HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-08 Board of Selectmen HandoutDRAFT MOTIONS
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
FEBRUARY 89 2011
Bonazoli, Anthony, Schubert, Goldy, Tafoya Hechenbleikner
3) Move to go into Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to
litigation and that the Chair declare that an open meeting may have a
detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the body, and to
reconvene in Open Session.
JB CA RS SG BT
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street.
Reading, MA 01867-2683
MEMORANDUM
To: Peter Heohenb|eikner, Town Manager
From: Jean De|ioo. Community Services Director/Town Planner
Dote: January 2S.2O11
Re: Regulations Summary 'Conservation
State and Local
JEAN DEMOS
Community Services Director
/
Town Planner
Phone: (701)g42-661%
Fax: (701)A4%-0U7l
jdeUom@ci. reading. mu.ou
This will follow up the on-g oi n8 discussion pedo| i ng to streamlining regulations. Community
Services Division Heads with regulatory roles, including the Conservation Administrohor, have
been asked for recommendations on measures to simplify, streamline, and refine the way
regulations are administered to make them more user friendly.
The wetlands regulations be|ng administered bv the Reading Conservation Commission and the
Conservation Administrator are summarized on the attached and provided in t b| form for easy
comparison. This includes both the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act — M.G.L. Chapter
131. Section 4O(VVPA) and the Tovvnof Reading General By-Law — Section 5.7(GBLSection
6.7). and their accompanying regulations. | have obtained input from both the Conservation
Administrator and the Town Engineer.
The Conservation Commission has expressed opposition to the recent proposal to revoke the
Bylaw at April Town Meeting. The Conservation Administrator has responded to the request for
streamlining by posting FAQ's on the Conservation page of the'website, including links to
appl I ication forms, other supporting materia Is,. checklists, and detailed descriptions of permitting
processes., The Administrator has indicated. that the Conservation Commission has expressed
interbs ' t in revising the 40 page Reading Wetlands Protection Regulations to make them more
user friendly. This requires a public hearing -process set forth in Section 4.11 of the General
In addition to the detailed information on the attached, the following summarizes the major areas
that the General By-Law exceeds or differs from what ie required bv the State Wetlands
Protection Act:
In Summary:
The basic procedures for Conservation permifting under-the WPA are mandated by the
State law, and therefore can only be changed at the State level. Conversely, changes to
GBL Section 5.7 can be made by Town Meeting. In terms of application procedures, it is
important to note that applicants file under both the State and Local regulations using one
application as is required under GBL Section 5.7. One hearing is held and one permit is
issued. Appeals are treated differently.
Irvi
The Town's General Wetlands provides UlConservation Commission with, mddad 'control over the protection
Wetlands. The scope of the General 8y-Lew has
been expanded to include added regulation in bsnna of the definition of a vveUend,
setbacks and wetland replication naquirementn, feea, finoe, variances, and appeals. The
vvebaite includes a document ofmore than 40 pages of administrative regulations that
accompany GBL Section 5.7. 'Changes to the General By-law require Town Meeting
approval; changes to the regulations can be voted on by the Conservation Commission in
o public hearing.
m The definition of what constitutes m wetland is stricter in the General Wetlands
and includes intermittent ponds (ponds that dry up in the wormer months), isolated
freshwater wetlands, canals, and a larger habitat'area around vernal pools,
w The VVPA defines a wetland as saturated soils that support 50Y& or more, of wetland
indicator plants. The GBL Section 5. dtes land where the water table ioednrnear
the surface that also has at least one of the following:
> At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hyd hytic n;
Predominantly
> Saturated or covered with water at some time during the growing season of
each year,
NOTE -The soils. and hydrology ��m����um�W�a�R�.
�VeUemdindioetnr vegetation, = "Hydrophytic vegetation" "Saturated soils" ="undnainedhydhc
The WPA defines a wetland as an area of isolated land subject to flooding as generating
a minimum of Y4 acre feet of runoff. , There is no threshold requirement under the GBL
Section 5.7; anything that floods is a wetland. The Conservation Administrator stresses
that in practice the'Commission tries to work with applicants to maintain flood storage
capacity where needed to protect existing structures; especially where abutters attend
hearings and provide credible documentation of surface flooding during major storms.
The Conservation Administrator further points out that the definition of a wetland could be
modified by the Conservation Commission to establish a reasonable minimum size as
~
Applicants | required to pay �n fees related to both regulations; ' the fees under the
GBL Section 57 were significantly higher'avereging 8196 of total revenue from 2DO1 to
2010. Fees collected under8BL Section 5.7 go into the General Fund. Also. under the
GBL Section 5.7 the cost ofa peer review may be an added fee, monetary fines may be
°
The VVPA does not have esetback requirement within a buffer zone; the GBL Section 57
requires a 25 foot setback for clearing of vegetation within a buffer zone and a 35 foot
setback for structures.
w The appeal process under the WPA isa filing with the State DEP Regional Office. The
appeal process under BLB Section 57kstn Superior Court.
The Conservation Administrator has provided the following examples nf appeals to illustrate how
the appeal process has worked in Reading.
Examples ofeppeals -
Wood End School - Cons Com issued OOC permitting construction. Abutter appealed to
DEP Regional Office and to Superior Court. Both upheld Cons Com decision. Abutter then
appealed to Adjudicatory Hearing and to Appeals Court. Both again . upheld Cons Com
decision, allowing work to commence. Cons Administrator played active role in supporting
Town Counsel with defense.
Lot on Azalea.,CIrcle - Cons Com denied ODC for house construction due to proximity to
wetland. Applicant appealed. DEP and Court reversed decision. Abutter then appealed
those decisions, but did not succeed in stopping project. Cons Com learned from process
and amended local regulations to provide better setback standards. Applicant never built
Lot on Sanborn Lane - Cons Com denied DOC due to unavoidable wetlands impacts in
concerns. Applicant appealed toDEP
endangered �|��-' DEP AppUcontdid not appeal fu�her.
10 Torre Street - Regional un/c�� / �
Site is near Walkers Brook. ^— ' could not meet State standards for
in '--'nt Area and did not want to reduce size of daycare oantdr,
Applicant found exemption in Rimsrfront Area regulations for "Canals". Applicant filed
Request for Determination only underVVPA. and claimed VVm|hare Brook is a oone|. Cons
Conn issued Determination that brook is a river and site contains RiverfrnntArea. AooUoont
=ppr^"m^|ed to DEP.
Regional office upheld Cons Cnn decision. Applicant �appealed for
A~^~oatory Decision. Cons Conand DEP Regional Office defended decisions. but DEP
commissioner ultimately ruled that Walkers Brook ieo river and ocanal. Commissioner also
noted serious �-'- in drafting of state regulations and asked DEP to amend regulations.
{� C amended Town regulations so that "canals" are
They have hotyatdon� nn� Cons �nn anne
protected byRiverfnont Area standards.
Cons Conndenied DOCho build house. in the wetlands because
most of the lot was a swamp. Applicant appealed Uz DEP and Superior Court. DEP upheld
Cons Com decision, and applicant withdrew court appeal.
/�C��
�
.p
Comparison of Wetlands Regulations
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
Reading General By-Laws, Section 5.7
Description of Regulation
M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40
® Any bank, freshwater wetland, marsh, or
swamp that borders on a river, stream, pond
Wetlands Protection
In addition to all of the wetlands
protected by the WPA, the Bylaw
Definition of Wetland:
or lake.
protects:
® Land under a river, stream, pond, or lake.
(Includes intermittent streams.. Includes
• Intermittent ponds
ponds and lakes that meet minimum size
standard and stay wet year-round: Includes
0 Isolated freshwater wetlands
certified vernal pools, and protects any
floodplain or bordering freshwater wetland
® All land within 100 feet of vernal
around such pools as vernal pool habitat.)
pools as wildlife habitat, whether is
• Land subject to flooding, both bordering on
wetland or upland. (The
water bodies and in isolated depressions that
amphibians that breed in vernal,
meet a minimum size standard.
pools depend on the surrounding
Riverfront area (land within 200' of .a river or
forest for survival.)
stream that flows year-round)
Jurisdiction for permitting purposes also
Riverfront area associated with
includes the 100 -foot buffer zone adjacent to
any portion of astream or river
banks, freshwater wetlands, and water
deemed to be a "canal" because of
bodies. Floodplains and riverfront areas do
-
human alteration in the past.
not have buffer zones.
® If work outside the 100 -foot buffer zone alters
If work outside the 100 -foot ' buffer
a wetland, the Commission has authority to
zone is likely to alter a wetland the
order corrections after the fact. -
Commission has authority to -
® Coastal resources (dune, beach, tidal flat,
require a permit application..
ocean, estuary, etc.) are also protected by the
WPA, but there are none in Reading.
Cn
n
No Build Requirements and • No minimum setback in buffer zone
Minimum Setback • 100 Foot setback in riverfront area.
Requirements • If alteration of wetlands or floodplains can not
be avoided, must create new wetlands or
floodplains on site to replace the lost
resource areas, at a 1:1 ratio.
Activities that Trigger a Permit. Any work. in a wetland resource area or the buffer
zone that will alter soils, vegetation, topography,
stormwater runoff characteristics, or structures.
Types of Permits File Request for Determination of
Applicability (RDA) and receive
Determination of Applicability (DA) - for
smaller projects in buffer zone. Also to
confirm that there are no wetlands on. a site.
• File Notice of Resource Area Delineation
(NRAD) and receive Order of Resource Area
Delineation (GRAD) — for confirming
wetlands boundaries for large projects where
applicant wants to pin down boundaries
before engineers do final designs..
• File Notice of Intent (NOI) and receive Order
of Conditions (OOC) — for larger projects in
buffer zone -and in wetlands.
• Issue Extension Permit for OOC if more time
is needed to complete work.
• Issue Certificate of Compliance for OOC
when work is finished.
• Issue Amended OOC for major plan revision,
but accept minor revisions under existing
OOC without Amendment.
• Minimum 25 foot setback in buffer
zone for alteration of soils,
vegetation, or topography.
• Minimum 35' setback between
wetlands and structures in buffer
zone.
• Same riverfront area setback.
• Same requirement for floodplain
replacement. Requires 2:1 ratio
for freshwater wetlands
replacement because mitigation is
not always 100% successful.
Same
Same, plus Minor Project Permit
(MP) — for very small projects that
meet size and setback standards
(e.g., sheds, decks, fences, above-
ground pools, tree removal,
walkways, porches, patios). Also
for soils tests, groundwater tests,
and surveying during initial site
assessment for design work.
Lti
A \
Administrative Requirements
DA requires Cons Com review at public
• Same processes for DA, ORAD,
(Legal Ad, Public Hearing,
meeting. Must be issued within 21 days of
and OOC.
Abutter Notification) and if they
filing. Usually issued within 14 -days.
® MP is issued by Administrator after
can be combined for efficiency
ORAD, and OOC require public hearing to
a site inspection. No hearing or
open within 21 days. Usually opened within
abutter notice required.
14 days, and OOC usually issued within 14
Commission accepts MP after it is
days of close of hearing.
issued. Usually takes 1 -3 days.
• All three require abutter notice, legal ad in
-Applicants file only one form for
papers.
both state and town applications,
• Commission and Administrator inspect site
have one hearing. Commission
and review plans before meeting /hearing.
issues one permit. No duplication
® NOl and RDA can include boundary
of work.
delineation, so the ORAD is not needed.
® Use boilerplate to draft permits,
notices, etc. for efficiency.
Appeal Process
® Appeal to DEP Regional Office for
® Appeal to Superior Court.
Superseding DA, ORAD, or OOC.
® Appeal of Superior Court decision
• Superseding DA, GRAD, or OOC appeal to
to Appeals Court.
Adjudicatory Hearing administrative level in.
DEP.
Filing Fees
® Fees only for NRAD and NOI.
® MP fee $50.
Town receives slightly more than half of fee,
® DA fee $75.
rest goes to State.
® Extension fee $25 (residential),
• Fees increase with complex_ ity of work.
and $50 (other projects).
• Fees go to Town revolving fund.
® Minor plan revision fee $25-
Commission uses to administer WPA,
(residential), and $50 (other
primarily to help pay Administrator salary.
projects).
® Average annual revenues 2001 -2010 were
® Amended OOC fee $25
$4,921, or 19% of total revenues. (See
(residential), and $100 (other
chart.)
projects).
® NRAD and NOI fees based on
complexity of project.
® Fees go to General Fund for
allocation by Town Meeting.
® Average annual revenues 2001-
2010 were $20,649, or 81 % of total
revenues. (See chart.)
A \
Other
• No provisions for peer review, fines, or
bonds.
® Variances from state standards are only
available from DEP and are very difficult to
get and thus rare.
May charge fee for peer review.
May issue monetary fines to.
violators.
May require bond to. assure work is
completed properly.
s May grant variances from Town
standards that are more strict than
state standards.
CE
•.
Conservation Permitting Activity
Year
MP's
Issued
DA's
Issued
OOC's
Issued
ORAD's
Issued
EXT's
Issued
AM OOC's
Issued .
WPA
FEES
RGB
FEES
Total
FEES
% of total
under
WPA
% of total
under
RGB
2001
33
15
18
4
8
0
$9,690
$16,398
$26,088
37%
63%
2002
31
19
15
5
3
1
3,079
14,479
17,558
17%
83%
2003
31
23
33
2
0
1
4,016
45,408
49,424
8%
92%
2004
43
21
16
3
3
2
4,756
21,836
26,592
17%
83%
2005
38
16
31
4
0
1
6,398
29,317
35,715
17%
83%
2006
39
20
24
3
2
0
6,978
25,817
32,795
21%
79%
2007
26
13
25
3
1
0
1 5,086
17,188
22,274
23%
77%
2008
32
22
24
2
2
1
5,539
17,644
23,183
24%.
76%
2009
20
17
21
1
4
1
3,263
13,583
16,846
19%
81%
2010
30
21
8
0
1
0
408
4,817
5,225
8 %.
92%
TOTAL
49,213
206,487
255,700
19%
81%
Annual
Average
1 4,921
20,649
25,570
19%
81%
NOTES:
The State raised WPA fees in 2005.
The State has no fee for Minor Projects, Determinations, Extensions, or Amended Orders.
Town fees were raised in 2002 and 2006.
The Town charges $50 for Minor Projects, $75 for Determinations, $25 -$50 for Extensions,
and $25 -$100 for Amended Orders.
Public agencies are exempt from all fees. No fees have been received for School, RMLD, DPW,
MassHighway, RHA, MBCR, Camp Curtis Guild, or other public projects.
KEY
MP = Minor Project Permit EXT = Extension Permit for OOC
DA = Determination of Applicability AM OOC = Amended OOC
OOC = Orders of Conditions ORAD = Order of Resource Area Delineation
WPA FEES =. Fees collected under the State Wetlands Protection Act, and put in the Wetlands Fee Fund.
RGB FEES= Fees collected under Reading. General Bylaws, Section 5.7, and put in the General Fund.
�l
Town of Reading CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942 -6616
16 Lowell Street Fax (781) 942 -9071
Reading, MA 01867 -2683 ffink@ci.reading.ma.us
Memorandum
To: Board of Selectmen
From: Conservation Commission
Date: January 27, 2011
Subject: Reading Wetlands Protection Bylaw, Section 5.7 of the General Bylaws
The Conservation Commission opposes the proposal to revoke the Reading Wetlands Protection Bylaw.
We disagree with the reasons given to the Selectmen on January 11, 2011, for this proposal, which were:,
State law provides environmental protection, and administering the state law and the local law is time
consuming, redundant, and confusing to customers. A separate local bylaw also inhibits efforts to
regionalize the service.
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the facts about the.Bylaw and how it is administered. We
are providing information about the basic differences between the state law and the town bylaw, which .
include levels of environmental protection, financial factors, and administrative options.
Permitting_ Processes
1. Sections 5.7.4.and 5.7.5 of the Bylaw require the Commission to accept one application form, one site
plan, and one set of supporting documents under both the Bylaw and the State law, as well as to hold
one simultaneous public hearing for both. Only one hearing notice is sent to abutters and published in
the paper. The Commission issues one permit under both laws. Thus, the application process is not
redundant. Revoking the Bylaw will lengthen the process for Minor Projects, and will not shorten any
other process.
2. Section 5.7.5 of the Bylaw also requires all time periods for actions to be the same as the time periods
under State law.
3. The Minor Project Permit is only available under the Bylaw. This process is used for decks, sheds,
fences, and other small projects that meet minimum size and setback standards. The Administrator is
authorized to issue these permits without a hearing by the Commission. This saves time and money
for the applicant, and reduces staff and Commission workload. Under the State Act, the applicant
must go through a hearing for a Determination of Applicability if there is a question whether a project
is "minor ". Revoking the Bylaw will eliminate this streamlined procedure.
4. Typical time periods for issuing permits after receiving an application are:
• Minor Projects — 2 -3 days
• Determinations — 2 weeks
Orders — 4 weeks. (If the application is not complete or if the plans. require revisions to meet
wetlands standards, then the public hearing is continued. Timing will depend on how quickly the
applicant , able to provide the necessary materials.)
Ib
L
9
5. Out responsibilities continue under both laws after permits are issued. We make site inspections,
consider plan revisions, and issue extensions and final certifications for each project. Revoking the
Bylaw will not reduce this workload.
6.. We use boilerplate findings and conditions to save time when drafting permits, adding or subtracting
items as needed to address any unique project characteristics. Revoking the Bylaw will not shorten the
time required to draft or issue permits.
7. We have taken measures to minimize customer confusion and make the application process as smooth
as possible.. We provide, a fall application packet at the service counter and on the website, including
forms, checklists, maps, and other information. We send these materials by email or fax upon request.
The Administrator often meets with customers to help them complete applications, and to understand
the parts of the regulations that will apply to their projects.
8. We are willing to review the Reading Wetlands Protection Regulations and revise them if necessary.
This would require'a public hearing and vote by the Commissionj but not Town Meeting action.
Revenues
I.Please see the attached chart that documents the actual numbers of permits issued in the last ten calendar
years, and the filing fees collected under State and Town laws.
2.On average, State fees provide 19% of revenues ( $4,921 annually). By. State law, these go to a
revolving fund to be used only to administer the Wetlands Protection Act. Most of these revenues are
transferred to the annual operating budget to help pay the Administrator's salary.
3.On average, Town fees provide 81% of revenues( $20,649 annually 1. By State law, these go to the
General Fund for future allocation by Town Meeting. The Commission has no control over use of these
funds. If the bylaw is revoked, the Town will 'lose this income.
4.The Bylaw also authorizes the Commission to charge fees for peer review,'to issue fines for violations,
and to require bonding of work. Although we use these provisions rarely, they are very helpful in
certain situations. The State law does not provide these types of financial support.
Environmental Protection
l.The Bylaw was proposed to and adopted by Town Meeting because there were, and still are, gaps in the
protection offered by the State law for protecting wetlands, floodplains, water supplies, fisheries, and
wildlife habitat, as well as for controlling erosion and preventing storm damage.
2.The Bylaw provides substantial additional protection against flooding because it protects more wetlands
than the state law. About 40% of the land in Reading is wetlands.
3.The Bylaw provides significantly better protection than State law for isolated wetlands, vernal pools,
and streams that have been altered in the past for human convenience. These types of wetlands are
common in Reading.
4.The- Bylaw requires minimum setbacks between wetlands and development that protect vegetation, soils,
wildlife, and water quality. The setbacks also protect against flooding and other storm damage. The
State does not require setbacks, except near rivers.
5.The Bylaw includes a variance procedure that gives applicants and the Commission flexibility in project
design when a strict application of standards is difficult due to site limitations or for redevelopment of
previously developed sites.
6.1h sum, the Bylaw provides better protection than State law for public health and. safety, natural
resources, property values, and community character in Reading. Public survey results for the Open
Space and Recreation Plan show that citizens place high value on these attributes.
Thank you for your review and consideration of these comments. We look forward to discussing this
matter further with the Board during the meeting on February 1, 2011. We would be happy to answer any
questions that the Board might have.
10
Conservation Permitting Activity
Year
MP's
Issued
DA's
Issued
OOC's
Issued
ORAD's
Issued
EXT's
Issued
AM OOC's
Issued
WPA
FEES
RGB
FEES
Total
FEES
% of total
under
WPA
% of total
under
RGB
2001
33
15
18
4
8
0
$9,690
$16,398
$26,088
37%
63%
2002
31
19
15
5
3
1
3,079
14,479
17,558
17%
83%
2003
31
23
33
2
0
1
4,016
45,408
49,424.
8%
92%
2004
43
21
16
3
3
2
4,756
21,836
26;592
17%
83%
2005.
38
16
31-
4
0
1
1 6,398
29,317
35,715
17%
83%
2006
39
20
1 24
3
2
0
1 6,978
25,817
32,795
21%
79%
2007
26
13
25
3
1
0
1 5,086
17,188
22,274
23%
77%
2008
32
22
24
2
2
1
5,539
17,644
23,183
24%
76%
2009
20
17
21
1
4
1
3,263
13,583
16,846
19%
81%
2010
30
21'
8
0
1
0
408
4,817
5,225
8%
92%
TOTAL
49,213
206,487
255,700
19%
81%
Annual
Average
4,921
20,649
25,570
19%
81%
NOTES:
The State raised WPA fees in 2005.
The State has no fee for Minor Projects, Determinations, Extensions, or Amended Orders.
Town fees were raised in 2002 and 2006.
The Town charges $50 for Minor Projects, $75 for Determinations, $25 -$50 for Extensions,
and $25 -$100 for Amended Orders.
Public agencies are exempt from all fees. No fees have been received for School, RMLD, DPW,
MassHighway, RHA, MBCR, Camp Curtis Guild, or other public projects.
KEY
MP =Minor Project Permit EXT = Extension Permit for OOC
DA = Determination of Applicability AM OOC = Amended OOC
OOC = Orders of Conditions GRAD = Order of Resource Area Delineation
WPA FEES = Fees collected under the State Wetlands Protection Act, and put in the Wetlands Fee Fund.
RGB FEES = Fees collected under Reading General Bylaws, Section 5.7, and put in the General Fund.
Page 1 of 2
Schena, Paula .
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:07 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: No More Cuts for Senior Services in Reading
C to Board of Selectmen in their material on 2=1 and put a copy in my binder
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
Town Manager
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading MA 01867
Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010:
Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Friday: CLOSED
phone: 781 -942 -9043
fax 781 - 942 -9071
web www.readngrna_gay
email tawnmanager @ci,reading,._ma.us
Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http._//readin g ma-
sury ._virtualtoWnh.a11_net/suive /sid/� &734dd9e2130b7/
From: Stephen A. Goldy [mailto:sgoidy @sgoidy.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011,11:45 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: FW: No More Cuts for Senior Services in Reading
As I mentioned Tuesday night this is one of the emails I received from Council on Aging members.
Steve
sue&n a. q
42 Berkeley Street, Reading
781- 775 -5805 (mobile)
781 - 779 -1773 (home)
steve,goldy,com
From: Stephen A. Goldy [mailto:sgoidy @sgoldy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 20114:36 PM
To: 'Bertocchi, Stacey'
Subject: RE: No More Cuts for Senior Services in Reading
Stacey,
Thank you for the email. I will convey your message to the entire Board tonight.
`3
�1 ;r
�
12
1/20/2011
Page 2 of 2
Please understand that this is a very difficult budget year and some difficult decisions have to be made.
What the Town Manager proposed is a reduction to half time for the Elder Services Administrator along
with some other positions and he will pursue an effort to partner with one of our neighboring
communities to regionalize the services. This is a practice that is done throughout the Commonwealth
and is an initiative of the Governor's. The goal of partnering is to provide at least the same level of
service that we as a community are providing now and hopefully increasing the level of service.
Again, tonight I will convey your message along with others that I received.
Thanks,
Steve
step &n a. q
42 Berkeley Street, Reading
781 -775 -5805 (mobile)
781 - 779 -1773 (home)
stevegoldy,com
From: Bertocchi, Stacey [ma !Ito: Stacey. Bertocchi @ssa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, 7anuary 18,. 2011 9:53 AM
To: 'sgoldy @ci. read ing. ma. us'
Cc: 'sbert04 @msn.com'
Subject: No More Cuts for Senior Services in Reading
Hi Steve,
I was hoping because you are the liaison for Seniors in Reading you might be able to convey tor the Selectman
just how devastating the proposed cut of the Administrator position will be to those requiring services in the town
of, Reading. We have already lost one position the Coordinator of Volunteers and even though town members
voted for the position to remain, it was not filled.. We can't afford to reduce the hours of our Administrator -the
department will truly fall apart.
Please represent our Seniors and all residents who require services from our Elder /Human Services Department
and say "NO" to this cut!!
Thank you for your time and REPRESENTATION!!
Stacey Bertocchi
Council of Aging Board Member
1/20/2011
January 24, 2011
Board of Selectmen
Town of Reading
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, Massachusetts 01867
Dear Selectmen,
Making Reading Better would like to express its' support for the Town Manager's
proposed 2012 Town. Budget.
The budget proposal currently before the Board of Selectmen appropriately focuses the
Town's resources on maintaining the high quality, professional police and fire services
which are essential.to the safety and quality of life in Reading.
MRB would also like to applaud the move toward the regionalization of services such as.
public health and conservation administration. While staff cuts are always difficult, and
the move to shared services can raise false concerns about loss of local control, if well
managed and combined with efforts to stream line the regulatory and permitting process,
they will pay additi O*nal dividends to the Town when prosperity returns.
As you work through the remainder of the budget process, we would encourage the
Board-to look for additional ways to maintain as much support * for the Reading Public
Library as possible. It is * a widely accepted fact that libraries actually increase their
importance during economic downturn. Our library is the perfect example of a resource
that delivers real, . tangible value to every strata of the community and is much a part of
Reading's commitment to lifetime education as its' schools. If additional cuts ' are
required to preserve the quality of service at the library.they should be fully considered.
Thank you all for your continued dedication to the Town and your stalwart efforts to
make the hard decisions that are required to maintain a responsible budget that protects
the key interests of the community.
Sincerely,
Cc: Mr. Peter Hechehbleikner, Town Manager
Ms. Jean Delios, Town Planner
14
Schena, Paula
From* Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent. Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:06 PIVI
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Support for Elder Services Administrator
C to Board of Selectmen in their material on 2-1 and put a copy in my binder
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
Town Manager
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading MA 01667
Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010:
Monday, Wednesday and nd Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Friday: CLOSED,
phone: 781-942-9043
fax 781-942-9071
web www.readihgma.gov.
email townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us
Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at
http://readingma-survey.virtualtownhall.net/survey/sid/887434dd9e2l3obi/
-- Original Message---- -
From: Stephen A. Goldy [mailto:sgoldy@sgoldy.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:46 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: FW: Support for Elder Services Administrator
Email number two and my response.
Steve
Stephen A. Goldy
42 Berkeley Street, Reading
781-775-5805 (mobile)
781-779-1773 (home)
stevegoldy.com
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Stephen A. Goldy [mailto:sgoldy@sgoldy-com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:36 PM-
To: 'Steve Oston'
Subject: RE: Support for Elder Services Administrator
Steve,
Thank you for the email. I will convey your message to the entire Board tonight.
Please understand that this.is a very difficult budget year and some difficult decisions
have to be made. What the Town Manager proposed is a reduction to half .time the Elder
Services Administrator along with some other positions and he will pursue an effort to
partner with one of our neighboring communities to regionalize the services. This. -is a
practice that is done throughout the Commonwealth and is an initiative of the Governor's.
The goal of partnering is to provide at least the same level of service that we as a
community are providing now and hopefully increasing the level of service.
15 `(a /
Again, tonight I will convey . your message along with others that I received.
Enjoy the rest of your vacation!
Thanks,
Steve
Stephen A. Goldy
42 Berkeley Street, Reading
7&1-775-5805 (mobile)
781-779-1773 (home)
stevegoldy.com
Message-----
From:.Steve Oston [mailto:steven oston@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:17 PM
To:*sgoldy@ci.reading.ma.us
Cc: Carol Oniskey
Subject: Support for Elder Services Administrator
Hi Steve,
I'm emailing you from out of town to ask your support to retain the position of Elder
Services Administrator as it currently exists. Elder Services has already lost one half-
time position as you know, the Coordinator of Volunteers. To lose another half-time
position would be devastating not only to well-being of our seniors, but also to the
morale of that department. If this cut goes through I can foresee that Reading will be
relatively helpless the make life better for our elderly, many, many of whom are in need
of assistance programs and beneficial activities. Dawn is making good things happen for
our seniors, and.I hope'I'm preaching to the choir on this one.
Please see what you can do tonight and in future budget, meetings. I'll get in touch with
you after I return from vacation. Thanks!
Steve Oston
Chair, COA
Sent from my iPad
2
16
Patricia Lloyd
388 Franklin Street
Reading, MA 01867
781- 942 -3672
February 7, 2011
Board of Selectmen
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
.Reading, MA 01867
Dear Board of Selectmen:
Please consider this letter in opposition to the Board of Selectmen's proposal to place
before Town Meeting an article proposing to eliminate the local Wetlands Bylaw and to
shrink the Conservation Administrator (CA) position to three - quarters time.
In times of financial crisis, it is necessary to consider all reasonable ideas for improving
the financial health of the town. However, this extreme proposal is shortsighted, and the
potential costs and benefits have. not been carefillly considered. The town bylaw and
accompanying 45 pages of regulations are complex, no doubt. However, the complexity
of the regulations -- necessary to safeguard our property and natural resources and
developed by experts over 30 years -- highlights the danger in throwing them out in one
fell swoop, with no regard to negative consequences.
In lieu of making a hasty, but permanent, change to the landscape of Reading, the
Selectmen should facilitate an updating of the wetlands regulations by convening a
dialogue between all interested parties, including town departments, local conservation
and recreation groups, wetland scientists, the business community, the Cities for Climate
Protection Control Committee, the Town Forest Committee, and other interested parties.
Making such profound changes at a meeting where the only agenda item listed is
"Budget and Capital Improvements Program" does not adequately invite input from
interested parties, especially where; as noted below, this is not a budget issue but rather a
business improvement proposition.
I have the following specific objections to the proposal:
1) Eliminating the local bylaw and reducing the CA position are not solutions to the
town's budget shortfalls. The local bylaw generates an average of more than
$20,000 per year for the town. The loss* of fees would offset any benefit gained by
cutting the CA's salary. Simply, this is not a budget issue.
2) Eliminating the local bylaw does not create less work for the CA or the
Conservation Commission. The same application process, site visits, hearings,
and orders are required. Cutting the CA's time will instead result in cutting the
time she can spend on non - permitting issues, such as grantwriting, trail building,
attending meetings, coordinating volunteers, advising community groups, and
other activities that generate funds and volunteer labor for the town. From past
experience. as a conservation commission member, I can attest that the volunteers
on the commission work long hours and are only able to keep up with the high
volume of applications because of the expert knowledge and support of the CA.
Reducing her hours will make the volunteer commission member job more
difficult and discourage residents from serving in the position.
3) There is no factual basis to believe that eliminating the bylaw will generate
additional local business investment sufficient to offset the potential damage to
the town's character, the ecosystem, stormwater management, and neighboring
homes and businesses that are protected from flooding by the current regulations.
More than half of the towns in the Commonwealth have local bylaws; businesses
understand the necessity of protecting the community's character and open space.
There is no evidence that the business climate is better in towns without local
wetlands bylaws. Eliminating the bylaw without specific, quantifiable benefits is
an extreme measure that endangers our Town.
4) Eliminating the bylaw cedes local control of Reading's rich resources to the state.
Currently; under the local bylaw, appeals of decisions are made to the court,
which must defer to the local conservation commission's decisions, absent clear
errors. However; if the local bylaw were eliminated, appeals from commission
decisions would be heard first by the Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), which makes its own decisions without any deference to the local
commission. The local conservation commission, with its expertise and interest in
our town's specific circumstances, would no longer be the primary
decisionmaker. Instead, the town would be forced to rely on the judgment of the
state DEP, which is subject to changes in budgeting and politics at the state level,
where's Reading's unique concerns may not be known or prioritized.
5) Eliminating the local bylaw and reducing the CA position will have permanent
negative consequences for town wetlands, open space, and the character of the
town of Reading. As the Conservation Commission has informed the BOS, the
local bylaw better protects the Town's natural resources, property values, health
and safety, and character — and provides more flexibility for small projects and in
the granting of variances. Once wetlands and open space are lost, they are lost
forever. Recent severe weather patterns demonstrate the critical need for
stormwater management and wetland preservation. Any conceivable benefit to tax
revenues will be offset by the need to respond to additional strain on the sewer
system and increased complaints of water in basements and flood damage. Open
space has been disappearing from Reading at an alarming rate, and eliminating
the bylaws will only accelerate the loss of land.
2
6) Completely eliminating the bylaws is an extreme and irreversible step. A more
moderate remedy — studying and revising the regulations enacted under the
bylaws — is available. It is shortsighted to throw the baby out with the bathwater
without first identifying problematic regulations and working through the
established process to address legitimate concerns.
7) Placing a proposal to eliminate the local bylaw before Town Meeting should be a
last step, not the first step, in considering such an extreme change. Experts and
interested parties in many fields, including conservation, business, local
government, recreation and public works, should be given the opportunity to
weigh costs and benefits. This proposal is an idea that is not yet ripe to be placed
before Town Meeting, where members, myself included, would not yet have
sufficient information to make an informed decision.
I appreciate your consideration and invite you to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Patricia J. Lloyd '
Page I of I
Schena, Paula
Fromm: baLocheur,Bob
Sent: Monday, February 07, �811 1�33P� �
. J
To: Sohono.pou|a
Subject: For B]S packet tonight '
(
conservation Commission filing fees
°����^��»��...
�/�u�m�ov�u�v°�e`v,"^" ,ae
' #
,4NNUAL
FY2006
'FY2O---
FY2DOO
'OB
FY2009
July 2008 to Dec
36
$
10,924.86
Jan 2OO9to June 7OO9
44
$
8268j7
FY2010
July 2UO9to Dec 2O09
_27`$
9.478.43
Jan 2010 tu June 2O1O
. 27
$
2194.60
FY2011
July 201b 1n Dec 2O1O
30
$ `
2,459.44
Jan 2011 to Feb _3rd 2O11
3`$
1/011.35
Bob LeLachmn
Assistant Town AllanagerlFinance Director
Town m'Reading
/6 Lowell Street
8000Yng, A&401867
(P) 781-942-6636
(F) 781-942-9037
Please note new Town Hall Hours:
Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m-6:30p.nl
Tuesday: 7:3Oe.nn.-7:O0pm.
Friday: CLOSED
ANNUAL TOTAL
$
261,379.35
web
ernoU `
Please let us know how weare doing _fiU out our brief customer service survey e t
�
� �
Page I of 2
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 8:19 PIVI
To: LeLacheur, Bob; Schena, Paula
Subject: Re: Online comments about the local conservation bylaws
Please copy for BOS on Tuesday
Sent t from my iPhone
Pete,
On Feb 6, 2011, at 8:16 PM, "LeLacheur, Bob" <blelac euraci.reading.ma.us> wrote:
, - --h - - -- - - - ..
I . Flag as inappropriate
Will Finch
3:32pm_on- _Friday,_Feb_ruary_ 4,_.201.1
Reading's wetland bylaw easily passes the test of efficiency and needed protection.
The State and local permits are combined in one application process.
The State Wetlands Protection Act has no provision for Minor Projects, which can
be approved at the staff level here in Town Hall.
Without the local bylaw, all work within 100 feet of a wetland would require notifying
abutters, and holding a meeting. Around two thirds of all filings are minor projects
and are handled quickly, usually within one week. Without the bylaw the workload
for staff and the Conservation Commission would increase greatly.
Without the bylaw, builders can not be required to post a bond ensuring that work is
done according to plan. The Planning Commission also requires bonds to cover
infrastructure work.
Without the bylaw, any disputes or fines would have to go through DEP. That is
taking around 11 months at this time due to cuts at the State level.
Also, the bylaw brings in an average of $25,000 a year in fees over the last ten
years. This money goes into the general fund and is enough to cover half the salary
of the Conservation administrator. How would that loss of income be offset?
Reading citizens are proud of how well we protect our town. The .local bylaw gives
us the tools needed to accomplish this end. We would lose local control, which
given the state of the State is the wrong way to go.
Bob LeLacheur
Assistant Town Manager /Finance Director
Town of Reading
W.P906",
2/7/2011
Page 2 of 2
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
(P) 781-942-6636
(F)78/-042-y0]7
Please note new Town Hall Hours:
Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:3Oa.m-5:3Op.m.
Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. -7:OO p.m.
Friday: CLOSED
J
web
e0ax
Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey
at h ://r adinama-surveyl-virtualtownliall.net/survey/sid/887434dd9e2l3Ob7/
�
2/7/2011 '
TO: Members of the Reading Board of Selectmen January 31,2011
RE: Proposed FYI budget cuts to Elder /Human Services
Dear Members of the Reading Board of Selectmen,
I am writing as vice -chair of the Reading Council on Aging board, and as a member of the Board
of Directors for Mystic Valley Elder Services to voice my opposition to the proposed FY12 cuts
to the Administrators' position for Elder /Human Services in the town of Reading.
As a member of the Council on Aging, in which I was appointed to by the Board of Selectmen,
my responsibilities to the Council include, but are not limited to:
1. Identifying the needs and interests of senior citizens and encouraging programs to
address those needs and interests.
2. Educating the community about the needs of senior citizens.
3. Advocating for the elderly at the community, state and national levels
4. Developing a network for information sharing
5. Establishing policy direction to be implemented by Reading Elder Services
As a member of the Board of Directors with Mystic Valley Elder Services, I am also bound to
advocate on behalf of the seniors who live in Reading with regards to issues that will affect them
directly.
I believe the proposed FYI cuts to the Administrator's position in the Elder and Human
Services department will directly and adversely affect our seniors. The Administrators' position
and the department of Elder and Human services provide incredibly valuable services to both an
increasingly aging population and a population where the economic difficulties of our time have
had the most significant impact.
Our seniors deserve to be respected, valued, and cared for. As a community, we owe them our
support, guidance, and reassurance. We must commit to our seniors in this economic crisis to
save the programs that help to keep them safe, healthy, and independent. We must say no to the
proposed cuts to the Administrators' position.
Sincerely,
Carol Oniskey
2H
January 31, 2011
Dear Members of the Board of Selectmen,
As both.a Licensed Nursing Home Administrator in Massachusetts, as well as a member of the
Council on Aging for the town of Reading, I feel compelled to express my concern and outrage at the
proposal that the Elder Services Administrators' position be cut to a part-time position in the town of
Reading.
Ironically enough, decisions such as these at the city and town levels are extremely beneficial
to my line of work as a Nursing Home Administrator. The reality is that without quality programs and
support within an elder's community, he /she will be forced to give up his /her home and move into a
nursing home. In poor economic times such as these, nursing homes flourish with private pay
residents who were forced to sell their homes due to their inability to have their needs met within their
community. Their dream of staying in their own home has not only been lost but the devastating
reality is that their home must be sold in order to pay to live in an institution. Their life -long savings
and investments will not support their town or be passed down to their children and grandchildren, but
rather will pay for their nursing home care.
Born and raised in Reading, I developed a genuine respect and concern for our elderly
residents at a very young age. Through volunteer work within our town, I quickly came to realize that
if programs were not in place for our elders than they would not be able to remain in their homes. This
sad'realization is what drove me after graduating Reading Memorial High School to obtain a Bachelors
Degree in Health Care Administration, a license in Nursing Home Administration, and to work in
Long -Term Care as a Nursing Home Administrator. I wanted to help our elders return to their homes,
if at all possible, and otherwise to live the best possible life that they could under their individual
circumstances.
It is appalling to me that the Town of Reading would suggest such a major cut to our Elder
Service program. I understand that no one is intentionally targeting the most helpless and struggling
fraction of Reading residents, and that this budget cut is an act of desperation due to poor economic
times; however the minimal amount of money saved by this move ($31,149 yearly) will severely
impact the lives of countless current Reading Elders as well as many residents in the years to come.
The first "boomers" will turn 65 this year and the demand for our Senior Center will continue to
increase
As a community, it is essential that we support and respect our elders. They count on us to
provide programs that support them mentally, spiritually and physically so that they may remain as
independent as possible for as long as possible. Through work -shops and programs at the Senior
Center, our elders are able to obtain advice, exercise, knowledge, socialization, a warm meal and most
importantly: the support that they have earned and that they desperately deserve. To propose a cut at
the Administrative level of Eider Service programming will be detrimental to the planning, organizing
and execution of our Elder Service programs. This short- sighted move would result in our Elders ,
inability to remain in our community and in their own homes. As a concerned Reading resident, as
well as an advocate for our elders, it is my sincere hope that our community does not lose sight of
those who need us most during these difficult economic times. We may be struggling as a community
in an economic crisis, however our elders are on their own struggling in the same economic crisis.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Erica Deane
2
7-v,6 -3 1 Zoe(
1011 FEB -7 AM 10: 58
Z�
M�mss.��
LOU-& vzk
tv
The. Board of Selectmen looks forward to the hearing which you are scheduling with the
assistance of the Town .Engineer. We are looking forward to having this important
connection in our pedestrian system completed as soon as possible.
Sincerely;
James Bonazoli, Chairman
Board of Selectmen
cc: Mikel C. Myers, P.E.
Senior Engineer
TEC Engineering
65 Glenn Street
Lawrence, MA 01843
Parking Traffic and Transportation Task Force
OTAD
Page I of 3
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Zager, Jeff
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 12:49 PM
To: LeLacheur, Bob
Subject: FW- BOS Tuesday meeting question
Bob:
Per your request- status update/ plan for hydrant clearing work from DPW standpoint.
Jeffrey T. Zager
16 Lowell Street
Reading NIA 01867
Tel: 781-942-9077
Fax: 781-942-9081
Please let us know how we are doing -fill out our brief customer service survey at http./Lrea
— jingma-
survey.virtualtownhall.net/survey/sid/887434dd9e2l3Ob7
web: www.readingma.gov
jzager@ci.reading.ma.us
From: Richardson, Jim
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 12:41 PM
To: Zager, Jeff
Subject: RE: BOS Tuesday meeting question
Jeff,
We started today with three crews out clearing snow from hydrants. Because of the amount of snow a front-end loader is
assigned to each crew. One crew is starting at Main St.. and South St. working west of Main St. northerly; one crew is
starting at Charles St. working the east side of Main st. northerly to the North Reading line then the west side of Main St.
from the North Reading line southerly, and one crew is working starting at the DPW facility working the east side of Main
St. in the area from South St. to Charles St.
I don't have a number of completed hydrants as we just started (for the 4Th. time) today.
Some residents do clear hydrants near their homes but this has become more difficult for them with the large amount of
snow that has fallen.
Please note I had to pull personnel from 2 crews at 12:00 noon to repair a leaking water service.
Jim
From: Zager, Jeff
Sent: Monday, February 07, 201111:28 AM
To: Richardson, Jim
Subject: FW: BOS Tuesday meeting question
Importance: High
Jim;
Can you give me a quick update again on the ongoing hydrant clearing program, ie- how many have we done, how many
left to do, does the Fire Dept. help the cause (pastor present), any resident help, etc.
I assume at this point we would need mostly machines to clear them due to the size of the snow banks and locked in ice
involved?
2/7/2011