
Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project have improved conditions in certain locations. Tony
cited 30 % office park vacancy rates in Burlington and questioned what would happen when
these parks fill up again. There was general agreement that overall congestion would remain an
issue into the foreseeable future. Bob asked if there were any more questions or comments on
George's presentation or the CTPS volume-to-capacity maps. There were none.
Review of Recent CTPS Travel Time Runs
Keri Pyke unrolled plots of the travel time runs completed in October 2004 by CTPS. There is a
plot for each movement in the interchange area in both the AM and the PM. Jim explained that
to make the plots, each car is equipped with a GPS unit that tracks the location of the car as it
travels through the interchange. On the plots, each dot represents the location of the car every
few seconds. When the distance between the dots is greater, this indicates the car is moving
more quickly, covering more distance over time. Green dots represent speeds over 30 mph. As
the distance between the dots gets closer, this indicates that the car is traveling slower, covering
less distance with time. Orange dots represent speeds between 16 mph and 30 mph and red dots
represent speeds between 0 and 15 mph. Bob pointed out that the plots represent multiple runs
over each course. This is done to gather a picture of typical conditions.
Each movement, with a description of issues as represented by the plots, is listed below:
Note: * DM = Dominant Movement (a high volume move relative to total interchange traffic)
AM Movements and Issues
la) Route 128 northbound to I-93 northbound
This movement displayed a drastic slowdown on the approach to the loop ramp, zero to 15
mph speeds on the loop ramp, and quickly improving speeds once travelers were on I-93.
2a) Route 128 northbound to 1--93 southbound DM)
This movement, a dominant movement in the AM peak period, showed reduced speeds (0 -
15 mph) on the approach to I-93 southbound, especially in the vicinity of the Washington
Street on-ramp, slightly improved speeds (16 - 30 mph) on the slip ramp itself, and speeds of
approximately 30 mph until Montvale Avenue.
3a) I-93 northbound to Route 128 northbound
Definitely a "reverse commute" movement, this plot showed all runs except for one with 30
mph speeds or better over the course of the movement. Some bits of red and orange occur
where traffic competes for road space with those headed for Route 128 southbound.
4a) I-93 northbound to Route 128 southbound (*DM)
This movement displayed a drastic slowdown on the approach to the loop ramp, zero to 15
mph speeds on the loop ramp, and improved speeds with some congested spots once travelers
were on Route 128.
Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 8 Printed: 5/16/2005 Spn L/
I-93/1-95 ITF Congestion Subcommittee Meeting of May 5, 2005
5a) 1-93 southbound to Route 128 northbound
Most of the runs for this movement showed 30 mph speeds or better for the entire course,
with the exception of a few pockets of congestion (16 - 30 mph) in the vicinity of Exit 37C.
One of the runs showed a delay on the approach to the loop ramp and on the loop ramp itself,
but improved conditions once on Route 128 east of the interchange.
6a) 1-93 southbound to Route 128 southbound
Although there were pockets of congestion on I-93 on the approach to the slip ramp, in
general there was more congestion on Route 128 west of the interchange than on either I-93
or the slip ramp itself. In particular, there seemed to be some problems in the vicinity of the
Washington Street interchange.
7a) Route 128 southbound to 1-93 northbound
Although there were pockets of congestion on Route 128 on the approach to the slip ramp, in
general this plot showed all runs with 30 mph speeds or better over the course of the
movement.
8a) Route 128 southbound to 1-93 southbound
This plot showed pockets of congestion on the approach to the loop ramp (16 to 30 mph) and
on the ramp itself. This plot is a good example of where multiple factors may be at play.
PM Movements and Issues
lp) Route 128 northbound to 1-93 northbound
This movement showed some small effects from Washington Street, but the worst congestion
was on the loop ramp (0 to 16 mph) preceded by reduced speeds (16 mph to 30 mph) on the
approach to the loop ramp.
2p) Route 128 northbound to 1-93 southbound
Most issues occur as travelers pass the Washington Street off- and on-ramps on the way to
the slip ramp for I-93 southbound. The slip ramp and the I-93 southbound mainline are 30
mph or better.
3p) 1-93 northbound to Route 128 northbound (*DM)
This is a dominant movement in the PM, and the problem is concentrated on the I-93
mainline on the approach to the slip ramp. Some congestion continues north into Wakefield,
but in general, conditions are better on the Route 128 mainline after clearing the slip ramp.
4p) 1-93 northbound to Route 128 southbound
Like movement 3p above, there is a problem on the mainline on the approach to the ramp.
But in this case, the loop ramp itself presents more problems, where speeds are consistently
16 to 30 mph. Once on Route 128 southbound, speeds are at 30 mph or better.
5p) 1-93 southbound to Route 128 northbound
Some pockets of congestion occur on the loop ramp and on the Route 128 mainline. In
general, this is not a major movement in the PM.
6p) 1-93 southbound to Route 128 southbound
Basically a trouble-free course, this movement only experiences a few pockets of congestion
west of the Washington Street on-ramps.
Office of Transportation Planning Page 4 of 8 Printed: 5/16/2005
I-93/1-95 ITF Congestion Subcommittee
Meeting of May 5, 2005
7p) Route 128 southbound to I-93 northbound
Another predominantly trouble-free movement, this run displays some reduced speeds north
of the interchange due to the large volume of traffic traveling on that segment.
8p) Route 128 southbound to I-93 southbound
This movement displays reduced speeds on the approach to the loop ramp, 0 to 15 mph
speeds on the ramp itself, and improved conditions on the I-93 mainline after travelers have
merged with the general traffic.
Tony pointed out that Washington Street is not pictured on the plots but contributes to the
problems. Jim said that cascading effects are at play with movements 5a and 8a. Bill asked
during what periods of time these runs were conducted. Bob answered that the runs were
accomplished over a one or two week period. Keri added that they were done in October and
Adriel explained that they were done at this time to coincide with the volume counts. Tony
asked what the plots would show if traffic were completely stopped. Jim and Bob replied that
the runs are designed to replicate average conditions and if there is an incident, the run is
discontinued. Jay discussed the difficulty in making the Montvale Avenue off-ramp when
traveling down I-93 southbound in the morning because of 1) the backup from those I-93
southbound travelers exiting to Route 128 southbound and 2) the Route 128 northbound travelers
entering I-93 southbound. In particular, the sheer volume of the travelers joining I-93
southbound and crossing traffic to get in the high-speed lanes make it difficult for those, like
himself, that are trying to exit at Montvale Avenue. George said that the conditions on I-93 have
improved in the last 6 months, and that sometimes he does not even encounter the queue until
Route 60, instead of Commerce Way north of the interchange. Jay and Bill agreed that the
problems are all relative based on what each individual is used to. George said this type of
analysis (of the local area) is useful because it highlights the geometric deficiencies, but a
regional analysis is equally important for long-term solutions for which we will have to answer
to the public. He went on to say that we have to agree on what is considered acceptable
conditions, and set that as an expectation for the public. Keri agreed. Tony commented that he
was surprised to see green in the plots, since green usually indicates that traffic is flowing freely.
In reality, the green in these plots indicate speeds over 30mph, so although traffic is moving, it
may still be moving slowly. Keri agreed the green may be misleading and the discussion opened
to whether another color scheme may better represent what is occurring. Tony indicated that
yellow might make more sense. Tom Stokes pointed out that 30mph on the ramps could in fact
be green since the ramps are often designed for that speed. Sudhir explained that the plots were
intended to show the location of the queues and were not intended as a speed analysis. It was
agreed that the colors used in the plots deserved some more consideration and Bob agreed to
discuss the issue with CTPS, but cautioned that the plots are not a level of service analysis.
Level of service does not always equate to speed.
Bob then asked the committee for ideas on how to best summarize this information for the whole
Task Force. Tony expressed satisfaction with George's slides, indicating it would be useful to
show them to the whole Task Force. George commented that we don't have graphics of the
whole regional area, and that is important to complete the picture. Adriel suggested that of the
travel time run plots, we show the dominant movements, as they clearly indicate the geometric
deficiencies of the interchange. There was some agreement that this was a good idea.
Office of Transportation Planning Page 5 of 8 Printed: 5/16/2005 <?M
I-93/1-95 ITF Congestion Subcommittee Meeting of May 5, 2005
Keri cautioned that there is still other congestion information to show, including the
microsimulation, which would provide a good picture of the area. Tom said it was informative
when Rick Azzalina reviewed each link in the interchange pointing out the characteristics and
deficiencies. Tom added that this might be useful at the public meeting since individuals want to
see the problems on their own route. George added that it might take a couple subcommittee
meetings to completely review all the information and prepare it for presentation to the full ITF.
Microsimulation of Current Conditions
Sudhir Murthy introduced the microsimulation presentation, explaining that in consideration of
time constraints, we would see the AM simulation only. He explained there are three types of
"elements" in the model: freeway links, represented by light grey lines; ramps, represented by
dark grey lines; and arterials or surface streets represented by black lines. All the detail
regarding the location of lane drops, the lengths of deceleration and acceleration lanes, posted
speed limits, the locations of signs, and any lane restrictions is specified by Sudhir in the model.
All the data regarding traffic volumes and average speeds at various times throughout the
commute come from real data that was gathered last fall. Sudhir pointed out that the model also
contains signalized and unsignalized intersections. Tom asked Sudhir to briefly give attendees
the background on the tool and its development by FHWA. Sudhir explained that CORSIM is a
result of integrating two predecessor tools: NETSIM for surface streets and FRESIM for
freeways. CORSIM is a powerful tool developed and maintained by a private company in
Colorado that works in close cooperation with FHWA. In response to a question from Jay,
Sudhir said CORSIM is not GIS-based, but some of the information fed into the model was
obtained from GIS sources and tools. Sudhir showed several screens of the setup for CORSIM
that gave attendees a flavor for the amount of information and customization CORSEW was
capable of. Bob summarized, saying the bottom line is that CORSIM contains a tremendous
amount of detail, such as full signal phasing, which Sudhir verified, for each signalized
intersection.
Bob asked Sudhir to explain to the group to what extents the defaults were chosen versus
possible customized values. Sudhir said that to calibrate the model properly to actual conditions,
a significant amount of customization is done, including specifying driver behavior, how far
back people start thinking about changing lanes, and various other factors that determine day-to-
day conditions. Jay asked about vehicle types, and Sudhir asserted that the specific trucks counts
obtained in Massachusetts were used instead of the nationwide defaults that come standard in the
model. Jay asked for confirmation that the length of the merge areas used in the model match
what is measured on the road, and Sudhir confirmed this. Jay expressed that his understanding
was that the calibration of the model could only be as accurate as the average data obtained
during traffic counts and travel time runs. Sudhir agreed, and discussed in more depth the
challenge in getting the model to match reality, giving the example of the traffic counts, which
have been balanced and rounded to the nearest 100. Sudhir said the model will come fairly close
to expressing reality, but CORSIM does not take into account outside effects such as weather,
that in reality affect the interchange's performance.
Sudhir said one of the things they look for in the model is a large speed gradient across lanes,
because this is something that contributes to unsafe conditions. He then showed the animation of
the model between the timeframe of 7 AM and 8 AM, which displays the onset of congestion.
Office of Transportation Planning Page 6 of 8 Printed: 5/16/2005
I-93/1-95 ITF Congestion Subcommittee Meeting of May 5, 2005
Sudhir pointed out the effect of trucks passing through the interchange. Tony asked if the model
would display bumper-to-bumper conditions. Sudhir replied that if the volumes were high
enough, then yes. Some attendees thought the volumes looked lower than what they have
experienced when driving through the interchange. Sudhir said that the volumes match the
CTPS counts within 10 Jim said that things look and feel differently when you are driving
than when you are looking down at the model from a bird's eye view, and he asked Sudhir to
zoom in to show attendees how close the vehicles were. George responded that he has observed
the Route 128 traffic from the Washington Street overpass and it looks heavier than the
simulation shows. Bob cautioned attendees not to rely too heavily on anecdotal evidence, since
Sudhir has matched the model closely to the real-life data. Tom reminded attendees that the
model is showing an incident-free commute. Jay expressed satisfaction with the model. George
added that this simulation is only part of the congestion analysis and that the Committee still
needs to look at regional issues. Tony asked that the consultant team reinforce to the Task Force
that real data was used to make the model work. Although there was general satisfaction with
the progress made to date, it was agreed that it was premature to show the animation to the whole
Task Force at the May 18th meeting. Bill asked the team to supply a one-page document
explaining the model to Task Force members before we present the animation. There was strong
support for that idea. Bob added that the team intends to do a similar summary regarding the
safety data.
Ramp Analysis Review
Keri distributed hard copies of her presentation entitled "Ramp Levels of Service and Existing
Volumes". She first covered the criteria for determining the levels of service (LOS) A-F,
explaining that it is based on the density of passenger cars per lane per mile. She then presented
AM and PM diagrams of the interchange (Exit 37) and of Exits 36 and 38 with every ramp color-
coded by LOS. All the loop ramps of the interchange are LOS F and at least portions of the slip
ramps are LOS E or F. Several portions of the ramps of Exit 36 and 38 are also LOS E and F.
Keri then presented bar graphs of hourly volumes of each ramp that showed that almost every
ramp has fairly steady volumes throughout the day. Jim explained that this is called "peak hour
spreading", because high volumes are present before and after the typical peak hours. There was
some discussion about what volume was the threshold for LOS F. Keri explained that due to the
differences in geometry, different ramps can process different volumes, but typically 1,200
vehicles per hour would be considered LOS F. For very tight loops, even 800 vehicles per hour
would be considered LOS F.
George asked if we could show this information for the mainline and relate it back to the
highway design manual. Keri explained that we don't evaluate weave areas as mainlines and
that most of the distance in the immediate vicinity is actually a weave area for one interchange or
the next. George asked if we could treat the outer two lanes as mainlines. He stressed that the
ramp LOS analysis needed to be considered in conjunction with the downstream mainline LOS.
Jim said this would be added to the list of open issues. Tony asked whether the consultant team
would calculate the real time savings with certain improvements. George added that he would
like to know what impacts travel demand management options would have. Bob said those
things would be considered, as would the economic impact. Jay said he expected the economic
impact to be very dramatic given the number of people that use the interchange.
Office of Transportation Planning Page 7 of 8
Printed: 5/16/2005
I-93/1-95 ITF Congestion Subcommittee Meeting of May 5, 2005
Other Business
George volunteered to give a brief report to the full Task Force on this meeting. Bob suggested
to George and all future spokespersons that they give a summary of what was covered and offer
some opinions of how the meeting went, answering questions such as the following:
What issues or topics did the meeting cover?
How well were these covered?
What was generally agreed upon?
What needs more discussion and/or information?
Are the Committee and the consultant team on the right track?
What are the next steps?
Bob then briefly explained that part of the May 18th meeting would cover congestion and part of
it would continue the brainstorming session. Bob stressed that the goal is to give a clear
summary of some of the congestion data, highlighting what we have done and what we still have
to do. He added that the meeting summary would be available to all Task Force members.
Bob thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting at 2 PM.
'F,"q
Office of Transportation Planning Page 8 of 8 Printed: 5/16/2005
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
1, (<(3c4
To: Linda Phillips; Camille Anthony forwading account; Rick Schubert Multiple Addresses; James
Bonazoli forwarding account; Ben Tafoya
Cc: Schettini, Pat; Elaine Webb; Rob Spadafora; Carl McFadden
Subject: RE: "Safe Routes to School" Funding
Linda
The "Safe Routes to School" program is not yet law - it is pending. We have requested that our legislators
support the law, and Representative Brad Jones has written in support of it. It is not an immediate "fix" - it will be
a year of so before money becomes available. Meanwhile we will proceed with the start of sidewalks using local
funds. We view this proposed program as one tool to get sidewalks accomplished, but not the only one.
I am not aware of any particular needs in the Joshua Eaton district for sidewalks - other than West Street which
we are working on through an overall West Street improvement program. We are in frequent contact with the
School Department on matters such as this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Phillips [mailto:imfphillips@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:57 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Camille Anthony forwading account; Rick Schubert Multiple Addresses; James
Bonazoli forwarding account; Ben Tafoya
Cc: Schettini, Pat; Elaine Webb; Rob Spadafora; Carl McFadden
Subject: "Safe Routes to School" Funding
Hello;
I was glad to read in today's Advocate that my idea brought forward during the School
Committee Candidates' Forum to seek funding for Franklin Street sidewalks from the "Safe
Routes to School" grant program might become a reality. While some public officials boast good
relationships with state officials, one wonders why this wasn't previously regarded as a potential
funding source for all our school sidewalk needs (ie. J. Eaton school)? Sometimes the obvious
escapes us I guess. This would indeed be a good thing for Reading! Regards, Linda P.
?N
5/20/2005
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Johnson, Cheryl
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:26 PM
To: Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us; Rep. BradleyJones@H ou.State. MA. US;
Rep. PatrickNatale@Hou. State. MA. US
Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: At Will Absentee Voting
Dear Richard, Brad, and Patrick:
am writing to encourage you to vote against the amendment for at will absentee voting
My reasons against this amendment:
• with larger number of residents voting by mail - we would be increasing the amount of fraud that
could take place
• increase in postage
• increase in printing costs and waste of paper
• you would have to increase the number of absentee ballots that we receive
• increase in staff
• Town Clerk's Office don't have time or staff to accomplish the demands of at-will absentee
voting
• At will Absentee Voting cannot be handled with current staff levels
• voting machines reject at least 10% of absentees because they cannot read the pen they were
voted with and they become handcounted ballots
• voting days could become a nightmare trying to tally at the end of the night with a higher amount
of handcounts
• We don't want to become another Florida
Reasons against Registering and Voting on Election days:
• persons registering would not be on the voting list
• poll workers could not handle the added responsibility - it would be too confusing
• trying to tally at the end of the night would be too diffucult incorporating new voters with voting list
Many thanks for considering voting against this amendment.
Sincerely,
Cheryl A. Johnson
Town Clerk
Town of Reading
go
b ~ C ~C)f
Hechenblefter, Peter
From:
Frey, Bob (MHD) [Bob.Frey@state.ma.us]
Sent:
Monday, May 23, 2005 12:13 PM
To:
Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen,
Darlene; Casey, Paul; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike;
Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones,
Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Meaney, Paul;
Medeiros, Paul; Molter, Andrew; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Susan; Sodano,
Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve
Cc:
Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; Dame, Chris;
DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob;
Grzegorzewski, Josh; Town Manager; Lucas, Barbara; Lutz, Elaine; Mauriello, Lauren;
McKinnon, Anne; Mcvand, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen; Purdy, Jim; Reilly, Chris;
Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick; Wood, Gail
Subject:
re: Next Task Force Meeting(s)
Greetings Task Force Members,
As we all make our plans for the summer, here are a few notes on
upcoming
meetings, especially for those of you who could not make the last week's
ITF
meeting or had to leave early:
Tentative dates for the next task force meeting(s) are as follows:
Wednesday, June 22, 4:30 PM
Wednesday, July 13, 4:30 PM
The July ITF meeting is definite. Whether or not the full ITF meets in
June
depends on how much we can accomplish with the subcommittees between now
and
then. We would like to have up to three subcommittee meetings over the
next
few weeks (Data SC, Congestion SC, and our newly formed "Travel Demand
Management" subcommittee: SC members, you will be contacted soon for
scheduling). As requested, all ITF members will be informed of the
meeting
dates of the subcommittees.
At the next ITF meeting, we will continue with subcommittee reports and
an
expanded brainstorming session for alternatives, with specific ideas
from
the consultant team (based partly on discussions in the subcommittees)
for
ITF feedback. In the meantime, we also welcome any additional
suggestions
for alternatives (general or specific) from ITF members.
There will be no ITF meeting in August. Once we resume again in
September,
our first or second ITF meeting can hopefully be a "dry run" for the
public
meeting. The work of the consultant team and the subcommittees will
continue throughout the summer.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
- Bob
Bob Frey
Manager of Statewide Planning
Office of Transportation Planning
Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation
(617) 973-7449
bob.frey@state.ma.us
1 3101
-----Original Message-----
From: bruen-n-bruen [mailto:bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:06 AM
To: Frey, Bob (MHD)
Subject: Next Task Force Meeting
Hi Bob:
Did you all decide on a date for the next task force meeting? If so, can
you
please forward info to me.
Thanks in advance.
Darlene
2
13e 2
Page 1 of 1
i
~rr' cf
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Foley, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:19 AM
To: 'Linda Phillips'; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Schettini, Pat
Cc: Camille Anthony forwading account; James Bonazoli forwarding account; Rick Schubert Multiple
Addresses; Ben Tafoya
Subject: RE: Use of Revolving Funds
Linda,
Revolving funds are established under many different Chapters and Sections of the Massachusetts General Laws
with different requirements and restrictions. Some of these funds are listed on page 6-12 of the Treasurer's
Manual.
Chapter 44 Section 53E1/2 requires that wages or salaries for full-time employees may be paid from the revolving
fund only if the fund is also charged for all associated fringe benefits. The School Department's revolving funds
are not established under Chapter 44 Section 53E1/2.
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Phillips [mailto:lmfphillips@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:53 PM
To: Foley, Richard; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Schettini, Pat
Cc: Camille Anthony forwading account; James Bonazoli forwarding account; Rick Schubert Multiple
Addresses; Ben Tafoya
Subject: Use of Revolving Funds
Richard, at Town Meeting I questioned whether we could use (School Dept.) revolving funds to
pay for salaries if those employee benefits were paid from a different source (town side). You
stated that you believed that there was no reason why they couldn't be used for salaries and the
benefits were not paid from the same revolving fund because there was not enough in the fund
accounts to cover the benefit portion.
In reading the MCTA Treasurer's Manual found on-line at www.masscta.com it states on page
11 under revolving funds, "Wages or salaries for full-time employees may be paid from the
revolving fund ONLY IF (my emphasis) the fund is also charged for all associated fringe
benefits."
Town Meeting only approves of the Town-side revolving accounts. According to this same
document, page 11, states that each department revolving fund must be re-authorized each year at
the annual town meeting and that a limit on the total amount that may be spent from each fund
must be established at that time Why doesn't this apply to School Department revolving
funds? Am I missing something here? Regards, Linda P
?1q
5/25/2005