Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-06 Board of Selectmen PacketAPPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2005 Contributorv Retirement Board Term: 3 years 1 Vacancv Appointing Authoritv: Board of Selectmen, Employees and Contributory Retirement Board Term Appt'g Present Member(s) and Term(s) Exp. Auth. Frank Driscoll 7 Ordway Terrace 2008 E. by E. Gail LaPointe, Town Acct. 16 Lowell Street Indef. B.V. of O. Elizabeth W. Klepeis 68 Tennyson Rd. 12/05 BOS Daniel B. Seferian 56 Vine Street 2006 Board Joe Veno 11 Rock St., N. Reading 2007 E. by E., Candidates: Richard Foley *Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment 3a READING RETIREMENT BOARD Term Three years Appointing Authoritv Board of Selectmen, Employees and Contributory Retirement Board Number of Members Five Members Meetings Authoritv Operates under Chapter 32 of the Massachusetts General Laws Purpose Governs the Reading Retirement System and operates under Chapter 32 of the Massachusetts General Laws; Chapter 32 establishes benefits, contribution requirements and an accounting and funds structure for all the Massachusetts public retirement systems a2 3 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS Name: R iC~ -e-,A (Last) (First) Address: 6a ~e`nti1~t 5(4h R(A Occupation: Vktiv-e4 Tel. (Home) (Z81) 944-6332 Tel. (Work) _I (Is this number listed?) yeS # of years in Reading: ~e 00 Are you a registered voter in Reading? YeS e-mail address: Y1 e VN kd, 2 . t Place a number next to your. preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first prioiiFf (Attach a resume if available.) Advisory Council Against the Misuse and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drags _Aquatics Advisory Board _Audit Committee Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee ~Commissioner of Trust Funds Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable ,C Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves Finance Committee Historical Commission Housing Authority _Human Relations Advisory Committee _Land Bank Committee _MBTA Advisory Committee Metropolitan Area Planning Council _Mystic Valley Elder Services _Recreation Committee RMLD Citizen Advisory Board Solid. Waste Advisory Committee Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee Town Forest Committee Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee _West Street Historic District Commission Other Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: was the ex-a ~I I rnPn v, o~the Rea-lln<) Rdorement &-u~\.d ibe aY4 was the stApevv Zsov- of the Retirremeht G%tcle. tWevlt,~ YeevS, `The Ret,irnment 2C>ZN- r'll asc,~S ave mveStea i the Pem. ReSevVe TnveStMeY-v-t Tyt t ( PRI-T) , Tke PrTTT Juvx is LinAev- the Qerte\^zk SUPe'-Jk%%nv, of the Pemoxr-, 'ReServe. Tf)e$b)-,e"t Manzeernent (PCB) 6o2,v-~ , ~ errt Ct.~vreh.t l~ ~ ~nennl~ev- c5'~' t'6~e PI~L1'1 t3c~,~~.1 S r-tC~YY\tv1,tS~'~""'C.~.tO~ ~Ch~. ~1ydi~, C©~rrtu~ttte~ Paul Date: IIIZS)OS (Middle) 3a3- qty OF RFq~ Town of Reading c 16 Lowell Street of Reading, MA 01867 rxo~e CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT BOARD Ph: (781) 942-9007 Fx: (781) 942-9037 November 15, 2005 Board of Selectmen 16 Lowell St. Reading, MA 01867 Dear Members of the Board of Selectmen, Elizabeth (Beth) Klepeis is currently the Board of Selectmen's appointment to the Retirement Board, with her term ending December 31, 2005. Beth is not planning to seek a new term. Richard Foley, former Town Accountant and Ex-Officio Retirement Board member has indicated his interest in applying for the Selectmen's appointment for the vacated seat, with a term from December 31, 2005 to December. 31, 2008. The Retirement Board would like to register its support for Richard's application. Richard has twenty-four years ' of direct experience in the administration of Massachusetts Contributory Retirement Systems, stemming from his position of Town Accountant in Reading and City Auditor in Salem. Concurrently he has been a 'member of the policy making retirement board for the municipality's system which he administered. He therefore has a broad knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the system as well as of the laws and policies governing it. The Retirement Board feels that it is extremely important to keep that valuable source of knowledge. Due to the recent turnovers of both staff and Board members, Richard is truly needed to maintain continuity and historic perspective on the Board. Upon his recent retirement as Town Accountant, Richard Foley was asked by Executive Director of the Pension Reserves 'Investment Management (PRIM) Board, Michael Travaglini, to remain as a member of the Administration and Audit Committee. Richard was asked to be a member of this Committee shortly after 1988 when the Town of Reading Retirement Board voted to invest its assets in the Pension Reserves Investment Trust (PRIT) which is administered by the PRIM Board. As a member of this Committee, Richard has provided a valuable insight to the Town of Reading Retirement Board. The Retirement Board is very anxious to continue to have this insight and expertise readily available. Thank you for your consideration of Richard's candidacy for the upcoming appointment. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this at one of your meetings, or to answer any questions. Si cereellly yours, Joseph Veno, chr hCo_! aniel Seferian, vice chr TRtj-ePe':izabeth Klepeis U -1/,U~ ~?Frank Driscoll Z-' Gail LaPointe 3a.k . LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF-READING-"0 To the Inhabitants of the Town of Reading:. Please take notice that the Board of Selectmen .of-the. Town of Reading will hold a public he.a'rin.g at their meeting on. Tuesday, Decembcr 6,, 2005, at 8:30 p.m., ;in the.Selectmen's, M,eet.ing Room., 16 Lowell Street; Re,adin.g, Massachu•=' setts in' accordancewith tide 4 Bylaw, Article, 5.10:1, Retaal Sales on a. request by Motiva Eriterprlses, LLC (Owner) 'and,. Leigh Ente:rprises., L#i1 (Licensed Operator) that it 0 granted the right to c-ontlbue operating of the. Reading Shia Station: Obated..at 87 WalkeO Brook brive, '.Reading, twenty.:, four (24) hou.rs.per day, and, specifically requests approvals -under said Bylaw to operate; between the hours of 12:01; a.m.. and 6:00 a,rn. . All. interested parties may,'. appear in person., may submif, written comments, or email comments to town manaaer@ ci.readina.ma.us. By order. of'. Peter I. Hechenbleiknk Town. Manage; 11 /29 qC 5.9.7 Any distributor placing news racks on sidewalks or other public place within the Town shall provide liability insurance in the amount of One Million.Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for each occurrence for bodily injury and in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) for each occurrence for property damage naming the Town as an insured. Any such distributor shall further agree to hold the Town, its official bodies, other committees and their employees, agents and assigns, harmless in any suit brought against the Town. or any of its official bodies, other committees and their employees, agents and assigns arising out of the use, operation or maintenance of the news racks. Any distributor placing news racks on sidewalks or other public places within the Town shall further indemnify and hold the Town, its official bodies, other committees and their employees, agents and assigns harmless from any damage caused to any news rack by virtue of the Town performing snow removal or other municipal services on the Town's public streets, roadways and sidewalks. 5.10 Retail Sales 5.10.1 No retail, commercial operation or place of business shall be open for the transaction of retail business between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 6:00- a.m., unless after an application and hearing before the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Selectmen determine that it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to allow such retail, commercial operation or place of business to operate during such hours or during a portion of such hours. 5.10.2 This Bylaw shall not apply to the retail, commercial operation of facilities operated by innholders and/or common victuallers and/or taverns where a license has been duly issued for the operation of the same which otherwise restricts or describes the hours of operation of such facilities. This Bylaw shall not prevent a cinema from concluding the showing of a movie that has commenced prior to 12:01 a.m. 5.10.3 . For the purposes of this Bylaw, facilities operated by innholders shall include, but not be limited to: an inn, hotel, motel, lodging house and public lodging , house or any other similar establishment for which a license is required under Chapter 140 of the General Laws; the term facilities, operated by a common victualler shall include a restaurant and any other similar establishment which provides food at retail for strangers and travelers for which a common victualler's license is required under said Chapter; and the term "tavern" shall include an establishment where alcoholic beverages may be sold with or without food in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 138 of the General Laws. 5.10.4 The Board of Selectmen shall give public notice of any, request whereby a retail, commercial operation or place of business seeks to be open for the transaction of retail business between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. or any portion thereof, shall hold a public hearing within thirty (30) days of receipt of any such request and may grant the request for operation during all or any part of such hours with or without any conditions as may be imposed by. the Board of Selectmen to ensure the public health, safety and welfare. qC,;LW General Bylaws 45 Amended through February, 2005 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street-- Reading, MA 01867-2683 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Phone (781) 942-6616 Fax (781) 942-9071 ffink&i.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM To: Board of Selectmen From: Conservation Commission Date: December 2, 2005 Re: Reading Shell Station, 87 Walkers Brook Drive The Commission received notice of the public hearing to be held by the Board of Selectmen on December 6, 2005 concerning the request by Motiva Enterprises, LLC, to continue operating the Shell Station at 87 Walkers Brook Drive on a 24-hour per day basis. The Commission submits the following comments on this matter for the public hearing record: 1. The Order of Conditions for demolition of the existing station and construction of a new station is now due to expire on April 12, 2007. 2. The Commission has been involved with on-going hazardous waste clean-up operations at the site in recent years. The most recent report that we have received on the status of the clean-up is dated August 24, 2005. That report said that the hazardous materials in the soils and groundwater had changed somewhat after additional application of an oxygenating agent to stimulate biological breakdown processes. However, contaminants remain above state standards, and the report called for another application this September and further sampling in October. 3. The large drainage basin/flood storage area in front of the station has been planted and stabilized as requested by the Commission in September 2004. The large deposit of sediment is still present in the wetland between the Shell station driveway and the gas company driveway to the north. This sediment washes off the parking lot through a gap in the curbing at the station entrance. The Commission continues to recommend that Motiva remove the N c3 sediments from the adjacent wetlands. The Commission would like to be notified prior to work and would like to schedule an appointment with the contractor to review how the spread of sediments will be controlled while the work is underway. 4. The reconstruction of Walkers Brooh Drive near the station appears to be complete and the Commission is working with the Engineering Division and contractor to close the permit. The Shell station is kept in fairly clean condition. However, trash continues to be a problem in the wetland around the perimeter of the Shell Station and the Aristonics site. It remains difficult to tell whether these materials come from either or both businesses, or blow in from adjacent streets and businesses. However, the proper thing to do is to collect them and dispose of them. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. qe,q MARK A. GALLANT, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 462 BOSTON STREET SUITE 1, SECOND FLOOR TOPSFIELD, MA 01983 (978) 887.0366 LICENSED IN MASSAC] LCISETTS AND NEW H A MPSB IRE E-MAIL: mgaAant@nii.not I'VEBSITE: www.&aUantlaw.com Camille W. Anthony, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Reading Town Hall Reading, MA, 01867 RE: 24 Hour Permit Reading Shell Station 87 Walkers Brook Drive Reading, MA 01867 Dear Chairman Anthony: NEWBURYPORT: (978) 463-0220 PEA-BODY 1978) 538-0066 PAX NUAMER, (978) 887.0321 REPLY TO TOPSPIELD OFMCE November 1, 2004 lQ V q sv co My office represents Motiva Enterprises, LLC (owner) and Leigh Enterprises, Ltd (Licensed Operator), 87 Wallcers Brook Drive, Reading, Massachusetts on their application for a permit to operate twenty-four (24) hours per day at the Reading Shell Station, 87 Walkers Brook Drive. In accordance with the By-Law, Article 5.10.1, Retail Sales, Motiva Enterprises, LLC (as Station Owner) and Leigh Enterprises, Ltd (as Licensed Operator) hereby requests that they be granted the right to continue operating the above station located at 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, twenty-four (24) hours per day, and specifically requests approval under the said By-Law to operate between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Also, my clients are requesting that the Common Victualler's License also be extended. Kindly schedule the same for a hearing before the Board of Selectmen for the Board's meeting in Tuesday, December, 2005. Please advise my office of the date of the hearing. Also, kindly have the newspaper bill my Topsfield office directly for the cost of the legal notice for the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Thank you. Very truly yours, Mark A. Gallant MAG:pd Cc: Peter I. Hechenbieilmer, Town Manager Town Cleric Robin Shea, Motiva Enterprises, LLC 00-171 510 i 7 Li 41 J ~..Y i y CAO L I P MARK A. GALLANT, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 462 BOSTON STREET SUITE 1, SECOND FLOOR TOPSFIRED, MA 01983 (978) 887-0366 LICENSED IN MASSACI IUSETTS AND NEW HAMPSHIRE E-ATA -M, mgallant@nii.njt WEBSITE:www.gefflantl aw.com Camille W. Anthony, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Reading Town Hall Reading, MA, 01867 E3 >n RE: 24 Hour Permit Reading Shell Station 87 Walkers Brook Drive Reading, MA 01867 Dear Chairman Anthony: w ep Enclosed please find a copy of the N o the above pubu acing advising all abutters that a hearing is scheduled fo ecember 6, 2005 at 8:30pm. I h ve attached copies of the certificates of maili to t1ae abutters. Very truly yours, Mark A. Gallant MAG:pd Cc: Motiva Enterprises, LLC 00-171 NEWBURYPORT, (978) 463.0220 PEAItODY, (978) 538.0066 FAX NUMBER: (978) 887.0321 REPLY TO TOPSFIELD OFFICE November 10, 2005 (,t G7 NOTICE Please take notice that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading will hold a public hearing at their meeting on December 6, 2005 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts at 8:30 p.m. in accordance with the Bylaw, Article 5.10.1, Retail Sales, on a request by Motiva Enterprises, LLC (owner) and Leigh Enterprises, Ltd (Licensed Operator), (Reading Shell Station that it be granted the right to continue operating at the above station located at 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, twenty-four (24) hours per day, and specifically requests approval under said Bylaw to operate between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 6 a.m. All interested parties may appear in person or may submit written comments to the Reading Board of Selectmen. Dated: November 4, 2005 Motiva Enterprises LLC By its attorney, Mark A. Gallant, Esq. 462 Boston Street, Suite 1 Topsfield, MA, 01983 978-887-0366 W G$ U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING f 4 c 0 MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT ° p m MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER o .1 PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER o o Received From: A. GALLANT ° Received From: MARK MARK A. GALLANT °m 4692 Boston Street, Silite 462 Boston Street, Suite I 'rpnef ieid, MA 01988 Topsfield, MA 01983 z --qC On piece of ordinary mail addressed to: o o 0 /y cn z• com= NLD PS Form 3817, January 2001 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NQT PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER Received From: MARK A. GALLANT 462 Boston Street /"'1, Suitp~r Topsheld, MA 01983 One piece of ordinary mail addressed to: ~7 Z) Al f-5 )IrN; Id P '%D ad O o°c O N C-1y S CC ~N 1 o o C o ~C 'D to m® 3 otn q• cn N oo--nom z• oomoo (n oW0 N® - -i Lit • r 3) m PS Form 3817, January 2001 OneOne i ece of ordinary mail addressed to: a -t C 0 C3 3D 7'O (n v~ zc =cn-o / O CWOMOC ro~ U 3 c~7 r m PS Form 3817, January 2001 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ? o° z MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER o m ( o N ° s Received From: MARK A. GALLANT 462 BOAton Street. Suite 1 Toosfield, MA 01983 One piece of ordinary rd( mail addressed to: c a --i c Moc' Cni.~a0 00•--T~ o C ~ t `~1/♦ )G AD z~o Omc~ T^~, --I wr to 1 Ln :D 1 5;,61 :x N m U PS Form 3817, January 2001 - U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING $ c a MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT E o o m ° w PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMAST R o Received From: MARK A. GALLANT 462_Boston Street. Suite i Topsfield, MA 01983 6 z --I C One piece of ordinary mail addressed to: o°'f' A -00 v 3 orA"7• -B,o-5 -rn ~,j 9' A5 eo rr -0 A KJ Li I 'j. z- ILD -4 WrCO ,fib l ~ u n~r~n t_S 7"r--e e.~ ' I= ° F :D rn PS Form 3817, January 2001 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING b MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT a o r m PROVIDE FOR INSURAN AERGALI ANT o p Received Fron462 Boston Street, Suite 1 p 4 Tonsfield. MA 01983 One piece of ordinary mail addressed to: c.tJ rV ~ V PS Form 3817, January 2001 ~ ® ~ ° o f 1 G f--s -r' V. 9LO r o~ LIT o ' rta> COO _--a Z. mm. o -tor'ao -~i UI Z x m x Q .C mom 40 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING b c MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL DOES NOT t , PROVIDE FOR INSU AN P ° N o R CE- OSTMASTER a 4 D Received From: MARK A. GALLANT Toosfield. MA 019g,4 One piece of ordinary mall addressed to: pp~ O' ~T 3D<C', rn 3 o0 rJ• _~00ML30 wr- (A 25 Ul :D LA L' PS Form 3817, January 2001 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 1 c z I ?m MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT I c ~ c PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER Q ~ A Received From: MARK A. GALLANT ar 6Ves Q 4 C One piece of ordinary mail addressed to: o ~o Q 3~ot~irV• ~~>n~ ~ ~.y coooco~2a fiazv xl N~ ~o po~ z-'yV'S;C- {'L'F' ' 1 tin lfC~t'Y) 1~4S1 C71<~ a(~ r ~cn M m PS Form 3817, January 2bT1 CERTIFICATE dF MAILING STAL S ~ TERNATIONALmpaL, DOES NOT r :S-., OMESMG YBEUSEDFCyRI ce-P ANDiN Z0s FORtNSURANOSTM A GA LAN We ReoetvadFrom: IVIA t'„~ A " oi(~a3 R l alt addressed to: One Pt a of orditnar l m 1 d G~r~~ 2Q01 PS Form 3817, January oz K o 'n 1,6 a A o CA ao of CERTIFICATE " p~S Cpl SER~tCE AIL, DOES SOT EST1 AND tN'r'Ffk tONAL u.s. pROaDEF0 msukOE~POSMA'RK A. GALLANT tS SO" ~ 4 '2 Stn St~rt! Received From: So t !1 983 Q r 6 v~.a t go) matt addressed to ace of ordinary (,,,,sjC f~~ r Ona r Ln .r- pS Form 3817,12nuary 2001 ° i CERTIFICATE OF MAILING o ° o L SERVICE L MAIL, DOES NOT o o ~'e ~,5, POSTA T1C AND INTERNATP PROVDE FOR FOR OMES-POSTMASTER m N MARK A. GALLANT Received From: 462 80Ston StCeet4 sultpd ' tops{leld, VIA 01983 -a c n l Mat addressed W One place ~mao lace of ordinary I -I V6 -t wa } `rn ° PSpS F 7, 3anuary xp01 i OF MAIL'% ° CERTjFICl.l~`v~ES xoT o OS'tALCE i~ ~ o 11.S. P T c MAY BE U5ED FOR D SiC'get, S PROVIDE FORINSURAN 670StO~ a A A ®g1985 Received From ~Opsste1d9 11 C Z D ~ ra N 1~ ~ m m essed to: LAL0 lnary mall addr ' of ord o C One P gt r 1 ~ t ~ G OG21 N 97.C~N.ry. 6- 1 1 ~mGN un 3 fi t57' 3817, 551y 2001 G a D O_ -rt o U 3C oa ziwo' 9 ?E of MP,ILINO ® CRf1 o loss VtGS AL MAtt, t NO o dOMESTiC ANd fNTERNATIO U.S~PS.~-{p~L NCE-POSTMASTEt~ PROV OE FOR NSq~ p.AR~C t Street Suite Received From.2 t~p tj B16 rm6 <fi ._.-Tap Wait addressed tip u N r lace of or61neri one P } u°r P!eA ® 2441 ps Form 3817, januarY ..y G ~0 JO N Z•~ ~m0 to _t WI? t 9 of M;p1L3NG' ® CER~IF~C S NOT a vice ,L, daE %3.S. p(}S RNATiaNALMA TALS~ , t N A4VIDE F R NS RANG PO yT~ ATERL7~ A ~ PR ~IAR P'► St~~e+et suit? RaceivedFr°462 Bost©n ~A 198 _ CrRTiFi A of tVfA11.1No tJ.S, POSTAL SERViGE c USED 0""" ME5TtC ANa iNTERNATIONALMAit, dOES NO c pROVIdEFOR1NSURANCE-POSTMASTER GALLANT _ Mav 6E ~flASK A. q Received From: 4ro2 SO teD'Streets Suite V -tops to ' a~ U Itin ~lH my11N o s r one Piece of ordinary mail addressed to: ppS Form 3817+ January 2441 rCR'Ctrr..~•' doss NOT T ptt, z U.5. POS7RLSfiRVa~tGE E tG o FORd ANd f gT~ER A cpOSTMA a MROS3pS adRlNSURA E n St+feets Si~11te 1 b RacaNadFsompcf7 BQ~Jt{~ ! r~ m'^ FtVG' l o s o • lace of ordinary mail addressed t r one piece g jz.) a v 1 rp ~pg 3g1~Janua+ Y 24p1 Form ddrassed to: r matt a O G }ace of ordinary pcoN One P W¢ ~ 4 3$17, January 2441 PS Form C7, .nU N p~ua nap tie O ~l p oz Qm ca d 5 m N ~ Su ~ '1 °r l 3 m ~D U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTI (p,~~n 9 e PROVIDE FOR INSURAN~ S F rl {7'i i A OT o p RecelvedFrom: 4 - - - ~~c 1{{y usion Sireers u~ a p° p Topsfield, MA 01983 N One piece of ordinary mail addressed to: ° -i e ;;C= AI -on 3R cc,,wrl o N ztciwF3 --ir Ln cn a c9i :D M AZ PS Form 3817, January 2001 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER Received From: MAN K A. GALLANT ,462 Boston Street; Suite i 7 3 E U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING o h r; MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT c } PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTTER ~j _ Received From: MARK A. (3fAL.LAN 4.62 Boston Street, Suite 1 Topsfiel , MA 0011982 a 2 -i C One piece of ordinary --mall addressed to: oR < 'oo cn 'P Q. COMO-' o5rnmo "Lo wr- V) N® ~L / a :X G) m PS Form 3817, January 2001 IZN 174 y a ~O O P .y R H One place of ordinary mall addressed to: a 8 e / ° rn yJ~t'~~,!_.L,2.+Yry~V 1111 11(1. r' _ -B d. mC= oc~°--errJ. =oocos c--o np ~ z- oomoo IV~.d I •Wr- N cm 51 F = m PS Form 3817, January 2001 - Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&i.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: December 2, 2005 RE: Approval of Modification of Easement - RMLD TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-6643 A 1987 Appellate Court decision provided the ability of the developer (Callan) to access the proposed Inwood Office Park from West Street through a residential zoning district. The Town had contended that. this was a violation of zoning. The Town lost. Part of the decision requires that if the easement over the property held by the Light Department needs to be modified to perform surface or subsurface work that "structures must be removed or relocated by the plaintiff or should the plaintiff fail to remove or relocate said roadway and/or structures the same may be removed by the defendant at the plaintiffs expense." The Light Department has negotiated with the developer to modify the language so that the developer has secure access to the site, and so that the Light Department's interests are protected. The Light Department has also negotiated as part of this agreement that the $245,000 of traffic mitigation money required by the MEPA approval will be paid to the Town of Reading now, as opposed to some unspecified later date. These monies are needed to complete the design work for the West Street project. Modification to the easement requires a Selectman's signature. We will get a copy of it to you on Tuesday, after Town Counsel has a chance to complete her review. Time is of the essence in this matter. PIH/ps Ndl READING NEIGHBORHOOD MAP h QC ♦ l r1 r` r ~y ,lr v i` v 4 i Map by: Town of Reading Legend Parcels Trail Map date: j Town Boundary L Buildings Fence Data are for planning purposes only. -~--1 Railroad Sidewalks c 4 ° Hedge Roads Driveway Trees j Bridge Retaining Wall ^^J"i Streams .T J Paved ~ o-o Wall Open water o 155 310 620 . Unpaved aasaau Path t- Wetlands ,Ft I) _j 7.0 } Social Law Library 1 Pagel of 5 Parties. EDWARD W. CALLAN vs. TOWN OF READING and the READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Decision Type: DECISION County: Middlesex, ss. Case No: Miscellaneous Case No. 120179 Date: April 13, 1987 Edward W. Callan, the.plaintiff, brought this action for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that the easement of the Reading Municipal Light Department ("RMLD"), the defendant, over a portion of the plaintiff's land in Reading does not prohibit the plaintiff from constructing and using an access road across the property to provide access to a proposed office park to be built on adjacent land in Woburn. At the trial held at the Land Court on December 9, 10, and 11, 1986, the plaintiff called Mr. Peter Ogren and Mr.. Paul E. Burgess as witnesses, and the defendants called Mr. Norbert D. Rhinerson. Forty-five exhibits were introduced into evidence. All exhibits introduced into evidence are incorporated herein for purposes of any appeal. On all of the evidence, T find and rule as follows: 1. The plaintiff's property in issue consists of approximately 1.6 acres of land in Reading, three acres in Wilmington and fifty acres in -2- Woburn. 2. Since 1969, the defendants have been the owners, by an eminent domain taking, of an easement over a portion of the plaintiff's Reading land. Said easement was taken "for municipal light purposes under the provisions of General Laws, Chapt. 40, Section 14 for a High Voltage transmission line with the right to construct, erect, operate and maintain a line or lines in, on, along, over, through, across or under to place, erect, maintain, inspect, add to the number of, and relocate at will, poles, towers etc. from time to time..." together with a right of access over the easement property for maintaining, renewing, or adding to the lines. The easement also includes "the rights, easements, privileges, and appurtenances in or to said lands, which may be required for the full enjoyment of the rights herein...." Exhibits 18 and 19. 3. The defendant RMLD supplies electric power to retail customers in the towns of Reading, North Reading, Wilmington, and part of Lynnfield. RMLD does not generate power. 4. At the present time, the defendant maintains two 115KV transmission lines on the easement. Each line consists of a series of wooden poles supporting three conductors and one static wire. The poles are supported by four guy wires. The poles have been spaced to allow for the installation of a third similar line if and when such should be necessary. The defendant receives all of its power requirements over these lines via connecting lines of the Boston Edison Company. 943 http://socialaw.gvpi.net/sll/lpext.dll/sll/land/land-0314602?f=templates&fn=document-fra... 10/31/2005 Social Law Library Page 2 of 5 y 5. The only access to the plaintiff's Woburn land is from West Street in Wilmington via an unimproved way over the plaintiff's Wilmington land -3- and then over the plaintiff's Reading land which is subject to the aforementioned easement. 6. The plaintiff intends to construbt an office park containing 400,000-500,000 square feet of office space and a 400 to 500 room hotel on his Woburn land. 7. The plaintiff intends to improve the access to his Woburn property by a constructing a paved divided access way consisting of two 18 foot one-way lanes, crossing over the defendants' easement, all as shown on Exhibits 26 and 27. 8: The plaintiff will protect RMLD facilities, particularly poles and towers, by the installation of concrete "jersey" barriers, rock walls, and a rock=faced concrete wall with supporting ground fill, as shown on Exhibits 26 and 27. 9. The plaintiff's development would cause an increase in traffic over the defendants' right of way from the present occasional vehicle trip to several thousand vehicle trips per day. As stated previously, this is an action for a declaratory judgment. Whenever possible, the judgment should terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceedings. G.L. c. 231A, s. 3. To accomplish such determination in this instance, it would appear that two issues must be resolved. 1. A determination of whether the plaintiff's use of a portion of the Reading land as proposed for an access drive. to an office park,interferes with the defendants' rights under the easement. 2. A determination of the rights of the parties as to future uses and =4- developments within the easement. The general rule as to what uses may be made of the servient estate is that the owner of a servient estate may use the land for all purposes which are not inconsistent with the easement, Ampagoomian v. Atamian, 323 Mass.,. 31,9, 322 (1948), or which do not materially interfere with its use. Merry v. Priest, 276 Mass. 592, _ 600 (1931). Nevertheless, the property cannot be used in a way that would lead to a material increase in the cost or inconvenience to the easement holder's exercise of his rights. Texon, Inc. v. Holyoke Machine Co., 8 Mass. App. Ct. 363, 366 (1979). From all of the evidence, it is difficult to see how the plaintiff's proposed use of the property would materially interfere with the defendants' present use. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's proposed use will result in a material increase in cosh and/or inconvenience to the defendants. Although insufficient evidence was introduced from which to quantify increased costs to the defendants, the Court recognizes this possibility and rules that any increased costs.to the defendants attributable to the plaintiff's use, operation, or maintenance of the access load are to be borne by the plaintiff. The defendants' claim of increased inconvenience appears to be based upon a dimunition of access to http://socialaw.gvpi.net/sll/lpext.dll/sll/land/land-0314602?f templates&fn=document-fra... 10/31/2005 Social Law Library their facilities. At present, such access is provided by an unpaved right of way from West Street. Contrary to the defendants' assertions that the plaintiff's use would interfere with the easement, the Court notes the plaintiff's right of way would actually appear to provide improved access. When the defendants' access to any portion of the easement is materially hindered by the "jersey barriers," the plaintiff will be required to remove -5- Page 3 of 5 the barriers or should the plaintiff fail to do so, the defendants may move the same at the plaintiff's expense. Apparently, the transmission lines are constructed without a counterpoise, but should such installation or any other subsurface work be necessary or reasonably desirable, the plaintiff's roadway and/or structures must be removed or relocated as reasonably necessary either by the plaintiff o.r by the defendants at the plaintiff's expense. As to future uses and developments, the defendants' rights are broad and clearly spelled out. in the easement. As. stated above, the town is specifically granted the right "to construct, erect, operate, and maintain a line or lines for the purposes of transmitting electric power in, on, along, over, through, across, or under..." and the right "to place, erect, maintain, inspect,.add to the number of, and relocate at will, poles, towers, cross-arms, or fixtures 11[11 The courts have held that in balancing the rights of a servient estate against the easement holder, the governing principle is one of reasonableness. Hodgkins v. Bianchini, 12,3 Mass. 169, 173 (1948); Brodeur v. Lamb, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 5022 504-505 (1986); Barchenski v. Pion, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 896, 897 (1980). This principle, however, is generally limited to those instances where the rights of the parties as set forth in the grant are ambiguous. Except in extreme cases, this principle should not be used to abrogate the specific granted rights of the easement holder. In Western Massachusetts Electric Co. v. Sambo's of Massachusetts, Inc. , 8 Mass. ADv. Ct. 815, (1979), the court (quoting Comment A of s. 486 of the Restatement of Property (1944)) stated: (1] See Western Mass. Electric Co. v. Sambo's of Massachusetts, Inc., a....Mass. App..._..Ct.....81.5 (1979), the specific easement language provided in per- -6- So far as the language of the conveyance creating an easement precisely defines the privileges of the owner of it, the privileges of use of the owner of the servient tenement are also precisely defined. As the precision of definition decreases, the application of the principle that the owner of the easement and the possessor of the servient tenement must be reasonable in the exercise of their respective privileges becomes more pronounced. Under this principle, the privilege of use of the http:!/socialaw.gvpi.net/sll/lpext.dl I/sll/land/land-0314602?f=templates&fn=document-fra... 10/31/2005 Social Law Library Page 4 of 5 possessor of the servient tenement may vary as the respective needs of himself and the owner of the easement vary. Id'. at 822 n.4. While the defendant does have the right to erect additional poles and structures on the easement and to'relocate them at will, such rights as noted were acquired pursuant to G.L. C. 40, s. 14, by eminent domain, and accordingly, may not be exercised at the mere whim of the easement holder but must be exercised only in the furtherance of municiple purposes. The right of ownership of the land subject to the easement should not be restricted further than necessary to give full effect to the easement. Public policy requires that an owner of real estate should be allowed to make all the improvements on it which can be made consistently with the. rights..of the holder of the easement. Atkins v. Bordman, 43 Mass. (2 Met.) 457, 471 (1841). Accordingly, should it become necessary or reasonably tinent part: Said lines to consist of two lines of either wood or steel poles and one line of towers and underground cables the exact location of each pole line, tower lines and underground cable, all of which shall be erected, laid out or installed within the limits of the right of way shall be selected by the grantee after its final surveys have been made and when such location has been fixed by the erection, laying or installation of each pole line, tower line and underground cables it shall be deemed to be the permanent location of each line or cable. Id. at 816 n.1. -7- desirable for the defendants to enlarge or relocate their electric transmission facility in furtherance of its municipal purposes and if that cannot be reasonably accomplished without interfering with the plaintiff's proposed access way then the plaintiff must accommodate such needs.by removing or relocating its access way and facilities or by whatever other means may be reasonably satisfactory to the defendants. Both parties submitted requests for findings of fact and rulings of law. The Court has found the facts and made rulings of law in detail in this decision and declines to rule further on those submitted. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds and rules as follows: 1. Any increase in costs to the defendants reasonably attributable to the plaintiff's use, operation, or maintenance of the access road are to be borne by the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff's proposed use of the servient estate does not presently interfere with or otherwise obstruct the defendants' easement; nevertheless, if the defendants find it necessary or reasonably desirable to perform any surface or subsurface work, and the plaintiff's roadway and/or structures materially interferes with the defendants' easement, the plaintiff's road way and/or structures must be removed or_relocated by the plaintiff or should http://socialaw.gvpi.net/sll/lpext.dll/sll/land/land-0314602?templates&fn=document-fra... 10/31/2005 Social Law Library Page 5 of 5 the plaintiff fail. to remove or relocate said roadway and/pr structures;,, th'e. ;sime;.may be removed by the defendant's at the., plarit`~`f'`s 'expense: 3. With respect. to any future use, the Court concludes that should it become necessary or reasonably desirable for the defendants to enlarge or -6- relocate their electric transmission facility in furtherance of its municipal purposes and if that cannot. be reasonably accomplished due to the plaintiff's use or maintenance. of the roadway or related structures, then the plaintiff must accommodate such needs either by removing or relocating its access road and facilities and if the plaintiff. fails to so remove or relocate his roadway and/or structures, the defendants may remove the same at the plaintiff's expense or by whatever other means may be reasonably satisfactory to the defendants. 4. This Decision and the accompanying Judgment shall bind the plaintiff and his successors. in title. Judgment accordingly. Judge: /s/ Robert V. Cauchon Justice End Of Decision qj,7 http://socialaw.gvpi.netlsilllpext'.dll/sll/land/land-0314602?templates&fn=document-fra... 10/31/2005 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen 1 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: December 2, 2005 RE: Addison Wesley TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-6643 Ben Tafoya had requested that (see attached copy of email) we have counsel available at this meeting to advise the Board of Selectmen as to its role, the role of CPDC and other Town boards in the process of reviewing a request for zoning amendment related to the proposed shopping center development on this site. Gary Brackett from Brackett and Lucas will be present at your meeting on December 6, 2005. He has a great deal of experience in zoning matters such as this and will be able to advise the Board as they would need legal assistance. He has a copy of Ben's email for guidance on the discussion. Following that discussion, John Diaz will be present to answer any questions that the Board may have following up on the previous meeting that he attended. The intent of the discussion on December 6 is to determine whether or not to move this process forward to a public hearing on the traffic with the CPDC and open to full public comment. Mr. Brackett's advice should assist the Board in making that decision. PIH/ps ye Page 1 of 1 l b~ Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Ben Tafoya [ben@planetnw.com] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:24 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Please Include in Packet for Tuesday Discussion Dear Colleagues: I am writing today because I would like to discuss the type of resources we need as we move forward in our discussion of the proposed development at the Addison-Wesley site. I think we can all agree that this is a major discussion facing the Board of Selectmen and the town. I believe that we need a thorough briefing by counsel on what our responsibilities and rights are, as a Town and a Board, as we approach this critical discussion regarding the future of our community. I also believe that we will need counsel's expertise at each step in the process from here until the ultimate decision is made. I would hate to see the effort we are putting into this process spoiled by decisions that did not have the full cover of law. I want to have the discussion of counsel's involvement now so we can be well prepared for our meeting on December 6th and any subsequent meetings regarding this project. I would suggest that our time on December 6th start with a discussion of this application and what we can expect to be the Board of Selectmen's, CPDC and other town board's involvement in this process. We should talk to Brackett and Lucas about which attorney can best help us with this project. We need to be satisfied that we have the proper attorney, even if we need to retain special counsel for this matter. The goal should be to make sure that we take the proper steps to arrive at a decision, That decision should be made in a manner that minimizes the chances of a lawsuit that could threaten to overturn the will of the town. I appreciate your consideration of this matter, Best, Ben Tafoya P: (800) 786-1105 C: (617) 953-2530 ,ft a 17 le;L., 11/18/2005 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&l.reading.ma.us DATE: November 30, 2005 TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner RE: Addison-Wesley MEMORANDUM TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-6643 John Diaz from the firm of Greenman-Pedersen will be at the Selectmen's meeting on Tuesday, December 6th to address any questions that the Board may have. If you know specific questions ahead of time, that will be helpful. Attached is e-mail correspondence relative to Ben Tafoya's request for Trip Generation data. John has provided that information for different elements of a potential development under current zoning and under the requested zoning. Hopefully, the Board will find this information helpful. The intent of the meeting is for the Board to determine whether or not this process should move on to the next step which would be a full presentation by the proponent of the traffic study, to a joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and the CPDC, with the public invited to attend and to participate. That session, if held, would include a presentation of the traffic study by the proponent, a preview and comment by the Town's consultant and public comment. PIH:lm Attachment yea Message Hechenbiefter, Peter From: Delaney, Joe Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:09 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: FW: Pearson Traffic Study Peter: Page 1 of 2 Here is the information from John Diaz. He would like you to give him a call before the next Selectmen's meeting to discuss the specific concerns of the Board. Joe From: John Diaz [mailto:jdiaz@gpinet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:44 PM To: Delaney, Joe Subject: RE: Pearson Traffic Study Joe- Attached are the Trip Gen numbers we ran. There was one minor discrepancy in LUC 222 PM Peak. The total 28 is correct however it should be 17 entering and 11 exiting verses 5 entering and 23 exiting. However given the size of the development I didn't feel that a difference of 12 vehicles was critical. I would greatly appreciate it if someone from the Town (Peter, Chris or yourself) could contact me prior to the meeting next week to coordinate. It would help both myself and the Town if i know the specific concerns of the board, before I get there. It was my initial understanding that this was a very general initial review of the project to determine if the intersection could accommodate the site traffic and if the project was worth progressing to the full Traffic Study phase, with the understanding that if it moves forward a detailed review of the traffic issues would be completed. However,based on the questions at the last meeting it seemed as though the board was considering this as the final traffic review. John W. Diaz, P.E., P.T.O.E. Assistant Vice President Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (781) 279-5500 ext 3008 cell: (617) 921-9606 jdiaz@gpinet.com -----Original Message----- From: Delaney, Joe [mailto:jdelaney@ci. reading. ma. us] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:58 AM To: John Diaz Subject: FW: Pearson Traffic Study John: Could you get the below requested information to us? Thanks: 11/30/2005 qeq Message Page 2 of 2 Joe Delaney From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:43 AM To: Delaney, Joe Cc: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: Pearson Traffic Study Would you ask John to get us this info so we can include it in the Board of Selectmen packets for Friday? Pete From: Ben Tafoya [mailto: ben@ pla netnw.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 3:02 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Pearson Traffic Study Peter, Could we ask John Diaz to get for us copies of the pages he used from the Trip generation handbook to justify the numbers in the report? I believe it would relate to land use code 820. If need be I would be happy to pick them up from him in Stoneham. Thanks so much, Ben Tafoya Planet Networks Inc. 315 Main Street, Suite 205 Reading, MA 01867 www.Dlanetnw.com ben@,-Dlanetnw.com P: (800) 786-1105 C: (617) 953-2530 ye. S 11/30/2005 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 710 - General Office Building Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Independent Variable (X): 600.000 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY Ln T = 0.77 Ln (X) + 3.65 Ln T = 0.77 Ln 600.000 + (3.65) Ln T = 8.58 T = 5300.92 T = 5,302 vehicle trips with 50% ( 2,651 vph) entering and 50% ( 2,651 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC Ln T = 0.80 Ln (X) + 1.55 Ln T = 0.80 Ln 600.000 + (1.55) Ln T = 6.67 T = 786.46 T= 786 vehicle trips with 88% ( 692 vph) entering and 12% ( 94 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 1. 12 * (X) + 78.81 T= 1.12* 600.000 + (78.81) T= 750.81 T= 751 vehicle trips with 17% ( 128 vph) entering and 83% ( 623 vph) exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T = 2.37 * (X) T= 2.37 * 600.000 T = 1422.00 T = 1,422 vehicle trips with 50% ( 711 vpd) entering and 50% ( 711 vpd) exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR LnT= 0.81 Ln(X)-0.12 Ln T = 0.81 Ln 600.000 - (0.12) Ln T = 5.06 T = 157.83 T = 158 vehicle trips with 50% ( 85 vph) entering and 50% ( 73 vph) exiting. Greetunan-Pedersen, Inc. 600k sf office-a.xls q e, Institute of Transportation Engineers aTE) Land Use Code (LUC) 710 - General Office Building Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Independent Variable (X): 40.000 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY Ln T = 0.77 Ln (X) + 3.65 Ln T = 0.77 Ln 40.000 + (3.65) Ln T = 6.49 T = 658.81 T= 660 vehicle trips with 50% ( 330 vph) entering and 50% ( 330 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC Ln T = 0.80 Ln (X) + 1.55 Ln T = 0.80 Ln 40.000 + (1.55) Ln T = 4.50 T= 90.12 T= 90 vehicle trips with 88% ( 79 vph) entering and 12% ( 11 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 1.12 * (X)+78.81 T= 1.12 * 40.000 + (78.81) T = 123.61 T = 124 vehicle trips with 17% ( 21 vph) entering and 83% ( 103 vph) exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T=2.37*(X) T= 2.37 * 40.000 T= 94.80 T= 96 vehicle trips with 50% ( 48 vpd) entering and 50% ( 48 vpd) exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T = 0.41 * (X) T= 0.41 * 40.000 T = 16.40 T= 16 vehicle trips with 54% ( 9 vph) entering and 46% ( 7 vph) exiting. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 40k sf office.xls 01 qe Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 222 - High-Rise Apartment Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: Dwelling Units Independent Variable (X): 50 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY Ln T = 0.83 Ln (X) + 2.50 Ln T = 0.83 Ln 50 +(2.50) Ln T = 5.75 T = 313.24 T= 314 vehicle trips with 50% ( 157 vph) entering and 50% ( 157 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC Ln T = 0.99 Ln (X) - 1.14 Ln T = 0.99 Ln 50 -(1.14) Ln T = 2.73 T = 15.38 T= 15 vehicle trips with 25% ( 4 vph) entering and 75% ( 11 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T=0.32*(X)+12.30 T = 0.32 * 50 +(12.30) T = 28.30 T= 28 vehicle trips with 61% ( 17 vph) entering and 39% ( 11 vph) exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T = 5.030 * (X) - 14.90 T = 5.030 * 50 -(14.90) T = 236.60 T= 238 vehicle trips with 50% ( 119 vph) entering and 50% ( 119 vph) exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR Ln T = 0.93 Ln (X) - 0.54 Ln T = 0.93 Ln 50 -(0.54) Ln T = 3.10 T = 22.16 T= 22 vehicle trips with 57% ( 13 vph) entering and 43% ( 9 vph) exiting. Highway & Traffic Signal Design, Inc. 50 apartments.xls u C Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 232 - High-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: Dwelling Units Independent Variable (X): 50 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY T = 3.77 (X) + 223.66 T = 3.77 * 50 + (223.66) T = 412.16 T = 412.00 T= 412 vehicle trips with 50% ( 206 vpd) entering and 50% ( 206 vpd) exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T = 0.34 * (X) T= 0.34* 50 T = 17.00 T 18 vehicle trips with 19% ( 3 vpd) entering and 81% ( 15 vpd) exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T=0.38*(X) T = 0.38 * 50 T = 19.00 T= 20 vehicle trips with 62% ( 12 vpd) entering and 38% ( 8 vpd) exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T = 4.31 * (X) T= 4.31 * 50 T = 215.50 T= 216 vehicle trips with 50% ( 108 vpd) entering and 50% ( 108 vpd) exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T = 0.30 * (X) + 28.85 T = 0.30 * 50 +(28.85) T = 43.85 T= 44 vehicle trips with 43% ( 19 vph) entering and 57% ( 25 vph) exiting. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 50 condos.xls qeq Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 310 - hotel Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: Rooms Independent Variable (X): 100 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY T = 8.95 * (X) - 373.16 T= 8.95 * 100 -373.16 T = 521.84 T= 522 vehicle trips with 50% ( 261 vpd) entering and 50% ( 261 vpd) exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC Ln(T) = 1.24 * Ln(X) - 2.00 Ln(T) = 1.24 * 4.605 -2.00 T = 40.87 T = 41 vehicle trips with 61 % ( 25 vph) entering and 39% ( 16 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T=0.59*(X) T=0.59* 100 T = 59.00 T = 59 vehicle trips with 53% ( 31 vph) entering and 47% ( 28 vph) exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T = 9.62 * (X) - 294.56 T= 9.62 * 100 - (294.56) T = 667.44 T= 668 vehicle trips with 50% 334 vpd) entering and 50% ( 334 vpd) exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T= 0.69 *.(X)+4.32 T= 0.69 * 100 +4.32 T = 73.32 T= 73 vehicle trips with 56% ( 41 vph) entering and 44% ( 32 vph) exiting. SUNDAY DAILY Ln(T) = 1.34 * Ln(X) - 0.11 Ln(T) = 1.34 * 4.605 -0.11 T = 428.77 T = 429 vehicle trips with 50% ( 215 vph) entering and 50% ( 214 vph) exiting. SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T = 0.70 * (X) - 29.89 T= 0.70 * 100 -29.89 T = 40.11 T= 40 vehicle trips with 46% ( 18 vph) entering and 54% ( 22 vph) exiting. Greentuan-Pedersen, Inc. 100 room hotel.xls qetv Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 710 - General Office Building Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Independent Variable (X): 208.000 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY Ln T = 0.77 Ln (X) + 3.65 Ln T = 0.77 Ln 208.000 + (3.65) Ln T = 7.76 T = 2344.68 T = 2,346 vehicle trips with 50% ( 1,173 vph) entering and 50% ( 1,173 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC Ln T = 0.80 Ln (X) +-1.55 Ln T = 0.80 Ln 208.000 + (1.55) Ln T = 5.82 T = 336.98 T = 337 vehicle trips with 88% ( 297 vph) entering and 12% ( 40 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 1.12 * (X)+78.81 T = 1.12 * 208.000 + (78.81) T= 311.77 T= 312 vehicle trips with 17% ( 53 vph) entering and 83% ( 259 vph) exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T=2.37*(X) T= 2.37 * 208.000 T = 492.96' T= 494 vehicle trips with 50% ( 247 vpd) entering and 50% ( 247 vpd) exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T = 0.41 * (X) T= 0.41 * 208.000 T = 85.28 T= 85 vehicle trips with 54% ( 46 vph) entering and 46% ( 39 vph) exiting. - Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 208k sf office.xls qep Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 310 - Hotel Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: Rooms Independent Variable (X): 300 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY T = 8.95 * (X) - 373.16 T= 8.95 * 300 -373.16 T = 2311.84 T = 2,312 vehicle trips with 50% ( 1,156 vpd) entering and 50% ( 1,156 vpd) exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC Ln(T) = 1.24 * Ln(X) - 2.00 Ln(T) = 1.24 * 5.704 -2.00 T = 159.60 T= 160 vehicle trips with 61% ( 98 vph) entering and 39% ( 62 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T=0.59*(X) T= 0.59 * 300 T = 177.00 T= 177 vehicle trips with 53% ( 94 vph) entering and 47% ( 83 vph) exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T = 9.62 * (X) - 294.56 T = 9.62 * 300 - (294.56) T = 2591.44 T = 2,592 vehicle trips with 50% ( 1,296 vpd) entering and 50% ( 1,296 vpd) exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T = 0.69 * (X) + 4.32 T= 0.69 * 300 +432 T = 211.32 T= 211 vehicle trips with 56% ( 118 vph) entering and 44% ( 93 vph) exiting. SUNDAY DAILY Ln(T) = 1.34 * Ln(X) - 0.11 Ln(T) = 1.34 * 5.704 -0.11 T = 1868.83 T = 1,869 vehicle trips with 50% ( 935 vph) entering and 50% ( 934 vph) exiting. SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T = 0.70 * (X) - 29.89 T= 0.70 * 300 -29.89 T= 180.11 T= 180 vehicle trips with 46% ( 83 vph) entering and 54% ( 97 vph) exiting. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 300 room hotel.xls Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 820 - Shopping Center Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Independent Variable 400.000 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY Ln T = 0.65 Ln (71) + 5.83 Ln T = 0.65 Ln 400.000 + (5.83) Ln T = 9.72 T= 16721.52 T = 16,722 vehicle trips with 50% ( 8,361 vpd) entering and 50% ( 8,361 vpd) exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC LnT= 0.60LnM+2.29 Ln T = 0.60 Ln 400.000 + (2.29) Ln T = 5.88 T = 359.56 T= 360 vehicle trips with 61% ( 220 vph) entering and 39% ( 140 vph) exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC Ln T = 0.66 Ln (3) + 3.40 Ln T = 0.66 Ln 400.000 + (3.40) Ln T = 7.35 T = 1563.01 T = 1,563 vehicle trips with 48% ( 750 vph) entering and 52% ( 813 vph) exiting. SATURDAY DAILY Ln T = 0.63 Ln M + 6.23 Ln T = 0.63 Ln 400.000 + (6.23) Ln T = 10.00 T = 22128.52 T = 22,130 vehicle trips with 50% ( 11,065 vpd) entering and 50% ( 11,065 vpd) exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR LnT= 0.65LnM+3.77 Ln T = 0.65 Ln 400.000 + (3.77) Ln T = 7.66 T= 2131.22 T = 2,131 vehicle trips with 52% ( 1,108 vph) entering and 48% ( 1,023 vph) exiting. SUNDAY DAILY T = 25.24 * (7) T = 25.24 * 400.000 T = 10096.00 T = 10,096 vehicle trips with 50% ( 5,048 vpd) entering and 50% ( 5,048 vpd) exiting. SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T=3.12*(X) T= 3.12 * 400.000 T = 1248.00 T = 1,248 vehicle trips with 49% ( 612 vpd) entering and 51 % ( 636 vpd) exiting. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 400k sf Shopping Center.xls q,e Mall at Addison Wesley Hechenblefter, Peter From: Dieselman, Ken [DPYUS] [KDieselm@DPYUS.JNJ.COMj Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:07 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Mall at Addison Wesley I live on Walnut St, not far from the site and absolutely believe this is the wrong project for this site. Page 1 of 1 I read Ms. Binda's editorial in this week's paper, and while I'm sure the traffic numbers can be debated, we should all be able to see there will be a significant negative impact to the area. Since moving to the area 7 yrs ago, there has been condo development off South St, extensive building in process at the end of South St (West St?), and now this proposed project. This is clearly a residential area, with many houses close by and many children. South and Walnut have been resurfaced, resulting in a higher and faster traffic pattern, with no sidewalks. This area needs solutions that improve traffic flow and quality of life (sidewalks, enforcement, etc), not more problems. We don't need more stores, upscale or otherwise. Plently exist in nearby towns, and maintaining those downtown is difficult currently. Listen to other development suggestions, this is not the answer. Further development. in this area will negatively impact real estate as the families with children, and others, decide this is not why we live in Reading. Thank you. Regards Ken Diesehman Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net) 12/2/2005 qe,iq Page 1 of 2 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Diemer, Christopher [diemerc@hmc.harvard.edu] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 11:05 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Redevelopment To the Board of Selectmen / Town of Reading: I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong opposition to the re-zoning of the Addison-Wesley site for future use as a large scale retail development. I firmly believe this development if allowed to go through would drastically alter the character and livability of the entire town, not just the half that will be immediately overrun and negatively changed forever. The idea that we would be home to a facility of that size and scope would instantly put us in the category of Burlington and Danvers, places where they have made a conscientious choice to be retail centers. Reading is not a retail center. People do not move and live here to be close to shopping. People move here because it is a bedroom community close to Boston, with a sense of community, a downtown that is on the rise, and an excellent school system. I think the priorities of the Selectmen and Town Planner should be to enhance and uphold these goals, not continue the process of undermining them. I understand that Addison Wesley was used as an office park. That is what it is currently zoned for. As much as the developer tries to paint a picture that traffic overall would improve with this development, the resulting changes to Rt. 28 and the surrounding roadways would be devastating to the look and feel of south Reading. I think it is much more livable and acceptable to have traffic patterns that peak twice a day during the week, than peaks every evening and every weekend. These are times spent we are most out and about in Reading, times when our children are at play, times when we are taking advantage of the community we live in. I do not even mention the holiday season and other times when traffic will be off the charts. I think everyone knows this but the developer always seems to down play it as a once a year occurrence. That is just not true. Go to the Burlington Mall any Saturday afternoon and see the traffic in that area. We are talking about a much more open and isolated area in Burlington, much like the area of the Hingham "Lifestyle Center" the developer continually touts in its presentations. Apply that kind of scale to heavily dense Reading and imagine the scene. I listened to the peer review traffic study and was appalled at the lack of independence of the traffic engineer hired. They seemed to have worked for the developer in the past, and would probably be up for future business. I did not put any credence into those finding as they seemed unable to point out one problem with the plan. It was almost comical that he tried to assure everyone that traffic would move seamlessly as long as the traffic lights were timed properly. I was wondering if he was from this area. I see plenty of traffic lights all over the place and they seem to do very little to alleviate the gridlock we deal with on a daily basis. I guess it will be better because this location is not so busy ...it only lies within a couple of hundred yards of one of the busiest interchanges in the state of Massachusetts. Please be very skeptical of the data and analysis presented to you from the developer and those aligned with them. Their interests are very different from Readings. Pearson decided to pull its operations out of Reading knowing what the property was zoned for. It was already changed once at their request to help sell the property. It is within feet of a very densely populated neighborhood, many with small children. It is not the Town of Reading's responsibility to bail out a large conglomerate by changing its zoning restrictions, to make their property more marketable. I must ask why we even have zoning regulations if a company can change them at their whim to accommodate the highest bidder, and to add to their bottom line. Pearson has made business decisions along the way on this property and they must deal with those consequences regardless of the economic climate. If the property is not as marketable now, it is not the town's responsibility to bail them out. They must wait for a better time to sell, or go back to the drawing board and come up with a better alternative, as any individual trying to sell their own home would have to do. I would more than welcome a development at the site that fits current zoning, or better protects the neighborhoods abutting the site, and just as importantly, the character and livability of Reading. I have listed just several arguments on how this project is wrong for Reading. I know you will hear many more from residents all over Reading in the coming months. Please take that to heart and protect the people you were elected to represent, and not the outside developer who wants to make a dollar, with little regard to how that will impact the town. How many of them live in Reading, or the neighborhood's they are about to destroy. 12/2/2005 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Sent: To: Subject: nancy schena [schena2@hotmail.com] Friday, December 02, 2005 8:37 AM Reading - Selectmen addison wesley project I must strongly object to an "upscale mall" at the Addison Wesley site. It is insane to even consider altering the traffic lanes as proposed for this site. I live at 87 Hopkins street; and there are times I can sit for a lengthy time before I am able to take a left onto Hopkins. We have added a new gas station at the corner of Hopkins and Main which will impact the ability of those of us who live off Hopkins to enter and exit Main street. What happened to beautifying south Main street??!! Why can't Reading purchase some of the land for open space/playing fields?? Why must the entrance to Reading resemble route 1. Honkey Tonk city - here we come. Sincerely Nancy Schena 87 Hopkins Street 781-944-5302 i ye+~ Hechenbleikner, Peter From: stanley karandanis [karandanis@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 02, 200512:13 PM To: gwelsh@winhosp.org; dkarandanis@att.net Cc: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison-Wesley site Glen Thanks for getting back to me. Reading is facing a crisis in what to do with the Addison-Wesley Property at the corner of South Street and Route 28. The Property is also parallel to route 95 (128) on the southbound Lane. I know that the hospital has been expanding and is currently Land locked in Winchester. The Addison facility occupies about 25 acres of land and I see no better use for this land then for the expansion of the Hospital, which serves the surrounding communities. What Reading does not need is another shopping maul stitched between the Burlington, North shore, Redstone and now the north street Home depot. I think that the neighbors Would prefer a hospital then Wal-Mart etc, at least I would. See If the Hospital is interested Stan Karandanis 197 South Streets Reading, Ma 01867 Karandanis@netscape.net 781-944-5536 qeJ9 215 DE'i a2 M 40= 25 November 10, 2005 Mr. Peter Heckenblecker And Board of Selectmen Town of Reading RE: The Lifestyle Center Proposal for Downtown Reading Ladies & Gentlemen: It was a pleasure speaking with you and getting an update regarding the developments for improving the Town of Reading. As one of the founders of the Downtown Steering Committee, almost 10 years ago, I was particularly impressed with two new exciting opportunities for Reading. The first is the funding for our downtown revitalization; money for infrastructure improvements could not be timelier. New walks, lighting and improved pedestrian traffic will enhance the area and attract additional retail opportunities. It is exciting to see the success of our existing businesses and I am honored that I was a part of this process. The second is W/S Development Associates' lifestyle center proposal. The proposal provides a great opportunity to enhance our efforts downtown and along Route 28, and will increase the overall appeal and desirability of the Town of Reading. I cannot say enough about how fortunate Reading is to have this opportunity in our Town. Over the years, I've had the pleasure of working with W/S Development Associates. They are one of the most well-respected and professional retail real estate developers in the country. They possess the knowledge, experience and expertise necessary to make this project an asset to our town. They will not only provide a shopping center of the highest quality but also improve the surrounding area. W/S Development Associates is committed to their projects and to the communities they serve. Just take a look at the project in Hingham. The residents and town are thrilled with this development. It is a huge success and a benefit to all. The proposed lifestyle center will enhance our community and bring much needed revenue to our Town as well as grow business in the Route 28 area and downtown. In the industry, we call this the "halo effect." Business outside the lifestyle center will see increased activity. The project is approximately 400,000 square feet. This is roughly 20% larger than Redstone Plaza, and will have an upscale community-oriented village/town center appeal. It will be very well managed, landscaped and maintained. Lots of landscaping, community events, music and special marketing events will bring a new life to the area. It will be a great place for our teens and mothers to work, our community to gather, and of course, to shop and eat. Some great restaurants and shops are eager to be here. ~{e1q This project is also a great opportunity to improve the intersection of Route 28 and South Street, which desperately needs to be re-engineered. As a gateway to Reading, it is also sorely in need of visual improvement. I expect that the developer will pay for these intersection improvements. As is generally the case with retail projects like this one, the majority of traffic will occur on Saturday mornings and holidays. And, because most customers will most likely be from out of town and frequenting the shops only once or twice per week, they will be less likely to create cut- through traffic on local roads. As with any change and development, there are pros and cons. I am sure there are many people who would like things to remain status quo. But, this is not realistic. The best opportunity for the Town of Reading is at our doorstep. It is a low-density, specialty use that does not add a burden to our schools or municipal services. It creates great tax revenue with minimal impact. I strongly urge you to support this project. Sincer Susan DiGiovanni Commercial Real Estate Broker -7~ :Fdol 'r ,fie,-° 1 ] PH. C f Iwo {K } i I The Retail Team I'1 /'R ■ ~',i~ I~iJ11'.7/!! L~, I'\ \ 1. . 7 ; h'J"l , / III\ A~ E Erb iii f. - Relationship-Driven... ...Client-Directed yezl t~ F Oct 1 I 4 Bassett' a l A BELL- , f ? Mi sushi Curtain & Path Uutlct n r nrn m:.+u•xrc'ca. "u pr u m• I I Y I I 1 1 I i( Goddard(( School e Completed Transactions The Container Store, Natick, MA Walgreens, East Longmeadow, MA Pizzeria Uno, Fairhaven, MA Anchor Plaza, Hingham; MA Carver Crossing, Carver, MA Contact Information 25 Garden Park Braintree, MA 02184 Phone 781.848.1550 Fax 781.848.4980 www.paramountpartners.com q e - ax, Bassett Furniture, Natick, MA Golfers' Warehouse, Natick, MA Richard L. Pilla, Principal rpilla@paramountpartners.com Richard Pilla is a Founding Member of Paramount Partners, LLC and Director of its Retail Brokerage Ser- vices Division. Mr. Pilla's areas of expertise include: tenant representation; property assemblage; site se- lection; landlord representation and development consulting. Richard has completed transactions in a mul- titude of venues from urban storefronts to regional power centers. He has successfully completed numer- ous assignments for regional and national companies including Walgreen's, Blockbuster Video, Supercuts, Applebee's, Taco Bell, Sierra Grille, Denny's, Boston Market, Starbucks, Hallmark, Kinkos, Card$mart and Laundromax. Mr. Pilla is an active member of ICSC and is a Member of its Alliance Program Committee. Deborah J. Meyers, CCIM, Principal dmeyers@paramountpartners.com Deborah Meyers, CCIM is a Principal of Paramount Partners and has been in the commercial real estate in- dustry since 1988. She currently represents 1.7 million s.f. of retail and mixed use properties in New Eng- land. Deborah specializes in landlord representation, center repositioning and investment sales. She has been involved in numerous projects ranging from strip centers to grocery anchored centers, to big box rede- velopment. She has also completed many transactions in the office, industrial and multifamily segments. Ms. Meyers is a member of the New England CCIM chapter, ICSC and NEWIRE (New England Women in Real Estate). Ms. Meyers has a B.S. in Business Administration from the University of New Hampshire. Susan DiGiovanni, Senior Associate sdigiovanni@paramountpartners.com Susan DiGiovanni has over 20 years experience in commercial real estate. Susan has integrated her skills as a corporate director of national retail tenants into a successful brokerage career. She has negotiated over 500 lease/sales, totaling over 1,000,000 sf and $100 million worth of value. Recent transactions in- clude Kohls, Christmas Tree Shops, The Container Store, Bassett Furniture, La Z Boy, Bally's Fitness, and Applebees. She works with national developers such as Simon Properties, SR Weiner and General Growth, and has successfully completed leasing and investment projects on shopping centers of up to 200,000 square feet. Andrew G. Konica, Associate abonica@paramountpartners.com Andrew G. Bonica is an Associate and Member of the Paramount Partners, LLC Retail Team. He is an active Member of ICSC {International Council of Shopping Centers), as well as a member of ICSC's Next Generation Committee for Massachusetts. Mr. Bonica's primary areas of specialization are retail tenant representation, shopping center leasing, and acquisition & disposition of real property focusing on the New England market. Mr. Bonica represents sev- eral national tenants in their New England rollout and expansion programs. Mike d'Hemecourt, Investment Sales Associate mdhemecourt@paramountpartners.com Mike d'Hemecourt, Associate and Member of the Paramount Partners LLC Retail Team, specializes primar- ily in retail investment sales. He is a member of ICSC (International Council of Shopping Centers). Prior to returning to Boston and joining Paramount Partners LLC, Mr. d'Hemecourt began his investment sales experience working with Marcus & Millichap's Philadelphia office. Mike received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston College, where he studied communications, marketing and graphic design while also playing varsity lacrosse. qe2wq ARTICLE 3 - LICENSES Adopted 5-25-04 Section 3.1- General Procedures and Conditions for Issuance of licenses 3.1.1- Application procedures Applicants for initial issuance or renewal of licenses issued by the Board of Selectmen shall submit an application on a standard form as provided by the Town. The applicant shall have the responsibility to complete all information on the form completely and accurately, and under oath, and shall provide with the application all necessary information in order for the Town to determine whether all requirement(s) of the license in accordance with Town or state regulations or bylaws are complied with. These requirements may include but not be limited to: ➢ A sworn statement that the applicant has paid all taxes and fees, and other moneys owed to the Town of Reading for any services, ➢ All required performance bonds, if any, are on file; ➢ A certificate of Workers Compensation is on file. The Board of Selectmen may request information from any .other Department, Board, Committee, or Commission in considering the granting and/or renewal of a license. The Board in ay review the record of any complaints or problems regarding the licensee and/or the licensed premises, and shall take such complaints into account in considering whether or not to issue or renew the license. 3.1.2 - License Period Unless otherwise provided, licenses shall be issued for a 12 month calendar year, beginning on January 1. An application for a new license shall be issued for the remainder of the calendar year. Fees shall be charged for the entire calendar year even if the license is effective for only a portion of the calendar year. 3.1.3 - License restricted to the Premises for which it is issued Except for taxi and livery vehicle licenses, an application for a license shall be specific as to the location, including street number and address, for which the license is issued. The licensed activity may not be moved to any other location without approval of the licensing authority. 3.1.4 - Reauirement that licensees maintain their properties and businesses in accordance with all conditions. Bylaws, rules, and regulations of the Town of Readine durin'a the term of the license. Every business licensed by the Town of Reading, whether listed below or not, shall at all tunes during the term of their license, maintain the property and conduct their business in accordance with all conditions of the license, as well as in conformity with all policies, rules, regulations, and bylaws of the Town of Reading. All licensees shall maintain their premises in a clean and business-like condition that is conducive to public health and safety. 3.1.5 - Conditions on Licenses The Town may place reasonable conditions on the issuance of any license issued pursuant to these policies, to provide for public safety, health, welfare, and the promotion of public order. 3.1.6 - Delegation to the Town Manager the authority to issue certain licenses. / 1 The Board of Selectmen may, annually, delegate to the Town Manager the authority to issue and renew any or all licenses covered by this policy, except for the issuance and annual renewal of liquor licenses. When the Board of Selectmen chooses to delegate this authority, the Board of Selectmen will be notified of the granting and/or renewal of such licenses at their next regular meeting following the issuance or renewal. Prior to approving a renewal, the Town Manager will make certain that all conditions of the license have been met, and that all other appropriate measures are complied with to ensure that the licensee is in compliance with all bylaws, rules, regulations and practices of the Town of Reading. If an issue has been raised by the Board of Selectmen regarding the issuance or renewal of a license, the Town Manager shall not issue or renew the license but it shall be referred back to the Board of Selectmen for their review and action. 3.1.7 - Susuension. Modification. or Revocation of Licenses The Town may suspend, modify, or revoke any license issued under these policies for failure to meet any of the requirements of these policies, or failure to meet any conditions placed on the license. The licensee is entitled to due process as provided by law, which may include written notice of any violation and a hearing,. Adopted 10-27-86, Revised 12-13-94, Revised 12-5-95, Revised 5-25-04 NFZ' COMMON VICTUALLER'S LICENSE Aroma Cafe Bagel World Bangkok Spice Thai Restaurant Bear Rock Cafe Burger King Cafe Capri Casa Bakery Chili's Grill & Bar Christopher's Restaurant Colombo's Pizza & Cafe Dandi-Lyons Domino's Pizza Dunkin' Donuts (85 Main St.) Dunkin' Donuts (237A Salem St.) Dunkin' Donuts (454 Main St.) Hong Kong Restaurant Emperor's Choice Restaurant Finagle A Bagel Green Tomato Gregory's Deli and Subs Harrows Hot Spot in Reading Inside Scoop Jimbo's Roast Beef & Seafood Jimmy's Roast Beef, Pizza & Subs Knights of Columbus Last Corner Restaurant Mandarin Reading Restaurant McDonald's Owes personal property taxes Owes real estate taxes and water/sewer Owes personal property taxes Meadow Brook Golf Club Meadow Brook Golf Club Snack Bar Music Room Coffee House Pizza World Reading Ice Arena Authority Reading Overseas Veterans/VFW Reading Station Coffee Depot Reading Veterans Assoc./American Legion Richardson's Ice Cream Romano's Macaroni Grill Savory Tastes. Cafe Starbucks Coffee, 228 Main Street Starbucks Coffee, 24 Walkers Brook Drive TASC Town Pizza and Deli Venetian Moon Restaurant q F3 CLASS I MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE 128 Sales Inc. d/b/a 128 Ford CLASS II MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE 128 Tire Brown's Auto Repair Cann Motors Reading Auto Sales Reading Foreign Motors Gasco, Inc. d/b/a Reading Motors Owes real estate taxes Reading Square Auto Body, Inc. CLASS III MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE North Reading Auto & Recon, Inc. d/b/a Gray's Towing AUTOMATIC AMUSEMENT DEVICES LICENSE Jordan's Duck Tour Derby Knights of Columbus Reading Overseas Veterans/VFW Reading Veterans/American Legion ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE Cafe Capri Chili's Grill & Bar Colombo's Pizza and Cafe Emperor's Choice Restaurant I-Max Theater Knights of Columbus Mandarin Reading Restaurant Meadow Brook Golf Club Reading Veterans/American Legion Reading Overseas Veterans/VFW Savory Tastes Cafe Venetian Moon Owes personal property taxes LAUNDOMAT LICENSE Lava Laundry Town Taxi of Reading Big Boy Limo Pram, Inc. TAXI LICENSE LIVERY LICENSE HFy Reading Police Department James W. Cormier, Chief of Police MEMORANDUM Date: November 3, 2005 To: Town Manager's Office Cc: Lillian Marino From: Police Chief Jim Cormier RE: Renewal of licenses 2006 Q#Ww Entertainment, Amusement, Laundromat, Taxi & Livery, Class 1, 111111 Motor Vehicles. Approved By: Chief C rmier 9" Approval Initials U v The Police Department has reviewed the applications, and business listings for license renewal, and would recommend approval of all licenses. yFS Board of Selectmen Meeting November 1, 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 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Camille Anthony, Secretary Joseph Duffy, Selectmen James Bonazoli and Ben Tafoya, Public Works Director Ted McIntire, Highway Supervisor Mike deBrigard, Assistant Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Paula Schena and the following list of interested parties: Bill Brown, Patrick Fennelly, Margaret O'Sullivan, Rhonda Holt, Kristin Cota, Janice Jones, Jim Queeney, Dave Talbot, Jen Laconti, John Stoze, John Ward, Kevin Cignetti, Scott Miller, Tom Lemons. Reuorts and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that the Ad Hoc Health Insurance Task Force met last week and produced a report to Town Meeting. He will give a preview to the Board of Selectmen next week. He also noted that nobody came for the Office Hours. He noted that the raised manholes on Summer Avenue and West Street were very painful. Selectman James Bonazoli noted that the situation on West Street and Summer Avenue was very confusing with cones, etc. He asked if there was any way to guide the contractor to completion. He also noted that there are telephone poles in front of Joshua Eaton. Selectman Joseph Duffy noted that the Light Department has been removing poles. Chairman Camille Anthony noted that the RMLD tools down their wires and the phone and cable is next. Chairman Camille Anthony noted that she received a Reverse 911 call regarding overnight parking, and she also received a letter from the MMA regarding health insurance. Public Comment - Bill Brown handed out a map that showed five lots. He noted that Lots 34 and 35 are now Lots 122 and 123. Glendale intersected with Goldspring and Hillside. The original lot numbers were at Chapman Park. He also noted that Oakland Road was Tower Road. In 1937, Town Meeting granted the Board of Selectmen permission to sell. Town Manager's Retort The Town Manager gave the following report: ♦ The good news on smoking enforcement - The check on restaurants and other workplaces - Reading was in 100% compliance. The bad news - Three tobacco vendors sold cigarettes to minors the week of October 26th: Cumberland Farms, Brooks Pharmacy on Haven Street and for the second time this year, X's Market on Main Street. ♦ Reading's application for the MWRA supplemental water buy-in is scheduled for action on November 16th by the MWRA Board. ♦ Overnight parking ban starts November 1St . . S°L Board of Selectmen Meeting - November 1. 2005 - Paae 2 Middlesex County's Work Release Program: Fall clean-up crew are scheduled to be available to the Housing Authority for two weeks begiruzing Monday, November 7th ending Thursday, November 18, 2005 (they will not be on site on Friday, November 11th). During this time, the crew will be, for the most part, at our elderly complex on Tanner Drive the second week of schedule. ♦ We have received a check from Maplewood Development in the amount of $12,000 to develop a walking trail in the Track Road area so Article 12 on the Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant can be acted upon. e Staff met with resident representatives of "original" Sanborn Lane, and we have agreement on how to proceed. ♦ Construction progress report: s Summer Avenue (D&R) - Structures are being raised, loaming tree lawn areas, prep for final pouring of sidewalk areas. Paving scheduled for next week ♦ Willow Street (D&R) - Remove and reset curbing, prep sidewalks for pouring, raising structures. Paving scheduled for next week. o Winthrop Avenue - Highway Division completed overlay. ♦ Archstone - On-site water main construction ongoing, testing and disinfecting completed sections. West and South Street paving scheduled for this Friday. Johnson Woods - On-site water main ongoing (need to complete loop to Enos Circle). Maplewood Village - All water mains and services completed/tested. ♦ West Street Water Main - Main and services completed/tested, final patch ongoing, will discuss redoing some of the final patch ("wash boarding" effect in some sections). s HiLjhwav Division Overlavs to complete - Sections of Wentworth Road, Lincoln Street, Fulton Street and Libby Avenue. ♦ Berkelev Street/Gleason Road/Greenwood Road,- (Brox) - Base course was completed today, next they will raise structures, install leveling course and top course. Paving next week Memorial Park - Cut down overgrowth adjacent to One Charles Street property. Playground purchased and installation expected by the end of the month. o Snow - First sanding operation of the season - Saturday, October 29th! Discussion/Action Items Hishliahts Snow Plowing - Public Works Director Ted McIntire and Highway Supervisor Mike deBrigard were present. Ted McIntire noted that there are 101 miles of roads in Reading. We budgeted $324,700 for snow plowing but the average is $437,200. The Town has 64 plow units. Ted McIntire noted that Mike deBrigard makes the call on when to sand. He works closely with the Police Department. The decision to plow depends on how much predicted and the speed of the storm. There are 26 plow routes and three tandem routes in Town. The circles and dead ends are done by pick-up trucks. Sidewalk plowing includes 45 miles of schools and seven miles of businesses. The cost of sanding is $315/hour, plowing is $4750/hour, removal of snow is $1560/hour. An 8" storm costs $78,000. Ted McIntire noted that residents shouldn't shovel into the street or sidewalk, and vehicles that hinder snow removal will be ticketed and towed. Board of Selectmen Meeting - November 1. 2005 - Page 3 Hearing - No narking. standing. storming on north side of Melbourne between Summer and Buckingham - The Secretary read the hearing notice. The Town Manager noted that people are parking on the tree lawn, and parking needs to be restricted on one side or the other. The Chief recommends the north side to keep walkers on the same side as the Crossing Guards. There is an issue of hedges on the south side. Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that the bushes also create a blind spot. Margaret O'Sullivan of 78 Sunnyside Avenue noted that the residents feel very strongly about restricting the parking on the south side, and she handed in a petition with 100 signatures. She also noted that the Crossing Guard is on the south side and people don't drop off on Melbourne - they park. Rhonda Holt of 46 Fairview Avenue noted that snow is an issue. A Kensington Avenue resident noted that the bushes are an issue. Kristin Cota of 9 Cumberland Road noted that the neighbors on the south side take better care of the walkway. A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafova to close the hearing on no ,parking/standing/stopping on the north side of Melbourne between Summer and Buckingham Drive was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafova to amend the Traffic Rules and Regulations adobted March 28. 1995. as amended. by adding to Appendix A the following, regulation: "No sto in . standing or narking - South side of Melbourne Avenue between Summer Avenue and Buckingham Drive" was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Hearing - Parking/Traffic Reaulations - Bancroft Avenue between Woburn and Mt. Vernon: four wav stow at Bancroft Avenue and Mt. Vernon - The Town Manager noted that this was related to the site walk. A resident of 28 Mt. Vernon Street indicated that she was opposed to a four way stop. The fumes will go into her home. She noted that there have not been many accidents. A four way stop gives the connotation of a busy neighborhood and could effect the price of her home. Janice Jones of 22 Mt. Vernon Street noted that no parking on one side of Bancroft is very helpful, and doesn't think a four way stop will be helpful. The problem is that people are parking on the corners. She suggested putting up signs for no parking to corner. Jim Queeney of 28 Mt. Vernon Street noted that a two way stop is fine. A four way stop will stall traffic and increase pollution. He also noted that signs are not needed regarding parking on the corner they should be towed or ticketed. He noted that making Chute Street a one way has increased the traffic on Bancroft. He is opposed to having Chute Street one way, and is in favor of no parking on the east side. 54L3 Board of Selectmen Meeting - November 1. 2005 - Page 4 Dave Talbot of 75 Linden Street noted that there are far more cars on Linden Street than on Chute or Bancroft Avenue. Jen Laconti of Bancroft Avenue indicated that a four way stop at Bancroft Avenue is not needed. John Stoze of 35 Bancroft Avenue noted that stopping on Bancroft Avenue on snow and ice is not a good idea. He will also have to listen to trucks starting and stopping at 6:00 a.m. John Ward of 14 Bancroft Avenue noted that his car got hit on Bancroft. He also noted that . everyone is using it since Chute Street became one way. He noted that the stop sign on the corner of Mt. Vernon is on the left hand side of the street. A motion by Tafova seconded by Bonazoli to continue the hearing to November 22. 2005 at 8:00 D.M. was anuroved by a vote of 4-0-0. Report of Lighting Consultant - Jordan's - Tom Lemons from TLA Lighting Consultants was present. The Town Manager noted that the Town hired Mr. Lemons as a consultant, and he met with the Town Manager, Camille Anthony and James Bonazoli on site and did a site walk with residents. Mr. Lemons reviewed the definition of certain negative lighting terms. He noted that spill light falls outside the boundaries of the property for which the lighting installation is designed. Light trespass is unwanted light that enters a neighbors' property. Light pollution is light directed or reflected upward to the sky resulting in sky glow. Obtrusive light is all of the above with glare. Glare is the sensation produced by luminances that causes annoyance, discomfort or loss in visual performance and visibility. Mr. Lemons noted that it is impossible to get rid of everything. He stopped at Lakeview and Eaton Street, and realized that it is down low so you have to look up at the lights. He also noted that there are five problems: 1. If you can see the front lens, then there will be glare. 2. The facade at Jordan's is lit brighter than it should be. 3. The brighter facade washes out the movie sign. 4. The height of the building is above the horizon and will always be a problem. 5. The canopy lighting needs to be justified. Mr. Lemons noted that there are 33, 400 watt fixtures going up into the sky. The energy code maximum is .25 watts per square foot, so the Jordan's lights are in excess of .50 watts per square foot per the State code. The parking lot and lights up the roadway were the only lights approved by the Town. The fixtures need to be tipped down to no more than a 60% angle. A visor should be added. It the lights are tilted down, then Jordan's will lose lighting in the center of the parking lot, but more lighting can be added on concrete blocks. The marquee lights should be LED. Sxq Board of Selectmen Meeting - November 1. 2005 - Page 5 Mr. Lemons suggests that the Town talk to Jordan's. and see if they are willing to do this. He noted that to re-aim, tilt correctly and add visors to the lights going up the roadway would cost approximately $150 - $200 per light. The 27 fixtures in the parking lot are tilted too high and need to be tilted down and visors put on them. Some lights are not aimed as the "as built plan" shows, and is sending a beam of light into the neighborhood. Selectman James Bonazoli asked if he was suggesting bringing the lights down lower, and Mr. Lemons indicated that he was not. He noted that more lighting is needed in the parking lot. They don't have three candles now and tilting will make it worse. Chairman Camille Anthony asked how many additional lights were needed in the parking lot, and Mr. Lemons indicated about six to eight fixtures. Chairman Anthony asked about the cost, and Mr. Lemons noted that the pole and fixture is $1000 - $2000 plus the cost of the conduit and base. Mr. Lemons noted that Jordan's could save money by changing the type bulbs on the marquee. They are using the wrong fixture for the facade lighting. A 150 watt bulb could be used on the facade in order to meet the energy code, but they would need to change the ballast. Kevin Cignetti of 13 Smith Avenue noted that he doesn't want more lights in the parking lot, and asked if they could be installed at four feet high. Mr. Lemons indicated that they could but it won't achieve the lighting needed. He noted that if the present lights were tilted down with visors, then they wouldn't be seen from Smith and Carnation Circle. Scott Miller of 6D Carnation Circle asked if all of the perimeter lights could be eliminated and get the required number of foot candles. Mr. Lemons indicated that they could but they would have to add poles. Scott Miller asked what the Town plans to do regarding the violation of the facade lights. The Town Manager noted that the plans will be sent back for plan review. Mr. Lemons noted that the code is not enforced in Massachusetts. The Town Manager noted that he will take the material and review it with Jordan's, and we will hire Mr. Lemons for more money. Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that the lighting is in no way what was brought before CPDC. The Town Manager noted that the original plan that went to CPDC would have been worse than what is there now if it was followed. Chairman Camille Anthony asked about Home Depot, and Mr. Lemons noted that they were okay. The Board directed the Town Manager to work with Jordan's and Dickinson to resolve the issues. Hearing Amendments to Board of Selectmen's Policies. Sections 5 and 6 and Affordable. Housing Local Preference - The Secretary read the hearing notice. say' Board of Selectmen Meeting - November 1. 2005 - Paae 6 The Town Manager reviewed the changes to Sections 5 and 6 of the Board of Selectmen Policies. A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafova to close the hearinsJ amendine the Board of Selectmen Policies Sections 5 and 6 including the Affordable Housing Local Preference was apuroved by a vote of 4-0-0. A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafova to annrove the amendments to the Board of Selectmen Policies Sections 5 and 6 includincr the Affordable Housing Local Preference was annroved by a vote of 4-0-0. Follow Un - Curtis/GeoTLye Street - The Town Manager noted that he suggest putting a "not a through street" sign on the southwest corner of George and Curtis Street. A motion by Tafova seconded by Duffv to adjourn the meetine of November 1. 2005 at 10:55 D.M. was annroved by a vote of 4-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Sa` Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&i.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen ~ n FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: December 1, 2005 RE: Executive Session Minutes TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-6643 Listed on the Selectmen's agenda, pursuant to Selectmen's Policy are a number of Executive Session minutes that I have released. These minutes will be included in the regular minute book for the Board of Selectmen. The reason for these being kept separate no longer exists - the labor negotiations have been settled, litigation has been resolved or any other reason for Executive Session is no longer there. PIH/ps THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Number: 2005-5 TOWN OF READING This is to ,certify that AUSTIN PREPARATORY SCHOOL, 101 WILLOW STREET, READING, MASS. THE ABOVE NAMED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION IS HEREBY GRANTED A SPECIAL ONE-DAY LICENSE ]FOR THE SALE OF ALL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO BE SERVED ON THE PREMISES AT A FUNCTION ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2005 BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6:30 P.M. -11:30 P.M. Under Chapter 138, Section 14, of the Liquor Control Act. This permission is granted in conformity, with the Statutes and Ordinances relating . thereto and expires at 11:30 p.m., November 25, 2005, unless suspended or revoked. a` Fee: $50.00 3 Date Issued: November 21, 2005 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Number: 2005-54 Fee: $50.00 TOWN OF READING This is to certify that EASTERN CHINESE RESTAURANT, 672 MAIN STREET, seating 20 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 3.6 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. r 1 Date Issued: November 25, 2*005 i z s y r ,.,,A1 I.. „1y r„U 1. .1 - +I 4 1, 11►..y y M I~I.~VI 4. ...1, o r, BRADLEY H. JONES, JR. STATE REPRESENTATIVE MINORITY LEADER gze mute ~ ~~~G 1ac~u1ett1 ~~cte ~.au~e, ~adtar~ 02/.~.~- X054 Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Town of Reading Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: LlC Icy SS~04C 201" MIDDLESEX DISTRICT READING • NORTH READING LYNNFIELD • MIDDLETON ROOM 124 TEL. (617) 722-2100 Rep. Brad ley-lonesOhou.state.ma.us ~.n C=) November 10, 2005 00 t~ Thank you for your letter dated October 28, 2005 regarding the proposed implementation of a Storm Water Management Enterprise Fund and a related Storm Water Management Fee in the Town of Reading. As you know I do not have enforcement or oversight powers with respect to the issues addressed in your letter, I am not in a position to render you an independent opinion on this subject. However, I am happy to facilitate your request for formal opinions from the Department of Revenue and the Auditor,.who oversee taxation and unfunded mandates, respectively. I have forwarded correspondence to the Department of Revenue to confirm whether the proposed Storm Water Management Fee would constitute a fee or a tax. The Department of Revenue is in the best position to generate an opinion for the town in this regard. However, I would caution you that, as this is a question which could only be answered conclusively by a court of law in the context of litigation, an opinion rendered by DOR might be persuasive and guiding authority but might not constitute binding precedent. I have also sent correspondence to the State Auditor to request that he, through his Division of Local Mandates, investigate whether the imposition of storm water management requirements is an unfunded mandate and that he report his findings to me. Your letter asked for me to work with the Inspector General in this regard; however, the Auditor is the officer charged with such duties. I hope this information is helpful to you. I shall keep you appropriately advised of any responses I receive to these questions. r' g ~O~/ZGG4~°CZGG/2 GL~~1CLGfZLG1B~~1 Z f c~' OG4lb.1c a~~~7.1 c.1G%LL'(J.tL(fe.J ' ~ JGCLIc ~,n. ~L.~c, ~vasL`cvz 02/3'.x- 7054 m~ 20"' MIDDLESEX DISTRICT BRADLEY H. JONES, JR. READING • NORTH READING WNNFIELD • MIDDLETON STATE REPRESENTATIVE ROOM 124 MINORITY LEADER TEL. (617) 722-2100 Rep.BradleyJones©hou.state.ma.us November 10, 2005 A. Joseph DeNucci, State Auditor Office of the State Auditor The State House, Room 229 Boston, MA 02133 Dear Auditor DeNucci: Officials in the Town of Reading have brought to my attention the fact that state and federal mandates require cities and towns in Massachusetts to impose rigorous storm water management plans. Most of these requirements flow from the. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection having oversight of compliance with the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Often the cost of compliance with these mandates is very high, placing substantial burden on already-strained municipal resources. I am writing to ask you, through your Division of Local Mandates, to investigate the issue of whether compliance with storm water management mandates is a requirement which should be funded by the state and to render your opinion to my office to be forwarded on to the town. Thank you for your investigation of this matter. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. H. Jones, Jr. Leader encs. cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager ,opa02/ 9 = W W 6~,ai~~c a~~c~u~9cratatiucD Mate e~fa~~~ a~tcvz a- 70 ♦O N~ oJew 20"' MIDDLESEX DISTRICT BRADLEY H. JONES, JR. READING • NORTH READING LYNNFIELD - MIDDLETON STATE REPRESENTATIVE ROOM 124 MINORITY LEADER TEL. (617) 722-2100 Rep.BradleyJonesOhou.state.ma.us November 10, 2005 Larry Modestow, Chief Rulings and Regulations Division Department of Revenue PO Box 9566 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Mr. Modestow: I write to solicit the formal opinion of the Department of Revenue as to whether a funding mechanism for a storm water management program to be implemented in the Town of Reading would constitute a fee or a tax. The United States Environmental Protection Agency requires the Town of Reading to comply with the NPDES Phase II Storm Water General Permit. The estimated preliminary budget for compliance with the permit is $541,000. In order to fund this budget, the town is considering implementation of a storm water management fee which would be assessed against residential and commercial properties and deposited into an enterprise fund. The fee would be a flat fee of $60/year for single-family and two-family dwellings. Multi-family, dwellings (three-family and larger) would be assessed a fee based on the total impervious area, up to a limit of $60 per unit. Commercial/industrial properties would be assessed a fee based on the total impervious area on the lot or $60, whichever is greater. Undeveloped land would not be assessed a fee. . The town would like to confirm that imposition of such a fee would constitute a fee and not a tax under applicable Massachusetts laws and regulations. To assist them, I would appreciate your formal opinion on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions about the town's plans or require additional information from my office. BradieI. Jones, Jr. Mirl vtty Leader encs. cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager ~a3 LIc ~,O Tvmmanfnealt4 of ~Easeiar4usrfts AUDITOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH STATEHOUSE, BOSTON 02133 A. JOSEPH DENUCCI AUDITOR TEL. (617) 727-2075 November 23, 2005 The Honorable Bradley H. Jones, Jr. r~ Minority Leader -0 House of Representatives State House - Room 124 Boston, Massachusetts 02133-1054 Dear Representative Jones: I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your letter regarding state and federal requirements for storm water management plans. Specifically, you ask for an opinion as to whether these requirements are subject to the provisions of the Local Mandate Law, G. L. c. 29, s. 27C. At the outset, I wish to clarify that our state Local Mandate Law does not apply to federal mandates. Nonetheless, there is cause for further examination of this matter, because there are instances where the Local Mandate Law may apply to state regulatory actions that exceed the requirements and costs of complying with federal regulations. The Division of Local Mandates has begun the analysis necessary to respond to your request, and will notify you of our findings at the conclusion of our review. As part of this process, we will be contacting Reading Town Manager, Peter Hechenbleikner, and officials at the state Department of Environmental Protection for information and comment. In the meantime, please call with further thoughts or information you may have. I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Peter Hechenbleikner, Reading Town Manager Glen Haas, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Resource Protection; DEP L COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS C x' EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ROTECTION W ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON, MA 02108 617-292-5500 MITT ROMNEY STEPHEN R. PRITCHARD Governor Secretary KERRY HEALEY ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, Jr. Lieutenant Governor Commissioner Date: November 28, 2005 xW,: MassDEP Northeast Regional Office Open House Dear [Interested Faityj`. You are cordially invited to attend an Open House on December 15, 2005 at MassDEP's new Northeast Regional office, 205B Lowell Street, Wilmington. Please join me, Dick Chalpin and other senior staff from the region and Boston for one of two sessions, 2:00 pm - 4:30 pm or 6:00 pm - 7:30 pm. Please attend one of these sessions to meet the staff, renew old acquaintances, tour the new office, and enjoy light refresliments. Please RSVP by December 9t' either by email at , MassDEP.NeroInfo@state.ma.us or by contacting John Viola at (978) 694 -3200. - For more information about the region and MassDEP's operations, visit the new MassDEP website at www.mass.stov/deb. I look forward to seeing you December l5`I'! Sincerely, ~J k), I Robert W. Golledge, Jr. Commissioner Directions: From Boston and Route 128 (I 95) Take Route 93 North to Exit 38. Turn right at the end of the ramp and proceed west toward Wilmington on Rte 129. Turn left at the second traffic light onto Woburn Street. Turn right at the first driveway [a bout 100 yards from the intersection]. The office entrance is on the left corner of the building. Parking is available throughout the adjacent lot. From the North Take Route 93 South to Exit 38. Turn left at the end of the ramp and proceed west toward Wilmington on Rte 129. Follow instructions above once on Rte 129. e This information is available in alternate format. Call Donald M. Games, ADA Coordinator at 617-556-1057. TDD Service - 1-800-298-2207. DEP on the World Wide Web: http:/Iwww,mass.gov/dep Zia Printed on Recycled Paper L16- ~6r-s The Commonwealth of Massachusetts M Department of Education t d w T 350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023 Telephone: (781) 338-3000 ':LgM~VQ.~°W TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370 David P. Driscoll r.a Commissioner of Education ~9;1 MEMORANDUM TO: Superintendents 1 P10 Mayors and Boards of Selectmen co 1 FROM: David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Educationtly iv w RE: Compliance With Spending Requirements, FY05 and FY06 DATE: November 15, 2005 As you know, the Commonwealth's school finance statute, Chapter 70 of the General Laws, establishes an annual minimum local contribution requirement for each Massachusetts school district. This local contribution, when added to a district's Chapter 70 aid, equals its "net school spending requirement. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in non-approval of a municipality's tax rate, enforcement action by the Attorney General, or loss of state aid. The Department of Education reviews and analyzes the information submitted annually on each school district's End-of-Year Pupil and Financial Report, to determine whether minimum local contributions and net school spending requirements for the prior and current years have been met. Each district's compliance reports are being released to its school and municipal officials once the Department's review of the district's financial data has been completed. The Department's preliminary findings regarding your district's compliance with the requirements for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 are shown on the attached "Chapter 70 Net School Spending Compliance" sheets. Compliance with net school spending is also reported and periodically updated on our web site: http://fiinancel.doe.mass.edu/chaoter7O/chapter 05 comoIv.html. The Section 241 maintenance spending requirement, which stipulates that districts must spend at least 50 percent of the combined maintenance and extraordinary maintenance amounts in their foundation budgets, remains in effect. Districts will receive guidance from the Massachusetts School Building Authority as to how that requirement will be handled under the new SBA law. If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact Roger Hatch in the School Finance unit at (781) 338-6527 (rhatchf7a.doe.mass.edu). Thank you for your continuing support and cooperation as we work together to improve educational opportunities for all Massachusetts public school students. Enc: A4pftk 0~ k IK 11/23/2005 Massachusetts Department of Education Office of School Finance Chapter 70 Net School Spending Compliance, FY05 School 246 READING Committee City/Town Total 1 Administration (1000) 684,790 258,144 * 942,934 2 Instruction (2000) 21,687,198 0 * 21,687,198 3 Attendance-Health (3100, 3200) 276,017 0 * 276,017 4 Food Services (3400) 0 0 5 Athletics/Student Activities/Security (3500,3600) 555,774 0 555,774 6 Maintenance (4000) 3,048,322 192,966 * 3,241,288 7 Employee Benefits (5100) 0 655,016 655,016 8 Insurance (5200) 0 3,057,168 3,057,168 9 Retired Employee Insurance (5250) 0 1,041,714 1,041,714 10 Rentals (5300) 0 0 * 0 11 Short Tenn Interest (5400) 0 0 0 12 Tuition (9000) 3,669,194 40,260 3,709,454 13 Total School Spending (lines 1 through 12) 29,921,295 5,245,268 35,166,563 14 School Revenues 14a) FY05 School Revenues * 18,000 0 18,000 14b) FY05 Circuit Breaker Reimbursement 1,153,543 0 1,153,543 14c) FY05 Charter Reimbursement 0 18,573 18,573 Subtotal, School Revenues (14a+14b+14c) 1,171,543 18,573 1,190,116 15 FY05 Net School Spending (13 minus 14) 33,976,447 16 FY05 Chapter 70 Required Net School Spending 28,293,482 17 Carryover from FY04 0 18 Total FY05 Net School Spending Requirement (16 + 17) 28,293,482 19 Shortfall in Net School Spending (18 minus 15) 0 20 Canyover/Penalty Calculation, Percent Unexpended (19 / 16) 0.00% 21 FY05 Cariy-Over into FY06 (Line l9 or 5% of line 16) 0 22 Penalty (19 minus 21) 0 * Budgeted amounts as reported on FY04 End of Year Pupil and Financial Report, Schedule 19 qA?e V 11/23/2005 Massachusetts Department of Education Office of School Finance Chapter 70 Net School Spending Compliance, Budgeted FY06 School 246 READING Committee City/Town Total 1 Administration (1000) 713,088 258,144 971,232 2 Instruction (2000) 23,196,209 0 23,196,209 . 3 Attendance-Health (3100, 3200) 324,050 0 324,050 4 Food Services (3400) 0 0 5 Athletics/Student Activities/Security(3500, 3600) 593,233 0 593,233 6 Maintenance (4000) 3,364,888 192,966 3,557,854 7 Employee Benefits (5100) 0 655,016 655,016 8 Insurance (5200) 0 3,057,168 3,057,168 9 Retired Employee Insurance (5250) 0 1,041,714 1,041,714 10 Rentals (5300) 0 0 0 11 Short Tenn Interest (5400) 0 0 0 12 Tuition (9000) 3,981,108 22,685 4,003,793 13 FY06 Budgeted School Spending (lines 1 through 12) 32,172,576 5,227,693 37,400,269 14 FY06 Budgeted School Revenues 14a) FY06 Budgeted School Revenues 0 0 0 14b) FY06 Circuit Breaker Reimbursement 1,403,185 0 1,403,185 14c) FY06 Charter Reimbursement 0 10,154 10,154 Subtotal, Budgeted School Revenues (14a+14b+14c) 1,403,185 10,154 1,413,339 15 FY06 Net School Spending (13 minus 14) 35,986,930 16 FY06 Chapter 70 Required Net School Spending 29,474,846 17 Carryover from FY05 0 18 Total FY06 Requirement (16 + 17) 29,474,846 19 Shortfall in Budgeted FY06 Net School Spending (18 - 15) 0 20 Carryover/Penalty Calculation, Percent Unexpended (19/16) 0.00% g~,3' Page 1 of 2 /C~ CT Hechenbleikner, Peter From: George Yeomelakis [george_yeomelakis@harvard.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:01 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: McIntire, Ted; Delaney, Joe; DeBrigard, Mike Subject: RE: Park Ave. Peter, and staff, Please pardon my tardiness in sending my thanks to you and your team for applying the overlay to Park Ave. I realize it is a temporary fix, but it really has made such a difference in walking on the street and in driving. Thank you all for your attention to this, I really appreciate it. I know you have far to many requests with a limited budget. I wish you all a happy and healthy holiday season. Sincerely, George Yeomelakis 42 Park Ave At 02:29 PM 06/22/2005 -0400, Hechenbleikner, Peter wrote: Dear George Thanks for your petition regarding the condition of Park Avenue. DPW Director Ted McIntire, Town Engineer Joe Delaney, Highway Supervisor Mike debrigard and I walked Park Avenue on June 13 to see firsthand what the issues are. The following is our analysis: Park Avenue is an old oil and stone roadway that does not have a proper base. It will need to be re-constructed at some point. Meanwhile we will do patching of potholes and a skim coat to improve the wearing surface. This should be done by the end of the summer. The skim coat will have a useful life of a year or 2 and is not as permanent as reconstruction. The property owner at the end of the street has offered to implement drainage improvements that we might design and get permitted. He proposed letting the drainage flow into the adjacent wetlands, but it's not clear that there is enough pitch to do this. Although this may not be exactly what you had hoped for, we do anticipate that it will make the conditions on Park Avenue somewhat better until we can get a full reconstruction funded and completed. Sincerely Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager cc McIntire, Delaney, debrigard, Board of Selectmen -----Original Message g~ . 11/29/2005 Page 2 of 2 From: George Yeomelakis rmailto:aeorae veomelakis(a)harvard.edul Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:21 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Park Ave. Peter, I am writing again to highlight the poor road condition of Park Ave. I was recently told from some one in the Public Works Department that all the side streets off Minot are on a 10 year plan for replacing the streets. That they were made by an old method of oil and stone and are deteriorating. Unfortunately we cannot wait another 10 years for something to happen. Park Ave has no drainage, the street is pitched backwards and water pools the entire length of the street. We have potholes, tripping hazards and ponding. The person in the Public Works office told me that he is requesting an overlay of the street to at least hold us over for another 10 years. Something has to be done. We have dealt with this for far too long. Can you please respond with what will be done to address this situation. I would really appreciate any consideration. Thanks for your help, George Yeomelakis 42 Park Ave. g¢v 11/29/2005 Blank Page 1 of 1 Ll C Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Kathy & David Greenfield [we4greens@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 4:37 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: Historical Subject: Historic Preservation Bylaw - proposed Hi, Peter. Attached is the first draft of a bylaw, borrowed (as it was passed) from Andover and North Reading, for zoning relief that would potentially preserve certain historic structures. It is the RHC's hope to pass a similar zoning bylaw in Reading. At this point, we just wanted it to be "on your radar screen", so as it surfaced in discussions, you would be familiar with it in its draft form. The Commission discussed it at its November meeting, met with Chris Reilly today with some questions, and are going to run it by the CPDC tonight (during "public comment") for some initial feedback. A cover letter is being prepared for distribution with future drafts of the bylaw, so that as it becomes more widely distributed, there will be some explanation with it. The RHC will forward you a copy of that letter when it is ready. For the RHC, Kathy Greenfield lk I I 11/29/2005 DRAFT #1 November 18, 2005 (Not yet reviewed by TC) 4.3.2.11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ZONING RELIEF 4.3.2.11.1 Purpose and Intent The purpose of this bylaw is to encourage the preservation of buildings, structures, sites and settings of historic significance, by allowing such buildings or features to remain in place, or be moved to another location rather than be demolished or otherwise compromised. The bylaw gives the Zoning Board of Appeals as Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) authority to issue a special permit modifying certain dimensional standards for the creation of new lots, or for the use of existing lots for purposes of preservation of historic structures or buildings as defined herein. 4.3.2.11.2 Historic Structures Defined For purposes of a Special Permit for Historic Preservation Zoning Relief the historic building or structure must be located in the Town of Reading and must be listed on one of the following: 1. The National Register of Historic Places 2. The State (Commonwealth of Massachusetts) Register of Historic Places 3. The Reading Historical and Architectural Inventory 4.3.2.11.4 Parent Parcel Defined A Parent Parcel is the parcel of land that is to be divided. 4.3.2.11.5 Standards and Regulations The following specific standards shall be applied to a Special Permit for Historic Preservation Zoning Relief: 1. The lot must be located in a Residential Zoning District. 2. Any new lot created under this bylaw shall contain not less than one- half (Y2) the minimum lot area for the Residential Zoning District for which it is proposed. 3. Other than the parcel created for the existing historic structure, no new lot may be created that would render the remaining land nonconforming with regard to dimensional requirements, including but not limited to land area and frontage. 4. Any new lot created under this bylaw shall have its required frontage on a public way as measured at the street line. 5. Any new lot created shall meet frontage and setback requirements. 6. TBDAny new lot created under this bylaw shall be served by municipal sanitary sewer and water. 7. TBD. If municipal sanitary sewer and water is not available for a lot created under this bylaw, the lot shall be in fact capable of supporting an on-site sewage DRAFT #1 November 18, 2005 (Not yet reviewed by TC) disposal system, or in the event that said lot is not serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water at the time of the zoning board hearing, but the zoning board finds that sewer and/or water will be available, the zoning board shall make as a condition of its approval that no occupancy permit shall issue until the lot is serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water. 8. A vacant existing nonconforming lot need not meet the standards set forth in items 1, 2 and 4 above; however, the provisions of item 5 will apply. 9. The SPGA shall determine whether or not an historic structure or building can be placed on a lot without detrimental effect to abutting properties or the street on which the lot has its frontage. 4.3.2.11.6 Findings Required Priority in granting a Special Permit for Historic Preservation Zoning Relief shall, in all cases, be placed upon keeping buildings and structures in place, rather than moving them to other locations, provided that the existing site can be shown to represent valid historical setting and context. Moving of structures or buildings to other locations shall be considered only if no other preservation measures are practical or reasonable on the existing site, or if the proposed removal is to return a building or structure to an original or more historically accurate location. In addition to the Findings Required under Section 4.3.2.11.3, above, of the zoning bylaw and the foregoing Standards and Regulations in Section 4.3.2.11.2, the Special Permit Granting Authority shall consider the following specific items: 1. That the modification of dimensional requirements is necessary to protect, preserve, or maintain a historic structure or building. 2. That the proposed work, including any relocation or reconstruction, preserves, to the maximum extent feasible, the historical and architectural features of the structure or building; 3. That in the absence of a Special Permit for Historic Preservation Zoning Relief, an historic structure or building would otherwise be subject to demolition under Reading's Demolition Delay Bylaw. 4.3.2.11.7 Conditions to be Imposed If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the special permit, it shall impose, as minimum conditions, the following: In the event of a catastrophic event which results in damage to the historic structure such that the historic structure cannot be repaired, the owner may rebuild on the lot provided that the new dwelling does not contain more than the same interior floor area as the historic structure and meets one of the following requirements: i Deleted: 9 t 3 DRAFT #1 November 18, 2005 (Not yet reviewed by TC) a. the new dwelling is placed in the existing footprint; or b. the new dwelling is built in conformity with the zoning side, front and rear setbacks in effect at the time of rebuilding 2. Prior to moving the historic structure, the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading shall approve the route and the timing of the move of the building or structure. 3. In the event that the owner of the lot wishes to make changes to the historic structure after it is relocated, it must submit any changes to the Reading Historical Commission for review and approval. If the Reading Historical Commission determines that the change is not a minor change, the owner must seek a modification of the Special Permit for Historic Preservation Zoning Relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 4. Upon the expiration of the appeal period, the applicant shall submit the approved plan to the Community Planning and Development Commission for an Approval Not Required endorsement pursuant to Chapter 41, Section 81P of the General Laws. Such an endorsement shall be a condition of the special permit approval. 5. The owner shall record at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds an Historic Preservation Restriction in the form approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and approved and endorsed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission in accordance with Chapter 184, Section 32, of the General Laws, which shall at a minimum provide for conditions under which . alterations, additions or modifications may be made, and in the event of damage to the historic structure such that the historic structure cannot be repaired, the owner may rebuild on the lot provided that the new dwelling does not contain more than the same interior floor area as the historic structure and meets one of the following requirements: (i) the new dwelling is placed in the existing footprint; or (ii) the new dwelling is built in conformity with the zoning side, front and rear setbacks in effect at the time of rebuilding. Any mortgagee shall subordinate its mortgage to this restriction. 6. When the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the application for a Special Permit for Historic Preservation Zoning Relief has become final, the applicant shall submit the plan upon which the decision is based to the Community Planning and Development Commission for certification as an Approved Not Required plan pursuant to Chapter 41, Section 81P of the General Laws. The Notice of Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals,the approved and endorsed Historic Preservation Restriction with any mortgagee subordination, and the Approval Not Required plan certified by the Community Planning and Development Board shall be recorded concurrently at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. 4.3.2.11.8 Application Requirements and Procedures Sufficient copies of an application for a Special Permit for Historic Preservation Zoning Relief shall be filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Such copies of the ~ ~N DRAFT #1 November 18, 2005 (Not yet reviewed by TC) application will be distributed to the respective boards and commissions, and a review shall be conducted involving, but not limited to staff representatives of Planning, Historical Commission, Building, Health, Conservation, , Public Works, Police and Fire. Comments from the reviews shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The application shall include the following information: L. A plan prepared by a registered land surveyor and/or professional engineer showing the lot proposed to be created or used for the preservation of an historic structure or building. The plan shall be suitable for purposes of submission as an Approval Not Required plan. The plan shall be at a scale of one-inch equals 20 feet, on a sheet size of 24 inches by 36 inches. And shall show the following information: (a) All existing and proposed property lines with bearings and distances; (b) If the application is for the creation of a new lot, then the parent parcel from which the lot is being taken shall also be shown in its entirety at the same scale; (c) The location and size of all existing structures or buildings on and adjacent to the proposed lot, and the distances between all existing and proposed structures or buildings; (d) The public way on which the existing or proposed lot will have its frontage; (e) Proposed front, side and rear building setback lines; (f) Existing and proposed topography (grading); (g) Significant trees or other natural features; (h) The location and type of utilities serving the lot; (i) Wetlands delineation; (j) The name of the owner and all parties having any interest in the lot, including book and page numbers of the documents at the Registry of Deeds which describe such an interest; (k) A copy of the deed of ownership shall be included with the application; and 9 'a s DRAFT #1 November 18, 2005 (Not yet reviewed by TC) (1) All easements on the lot. If the historic structure is going to be relocated, a map showing the route over which the historic structure or building will be moved; If the historic structure is going to be relocated, a letter from the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Tree Warden of the Town and the Director of Public Works approving the route. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact and obtain approvals (if needed) from utility companies having overhead cables, lines or wires along the route, and from the Massachusetts Highway Department if a state roadway is involved and from the Director of Public Works, Police Chief and Fire Chief of any city or town included on the route. The applicant is responsible for any costs associated with police supervision along the route; 4. A letter from the Historical Commission, certifying that the structure is an historic structure, as defined in this bylaw and any recommended conditions for the special permit; 5. A statement of any changes to be made to the historic structure. 4.3.2.11.9 The provisions of Sections TBD through TBD of the Zoning Bylaw shall apply to the application, hearing, decision, conditions and lapse of a Special Permit for Historic Preservation Zoning Relief. 4.3.2.11.10 A special permit issued under this bylaw shall contain an account of all required findings and considerations made by the Special Permit Granting Authority in its decision to allow such exception to the bylaws. q~D '6 Page 1 of 3 cr" C Hechenbleikner, Peter From: cjbnjb@comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:00 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Re: Addison Wesley Development To All, I am a resident of Milepost Road and 100% against the Addison Wesley Development - Lifestyle Center!!! I am desperately reaching out to all of you to request your immediate attention to the residents of the South Street area and the entire town. My husband and I, along with my neighbors (both sides) have attended all the meetings that have been made public (there have been some intimate meetings at coffee shops as well-nice huh?). I can speak from experience when I say the developers are given the floor for hours to show the same photos and pitch the same ideas ...then to wrap it up they attempt to intimidate residents with threats of what will be built in this space (tall buildings that will loom over our backyards) if we don't go along with the lifestyle center. However, time seems to be cut short when residents take the floor, the meetings take place at 7-8 and the developers take approx 2 hours (slide shows, review of pictures, the sale pitch) - you do the math! So my feelings on this are, we have given them ample floor time, as I've heard is required to avoid law suits, and now it's time for the voices of residents of this town to be heard. Forget the developers and have a good old fashion town meeting (residents only) to discuss this monstrosity of a strip mall they want to plunk down at the entry way to Reading. First impressions are lasting impressions... is this how we want to present our town? If so, I would put a hold on the downtown renovation since everyone in town will be cutting down side- streets (maybe yours) to avoid the traffic mess on Main Street/Route 28. No one will want to drive thru, never mind stop and shop in Downtown Reading, MA. I've seen the drawings and read the description of period lighting and brick sidew alks sounds amazing! Hopefully, the residents will be able to enjoy someday! (a beautiful vision from someone on the right track) I've seen the traffic study and it's an absolute joke, I just happened to be walking the day they put it down and kept track of it for the day and a half it was down. If it was longer, I'd like to know because I watched them put it down and I monitored how long it remained in place. Do you consider this an accurate study? I know you've heard a million times about election night, here's a million and one...I live on Milepost Road aka additional parking lot for election night. People were parked on Milepost (and beyond) and walking up to vote. I was working that day and usually come thru Stoneham on my way home ...the traffic was grid-lock back past the _old Loves building. I took the back road and came out at Wayside Bazar, waited almost 45 minutes just to get out onto Main Street, had to go down Main and up Summer - there was no way I could cut ac ross...a police officer (yes, one police officer) directing traffic was horrified and kept apologizing to me...it was an absolute nightmare! ! ! ! The study didn't address the ripple effects of locals who will be avoiding Rte28/Main Street - should we be considering this as well? To this point, I've had the utmost confidence that the elected officials of this town would do right by the residents but now fear that numbers may be clouding the judgment of some folks. I beg you to take the common sense approach to see thru this farce. Let's put traffic aside for now...The meetings were based on the locals giving suggestions on how to make this work for all parties involved... here are just some of the surrounding residents requests that I heard first hand - reducing parking, cut down on the number of stores, increase landscaping to create more buffer, perform a accurate traffic study and provide solutions. Changes to the original plan presented in meeting number 11/29/2005 9)_ Page 2 of 3 one NONE! ! ! ! ! I was at the very first meeting, they brought the same sorry pictures and recited the same old song and dance, if I wasn't so disgusted I'd have a good laugh for myself, b ecause the presentation is pretty comical. They have not given in to any request, yet they claim they want to work with locals. Hmmmmm, I guess I must be missing something here...usually when you work together..there is some type of compromise! Have the original plans been altered in any way, shape or form? If so, I am unaware of those changes and apologize for my ignorance... but I think not! If they won't budge during supposed friendly meetings, how do you think you'll be treated once they get the go ahead, cross all their is and dot all their i's...do you seriously think they are going to attempt to do anything they don't legally have to - by then it will be to late. Think about how flexible they've been so far, then think about negotiating with them down the road, their actions speak volumes. At this point, I feel the town must unite and take a stand against this development. We should not allow the developers& nbsp;to intimidate by threatening what may happen to that parcel of land or what legal steps can be taken if we don't follow whatever guidelines..blah blah blah. Find out what we need to do to stop it and move on.... It's obvious some of you are pro-lifestyle center or this would have been voted out some time ago...I can only hope this email will create some doubt or cause you to think of your own day to day routines and how your day will change upon completion of this mall (yes, mall!). Here are a few areas of concern that I feel are valid (all of which I lmmw you've heard before): Traffic & Traffic study - 2 days (not even) Can this give them a true grasp? What about ripple effects? Joshua Eaton Elementary School: Are our children going to remain safe with the additional traffic in the area? Summer Ave was widened to accommodate local resident student drop off & pick up...what's going to happen now? Fact: People will cut thru to avoid the traffic on Rte28..I know because I do it now (pre-lifestyle center)! I did my own study during this Thanksgiving holiday ...Rte28 traffic was madness on the days leading up to Thanksgiving, just based people going in and out of Calareso's Farmstand - one store! South Street Scenic Route: Based on information I read on the towns website it is my understanding that South Street cannot be altered (tree removal, stonewall removal). The corner of South & Main has a stonewall and a huge tree ...does this not count because it is on the corner? Alcohol: Will this lead to liquor licenses in the future? More OIJI safety concerns, children and adults... Fire and Police: Can the town handle the additional workload - or should we look forward to yet another tax increase? Ask the Stoneham police how much time they spend dealing with trouble at Redstone Plaza - I think the numbers will amaze you! Just car break in's alone will shock you! Circulation of Information: Meeting Information should be circulated thru the entire town since this will directly effect anyone who owns real estate here and/or travels Route 28 at any time during the day. This problem is not limited to the south side of town and I wish people would stop viewing it that way...noone will be safe from the ripple effects this will have on this town... Please please please.... think long term! Thanks in advance for your support and assistance to this matter, Janine Balboni Milepost Road 781-944-3091 11/29/2005 Page 1 of 2 b / C 19 tS Hechenblefter, Peter From: cnj4@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:17 AM To: Bob.Frey@state.ma.us; jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us; Schubert, Rick; canthony@cdmtitle.com; jebarnes@mit.edu; bruen-n-bruen @comcast. net; rep. paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; dac@cummings.com; jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Ian.Durrant@state.ma.us; rep. mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; jgailagher@mapc.org; mgallerani@ci.stoneham.ma.us; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us; rep.bradleyjones@hou.state.ma.us; g-r@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast:net; akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.motter@fta.dot.gov; rep. patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; sueandmikes@comcast.net; psodano@stonesav.com; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; billwhome@juno.com; swoelfel@mbta.com Cc: jblaustein@mapc.org; mary.burggraff@hou.state.ma.us; melissa.callan@hou.state.ma.us; tricia@lynchassociates.net; dcooke@vhb.com; ddizoglio@mbta.com; mdraisen@mape.org; Margaret. Dwyer@state. ma. us; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us; rnorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Town Manager; Michael. Lindstrom @state.ma.us; blucas@mapc.org; elutz@hshassoc.com; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; John. Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; Kenneth.Miller@state.ma.us; carmen.o'rourke@hou.state. ma.us; jpurdy@louisberger.com; kpyke@louisberger.com; Reilly, Chris; wschwartz@neighborhoodamerica.com; kstein@hshassoc.com; Tafoya, Ben; frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us; mossywood@juno.com Subject: FEASIBILITY STUDY: A SUMMARY To: I93/95 Task Force CC. Bob Frey, Planning Project Manager From: Jeffrey Everson, Ph.D., ITS Program Manager Date: November 28, 2005 Subject: Feasibility Study Summary Attached is a summary of the second feasibility study in terms of 10 issues that have not yet been resolved as we approach our 17th meeting. It's not only the status after 16 meetings, but the accumulated status after 8 years and at least $1,000,000 consumed by the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) in their pursuit of a construction project at the I93/95 interchange. I would ask my colleagues on the Task Force to carefully evaluate these issues and decide whether they are incorrect, simply don't matter or, if correct, what should be done about them. As you contemplate these issues, please be advised that they will become known to the public. Think what you will tell your friends, neighbors and associates about your decision. Regards, Jeff Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force 21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com 11/28/2005 Note: The text below is an email that I sent to Co~[unissioner Paiewonshy on November 11, 2005. In the interim period, -I added underlining,, !shading and supplementary notes in rebuttal to Bob Frey's document, Nv` {93/95 Interchange Transpartation Study: Clarifying Study Issues _ ...._...i Commissioner Paiewonsky: Thank you for the reply. I see that you too are working during a holiday. At least my commute to work (Reading to Waltham) was pleasant for a change (i.e., level of service A today). In quick summary form, here is list of serious points of disagreement that I have with the Mass Highway Department (MHD) conduct of the interchange feasibility study: 1. The MHD Wannot estzmate a percentage reduction in accidents, per a given interchange design. There is a way to calculate this, but in the span of 8 years and $1M of study money, the MHD elected not to bother. [See items # 5-10 below.] 2. The MHD !cannot estimate the decrease (or increase for that matter) in hom'e.-_o-office commuting time. for a typical motorist traversing a redesigned interchange. This factor can be estimated, but you decided not to pursue it. [The Scope of Work, dated 6/18/05, does not specifically treat disruptions in traffic flow due to incidents; there is no mention on the use of statistical significance to determine a commuting path followed by a "typical" commuter. The MHD has demonstrated no insight on how to define this commuter.] 3. The MHD cannot e5 imat the cost 'to redesign and build an interchange. Again, I am aware of methods for this calculation, but have seen none of it from Bob Frey and Jim Purdy. [The Scope of Work, page 24/25 (first 5 lines from the top), offers no insight on calculating the cost of a candidate interchange design. This proposal is terribly deficient on a clear explanation of methodologies. In the "real world," such proposals would be rejected. Yes, Bob, I voted for the LBG proposal. However, the other two proposals were worse.] 4. I am most aggravated when the MHD enlisted the Task Force to help redesign the interchange using magic markers and tracing paper. Task Force members have little engineering background and have no understanding about the complex interaction between driver behavior, vehicle dynamics and highway infrastructure. Many do not even understand the concept of normalized data. This action by the MHD was a gross trivialization of a difficult problem and a shameless act of apparent outreach (i.e. probably an invention of Kathy Stein, who has an impressive resume on outreach...nice try, Kathy). [I would have absolutely NO expectation of receiving a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) based on a proposal that enlisted Y7/ W the engineering services from a staff with practically no credible transportation safety/traffic flow experience. If you think I'm joking, why don't you ask Michael Griffith, Director of R&D, Office of Safety at the FHWA. Let's contact him on a conference call. His number is 202- 493-3316.1 5. The accident data from 1997-2001 is under a legal inquiry by the office of Inspector General. Shortly after this data was audited early in 2001, William Bent (Chief Traffic Engineer, MHD) and Robin Riessman (formerly of the Governor's Highway Safety Bureau) made presentations at a publicly attended conference later during 2001 regarding the poor quality of this accident data (e.g., 40 percent of the accident locations were missing). That means some fraction of those accidents could.have occurred outside the boundarv defined by an interchange. Thus, the accident count per year (1997-2001) for several interchanges that Bob Frey wants to present to the public could be seriously in error and misleading. If Bob uses that data, I will make a major public fuss about it. [In other words, Task Force colleagues, you were the last to learn about this deficient accident data. Many professional transportation professionals already knew a few years ago.] 6. The MHD does deserve credit for instituting a new police accident reporting form in 2002 based on the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (at last, a positive comment from Everson). But-until the MHD conducts a formal audit of it, the MHD has no idea as to whether it has any less missing data elements than the data prior to 2002. Another question that you folks avoid is, "What is the required quality level for accident data such that it can be used in a study on highway safety?" Did your recently rewritten Highway Design Manual treat that issue? 7. The funds expended by the MHD on the new accident reoortinq form do not address items # 1 2, and 3 above. 8. I am aware of the Safety Analyst program (it addresses items #1 and #3 above) under development by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It is not clear to me what the MHD contributed to its development. Firstly, the MHD accident data base is deplorable (1997- 2001) and has unknown quality from 2002 onward. Thus, the MHD had no accident data to contribute to the MHD effort on Safety Analyst. Secondly, I once asked whether the MHD had a statistician on its staff. The answer was no. During my three year "hobby" on learning transportation safety engineering, I never once encountered a technical paper written by a member of the MHD on accident/congestion analysis. Maybe I overlooked something, but, trust me, I was alert to this. (I am aware that'you and Ken Miller, for example, are members of Transportation Research Board [TRB]). In summary, since the MHD had neither accident data nor significant mathematical expertise to contribute to FHWA, it is not clear to me that the MHD spent an,./thing on Safety Analvst, except for a trip or two to DC and lunch with Mike Griffith to discuss it (Mike is the head of R&D, Office of Safety at the FHWA). 9. I am particularly livid by the fact that the Right of Way (ROW) Bureau spent approximately $500,000 for the development of eminent domain software, but apparently nothing on software to address items # 1, 2 and 3 above. During the October 19th meeting, Bob said that he was not interested in developing software (i.e., too much time/money and annoyance in debugging it). However, the ROW bureau managed to deal with these problems. The public perception of this information will only serve to erode your already badly eroded credibility. (i.e., readilv available funds to "grease the eminent domain skids," but nothing of substance for safety and commuter time reduction estimations). 10. The MHD has deliberately ignored a vast bodv of engineering expertise that could have been applied to this interchange problem. However, you folks deliberately excluded help. I fail to see where the MHD has a monopoly on highway engineering expertise. Summary: A most disingenuous feature of your operation is that if I had not made an abject fuss about items 1-10, you folks would not have mentioned a thing. As for me, what do I have to lose? My home? My neighbor hood? For what? A project that has no calculable benefits and cost estimates... after 8 years and at least $1M of study money? Regards, Jeff Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force 21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnl4@aol.com November 11, 2005 %Yl* , / C Z~/s Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Sent: To: Subject: Billard, Dave Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:31 AM Connors, Bill; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Heffernan, Nancy; Johnson, Cheryl; LaPointe, Gail; LeLacheur, Bob; Reading - Selectmen FW: Reading Taxrate Approval Information -----Original Message----- From: Division of Local Services [mailto:boadata@dor.state.ma.us] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 8:45 AM To: Billard, Dave Cc: Vamshi Polam; Camille Gradozzi Subject: Reading Taxrate Approval Information Massachusetts Department of Revenue - Division of Local Services Box 9569, Boston, MA 02114 Phone (617) 626-2300 Fax (617) 626-3916 28-NOV-05 Dear Board Members: The Fiscal Year 2006 Tax Rate has been reviewed and approved by the Bureau of Accounts. The four pages of the tax rate recapitulation form and the levy limit worksheet are available on the Local Services website (http://www.dls.state.ma.us/TaxRates/taxrate.htm). Page one of the tax rate recap includes the electronic signature of the Director and the date of approval. This form is your notification of approval pursuant to provisions of General Laws Chapter 59/23. Please forward by e-mail or copies for the Mayor or City Manager, the Board of Selectmen and Town Manager, the Treasurer, the Collector, the Accountant or Auditor and the Clerk. We wish to thank you and the other local officials involved for your cooperation and assistance in the process of setting the tax rate. Very truly yours, James R. Johnson Director of Accounts g N\ 1 State Tax Form 31C THE COMMON WEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TAX RATE RECAPITULATION OF FISCAL 2006 READING City\Town\District 1. TAX RATE SUMMARY Ia. Total amount to be raised (from Ile) $ 73.844.994.61 lb. Total estimated receipts and other revenue sources (from Ille) 29,961.730.00 Ic. Tax levy (la minus lb) $ 43,883,264.61 Id. Distribution of Tax Rates and levies (b) (c) (d) (e) V) Levy. 1,C above times Valuation CLASS percentage each percent by class Tax Rates Levy by class (from LA-5) in col (b) (from LA-5) (c)!(d}x1000 (d)x(e1000 92.9164%. 40,774, . 749.68 3,375,391;500 12.08 40,774,729.32 Residential , ty ~i q 0.00 Exempt t Open Space 0.0000% .00 0 0.00 Commercial, 6.0287% 2;645;590:37 219,005;200 ' 12.08 2,645;582.82 Exempt 0.00 Industrial I .0.6177% 271,066.93 22,440,600) 12.08 I 271,082.45 SUBTOTAL 99.5628% 3,616,837,300 EM 43,691,394.59 Personal,' 0.4372% f 191,857.63;1 I 15,883,280 I ' . 12.081 191,870.02 TOTAL 100.0000% 3,632,720,580 43;883,264.61 MUST EQUAL 1C Board of Assessors of I READING City or Town Date Tel . No Do Not Write Below This Line For Denartment of Revenue Use Only Reviewed By : ONEIL MAURA Date : 28-NOV-05 Approved : ANTHONY RASSIAS Director of Accounts : e v. READING FISCAL 2006 City/Town/District II. Amounts to be raised Ila. Appropriations (col. (b) through col. (e) from page 4) $ 1 72,533,277.00 Ilb. Other amounts to be raise 1. Amounts certified for tax title purposes ( .Oq 2. Debt and interest charges not included on page 4 ( .Oq 3. Final court judgements ( .Oq 4. Total overlay deficits of prior years I .Oq 5. Total cherry sheet offsets (see cherry sheet 1-ER) 284,350.Oq 6. Revenue deficits A 7. Offset receipts deficits Ch. 44, Sec. 53E A 8. Authorized deferral of teacher's pay .00 9. Snow and ice deficit Ch. 44 Sec. 31d .Oq 10. Other (specify onseparate letter) I A TOTAL Ilb (Total lines 1 through 10) 284,350.Oq IIc. State and county cherry sheet charges (C.S. 1-EC cols. 1 and 2) ( 490,960.Oq lid. Allowance for abatements and exemptions (overlay) 536,407.61 Ile. Total amount to be raised ( Total Ila through lid) $ 73,844,994.61 III. Estimated receipts and other revenue sources Ilia. Estimated receipts - State 1. Cherry sheet estimated receipts (C.S. 1-ER Total) $ 10,510,887.Oq 2. Massachusetts school building authority payments 1,651,645.Oq TOTAL Ilia 12,162,532.Oq Illb. Estimated receipts - Local 1.1-ocal receipts not allocated (page 3,col.(b),Line23) 7,765,400.Oq 2. Offset receipts (See Schedule A-1) ( .0q 3. Enterprise funds (See Schedule A-2) ( 7,630,694.Oq 4. Community preservation funds (See Schedule A-4) .Oq TOTAL Illb 15,396,094.Oq Illc. Revenue sources appropriated for particular purposes 1. Free cash (page 4, col. (c)) 1,693,053.Oq 2. Other available funds (Page 4, col. (d)) 710,051.Oq TOTAL Illc 2,403,104.Oq Illd. Other revenue sources appropriated specifically to reduce the tax rate 1 a. Free cash... appropriated on or before June 30,2006 .Oq b. Free cash-appropriated on or after July 1,2006 .Oq 2. Municipal light source ( .Oq 3. Teacher's pay deferral .Oq 4. Other source : pa TOTAL Illd .Oq Ille. Total estimated receipts and other revenue sources (Total Ilia through Illd) $ ( 29,961,730.Oq IV.Summary of total amount to be raised and total receipts from all sources a. Total amount to be raised (from Ile) $ 73,844,994.611 b. Total estimated receipts and other revenue sources(from Ille) $ 29,961,730.Oq c. Total real and personal property tax levy (from Ic) $ 43,883,264.61 d. Total receipts from all sources (total IVb plus IVc) $ 73,844,994.61 LOCAL RECEIPTS NOT ALLOCATED * READING (a) Actual (b) Estimated City/Town/District Receipts Receipts Fiscal 2005 Fiscal 2006 1 MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 2,937,456.001 1 2,800,000.001 2 OTHER EXCISE .001 1 .001 3 PENALTIES AND INTEREST ON TAXES AND EXCISES 161,635.001 1 160,000.001 4 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES AND EXCISES 231,934.001 ( 230,000.001 5 CHARGES FOR SERVICES - WATER .001 .001 6 CHARGES FOR SERVICES - SEVER .001 1 .001 7 CHARGES FOR SERVICES - HOSPITAL .001 1 .001 8 CHARGES FOR SERVICES - TRASH DISPOSAL .001 1 .001 9 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,517,501.001 1 1,510,000.001 10 FEES .001 1 .001 11 RENTALS .001 1 .001 12 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUES - SCHOOLS .001 1 .001 13 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUES -LIBRARIES .001 1 .001 14 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUES - CEMETERIES 1 .001 .001 15 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUES - RECREATION .001 .001 16 OTHER DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE .001 .001 17 LICENSES AND PERMITS 1 75,980.001 1 60,000.001 18 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 4,965.001 1 5,000.001 19 FINES AND FORFEITS ( 154,753.001 1 140,000.001 20 INVESTMENT INCOME 1 1,138,869.001 1 540,000.001 21 MISCELLANEOUS RECURRING(PLEASE SPECIFY) ( 2,245,912.001 1 2,320,400.001 22 MISCELLANEOUS NON-RECURRING(PLEASE SPECIFY) 3,874.001 1 .001 23 TOTALS $ 1 8,472,879.001 $ 1 7,765,400.001 I hereby certify that the actual receipts as shown in column (a) are, to the best of my knowledge correct and complete, and I further certify that I have examined the entries made on page 4 of the Fiscal 2006 tax rate recapitulation form by the City, Town or District Clerk and hereby acknowledge that such entries correctly reflect the appropriations made and the sources from which such appropriations are to be met. Date Accountant/Auditor Telephone No. Do not include receipts in columns (a) or (b) that were voted by the City/Town Council or Town Meeting as offset receipts on Schedule A-1, enterprise funds on Schedule A-2, or revolving funds on Schedule A-3. Written documentation should be submitted to support increases /decreases of estimated receipts to actual receipts. > Written documentation should be submitted to support increases/decreases of FY2005 estimated receipts to FY2006 estimated receipts to be used in calculating the muncipal revenue growth factor. CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND SOURCES OF FUNDIN READING FISCAL 2006 City/Town/District AUTHORIZATIONS APPROPRIATIONS MEMO ONLY (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) City/Town From Offset Receipts Council or Total From Raise and From From Other (See A-1), Enterprise Revolving Borrowing Town Appropriations Appropriate Free Cash Available Funds Funds (See A-2), or Funds Authorization Meeting of Each Meeting (Tax Levy) See B-1 See B-2 Community Preservation (See A-3) Dates FY Fund (See A-4) 04128/05 2005 1,238,372.00 1,019,038.00 7,334.00 212,000.00 1,216,534.00 04/28/05 2005 .00 -200,000.00 04/28/05 2006 70,911,850.00 62,499,479.00 558,615.00 690,717.00 7,163,039.00 276,700.00 11/14/05 2006 383,055.00 115,400.00 12,000.00 255,655.00 -835.00 11/14/05 2006 .00 2,000,000.00 Totals 72,533,277.00 62,499,479.00 1,693,053.00 710,051.00 7,630,694.00 Must Equal Cols. (b) thru (e) * Enter the fiscal year to which the appropriation relates, i.e., fiscal year 2005 or fiscal June 30,2006. Appropriations included in column (b) must not be reduced by local receipts or any other funding source. Appropriations must be entered gross to avoid a duplication in the use of estimated or other sources of receipts. 1 hereby certify that the appropriations correctly reflect the votes taken by Town Meeting/City Council. dc~o Page 1 of 1 6 / C "'~U ~ Hechenblelkner, Peter ^wr.~,,_ n From: Kathy Ambrose [kambrose@bettercom.com] 1 ' Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:26 AM To: Town Manager Subject: Letter from Mass Highway Dated October 24th Hi Pete, Thanks for taking time to listen to my concerns regarding the traffic study happening today at the bottom of Lawrence Road. If Mass Highway could return to the intersection at around 2:15, 1 think the traffic study would show the problems that occur during school release times. Attached you will find the latest letter I received from Mass Highway. I was disappointed with their answer about the issue of speeding cars approaching a school crossing guard. Even though there is a traffic signal at that intersection, people travelling from out of town do not always know there is a school crossing guard there. By the time they see the guard, the are practically in the intersection, not enough time to stop when they are travelling 40 m.p.h. (at least). I hope the traffic study will find that a left arrow turn would be beneficial. I understand Mass Highway will only allow 1 left arrow turn, and I agree that it would be best to have the left hand signal on the northbound Birchmeadow Dr. turn. Thanks for your time, Kathy Ambrose 12/1/2005 ~SS HIGHWA Traffic - Reading October 24, 2005 Ms. Kathy Ambrose 9 Lawrence Road Reading, MA 01867 Dear Ms. Ambrose: Mitt Ramney Kerry Healey John Cogliano LUlsa Paiewonsky Governor LL Governor secretary Commissioner Iff ^MW "Wil MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION This is in response to your letter of October 12, 2005 regarding conditions at the intersection of Route 28 and Birchmeadow Drive/Lawrence Road in Reading. The District's Traffic Engineering Section has reviewed your concerns and their observations are summarized below. The traffic signal equipment was installed, in 1977. There is no left-turn phasing and no vehicle detectors on Route 28. Detectors are present on Birchmeadow Drive and Lawrence Road. The pedestrian pushbuttons were checked and are all functioning properly. A review of the pedestrian timing, however, revealed that the "Flashing Don't Walk" interval is only 8 seconds in length and should be increased to 14 seconds. Doing so would allow someone who has left the curb at the start of the "Flashing Don't Walk" interval sufficient time to completely cross Route 28. Regarding the 40 MPH speed limit, several studies have been conducted in the past. In March of 1968 a speed limit of 45 MPH was established for Route 28 in this area. It was modified with zones varying from 40 to 45 MPIf in June of 1975. In November of 1978, a consistent speed of 40 MPH on Route 28 was established. At the request of the Town, an additional study was conducted in 1996, which confirmed the validity of the 40 MPH speed limit. Conditions in advance of the intersection from the north and south were also reviewed. There are signs explaining that the next signal is at the intersection of Lawrence Road and Birchmeadow Drive. However, there are no curve warning signs on either approach. Installation of such signs may be of benefit, especially to those drivers unfamiliar with the area. The field review revealed that there is no established school zone on Route 28, but there is one for the Birchmeadow Elementary School on Birchmeadow Drive. MassHighway's policy was changed in 1993 to consider zones for schools that are not directly located on the main road, but the presence of the signal with its dedicated pedestrian phase precludes this option. Massachusetts Highway Department. District 4.519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA 02476 . (789) 641-8300 Traffic - Reading 2 This location is not on MassHighway's Top 1000 High-Crash Intersections, which is used to prioritize safety improvement projects. However, considering the age and condition of the traffic signal equipment, we will schedule minor work to provide more efficient operations. We will also install advance curve warning signs on Route 28 north and south. In addition, to address the concern regarding left-turn phasing, we will order traffic counts from our Boston office and conduct analyses to determine if it is warranted. Please note that other items such as sidewalk widening could only be accomplished under a future roadway construction project. In another matter, during the field review, a crossing guard was seen stopping Route 28 traffic several times with a "STOP" paddle to allow children to cross rather than using the pushbutton to call upon the dedicated pedestrian phase. MassHighway hopes that in the future, crossing guards will be encouraged by the Town to use the signal's pedestrian phase. By copy of this letter, we will inform the Town's Safety Officer of our concern. Should you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Michael Karas, P.R., District Traffic Operations Engineer, at (781)641-8484. A5Sincercll` Patricia A. eavenworth, P.E. District Highway Director IEG/gb cc: M.O. File 08-2005-0136 Thomas Murphy, Safety Officer Traffic File ~ ~3 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Schultz [bodiam@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:04 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: South and Walnut Streets Dear Selectmen: Per Ben's suggestion, I have attached the two petitions signed by many in the neighborhood regarding the yellow line painted on the streets recently and the speed limit. Thank you for your time and assistance on this Ben. I will see you at the next meeting. Thank You - Erich 12/1/2005 NEIGHBORHOOD PETIVON OITTR. ANT NVALINUT STREET NFIGTOOR FOODS We would like the speed limit on South and Walnut Streets reduced to 25 m..p.h, PRLN.1 =1N-A?VIE ADDRESS STGNTATIJIM x ~i~~ ;r;. ~ ~~`.~9 ty ,r"'r"'%'~ t, i,, f a .~r ,✓~y - ' u~.r-~•.~ ' . v' ti.+` ~ `~'~'~,.t i! ll ..r s..il , 3 r j r: '~t~ l { i i 'r~„-.P~ 1 ~~"r'~.l'~/;. r' cw ~ls r'.✓ i. s ~ s fr ~~3tr'c tilr.•~~~4.~ ~r(~J~~f ~'4~~.~,.,~. ~ J,"~,1j; i•'v'i~' 'r~ rs !.P'/r~l"~, ,t S~~k./i ~~'t.r~i,~',,,,.. ~~a t ~~1 ~ r,~.~4~ ~ Ll ~}J '~,x~71~. '~..wt` ~''~4 ~~tt :4P• .t ~~5 f /I I'VI a J r 1 ~Y S 1 t ~C ; -r tj- (_..3 Y r` f. J 7 r r' Jam'.! t C_..' T t/ - ~2kL~, Abv-cl ~"co- fr NTEI I-t.T3ORHOOD PETITION SOUTH AND '4V ALN UT STREET NEIGHBORHOODS We would like the speed limit on South and jaJ_n.-.it Streets reduced to 25 mp.h. ! PPJt I T NNTE I ADDRESS SIGNATURE t _ y~.~_ . ~ ~ 1 tr!!r',r.Jc~ I~. ,;<r~;.~r 4L. r _r~.:f:i1~/,~ 1 J f f i = f 4 'L.yy'z All •1~~./s.... G,... i-., .7 #~v~ Y~ lC._.~~ l~'+r T~~~ U~r!'~!✓~ f r~1L~.~?: ~~!~I,~LI✓E,T,~~l~-^' a y~.r^~ r ~ _ ar'~i~ e ~ 4'J''..,...,.,c•'~l~^'~ i'./~! ` _J ~ ~ y'.~rn fi'r' r'1 ?1 . . ~u--~P\V''~~ ts~~a jo ~ LiJi Cicf .S ~ tL.,;•. ~l. / .~G i i t f NEIGRBORROOD PEUTT"O SOUTHI ~itiD WA.L UIT STREET NETGHl3t)RROODS We would like the speed limit on South and Walnut Streets reduced. to 25 xu.p.h. PRINT NANT 41" /A Nei a/ f 1 & ,1D FULLCIL, t Qc4n :ADDRESS SIGNATURE 101- i h tl C Otto j Jlt-lt 4~z '10(v /&944Lx;UrSl , - 1 c 0'- M, A d - Ad k, 6 - v C 305 v AY, Y r NFIGTMO.R:ROOD PETITION SOUTH ANTID WALNTJT STREET NEIGHBORHOODS We would like the speed lirni't on South and Walnut Streets reduced to 25 m.p.h. PR.1NT NAME ~ AUD ESS SIOINTATIME j ri~~© ~c~r !Jt"u19 A~'~f/, ~~'~.Jdrlt~ _ r z f i f F d 1 f t rvrx 4 t ~ F k E t NI FU HBOR IOOD PETITTO SO TIT ikNI D 4' AT.AUT STREET Ni TUGH OR..I-IOODS the yellow line tl1at was splaye can $6uth We would like ' and Walnut Streets on Sunday Nov ember 13, 2005 painted black, PRINT NAME ~ ADDRESS: g SI NATURL .w 1 -x . ' n 1r s, ] irU~ l%w3;~7i+✓ ,`V'P2Lj`'S`' .L,fi`'vlsr A f i 1 . ' V r.~_ a f~~ 1 i'. 7i= ~ .~.~,L"z,1 ~ 1 i f ~t.,I~`.``,-V} fC"~'!.~)'~~-~ i.•3,~s:~.~ :i i I+'Lc, i Ic ~rT ' ri t y~ ) J " Z ;N.. ^ !r j~" f ~l ! J+4 ! 1 f 'C a!'", • `T7 irZ11^'w'S • Jf l x i 1 R ' ~ ~ / t w' i t 1..J mow.., ` / ~ ~ ! ~~Y ~ i ~ f iI 3'G t ~ rj ` ~ r y. ~J°~i~~~~"1~!~ ~s''~G ~ ,,-s ? . J f , + ) , w ` i l ~ , NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION SOUTH AND WALNUT STREE"I"INE*fGHBOXHOODS ~Ve «'ould like the yellow line that. was sprayed on So-at and Walnut Streets on Sunday November 13, 2005 painted black. s 'F1RINIT M.' NIE I .ADD ''ASS l' SIGNIATURE _ ,r t<'~ .U it, iLz ~w~ C 1C?c~ ~l.3f✓i~t' UJT ' 1-~.....,Jrrai_Jt-1C !.\Ir~I/,rIC t r~a~.Ir.1J3/r,?.'i.7 r.7,•..,1,~;~`'~„~'j~d l.~I~',j f r ,..'-t''."'/ fly p fJ~/~J f Y 4 {~~,I~y i.s'(i~.L.✓' 1 .r.~. ~~F't^J'' 3-3f' ! /~r~.,..i~F~ ~"r~~z^F..~k ~ "yew ~ / ~~....vy 3 ;f✓. / ~ / ✓ r I fir!. '1!- / ` FY J',% ~.,~'1= G/ 1._. k i[/~ don ITSG Bt RR001.) 'ETtiIEJti SOUTH. AND WALNUT STREET ~IEIGHBORHOODS We would like the yello\N, line that was sprayed on South Nal nut Streets on Su. nday November 13 , 2005 aimed and, black. PFJNT --AM ( ADDIRF-SS I SIGNATT_-R.E \ J LJA L-1-1Li ( `i Fi1~ r ; e ` ~ f i ~ ~,r' Lf ' i ''fi 1 , . '~j1 r !i' i 1~ ✓ f L%' , • 1Ft/C ° ' ' f ~+~7" ~ ~ h G ~(~./1'j / ~ f/J/_ ' /1/C/u/y~1f~ ~~T/"~i ?,/p I ~~,/.l~x:.~..:~'.+!Si"✓~~ fJ i ell, 3)5 na NEIGHBORHOOD PEUITION SOUTH AND NVA.LNN T STRLET ?~t~IG~il30R1~0C71~S We would like the yellow line that was sprayed can South and "walnut Streets on Sunday November 13, 2005 painted black. Pi'T?ti'?v A.7)13KEs`i 3 SIGNATURE . Q'I f F q{j! i I