HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-07 Community Preservation Act Study Committee Minutes4 CLERK
Town of Reading J { N ASS.
Community Preservation Act Study Committee 200{ JUR 18 Ali: Z
Minutes for June 7, 2001
Present: Kim Honetschlager; Tim Kelley, Patricia Lloyd,
Paul Dustin, Richard Howard, Richard Schubert
Present from Conservation Commission: Nancy Eaton
7:35 meeting called to order by chair Kim Honetschlager
Minutes from May 24, 2001, distributed, along with copy of
meeting schedule for CPA study committee.
Nancy Eaton gave recreation file from 1995 report to Kim
Honetschlager, for her review.
Nancy Eaton gave Richard Howard and Paul Dustin state
housing policy reports downloaded from Internet
Report from the Conservation Commission
Nancy Eaton, chair of the Conservation Commission
presented.
Documents distributed (and attached to minutes):
1) Open Space Action Plan map compiled by Kim Honetschlager
2) Town of Reading sheet from build-out analysis concerning
buildable land. (Ms. Eaton disagrees with some of what is
characterized as buildable.)
3) Community Preservation Act Study Committee, Conservation
Commission report dated June 7, 2001.
Ms. Eaton noted that once conservation restrictions are
completed and signed, about 50 acres will be protected by
conservation restrictions. In addition, after an analysis
of town-owned and tax titled parcels was performed, about
20 parcels were transferred to the Conservation Commission.
Other parcels, acquired by donation, etc, were transferred
by town meeting.
Ms. Eaton went through the June 7, 2001 memo, which lists
areas of concern the town should protect if the land opens
up for development. She noted land acquisition through the
long process of state self-help funds is not practical
because land is sold before matching funds decisions are
made. Having a source of ready funds, such as through the
CPA, is important for moving quickly.
1
Sledge Woods and Marion woods were the only purchases made
since 1977. This is due to both lack of funds and absence
of person to mobilize efforts. Also, the Open Space Plan
had to be current for self-help funding, but it wasn't
current until 1995. Kim Honetschlager noted there was a
fair amount of fundraising by individuals, which helped the
Marion Woods purchase.
Paul Dustin noted most of land since 1977 was by donation.
Do we know what percentage of offered land for donation was
refused? Ms. Eaton responded she didn't know of any donated
land that was refused, but the town did lose opportunities
to purchase lands.
The valuations on the June 7, 2001, memo are 2001
valuations, not market values. Middle of Timberneck swamp,
for example, had an assessed value of $10,000, but sales
price $105,000.
Examples of future purchases: A fair amount of Camp Curtis
is wetlands, and town has concern about what areas would be
developed if Camp Curtis shut down. There are two Chapter
61 parcels left Meadowbrook Golf Club and Lester land.
Also, at Longwood Poultry and Spence Farm, market price at
2.1 million for each. The area near Van Norden is another
large area to be protected. The Conservation Commission has
written to all Van Norden abutters, but only received a
couple small donations.
Because land is so scarce, anyone who owns parcel that can
be subdivided is willing to do so. Buildable lots are sold
from $200,000 to $300,000. Developers are tearing down
small homes and putting larger ones on the lots.
Affordable housing stock is being diminished. Furthermore,
with marginally sized lots, there will be more denials,
resulting in more appeals, legal fees, and possibly
takings.
Nancy noted there are 6388 acres in Town of Reading, with
30 percent considered to be wetlands, and 22 percent of the
wetlands are protected. This means 10 percent of total town
area, or 600 acres, is not protected.
Kim Honetschlager asked if there are other grants than the
state's self-help grant money.
Nancy Eaton noted that at some point, until we get our
affordable units up to 10 percent, the town may no longer
2
qualify for self-help grants. Also, CPA may become a
requirement for self-help grants. Ms. Eaton heard this from
Joel Lerner, who administers the self-help grants. Richard
Howard asked if this would mean Reading would get no extra
self-help? Ms. Eaton responded we'd be docked 10 points,
which would decrease our rating to the point we'd get no
funds because other towns would have priority.
Patricia Lloyd noted that there are many public and private
grants available for many conservation purposes, but land
acquisition grants almost exclusively require matching
funds. Ms. Eaton has a section on available grants from the
Open Space Plan, which she will copy for Patricia Lloyd.
Ms. Eaton commented the community would embrace adopting
the CPA for positive reasons to keep the type of community
it wants to live in and do the right thing by providing
affordable housing. Many more wealthy communities are doing
their share for affordable housing.
What's the feasibility of a group like the Trust for Public
Land helping us out again by bridging the time until we
receive self-help grants, as with Marion Woods? Ms. Eaton
responded TPL and other groups plan to help in such
situations, but we have to pay carrying charges so we pay
more, and they only take on a project as an interim owner
when there is going to be money available.
Rick Schubert asked if the 1992 Criteria for Open Space is
still used or needs to be updated. Ms. Eaton said it's
being used as a screening process.
Rick Schubert asked, if CPA can be used for three purposes,
how does the town choose? Ms. Eaton noted after it is
adopted, a formal committee would be established to make
those decisions.
Thomas Ryan, from Board of Assessors, noted on the map,
Bare Meadows also spelled "Bear Meadows." Also noted there
was no such thing as a debt exclusion override, as
mentioned in Ms. Eaton's memo. It's either a debt exclusion
or an override.
Report of the Community Planning & Development Commission
Richard Howard presented.
3
He indicated CPDC does not get involved too often in
historic preservation, except for scenic roads. With
respect to open space and recreation, CPDC works to
encourage donation of open space. As part of approving
large parcels, CPDC encourages using some part of the land
for public purposes. Also encourages donations to
affordable housing funds as part of rationale for approving
waivers that require the public to benefit from the
variance. CPDC has also dealt with the mansionization of
Reading's lots.
Mr. Howard noted the Master Plan is about to be updated.
Also, over the next 12 months, they also will be developing
a housing plan to determine whether Reading can get to the
10 percent required for affordable housing.
Paul Dustin asked for a definition of affordable housing.
Tim Kelley responded with some examples of what meets the
definition.
Mr. Howard discussed if Reading has a plan for affordable
housing, it is less likely to have its funding jeopardized.
Mr. Howard discussed that CPDC felt all three sectors
benefited by CPA were valuable, and it was not in favor of
one over another. CPDC felt public input would be
enormously important.
Rick Schubert noted the comprehensive permit tool has
changed what has happened and we need to be proactive with
a master housing plan.
There was more discussion on the definition of affordable
housing, based on median income, section 8 certification,
permanency of keeping housing affordable. Exact definition
may not be relevant for our purposes, but more information
on what is affordable will be provided.
Mr. Howard discussed the Master Plan and how it is not very
helpful in this area. It deals with zoning issues and
transportation,.
Forum for public input
Discussion occurred on developing a panel for questions on
CPA. Making the forum part of the Selectmen's Forum on
local cable was discussed. Panel is intended to be a
4
dialogue for public and committee and selectmen to ask
questions.
Patricia Lloyd gave update on her telephone calls and
search for panelists:
• James Johnson from Mass Department of Revenue - may
attend, according to his secretary. We need to put our
request in writing with date.
• Craig MacDonnell from Trust for Public Land. Either he
or Elizabeth Adams will be there. They need a date from
us.
• Marcia Molay, director of the Community Preservation
Coalition. She'll be present if needed and available but
also recommended calling the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs and Trust for Public Lands. Marcia
also answered some questions:
a) Ms. Molay faxed to Ms. Lloyd a letter from the
Commissioner of Department of Revenue dated January 23,
2001. (Attached to minutes) This letter clarifies the DOR'
publication issued in October/November 2000 erred. In fact,
the CPA "is not restricted to new properties, either
historic resources or open space." Ms. Molay suggested we
look at the materials at the coalition's website for the
intended uses of CPA money.
b) Ms. Molay said the matching funds come from a
special fund that does not have to be appropriated. The pot
automatically refills from transactions at the registry of
deeds, where the fees increase of $20 goes to the CPA fund.
Ms. Molay said the only dangers would be if few towns enact
the CPA and the fund grows too large. At that point, the
legislature may want to take the funds for another purpose.
c) Ms. Molay discussed options of what percentages
could be passed. She suggested looking at other towns.
Harvard adopted it at 1.1 percent because they were looking
specifically to raise $100,000. We don't need to adopt by
whole percentages and can use fractions. Also, she
corrected Ms. Lloyd's mistaken impression that if a town
chooses less than 3 percent, it would not be eligible for
matching funds the following years. She said the pot was
divided into 80/20 percent, and the town would be limited
only in receiving funds from the 20 percent until at least
35 cities or towns sign on.
5
d) Ms. Molay said the CPA was not meant to take the
place of other grants. In fact, the CPA was designed to be
the matching half of many state grants that require
matching funds.
Richard Schubert offered to look into getting a date,
perhaps with the Board of Selectman, for our Q & A panel so
we can get back to the proposed panelists.
May 24, 2001 minutes
Patricia Lloyd moved and Richard Howard seconded approving
minutes dated May 24, 2001.
No discussion.
6-0 in favor.
Adjournment at 9:45 1D.m.
Patricia Lloyd moved and Richard Howard seconded
adjournment.
No discussion.
6-0 in favor.
PX&tricia f-ioyd
Acting Secretary
6
r WED
vl,
i`4G MASS.
l~D
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT STUDY COMMITTEE
JUN ` 11; 22
Conservation Commission LUU
June 7, 2001
Background
Legal Authority:
Pursuant to Town Meeting Warrant Article 23, March 28, 1960, it was "voted that the
provisions of Section 8C of Chapter 40 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth
relating to a Conservation Commission for the promotion and the development of the
natural resources and for the protection of watershed resources be and the same hereby
are accepted and that the Board of Selectmen be and they are hereby authorized to
establish a Conservation Commission and to appoint the members of the commission in
accordance with the provisions of said Section 8C of Chapter 40 of the General Laws."
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, Section 8 C lists among the powers and
duties of Conservation Commissions, "the promotion and development of the natural
resources and for the protection of watershed resources of said city or town" and to
"conduct researches into its local land areas" "said commission may receive gifts,
bequests or devises or personal property or interests in real property of the kinds
mentioned below in the name of the city or town" and "it may purchase interests in such
land with sums available to it"... "the commission may acquire in the name of the city or
town by option, purchase, lease or otherwise the fee in such land or water rights,
conservation restrictions, easements or other contractual rights including conveyances on
conditions or with limitations or reversions as may be necessary to acquire, maintain,
improve, protect, limit the future use of or otherwise conserve and properly utilize
open spaces in land and water areas within its city or town and it shall manage and
control the same."
Natural resources is defined in General Laws, Chapter 21 "for the purposes of
Department of Natural Resources jurisdiction, as including `ocean, shellfish and inland
fisheries; wild birds, including song and insectivorous birds, wild mammals and game;
sea and fresh water fish or [sic][of] every description; forests and all uncultivated flora,
together with public shade and ornamental trees and shrubs; land, soil and soil resources,
lakes, ponds, streams, coastal, underground and surface waters; minerals and natural
deposits." (See other definitions in Opinion Letter of the Attorney General.)
Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution states: "The people shall have the right to
clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural
scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment; and the protection of the
people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of the agricultural,
mineral, forest, water, air and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public
purpose."
2
General Laws, Chapter 61 B defines open land as that "retained in substantially a
natural, wild or open condition, or in a landscaped condition in such a manner as to allow
to a significant extent the preservation of wildlife and other natural resources." Values
which make open space important to society include "public health and safety,
environmental quality and quality of life factors such as vistas, -recreation and enjoyment
of the natural world." The Massachusetts Conservation Commission Environmental
Handbook in Section S. 1.2 clusters these values into four groups related to the
"protection or preservation of. biological and ecological diversity, water supply and
water quality, aesthetics and recreation and community character and agricultural lands."
The Town of Reading adopted as part of its General Bylaws Section 5.7 Wetlands
Protection the purpose of which is to protect the floodplains and wetlands of the Town
by controlling activities deemed to have a significant effect upon wetland values,
including but not limited to the following: Public or private water supply, groundwater,
flood control, erosion control, storm damage prevention, water pollution prevention,
fisheries and wildlife.
The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, MGL 131, Section 40, gives jurisdictional
oversight to the Conservation Commission over any bank, any freshwater wetland, any
coastal wetland, any beach, any dune, any flat, any marsh or any swamp bordering on the
ocean, any estuary, any creek, any river, any stream, any pond or any lake; the land under
any of the water bodies listed above, land subject to tidal action, land subject to coastal
storm flowage and land subject to flooding and regulates any activity proposed or
undertaken within 100 feet of them. The interests protected under the act include flood
control, storm damage prevention, wildlife habitat, fisheries protection, protection of
public and private water supplies, groundwater protection, pollution prevention and
riparian areas along smaller brooks and streams. The Rivers Protection Act gives the
Commission jurisdictional oversight over activities within 200 feet of a perennial stream.
The Conservation Commission adopted a priority listing for acquisition of Conservation
Areas in 1992.
The 1999 Open Space & Recreation Survey yielded 740 returns and shows that 86% of
the respondents believe that more land should be protected (questions lb, Id and 4b) and
are willing to pay more taxes to,meet that goal (questions le, If, and lh). This survey
was taken at the same local election when the taxpayers overwhelmingly voted no on a
Proposition 2 '/s override, which makes the survey results even more meaningful.
Question lb. Reading should acquire more conservation land to protect our watershed
and wildlife:
Strongly agree: 413, 57%; agree: 214, 29% (86%);
Disagree: 71, 10%, strongly disagree: 33, 5% (15%).
Question lc. Reading should acquire more land for hiking, canoeing, cross-country
skiing and birding:
Strongly agree: 352, 49%; agree: 225, 31% (80%);
Disagree: 105, 15%; strongly disagree: 33, 5% (20%).
3
Question ld. Reading has all the recreation and conservation lands it needs:
Strongly agree: 31, 4%; agree: 71, 10% (14%);
Disagree: 351, 50%; strongly disagree: 253, 36% (86%).
Question le. I would be willing to pay more in taxes so Reading could purchase
additional open space:
Strongly agree: 156, 23%; agree: 287, 40% (63%);
Disagree: 146, 20%; strongly disagree: 113, 16% (36%).
Question If I think the purchase of open space should be a standard part of the Town's
capital plan:
Strongly agree: 268, 37%; agree: 340, 47% (84%);
Disagree, 64, 9%; strongly disagree: 48, 7% (16%).
Question 1h. I would support a local referendum to adopt a state Community
Preservation Act which would place a 1% to 2% surcharge on new real estate transactions
to fund open space, historic preservation and affordable housing in Reading?
Strongly agree. 258, 34%; agree: 346, 37% (71%);
Disagree: 99, 14%; strongly disagree: 99, 14% (28%).
Question 4. With respect to conservation land, such as the Town Forest, are you
satisfied with the:
a. quality? Yes 349 51% No 262 38% Not a concern 77 11%
b. quantity? Yes 243 37%o No 344 52%o Not a concern 72 11%
Land Protection Tools and Techniques
1. Acquisition by deed
2. Protection by Conservation Restriction (purchased, donated or extracted)
3. Protection by Regulations (WPA, RGB 5.7, zoning)
4. Acquisition by tax title
Current Primary Funding Techniques
Town Meeting Capital Funds
a. Dependent on availability and appropriation
b. Only occasional opportunity at Town Meeting
2. Ballot Debt Exclusion Overri&y
a. Approval of Board of Selectmen or petition
b. Only occasional opportunity at town elections
3. State Self-Help Funds
a. Lottery system with any other community in the state that submits
b. Grant application with 2 appraisals or opinions of value by June 1
c. Site visit over the summer
d. Decisions announced October/November
e. Must complete acquisition and other grant requirements by June 1
f. Can't acquire before grant announced. Reimbursement only.
4
Parcels of Concern: (not owned by TOR)
Map/Plot Description Acreage Land Val
250/003 Camp Curtis Guild NG Range 7.10 A 56,800
250/001 Camp Curtis Guild NG Range 274.90 A
(80A est. wetland) L & B 6,047,800
132/001 Railroad E/MBTA
(at Route 93)
18.50 A
148,000
210/1
Main/Lester C 61
9.4798 A
L&B 186,200
210/10
Main/Lester C 61
27,181 sf
L&B 10,200
210/11
Main/Lester C 61
1.26 A
1,000
152/18
Grove/Meadowbrook GC C61 B
39,412 sf
49,700
189/1
Grove/Meadowbrook GC C61 B
78 A
312,000
15011
Grove/Meadowbrook GC C61 B
60 A
L&B 410,200
58/007
West/Longwood Poultry Farm
11 A
176,000
58/004
West/Longwood Poultry Farm
6.7 A
53,600
96/13
West/Longwood Poultry Farm
17.73 A
L&B 470,700
22/2
Spence Farm
1.24 A
1,400
22/3
Spence Farm
5.32 A
L&B 173,500
(The following parcels were listed in 1997 worksheets (not verified):)
002/15
South St.
17,78f sf of 35,569 sf
L&B 19,500
002/16
South St.
.61 A of 1.52 A
L&B 211,300
002/17
South St.
.25 A of 1.66 A
L&B 213,600
002/18
Walnut St.
2.66 A
10,600
002/19
Off South
2.79 A of 3.49 A
14,000
002/20
Off Walnut
3,250 sf
7,200
002/21
Walnut
812 sf
4,700
20/006
Cross St.
.27 A of 1.34 A
L&B 198,300
20/009
Off Cross St.
1.56 A of 1.64 A
6,600
20/010&
Cross St.
27,918 sf of 31,020 sf
L&B 180,600
20/012&
Cross St.
29, 568 sf of 32, 854 sf
L&B 182,500
20/014&
Off Summer
2.21 A of 2.45 A
9,800
20/015
Summer
.93 A of 1.55 A
L&B 201,700
20/017
Summer
15,484 sf of 38,712 sf
L&B 188,100
20/017A
Summer
13,873 sf of 34,684 sf
L&B 184,300
5
20/018
Summer
.39 A of 1.54 A
L&B 197,200
20/021
Summer
11 A of 1.10 A
L&B 182,900
21/007
Brook
.31 A of 1.57 A
L&B 202,000
21/012
Brook
7,284 sf of 24,280 sf
L&B 165,000
21/012A
Brook
7,800 sf of 26,000 sf
L&B 161,100
21/014
Brook
2.17 A of 4.34 A
17,400
21/015
Summer
.32 A of 1.05 A
L&B 193,700
21/016
off Cross
2.90 A
11,600
21/017
Ash St.
.18 A of 1.17 A
L&B 183,000
21/017B
Ash St.
9,056 sf of 36,226 sf
L&B 175,900
21/020
Cross St.
.77 A of 1.54 A
L&B 211,700
21/020A
Cross St.
.77 A of 1.54 A
L&B 191,400
21/023
Cross St.
.96 A of 1.60 A
L&B 207,800
21/025
Cross St.
25,377 sf of 42,296 sf
L&B 181,600
21/027
Cross St.
1.11 A of 2.21 A
L&B 212,200
21/028
Ash St.
.48 A of 1.20 A
145,300
23/1
Oak St.
1.44A
L&B 235,100
we/w
Oak St.
1.45 A
L&B 234,900
23/43
Avalon Rd.
45,386 sf
L&B 222,700
23/44
Avalon Rd.
21,340 sf
L&B 220,600
27/001
Main St.
3,185 sf of 15,928 sf
L&B 166,100
27/006
Main St.
2.77 A of 3.95 A
L&B 380,200
27/008
Main St.
7.268 sf of 36,340 sf
L&B 300,300
27/030
Shackford Rd.
6,794 sf of 16,985 sf
L&B 175,700
27/032
Cross St.
8,142 sf of 20,356 sf
L&B 161,400
27/033
Cross St.
7,061 sf of 35,306 sf
31,200
28/021
New Crossing Road
11.29 of 18.82 A
L&B 752,800
37/061
Springvale Rd.
2,220 sf of 8,880 sf
L&B 167,500
37/062
Springvale Rd.
15,840 sf of 26,400 sf
L&B 185,500
37/065
Springvale Rd.
4,400 sf of 8,800 sf
L&B 167,500
37/066
Springvale Rd.
3,000 sf of 7,500 sf
L&B 166,200
37/067
Springvale Rd.
4,844.5 sf of 9,689 sf
L&B 168,500
37/068
Randall Rd.
10,611 sfof 11,170 sf
8,500
37/069
Randall Rd.
8,712 sf
1,000
37/070
Springvale Rd.
15,840 sf of 26,400 sf
L&B 185,500
37/073
Randall Rd.
8,800 sf
19,800
37/091
Randall Rd.
1,816.8 sf of 9,084 sf
8,800
37/092
Randall Rd.
5,463 sf of 9,105 sf
8,800
37/093
Randall Rd.
5,476 sf of 9,127 sf
8,400
37/094
Randall Rd.
5,488 sf of 9,148 sf
8,400
37/095
Randall Rd.
4,585 sf of 9,170 sf
8,400
6
37/096
Randall Rd.
1,838.4 sf of 9,192 sf
8,400
37/097
Randall Rd.
4,628.5 sf of 9,247 sf
3,400
37/100
Randall Rd.
3,711.6 sf of 9,279 sf
8,400
37/108
Coolidge Rd.
4,017.5 sf of 16,070 sf
L&B 174,800
37/109
Coolidge Rd.
1,922 sf of 9,610 sf
L&B 170,300
45/001&
General St.
4.02 A of 20.12 A
L&B 3,838,000
46/006
Walkers Brook
7,770 sf of 51,801 sf
L&B 476,800
47/003
Low Meadow
4.20 A
33,600
47/071
Arnold Ave.
21,542 sf
56/006
Bolton St.
.91 A of 1.14 A
56/011
Village St.
2,625 sf of 17,500 sf
56/012
Village St.
21,403 sf of 35,673 sf
56/013
Village St.
4,094.7 sf of 13,649 sf
56/014
Village St.
2,350.8 sf of 11,754 sf
62/003&
off Temple
19,408 sf
67/72
off Lakeview
1.73 of 2.89 A
67/73
Eaton St.
5.87 A of 6.52 A
80/29
West St.
8,615 sf
81/19
Willow St.
3.89 A
92/14
Salem St.
3.36 A of 6.10 A
92/15
off Arrow Cir
1.07 A of 2.68 A
92/16
Johanna Dr.
636.4 sf of 12,728 sf
92/39
Johanna Dr.
1,687 sf of 16,873 sf
92/41
Johanna Dr.
839.8 sf of 16,796 sf
108/008
Timberneck Swamp
13.15 A
108/35
Varney Circle
67,684 sf
110/004
Austin Prep School
43.78 A
also 110/003, 001, 005; 119/012; 09/014C
122/093
Grove St.
3,877.8 sf of 37,668 sf
122/094
Grove St.
1,869.4 sf of 37,388 sf
123/063&
Ridge Rd.
6,610 sf of 11,017 sf
123/111&
Oakland Rd
10,000 sf
123/113&
Hillside Rd.
14,914 sf
124/001
Timberneck
12.89 A
7
126/10
Beverly Road
1.03 A
126/28
Lowell St.
.69 A
128/001
Camp Rice Moody
8.02 A
128/005
Off Grove St.
2.92 A
133/01
Off Grove
9.52 A
133/10
Grove Street
11 A of 12.22 A
138/02
YMCA
4.73 A
(remaining portion off Forest St.)
147/001
Haverhill St.
.80 A of 2.66 A
147/002
Haverhill St.
.33 A of 1.63 A
147/003
Haverhill St.
.15 A of 1.50 A
1551001
Van Norden
1.35 A of 5.40 A (devel)
155/002
Harold Ave.
2.22 of 2.96 A
155/006
Van Norden
167,336 sf of 233,115 sf
156/001&
Van Norden
1 A of 2 A
156/003
Van Norden
.68 A of 1.35 A
(part donated/part CR)
156/004
Van Norden
.70 A of 1.40 A
156/005
Van Norden
.70 A of 1.40 A
156/006
Van Norden
.83 A of 1.50 A
156/007
Van Norden
1.92 A of 3.20 A
156/009
Van Norden
1.08 A of 1.80 A
156/014
Forest St.
1.87 A of 3.11 A
166/005
Small Ln
10.42 A
167/006
Haverhill St.
167/007
Haverhill St.
167/009
Haverhill St.
5.01 A (partial development)
170/003
E of Haverhill St.
14.44 A of 15.20 A
173/001
Cedar Swamp
10A
174/015
Family Circle
180/001
Sledge Woods
12.20 A (filed)
183/006
Haverhill St.
.51 A of 1.01 A
183A/117
Haverhill St.
.43 A of 4.26 A
195/003
W of Main St.
2.31 A
195/004
Rocky Rd.
.46 A of 1.5 A
195/005
Brentwood Dr.
3.86 A of 6.43 A
198/001
Haverhill
14.9 A
205/002
Dividence Meadow
10.41 A
8
211/027
Main St.
4.71 A
223/019B
Sanborn Ln.
1.64 A
224/004
Franklin St.
? 5.60 A
226/001
Pearl St.
4.03 A of 4.48 A
226/002B
Pearl St Rear
20,456 sf
228/001
Haverhill St.
.80 A of 2 A
228/002
Haverhill St.
.50 A of 1.74 A
228/003
Haverhill St.
.50 A of 1.66 A
228/004B
Haverhill St.
.90 A of 2.99 A
228/005
Haverhill St.
60 A of 2 A
228/006
Haverhill St.
.60 A of 2 A
228/007
Haverhill St.
.84 A of 2.8 A
228/009
E/S Haverhill
.62 A of 1.23 A
233/103
Lilah Ln.
36,808 sf of 56,628 sf
233/104
Lilah Ln.
25,743 sf of 42,906 sf
233/105
Lilah Ln.
22,642 sf of 41,168 sf
233/106
Lilah Ln.
17,287 sf of 34,575 sf
233/107
Lilah Ln.
9,173 sf of 30,567 sf
233/108
Lilah Ln.
5,403 sf of 27,016 sf
241/019
Haverhill St.
2.80 A
245/005
Main St.
21,000 sf
247/001
Main St.
5.43 A of 9.05 A
TOWN OF READING - CONSERVATION COMMISSION
CRITERIA FOR OPEN SPACE - Adopted December 16; 1992
The Conservation Commission has adopted the following criteria for determining which
lands within the Town should be preserved as open space, whether wetlands or uplands, by
whatever means are most appropriate.
1. Those areas which are significant to the water resources of the town, including:
a. major wetlands
b. brooks and their contiguous wetlands necessary to guarantee stream flow and to
minimize sources of stream pollution
c. recharge areas necessary to maintain ground water levels in the existing and potential
water supply aquifers.
2. Areas which protect the health and safety of the inhabitants of Reading, as well as the
downstream communities, against the hazards of flood inundation:
a. Floodplain and wetland areas in the Town which are most important to flood reduction
and protection, and which have additional water supply, wildlife and/or recreation values.
3. Open space lands throughout the Town for greenbelts and outdoor recreation.
4. Diverse wildlife habitats and other critical natural areas.
5. Natural areas around or within walking distance of every school in Town, to be used as
outdoor classrooms.
6. Lands which meet any of the above criteria and which abut present open space, whether
privately or publicly protected.
7. Lands, whether upland or wetland, which would serve to connect, presently or in the
future, any protected or protectable open space.
8. Wetland and upland vernal pools, including a 100' buffer.
9. Any wetland and its adjacent area so that the total area is, or could become, at least 1/4
acre in size.
Furthermore, the Conservation Commission will consider accepting donations in whole or
in part of any other lands in addition to those classified above.
TOWN MEETING QUESTIONNAIRE
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT
I would support the placing of a referendum question on the ballot at a local election to
allow the voters to decide whether the Town should implement the Community
Preservation Act. ❑ Yes (27) ❑ No (11) ❑ Undecided (4)
To provide funding for open space (including active recreation), historic
preservation and community housing in Reading, I would'support a real estate
surcharge of
❑ 3%. *$876,000 (8)
❑ 2% *$584,000 (5)
❑ 1% *$292,000 (13)
0 Other (3); (1) $100,000; (11) blank
* numbers estimate the Town contribution that each percentage could raise based
on FY2000 net real estate tax levy of $29,196,190.
To provide funding for open space (including active recreation), historic preservation and
community housing in Reading, I would support the Community Preservation Act with
the following exemptions:
Any taxpayer receiving an exemption on real property authorized
by Chapter 59, or any other law, shall be exempt from any surcharge
on real property established under this section.
0 Property owned and occupied by a person who would qualify as low
income or low/moderate income senior housing (21)
❑ Class 3 commercial and class 4 industrial properties in cities or towns
with classified tax rates (not applicable in Reading) (4)
❑ Exclusion of the first $100,000 of value (14)
Comments: See next sheet.
TOWN MEETING QUESTIONNAIRE
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT
Comments (November 2000)
Those Favoring or Undecided:
13. I have a concern with the current state of Town Finances. Can we really afford to
direct funds to this issue when we are in trouble simply attempting to balance our budget?
41. Go for it.
27. Would want to see High School override first - would not want this "surcharge" take
precedence over the high School. Do we have to approve this by a certain deadline?
36. Imperative to have new funding source dedicated to what is important to lots of
residents.
31. Go for it!
1. Will this be deductible?
7. Can we buy the chicken farm with this?
39. I support the concept but only if surcharge is held at 1% or lower.
40. Tough sell possibly.
Those Opposed:
24. Given the current fiscal issues being addressed, I can not support an increase in re
property tax for this use. If this were assessed only when property was sold I would
support it more easily.
35. No exemptions. No CPA.
20. Support preserving open space; however, at this time, not with a tax levy.
11. Another tax!
25. There is very little land left to preserve!
34. Are the current amounts spent on open space funding equal to 1, 2 or 3%? Would
that money then return to the general fund? This strikes me as a way for a special
interest to get additional funding. I believe we need more revenue about 2 '/2%, and I
support open space but I believe we need to look at the whole picture and weigh the
town's needs as a whole. I also think a "back door" approach to an override is not
the way to go.
January 23, 2001
Representative Deborah Blumer
State House, Room 437
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative Blumer:
It has come to my attention that several communities, including Framingham,
have sought clarification about whether historic buildings currently owned by a
municipality can be restored, rehabilitated, and/or preserved, using Community
Preservation Act (CPA) funds.
Contrary to a prior publication issued by this office (City & Town,
October/November), the Act is not restricted to new properties, either historic resources
or open space- The Community Preservation Act would apply to properties acquired
pursuant to the Act or properties already owned by the municipality, provided that CPA
funding is not used for maintenance.
We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Please contact Inc if you
have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Frederick A. Laskey
Commissioner
FAIJdmj
pGWd an no>s~Yd p~p~r