Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-06 Board of Selectmen PacketoFRFq~ly Town of Reading J. y 16 Lowell Street Reading, IVlA 01867-2685 s~9>,NCOap0 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us TOWN MANAGER Website: www. readingma.gov (781) 942-9043 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter 1. Hechenbleikner DATE: September 1, 2011 RE: Agenda - September 6, 2011 Ia) 'Town Counsel will be in to review the status of litigation of one particular case. This will be at 7:00 p.m. for approximately one half hour. The material on the case is in your packet. 6a) The Reading Library Foundation is requesting a special license to serve wine at their reception at the Library on October 14, 2011. The Board of Selectmen will need to approve the use within a public building pursuant to General Bylaw. 6b) JK's Market has requested approval to open earlier than 6:00 a.m. The hearing has been noticed to all abutters within 300 feet. 6c) Cafd Capri wants to modify the interior of the restaurant creating a separate bar area. Pursuant to the Selectmen's Liquor Policy, any change in plan requires Selectmen's approval. This is not a hearing. 6d) General Bylaw Re-Codification - The Chairman of the Bylaw Committee will be in to review the processed used and results of their Bylaw re-codification. This will be on the warrant for the fail Town Meeting. I have not copied the details of the proposed re- codified Bylaw (let Paula know if you want us to make physical copies for you) but the full proposed Bylaw is on the website, and will be copied in the background material for Town Meeting. 6e) There are a number of traffic items that we have for the Board of Selectmen, some of them updates and some of them for direction. We will have as much of the background material as we can for these items, but will have a filler presentation on them at the meeting. -loll SEP - I AM' 8: 30 To whom it may concern: This is a petition for the town of Reading to allow the residents of the Wilson St area to have a hearing before Wilson St gets re-paved. We hope by having this hearing the residents of this area could express a few concerns. These concerns are: 1. The major water problem on the street. We have poor catch basins, and when it rains the area gets flooded almost immediately. 2. The gas lines. There has been a smell of gas for years, recently we have seen gas trucks working around the area. The neighborhood would like to be informed about what is going on, and what is being done to make us feel safe in our community. We do not want another gas leak incident to happen like it did on Pleasant St. blowing up a house frame. 3. Side walks. We should have sidewalks. There are many families with children walking to Hunt Memorial Park. They should have safe sidewalks to travel on. We hope that the town of Reading will listen to our concerns and make the residents of this neighborhood feel safe. 21 U/91SOh 5-L 3 Of 1Sari 5.F Z6 i s S-~ $l3olrl ~ 36 I ~ 2I3o ~c db Thank you. To whom it may concern: This is a petition for the town of Reading to allow the residents of the Wilson St area to have a hearing before Wilson St gets re-paved. We hope by having this hearing the residents of this area could express a few concerns. These concerns are: 1. The major water problem on the street. We have poor catch basins, and when it rains the area gets flooded almost immediately. 2. The gas lines. There has been a smell of gas for years, recently we have seen gas trucks working around the area. The neighborhood would like to be informed about what is going on, and what is being done to make us feel safe in our community. We do not want another gas leak incident to happen like it did on Pleasant St. blowing up a house frame. 3. Side walks. We should have sidewalks. There are many families with children walking to Hunt Memorial Park. They should have safe sidewalks to travel on. We hope that the town of Reading will listen to our concerns and make the residents of this neighborhood feel safe. r~14, A 16 011-w-4- II W <<S o n ~r 0 ~J~ Thank you. To whom it may concern: This is a petition for the town of Reading to allow the residents of the Wilson St area to have a hearing before Wilson St gets re-paved. We hope by having this hearing the residents of this area could express a few concerns. These concerns are: 1. The major water problem on the street. We have poor catch basins, and when it rains the area gets flooded almost immediately. 2. The gas lines. There has been a smell of gas for years, recently we have seen gas trucks working around the area. The neighborhood would like to be informed about what is going on, and what is being done to make us feel safe in our community. We do not want another gas leak incident to happen like it did on Pleasant St. blowing up a house frame. 3. Side walks. We should have sidewalks. There are many families with children walking to Hunt Memorial Park. They should have safe sidewalks to travel on. We hope that the town of Reading will listen to our concerns and make the residents of this neighborhood feel safe. Thank you. Ad-~ 0 ~(.0 ~I S©a" J~' C ",),cw&) ST 2& 4,/1- ~~a i b15 To whom it may concern: This is a petition for the town of Reading to allow the residents of the Wilson St area to have a hearing before Wilson St gets re-paved. We hope by having this hearing the residents of this area could express a few concerns. These concerns are: 1. The major water problem on the street. We have poor catch basins, and when it rains the area gets flooded almost immediately. 2. The gas lines. There has been a smell of gas for years, recently we have seen gas trucks working around the area. The neighborhood would like to be informed about what is going on, and what is being done to make us feel safe in our community. We do not want another gas leak incident to happen like it did on Pleasant St. blowing up a house frame. 3. Side walks. We should have sidewalks. There are many families with children walking to Hunt Memorial Park. They should have safe sidewalks to travel on. We hope that the town of Reading will listen to our concerns and make the residents of this neighborhood feel safe. Thank you. e-J'O -t 2-31-411 9 / `6 /3111 5.5.4 Public Buildings, Public Property and Public Ways 5.5.4.1 No person shall gamble or keep, use or have in his possession any spirituous or intoxicating liquor in any building or room owned or occupied by the Town, or upon any public property or public,ways, except as otherwise authorized by the Board of Selectmen, special Statute or general laws. 5.5.4.2 No person shall smoke or have in his possession any lighted cigar, cigarette, or other tobacco product in any building or room owned or occupied by the Town. L 01~ READING PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION, Inc. P.O. Box 96 Reading, Massachusetts 01867 0 August 22, 2011 Peter Hechenbleikner a Town Manager 47- Reading Town Hall c► , 16 Lowell Street ex Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: The Reading Public Library Foundation, with the support of the Board of Library Trustees, will host a Donor Recognition Event at the Reading Public Library, 64 Middlesex Avenue, on Friday, October 14, 2011, from 7:00 PM to 10:30 PM. As part of this event, we are hereby requesting approval from the Board of Selectmen of our application for a Special (One Day) Alcoholic Beverage License. This is for wine service only for invited guests. Should there be any questions, you may contact me at 781-944-2522 or Russ Graham, our Events Committee Chairman, at 781-944-7846. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, 25r'- William J. c , Sr. President Board of Directors ~ 0-1)071- READING PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION, INC. P.O. Box 96 - Reading, MA 01867 - rpH96@gmail.com August 25, 2011 Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner, Enclosed is the Reading Public Library Foundation's application for a Special (One Day) Alcoholic Beverage License. Please contact me at 781-944-4086 or Russ Graham at 781-944-7846 if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Karen Burke Administrator Encl. Town of Reading Massachusetts Application for SPECIAL (One Day) Alcoholic Beverage License T COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission 239 Causeway Street Boston, MA 02114 Event for which application is made (type of event): Reading Public Library Foundation Annual Recognition Event Date of Event: 10-14-11 Time of Event: 7:00 p.m. until: 10:30 p.m. Name to Appear on the License (note - the licensee may only be an individual - not an organization, corporation, etc.): William Hecht Give a full description of the premises to be licensed, including the name of the site (if applicable), street address, rooms at the address to be licensed, location of all entrances and exits (Note - All alcoholic beverages must be stored only on the licensed premises, and at no other site. Chapter 138 Section 22 requires a permit for any vehicle transporting alcoholic beverages except for personal use): Address of Premises: 64 Middlesex Avenue - Main Floor Phone Number of Premises: 781-9494-0840 Seating Capacity for this event: License Category ® All Alcoholic (non-profits only) ❑ Wine and Malt (for profit only) Contact Person (attorney or representative, if applicable) who can be contacted concerning this application: Name: Russel T. Graham Address: 68 Made Ridge Road Reading, MA Phone Number: 781-944-7846 Email Address: russell26245@aol.com Applicant is an individual representing (check one): ❑ Association ® Non-Profit Corporation ❑ Individual ❑ Partnership ❑ Corporation ❑ LLC I have read and agree to abide by all Commonwealth of Massachusetts laws, rules and regulations including all rules and regulations of the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, and all Town of Reading Liquor License Policy - Requirements for Special (One-Day) Liquor Licenses, and attest that the information submitted in this application is true, accurate, and complete. Occupancy Number: 125 6aN Signed and subscribed to under the penalty of perjury this Amy of A-LGc' * g'J" 20 By: Signature of Full Name Title: President, Reading Public Library Foundation Please attach: ® A letter on their letterhead, from the organization that you are representing, giving authorization to file this application for the event noted in the application, and signed by the individual or officer authorized to file all forms and disclosures with the Secretary of State's office ® A letter on their letterhead, of the owner of the premises, indicating that you have their permission to use the premises for the event that is the subject of this application • If a caterer is being utilized, please include a statement on their letterhead that confirms that they are being paid a set fee, and not a fee based on alcoholic beverage sales ® A copy of the insurance certificate showing proof of issuance of Liquor Liability Insurance for this event. • A copy of the insurance certificate showing proof of workers comp ® Check for $50 made payable to the Town of Reading if you are selling the liquor. There is no fee if you are just serving 64 Middlesex Avenue Reading, MA 01867 Phone: (781) 944-0840 Fax: (781) 942-9113 August 17, 2011 Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Peter: Ruth Urell, Director urell@noblenet.org www.readingpl.org The Library Trustees agreed at their June monthly meeting to support wholeheartedly the Foundation's request to hold a Donor Recognition Event in October, including their request to serve wine to invited guests under the usual requirements. I also fully support and endorse the Foundation's plans. The Foundation has held successful evenings bi-annually for the past several years similar to the one planned, and the library, the participants, and the Foundation all benefit from a very well-planned and well-attended event. Specifically, the Foundation wishes to host their Donor Recognition Event at the Reading Public Library, 64 Middlesex Avenue, Reading, on Friday, October 14, 2011 from 7:00 PM until 10:30 PM. As part of this event, I am in support of their application for a Special (One Day) Alcoholic Beverage License. Sincerely, j Ruth Urell Director ~ 0I.- Salt Creek Cateria Reading Public Library Foundation Catering Event October 14, 2011 Salt Creek Catering is ,,,,,,,,,being laid a set fee fog this event. This Lee is based on price per~erson- or the food and service sta- It is not based on alcoholic beverage sales. Thank you, Tina Truedson and Jim Nally Salt Creek Ca terin.g 1 617 258 5130 rrA-rr-Mnc ACRD. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE 25/2011D/YYYY> 8/ PRODUCER Rogers & Gray Ins. Plymouth 341 Court Street THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. P. O. Box 3700 Plymouth, MA 02361-3700 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #6 INSURED INSURER A: Aspen Specialty Insurance Compa Caterstaff Boston, Inc. INSURER B: 120 Cambridge Street, Unit B INSURER C: Cambridge, MA 02141 INSURER D: INSURER E: v THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR ANY REQUIREMENT , THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH MAY PERTAIN , POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. 1 SR LTR DD' NSR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE MM/DD/YY POLICY EXPIRATION DATE MM/DD/YY LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY DAE AGE TO RMe occurrence) ENTED MISES $ CLAIMS MADE F1 OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ POLICY JEST LOG AUT OMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ ANY AUTO (Ea accident) ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per accident) . PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accident) GARAGE LIABILITY - AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ ANY AUTO OTHER THAN EA ACC $ AUTO ONLY: qGG $ EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ OCCUR FICLAIMS MADE - AGGREGATE $ _ DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $ $ WC STATU- OTH- WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ A OTHER Liquor Liabi CPX042611 04/08/11 04/08/12 $1,000,000 Each Cause $1,000,000 Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/ SPECIAL PROVISIONS CER77FICA I t HULUtR veiwvca ~e~ SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION Salt Creek Catering DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL I0_ DAYS WRITTEN 9 Cambridge Center NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL Cambridge, MA 02142 IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2001/08) 1 of 2 #S70505/M65380 t'IVI I v r~.vnv vvnrvnr.nv,. Go-S' riarleysville Good people to know' Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company 355 Maple Avenue Harleysville, PA 19436-2297 www.harleysvillegroup.com Insured: SALT CREEK CATERING Policy Number: W000000071014F _ Agent: LINNANE INSURANCE AGENCY INC Policy Period: 08/01/2011 to 08/01/2012 CORRECTED RENEWAL NCCI # 21644 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY POLICY .This information page with "Policy Provisions" completes the below numbered Policy Insured's Name and Mailing Address - ITEM 1 No. W000000071014F SALT CREEK CATERING Renewal or Rewrite of No. 15 BREWER LN READING, MA 01867-1333 W000000071014F Agent: 755526 LINNANE INSURANCE AGENCY INC RENAISSANCE ALLIANCE INS SERV LLC 280 MAIN ST SUITE 101 N READING, MA 01864 (978)664-2000 FEDERAL EMPLOYER I.D. NO: 043134499 Risk ID: Policy Period - ITEM 2: From: 08/01/2011 To: 08/0112012 12:01 A.M. Standard Time Form of Business: INDIVIDUAL Coverage - ITEM 3: A. Workers Compensation Insurance: Part One of this policy applies to the Workers Compensation Law of the states listed here. MA B. Employers Liability Insurance: Part Two of the policy applies to work in each states listed in Item 3A. The limits of our liability under Part Two are: Bodily Injury by Accident. $ 500,000 each accident Bodily Injury by Disease $ 500,000 policy limit Bodily Injury by Disease $ 500,000 each employee C. Other States Insurance: Part Three of the policy applies to the states, if any, listed here: AL, AK, AR, CO, CT, DE, DC, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NC, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY PA OK RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WI WV D. This policy includes these Endorsements and Schedules: SEE SCHEDULES GU-7004 and,GU-7009 Premium - ITEM 4: The premium for this policy will be determined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Rates and Rating Plans. All information' required below is subject to verification and change by audit. Premium Basis Rates Per Code Total Estimated $100 of Estimated Annual Classification No. Annual Remuneration Remuneration Premium See Exte nsion of Information Page Total Estimated Cost $ 2,937.00 WC 00 00 01A (Standard) L (Ed. 4-09) . Copyright 1987 National Council on Compensation Insurance Insured Copy Pagel of 1 Issued: 08/15/2011 0" W000000071014F arleysville Worcester Insurance Company ®~''~1 Q H315 M °`^rleysville HarleysviieAPA 19438-2297 GoodP0PIe to kgoW uwuw.harleysviilegroup.com Insured: SALT CREEK CATERING Policy Number: W000000071014F Agent: LINNANE INSURANCE AGENCY INC Policy Period: 08/01/2011 to 08/01/2012 CORRECTED RENEWAL WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY POLICY INFORMATION PAGE ENDORSEMENT Classification JURISDICTION: STATE ACT STATE: MASSACHUSETTS MA- LOC 1 CLERICAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES NOC RESTAURANT NOC ADJUSTED MANUAL PREMIUM EMPLOYERS LIABILITY LIMITS (500/500/500) INCREASED LIMITS BALANCE TO MEET MIN TOTAL SUBJECT PREMIUM MERIT RATING PLAN TOTAL MODIFIED PREMIUM TOTAL STANDARD PREMIUM EXPENSE CONSTANT TERRORISM STATE PREMIUM TOTAL STATE PREMIUM MASS. DEPT. OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS ASSESSMENT TOTAL STATE TAVASSESSMENT TOTAL JURISDICTION PREMIUM TOTAL PREMIUM ALL JURISDICTIONS/TERMS Premium Basis Rates Per Code Total Estimated $100 of Estimated Annual No. Annual Remuneration Remuneration Premium 8810 9079 9807 9848 9884 0900 9740 9700 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL PREMIUM WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPOSIT PREMIUM MINIMUM PREMIUM INCREASED LIMITS MINIMUM PREMIUM WC-7000 (Ed. 4-09) Insured Copy .09000 $ 219,116.00 1.07000 $ 2,345.00 $ 2,345.00 .01000 $ 23.00 $ 27.00 $ 2,395.00 1.00000 $ 2,395.00 $ 2,395.00 $ 338.00 $ 219,116.00 .03000 $ 66.00 $ 2,799.00 $ 2,799.00 .05900 $ 138.00 $ 138.00 $ 2,937.00 $ 2,937.00 Ch N $ 2,937.00 Ln 0 M $ 2,937.00 0 a r $ 216.00 0 $ 50.00 N C, N rl Page 1 of 1 Issued: 08/15/2011 0 M LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING To the Inhabitants. of the Town of Reading: Please take notice that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 8:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on an applica- tion for Waiver of Retail Sales before 6:00 a.m. for JX's Market, 212 Main Street, Reading. Copies of the proposed doc- uments regarding these topics are available in the Town Manager's office, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA, M-W- Thurs from 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m., Tues from 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. and is attached to the hearing notice on the website at www.readingma.gov. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing, or may submit their comments in writing or by email prior to 6:00 p.m. on September 6, 2011 to townmanager@ci.reading.ma.u s By order of Peter j. Hechenbleikner Town Manager 8/30 July 27, 2011 Mr. Peter Hechenbljj JUL 27 PMI 3: 22 Town Manager; Reading Massachusetts Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 To the Board of Selectmen of the town of Reading Massachusetts. The business of J.K.'s Market; 212 Main St., owned and operated by J.K. Realty Trust, situated on property owned by same; is respectfully requesting a waiver of retail time restrictions set forth under section 5.10 of the General Bylaws of the Town of Reading pursuant to Section 3.9 of the General Bylaws of the Town of Reading. Located on plot 249 of the enclosed map, the entire property lies within Business Zone "A" This waiver is only being applied for the normal business uses currently allowed for and permitted for, by the Town of Reading. No additional business activities will occur during the times for which this waiver would apply. The owner of J.K.'s Market, and the said Property, being the same expects that the signed application for waiver will also stand as written approval by property owner. In regards to impact on the surrounding neighborhood: J.K.'s market is merely applying for this waiver so that a small number of customers whom would like to get their coffee and newspaper between 5:30 AM and 6:00 AM may due so. It is not our intention to advertise this time block as "open for business" or actively seek new business, it is merely to serve a small number of customers who would otherwise be waiting in the parking lot with their cars idling. There is already a significant amount of traffic on Main Street during this time frame and employees of said business are already preparing the store for business as well as receiving deliveries of newspapers etc. We don't expect any new business or traffic; we only expect that a small number of customers can get on their way without idling their cars in the parking lot for 10 to 15 minutes. J.K.'s Market has no Drive-thru or and outdoor sound systems, and the parking lot entrances are located entirely on Main St. and are flanked by another commercial property on one side and a house which has stood empty for 3 years on the other. J.K.'s Market follows all required protocols in regards to public safety and food sanitation. The owners of J.K.'s market understand and agree that the waiver is superseded by all other applicable bylaws and regulations, and that strict adherence to noise nuisance bylaws is required as usual. Signed Date Kalpesh Patel : owner of J.K.'s Market July 27, 2011 O-z,- a a ~ a~ m O E aEi a i-° IL MAIM M C f C c P P Section 3.9 Waiver of Retail Sales before 6 a.m. . Section 5.10 of the General Bylaws of the Town of Reading prohibits retail sales prior to 6:00 a.m. It also provides for a process by which the Board of Selectmen may consider allowing retail sales between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. when the Board determines that permitting retail sales during those hours is in the interest of public health safety and welfare, or is in the interest of public necessity or public convenience. These regulations are adopted by the Board of Selectmen to provide guidance to the Board of Selectmen, applicants, and the public regarding how applications for waivers from the restriction on hours of retail sales will be handled. Each application will be dealt with on a case by case basis. An initial application for a waiver or hours of retail sales prior to 6 a.m. shall require a public hearing noticed to all property owners within 300', and by publication in a local newspaper and/or publication on the Town's web site. Renewal of a waiver shall be required on an annual basis with each waiver expiring on December 31. The Board of Selectmen shall determine on a case by case basis whether a public hearing is required for each renewal. The Board of Selectmen may revoke approval upon receipt of complaints that the operation is taking place contrary to the approval granted by the Board. Revocation shall be made only after a public hearing, unless emergency circumstances require an administrative revocation pending hearing. The following guidelines are not intended to be a full list of issues to be dealt with by the Board but are merely guidelines to the applicant: 1. Approval will be granted for businesses within a commercial or industrial zoning district only. 2. In general, approval shall be for the entire business. For example, if a business dispenses gasoline, sells coffee, and has a convenience store, all within the same business, then the approval shall be for all parts of the business. 3. The retail use for which approval of a change in retail hours is permitted will be the principal use on the property. 4. Written approval of the property owner will be required prior to the Board hearing an application for a license. This will need to be renewed annually. 5. The Board may require evidence that the change in permitted hours of retail operation will have minimal effect on the neighborhood adjacent to the site. 6.. The applicant must show that adequate controls are in place to ensure public safety and follow food code sanitation protocols. 7. No waiver of the hours of retail sales will be considered for prior to 5 am Monday through Friday. No waivers shall be considered for Saturdays, Sundays, or State Designated legal holidays. 8. The Board may limit the use of outdoor speakers, drive-thru's, and/or restrict parking in certain areas in order to limit the impact of the waiver on neighboring properties. In order to address these issues, the Board may require a site plan from applicants, drawn to scale, and showing locations of these features and their relation to abutting residential buildings. 9. Prior to the issuance of a waiver on the hours of retail sales, the Board may request a review by the Health Division, Police Department, and the Building/Zoning Inspection Division and proof that all. necessary approvals, permits, and other licenses needed to operate have been issued. 3-24 Board of Selectmen Policies (,b 4 10. A waiver to allow retail uses prior to 6 a.m. is not a waiver of any other bylaw or regulation of the Town of Reading or other agency having jurisdiction. 11. Parking lot cleaning, and other maintenance operations (excluding emergency work), and deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 am. Rubbish collection and recycling shall not take place between 9:00 PM and 6:30 am. Adopted 6126107 3-25 Board of Selectmen Policies f _ d lO Page 1 of 1 Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:24 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: JK Market - BOS, hours of operation 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.readingrna.gov email town manage;r@ci.reading.ma,us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readingma-survey.virtualtown hall. net/survey/sid/1 dc7dcf24f2eb182/ From: Erickson, Greg Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 12:07 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: JK Market - BOS, hours of operation BOS Guideline #11 states in part," Rubbish collection and recycling shall not take place between 9:00 PM and 6:30 am.' This should be made part of any waiver agreement by the BOS if it has not already been done by site plan review or other mechanism (this to prevent preemption of times by MGL 111, Sec 31 A). gerickson From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 20114:55 PM To: Erickson, Greg; Cormier, Jim; Delios, Jean Cc: Schena, Paula Subject: Please review this application - the BOS policy is also attached. I'd like comments back no later than August 15, This will be on the BOS agenda early September Paula - this will need a legal notice and notice to abutters within 300 feet. Have the bill for the legal notice sent to JK Market. 9/1/2011 HOSSEIN] ABDOLLAI I E GAGE JASON L TRAPENI GUY R 211 MAIN ST UNIT 2 ROBIN A GAGE MARY BETH TRAPENI READING, MA 01867 200 MAIN ST 492 SUMMER AVE READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 CAMPBELL KENNETH N JR CAMPBELL DONNA L 201 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 READING-FAB LLC C/O TRAMMELL CROW P.O. BOX 141 15 Rl."ADING, PA 19603 HOLL.IS MICHAEL J I IOLL,IS CAROLYN B 484 SUMMER AVE READING, MA 01867 SCHNEIDER DEVIN ABIGAIL SCHNEIDER 14 CROSS ST READING, MA 01867 LIU HONGCHENG ASSOC SONGPING GUO 24 CROSS ST READING, MA 01867 PATIEL KALPESH TRUSTEE JK REALTY TRUST 212-214 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 CARTIER RICHARD M ETAL TRS C/O COLEMAN LAW OFFICE 248 MAIN ST STE 202 READING, MA 01867 ASEI. TINE JOANNA A 193 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 BERTONE MAR10 TRUSTEE MARIO BERTONE TRUST 231 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 PATEL KALPESH TRUSTEE JK REALTY TRUST 212-214 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 TOWN OF READING 16 LOWELL ST READING, MA 01867 DAVEY GEORGE C JUNE A DAVEY 18 KNOLLWOOD RD READING, MA 01867 BANK OF NEW YORK TRUSTEE HODSDON RUSSELL M FOR "THE CIERTIF CWMBS INC CHL CLAIRE E HODSDON 6400 LEGACY DR 26 KNOLLWOOD ROAD PLANO, "TX 75024 READING, MA 01867 CAHIL,L PAUL R ETAL'TRS CAHILL REALTY TRUST 462 SUMMER AVE READING, MA 01867 KYDD CATHERINE G (L.E.) WILLIAM I. KYDD IETAL 210 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 RUSHWORTH PAUL P NANCY RUSHWORTH 36 INOLLWOOD RD READING, MA 01867 HOLLIS MICHAEL J HOLLIS CAROLYN B 484 SUMMER AVE READING, MA 01867 HANEY BRIAN R SARAH K HANEY 196 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 GRIFFIN VICTORIA L TRUSTEE THE GRIFFIN REALTY TRUST 29 KNOLLWOOD RD READING, MA 01867 ](RAMER MICHELLE STEPHEN R COOK 19 KNOLLWOOD RD READING, MA 01867 DEWEY EDGAR G TANYA D DEWEY 206 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 DURAN CHARLES E JR JEANNE MACDONALD DURAN 13 CROSS ST READING, MA 01867 BERTONE MARIO TRUSTEE MARIO BERTONE TRUST 225 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 SMITI-I THOMAS M J HEFFERNAN PATRICK HEFFERNAN PATRICK PATRICIA A SMITH NICOLE HEFFERNAN NICOLE HEFFERNAN 34 KNOLLWOOD RD 9 CROSS ST 9 CROSS ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 (j JONES BARBARA GAVINS ARETUSI REMO CARROLL RICHARD L I CROSS ST 23 NELSON AVE MARGARET L CARROLL READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 12 KNOLLWOOD RD READING, MA 01867 SYNNO'C'f BURTON J CHERYL L SYNNOTT PO BOX 571 READING, MA 01867-0401 CARI'I:,R RICHARD M ETAL TRS C/O COLEMAN LAW OFFICE 248 MAIN ST STE 202 READING, MA 01867 DOHERTY THOMAS N CAROLYN M DOHERTY 464 SUMMER AVE READING, MA 01867 CONGO MATTHEW T 195 MAIN ST READING, MA 01867 CROWLEY ROBERT T ELEANOR T CROWLEY 18 CROSS ST READING, MA 01867 (Q 61 3.2.1.1- Plan Required A plan of the building and a detailed floor plan of the licensed premises including the capacity of a restaurant and parking facilities shall be on file with the Licensing Authority. No alterations shall be permitted to the premises without approval in advance. from the Licensing Authority. (OCA a v~ <r~ a LLf er~ 3~ Q ~ 0 O O Z ~ U O~ 2 Z U O w 1° ~ N mZ ZZ ® F W a nw wa °o wa w 4~~N~-w ow uw..~QaoZ i~ ~ Ucn~tio~ ~ a a El co ®jz Z~ Z O °co ~ p W ~ O U ~ e~- ¢ ~ F- ¢ a~ m'e a E j-w 0~ N _ Z ~ ~ vy ~WQ w ~ ~ sZ ¢ m It m & L2 (p Q 1.iJ ~ QU~Z mUM~ 0-,9 k 0 C\l c~ c~ W~ m c ~o 6z a N 6C,,3 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street. Reading, MA 01867 FAX: (781) 942-9070 Website: www.readingma.gov Bylaw Committee (781) 942-9050 Preliminary Report on General Bylaw Recodification July 6, 2011 Section 8-9 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, requires that the Bylaw Committee present to Town Meeting not less than every 10 years, proposed revisions or recodification of the bylaws of the Town. Section 8-9: Reenactment and Publication of Bylaws Within one (1) year of the adoption of this Charter and at intervals of not more than ten (10) years thereafter, proposed revisions or recodification of the bylaws of the Town shall be presented to Town Meeting by the Bylaw Committee. At least four (4) months prior to the Town Meeting at which action under this section is to be taken, the Committee shall cause to be published in a local newspaper: (a) a report summarizing its recommendations and noting the times and places within the Town where complete copies of the report shall be available for inspection by the public, and (b) the date, time and place not less than two weeks following such publication when a public hearing shall be held by the committee on the preliminary report. [Amended November 15, 2004 (Article 16) and approved by vote of the Town on April 5, 2005] The General Bylaw of the Town was last re-codified in 1988, shortly after the Reading Home Rule Charter was adopted. The intent of recodification is not to make substantive changes to the General Bylaw, but to make sure that they are simple to read and understand, and are internally consistent and accurate. Since the winter of November 2010, the Bylaw Committee (together with Town Counsel, the Town Clerk, and the Town Manager) has met 8 times and has developed a new, easier to read, standardized version of the General Bylaw. The details of this draft are available in hard copy at the Library and Town Clerk's office, and electronically on the Town's web site at www.readingma.gov. In proceeding with this recodification, the Bylaw Committee had several specific goals in mind: ♦ Improve the organization of the General Bylaw - It is clear that the existing bylaws have been amended in sequential order without any particular attention to organizing the sections by subject matter. The "Public Order" article seems to eclipse the others. ♦ Improve the formatting - Make the General Bylaw more user friendly; easier to read; simpler (there are too many subsections in some portions of the bylaw); more compact (narrower margins mean less paper is used); add a robust index (not part of the adopted bylaw, but as a useful tool); and keep the chronology (also not part of the adopted bylaw, but as an additional tool). yal ♦ Standardize terms within the General Bylaw to the extent practical. The Bylaw Committee has had some definite ideas as to how to spell and reference certain terms. Town Counsel has reviewed those to ensure conformance with standard practice. Examples of now standardized terms include: the spelling and capitalization of "bylaw", references to the state statutes as "M.G.L.", and the consistent use of other common terms. In addition, there are a number of sections with common language, and some sections where the language is similar. The Bylaw Committee has attempted to organize the bylaws so that that the common language is standardized, and included only once in the bylaws. ♦ Review the bylaw for content. Each of the bylaw sections was reviewed in an effort to determine what, if any, changes are needed. The following are examples of some of those changes: ♦ What can be "re-codified" as is - (Wetlands) ♦ What needs to be modified - (Personnel) ♦ What needs to be removed - (Building Code) ♦ What needs to be added - (table in section 1.7 that shows who enforces non-criminal disposition and what the fines are) The following is a summary of the detailed work included in the proposed recodification: Organization: Following its review of best practices in the Commonwealth, the Bylaw Committee recommends reorganizing the General Bylaw into 8 Articles: General Provisions Town Meeting Town Offices and Town Officers Personnel Conduct of Town Business Financial Procedures Regulation on the Use of Land Public Order Inclusion of all previous sections The Bylaw Committee retained all of the previous sections of the General Bylaw, but reorganized many of the provisions into new sections, except for the following sections which have been deleted: ♦ Laundromat Licenses - staff has determined that there is no reason for such a license ♦ Underground Petroleum Storage License = This bylaw was rescinded by Town Meeting at the 2011 Annual Town Meeting ♦ Gas Inspector section - not necessary - no other such positions are included in the bylaw ♦ Building Code - not necessary - there is a state building code and the Town may not vary from that ♦ Municipal Data Processing Center - no longer needed - this was required in pre-Charter days ♦ Eliminated the Conflict of Interest section because the state statute, M.G.L. c:268A, applies Summary of Changes: Article 1 General Provisions ♦ Added some definitions from the detailed bylaw sections to create a general definition section ♦ Standardized the non-criminal disposition section as section 1.7 from different language in various sections of the bylaw, and inserted a chart that contains the bylaw section, enforcing agent, and fines (fines are specified in accordance with state statute) 6d z- Article 2 Town Meeting ® No substantive changes Article 3 Town Offices and Town Officers ♦ Eliminated the section on the Gas Inspector - not necessary ♦ Standardized the section on the general standards for Appointed Boards, Committees, and Commissions ♦ Eliminated Municipal Data Processing Center - no longer needed - this was required in pre- Charter days s Eliminated the Conflict of Interest section because M.G.L. will apply Article 4 Personnel No substantive changes Article 5 Conduct of Town Business Removed a number of sections and put them in another section of the bylaw 0 Modified the sections on Rules and Regulations to reflect current practice Article 6 Financial Procedures o No substantive changes Article 7 Regulation on the Use of Land ♦ This is a new article compiled of sections from various other sections of the bylaw Removed details of non-criminal disposition from individual sections and inserted them in the first article o Eliminated underground petroleum storage licensing article o Eliminated laundromat licensing and reference to the Gas Inspector position - not necessary - no other such positions are indicated ♦ Eliminated reference to the Building Code - not necessary - there is a state building code and the . Town may not vary from that Article 8 Public Order Rewrote the section on Anti-Litter to simplify it but retained the intent of the existing bylaw ♦ Rewrote the section on News Racks but retained the intent of the existing bylaw The Bylaw Committee looks forward to hearing any questions or comments at its hearing on July 6, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts Respectfully submitted Bylaw Committee Phil Pacino, Chairman Dolores Carroll John H. Russell Ron O'Keefe Louise Callahan ~,j 3 Legal Notice (Seal) Town of Reading To the Inhabitants of the Town of Reading: Please take notice that the Bylaw Committee of the Town of Reading, pursuant to Section 8-9 of the Reading Dome Rule Charter, will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on the preliminary report and draft recodifrcation of the "Town of Reading Massachusetts General Bylaw". Copies of the proposed re-codified bylaws are available: in the Town Clerk's office, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA, M-W-Thugs from 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.in., Tues from 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.; and 0 in the Reading Public Library during their normal business hours; and ® on the Town of Reading web site at www.read ingma. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing, or may submit their comments in writing or by email prior to 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2011 to townmanager(c~,ci.readin .ng ia.us By order of Peter I. Hechenbleilmer Town Manager To the Chronicle: Please publish on June 21, 2011 (with report) Send the bill and tear sheet to: Town Manager, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 ~dN 4~ 0 4- -4 4-1 x cUd r U 4-r~ L ~ ~ +-J Cl) a) 'd - CO V) U cd ~ cad w N Q) v) 4-4 U u rn Q bA U 4 0 cd a-' U w o U U (41 ° b 4b 0 4-4 ® 04 U a? ° Q) 4- n O 4-J U) 0 r ~ L 4-j 4-1 bIJ U "A 4 04 ccdd~ ~Q)4-J~ ~ ~4-J~F~+ °b V J 4-1 4-j Q) 1:14 cd P., co -d u Q U (n U) o Q) c~ U p 0. U -4 Cl) U) N o -Cll N U J 44 d k~ h J•/ ~Ff ® d ~V ~ ~ yY , t ~ way V y4'I{ T~y?;'L n 5 r,~ tr 6ee I k Reading Police Dept. SUMMARY SHEET Support Services Traffic Study-Harrison Street Conducted for 12 Days in 2010 From Monday December 20th to Friday December 31St Complaint Residents expressed concern to Selectman Goldy that vehicle speeds along Harrison Street have greatly increased since the reconstruction of the park and the new paving. Some residents expressed a desire to pursue the state-controlled process of lowering the speed limit from 30 MPH to 20 MPH. Complainant Stephen Goldy, Selectman 42 Berkley Street Reading, Massachusetts Initial Actions Taken Discussed at SOS Traffic Night. Overview of speed-lowering process given and traffic study conducted to determine likelihood of success. Traffic counts unable to be downloaded for several months due to hardware problems. Conclusion The 85th Percentile of wintertime traffic is within the acceptable speed range. A second study should be conducted to determine consistency between seasons. Upcoming Actions Results of first traffic study will be given to Selectman Goldy and second study will be conducted in the late Spring or early Summer. STATISTICAL FIGURES Speed Limit- 30 miles per hour per MGL c.90 §17 Average Speed- 24 miles per hour Fastest Speed- 1 vehicle went 53 miles per hour Total Volume- 6,878 over 12 days Average Volume- 573 vehicles per day Peak Volume Times- 6 - 9 a.m. & 3 - 6 p.m. Weekdays Sneed Percentiles 15th Percentile : 18 MPH 50th Percentile : 24 MPH 85th Percentile : 29 MPH 95th Percentile : 32 MPH Area Map Location of Study Highlighted in Red F . " ~ y r, v R ~ si I~ 1 f k 1 M 1jt l,'i yE t ? ray r X b ✓ r 7z A ~ U } +0 rn T i' v 1(t~'r1~ F# 1 F, 1 J s a 1r~~ r ~r , SUMMARY SHEET 'T'raffic Study-Harrison Street Conducted for 13. Days in 2011 From Wednesday June 1st to Monday June 13th Complaint Late last fall several residents expressed concern to Selectman Goldy that vehicle speeds along Harrison Street have greatly increased since the reconstruction of the park and the new paving. Some residents expressed a desire to pursue the state-controlled process of lowering the speed limit from 30 MPH to 20 MPH. Complainant Stephen Goldy, Selectman 42 Berkley Street Reading, Massachusetts Initial Actions Taken Discussed at BOS Traffic Night. Overview of speed-lowering process given and traffic study conducted to determine likelihood of success. Traffic count conducted during winter months did not provide enough impetus for pursuing the cumbersome speed-lowering process. Conclusions of New Study The 8SU" Percentile of fair weather traffic is slightly above the acceptable speed range. It is also worth noting that the average daily volume for the. street has more than doubled under fair weather conditions. Upcoming Actions Results of both traffic studies will be presented to the PTTF and shared with the BOS during the upcoming traffic night in July. Reading Police Dept, Support Services STATISTICAL FIGURES Speed Limit- 30 miles per hour per MGL c.90 §17 Average Speed- 27 miles per hour Fastest Speed- 1 vehicle went 59 miles per hour Total Volume- 15,791 over 13 days Average Volume- 1,214 vehicles per day Peak Volume Times- 6 - 10 a.m. Weekdays 2 - 6 p.m. Weekends Sueed Percentiles 15th Percentile : 24 MPH 50th Percentile : 28 MPH 85th Percentile : 32 MPH 95th Percentile : 35 MPH Area Map Location of Study Highlighted in Red 0 r W R r~~ t f f ,t 1 1'a'~2J pY If w 1 i 1 ' a ~ SS ~q'~r ~ ~ AA .+~x~"Si fi a 4 i ~1 ^-t ~ier~t~~r. 'h iii i ~7 f rF 1 :`.r x. 1 h IN yy 0 Fq~ (F t 't cfzly 4, l 4 al~r~ 7~~~ ~ i t 4~d ` r.~'~u` apa~.., e..U, fi ~d~,,, '~d'L~: y p~p~ a ~ t p~ ,}ice ~.r f{-'T~ t 'die r ~a, i^~ L {y Kdp y F~~ CF]-Yi q r 5 1 J ! tl r 1 t t t t` )+lµ' ~}5 s 'r ~f r r n~ as c r 4 t w u't t Lf~ t~ Yx ~ t + ~ Y 1 "r A31 I hf r , be3 Page I of 2 Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:19 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: Fwd: BOS - traffic night Attachments: 2011-07-06 Reading EDC -Reading Center Directional Locations v02.pdf; ATT00001.htm Include the memo and map in the BOS packet Sent from my iPhone Pete Begin forwarded message: From: "Delios, ,lean" <idelios(ici.a-eacling.ma.tis> To: "I lechenbleikner, Peter" <pllechcnhleil<ner(ct)ci.reading.rna.tis> Cc: "Ben Yoder" <Ben,Yoder(c,keurig.com> Subject: RE: 130S - traffic night Here is the latest information that I have and was based on our site visit some weeks back with CPDC on the Wayfinding (signs and locations). As I understand this message I am not required to attend the BOS meeting on 9/6. Jean J. Delios Community Services Director/Town Planner Town of Redding 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 (P) 781-942-6612 (F) 781-942-9071 Town.f fall )-lours as of June 7, 2010 M, W, Th: 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. FRIDAY: CLOSED jdelios~ ci,read ing.ma.LIS www.readi ngma.gov<ht1.p://ww)v.readi,ngma.ggv> Please let us know how we are doing by filling out a brief customer service survey at littp://readingma-survey.virtualtowi-dcall.net/survey/sid/de8bdaa16db9e6b4/ From: 1-Ieclienbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:17 PM To,, Cormier, .Tim; Lee, Michael; Martel, .Tustin; "Lager, Jeff; Zambouras, George; Delios, Jean Subject: 130S - traffic night 9/1/2011 I (,e." ~ Page 2 of 2 Traffic night - Here is the agenda for Tuesday night. We start this part of the meeting at 9:00.I need the following information - some of it already exists. I will want all items on PP for Tuesday: Haven/High Street improvements; BETA will bring graphics on thumb drive Harrison Street - 2 counts Have it availability of additional employee/merchant parking spaces on High Street; Cormier - a map, number of spaces there, and number we have already rented out Wayfinding signs; Delios - number and location - George, you might also want to talk about the process of the parking signs with MASSDOT downtown project follow-up and status; George - what still needs to be done - and process - replacement of trees, fixing crosswalk on Main at Haven, replacing light fixtures, left: turn Salem to Main NB bus shelter; Pete/Jean (Jean I can do this since this is probably the only thing you would be there for) sidewalks - repair, replacement, and new construction; Lager - what are the priorities for repair and from PTTTF meetings, what are the priorities for new. Hopkins and Main signal; George - overall map that shows the intersection - and then what is the process going forward Washington Street night time FIVE; George— status? Show map permit parking - status of rental of permit spaces; Cormier - up to date information HC space downtown - Haven at Main; have it West Street - go to 100% design; George no map required Grant Street; Pete. Peter 1. 1-lechenbleikner 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 wwv v.r.eadingiiia.gov<http://www,readiiignia.gov> email townmanager(ci)ci.reading.ma.us<mailto:iownmanager a,)ci.reading,ma.us> Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at littp://i-eadingma-sLirvey.vii-tualtowiihall.net/survey/sid/l dc7dcl'24f2eb 182/ 9/l/2011 r -s t1. I m ro s w V L n i `N Q~ W 'a E I ® U 4-0 ACS~ L W E 0. CL 4~sr Q tU ~ U q cn C 'l7 m N 0 a a> m -a b W N t (1 6e(a v 0 U G U O. bA ~ -o y f~ U o E G o 5 ~ O U E-W v, f®/~p ~V 0 'mod V M~ \Q V Q~ V ('7 L. m E E O cn cn C- O m U O J N O] ti3 C LM N N C6 4. i cn m cu n U 4= O Q C O CCS U O J N ~el y i••~ y U ~ n (1) O C o tCf a) o- a. U N Q O O E (n co O : t-- U bn a~ y Q r- 1 Z3 O ce j U LO CY) c6 ffl (Lf o o y ( En o , r J z U) z r 41 - O U N Q C N 0 = 0 U cn Z U CA U) C o o a~ 0 0 4- ° o U) C L~ U tCS cV m a) 0 06 C: O C N C Q ctf O C N 0.. U (n C: C 'oO (f3 C U) C co cn 0 0 o Q `O C y-_ 1 O A C a) H .2 CL x -0 N m C_ Q) a) W U E O C: cn m L- .C O H a) 4- U OLO C: O N O E L a-. a> cn M a) Fn C o p+ O c .Q U) O C U M L) N = m V Q U o -o O a) 0 o cn 'cn E m; cn 4- o Co En - c u .rn4>-_ iu M Q F-. W ~ (n ` a) E O -0 C a) :t'- 0 C: c a) ui 0 4- (n -0 a o U) Q) ~ O o~ x o c~ V C C ch c6 UC) a) - z3 U a) C c c: 0 Q am m E - c c M o n- 0 0 0 U) CO -a (n tn U) O O o a D- U> U TS tCj N C C -O O N C to I- a) n- I- -a o F- co I- I- v o o . uc,y a) Oi U) ti3 .21 V ' L 4W L U L c O m v O O a. O L CL C ro ~ ~ U C C ~B N CB U) O W (CS S z z p c c CD 2 CO o Q) cs m c~ ~ o U) U) co CO v m ro co ` (D m t° m co iL+ C Z ~'G J U) U) U) ~G ~ • ~ N crJ rY tC) t~ " ig } ri e s i y N O U Cl. bA O C N :b > y N Q c V O O c t-° w r d r (A qL V/ VI N t~ LL L. t`0 N O cn z O U ~M iL x w N U Ct~ LL C 0 4-1 O O / '~1Y1 ~ 1 t y "E4r J ~ y, f F, Y l f.~Ir ti ro O Q. C O O 4- 0 ^O .1i O C O 0 O ~ ~V vI lV CL 'L ry U) (n O)Q O v- a-+ O C O 0- 4- 4- U) U CCf J a r_ O 4- O L O .D N ~ N O .2- rf Y.~ ' ~ , r , ' ~~~~.1kC '~•r'r I - I ;,tF"pt~L r~#~~ r~ t ~ S1y, 9 E 0 U v E C1. ' . bL) > N L) 'E O O W ~~i a.w ~s- V V N to x w C V W y= VI d O CL 1 t f a' ((5 a Y Ir- z, ~ C ~dl } T 4 i! O C bo o rt } O tz 0 ca D Q.. O U 0 HIM > _ ! r~"~ ~tr~'' R { ~ O C a) a) O _ N TO V , z3 O o co T C 4t U7 L O tCS T h ~ ; ~ (n J ~ I n d ~ CO 6d v L i o J b.. C -1-+ (n M C O V O J C6 W i-+ c Q. G 0 O ~ RIB ~ S~~[ O L Y.. N F f i, (D ' U 0 C C: C: `V N L _ - ru."t _ N N r .i 'n.~it { _ O (D MIN L O O O r II7'J .r6 M y,, p Q N N (D Q) L 7 " t 1" 1 1 t it"" r rl Viz, ~g 0. 0 V N cn l~ t2. N V yp(V `V n~ W ~P i.r W W pVp+/ it ~pqqq ~V W V/ W O I V N t2. f6 YG C N N V CL C rm cn 0 4-A p .C W f~ 44y t yr/ ~ ~W~+(( N O U 0 a) 6/ } 1 e Y -N L ~ y ratptt, rt l~fC'e O to O N Cz 1, q 1 N C "O p - C b> a) a) CD m4 to cn u) t6 v a ts~fy ; t CC7 X L- o. t r r W N CU J NU) ~g ~~~~it~"tfr15 *'f~Ad r C U o Uu Fn (D t'( 7 t,~r4t~ ' e ~ ~t t C J l Cll CO 7PrC~ t✓ _ 4tr.- FS ii`.i r 11~ t d~2 ri@r wD 0.»,abr~ il.. O O ^7 N r W U (ll N ~Y + ~ ~ , a, ~ O cn N 'p Cn - fn O _ - +P~ ~srrr~tioi~~t'A, t ;,u C ~ O ~ N O ~ CU r~ `~w+' + ~ .X f6 O O O ~ ~ O 6e,13 ca ■/mV tCf cn Ln v J Q. m x w C (U U t~ d. w O O Q. f I i--F { K y~fyy~ (1 w I~;rd ISM J W. eats J ~ I 1 1 j~ ~s'•i I I I ~'~~~~I I a. 11r 3`,: r ~ . I ~5} I I'M Q co 0 O ~ N •X U O U N N ~ Q O o in > 0 a) SZ O 'O O (n -5 O //1 co fCf V J W o I 1 i~^ w~ tl c r I y ~ ~ J l ~ .J f , I I I I 4el 1 r ~vi y~ I y i r y 0 O U v CL bA O ~ N O > N N o E ~ O 3 0 H W v a q^;:' ! L e-)l q Page I of I Schena, Paula From: Zambouras, George Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:16 PM To: Schena, Paula; Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: Tafoya, Meghan Young; Delios, Jean Subject: FW: Parking sign decision Paula, The email below is MassDOT's response, denying the Wayfinding Parking Sign request George J. Zambouras, P.E. Town Engineer 781-942-6683 781-942-5441(fax) Email: gzambouras c dreadir1g.ma,us Please note Town. Hall Hours Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. Thuesday 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED From: Karas, Mike (DOT) [mailto:mike, karas@state.ma.us] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:46 PM To: Zambouras, George Cc: Leavenworth, Patricia (DOT) Subject: Parking sign decision Boston Traffic has completed its review of the proposed parking sign. As proposed, they do not consider the Town of Reading's '2 hour parking' trailblazer signs acceptable for independent use. Due to their shape and non-standard colors (both of which conflict with MassDOT and MUTCD standards), they would not be readily identifiable by unfamiliar (i.e. out of town) drivers. However, they would have no objections to the Town incorporating a round parking logo, provided it includes the word Parking, into a wayfinding assembly (such as those shown in Section 2D.50 of the 2009 MUTCD) that also directs drivers to other businesses, attractions, or Town facilities. However, to insure that unfamiliar drivers would understand the meaning of such a logo, it would have to be green on white - similar to the D4-1 sign. 6 . ,~f j~ 9/1/2011 Ci) f Ci) 0 C= iz~ _ r: e) 0 (e,a W w w F-M Z C~ ui Q w 2 2 0 U1 L1J CJ A U1 U) ~ w 0 C) Z Or. < C) s LLI 0~ LlJ (/7 Z O U Z O O A p 4! J uj 1 LLJ IM y W W 1 , CO. pJ~ " o~b +-yea .r W ~ E o~rn N o,a b ,k_ mac ~ ~ y'c c Z ~ a ou: ~ n N c E m Nw ' or.mx rC O O N N~ NCS Q O m O N'C 0. ~ ~ N~ U. N N O c a - ro m~ ro O~ 0 1m N N 2 Q. d ro cn U `,5 n. o c vv " 88~_ 0 © T m m m r S ^r ,~o v v u ? E ¢ y~ a ~i D U O .n I r C v ti ~ w m v rn PL =5 6 e :5 c: N a 'o v° n. in v~(( o Iw u v r••? l _ 1 J ,~j gyi7 I : rr,Il\W Iv it y';wi V/ h ~ : o -k c 4 ~ mm V 0~ 2 Q Q ~ r C U u ~ a m N c,I ~ igd env nl"vu9 l' 5 p 7a 6 y7. J NCpO~'nclePred Np Aa A"I ' ~-+1 [ 0 0 all AA n h g py_/p~ llfrj s { t ,G, 14 y p L~ pnc: m J~ - ti~ S W`f` ~ 7 m _ 3 u '~bS _ tr o? ;I c V 4 C' : ..a 1 4 o TN. ~ o i la tPA i ° a2'o 6l I L~.Jz i O~ v ' 0 ~ w oU m~ I s~~~ oN Sal 1 i C k r, l z. 0 q nit I ih Q V W c h s I ~F~ ...1- F .l„ems [ .rl,~n~~ (Friel} 'T ,,.,.M ~ n a r.~raAl~p• '3AV ~ I J F o r~ s da A l i ~ ' c[[rz rv'<rz cezrz r,. o..a cNa `y[F~a 1 I I 'oe RFZ»z sc a+z . a[rz R R - IT _ Se LL.: N soeba nczFa' aa'ora W U Qv 4 UrVe-~ ~ Il 'h' -F6 v3-a ~.iZb2 4.0F [I2 0 w ~ m N (ezl Vi !AM I l~ til w,~+l~ mj l ~ t x 04 A ,S 1 o. . ` h ~tl~ 4 ~t ~ ~ a CI t t~ q a~ SY 1 4~I4. F I ,3 ~ r ~ 1 , fi t sr i ~ PIP 4 4 « it i I ~~I ~I iris 1, ~k `}y r ,r a - h ~ i ~ it~ ~'ll~tt ~f x , t' ~k7r 1 s r rl - „ J f f l i. 1 1 1 ~r III 11I jI fJ ~ ~ 11 ~ l Y I ~ l J ~ CI I Yl V .i I 3 ~ r ~ ;of r f `s r Y ~ I a ~r:r • ~ +r rt9 I ti ~ A 1 1 ~ ii) j ~ z. 'J t < f ( 'tai ' t ~ 1~ r ~ , j v t ZI j ~ 4 ,t; 7} l1 ~ : 7 r r6 ~ , 9 ~ez3 ~~N l Z15-11' (O,e (tee u° VI :i 1 1 t ~P ]Y7C.nfi .I ~~'hrrt yt.-~t'~f~~r re t iSy~ rs a ,e i 1( ~ 444 Jl f F F 1, ..-.1 i~•+~ V 7 / ~ . ,'.r. w" - t .rte.. I" ~-Vlt x P y 09l T~v 7 r ~ flfy ~ V. ~l "`til tl 7 '~'*7~a°j ~ i"~ _ r1e~1~ 475v ° y?S i/. &,z S of l -'T, ~ / F~ To: Peter Hechenbleikner From: George J. Zambouras Date: September 1, 2011 Re: Walkers Brook Drive - Nigh-time Truck Exclusion I was just informed that the nighttime exclusion was denied. We will be receiving a denial letter shortly 0 Page 1 ~e~ DRAFT - 2011 Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 2011 WARRANT OUTLINE 09/01/2011 Art. Mover/ Moderator I/ Article Description Sponsor Comment Notes 3 Amending the Capital Improvement Board of Selectmen o Program FY 2012-FY 2021 ...._F.,..._:.., t? may. 'v~6:~ - ' _...~,..,.•.•I , 4 -Transferring debt authorirnt Board ol•Selectmen + ~ILel.,acheur/Doucette ($55,470.89 without Barrows; $60,508.55 including Barrows) ® 'I'ennis courts $7,798.08 'TUrf field $46,209.30 o Ladder U'uelc $1,341.51 o Fire Engine $122.00 5 I' '!CSI 6 Approve Payment of Prior Year's Board of Selectmen (Bills 7 y Rescinding debt ($465,000 in general Board of Selectmen o Fund; $65,000 in Sewer fund) o $140,000 for Bh,ch Meadow Tennis Courts 4/26/07 Art. 21; o $275,000 for "Turf Field hnprovements 4/26/07 Art. 22; o $65,000 l'or Sewer improvements Sunnyside/Fairview 4/26/07 Art. 23; o $50,000 for Ladder TI-LICk 11/13/07 Art. 10 ;ff 8 Appropriating "Funds from the 40R Board of Selectmen • Smart Growth Stabilization Fund into the Afrordable Housing Trust Fund ~lLeLacheur/Doucette 1 article, 4 motions? LaPointe 9 Amending Article 5 of the November Trust Fund Doucette 12, 2010 Subsequent Town Meeting Commissioners re Veterans Flower Fund. V l - - - 10 Establishing revolving fund - Town Town Forest Forest _ Committee' lZambouras t t R 4 1o,^, Y, »~i f~,^ n,„^hc ~1r zuai t stt1fl il tt'(i (1{ q( l( C11T'1 ICJ LIGGL aL r-luuuvvta twuI& i _ - - - r--a- m - - - .m - - --1 k 1 - - _ Transferring a parcel of land on Board of Selectmen 14 b Oakland Road from the School Committee to the Board of Selectmen and authorizing its conveyance - Tr- 15 Discontinuance of portions of Board of Selectmen Grandview Road, Cold Spring Road, Oalchtn.d Road, and Tower Road, and authorizing their conveyance 16 Transferring land on Lothrop Road Board of Selectmen from the Water Department to the Board of Selectmen and authorizing its conveyance _ - 17 Approval of Recodification of the Bylaw Committee Reading General Bylaw pursuant to Section 8.9 of the Reading home Rule t, 774 ~F3 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading: By virtue of this Warrant, I, on 2011 notified and warned the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote on Town affairs, to meet at the place and at the time specified by posting attested copies of this Town Meeting Warrant in the following public places within the Town of Reading: Precinct 1 J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street Precinct 2 Peter Sanborn Place, 50 Bay State Road Precinct 3 Reading Police Station, 15 Union Street Precinct 4 Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue Precinct 5 Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street Precinct 6 Austin Preparatory School, 101 Willow Street Precinct 7 Reading Library, Local History Room, 64 Middlesex Avenue Precinct 8 Wood End School, 85 Sunset Rock Lane The date of posting being not less than fourteen (14) days prior to 2011, the date set for the Local Election in this Warrant. I also caused a posting of this Warrant to be published on the Town of Reading website on 2011. Constable A true copy Attest: Laura. Gemme, Town Clerk 1 ~0Fq TOWN WARRANT (SEAL) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. To any of the Constables of the Town of Reading, Greetings: In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote in elections and Town affairs, to meet at the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium, 62 Oakland Road, in said Reading, on Monday, November 8, 2010, at seven-thirty o'clock in the evening, at which time and place the following articles are to be acted upon and determined exclusively by Town Meeting Members in accordance with the provisions of the Reading Home Rule Charter ARTICLE 1 To hear and act on the reports of the Board of Selectmen, Town Accountant, Treasurer-Collector, Board of Assessors, Director of Public Works, Town Clerk, Tree Warden, Board of Health, School Committee, Contributory Retirement Board, Library Trustees, Municipal Light Board, Finance Committee, Cemetery Trustees, Community Planning & Development Commission, Town Manager and any other Official, Board or Special Committee. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 2 To choose all other necessary Town Officers and Special Committees and determine what instructions shall be given Town Officers and Special Committees, and to see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, for the purpose of funding Town Officers and Special Committees to carry out the instructions given to them, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 3 To see if the Town will vote to amend the FY 2012 - FY 2021 Capital Improvements Program as provided for in Section 7-7 of the Reading Home Rule Charter and as previously amended, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 4 ARTICLE 5 To see if the Town will vote to amend one or more of the votes taken under Article 28 of the Warrant of the Annual Town Meeting of April 25, 2011; and to see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, as the result of any such amended votes for the operation of the Town and its government, or take any other action with respect thereto. Finance Committee 2 6 F,5/" ARTICLE 6 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the payment during Fiscal Year 2011 of bills remaining unpaid for previous fiscal years for goods and services actually rendered to the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 7 ARTICLE 8 ARTICLE 9 ARTICLE 10 To see if the Town will vote to authorize revolving funds for certain Town Departments under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 44, Section 53E 1/2 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011 with the receipts, as specified, credited to each fund, the purposes, as listed, for which each fund may be spent, the maximum amount that may be spent from each fund for the fiscal year, and the disposition of the balance of each fund at fiscal year end. Revolving Spending Revenue Allowed Expenditure Year End Account Authority Source Expenses Limits Balance Director of Public Works upon the Sale of recommendation of the timber; fees Planning and Town Town Forest for use of the Improvements to Forest Committee Town Forest the Town Forest $10,000 $0 or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 11 ARTICLE 12 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 15A, to transfer the care, custody and control of approximately 13,925 square feet of property, as shown on Board of Assessor's map 28 lot 202, from to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of conveyance; and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen pursuant to M.G.L. c.40, §3 to convey all of the Town's right title and interest in said property upon such terms and conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to, be in the best interest of the Town, Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 13 To see if the Town will vote to discontinue as a public way for all purposes a portion of Pearl Street, consisting of approximately 10,897 square feet of land along the south west of Pearl Street and extending for a distance of approximately _ feet as shown on a Plan entitled "Pearl Street Roadway Discontinued Plan" dated September 27, 2011, a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk, subject to the reservation of any and all utility and drainage facility easements in said way; and to transfer the care, custody, control and management of said discontinued portion of Pearl Street from the Board of Selectmen for public way purposes, to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of conveyance, and 3 (,0 Op further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen pursuant to M:G.L. c.40, §3 to convey all of the Town's right title and interest in said discontinued way upon such terms and conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 14 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 15A, to transfer the care, custody and control of approximately square feet of land as shown on Board of Assessor's map 27 lot 405, from the School Department to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of conveyance; and; and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen pursuant to M.G.L. c.40, §3 to convey all of the Town's right title and interest in said property upon such terms and conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 15 To see if the Town will vote to discontinue as public ways for all purposes, the following; - a portion of Grandview Road, on the west side of the way southerly from the intersection of Cold Spring Road for approximately 358 feet; - a portion of Cold Spring Road, on the south side of the way westerly for approximately 115 feet from the intersection of Grandview Road and the full width of the way an additional 112 feet westerly to Oakland Road; - a portion.of Oakland Road southerly from the intersection of Cold Spring Road for approximately 330 feet to Chestnut Road; and - a portion of Tower Road westerly from Grandview Road for approximately 243 feet to Oakland Road, all as shown as "the Discontinued Sections of Grandview Road, Cold Spring Road, Oakland Road and Tower Road" on a Plan entitled "Roadway Discontinuance Plan" dated September 27, 2011, a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk, subject to the reservation of any and all utility and drainage facility easements in said ways; to transfer the care, custody, control and management of said discontinued portions of. Grandview Road, Cold Spring Road, Oakland Road and Tower Road from the Board of Selectmen for public way purposes to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of conveyance; and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey all of the Town's right title and interest in said discontinued. ways together. with all of the land shown on Board of Assessor's Map 33 Lot 19 and Map 33 Lot 31 upon such terms and conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 16 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 15A, to transfer the care, custody and control of the property shown on Board of Assessor's Map 9, Lot 3, consisting of 31,614 square feet of land, from the Water Department or the Board of Selectmen for water resource and protection purposes, to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of conveyance; and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen pursuant to M.G.L. c.40, §3 to convey all of the Town's right title and interest in said parcel of land upon f1 such terms and conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 17 . To see if the Town will approve the recodification of the Reading General Bylaw pursuant to Section 8.9 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, or take any other action with respect thereto. Bylaw Committee ARTICLE 18 ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE 20 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 4.8, Aquifer Protection District, of the Town of Reading Zoning By-Laws, in the following respects (note - Gress t gh represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language): by amending Section 4.8.3. Definitions: as follows (new language in bold) Impervious Surface: Material or structure on, above, or below the ground that does not allow precipitation or surface water to penetrate directly into the soil. Impervious surfaces shall include all roofs, decks, driveways, parking areas, roadways and walkways, regardless of the proposed surface material. Excluded from this definition are decks that are constructed with open joints between the floorboards, and where the surface underneath the deck is not impervious; by deleting Sections 4.8.6.1.9 and 4.8.6.1.10 in their entirety, and inserting in place thereof the following new sections: 4.8.6.1.9 Land uses that result in the rendering impervious of more than 15% or 2,500 square feet of any lot or parcel, whichever is greater, unless a system of artificial recharge of precipitation is provided; 4.8.6.1.10 When artificial recharge is required to meet the limitation established in Section 4.8.6.1.9, a system for the recharge of precipitation shall be provided that will not result in the degradation of groundwater quality. Recharge plans shall comply with the DEP Stormwater Guidelines and shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval; by inserting a new Section 4.8.7 as follows: 4.8.7. Nonconforming Uses and Structures Non-conforming uses and structures which were lawfully existing, begun or in receipt of a building or special permit, prior to the first publication of notice of public hearing for this bylaw may be continued. If such non-conforming uses and structures are changed, extended or altered, as specified in M.G.L. c. 40A, §6 and Section 6.3 of this bylaw, then the use or structure as changed, extended or altered must comply with this bylaw. by inserting a new Section 4.8.8 as follows: 5 t 4.8.8 No Variance Permitted No variances shall be granted from the provisions of this bylaw Section 4.8. by inserting a new Section 4.8.9 as follows: 4.8.9 Administration/Rules and Regulations This bylaw shall be administered by the Community Planning and Development Commission which shall also have the authority to adopt rules and regulations governing the design of infiltration systems required herein; by renumbering the current Section 4.8.7 as 4.8.10, or to take any other.action with respect thereto. Community Planning and Development Commission ARTICLE 21 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 6.2 (Signs) of the Town of Reading Zoning By-Laws as follows: (note - GresstfFaugh represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language) 6.2.4.j. Exempt Signs Construction and redevelopment signs: A temporary unlit free standing sign or wall sign affixed to a structure or fence identifying contractors, architects, engineers, property owners, marketing companies, project name, project description or business to be conducted on the premises. The maximum size shall not exceed 32 square feet in surface area or 10 feet in any dimension. work--GR-a-pr-epe#y--. Construction signs shall be allowed during active construction, where a demolition or building permit has been issued and where at least site preparation work has commenced. Redevelopment signs shall be allowed for sites that have not begun construction, but have been issued a building or demolition permit or have an approved site plan. Redevelopment signs may be displayed for up to 1 year; however, upon written request of the CPDC the timeframe may be extended. Construction signs shall be removed after the construction, repair or renovation work is completed or within 7 days after the issuance of a final occupancy permit. 6.2.3. Signs Permitted According to Zoning District Table 6 2 3 Signs Permitted According to Zoning District Max Max Sign Sign Setbacks: Permit Area Height Front Side Maximum Type Required (sq. ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) Number All Zoning Districts: 6 Personal N 6 N/A 20 1/lot Message 2. Identification N 4 8 (A) N/A N/A 1/lot (Joint and Area) 3. Construction N 46 32 (B) N/A N/A 20 NA 1/lot 4. Subdivision (C) 48 N/A N/A N/A 11subdiv. Sales 5. Subdivision (C) 24 N/A N/A N/A 1/subdiv. 6. Real Estate N 8 (G) 6 N/A 20 1/lot Sales 7. Temp Open N 4 N/A N/A 20 11agency House per lot 8. Garage/Yard N 4 N/A N/A 20 1/lot Sale 9. Informational - N 4 6 N/A N/A N/A Directional Portable A-Frame Regulated by the Board of Selectmen - Annual Permit Required 10. Temporary y 16 N/A (See Section 6.2.6.2.h.) Business Signs or 30 Business-A, Business-C and Industrial Zoning Districts: 11. Free-Standing Y 50(D) 20 0 20(I) 1/lot 12. Wall Y 2/4E (A) N/A 10 1/business 13. Projecting 1 Y 8 (A)(H) N/A 10 1/business Blade Business-B Zoning Districts: 14. Free-standing y 35(D) 14 0 20 1/lot (Service Stations Only) 15. Wall Y 2(F) (A) 0 0 2/businesses 16.Projecting/ Y 8 (A)(H) -4 0 1/business Blade 17. Free-Standing SPP(J) 35 10.5 0 20 1/lot NOTES: (A) No portion of such sign shall extend higher than the bottom of the sills of the windows of the second floor of a building or higher than the lowest portion of the eaves or, in the case of a gabled wall, no higher than a line equal in height to the lowest portion of the lower eave of any adjoining building wall, whichever of the above is lowest. (B) Aggregate sign area of all applicable signs. (C) Only as shown in Definitive Subdivision Plans as approved by the Community Planning and Development Commission consistent with Paragraph 6.2.1.1. (D) May not be larger than 75 square feet, if more than one business occupies the lot. *See Section 6.2.6.4. fjn (E) If the minimum distance from the building wall on which the sign is mounted is less than 100 feet from the centerline of the street which the sign faces, the maximum sign area shall be equal to 2 square feet per linear foot of said wall occupied by the establishment to which the sign relates; if such distance is more than 100 feet, maximum sign area shall be equal to 4 square feet per linear foot of said wall so occupied. (F) No wall sign for any non-residential establishment shall exceed a sign area equal to 2 square feet per linear footage of length of the front wall of the building occupied by the establishment to which the sign relates. (G) Real Estate Signs in the Industrial, Zoning Districts are allowed one sign per business with a maximum sign area equal to 2 square feet per linear foot of said wall occupied by the establishment to which the sign relates without a sign permit. (H) Projecting/Blade Signs shall be at least eight (8) feet from the ground and mayl project no more than four (4) feet from the structure. , (1) A Special Permit may be granted by the CPDC. See Section 6.2.9 for Special Permit Criteria. (J) Free-standing signs shall be permitted only where the principal business entrance is located more that 40 feet from the centerline of the street in front of the lot. CPDC may waive the 40' business entrance setback requirement for signs in existence as of the effective date of this amendment. See Section 6.2.9.a. for Special Permit Criteria Or take any other action with respect thereto. Community Planning and Development Commission ARTICLE 22 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of Reading General Bylaw by adding a new section as follows: 8.10 Maintenance of Vacant Buildings and Land All vacant non-residential structures and vacant land within the Town of Reading shall be maintained in a safe, secure and clean condition so as not to compromise the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 8.10.1 Definitions: For purposes of this bylaw the following definitions shall apply: 8.10.1.1 Building A structure enclosed within exterior walls or firewalls, built, erected, or framed of any materials, and fixed to the ground, having a roof, to form a structure for the shelter of persons, animals or property, or the storage of commercial or industrial personal property. This bylaw shall not apply to buildings or property owned or subject to the control of the Town or any of its governmental bodies. 8.10.1.2 Owner A person, entity, service company, property manager or real estate broker, who alone or severally with others: has legal or equitable title to any building, structure or parcel of land, vacant or otherwise; or 8 has care, charge or control of any building or structure, parcel of land, vacant or otherwise, in any capacity including but not limited to agent, executor, executrix, administrator, administratrix, trustee or guardian of the estate of the holder of legal title; or ® is a mortgagee in possession of any such property; or ® is an agent trustee or other person appointed by the courts and vested with possession or control; or is an officer or trustee of the association of unit owners of a condominium; each such person being bound to comply with the provisions of these minimum standards as if he were the owner; or o is a trustee who holds, owns or controls mortgage loans for mortgage backed securities transactions and has initiated a foreclosure process. 8.10.1.3 Vacant Buildings or property that are unoccupied for a period greater than one hundred eighty (180) days by a person or persons with legal right to occupancy thereof. 8.10.2 Minimum Maintenance Requirements Owners of vacant properties must fulfill the following minimum adequate maintenance requirements for any such property they own: ® Maintain vacant properties in accordance with all applicable local and state Sanitary Codes, Building Codes and Fire Codes. Secure vacant properties to prevent unauthorized entry and exposure to the elements. ® Maintain vacant properties in a manner that ensures their external/visible maintenance, including but not limited to the maintenance of major systems, the removal of trash and debris, and the upkeep of lawns, shrubbery, and other landscape features. ® Remove graffiti, carvings or markings from all structures, signs, walls and fences. ® Repair or replace broken windows or doors within thirty (30) days. Boarding up any doors or windows is prohibited except as a temporary measure for no longer than thirty (30) days. ® For properties vacant for six months or more, the utilities for which have been shut off, remove or cut and cap such utilities to prevent accidents. ® Maintain free from the storage of any junked, wrecked, or abandoned vehicles. Compliance with this section shall not relieve the owner of any applicable obligations set forth in any other codes, regulations, covenant conditions or restrictions, and/or homeowner or condominium association rules and regulations. 8.10.3 Notice of Failure to Maintain Propert Upon identifying a property as failing to meet the minimum maintenance requirements set out in section 8.10.2, the Building Inspector may.notify the owner in writing of maintenance deficiencies at the owner's last known address. If any maintenance deficiency is not corrected within 30 days of said notice, or if a maintenance plan is 9 ~~1~ not approved by the Building Department within 30 days of said notice, the Town may impose a penalty in accordance with the provisions of this bylaw. 8.10.4 Inspections The Building Department, the Board of Health, the Chief of the Police Department and the Chief of the Fire Department, or their designees, shall have the authority to periodically inspect any property reasonably understood to be a vacant property for compliance. The Building Department shall have the discretion to determine when and how such inspections are to be made, provided that the time and manner of such inspections are reasonably calculated to ensure that this bylaw is enforced. 8.10.5 Penalties Violations of this bylaw, including violations of any regulation promulgated hereunder, or failure to comply with a maintenance plan approved by the Building Department, shall be punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day during which the violation continues. In addition to any other means of enforcement, the provisions of this bylaw may be enforced by non-criminal disposition in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.8 of this bylaw, and M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 21 D. For the purposes of such non-criminal disposition, the "enforcing person" shall mean the Building Inspector, the Health Director, the Police Department, the Fire Department, or their designee. 8.10.6 Enforcement The Building Department or its designee, the Board of Health, Fire Department and/or the Police Department or their designees(s) shall enforce all provisions of this bylaw; including any regulation promulgated hereunder, and shall institute all necessary administrative or legal action to assure compliance. 8.10.7 Unsafe Buildings If the Building Inspector determines the building to be unsafe, he may act immediately in accordance with the State Building Code to protect public safety. Furthermore, nothing in this bylaw shall abrogate the powers and/or duties of municipal officials to act pursuant to any general statutory authority including, without limitation, M.G.L. c.139, §1 et seq. and M.G.L. c.143, §6 et seq. or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 23 ARTICLE 24 To see if the Town will vote to approve an amendment to the Table of Organization pursuant to Section 6-1 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 25 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Section 8-1 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, to amend Article 5, Town Manager, Section 5-1: Appointment, Qualifications, Term, so that it reads as follows (language with-strikethfGugh-shows deletions/words in bold denotes new language) The Board of Selectmen shall appoint a Town Manager without -term and may enter into a contract with the Town Manager not exceeding three (3) years in length, and shall fix 10 6 ~ his compensation within the amount annually appropriated for that purpose. The Town Manager shall not be subject to a personnel bylaw, if any. The Town Manager shall be appointed solely on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications. He shall be a professionally qualified person of proven ability, especially fitted by education, training and previous experience. He shall have had at least five (5).years of full-time paid experience as a City or Town Manager or Assistant City or Town Manager or the equivalent level public or private sector experience. The terms of the Town Manager's employment shall be the subject of a written contract agreement setting forth his tenure, compensation, vacation, sick leave, benefits, and such other matters (ex~l~+d+ng teeur~} as are customarily included in an employment contract agfeement. While serving as Town Manager he. shall devote full time to the office (and except as expressly authorized by the Board of Selectmen) shall not engage in any other business or, occupation and (except as expressly provided in the Charter) shall not hold any other public office, elective or appointive, in'the Town. With the approval of the Selectmen, he may serve as the Town's representative to regional boards, commissions and the like but shall not receive additional salary from the Town for such services. or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 26 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Section 8-1 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, to amend Article 7, Finances and Fiscal Procedures, Section 7-2: Submission of Proposed Budget, paragraph 1, so that it reads as follows: (language with str+ket#rotrgh shows deletion/language in bold denotes new language) At least four (4) months before the start of the fiscal year, and following consultation with the Board of Selectmen on the Municipal Government portions of the budget, the Town Manager shall submit to the Finance Committee a proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year with an accompanying budget message and supporting. documents. He shall simultaneously provide for the publication in a local newspaper of a general summary of the proposed budget, and a notice stating the ;times and places where complete copies of his proposed budget shall be available for examination by the public. or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen and you are directed to serve this Warrant by posting an attested copy thereof in at least one (1) public place in each precinct of the Town not less than fourteen (14) days prior to -------,2011, the date set for the Election in said Warrant, or providing in a manner such as electronic submission, holding for pickup or mailing, an attested copy of said Warrant to each Town Meeting Member. Hereof fail not and make due return of this Warrant with your doings thereon to the Town Clerk at or before the time appointed for said meeting. Given under our hands this 27th day of September, 2011 11 Page I of 2 Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 9:53 AM To: Schena, Paula Subject: Fwd: Reading Wetland Regulation ConCom Ad HocDraft Bylaw change recommendation 1 Sept.docx Attachments: Reading Wetland Regulation ConCom Ad HocDraft Bylaw change recommendation 1 Sept.docx; ATT00001.htm For packet behind the draft warrant Sent from my Whone Pete Begin forwarded message: From: <.lames.MaughanL 0CI12M.com> Date: September 1, 2011 9:04:43 AM EDT To: <pilechenbleiknerri;ci.read ing.ma.us> Cc: <billheehtsr r,verizon.net>, <.lames.Maugl)an(a~CI42M.com>, <jdelios(c ..c_i.re,iding.ma.us> Subject: Reading Wetland Regulation ConCom Ad HocDraft Bylaw change recommendation I Sept.doex Peter, Attached is the DRAFT introduction and recommended bylaw change sections of the Ad Hoc committee formed to review, and revised Reading Wetland Regulations. The Ad Hoc committee has voted to recommend these changes but we have not officially voted on the report (it has been reviewed and accepted by a majority of the committee). The Conservation Commission has been orally briefed but has not seen the written recommendations or voted to pass them on to the BOS. Town Council has seen these proposed changes but we got caught up in the question of "isolated wetlands" (which we determined were best addressed in Regulation rather than bylaw changes) and I am not sure how closely she looked at the changes we ended up proposing. I will leave it up to you as to when/how to pass to her. PLEASE BE AWARE AND PASS ON TO THE BOS: (apt ~ 9/1/2011 Page 2 of 2 As stated in the draft report most comments and suggestions were not related to the bylaws, and thus the issues could not be addressed through bylaw changes. However most of the issues raised could be addressed by changes to Reading Wetland Regulations and Conservation Commission Policies. Thus our final report (to be delivered to the Conservation Commission next week) includes over a dozen Wetland Regulation changes and a similar number of recommended issues to be addressed by Conservation Commission policy. I think this was a very productive and positive effort. The committee worked very hard and put in many many hours (I think more than any of us anticipated when we naively volunteered) Let me know if I can help by being present at the BOS meeting or in any other way. Jamie ~~Jl 9/1/2011 Reading Conservation Commission Ad Hoc Committee Report on Wetland Regulation Evaluation and Recommended Enhancements r e , y This,ad hoc committee was formed at the request of the Reading Board of Selectmen (BOS) with the expressed purpose of assessing and simplifying the wetland application process. The critical element of the review process, expressed by both the BOS and the Reading Conservation Commission, which formed the ad hoc committee, was to actively solicit input, comments, and suggestions from stakeholders previously involved in the wetland application process. The mission of the ad hoc committee is: "Recommend changes to the Reading wetland protection regulations and enabling bylaws to simplify the permit application and enforcement process without compromising critical resource protection offered by the regulations." The ad hoc committee sought input from stakeholders with experience and exposure to the Reading wetland permit application process through multiple avenues. We developed and distributed a questionnaire requesting information on stakeholders' experiences and suggestions for improvement. Hard copies of the questionnaire were mailed to recent wetland permit applicants and abutters. It was also posted on the Town website with email notice of availability sent to critical stakeholders such as Town Meeting Members. More than 150 questionnaires were returned, which might well be a record rate of return in the Town. We also invited more than a dozen stakeholders who have been heavily involved in the wetland permit application process to public interviews so that we could learn from their experience and solicit suggestion to improve and simply the process. These stakeholders included engineers, attorneys, and wetland scientists who have prepared or were involved in numerous permit applications in Reading and similar towns, We also invited several residential and commercial applicants and representatives of local environmental advocacy groups. Although we had outstanding participation for the questionnaire effort, we were not as successful with responses to our invitation for interviews. Fewer than 10 stakeholders agreed to interviews, but those who did participate shared a wealth of experience and insightful suggestions. The ad hoc committee also provided information and original suggestions based on their experience and research. We reviewed regulations in similar towns and communicated with other towns' conservation administrators and the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissioners. We also drew on our experience in Reading and other towns to identify issues, concerns, and areas of improvement. (All members have experience as Conservation Commissioners and several had worked with numerous other applicants and towns as environmental consultants). The information developed from these multiple avenues is presented in this report under the following headings: Summary of Questionnaire and Interview Results; Recommended Reading Wetland Bylaw Changes; Recommended Reading Wetland Regulation Changes; and Recommendations for Conservation Commission Policies. 'ii.t 7rrG''~'y, r.ki iQ ~.:~ei~~ e.. C°. .Y i=e 5'..`.~ A~';¢~-i E'`t. The input received through the questionnaires tended to be general in nature rather than suggesting specific regulation changes (full results and a discussion of results are attached). The questionnaire responses also generally did not differentiate between the State and Town processes and identified concerns related to other town bylaws, such as those regulating the Aquifer Protection District. Even with these limitations, the results of the questionnaires gave us a very good understanding of how the citizens of Reading view the wetland application process and thus gave us excellent food for thought to recommend enhancements to the regulations and process. Although over 60% of the respondents felt the regulations at least somewhat served the Town's needs, there was much frustration with the complexity, fairness and execution of the process. Almost half the respondents felt their experience with the Conservation Commission and the Conservation Agent was not fair or collaborative, and the question of fairness and collaboration generated by far the most comments and suggestions. A majority of respondents also felt the process was more cumbersome than applications for other Reading permits (e.g. building permit) and wetland permits in other towns. Similarly a majority felt the regulations were restrictive to economic development and home improvement. The ad hoc committee analyzed and discussed at length the results of the questionnaires. We concluded the major concerns of a fair and cumbersome process generally could not be addressed solely by regulation and bylaw changes. We felt Conservation Commission policies should be put in place that would promote consistent and predictable action by the Commission and administrator. We also felt the Town should have develop and periodically update a simple, non-technical, one or two page combination checklist and flow chart to assist residential and nonprofessional applicants through the process. A discussion of policy development and general policy recommendations are included as the final section of this report. In contrast to the questionnaires, the interviews of professionals, applicants and environmental advocates were more focused on the Reading process and resulted in suggestions for specific regulation changes. A primary area of concern raised during the interview process was consistency with the state process unless there was a Reading specific condition to warrant a major difference. The consistency issue was particularly relevant to definitions and wetland delineation methodology. other concerns raised in the interview process were flooding, water quality protection, areas of jurisdiction, and setbacks from resource areas. The Reading Wetland By Laws are intentionally general and include a mandate to develop implementing regulations to provide the details. Thus it is not surprising that most of the concerns raised and suggestions made were related to the details in the regulations rather than the general statements in (V~ Iq the Bylaws. However, the committee identified one issue related to definitions that could be addressed by a substantive change to the Bylaw and a suggested word'change that could help clarify the Bylaw, The ad hoc committee's recommendations to address these two concerns are presented below. • In Section 5.7.5, a lengthy list of definitions of wetland-related. terms could be deleted and replaced by a reference to the Regulations for definitions. (They are currently in both the Bylaws and Regulations.) One of our goals is to make the Reading Wetland Bylaws consistent with the State regulations unless there is a specific and good reason for inconsistency. The State revises their definitions periodically based on new scientific information, review of cases, changes in the state program and similar reasons. By locking definitions into the Bylaws when the State makes a change in definitions, an inconsistency can be created. We would like to have the terms defined in the Regulations only, so that if a change is necessary based on State changes, new science or technology, or other reasons, the Conservation Commission can facilitate changes in the Regulations, in a simpler, more straightforward, and more technically based process than going before Town Meeting for a Bylaw change. Thus, the ad hoc committee's recommendation is to delete the last sentence of the first paragraph in Section 5.7.5 and the entire list of definitions and substitute: "The critical wetland-related terms used in this Bylaw and regulations adopted pursuant hereto shall be defined in regulations promulgated under this Bylaw" • Our other potential recommendation is much simpler. In Section 5.7.17, there is an apparent typo in the seventh line: "..after given (sic giving) written notification... We would like to. correct this typo by substituting the word giving for given. j ZO j2` 2011 JUN °2 RI 4* 01 Thursday, June 2, 2011 Dear Mr. Heckenblecker, I would like to petition the Town of Reading for permission to purchase a 20 foot by 20 foot piece of land which was originally part of my property at 16 Grant Street. I have attached a copy of the original deed dated March 5, 1888. In 1956 the town took over a 20 foot by 20 foot piece of land from the corner of my lot. Since buying my property in June of 1993, I have maintained and plowed this 400 square foot piece. The town has never used nor maintained this piece of property. I have enclosed what maps and information I have regarding my property and the abutting 400 sq. feet. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for taking the time to meet with me last Tuesday. Respectfully, Jeanne M. Freeman 16 Grant St. Reading, Ma 01867 781-944-7101 ~r 05/30/2003 07:36 FIX 7818378272 Clam Elementary School 005 BUYER: Per B.I. nor pex" its, for exte; for additicna iuKng past ten yea: e. WwA )0 ° 4- r.Z ~ - 'FAIZ Of LOT '2 i k ~ MAlt~~7~~~ i L d' z a~ ParkLng o na, designated on asses x r' ® blan. To TME AND ITS n n.F NS11RA, MORTGAGE IN! PEC ION PLAN .tgIDW C~~~C n1c . X23 05/30/2003 07:36 FAX 7819378272 _ Clap] Elementary School _ 003 PUM TO 7HE ZMNQ LAM AND AMEN0146115 I.a.(FAQNf, 57C E, & REAR YARD SMAIX ONLY) SAC ji isr. rs I IV G WHEN CONSTRUCTrb, C R ARE EXEMPT FR(M V )LAT10N 61FC I-I1T ACTION UNDER UASS. &L 'n" MI, CHAPTER .40A. SEanoN 7. um=; OTHERWM NOTED, 1 FUR1M CERTIFY THAT IMS PROPERTY Is I'J U I LOCAIM 1P THE E$ ABLI5MED FT.003 HAZARD NtEA DEEI) COMMUNITY PANEL NO.: kGXJv5 - ' 6* [TATS: ~ i'.-r< I Both OAtMiNATI()" OF THE RECORDS IS MADE ONLY $1JDSEWENT TO TH : REC OMED DATE OF TI IQ LATH KED AND DOES NOT INCLIH* VOW-ANG THE AMMOY (F THE DEED MtaFPMtg4 PACE PREVIOUS rO ITS DATE OF REOORD, THIS OUMPANY IS tror RESPONSIME FOR ANY pJDE NTURES MADE : SE 04T TO Wr RECORDED Cm1r. NO, DATE W THE LATEST UEFD Or REOOM. 04WEVM MUMS ARE SHOWN LESS THAN ONE FOOT FROM 11-h PROPMW LINE 11 t5 ADM$E}? THAT A M04C PREt~9 5•(J vi Y BE NAPE To vER1F•Y THE5E wAsu ztuEHm PLAN BK. PAGE ~ . ' THIS T ICATION 18 13A5'ED ON 7H6 LOC;AT1oN OF SUN OF O'EM! ArD DOES NOT tl YRESMI A PROPERTY SURVEY. YERIFIOATION or MA 'r ! AND CM E kS MOWN, VAY BE AMWPUSHM ONLY BY AN ACCURATE IN PLAN ¢ _ _ _ A/ pATID _ _ Iggs THIS _ CER,TIMCATION TO BE USED F"0 TGAGL PU VNL f. S'CA1 : 1'• ; OFFSETS AS SHQVn,! ,-,~R9 NU; USED FOR THE ESTABUSHIA Fa F t~ : ,f?RC1;" ' 1 Orr 1 ~g A ~ ` e G7 ~ ~P'Y 41 0 ~ RD A ~py~(~~` eye® ~r rgi E~ ■ 1 V I 1d \ ~4 l.9 CO . N.O. B( ( 124.44 JAMES W. ROUGIOUKAS R.I. S. 9529 NAVF T#il(1 At Q It TEL. 3' 3--t 3 •t 8 ~~zti R A N"f^ yTR,~ ~'f' AND IS 7013E U§ED THTH S PLAN IS BASED ON ATAPE SURVEY EREFORE, THE OFFSETS AS SHOWN =OT eEUUSEDTO ESTABUSH PROPERTY UNES.R MORTGAGE PURPOSES ONLY. M1~~~ES~~t COUNTY DEED REFERENCE: PLAN REFERENCE: PL NO. BK. 2 3'3 !0 5 PG.' 47 PL.BK -12, PL. 32 CERT. NO. BK. PG. I hereby certify that the existing structures are located approximately as shown and were not in violation of the zoning by laws at the Ilme Of construction, or are exempt from violation enforcement action under, Chapter 40A SOCIIDn 7 of the Mass. General Laws. The structures are located In Zone~ccording to the following F.E.M.A. map. Note: Zone C represents areas of minimal flooding. FLOOD HAZARD COMMUNITY NO ' 2 5117-11 L BOUNDARY MAP NO 000313 EFFECTIVF_~I ~ w BAILL IF REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS 4' /v-j 98 DATE PLAN OF LAND IN 15`AID 11~~1 :PARED FOR: TI'.a N N 10 M Fr-m_ M,4r`3 SCALE 1 IN.= 34FEET BAILLIE & COMPANY LAND SURVEYING & RESEARCH 33 HOWARD STREET READING, MA. 01867 PHONE: (781) 944-2767 FAX: (781) 944-6112 AMPTY4AGE INSPECTION PLAN Registry of Deeds Page 2 of 3 The land in Reading, Middlesex Ciou tty, ssaebusetta, together with the b"I.ti.inqu thereon, on the Northwesterly side of Grant Streat and csospriei Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 can a plan of Noce Lots f} in Reading suiveeyed for +vsew ate by Jams A. Bancroft, SUrveyor, dated Marcie 5, 1888 and duly recorded in Middlas South Oistariat Registry of reeds in Plan Bona 72 as Plan 32, being further bounded 64 and 4sesrs.7be4 as follows-. SOVnMh$T LV by drant Street 96.50 feet.; =n%NSSTSRLV by 3aM new or formerly of R. Wilson 82 feet; NORTSTBRLY by Xats B a 5, as shown on said plan, 104.9 t reeti and N'CFR=FJLST Y by the reaaiaUq portion of said Lot 2 as shawls on said plan 97 fit, more or loss. 14. For our title see the dead from Richard N. Hull Zr. and Mauro" J. Hull to Kenneth S. Moue and Rva M. Asa, dat6d April 25, 19" and rac#rdad with said Deeds at Book 11097, Page 472. ra - era ;r' ~ _N~.+ !~Spy~~, , , ..7 i1 http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/controller 5/30/2011 OD r tp ow x iV hhh~~} . ~i wow w sw ti f"~ Board of Selectmen Meeting August 23, 2011 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Camille Anthony, Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy, Secretary Ben Tafoya, Selectmen James Bonazoli and Richard Schubert, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Office Manager Paula Schena and the following list of interested parties: Bill Brown, Steven Ryan, DJ Napolitano, John Halsey, Matt Casey, Peter Donovan, Donna Dudley, Dermot Bolger, and Sheila Clarke. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Camille Anthony commented on the recent deaths of two Reading youths and offered her condolences to the families and friends. Ben Tafoya noted that the Selectmen took steps years ago to combat drugs in the community. He also reminded the community of the Tall Street Faire on September I 1 and indicated that volunteers are still needed. Public Comment - D.J. Napolitano, District Outreach for Congressman Tierney, was present to introduce himself and handed out brochures on grants that are available. Resident Donna Dudley read a letter to the Board of Selectmen about the drug problem in Reading. She is most distraught over the shooting death of Joe Ronan. She is asking for the community to help with the Board of Selectmen, Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse, School Principals and Police Department in taking the lead. Richard Schubert noted that the genesis of the Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse was the tragedies of suicide by youth in Reading. The Town Manager indicated that the Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse annual meeting is September 29, 2011 and the recent events will definitely be the topic of discussion. Town Manager's Report -The Town Manager gave the following report: Administrative matters ♦ MPO Election ♦ Proposed legislation regarding utility rate restrictions ♦ CPDC hearing on regulations regarding minor site plan review ♦ City of Boston proposed truck hazardous materials routing ♦ Assistance to Reading, Kansas 0 1 have received the qualifications for five managers for Oye's Restaurant pursuant to the Board of Selectmen's direction and find all of them qualified to meet the requirements of the liquor policy. ® A former candidate for attorney general has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice accusing local officials of failing to count write-in votes in last September's GOP primary for state attorney general. .-7&-z, t Board of Selectmen Meeting - August 23, 2011 - page 2 ® Chamber of Commerce "Buy Local" program. Community Services ® Conservation Commission review of bylaw and regulations. 153 surveys completed to date. The Board of Selectmen has received a copy of the results. ® As of last month we have received $4,384.50 in additional Flowers trust fund. e E-Cars on the former Artist Shoppe site - Under Construction. e Oaktree under construction. 0 Reading Woods (aka AWP or Pulte Homes) -under construction. ® Calareso's - under construction. ® Pierce Organ factory Town approvals. donations for the Veterans ® Office re-use MassBank building next to the Olde Reading Butcher Shoppe construction. - tinder Finance ® Three months of meals tax equaling $74,680.92 has been received - this is well above our FYI 2 budget of $150,000 for the whole year. Library ® Future of building project. ® E-books and downloadable materials are available at the RPL - circulation has increased over 80%. Public Safety ® RCA - Reading Community Alerts - Sign up for "opt in" feature. Public Works ® MWRA water interconnection with Stoneham -see attached email. ® MWRA water redundancy project - under design. e MASSDOT is beginning the design process for resurfacing Main Street. It was last done in 1986. I do not expect work to be done for at least a year. ® Installation of sample tree well material in downtown - 2 trees. ® Rubbish and recycling - what to do if you have an event that will create more rubbish than the limit contact 1RM for a special pick up - up to 5 bags for $10. ® Paper Shredding, Rigid Plastics recycling - by popular demand 9/24/11. ® From FY 10 to FYI 1 trash tonnage is down 15%, equaling an approximate $80,000 savings. ® Recycling is up 18% and is approaching 30% from approximate 20% in FYI 0, ® We now have 2 "Big Belly" solar trash compactors/ recycling units in downtown. ® Household Hazardous Waste Collection 9/24/11 in Wakefield. ® Fall leaf collection - 10/31-11/4, 11/14-11/18, 11/28-12/2. Construction- rp oiects ® Causeway Road - Preparatory work is done pending roadway paving schedule. ~ Board of Selectmen Meeting - August 23, 2011 - page 33 ® Roadway Paving: Micro-Seal the contractor has reviewed the roadways and work should begin in the first half of September. Aggregate is still preparing the mix designs. When we spoke to them last they still had over half the mix designs to complete. ® Memorial Paris DPW has cleaned the drainage channel. We are getting prices from contractors to repair/rebuild loose masonry. ® Haverhill Street Water Main: Contract awarded. MWRA zero interest loan. 0 River Study Contract under negotiation. ® Storm Water Mapping. Vendor selected - negotiating price. Personnel and Appointments Ad Committee on Amplified Sound in Parks - Ben Tafoya noted that the Committee met last night and interviewed a candidate for the Ad Hoe Amplified Sound in the Parks Committee. A motion by Goldy seconded by Tafoya that the Board of Selectmen accent the report of the Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee and confirm the following appointments to the following Boards, Committees and Commissions: ♦ Petra Conboy to a position on the ad hoc Committee on Amplified Sound in the Parks for a term expiring December 31, 2011; was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Historical Commission - Ben 'Tafoya noted that the Committee met last night and interviewed candidates loathe Historical Commission. A motion by Goldy seconded by Tafoya that the Board of Selectmen accept the report of the Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee and confirm the following appointments to the following Boards, Committees and Commissions: ® Robyn Parker to a position on the Historical Commission for a term expiring June 30, 2013; ® Judith Smith and Nancy Kohl to Associate positions on the Historical Commission with terms expiring June 30, 2012 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Discussion/Action Items Hearing=Wine Bunker Liquor License Pledge of License - Peter Donovan, owner of the Wine Bunker was present. lie noted that he pledged his license to North Bank when he first applied for it,.now lie is changing to Leader Bank. A motion by Goldy seconded by Schubert to close the hearing on the Wine Bunker Liquor License pledge of license was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Goldy seconded by 13onaroli the Board of Selectmen voted to approve the pledge of license by Peter J Donovan d/b/a The Wine Bunker to Leader Bank. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. '7 Board of Selectmen Meeting - August 23, 2011 - page 4 Hearing - Policy Establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on Amplified Sound in Parks - The Secretary read the hearing notice. The Town Manager noted that the School Committee wants to participate so he replaced one Selectman with one School Committee representative. Richard Schubert noted that the Selectmen's policy regarding' fields is for fields under our regulation and will the School Committee adopt their own policy? The Town Manager indicated they probably will. Camille Anthony suggested that amplified sound have its own section in the policy. She also requested that when the Committee reaches a milestone that they report back to both the Selectmen and School Committee. .John Halsey asked if there will public hearings. The Town Manager indicated he did not know if there will be public hearings, but all meetings are open to the public. John Halsey asked how people will be notified of meetings and Bob LeI..acheur indicated they will be on the network calendar. A motion by Tafoya seconded by Schubert to close the hearing establishing the ad hoc Committee on Amplified Sound in the Parks was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Tafoya Seconded by Goldy to approve the policy establishinjz the ad hoe Committee on Amplified Sound in the Parks as amended was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Approval of Interlocal Services Agreement - Public Health - The Town Manager noted that the updated agreement is in the packet. It includes the financial breakdown and a letter from the Mayor of Melrose. The agreement provides for regional public health for Reading / Melrose / Wakefield. Reading's share will be 35% and the Health Director will begin the week of October I Oth Richard Schubert asked about the reporting structure and staff support. The Town Manager rioted the Health Director will report to the head of Community Services and staff support will be by telephone, emails and office hours. Richard Schubert noted the agreement doesn't mention Wakefield and the Town Manager noted that Wakefield has an agreement with Melrose and Reading has an agreement with Melrose. Steve Goldy noted that the compensation is a variable sum and the Town Manager noted that we know what the variable is for FYI2 but not FYI 3. The only variable is the cost of the Health Director. Camille Anthony noted that the task list attached to the agreement says "Employee Task List" when it should say "Health Division Task List." A motion by Tafoya seconded by Goldy that the Board of Selectmen approve the interlocal services agreement between the Town of Reading and City of Melrose for public health services was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. --7 a" 1 Board of Selectmen Meeting - August 23, 2011 - page 5 Approval of Special Liquor License - Reading Fall Street Faire - Sheila Clarke and Dermot Bolger were present. Dermot Bolger indicated this will be similar to last year but they will not be being using wristbands. The beer and wine will be fully contained. 'Tents are for shading and they will use the patio furniture from Grumpy Doyle's. They will be selling hamburgers, hot dogs and sausage. The Town Manager noted that the location is the small municipal lot in front of Christopher's Restaurant on the piece nearest the street. Ben Tafoya noted that in the past there was limitation on amount served, but there is no limitation this year because the license is in the name of a private party. Richard Schubert asked how drinks will be monitored for not being passed over the fence. Mr. Bolger indicated there will be seven plus police details monitoring. A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Goldy_that the Board of Selectmen approve the special liquor license for Dermot Bolger for the Fall Street Faire on 9-11-11, subject to the following conditions: o Only beer and wine will be served ® All beer and wine will be stored in the event area only ® No beverages will be removed from the event area ® Barriers surrounding the entire perimeter of the event space are subject to approval by the Chief of Police ® There will be only one exit/entrance to the event area for patrons. This entrance/exit point will be staffed by a host/manager at all times. ® A police detail will be required starting '/Z hour prior to the opening and remaining at least'/2 hour after closing or until area is safely closed. o Every person serving alcohol will be Tips, Barcode or SafeServe certified. ® There shall be no self service of any alcohol beverage. Sci-vice will be from. 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Discussion of Town Owned Property - Re: Instructional Motions - The Town Manager gave the following review of the properties in question: Parcel 23-70 Bay State Road - The Town Manager noted this parcel is likely a remnant of a State taking for the freeway interchange which was later returned to the Town. "The property is relatively flat and backs up to the interchange of Routes 95 and 129. The recommendation is to confirm that it is Town owned and then approach the abutter to purchase the property. Camille Anthony suggested selling it to the abutter if they are interested. .James Bonazoli suggested selling it to the abutter for $1 irthey are interested. 1 Board of Selectmen Meeting= August 23, 2011 - page 6 Ben Tafoya recommended having the Assessor assign a value to it and add the cost of Town Counsel. Parcel 38-54 Birch Road - The Town Manager noted that the parcel has 65 feet of frontage on the un-built portion of Birch Road and has the potential for significant value. The Board's recommendation was to have an appraisal done and then approach the three abutters. Parcel 8-11 Fairmont - The Town Manager noted that the parcel is landlocked and the value is to the abutter. The recommendation of the Board was to confirm the tax title status, appraise the property, and offer the land for sale to the abutters. Parcel 17-215 Green Street - This parcel is identified on deeds to abutting land as being reserved for a drain, but that would have to be confirmed. The consensus of the Board was to do nothing. Parcel 21-147 Kingston Street - This lot has only 24 square feet in area and it is unknown if the Town owns this property. The consensus of the Board was to do nothing. Parcel 27-210 Locust Street - This parcel is described as a right of way in deeds to abutting properties, but town ownership would have to be confirmed. The Board had concerns over expense to the Town and also to the buyer and decided to do nothing. Parcel 9-3 Lothrop Road This property is owned by the Water Department and has an assessed value of $160,000. This would require Town Meeting action to transfer from the Water Department to the Board ol'Selectmen. The consensus of the Board was to put this on the Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant. Ben Tafoya suggested having a discussion with the neighbors also. Parcel 33-37 Main Street at Birch Meadow Drive -This property is on the corner of Main Street and Birch Meadow and is currently the site of an Adopt an Island garden. There are questions about right ol*ways and surrounding lot boundaries. The consensus of the Board was to do nothing. a., ~q Board of Selectmen Meeting - August 23, 2011 page 7 Parcels 27-105 33-19 and 33-21 Oakland Road - The Town Manager noted that the School Committee needs to vote to transfer care and custody of a small portion to the Town. Then there is a need to climinate'the paper streets and then authorize the property for sale. Discontinuing the streets, once approved by Town Meeting, will require a process through land court. That process will take a couple of years. The consensus of the Board of Selectmen was to put this on the warrant for Town Meeting to: o transfer the portion from the School Committee to the Board of Selectmen, discontinue the streets, and ® authorize the sale of the property The Town Manager noted that the first two steps are needed to do anything with the land, even by the 1:own. He also noted that the land was tax title land and therefore the Board of Selectmen has the ability to sell it. Ben Tafoya suggested having a discussion with the neighbors also. Parcel 32-13 Parkman Road - The Town holds an easement for sewer and drain. This property is also a walking area for children. The consensus of the Board was to do nothing. Parcel 28-202 Pearl Street - This property is made up of three separate parcels but one buildable lot could be carved out if the old right of way was abandoned and combined with the adjacent portion of the property on the south west corner of Pearl Street and Audubon Road adjacent portion of the lot. The consensus of the Board of Selectmen was to put this on the warrant for Town Meeting to: 0 discontinue the street, and ® authorize the sale of the property Ben Tafoya suggested having a discussion with the neighbors also. Parcel 23-62 Torre Street - The Town Manager noted this could give REI the potential to expand their parking lot. Town ownership needs to be confirmed. Camille Anthony suggested offering the parcel to the residential abutter instead of REI. Ben Tafoya recommended having the Appraiser tell us what the estimated value of the property is and then the Board of Selectmen could determine whether it is worth moving forward. Approval of Minutes A motion by Tafoya seconded by Goldy to approve the minutes of June 14, 2011 was approved by a vote of S-0-0. Board of Selectmen Meeting - August 23, 2011 - page 8 A motion by Tafoya. seconded by Goldy to approve the minutes of. August. 2, 2011 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Tafoya seconded by Goldy to approve the Executive Session minutes of August 2, 2011 as written was approved with all five members voting in the affirmative. A motion by Tafova seconded by Goldv to adiourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. was approved a vote of 5-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Number: 2011-4 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TOWN OF READING This is to certify that DERMOT BOLTER, 55 SPARHAWK ST., AMESBURY, MA IS HEREBY GRANTED A SPECIAL ONE-DAY LICENSE TO SERVE BEER AND WINE IN THE 20 FT. X 40 FT. EVENT AREA BORDERED BY ASH, MAIN AND HAVEN STREET TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2011 BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 12 NOON and 5:00 PM. Under Chapter 138, Section 14, of the Liquor Control Act. i Holders of one day licenses shall provide a bartender and/or servers who are trained and authorized to make decisions regarding continued service of alcoholic beverages to attendees. There shall be no self service of any alcoholic beverage at any event approved as a one day license. This permission is granted in conformity with the Statutes and Ordinances relating thereto and expires at 5:00 p.m. on September 11, 2011, unless suspended or revoked subject to the following conditions: 1. All beer and wine will be stored in the event area only 2. No beverages will be removed from the event area 3. Barriers surrounding the entire perimeter of the event space are subject to approval by the Chief of Police 4. There will be only one exit/entrance to the event area for patrons. This entrance/exit point will be staff by a host/manager at all times. 5. A police detail will be required starting % hour prior to the opening and remaining at least ''/Z hour after closing or until area is safely closed. Ll c o s w HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STATE HOUSE, BOSTON 02133-1054 F F T' 0W4 O,~~I SV~v DONALD H. WONG Committees on: STATE REPRESENTATIVE Ways and Means 9TH ESSEX DISTRICT Transportation SAUGUS • LYNNFIELD Personnel and Administration LYNN • WAKEFIELD STATE HOUSE, ROOM 542 TEL. (617) 722-2488 Donald.Wong@MAhouse.gov July 27, 2011 Dear Chief Burns, Saugus Fire Chief James L. Blanchard and I would like to express our sincere gratitude for the professional actions of you and your members while operating at the eight alarm fire on Saturday, July 23, 2011. The first alarm was struck at 2:11A.M. for a gasoline tankerrolloverwith leaking fuel on Route 1 North at the Essex Street overpass. The gasoline ignited, and the subsequent fire eventually involved 4 vehicles and 3 structures. One structure was residential, and the other two commercial. Without the prompt action of your department, and the other twenty responding departments, this fire would have been catastrophic. Please convey our heartfelt thanks to your responding personnel. Respectfully, "t C L" /C ~s MASSACHUSETTS One Winthrop Square, Boston, MA 02110 BASED 617-426-7272 or 800-882-1498 MEMBER MPAI DRIVEN Facsimile 617-426-9546 a www.emiia.org E M4 2011 AUG 16 AM 9: August 10, 2011 Dear MIIA Health Benefits Trust Member: On July 12, 2011 Governor Patrick signed into law significant new legislation, Chapter 69 of the Acts of 2011, expanding the flexibility of local government entities to manage their health benefit programs. Undoubtedly, many of you will have questions about the new law and how it can benefit your community. MIIA has assembled a team of experts to help you understand the new law and its potential benefits. Upon request, we will be pleased to analyze the potential savings you may achieve by making plan design changes up to the benchmark indicated in the legislation. A significant feature of Chapter 69 is that it allows local governments to include in their health plans cost- sharing features up to the dollar amounts of benchmark plans offered by the Group Insurance Commission. MIIA has a variety of plan design options to meet your needs. In addition to our current plan designs, the Trust will offer new plan design features for both active employees and retirees that are consistent with the legislative benchmarks, and we are now rating these plans for Trust members. As a result of the new law, we expect that local governments will likely achieve savings through plan design changes. Chapter 69 requires that the Secretary of Administration and Finance develop regulations establishing administrative procedures and issue guidelines relative to the distribution of a specified percentage of the savings. Trust staff will be analyzing the final regulations as soon as they are available, so that we can bring guidance to our members on this important aspect of the new law. In addition to the changes included in Chapter 69, further changes impacting municipal health plans were included in the 2012 budget bill. Section 54 of that bill has the effect of mandating that eligible retirees enroll in Medicare Part B and a Medicare supplement plan. This will have an immediate impact on local governments that have not yet adopted Section 18. Those that adopted Section 18A will be impacted as well. You will be hearing from MIIA soon with more specific information, both with regard to mandatory Medicare, and with regard to implementation of Chapter 69. In the meantime, your account executive is ready to meet with you to review the information that is available to date and to discuss your short and long term goals. Lastly, the Massachusetts Municipal Association will be holding an informational session on the new law on August 25th 2011. We encourage your attendance at this session. Sincerely, G1.,c.e c-~~~ Stanl J. Corcoran Ann G. Ludlow Executive Vice President Health Trust Manager b An Interlocal Service of the Massachusetts Municipal Association Highlights of the Municipal Health Care Reform Legislation Primary Changes Authorized By The New Legislation:, Allows a governmental unit to include in its non-Medicare health plans "co-payments, deductibles,' tiered provider network co-payments and other cost-sharing plan design features" up to the dollar amounts for those plan design features in the GIC's most-subscribed non-Medicare health plan (currently the Tufts Navigator plan). Allows a governmental unit to make similar plan design changes to its Medicare health plans up to the dollar amount for those plan design features in the GIC's most subscribed Medicare health plan. Alternatively, allows a governmental unit to transfer its subscribers to the GIC provided that it can demonstrate that its savings by that transfer will be at least 5% greater than the savings it would realize by making the maximum allowable changes to plan design. In order to implement those changes the "appropriate public authority" (APA) of the governmental unit must "accept" the statute and satisfy the following procedures: • Determine the estimated savings it will realize during the first 12 months after implementation, • Notify its employee Insurance Advisory Committee (IAC) of the estimated savings and provide it with documentation that supports the estimate, • After discussion with the IAC, notify each of its bargaining units, and a retiree representative designated by the Retired State, County and Municipal Association, of its intention to enter into negotiations to implement changes to health benefits, • Convene a meeting with the Public Employee Committee (PEC) (that consists of the retiree representative as well as a representative of each bargaining unit) to commence negotiations over the changes, • Notice to PEC members must detail the proposed changes, the estimated savings, and the APA's proposal to mitigate the impact of the changes upon subscribers . • Enter into negotiations with PEC o Negotiations period limited to 30 days from PV-C's receipt of Notice. o If APA and PEC reach agreement on the proposal, the agreement must be approved by a majority vote of the PEC o As retiree member is provided a 10% vote, the remaining 90% of the vote is apparently split among the bargaining units. o If APA and PEC are unable to reach agreement within 30 days, matter is submitted to arbitration before tri-partite PANEL qb2, PANEL's role is limited: . • If the plan design changes proposed by APA do not exceed the dollar limits in the GIC benchmark plan(s), PANEL must approve implementation of the plan design changes • If the APA's proposal is to transfer subscribers to GIC, PANEL must approve implementation provided that the PANEL confirms that the unit's savings from transfer to the GIC will be at least 5% higher than the maximum savings through plan design changes. • If changes are approved, PANEL's role limited to determining: 1.) whether APA's estimate of "savings" is accurate - if not, PANEL may independently determine what "savings" are, 2.) the amount of the "savings" that will be shared with subscribers - but, in no event, more than 25% of the estimated "savings" for the first 12 months after the changes are implemented, and 3.) how those "savings" should be allocated, as well as the means by which the "savings" should be distributed - e.g. health reimbursement arrangements; wellness programs; health care trust funds for emergency medical care or inpatient medical care; out-of-pocket caps; Medicare Part B reimbursements; or reimbursements for other qualified medical expenses. However, the PANEL is prohibited from imposing any changes to contribution ratios. Statute defines "Savings" as the difference between the total projected premium costs for health insurance after the changes are implemented and the total projected premium costs without such changes for the same 12 month period. (Thus, both the Employer's and the employees' reductions in premium expense are included in the calculation of the "savings.") Implementation of changes will be delayed for any subscribers covered by a collective bargaining agreement to the extent that the plan design changes being implemented are inconsistent with dollar limits on plan design features that are specifically included in the body of that collective bargaining agreement. Implementation will be delayed until initial term of that agreement has ended. Governmental unit that makes changes may not increase before July 1, 2014 the contribution rates for retirees that were in effect on July 1, 2011 unless can prove that increase was approved prior to July 1, 2011. Secretary of A & F directed to promulgate regulations "establishing administrative procedures" and guidelines dealing with allocation of savings. Other Chanizes Authorized by Leizislation Include: • Makes the provisions of the former Section 18 mandatory for all governmental units. Governmental units that have not previously accepted Section 18 will now be.required to transfer their Medicare- eligible retirees and their dependents out of "active" plans and into Medicare Supplement plans. • Allows the APA to provide health care flexible spending accounts. • Allows the APA to provide health reimbursement arrangements. • Requires the APA to conduct an enrollment audit not less than once every 2 years. 2 6163 MWRA NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATE: August 25 2011 CONTACT: Michael Morris, Public Affairs Director 617-788-1112 maiIto: Mioilae1.Morris(ci rnwra.state.ma.us IV WRA Begins Work on Project to Provide Emergency Backup Water Service to Reading In September 2011, MWRA's contractor, Albanese D&S of Dracut, Massachusetts, will begin wort: to install 2,200 linear beet of 36-inch diameter water main in Reading. Work will start at South Stl'eet and continue under Route 128 along Main Street to the intersection of North Street in Stoneham. Most work will be complete by December 2012. Ll C 3Ds 1:•r.. ~ nr~AN4rrY~'•nr.nriun ,r '1'hc new pipeline, which will connect Reading's water system and that of Stoneham, will provide back-up water service to Reading in case of an emergency. The back-up water main is being installed in preparation for an upcoming MWRA pipeline project to improve water service for Stoneham, Reading, Woburn, Wakefield, Wilmington and Winchester. "Traffic Impacts Pipe installation will take place on the southbound side of Main Sheet/IZoute 28. Because this is a very busy roadway, most of the work will be performed during nigllttinle hours (9PM - 5AM), as required by the Massachusetts Departnent of'fransportation, which has jurisdiction over this section of the roadway. Additional allowable daytime wort: will occur between the hours of 10AM and 31'M. 'traffic detours, signage and police details will be in place so that the gaveling public will be able to get around the construction site safely. Access for all local residences and businesses will be maintained. Sa 1'e' ty Snbsu1'1 I.Ce investigations show that that rock blasting and minimal mechanical rock removal will likely be necessary, therefore, all sguctures within 500 feet ol'a rock removal area will receive a pre-blast survey. Upcoming; Aleetings MWRA will sleet with municipal officials in Stoneham and Reading to confirm the details and schedule of this important project. A public meeting will then be held to describe the scope and schedule of the work, including the sequence of traffic detours and the blasting and safety protocol required before COnStruCtiOll COnllnellCCS. For more information about the project please contact: Tom Lindberg/ MWRA at 617.660.7974 or by email: _I-onl I.,indbergna mwra.state.illa.us G` Page 1 of 2 L/c- 6 aS Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:21 PM To: Boatwright, Bill cc: LeLacheur, Bob; Schena, Paula Subject: Appraisals Board of Assessors: The Board of Selectmen is considering trying to sell a number of Town owned properties, and part of the consideration is the minimum bid price that the Board of Selectmen would set for the various properties. Would the Appraiser be able to offer his opinion of value,to the following properties in the order listed, knowing that it is unlikely that he would be able to do them all right away. Town staff has prepared a fact sheet on each property if that would be helpful to this process. Manlint Loration 9-3 Lothro Road 28-202 Pearl Street at Audubon Road 27-405, 33-19, 33-21 Oakland Road 38-54 Birch Road 8-11 Fairmount Road 23/62 Torre Street 31-5 Causeway Road 23-70 Ba state Road 21-147 Kingston Road As you are aware, the Appraiser has done this under the Board's direction in the past, albeit for just one or two parcels at a time. If the appraiser can undertake this project, could you give us an estimate of the date by which each appraisal could be accomplished? Thanks for your assistance. I/c Board of Selectmen 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 qJ I 8/30/2011 c/C i3d MR; ~d BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2011 AUG 25 Am 10, 53 State Transportation Building Ten Park Plaza, Suite 2150 Boston, MA 02116-3968 August 2011 Tel. (617) 973-7100 Fax (617) 973-8855 TTY (617) 973-7089 www.bogonmpo.org Dear Chief Elected Official: Jeffrey B. Mullon MassDOT Secretary and (EO The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is circulating two and MPO (hairman important documents for public review and continent: the draft Paths to a Sustainable Region, its long-range transportation plan (LRTP), and the draft federal fiscal years Karl H. Quackenbush 2012-15 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The LRTP guides transportation Acting Director, MPO Staff investments in the Boston region. between now and 2035. The TIP is the short-range implementation document of the MPO and lists the transportation construction projects to be implemented over the next four years. You are invited to review these drafts and submit comments. The public comment period began on August 15, 2011, and is scheduled to end at 5:00 PM on Tuesday, September 13, 2011. Written comments must be received by the MPO before the end of this period. Comments on this draft will be considered by the MPO at a meeting currently scheduled for September 22, 2011. Public comments and requests for documents should be submitted to the U.S. mail or e-mail address or the fax number on The Boston Region MPO, this letterhead. the federally designated The MPO is sending notification of the public comment period to a broad list of entity responsible for interested parties, including: TIP contacts, municipal. planning directors and highway transportation decision- directors, MAP.C subregion representatives, legislators, environmental justice contacts, making for the 101 cities and reference. librarians. Copies may be downloaded from the MPO website at. and towns in the MPO www.bostonnpo.org. CD and print copies and accessible-format versions will be region, is composed of: provided on request. MossDOT Office of Planning and Programming Three workshops will be held to provide additional opportunities for public input. Please City of Boston see the enclosed flyer or the MPO website for details of these events. Cry of Newton If you have questions on the draft LRTP, please contact Anne McGahan at 617-973-7090 City of Somerville or amcgahan@bostonmpo.org. Regarding the draft TIP, contact Sean Pfalzer at 617-973- Town of Bedford 7107 or spfalzer@bostonnpo.org. Town of Braintree Town of Framingham I hope you will take this opportunity to review these important draft documents and help Town of Hopkinton us shape the future of transportation in the Boston Region MPO area. Metropolilan Area Planning Council Massachusetts Bay Transportation Sincerely, Authority Advisory board \ TAO Au Massachusetts BoyTransportolion Authority MassDOT Highway Division David J. o ler, Chair MassachusensPort Authority Transpot: ti n Planning and Progrdinining Committee Regional Transportation Advisory Council (nonvoting) DJM/pdw Federal Highway Administration (nonvoting) Federal Transit Administration t (nonvoting) l E ! I., 1 3 Iii] A ° ~ . ` I ' - ! ~ ~ ' ~ _ t ~ I ~ 1 ~ I ~ - - 77 ~J LI`0 J j J~j ~ l c I K n fwo O A © 0 0 n o e o 0 0 0 0 1 All meetings are scheduled for 5:30- to 7:00 PM f Wednesday, August 24 Boston, State Transportation Building 10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150, MPO Conference Room Accessible by the Orange and Silver Lines (Tufts Medical Center), the Green Line (Boylston or Arlington Station), and MBTA bus Routes 43 and 55 ® Photo ID is required for access to the building Wednesday, August 31 Bedford Town Hall '10 Mudge Way, 1 st Floor, Selectmen's Meeting Room ® Accessible by MBTA bus Route 62 Wednesday, September 7 Norwood Police Station 137 Nahatan Street, Community Room ® Accessible by the MBTA's Franklin Line (Norwood Depot Station) - The documents can be obtained at the MPO's website, wwwbostonm'po.org. Copies of the document are also obtainable in CD, print, and accessible i formats by contacting us at the phone numbers or e-mail address below. For more information or to re9u t sP`aal accommodation, such as an interpreter, FTY ~o~NOFRF~,~~ Town of Reading y 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 JsJ'9' InDRQ01 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: town manager@ci.reading.ma.us Website: www. readingma.gov August 30, 2011 Patricia A. Leavenworth District 4 Highway Director' Mass Department of 't'ransportation 19 Appleton Street Arlington, MA 02476 Dear Ms. Leavenworth: (c , r 6C, Loxvor TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 Imagine my surprise and delight when I was driving northbound on Main Street, north of Reading Square, and observed a "train" of construction vehicles milling and repaving the right hand northbound lane of Main Street from Forest Street to Franklin Street. This lane had been extensively cut when installing a gas line a number of years ago and had deteriorated ever since. The Town of Reading and all.of its residents are delighted with this improvement. We know tl-iat Funding is tight and we do appreciate your addressing this issue in Reading. 'T'hanks and keep up the great work. Also, congratulations on what appears, to be a very successful "Fast 14" project. The general public will never truly appreciate this effort, since it hasn't made the headlines for large chunks of concrete falling onto or out of the highway. inc rely, Peter I. fIeclienbleilcner 't'own Manager PI H/ps q~ Page 1 of 2 L`c 6z).- Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:08 AM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: Verizon Notice of FiOS Video Channel Change Attachments: IFC Notice.pdf I/c Board of Selectmen Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new l own Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday: 7:30 a.rn. - 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED phone: 781-942-9043 fax 781-942-90.7'1 web www,readingma.gov email town manager@ci.reading.ma.us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readingma-survey -virtualtown,hall. net/survey../sid/1 dc7dcf24f2eb l 82/ . From: Frere, Mary Louise [mailto:mary.l.frere@verizon.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 20118:06 AM Subject: Verizon Notice of FiOS Video Channel Change Marry L. Frere Franchise Manager FiOS Video Verizon Communications 125 High Street Oliver Tower Boston, MA. 02110 August 31, 2011 hear Municipal Official; On or after Oct 15, 2011 there will be changes to Verizon's FiOS TV customers current channel lineup. The Independent Film Channel will no longer be offered with the Showtime/Start Entertainment Paclc. IFC will however be available in the Extreme 2009, Extreme 2010 HD and Ultimate HD Packages offered by RG( 8/31/2011 Page 2 of 2 Verizon. The IFC will also be moving to new channel locations. 2hannel Name New Channel Number _ IFC) Independent Film Channel SD 234 and HD 734 We have provided sample customer notifications (see attachment) for your reference. If you have any questions about this notice please contact me. Sincerely, Mary L. Frere Franchise Management Verizon FIGS 617.743.4119 9/31/2011 verb zqn Dear Verizon Customer, At Verizon, we strive to provide you with the best experience by keeping you informed of programming and content-related changes that occur on our network. On or after October 15, 2011 there will be changes to your current channel lineup. The Independent Film Channel (IFC) will no longer be offered with the Showtime/Starz Entertainment Pack. However, IFC will be available in the Extreme 2009, Extreme 2010 HD and Ultimate HD Packages offered by Verizon. The IFC will also be moving to new channel locations. Channel Name New Channel Number Independent Film Channel (IFC) SD 234 and HD 734 We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause. Remember that you have 24/7 access to your channel lineup by visiting us online at verizon.com/flostvchannels. Thanks for your loyalty as a FiOS' customer. Verizon A NETWORK AHEAD of 0 BRACKI✓TT & .Lvc~s. COUNSELORS A.T. LW 19 C>OAP STREff Wb CISIFER,.AMlk'SSA.CHUSLITS;03.609 508499=9739. Fax 50&799-979:9 Eiien Callahan Doucette, Esq. ATTQRNEY'CLIENT PRIVILEGED/ LITIGATION MATTER August 31.., 204 '1 Jeffrey Potkius,,. Chair Board of'A:pjeals: Town Hall: 16 Lowcl;l Street Reading,, MA 015 T W.4011cette~~.raclcetClucas. cam PW .45 Beacon Street - Request for Extension of Cop rgherisiye Permit. .D* Mx- Perkins:, Attached heteto; is tfie.`Housing Appeals Co>r3niittee's ("13AC"): Riilin.g on.'1VSotion for Summary.J7.edsion in. the matter of-Angelo. Rdainone y. Reading; Board of Aiapeals; ~H No. 10 09). 7n. `its decision, the RAC granted the Board's M, otion for Sun~niai Decision and of rnied fhe Bo.ard's.decision to uphold tliel3ui'ld ng Insp.eotoT'si den a1;1Qf IvJa. Salauz~ne's building penni"t application, foi tb:e property, at 45 Bea ,On. $tieet HAC also; i ul. ed that the coirip eheiisiveperin t had not 6x.p red. in April 20.10:N lxen:tlxe' biiildiiig permit, appli:catioii. was submitted. l un g the':I3d.ard':s hearing"; an th s matter; you may recall that v, discussed tl e-eoi us on regarding fhe actual date upon w -iob the conzpiehensi e:pea'xiut:b:ecaixie et ective. Tbc actua effective:tlate- was iii Au. _st, 2iJWy wheil th;eJudgment.after appeal w,as entered in the Superior'Co,art; and not, ori:Apn123, 20007 *hen tho'A ppeals Coa t .is's Lied its. decision as ,*as :first thought. Tlie .HAG also det~a-niried tliai:.Iv1r. Salariioii~'s: coriiprch.ensive perrnt mall nit: :expire tm- W October 1;5;'2 1: Accordiin, to fh.e applicab.le DF CI? regulations, 750 C.-MR. 56';175 (12):;(c),. the dine vitlixn wla clT :a, corrrprellens ve permit must be exercised "tol.]ed" for the period of tune. during which an appeal is pending whio-h period of time includes the fitine spe,,nt while this appeal was pending before the, 14A- C _ Tit the event that 1.2x. Salainane is unable: to oUtaa bildinii gpein3t;aid begii3 coast action before Octz ber 18, 2011; the HAC staled that "if lie files a oquast, for ari extensimi o.f the permit :prior to the expiration date:... «NT would expect that.such an extension would be. graalted . An extension for a ininimuin of one year would riot e0pear atall, unreasonable," M.r.. Solan one has in fwt submitted.. a request for. a, one ycai* extensaon of the corn '116 perta it which is on the. Board's Septetaabe 8 ,2011 aggnda, The issuance of the H:kC deciszon.presents two issues for d scuss oia herein;, The first issue is whether or not the decision should be appealed., Please be advised thatfhe tine for film aii;appeal from the I-lAf .deei.si:on.will expire: on Septen3ber 9, 20 i 1 wllpeh. is 3O da},s fa'orn tla:e date upon which the decision .Gv:as re:ccived. Considering thati:lae IIAC alfzrixied the Board's, action, dtscussion_regardi ag ati appeal is admzttedlyliaaus>xal. Ho vever:I azn..,requilred to bnia.::it. to..fhe B,o.ar'd's. attenti.ola for the following reaswi, In response to Mr, Salamone's initial appeal/complaint, I filed :a in.otioaa to disiaaiss arguing thez'eiza, :that the RAC: does not have ju " diet' n over appeals f led pursuaiat to M:G L- cADA §17;1 The HAC deaded. the m.0tion.statzna that the DHCD regulations, q. grant i.t jtaa'isdietton over is5 ies rega chug litrtldiiag penis ts,. 760 CMR.56,00, et. SO Though I believe this is an overly broad interpretation. acid a possible. error of law, I. do not: bel eve. that an appeal would sae :b'enelic :al to the, Town of.. Readillg, because it Nvi.1 not. bring this matter to. a coiaclusion. As. stated previously, 760 C1VIR 5605.(12) ,(cj provides for the tolling of the expiration date of a'cornprehensive permit duaing. the time within. which,an appeal,is peaading; If the Board were to cote to appeal th;e issue of the HA-Vs deziiai of the motion*; to dismiss, this comprehensive peal tit would again, be tolled:, and, urouXdxemaiia so until that appeal. is.resol.ved. Fveii if th.e: Superior Court2, were to rule that the HAC was without jurisdiction to hear Mx. Salamone's appeal, 56:05(12) (c) would opeiate tip. tall.t}.e .expiration of ilie coiapreleiSttre p:eainit: aztd the postuae of klie matter would be :no different than it is at'the present time. As a fori;nalaty the 'Board may wish to vote not to fl,le an appeal from the August 8,. 2011: HAC ded sion, The, second issue for disc.ussioii is the process assor i:ated with a.req,uest .for an extens on.of a comprehonsiNre permit. Alth.nugb.the.regulations require that: a comprehensive iaernai:t be exercised within three years, 76.0 CMR 56;05(12) provides that "extezas ons sl?:all iic~tbe unreasotiglaly deli ed" The replatibm ate. siiloil.on.the: precise process,: and there.-Is no~ limitation on the amount of timQ. a eompreh sine p:ertiiit can be extended, or on how rilauy e~tteTisaons cpuld b'e grarit'ed, The obvious question is, if extensions. shohld not be unreasonably denied, when is at reasoriabie to deny do extension? In :Red'qdte Road xealrj? Ti°zcst v TyngSs Qrot4gh Zorr ra, Board of Apjawls, No. 93-01 (Mass. Housing A} peals Cor ariiittee dectsioz December .8`, 1993); (cXtensi'on denied because there was rto activity .for four years after the p.eri-nit was lastiaaodi'ped) tla:e RAC addressed-for-816 first time whether tile, denial of a request to extend a comprehensive permit. was-unreasondble:, '.ha. doing so, the llkc, 1 M..a.- c:a©A. 17 provides that appeals wust be filed in either the Superior 0011A, Lund. Court or DiM ct. Cowl, z AppeWS fttb' decisions ova°driu~>zsha[i.ve agencies are filed:in die Superior Cour. p'U suarit to M.G:L. a:3.OA, 1 a stated that; when: a request for an: extension is denied, "the: Board . , has the bur den rof lirovilig That there are legitihi:ate health; safety, envirownerAal: or other local concon 'M ich- suppOtt ts:.det at of a f ether extens,la of title permit snd tliat:flioso coiicein5,s, out~ueigll the ~i.eed for:hou.siiig.5' Rea'Gaie-Aodd R:euliy ritst..at 6: The HAC added that, "[t]h.ere are two approaches tZ at:a:Board can take: to justify. a. Cl€ m of an extension of `a. comprehensiv6 per.Cfiit. First; it c-.an poinf to Ghwi- ged:. physical eircun stances specific to ilie proposed lousing development or the sun-ounding area. For ia.stan:ce, ti afflc flow or groundwater tlualftieS, Which are cleafly legitftiiate ioc.ai concerns; may have deteriorated `to a degree tliat.extendirng the p:eraant is not: corisist"ent. with local::necds." Red Gate Fealty Dust at 7: The difficulty associated with this approach however, is tl at.requ.ests.for extensions of.cornprehenszve'peiiiiits aieriot $ubject:to a public hearing process, and the Board, is not authorized. to take a.second loot: at tbC comprehensive perinit in, order to identify new local concerns:. Therefore it is uiicl:ear lip-w :such, information could. be presented for the Board's consid:eralinn. The second appioach is fox the :Board to eonsidea.;interests of "fait nets,'' and whether "the need for closure" demands that the request fo.r ar :extension.-be denied so that;:the comprehensive permit will tern.~iinate. hi the Red Gate Realty Tincsi. case, t1ie: Board denied. the extension alleging that the: developer failed to make reasonable efforts to olataiii.btiildiii:g ptiiiiaifs of to'secure :6naiicing for tl,~e:pzolect. ` heHAC dis ussed the interests of fait~iess as applicable to: both panties 'at l:ezlgtli.. ee :also, .FDcll~riie Assercates, LLC v lA b.uty Zoning-Board of Appeals. No.. 03-0:8 (Mass. Houshig Appeals Committee tieeision September 14, ?010) ("considerations of fairness weigh .in, the develop'er's fhVor"). hi eonsIdering this .apprci:aeh the HAC rioted; several factors S11611 as: the exi:'5tarice: of ahu$ual cn'cuinstahces that i u.ght indicate a heightened need for c:tosure; or:a proposal to r.:e7joiae: ad]aceiit land for rises which may be iilconipatib:]:e with the coiiiprehen.sJv'e permit project: Anotta.er. factor is to consider the conduct of theparties throu.gliout the process; :for k: stance:, is there.evridenec o'fbad faith, by one of th parries? A. third. factor is, whether the: developer. Acted in reliance on the cornpreh:ensive :permit by attetiz f ig to secure:other necessary petrn:its. The Iiiial factor relatesito the history of the c.oniprehensive permit. Aber applpii1 these factors to the facts in,Rerl G4te Re 210; 'l to t., the HAC. determined that there was no evidence of ba.d faith, that the developer could' not obtain buildingpenT its because. it. had difficulty securing financing .due to a weak:ened.economv it ,the area, ai.i.d. that although the compreliensivepermit.had been b,). effect for five years including one.extension,. that a further extension was not -unreasonable. See also lbrolxSor.ttliar oiGgY2irrrztetl Pa3tn:ersh.ijr Southborough X3oar<a off : 92-06ppeals, No (.Mc ss. Housing :Appeals Committee decision December 8, 1993) (FIA:C overruled the denial of an extension for a coi ii)reh:er sine pertalit already in effect for six years, and. granted an eighteen. month extension). In ordering the extension of the comprehensive pe rnit in thePed Gate Realty Piist itistter hoWBever, the HIv.C acknowledged the diflacuity in`keeping tbe- subsidy ~~3 approval process,. financing :process. and design process al:l mop,=rig fo:nv..ard :towords: et ristructi:oal. It chose, to. address those issucs by c- Ondztloning the grau:t. of exteiislon .by Iz ipos.i,ng: deadlines such. as, requlnri,g; the developer to obtain. a. wri ttexi, deterzia3zlatioz of project eligibility within twelve inonihs, fifing proof of a: fIlancizxg co:Ilvnitzl etit witli:t:lae Board of Appeals wihllul twelve alonihs, and applying for a buxlding:penixitwi .in eighteen Inonths, Even tl?ougli t11e extension reques t doe4 not regltue a public bc-a,M lg, it is. : rec,oi-nnzelxdad :tliat tlle:Board. ezigage Mr, Sal,arnon.ein, a conversation regarding the piagt6ss he bas wad In furtliei"ng coiisti-action of fla'e: con! rehensive peirllit, and liovv.he plazas to continue such Pro.gres.s if.an extension i.$ granted. S.}lo:uld th:e Board e.oilsider granting au: extepsion, I stroligly encourage. the Board to consider the ipipo.sition of co dzt~ozis' similar to° hose in the Red Gate Recclty .m t.dee3sio.n,. to keep the pro~:ect moving 'for=ward, to construction and. closure, 'Time liznifs should be established for instance, for the. production. of final construction plaiis, ideatifying a fiu ding source ai d derilonstrafing progress towards acquiring status asa limited liabi=lity i entity, and the submittal of a,con>pletcbadi lr peuu.it application-. Th.e prec ise`tinle i ;arnes; should be identified based. upon the Board's convorggtiori »+ith Mr. Salarn:orle. Plcase:donl hesitate to.colltact me ifthe:Board-bas. arty other gpest oils, or if. I can be. offilrthor.assi:stanoe in thi=s MAW, Very ti-i l . .ours; a: J~U !l 1 13 i', it°t k r Ellen Callahaia Douoett( Encl, cc: Board of Selectmen 4 I~~ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE SALAMONE, ) Appellant ) V j No. 10-09 READING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, j Appellee j R1< L.INC ON MOTION FOR SUlg NLARY DECISION 1. PROCEDURAL THSTORY In a decision filed with the town clerk on August 13, 2001, the Reading Zoning Board of Appeals granted Angelo Salamone's application for a comprehensive permit pursuant to G.L. c. 40B, 20-23 to build ten affordable, mixed-income housing units on land at 45 Beacon Street in Reading. Undisputed Fact No. 1; Exh. aI The housing would be financed under the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston's New England Fund. Exh. D, p. 2, ~ 4. Abutters appealed the issuance of that permit to the Superior Court. Undisputed Fact No. 2. The appeal Nvas finally resolved when the Appeals Court issued a rescript opijuon, which apparently took place on April 25, 2007. Board's Motion to Dismiss, p. 2; also sere Exh.. A. The Superior Court issued a Judgment after Rescript. wlvch vas dated August 9, 2007 and entered on the Superior Court Docket on August 13, 2007. Exh. A. 1. '`[..ndisputed Facts" refer to Appellee's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law... (filed Jun. 8, 2011); "Exh." refers to Exhibits attached Appellee's Statement of Undisputed Facts and)VIcmorandurn of Lazar... (filed Jun. 8, 2011). The Appellant developer has accepted the Appellee Board's Statement of Undisputed Facts. Appellant's Brief, p. 1. On April 23, 2010, the developer applied to the town building commissioner for a building permit. Exh. B. On May 20, 2010, the building commissioner denied that application. Exh. C. The developer appealed the denial to the Board on June 1, 2010. Exh. F. By decision dated September 16, 201.1 and tiled the town clerk on September 28, 2010, the Board denied the appeal, and upheld the building commissioner's denial of a building permit. Initial .Pleading, Exhibit A (bled Oct. 18, 2010). On October 18, 2010, the developer appealed to this Conmmittee. The Board filed a raotion to dismiss on the grounds that the. Committee's jurisdiction had been improperly pleaded, and that motion was denied by the presiding officer on April 14, 2011. Thereafter, the parties tiled cross-motions for summary decision pursuant to 760 CM R 56.06(5)(0). U. DISCUSSION lnitially, the dispute between the parties centered on the building commissioner's "decision that the comprehensive permit [had] expired." Exh. C. Our regulations state that construction must begin Adthin three years of the date on which the permit becomes final, except for good cause. 760 CMR 56.05(12)(c). They state further, however, that "[t]his time period shall be tolled for the time required to pursue or await the determination on any appeal...." Id. In this case, Judgment after Reseript was dated and entered on the Superior Court Docket in August 2007. Exh. A. Thus, because of tolling, the three-year period extended until August 2010. The developer filed his application. for a building permit well within that peri od in April 2010-and therefore the building commissioner's decision in May 2010 that the comprehensive permit had expired was in error. In fact, the Board now "concedes that the commissioner initially erred in determining the date upon which the comprehensive permit became .final." Board's Brief, p. 5 (tiled Jun. S, 2011). The Board goes on, however, to argue that the denial of the building permit was proper because it stated additional reasons, namely that the application was not a.ccornpanied by the requisite fee, adequate construction plans, and proof of compliance with certain of the conditions included in the original comprehensive permit. There is not absolute clarity about what was submitted with the application., about what level of detail is customarily expected in Reading with regard to routine requirements, or about whether certain requirements specific to this comprehensive peiuiit were complied with. I a-G Nevertheless, it is undisputed that the application was not complete. Specifically, the developer has accepted Condition 19, which requires that a condominium master deed be submitted for approval prior to issuance of the building pen-nit. The developer has also accepted the 'Board's statement of undisputed facts, which state that such a deed was not submitted. Undisputed Fact No. 10. This failure to submit the master deed is, alone, sufficient to support the building conunissioner's deni.aI.of the building permit. z Thus, with regard to denial of the building pen-nit, the Board's Motion for Sununary decision is GRANTED. This does not end the. matter, however. The developer has requested a ruling that the comprehensive permit remains valid. In that regard, it is also clear from uno isputed facts that the application was submitted four months before the deadline set in the comprehensive permit for commencement of construction. The necessary documentation to complete the application might well have been submitted and the full fee paid in that time. j uid even if they had not been', the developer had the right to ask that the permit be extended, and such an extension "may not be unreasonably denied.... 760 CMR 56.05(12)(c). Since the Board has conceded, above, that the building commissioner erred in calculating the expiration date of the permit, it is clear that the comprehensive permit was valid at i.he time of application. Expiation of the permit is tolled while the developer appealed that denial to the Board'and tl-.en this Committee. See, e.g., For•estview Estates Assoc., Inc. v, Douglas, No. 05-23 (Mass. Housing Appeals Committee Mar. 5, 2007). Thus, the permit remains valid at present. 'The parties.agree that the tolling period should be calculated from June 1, 2010. Developer's Brief, p. 2 (tiled fun. 14, 2011); Board's Brief, p. 7. The permit would have expired August 1.0, 2010, and thus, the pennit will expire slightly over two months after the tolling period ends, that is, after this decision becomes final. 3 The developer's motion for summary decision with regard to the validity Other facts are less clear cut. The developer acknowledges, for instance that an application fee was not paid, but argues that. the fee was tendered, but rejected by the building commissioner; the Board appears to dispute this. Similarly, whether detailed plans, stamped by a structural engineer, for a retaining wall (required by comprehensive permit condition 6) were provided appears to be in' dispute. 3. Having issued this decision affirming the validity of a comprehensive permit, we expect that the parties will take the appropriate actions necessary to proceed to construction. If, however, further i a, a of the comprehensive permit is GRAN'T'ED, and, specifically, we rule that if this decision is not. appealed, the permit is valid until October 18, 2011. As a practical matter, however, it may well be that the developer wi11 be. unable to submit a completed application and begin construction by October. If that is the case,-and if he..files a request for an extension of the permit prior to the expiration date, we would expect that such an extension wouuld be granted.. See 760 CMR 56.05(12)(c). An extension for a minirrnum of one year would not appear at all unreasonable. See, e.g., Red Grade Road Realty Trust v. Tvngsharough, No. 93-01 (Mass. Housing Appeals Committee Dec. 8, 1993). This decision may be. reviewed. in accordance with the provisions of. G.L. c. 40B, 22 and G.L. c. 30A by instituiting are action in the Superior Court within 30 days of receipt of the decision. Housing Appeals Conir-nittee Date: Augusl 8, 2011 - Werner Lohe, Chainnan Joseph P.JRenefield ' LPclr disputes develop, we hereby authorize the presiding officer to act to enforce this decision and eiisurc prompt issuance of a.building permit. See 760 CMR 56.06(7)(e)(2). 10,/ ~e BRACT EIT & LucAS. COUNSEWR$ AT, LAW 19,tXIM S.TnJ cr WoB.C..cs,PrR,Mass,ci4usL7'CS:bi6o9 508 799=9739. Fax:508,70-979..9 .Ellen. Callahan Doucette, Esq.. AT ['ORNEY CUENT PRW ILE.GED% LTTIG~11'I.ON M ATTEl2 August 31,, 2011 Jef- fry':-Pokins.,. chair Board of .Appeals: Town Hall; 16 L9we.11 Street Reading NIA 013;G7 ecdoucette0a?l rackettlucas.er~m Re- 45 Beacom Street:-Request. for Extension ofCorriprellcrisiye Peznt t 'Dca'r.:lt~lx. Perkins; Attached hereto; is the. Housing Appeals Coiianvttee's ("I AC") Rl iiig: on Motion for SurcuixarYbeclslonin. theln.atter ofA~elo Sal'anione v..Read:in~ Board of Appeals. (1iAC No. 16-0% 7n its decision., the HAC granted the Board's Motion .for Sunimai`y Damsion and affirmed .the Board's,deczslon t'o .uphold the.l3uilding Snsp.eotor's denial o.f Mr. Salagione's°liuzlding pen -it application f'oi tliz property at. 45 Bo con Sheet The. HAC al5o;iizlerl flat ilie:coxriprehens veperinlthad not expited in April 201.0 ~Vhtn:the' biiildin permit.application: was subinitted. During theBoard':s' I ea ng on tl is matter; you may recall that'v-e•ddiscussed the eonfui ion re:gafdu g the actual dat&,upon x,,luch tlie eonZpxel~ens ve peznut becai ae offoctive. 'I'l e actual effar?tive:d'ate ,,N sin Aug YS 20107; when the jud ent. after appeal w,as entered. in the Sup, ior'Court; anal not, of : April 23, 20'07 When lheAppeals Court.is'sued its decision as -,vas first thoaght. The.HAC also detorn'a necl tl at:Mr, Sala mone's: coiiilim-hoiisive pa. it. wall nof e pine tmt l October l:<3;`2011; Acoordii7a to'the applicable DI;-1CD regulations., 700 C.iLR 56'.05(17.):;(c~,, tlYe fime witliixi uvlaiclT .a. r=ompreheisve .peririit must .be e~:er. cised'-.i s: "tolled" for the period of tilne. during which an appeal is pending , #hidh period of tine i.iicludes the fiizz e spent: wl~riz this :app.eal was pending be fire the HAC. hi the event:tliat Ali. SaT:amone is unable, to obtain a Uuldiiagpein3tazld begi'i1 con,.gb'uction befke Qa ber 1.8, 2011; the HAC stated tliat "if lie :files a request: for'an OL-11'.v eatetlslou o:f t:lie permit pr or to the expi.ratiori elate we would expect that shelf ati extensioTt wottld be. granted , An extension for a miiiin um of omi year would.not appear at all wireasonab-1a.' ! 4r.- Salamone has in °fai tsubinitted.. a request for a. one year e?etenstoit of"tl e cornprel enszve.pexmit which is gn fife Board's ~'eptezliber 8:,.2p11 agenda:. Tlie issuance o:i Clre HAC det ision.preseiits two Issues for discusson herein. The first issue is: whether or not the decision should be appealed: Please be advised thattl~e time for filing an Appeal from tlae HAC.deci.sion.w ll expire: on: September 9, 2011 which, is 300 days ixom the date upon 4Adiicb tl e.decision...vas re:ccived, Considering t iatthe HAC a.ffiriiied :the Boad's actioii; dtscussiot .regarding ati at7peaI is adrriittedly witisual. Howa!er I am required to bzingji to. the Board's. attention for the following reason;. In response to'Mr, Satanione's initial appeal/comp faint, 1 filed:ar' .1 to dismiss arguing th;er ein, that, the RAC. does not hA e lujisdict on over ap'p'eals filed pursu4jit to XG L c:4:0A! §17.1 The I-1AC deziied. the ni.otion stating that the DHCD regulatiotls, 760 CCM.;R.56.00, et seq. Franz i.t jurisclictiori over issues regarding building Perini s'. Though I believe this is an overly brand interpretation acid Apossible error of°lacvt, I do taoC bell eve, that an appeal would be ;benef ci:al to the: Town .af Reading, because it will not. bring this matter to. a conclus ,qn. As. stayed previously, 760 C'Mk 56,05.(12) .(c) provides fq:rihe tollilxb of the expirat o.ri date of a conapreli:erisi e permit dusiiig: he t fie w thin «>hich .an appeal .is petidiiig. If the. Board. Arere to. v oto to appeal th;e issao of the HAC'.s denial of the motion to dismiss, this comprehensivepeiffit would again .'be t6fled, and. INJotilcl.reinaixi so wit( that appeal. is resolved. lveil,ifh:e Superior Caurt2 were to rule that the HAC was without" nisd ction to.hear Mr. Salarilone's appeal; 56.05(12):(6). would operate to. tall the .expiration of the col prehe 7:save permit; 0d. the::postuie oft e. matter would beno different thaii it.. is at the present time. As a Corinal. ty, the Board inay wish to vote i.ot to f 1e; all appeal fi-onl the August 8:).201,1; HAC decision.. .The second issue for discussioia is the process assopiated with a Kgquest for an extension.ofa comprei ensiije permit. Alth:ougli.tberegulat o~,s require that.a compreheiiAv6 permit be exercised within tb e . years; 760 CMR 56:05(12): (e) provides that "`eater siolis. 8ti'a1l riot be urireasariahly deified" 'the regti at' 10,11 ' s are: silei`it:oa .tlae precise process,, and there is. no limitation on the amount oft me. a cori?pieliensive pgmiif can be extciaded, or on how wai13,y exterisionsi could-bo granted, The obvious question is, if extensions. should not be unreasonably denied, wbeii is it reasonable to deny an eh.terisionV In Red Gate Road Xerx j? Ti'ztst 3,: Zy zgsboa oicgl Zgn.a?z Boezrd oftippe;4, NO. ~-0.1 (Mass..Tj.ousi:ng Appeals Coriimytfee'dzcisio i December 8; 1993); (oxtensioia d.en%ed because tlICTC,-was 1io activity Y foiu• wears after they permit was lastirnodifed) the RAC addressedfbt the first time whether the denial. of a request: to -extend a comprehensive permit, wasp unreasondble, ki doing so, thell;I.kO lvf_C,I~ c:aQA;. § 17 provides that a p pals must be filed in either tike Siuperi r Cour-t, Land Court or ptfi. ct. Court. ' Appeals lruin ttetisfons of ddn*uiusttadvu agencies are filed: in the Superior Court pmsuaitt to M.G;L. c.3.OA. stated hat; when_ a request for an extension is dezried, "the Board , has the burden of proving that there are legititiaate health, safety, eavironniental or. ether local conce his wbIch support its. denial. of a fiu-tliei extension of the permit aild tli:at those cone vqz outweigh the-need for .housing." Red GateRodd Realty Trwi at 5: The SAC added that, "[t]h:ere oxe two approaches: tbat.:? Board can take: to justify a. don aT of an extension of"a:cc nYprel~e zsi~~e perna.if. First; it c:ati poznt to ohmiged, physical circuzi sta~iees specihc to the liropo.sed liousitig development or the siit~ ciandang area. For instance, a affc flow or ground water yuah.ttes, wliiell axe. clearl}i legitiiiiatc local colicerns, may: have .deteriorated'to a degree that. extend iig the: pepiit is not, corasistom- with'locaLneeds." Red Gate R Ity Trust at 7: The d .fticulty associated with this approach However, is tl atxequ:ests:.for extensions of coinpi-ellenslve'p.ozniits ai e not subject*.to a public hearing:process, and the Board: is not authorized to take a.second loot; at the. a niprehensive hermit in order to id.entify i..jew local concerns,. Therefore it is unclear ho-xv :such, information could. be presented for t iG Soard's Consideration, The see:ond approach is fox the Board to ec~x>sidea ;interests of "f ail ness," and whether' "the need. for closure" demands that :the: request fo:r an eltiension:be .denied so that the coiiiproliezisive permit will terminate. In the Red Gate Realty Trust case,; the: Board denied: the extension alleging that the: developer fai.le.d to make reasonable of forts to obtaiai.btzilding periiaits or to secure: finaiiciiig for t1)e:piYoject. The HAC disoussed the iziterests o:f faizi:ess as applicable to: hotli.parties at 1:ezlgi:}i.. ee :also, Delphic Associates, LLC v. ;Z iabug 7oning.Board of Appeals, No. 03-0.8 (Mass. Housing: Appeals Committee dea s ozi September 14, 2,010) ("considerations of fairness weigh.iri. the developer's favor".). In coiasId.ering this.apprtiach the HAC noted; several factors slid. as the existence: of unusual cit.cWhstanees that might. indicate a heightened, need for closure; or.a proposal to re ozze:ad(aceilt land for uses which in ay be Yi coitipatib:t:e wi h tlie'c n grehensive peitpltproject. Another factor is to .consider the c.oiiduct of the parties thrr vgl out the process, :for bista icq.., is there.pyidenr.Q o:f bad faith. by one of-Qie I rffes?Athird. factor is: whetber'the developer acted iii. reliance oii the eotgmh.en:sive permit by attehipting to secize;ofiliernecessary permits. 7°he final factor relates.°to the history of the c.omprehops' ve perm*. t. Aber applyingthese,factors to the facts in Red Grzte Keglo; jWst., the RAC. 40.termigod that there was no evidence of bad'faith, that tli.e developer could not obtain btiiidingperrri.its because. it had. difficulty securing financing :due to a weakened:economy u1 the area, acid that although the comprehensive permit.had been in effect for five years inchidi:ng one .extension; that a further extensi-on was not z.tnreasonalile. See also filler, o&S uthborough Dirdted Partnership v. Southborough BoaiW of Appeals, No. 92 06 Glass. Hous ng.Appe:als Committee. docisioi-i December 8, 1993) (RAC overrulQd the denial of an extension for a coiisprehensive permit already in effect for six years, and. granted an eighteen month extension), In ordering the extension of the comprehensive pei~nit in the .Red: Gate Realt y Rust inatter hoivrbver, the HAG aci nowledged the difficulty in keepzng tl subsidy ~~3 approval process;:financiiig:piocess. and design process all zsiov>ng onv.gd to uaxrls; cozi8txucti:or1 It chase. to address those.zssues by coliditioiing the grant. of extension ley im:} o.smg: d.eadlilles such. as, roquirizzg the d.oveloper to obtain. a writtexi, detenia''zxation: of project eligibility Within twelve. months, filiAg proof of a. fiuanciAg. co:minitn eiat °with the Board of Appcals within twelve rt~;onths, 4 d applyjug for a bui:J;din perrii t within cgl~iteczz nicintlis, Eventhou :gh t1w fx., ension rcyuest,does not reclu>.re a public 1acariug, 'it i.s r, ecorratzxerxded that. the,Bo.ard. enm. Mr. Sala mie iiz, a conversation regarding the progress :he hag niade zn fibibering coiastitction of they coii;piel engive ofn*flt, acid howhe plans to continue-such progress .Gan e ctezlSion is gganted. Should th.e Baarcl coilsidox graxitin.g an eateiision, I strongly encourage the :B'oatd to consider the is position of coi ditiozzs siniilar to those, in the Red Gate Realty Trust deeisic5.n;: to keep the project moving foiward to corzstiuetion ard<closure.: Time lizriits should be established for isistance, for the producti.0i9, of final. constru:ctioti jalaiis,,ido. tifyiiig a. Raiding source and demonstraCiixgprogress towards acquirIngstatiis asa limited liability &Itity, and the submittal of a. complete building permit application. The precise°tin e fraiiies: shout:d.be i'deahfi,ed biased upon the Board's conversation with M.r. Salan~.ozae. Please don't hesitate to contact me if tlic:Board has.atiy other questions, Qr if I cart be of further a.ssi:stance in. this matter.. Very truly yours'; Men Ulal al Doucette J✓iicl. .cc: Board of Selectmen 4 I~ 1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE SAL HONE, ) Appellant ) V. ) No. 10-09 R.EA.DING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,) Appellee } RU1ANG ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION 1. PROCEDURAL HMTORY In a decision filed with the town clerk on August 13, 2001, the Reading Zoning Board of Appeals granted Angelo Sa.lamone's application for a comprehensive permit pursuant to G.L. c. 408, 20-23 to build ten affordable, mixed-income housing units on land at 45 Beacon Street in Reading. Undisputed Fact No. 1; Exh. 1). The housing would be financed under the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston's New England Fund. Exh. D, p. 2, ~ 4. Abutters appealed the issuance of that permit to the Superior Court. Undisputed Fact No. 2. The appeal was finally resolved when-the Appeals Court issued a rescript opijaion, which apparently took place on April 25, 2007. Board's _'vlotion to. Dismiss, p. 2; also sere Exh.. A. The Superior Court issued a Judgment after Rescript. which was dated August 9, 2007 and entered on the Superior Court Docket on August 13, 2007. Exh. A. 1. 'Undisputed Facts" refer to Appellee's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law... (filed Jun. 8,2011); "Exh." refers to Exhibits attached Appellee's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law... (filed Jun. 8, 2011). The Appellant developer has accepted the Appellee Board's Statement of Undisputed Facts. Appellant's Brief, p. 1. l5- On April 23, 2010, the developer applied to the town building commissioner for a building permit. Exh. B. On May 20, 2010, the building commissioner denied that application. Exh. C. The developer appealed the denial to the Board on June 1, 2010. Exh. F. By decision dated September 16, 2011 and filed the town clerk on September 28, 2010, the Board denied the appeal, and upheld the building commissioner's denial of a building permit. Initial .Pleading, Exhibit A (filed Oct. 18, 2010). On October 18, 2010, the developer appealed to this Committee. The Board bled a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Committee's jurisdiction had been improperly pleaded, and that motion was denied by the presiding officer on April 1.4, 2011. Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary decision pursuant to 760 CA/M 56.06(5)(0). II. WSCUSSION initially, the dispute between the parties centered on the building conunissioner's "decision that the comprehensive pen-nit [had] expired." Exh. C. Our regulations state that construction must begin within. three years of the date on uThich the permit becomes final, except for good cause. 760 CMR 56.05(12)(c). They state further, however, that "[t]his time period shall be tolled for the time required to pursue or await the determination on any appeal...." Id. In this case, Ju.dgruent after Rescript was dated and entered on the Superior Court Docket in August 2007. Exh. A. Thus, because of tolling, the three-year period extended until Aug-ust 2010. The developer filed his application for a building permit well Nvithin that period-in April 20'10-and therefore the building commissioner's decision in May 2010 that the comprehensive permit had expired was in error. In fact, the Board now "concedes that the commissioner initially erred in determining the date upon which the comprehensive permit became final." Board's Brief, p. 5 (filed. Jun. 8, 2011). The Board goes on, however, to argue that the denial of the building pen-nit was propel- because it stated additional reasons, namely that the application was not accompaizied by the requisite fee, adequate construction plans, and proof of compliance with certain of the conditions included in the original comprehensive permit. There is not absolute clarity about what was submitted with the application, about what level of detail is custornarily expected in Reading with regard to routine requirements, or about whether certain requirements specific to this comprehensive permit were complied with. i a-G Nevertheless, it is undisputed that the application was not complete. Specifically, the developer has accepted Condition 19, which requires that a condominium master deed be submitted for approval prior to issuance of the building pen-nit, The developer has also accepted the Board's statement of undisputed facts, which state that such a deed was not submitted. Undisputed Fact No. 10. This failure to submit the master deed is, alone, sufficient to support the building commissioner's denial of the building permit. 2 Thus, with regard to denial of the building penn.it, the Board's Motion for Summary decision is GRANTED. This does not end the matter, however. The developer has requested a ruling that the comprehensive permit remains valid. In that regard; it is also clear fi-om undisputed facts that the application was submitted four months before the deadline set in the comprehensive permit for commencement of construction. The necessary documentation to complete the application might well have been submitted and the full fee paid in that time. And even if they had not been, the developer had the right to ask that the permit be extended, and such ,in extension "may not be unreasonably denied...." 760 CMR 56.05(l 2)(c), Since the Board has conceded, above, that the building commissioner erred in calculating the expiration date of the permit, it is clear that the comprehensive permit was valid at the time of application. Expiration of the pen-nit is tolled while the developer appealed that denial to the Board and then this Committee. See, e.g., Forestview Estates Assoc,., Inc. v. Douglas, No. 05-23 (Mass. Housing Appeals Committee Mar. 5, 2007). Thus, the permit remains valid at present. The parties agree that the tolling period should be calculated from June 1, 2010. Developer's Brief, p. 2 (filed Jun. 14, 2011 Board's Brief, p. 7. The permit would have expired August 1.0, 2010, and thus, the permit will cxpi.re slightly over two months after the tolling period ends, that is, after this decision becomes final. 3 The developer's motion for summary decision with regard to the validity 2. Other facts are less clear cut. T'hc developer acknowledges, for instance that an application fee was not paid, but argues that. the fee Nvas tendered, but rejected by the building commissioner; the Board appears to dispute this. Similarly, whether detailed plans, stamped by a structural engineer, for a retaining wall (required by comprehensive permit condition 6) were provided appears to be in' dispute. 3, Raving issued this decision afFinning the validity of a comprehensive permit, we expect that the parties will take the appropriate actions necessary to proceed to construction. If, however, further ~1 a of the comprehensive permit is GRANTED, and, specifically, we rule that if this decision is not appealed, the permit is valid until October 18, 2011. As a practical matter, however, it may well be that the developer wHI be unable to submit a completed application and begin construction by October. If that is the case, and if he..files a request for an extension of the pen-nit prior to the expiration date, we would expect that such an extension would be granted.. See 760 CIAR 56.05(12)(e). An extension for a mininium of one year would not appear at all unreasonable. See, e.g., Red Gale Road Realty Trust v. t'yngsborougli, No. 93-01 (Mass, Housing Appeals Conunittee Dec. S, 1993). This decision may be reviewed. in accordance with the provisions of. G.L. c. 4013, S 22 and G.L. c. 30A by institt.ttim, an action'in the Superior Court within 30 days of receipt of the decision. Date: 'Wgust S, 2011 LPc/r Housing Appeals Committee Werner Lohe, Chainnan Joseph P. Benefield disputes develop, we hereby authorize the presiding officer to act to enforce this decision and ensure prompt issuance of a. building permit. See 760 CMR 56.06(7)(e)(2), iG-- >€~c~Tr ~ I~~c;~~. cou?~s~r~o~s ~,~a✓a~w 19 ~z[~~K S~[~>~cc VJ~zt.crs rrix,. ~'~%I:nss~.~:~tzsL" i'rs: bil~t~9 508-799=9739. ,Fax' St)8=799-979:9 Ellen. Callaliaii Doucette, )✓stj.. AT"['ORNE~ CLI1~~lT P'1~.1VIL>~,CxEI77 ~,ITTCA Z`Z.t)i'11vi AT'TE12 August ~ 7., ~.U~1''1 ~effzeyI'~rl~ns,, Cli:~.ir $oaid ofA.ppea]s: Town fall: 1 G' ~pwell St~~eet I~eadiz7g, lv t)l~;C? ecdoucettc~u?l~xac~.ettlucas, cam TZ:~; ~15:Beacoix. Stz°eet--Requ.cst for E~.tc:ns'on ~f ~orimpr~lierisiz>e Pernat: Attached lieret~, is'tlxe Housing ,Appeals Coitnxttee's ("ILIAC")::Rriliri.~ b~a.'1V.totion for Sutxuriary~D.ecison in. the matter o:fAngelo S:alamone z~. R~a~:ill~ Boaxd ~fw.A~~u~als . (NAC :wo. 10 t19);. Iit its d'ecsi.oil, tlxe HA.~ ~raiitcd the Bc~artl's Nlotoii far Sunxnaiy ~eeisioa and af.~rniec~ the 1~oazd's<deczsion tip uphold t1ze13ui'ldng Snsp.eotor's dcn%a1 _Q.f lvlz^ S ~lazz~.une's' liuildng perixY_~t ap~xl~catioz~, #;oi tl:z pzoperty at 4~ BeaGOZZ Sheet TZ~' HA:C also:ruletl~tliat~ tle:coznprehens~eperint llad 7zot expired in E'~pr~,l 201`0'~~hers.tlxe' liuildin~ ~rerrni#. appli:c~.tiaii, w:as sulirr'tted. I~uxizxg the `.13a.ard'~:laeanrxg; oti this matter; y:ou may recall that cllseussed t11e-eonfusivn regarclirig tlxe actual claf~upon v,-fhich: tli.e conllz~i~;e:Lxsi~e pe~xiut becaz~ae e~C~ecta.ve, 'fle actual: ef~ecti:vo:tlate ~t=as ire Aug~:sL, 207; wlzezx tli;e, j.uda .dent. after apj~eal w:as eilteii~d in tlxe Siaperi:or Crii t; .at~et not; on: A.ps7I 23, ?~(l7 w-lien the .Alp.eals Coxzt.issued i.fs decision as v,~as first tlxoizglit. The .HAC-also cletea7xxinecl tlxat: Mi•. Sa3anioixt's: eoiiipzehensive li.errlxt tiyzll ital expa e Ltixlzl Qctol~e~ 1~~, 2U1 ~ : Accoxelitxg tp' fhe applicable DT.I:C:R regzllatiox%s.~ 75~ GIv1R 56'.g5(17):i(c~;,tlie tiixt ~itlixn wliicli.a.eoznprehezi,svc.peririit n1'usttie ex:ercis~d:i:s. ``tglled" #'or tl7e period o.f tizxxe: during ax~llich an al,p,eal is pezxding ixrlxicfr pzriod. of time rncti~cies tli:e fizzle spez.t wlz,le this :appeal. was-pending before tl~e ~A~. Iiltlie evelxt.tl~at A2z. ~al:anxone i:s unable: to ohtaui a b.Uzi:ldiiagp~zzz~:l'azi~i:begi'#i coilstructr~n bel,'are C>ctczber 1'~, 2~1 1, llie 1-It1C stated that "if lle :E'zles a `eq~est. fcir an. ' extension of the permit prior to the ea pi.rationi slate ~yjc wol?1d expect tliat.suol3 aat extension would lie granted , A3 extension for a iilinimutn of o z year would riot appear at all unroasouable." 1VIr Salanione has ur et submitted.. a request, fbf a: on.e year e ctension of the conzprehensfve.poznitt which is on the Board's SSepternber. 8,.2011 agenda:. The. issuatt,ce of the HAC decisi.on.presents two issues :for. d scu's.sion liereiti. The first issue is whett er or iloi tlae decision should be appealed; Please be adviised that'tlie time for.fil i - ari:appeal from the HA:C.de.ci.sion.~~r 11 expire on Septeri ber 9,2011 which is 3O-clays from ilre date upon which the decision .-Navas received. Copsideitig .'hat the HAC affirmed ..the Board's action, disctissiob regarding as appeal is admittedly tmitsual: However I am..required to briiig:it to.:tho Board's. attention for the Follovving rQasori:, In. response. to'A.r, Salamone's initial appeallcoiriplaint, 1 filed :a ri-iotion to disilliss arguing therein; that the RAC. does not Have j urisdiction over appeals f led pursuant to M.G,L c.AOA, § 17;1 The HAG denied. the m.otiorn.statina that the DHCD regulations, 760 MR 56,00.1 et.seq. pi-ant:it.jurisdiction over issues regarding btujlding penii ts.. Though I. believe. this is an. overly broad Interpretation, and a possible error of law., I. dtj not. belie a:e. that an appeal would be lyonefici:al to the, `I own .of Readinb, because it will' naot. bring this ;natter to a cornelusion. As. s.:ta[etj prca i.oirsl}~, 7 Q CMI2 56 O5.(12) ,(G) provides for the full' of the e xpnration daft; of a om rehonsive parmi.t dualnng:th&:tiii* within which en appeal as pending: If the Board were to. vote to appeal the i~ssile of the HA-C's deinial of the motion to dismiss, this comprehensive peii iit would again,.be tolled, and. avo J(I :remain so uilfil that appeal. is.resol.ved'. Even;zf ih.e: Superior Co'ttrtz were, to rule, that the HAC was without jurisdiction to hear Mr. Salamono"s. appeal, 56.05(12) :(c): would .operate to-toll. the xpiration of the cor,a pi 6I-ic ` s.I ve pert it; and the :po tpre of ti e matter would be no dif£erernt than A.. is at'the present time. As a f'orin.ality, the Board tnay sui:sli to vote not to file an appeal from the A,agitst 5,.2011: HAC docson.. The second• issue for discussion) is the process associated with. a,request for an extension ofa comlarei ensure peini.it. Alth:o:ug4the regulations require that a con gtol3.eiisive p'enmt be ex.emisod within tlireie years, 76:0 CMR 5.6:05(12) (c). proVIdes that " ea.tei?sion3s shall trot be unireasoriat~ly denied". The rl gtRlatioans are silet~t:on the precise process', and there .is. no, limitation oii the amount of ti . nm: a comprehensive p:erniit can: be extended, or on ltoW rnauy eX.terisnous could be Liranlod. The obvious question is, if dxtens oii.s. should: not be unreasonably denied; when i.s it reasonable to deity an extensi.oAl In :Red late Rand :R qlo Trust v. Tyng..s~orp4gl Z070:?i Board offfja)erila'; No. 9~-:0'l (Mass :I Q using Appeals Colitmifteo dectsioal December s; 1993) (e)tcnsion d.en. ed becausetbom was. .no aetivity.fox fort years after rho:porrn:it was last.m:od:ifed) the RAC addressed fbt the first time whether the,-deft a.l of a request to extend a c.ornpreheiisive permit. was, unreasonable..' h3. doing so; tlie.l4A.C' M...G,J. e:adA;: § 17 I?zavicies tl1t appeals nnust be filed in dither the Superior Gciuxt, I and Gtiurt or District. C,c wli L Appears froirrn decisions of aidjjiiWsfua:Uvt- agencies are filed: in the Superior Court. pursuant to M.G L. c:3,oA. stated that when a request for ari extension is denied, "the Board,. , . has the bui dirof l fO'Vfi g that there are le.gltr naw bealth;.safety, environnietital: or other local concerns wilr.zch s ippoi i itsdeiual; of a Fizr l ez extension of: the permit and. tbat those con ne.nis: otitweigla the need for .housing." Red trcitc Road Realtor Tritst. at 5: The HAC added dial, "[tjhere are two approaches that. a.Board cari take: to justify: a deriia;l of an oatensori of a:coniprelrensiN=.e peritiit: First; it c:aii po~zit to clxaiiged:. physical circus istazices spedific to the; proposed housing dcvel,,opaaaent or tlfie siui:ounding. area, for :n.stanDe, tl af5c low or ground,waterr qualities, wliiaii are. elearlyr legitimate local cos cl=s, mays have deteriorated to a degree that. extending the: permit 'is not consistent with local:needs." Red Grate Realty D-ust at 7. The dOcul:ty associated with this approach law:ever, is fliat.requ.ests:for extensi.oris of coirtpreheiissve.p.ernnts are not subject to a public heari.ng.process, anal the Board. is not authorized to -take a second look at .tbe. comprehensive permit in order to identify new local. concerns,. Therefore it is ini.cl:ear how such information could. be presented for the Board's consideration, The second approach is. for the Board to c:Qusider Jaerests of "taloiess," and ivl ether' "the need. for closure" demands that the request for mi extensicin.' be denied so that the coria.prehensive permit will terminate. In the Red Gate Realty 1 rust case, the: Board denied. the extension alleging that the. developer failed to -make reasonable efforts to obta:ii.building p-emiits or fo secure financin-9 for the:proiect. Th.e HAC discussed the ii tezests of fairness as al~plibable to: hefts parties at l:engt}i.. See :also, Delphic Associates, LL C: v. Di buil, Zonrr g!Board of Appeals; No. 03-0:8 (Mass. F ousiiIg Appeals Committee decision September 14, 2010) ("considerations of fairness weigh .in, the de +eloper's favor"). Iri coiisaderirig this approach the RAC noted: several factors such as t:he existence of uniisiial cnciai istarices that inight indicate a.:h.eigl tened deed for:closure, or,a proposal to reWiie.adjaceilt land for uses which shay be in.conipatib:le with the comprehensiIve perm t project. Another: factor is to consider the conduct of the parties throt gl out the process,.:for r.:nstarrce., is ther-e.eyidencu ofbad faith. by one of the pordes? A- third factor is whether :the developer acted in relianee oii the coniprehen:sive permit by atteniptiiig to sec ir,e:othef necessary permits, Tl e bial factor relatos.ito the history of the c:onaprehensive peniiit. After applying these factors to the facts in Red Gat.e Realty I.H,& t., time HAC. detcriiiiied that there ivrs no evidence of bad faith, that tli.e developer co;ul;ct not obtain buildingperinits because it had. di.ffictilty securing financing .due to a weakened ecoiionly iii time area, and that although the cornpreliensive permit.had been in. effect for five yews in.cludin.g one extension,. that a further extension was not gnreasoaiable. See-a] so Albro/S, uthboroug-h Limited F'artn:ersb.4) r~. S'outhbomugh Board of 4ppauls, No. 92-06 (Nrtass, Housing Appeals Committee decision Dece nba 8, 1993) (HA:C'o,verrul;ed the denial of an extension, for a con preliemive permit already in effect for six years, anal. granted an eighteen. rrionth extension), In ordering the extension of time comprehensive perni t in the Ped Gate Realty, Tt ugt tryatter ho *rever., the 14 AC acknowledged the diff%cu.lty in..keeping fiire subsidy ~~3 approvA..1 process; .fi~riarlciilg :process: and design pi o'cess a l xnovi'ng fom.ard towaWs; cozisiiucti:oai t clioso. to addi°ess those lssuesby coaldit7gii.i:n,cl.. gran t.o'f extension by imposing, deadlines such. 0, requi-Tirig: the do elpperr to obtai;ri. a writtexi: detemiination: of project eligibility Within twelve months, frlingproof of a: fa lanciq c.onmlitrrieilt with the Board of Appeals w~t}.li l twelve months, aid applvjiig fo _a building permit within eighteen u onths, Evo» th,oli:gh the extension i:equesl docs not require a ptililic l etrit is recorn'rlxeaded :that the Board, e ig_ago Mr, Salaniono in, a conversation rebardin;g the p:iogiess :he lxas iiiade in fii~-tl~cii.ng coilstz-iicti:on of the co7xiprz~:iez~s~.ve .tiez7ni:t, atacl 1ia~.le pla~lstn co:nt7rtue:sucll iiro.gress .f an extells.ial7 'is gral}ted. Slio:ttl'd tb;e Baaard. c.onsidor raii,tlia.g au extension, l st> oYlgiy encourage the Board to consider tlle`iilipositioii of coi ditiozis sizali: ar to`those in the Red CUate Really T un decisio:n,, to beep. the project moving -forward to oo,nst notion and. c.losurt:, Time limits should be established for instatice, for the production of final constru:ctioilt laiis, iclctitify iig a fiinding soar.co and demonsU°afl' 'progress towards acquiiing stadia a8 a limited liability eiit t,}F; And the suvin teal of a,.completc .l~lii.Xdili,c, p.erx...1 lzcatiozi.. Thz precIse:tin2e i arnc s should. be identified based upon the Board's contiorsatioii with Mr. Salanio it. Please :don't hesitate to contact Tne if tbe:Boa'rd as. ally other glleaiom or° if I can be ,of further assistance in this Matter. Very ti-ily yours, i q i 1511eil allahan Douc°°ettk Encl. / oc: Board of Selectmen 4 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE SALAMONE, j Appellant ) V. ) No. 10-09 REA.DtNG ZONING BOA" OF APPEALS,) j Appellee RU SING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION 1. PROCEDURAL MSTORY Iii a decision filed with the town clerk on August 13, 2001, the Reading Zoning Board of Appeals granted Angelo Salarnone's application for a comprehensive permit pursuant to G.L. c. 408, 20-23 to build ten affordable, mixed-income housing units on land at 45 Beacon Street in Reading. Undisputed Fact No. 1; Exh, D. ~ The housing would be financed under the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston's New England Fund. Exh. D, p. 2, T 4. Abutters appealed the issuance of that permit to the Superior Court. Undisputed Fact No. 2. The appeal was finally resolved when the Appeals Court issued a rescript opb-Uon, which apparently took place on April 25, 2007. Board's Motion to Dismiss, p. 2; also see Exh. A. The Superior Court issued a Judgment after Rescript, which was dated August 9, 2007 and entered on the Superior Court Docket on August 13, 2007. Exh. A. 1. `1ndisputed pacts" refer to Appellee's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law... (filed Jun. 8, 2011); "Exh." refers to Exhibits attached Appellee's Statement of Undisputed Facts and nlemorandurri of Law- (filed Jun. 8, 2011). The Appellant developer has accepted the Appellee Board's Statement of Undisputed Facts. Appellant's Brief, p, 1. 16L., 5- On April 23, 2010, the developer applied.to the town building comn2issioner for a building permit. Exh. B. On May 20, 2010, the building commissioner denied that application. Exli. C. The developer appealed the denial to the Board on June 1, 2010. Exh. F. By decision dated September 16, 2011 and filed the town clerk on September 28, 2010, the Board denied the appeal, and upheld the building commissioner's denial of a building permi.t. Initial Pleading, Ex.liibit A (filed Oct. 18, 2010). On October 18, 2010, the developer appealed to this Committee. The Board bled a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the. Committee's jurisdiction had been improperly pleaded, and that motion was denied by the presiding officer on April 1.4, 2011. Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary decision pursuant to 760 CA4R 56.06(5)(3). I.T. WSCLISSION initially, the dispute bet N een the parties centered on the building commissioner's "decision that the comprehensive permit [had] expired.'' Exh. C. Our regulations state that construction must begin within three years of the date on which the permit becomes final, except for good cause. 760 CMR 56.05(12)(c). They state further, however, that "[t]ills time period shall be tolled for the time required to pursue or await the determination on any appeal...." Id. In this case, Judgment after Rescript was dated and entered on the Superior Court Docket in August 2007. Exh. A. Thus, because of tolling, the three-year period extended until August 2010. The developer filed his application for a building permit well within that period-in April 2010-and therefore the building commissioner's decision in May 2010 that the comprehensive permit had expired was in error. fn fact, the Board now "concedes that the comi-nissioner initially erred in determining the date upon which the comprehensive permit became .final." Board's Brief, p. 5 (filed Jun. 8, 2011). The 'Board goes on, however, to argue that the denial of the building pen-nit was proper because it stated additional reasons, namely that the application was not accompanied by the requisite fee, adequate construction plans, and proof of compliance with certain of the. conditions included in the original comprehensive permit. There is not absolute clarity about what was submitted with the application, about what level of detail is customarily expected in Reading with regard to routine requirements, or about whether certain requirements specific to this comprehensive permit were complied with. I ct.• G Nevertheless, it is undisputed that the application was not complete. Specifically, the developer has accepted Condition 19, which requires that a condominium master deed be submitted for approval prior to issuance of the building pen-nit. The developer has also accepted the Board's statement of undisputed facts, which state that such a deed was not submitted. Undisputed Fact No. 10. This failure to submit the master deed is, alone, sufficient to support the building eonunissioner's denial of the building permit. 2 Thus, with regard to denial of the building pennit, the Board's Motion for Summary decision is GRANTED. This does not end the matter, however. The developer has requested a ruling that the comprehensive permit remains valid. In that regard; it is also clear from undisputed frets that the application was submitted four months before the deadline set in the comprehensive permit for commencement of construction. The necessary doci nentation to complete the application might well have been submitted and the frill fee paid in that time. And even if they had not been, the developer had the right to ask that the permit be extended, and such an extension "may not be unreasonably denied...."' 760 CMR 56.05(12)(c). Since the Board has conceded, above, that the building commissioner erred in ealculatino the expiration date of the permit, it is clear that the comprehensive permit was valid at the time of application. Expiration of the permit is tolled while the developer appealed that derual to the Board and then this Committee. See, e.g., For•estview Estates Assoc., Ire. v. Dou,;los, No. 05-23 (Mass. Housing Appeals Committee Mar. 5, 2007). Thus, The permit remains valid at present. The parties.agree that the tolling period should be calculated from June 1, 2010. Developer's Brief, p. 2 (tiled Jun. 14, 2011); Board's Brief, p. 7. The pennit would have expired August 1.0, 2010, and thus, the permit will expire slightly over two months after the tolling period ends, that is, after this decision becomes final. 3 The developer's motion for summary decision with regard to the validity 2. Other facts are less clear cut, The developer acknowledges, for instance that an application fee was not paid, but argues that. the fee was tendered, but rejected by the building commissioner; the Board appears to dispute this. Similarly, whether detailed plans, stamped by a structural engineer, fora retaining wall (required by cornprehcnsive permit condition 6) were provided appears to be in" dispute. 3. Having issued this decision affirming the validity of a comprehensive permit, we expect that. the parties Nvill take the appropriate actions necessary to proceed to construction. If, however, further I al 4 of the comprehensive permit is GRANTED, and, specifically, we rule that if this decision is not appealed, the permit is valid. until October 18, 2011. As a practical matter, however, it may well be that the developer will be unable to submit a completed application and begin construction by October. If that is the case, and if he files a request for an extension of the permit prior to the expiration date, we would expect that such an extension 'Would be granted.. See 760 CIAR 56.05(12)(e). An extension for a mininiutn of one year would not appear at all unreasonable. See, e.g., Red txate Rocid Realty Trust v. fjnngsborough, No. 93-01 (I\4ass. Housing Appeals Committee Dec. b, 1993). This decision ray be reviewed. in accordance with the provisions of. G.L. c. 4013, S 22 and G.L. c. 30A by institt.rtin.U an.action in the Superior Court within 30 days of receipt of the decision. Housing Appeals Committee Date. ,kugust 8, 2011 Verner Lohe, Chairman Joseph P. J- 1. f LPclr disputes develop, rve hereby authorize the presiding officer to act to enforce this decision and ensure prompt issuance of a. building permit. See 760 CMR 56.06(7)(e)(2). 10-/ ~ B RAcKE. TT & Luc, ~s. COUNSELORS 0 LAW 19 dLIjA.k s'«l ar Wd14.C.GS'tER,.a'Y' XSs kd!USLT.TS Oi6CIB 508499=9739. Fay: 5()8-799.-9799 Ellen Callahan Dout;ette, Esy.. NI'MRNEY °CLIENI' P'1z1VILEGED/ LITIGATION MATTER August 3 1,,204 1 Jeffrey 'Pe kills,,. Cl sir Board of'Appeals: Town 14all 16 Lpwell Street Reading, TOA 01U7 ecdouoettcMbrackettlucas. corp Vie' 45 l3eaeoii Sta eet Regtzest_for E~.tenszon of Corirprlierisi~e Petn7!t. °Dea'r :111x. Pe:rkns:; Attached hereto:; is t1ie. Housing Appeals' Conihiittee's (`~'I AC");:Rtiliiig on 1Vlot on for summary Decision in the matter of Alwelo Salafrione v. Reaching l oAkd fli .Appeals, (Hx1C Na. 1D 4- In.'its decision, The HAC granted theBoard's Motion for Sunimai;y Decision mid a'f nnTed the Bo.ard's~ dedsibn to uphold the: `Build hg Tnsp.eotor'si denial :of N1t> Salazi one's l uildii~g pe~?ii%t, ap l eafiiox for t1 5:e pioperfy at 45 Beacons Street The HAC also: iuled U10 1h e cpinpzehens' ve pexii ' t.b d riot expir ed iti April 2;01 a Nvlien the liu ld ngperrnit,applicalion, v as suliniitted. During the"8.0ard':s.hearing: on tl is matter you mad recall that vet discussed the confusion regardizig the actual date: upon w. ,icb the conzpreliesa(ive:_pernii't becaaiie etfeeti.Ye. The actual: effecti've:d'ate A, as is August, 2OQ7 wlieri therj:iadd f ont alter, appeal was enterO in the S'upeior Cor rt, anal n.ot, tin: Apri123, 24'07 *h6.ri the A..pp.eals Coutt.issued i.ts decision as was first thoaght. The HAC also dele-mx iinecl tliat: ivli-. Salanit n6's'caiiiprel enss =c perrrlit wall i tit expii e tsiltil Qc"tobex 15;'20,11: According to'the applicable DHCD regul"atioxi'a, 760 C1ti1R 5'6'.p5{17.):(c~, the limo within wlaicll:a.GOmpruht;z~sv~: permit must be ex:erciseti .is "to'lled" for the Irenod of dine. duringwhicb an appeal is.p6nding Wbioli period of, ti . 0 inoludes the time spent1 while this appeal was pendixig before the I-IAC. hi the :Veiit.tliat1K.T. Sal.ainonei:s unable, fo obtaiii a bui:lding;pQnm- it;azid begitl cbristi uctq`n before C)e'ttib.er l;s, 20 1 the HAC staled'tliat "iFlie :files a tiecluest: for an 4 eaaensimi of Ibe permit pzior to the expiration :date kye Nvould.. expect that sticlt azt, extension would be grazlted , , . Azi eafension for a znuiirnti2n of ane year would iot ajipeai at a1T urircasonalile." IYIr:. S'a}ai~a:orie has in fact 8W).mitted- a request for a: one year extension of the coznpreliensiva:peiniit vv}liel is o.ii the Board's Septexl7be:r 8;.2011 agenda:. The issuanco of the HAC decasI.on.p.resents two issues foT d scuss Qla l~ereixl.. The first issue'is vvhetl er or .not the decision Should be appealed. Please be advised that the time. l:or.hliii- CT an .appeal from the I:3AC decision- ill expire. on! September 9, ?011 whicl s 30=day3 froze rile date upon which the, decision was received, Considering that the HA.C aifirwed :Ole Board's actloi d*"* di ~g at1 appeal is admittedly uaiusual. Howes er 1 am..required to brinb':it to.:the.Board's. attention for the following reason. 14..response to Mr. Salantone's initial appeal/complaint. I filed :a anot on to disc a'.iss arguing, therein. that the HAC. dues not hay e l:urzsd ctioiz over appeals Fled pursu.a tt to M:Cr L e;4;0A~ 17;i . The HAC dezii'ed. tlterzi:otzon stating that the DTJCD regulations, . gtant:i.t.jurisdictz:on over issues regajding building pexiizits.. 760 CIt%GR.56,00; et.sec Though I believe this is an overly broad interpretation and apossible. error of law, I. do riot' believe. that an appeal would be :beneiic al to tbc: Town of Reading, because it will not. bring this matter to a oonclusioiJ, As. sWed pzevi:ously, 76:0 CMR 55.05:(12) ptovides fqr the to:llilig of tlae:etpzration date o£a'cozrap.T l,h zsi'+e perm[t cltuing:tile.tim, within which ,an appeal .is pending. If the Board -were to. vote to appeal the issix of the HACI's denial of the motion to dismiss, this comprehensive peini t Would again,. be tolled; and.wou..ld:rewain so Lmtil that appeal.i.sresol.ved'. P ill,zftb.e Su.peri.or Co'urtZ were to rule that the HAC was. Without jurzsd cti'on to.hear Mr. Salarnone's appeal, 5'6:05(12) (c); -oil:d operate to:.tall.t}e expiratpn ofthc°coiipreleisiveperxi~it; acid floe postiire.of the matter would b.e n.o different than if. is :at 'tl e present tinier Asa formality ; the Board may wish to vote :not to File an appeal from the A.ugatst 8,1014 HAC decision,. Ch.c sc coed ssuE for discussion is the process assp . atecl with, a xequest for an extens on of a c'omprehensiv'e permit. AMmgli- the,regulation$ require that.. a con prelieisivE p'erii'd`tbe exerci'Sedwithlnzftee years, 76..0 C11cIR 5.6:05(12) (q) pf-0 ides that ``c~.te~i$gns sl'all iiotbe unreasoti3l~.ly denied" Tl1e rirgtilati~,tis are st;leiit.ctzi.tlie~ precise pzocessazid tt eze . n0. limitation on the amount of tinge. a comprehensive permit can be extended, or on loin want' extensions could be granted. The obvious question is, if Wens lions. should not be unreasonably denied*, wben is at reasonable to deny an extensi:oW) I..h Red Gate Road Realo} Trust ,4 Ty zg..sboroui a 20 ing Boaz (I of A:Ivivii ; No 93 :01 (1V,lass..Hou irtg App eals C6Tn ntttee decisian.. Dcceniber .8', 199~)(e)fferisi'on d:enied. because'tliero was zio actiui.t.Y.fog- foie- years after rite perm:it ivas last rn:odi`ed) the HAC aeidressed for the ]first tune ulzethor rite denial of a request: to -extend, a comprehensive permit. vvas, unreasonable:, ,Tit doing so, the I;LA.CC .4.c:0 t1;: 17 p> oyzdes that aliPeals must be i tied: an ai:ttier tt9i.u.pettQr Gtiurt, Tand C curt or I7:istr•'ict. COWI't. `.A~periiS trUzn decJsons a'aSinnu~ii•aLiv~ agencies are'fiT~d,in rite Sizp~ri~r Court p'ui'si~an't t'a M.G:I.. 7 1 Cam'' stated that; when.: a request for an extension.1s dented, 'the: Boal'd , .has the burden of provhig that there are legitimate be.alft safety, en.vrtoninen'tal or other local c'oncorn ,w icli suppoj't its:.denial; of A.-further. extension of tine perni;it anA that those concerils: outweigh the need for .hoiising.' Roil Guff Road Real~v Trusli ai S: The HAC added drat, "[t]here are two approaches that.:a.Board can take: to justify: Fixst; it eaii poixit to clxailged. a deilia:1 o:f an extension of'a,coniprehensive peroiit. physical eireitiiistazices specific to the, proposed hou:si ag development or the surrounding.. area, Fur instance, ti aff .c flow or gro:un.dwater quah.ties, whic] - x are clcarty legitiixiate local cone-ems, may have deteriorated to a degree-tl at. extending the: permit is not, consistent with local.,needs," Red Gale RwlC,y Dust at 7, The. difficulty associated with. this approach however, is fliat.requ.ests:for exte is .oris of co.inpieliensive'p.enniits arc: not subject to a public hearing, process, and the Board is not authorized to take a.sec.ond l.ool at the comprehensive permit in order to identify new local. concerns:. Therefore it is uncl:ear hpw :suoh. information could. be presented for the Board's consideration, The second app"wach is. for the Board to cot~stdea.;interests of "t n.ioss," dnd. whether "tthe need for closure" demands that the request for an extensionlxe denied so ttiat.the comprehensive permit will terniii1ate. In the Red Gate Realty Pl.wst case, .the: Board, d.eniec~. the extension alleging that the: developex fated to nxake reasonable, efforts to obtaiii.btnlldiiig perxi7fs of to secure :finailciilg for the piolect. The HAC discussed the interests of fa ni.ess as applibdble, to: botli: paities at ].eiigiii.. ice :also, ,ID61phio Associates, LLC i, L)atbuil, 7oningxB' oard of Appieals, No. 03-0.8 (Mass. Housing Appeals Committee decision September 14, 2010) ("considerations of fairness weigh .in. the developer's favor"). In col sldenrig this .appr:.oa.ch theHA:C noted: Seve7711 factors such as the existence: of unusual circumstances thatinight indicate a.heigh:tened need for closure; or:a proposal to mime. adja.ceilt land for-u'ses which may be i coltipatiblb with the con pre on:si peixnJt project. AgQtb.er factor is to consider the c.onduet of tlie.paities thro.ugliout the process,.:for ii~staxice.r is there .evidei oe ofbad faith by one of the pai.des? A third. factor .s. whetbor lbo:. developer acted in reliance oil: the coiiipreheri:sive permit by afitei ipt'hig to secure-oth6f lecessary permits. T e;ffnal factor relates. to the history of the c.oniprehensive pernii t. .leer applying these factors to the facts in. Red Gitt,eReglty :1'inzst,, fire 4-AC. detcriiiined iliat there was no evidence of ba.d faith, that the developer could" not obtain buildbog'perrruts because it. had difficulty securing financing due to a we akened.econoniy, iin the area, atld that although the comprehensive, permit..had been in. effect for five years including one extension,, that a further extension was not unreasonable. See also llir, of Soz.ttl oroitglz° Lirrtited I'tzz ttt:et ship Southborough /3oar<d of ppecils, No. 9M6 (Nlags. Housing.Appe:als Connmittee declsioti Decezxiber 8, 1990 (HA:C ovorruled the denial of an extensions for a coiripreh:enasive permit already in effect for six years, and. granted an eighteen month extension), In orderiiag the extension of the comprehensive permit in thePed Gate ealty Truest iftatter hozvbver, the RAC acknowledged the d' ffic-a.lty I leeping tlae subsidy ~~3 ap:praal praeess;: frraancing:process. and design. px ocess all mt~x=nk;U;.~trd :awazrs coiistructi:oai C t eliase. t o adcli°ess those: issues by oo 'ditioii.i:iag th:o.grarlt: o f exteiisi.on h} linpos.ing. deadlines such. as, r equinng, the .developer to obtain. a. writte i. del en.m.1aation, of project cligtbility NVIthin twelve months, filing proof of a: f Yaneiii,g.cozIull trricilt,with 1:he Board of Appeals w1thi 1 t tclve zixontl s, anci.appi}wag for a buRding.pernitt'with eighteen months. Even. though tli.z extension: request -does: not requi .e a public l caring, i;t i.s mcornme,aded .that the ,Board, engage Mr, Sal.anione in a coiwetsation regardizig the progress :he liar made in fiirflieixng cm strUction of'tlie coiz przLieir:srve Pe.ii .ij.t, grid how.he plarlsto cont7riue su:cll Progress if an e ctens.iaii'is granter . Six quld the Board consid'pr granting an. extension, l strongly encourage the Board to consider. thr;'irnpositiorr of Trust decision,. to keep the pr;aject coriditroris sinii.lar to those in the Red Gate Realty moving 'forward, to consti Liction and: closure., Time limits should be established, for instance, for the. productin. of filial cor stru.ctloii jilaizs, idct tifyirlg a. fin ding source and dernoiistratingProgress towards acquiring status as a limited lability entity, and the Submittal of a.: complete bbd ding permit application- Th.s precise:ti.nre E-.arises sh:oul:d.be identified lased:upon: the Baard'S coiiwersaiiori wx:tli lull. Salanl:oaae. P.lease:don't hesitate to co.iitagt me if the:Board has. atiy other questions, or if I can be of furthor.assistarice in. this inatW. Very 4-- ly yor,irs DIC, . ec: Board of Selectmen U Ellen Callahan Dolicett 4. 10A COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE SAL.IMONE, ) Appellant ) V. ) No-10 . -09 READ ING ZONING BOARD. OF APPEALS,-) Appellee j RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION 1. PROCEDURAL IIISTORY In a decision filed with the town clerk on August 13, 2001, the Reading Zoning Board of Appeals granted Angelo Sa.larnone's application for a comprehensive permit pursuant to G.L. c. 40B, 20-23 to build ten affordable, mixed-income housing units on land at 45 Beacon Street in Reading. Undisputed Fact No. 1; Exh. D. The housing would be financed under the Federal Homo Loan Bank of Boston's New England Fund. E:xh. D, p. 2, $ 4. Abutters appealed the issuance of that permit to the Superior Court. Undisputed Fact No. 2. The appeal was finally resolved when the Appeals Court issued a rescript opvuon, which apparently took place on April 25, 2007. Board's Motion to Dismiss, p. 2; also see Exh. A. The Superior Corot issued a Judgment after Rescript, which «vas dated August 9, 2007 and entered on the Superior Court Docket on August 13, 2007. E-xh. A. 1. "Undisputed Facts" refer to Appellee's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law... (filed Jun. 8, 2011); "Exh." refers to Exhibits attached Appellee's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Laze... (filed Jun. 8, 2011). The Appellant developer has accepted the Appellee Board's Statement of Undisputed Facts. Appellant's Brief, p. 1. t5- On April 23, 2010, the developer applied to the town building commissioner for a building pennit. Exh. B. On May 20, 2010, the building commissioner denied that application. Exh. C. The developer appealed the denial to the Board on June 1, 2010. Exh. F. By decision dated September 16, 2011 and filed the town clerk on September 28, 2010, the Board denied the appeal, and upbeld the building commissioner's denial of a building permit. Initial .Pleading, Exhibit A (filed Oct. 18, 2010). On October 18, 2010, the developer appealed to this Committee. The Board filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the, Committee's jurisdiction had been unproperly pleaded, and that motion was denied by the presiding officer on April 14, 2011. Thereafter, the parties fled cross-motions for summary decision pursuant to 760 CMR 56.06(5)(0). 11. DISCUSSION Initially, the dispute between the parties centered on the building conunissioner's "decision that the comprehensive permit [had] expired." Exch. C. Our regulations state that construction must begin within three years of the date on vsTllieh the permit becomes final, except for good cause. 760 CMR 56.05(12)(c). They state further, however, that "[t]his time period shall be tolled for the time required to pursue or await the determination on any appeal Id. In this case, Judgluent after Rescript was dated and entered on the Superior Court Docket in August 2007. Exh. A. Thus, because of tolling, the three-year period extended until August 2010. The developer filed his application for a building permit well within that period-in April 2010-and therefore the building commissioner's decision in May 2010 that the comprehensive permit had expired was in error. 111 fact, the Board now "concedes that the commissioner initially erred in determining the date upon which the comprehensive perinit became .final." Board's Brief, p. 5 (tiled Jun. 8, 2011). The Board goes on, however, to argue that the denial of the building permit was proper because it stated additional reasons, namely that the application was not accompanied by the requisite fee, adequate construction plans, and proof of compliance with certain of the conditions included in the original comprehensive permit. There is not absolute clarity about what was submitted with the application, about what level of detail is custornarily expected in Reading with regard to routine requirements, or about whether certain requirements specific to this comprehensive permit were complied with. I a' G Nevertheless. it is wa.disputed that the application was not complete. Specifically, the developer has accepted Condition 19, wliich requires that a condominium master deed be submitted for approval prior to issu.arnce of the building permit. The developer has also accepted the 'Board's statement of undisputed facts, which state that such a deed was not submitted. Undisputed Fact No. 10. This failure to submit the master deed is, alone, sufficient to support the building'conunissioner's denial of the building permit. 2 Thus, with regard to denial of the building perrn.it, the Board's Motion for Summary decision is GRANTED. This does not end the matter, however. The developer has requested a ruling that the comprehensive permit remains valid. In that regard, it is also clear from tuid.isputed facts that the application was submitted four months before the deadline set in the comprehensive permit for commencement of construction. The necessary doctitnentation to complete the application might well have been submitted and the full fee paid in that time. ; oid even if they had not been, the developer had the right to ask that the permit be extended, and such an extension "may not be unreasonably denied...." 760 CMR 56.05(12)(c). Since the Board has conceded, above, that the building commissioner erred in calculating the expiration date of the permit, it is clear that the comprehensive permit was valid at The time of application. Expiration of the permit is tolled while the developer appealed that detual to the Board and then this Committee. See, e.g., Forestview Estates Assoc., Inc. v. Doublas, No. 05-23 (Mass. Housing Appeals Committee Mar. 5, 2007). Thus, the permit remains valid at present. The parties agree that the tolling period should be calculated from June 1, 2010. Developer's Brief, p. 2 (filed Jun. 14, 2011); Board's Brief, p. 7. The pernnit would have expired ,'august 1.0, 2010, and thus, the pennit will i°xpire slightly over two months after the tolling period ends, that is, after this decision becomes final. 3 'The developer's motion for summary decision with regard to the validity 2. Other facts are less clear cut, The developer acknowledges.. for instance that an application fee was not paid, but argues that the fee was tendered, but rejected by the building commissioner; the Board appears to dispute this. Similarly, whether detailed plans, stamped by a structural engineer, for a retaining wall (required by comprehensive permit condition 6) were provided appears to be in' dispute. 3. Having issued this decision affirming the validity of a comprehensive,permit, we expect that the parties will take the appropriate actions necessary to proceed to construction. lf, however, further C1.11 4 of the comprehensive permit is GRA':~l FED, and., specifically, we rule that if this decision is not appealed; the permit is valid until October 18, 2011. As a practical matter, however, it may well be that the developer will be unable to submit a completed application and begin construction by October. If that is the case, and if he .files a request for an extension of the pennit prior to the expiration date, we would expect that such an extension would be granted.. See 760 CMR 56.05(12)(e). An extension for a mininium of one year would not appear at all unreasonable.. See, e.g., Red Crude Ruud Realty Trust v, Tvngsborough, No. 93-01 (Mass. Housing Appeals Committee Dec. 8, 1993). This decision may be reviewed. in accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 40B, S 22 and G.L. c. 30A by instituting an action ua the Superior Court within 30 days of receipt of the decision. Housing Appeals Couim.ittee t t Date: August 8, 2011 Verner Lohe, Chairman _v Joseph P. T1enef LPclr disputes develop, we hereby authorize the presiding officer to act to enforce this decision and ensure prompt issuance of a. building permit. See 760 CMR 56.06(7)(e)(2), 1 Gv,;/