Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-20 Board of Selectmen Packet - Part 4TOWN OF READING t • .r U, MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MUNICIPAL BUILDING READING. MASS. 01887 TO: Board of Selectmen MEMORANDUM FROM: A.V. Fletcher, P.E., Superintendent DATE: September 25, 1985 RE: Nike Site DOUGLASS L. BARKER, Chairman BARRY E. HAMPSON, Secretary ARTHUR POLYCHROA'ES ROBERT P. GRIFFIN L R. BOUCHER A. V. FLETCHM P.M. Superintendent In evaluating the Nike Site for use as a Public Works Facility, the following items should be considered as serious impediments to any planned timetable. a. Construction of an industrial complex in the Ipswich River Watershed. Downstream water users, and in particular, the Ipswich River Water Commission, can ask for a MEPA review. I am advised by several users that this will happen. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs must respond to this request in 90 days with his determination of condition at which time the proponent (The Town of Reading) has 90 days to respond. Appeals can be made by either party. If an appeal is made regarding local conservation regulations however, the appeal must be in Superior Court. The odds of getting a "quick" hearing are slim. There are several basis upon which a MEPA review can be requested by any person, or groups. For example, the Town of Reading requests a MEPA review of Riverpark 93 and the Secretary required that an Environmental Notice be filed, and subsequently required an Environmental Impact Statement. This process has been underway for one (1) year and is, at a minimum, another year from being resolved. The expense to the Town of Reading has been in the area of $35,000 and to the developer close to $500,000. In addition to all of the above, the Town of Reading would become a proponent of an industrial facility in an environmentally sensitive area, while actively being an opponent to a project in the same watershed. There is a strong possibility that legal means will be used that can effectively delay the construction of a BPW Facility for two (2) to three (3) years. Memorandum September 25, 1985 Page 2 b. Access The present 30.5' easement meets Haverhill Street at a 90° angle and there is no available land for turning radius. When the Government took this easement, provisions were made for screening and drainage swales within the easement. It is virtually impossible to widen the 16' -0" pavement given those terms. Two plow mounted trucks could not pass each other and the swing from Haverhill Street would be dangerous for our vehicles and impossible for a tractor trailer or large low bed delivering pipe, gravel or'stone to make. In addition, the Town of Reading, acting through the Board of Survey, expressly prohibits a road less than 40 feet in width which must also have a turning radius not less than 30 feet on each side. Precedent would be established for all future planned developments to violate this requirement. To permit an entry such as the existing one would be in violation of all sound engineering and planning criteria. C. The Board of Public Works schedule of events to be in place to meet the TASC agreement is based on development of the John Street site only. The possibility of accomodating time consuming events at Nike Site-preclude establishing a meaningful schedule. AVF:cmk NC�9v r, ,.,7 ADJOURNED SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School November 14, 1985 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Stephen J. O'Leary, at 7:40 P.M., there being a quorum present. The Invocation was given by the Rev. S. Lester Ralph, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. table. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Paul C. Dustin it was voted to take Article 1 from the ARTICLE 1. On motion of Paul C. Dustin, the following report presented by John W. Agnew, Jr. for the Task Force was accepted as a report of progress. REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON RELOCATION OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS November 14, 1985 PREFACE In doing this study and report, certain premises were determined by the Task Force Although the Task Face realizes there has been controversy regarding the need for all the facilities as requested by the D.P.W., they did not feel any determination along these lines was in their charge from Town Meeting. Indeed they did not feel they had the knowledge or time to make any such decisions. All costs of land acquisition, right -of -way, or other costs that would have to be negotiated and that are given in this report are only estimates. The estimates are based on information for similar costs in other projects and were obtained from engineers, realtors, etc., who are knowledgeable in the field. The Task Force felt it had no authority to enter negotiations with anyone. The Task Force briefly considered sites in other locations in Town that have already been considered. It did so, however, not as a possible option for a full permanent site, but only if perhaps some small part of the DPW functions might be located away from the main facility. No conclusions were drawn. When I took the job as Chairman of the Task Force, I must admit I was somewhat apprehensive as the members initially seemed almost diametrically opposed in their philosophies regarding a solution to the problem. I was delighted to find that everyone did their best, exploring with equal effort all possibilities. The Town has a right to be thankful they have such citizens, and I am grateful to them and honored to have served with them. BIGGIO SITE DESCRIPTION John W. Agnew, Jr., Chairman TASK FORCE COMMITTEE The Biggio land consists of approximately 5.01 acres of land with .6 acres as a developed house lot with a 175 foot frontage on Ash Street and the remainder undeveloped. From Its Ash Street frontage the northwest property line abutts residential property running in a northeasterly direction for about 165 feet. At this point the line turns about 90 degrees running northwesterly along the rear of the abutting residential property for about 160 feet. Making an opposite 90 degree turn, it again runs northeasterly for about 650 feet abutting industrial properties and ends at the railroad tracks. The rear property line at the northeast of the lot abutts the railroad tracks for about 350 feet, making another approximate 90 degree turn to the southwest back to Ash Street. This property line abutts Transitron industrial land for about 665 feet, and then residential property to Ash Street for about 245 feet. The front portion consisting of .6 acres is a developed house lot with a residential house. At the rear of this lot the topography of the land drops from about 117 feet to about 85 feet. Fortunately, however, the major part of this drop is in the first 50 feet. A borderline vegetated wetlands consisting of about an acre runs through the center of the rear portion of the land with the wettest part abutting the railroad tracks. Currently the only access to the property is from the Ash Street frontage. t-1 3 368 THE STUDY The Task Force approached this property as a possible site from four different concerns: cost of development, access to the property, environmental concerns, and potential for siting the proposed DPW facility on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Wetlands - The wetland area on this site is approximately one acre in size (see Exhibit A). wet and area receives runoff from the upland watershed of the northern side of Ash Street. A defined channel running through the wetland basin directs the water flow toward the railroad tracks. The wetland area is extremely flat and water moves through the site slowly. The site also has been disturbed by human activity. In some sections, the topsoil has been removed and the natural vegetation resultingly altered. The State law defines the boundaries of wetlands by the existing vegetation. Predominant wetland plants on the site include: Buckhorn Arrowwood Sensitive Fern Purple Loosestrife Swamp Maple Tussock Sedge Black Alder Swamp White Oak Joe -Pye Weed American Elm Wetland Implications - Due to the wetland and floodplain conditions on this site, it would be necessary to relocate the wetlands to a site on the property abutting the railroad. Three different types of permits would be required. 1. Army Corps of Engineers, 404 Permit issued under the Federal Clean Water Act (application delay period = 60 -90 days). This permit would be for the filling of a wetland area and would involve an assessment of the potential impacts of this proposed activity on the quality of the adjoining and downstream water. 2. Water Quality Certificate. This is a State permit Issued by the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE). This permit is required prior to the issuance of the 404 Permit referred to above and the application delay period is 90 days. 3. State Wetlands Protection Act (application delay period = 90-120 days). This proposed project calls for the alteration of more than the allowable maximum of wetlands under the State Regulations (max. = 3000 sq. ft.). Therefore, a variance from the limitations of this specific regulation would be required. This request for a variance would be directed to the Commissioner of the DEQE for his approval. The request for a variance should include the following information: (a) a description of alternatives explored that would allow the project to proceed in compliance with the regulation(s), and an explanation why each is unreasonable; (b) a description of the mitigating measures to be used to contribute to the protection of the wetland interests identified in the Wetland Protection Act; and (c) evidence that an overriding public interest is associated with the project which justifies waiver of the regulation. Significant Interests - The wetland area of the Biggio property is presumed to be significant to groundwater supply, to flood control, to storm damage prevention, and to the prevention of pollution. The site must be studied to determine the actual wetland value of these specific Interests. A request for a variance, as described above, should demonstrate that the subject site does not provide the wetland value that is presumed as a part of the Regulations. Also, the request for a variance must provide a replicated wetland area that will function as well or better than the original. - Runoff Problems: The Biggio property presently is wooded and offers significant percolation for stormwater runoff. The proposed DPW facility, however, would require the paving and roofing of major areas of the site. This Inevitable increase In stormwater runoff (per unit time) would be required to be detained in a pond -like basin. It is estimated that somewhere between one -half and three - quarters of an acre would be required for this utility. What the Regulations Mean: Environmentally, the Biggio property has significant problems for its potential use as a DPW facility. From the outset, an alteration of the quantity of wetlands proposed is outside the allowable tolerances of the State AM RFgt s Th a variance must bq requested from the State. we�hgly. "lthe variance request will only be considered if the "l (9' Adjauned & bsequent Tom Meeti 3 59 ng Novanber 14, 1985 Biggio property is a politically acceptable solution to the Town's siting of its DPW facility. Other permits which are necessary quite possibly present less problems than the variance procedure. It goes without saying, that any attempt to apply for permits and variances would require the unanimous cooperation of Town government and the Public. Summation: The Biggio property presents serious environmental constraints. The fact that the site preparation work for this site is outside the limits of the State permit process casts serious doubt as to the feasibility of the project. Once the means of access to this site is settled, the next major hurdle will be the request to alter more than six times the allowable maximum of wetland area. The process for this permitting will require a period of four months and will demand enlightened preparation and political lobbying. ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY The Task Force examined the access problem from two points. First, an access road from John Street with a right -of -way over the railroad tracks, and second, from a right -of - way off Ash Street. From a practical viewpoint the only site for a road from John Street to the rall tracks would be along the property line of Boston Stove and the new TASC land. This is a distance of about 950 feet. It would require a negotiated sale from TASC for the land. There were two approaches to crossing the tracks: the first by a bridge, and the second a grade crossing. Different types of bridge construction were examined from a pier to a sloped fill section, as well as the amount of land needed for a bridge siting, and vehicle maneuverability getting off and on at the Biggio side. Estimated costs ran from One to Three and One Half Million Dollars. In addition, the bridge siting and access used up acres of land. Although the B&M and MBTA favored a bridge over other types of crossing, the Task Force rejected this option as too costly and not practical. The second approach was a grade crossing which meant crossing four tracks at the location considered. A rubberized crossing with signals and gates was proposed. Through the efforts of Representative Geoff Beckwith we met with appropriate State Officials to discuss the possibilities of crossing and to determine what steps and procedures are necessary to gain State approval. Meetings were held with Tom Hubbard from the Governor's Economic Development Office, Eugene Sullivan, Jr., MBTA Director of Railroad Operations; and Daniel Breen, MBTA Assistant Chief Engineering Officer. As a result of these meetings it was learned that two public hearings are necessary. The first is before the Middlesex County Commissioners, at which time the Town and the MBTA present their case for the Commissioner's approval. This has been scheduled for December 3, 1985. The second is before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. Prior to this hearing the Town must request and pay for a study of costs to construct a grade crossing which must be done by the MBTA. The cost for this will be $1500. It should be pointed out that if a crossing is approved, the MBTA will handle all construction, although the Town will pay for It. It should also be pointed out that the MBTA and the B&M are very reluctant to approve any grade crossings, including this one and that only rarely are these approved. Nevertheless, the Task Force feels there is a possibility for an approval. Once across the track the crossing would end on land now owned by Transitron. It should be noted that in September of this year Transitron had no permanent industrial access to their property. At that time the Reading Board of Appeals allowed a variance to them to cross residentially zoned property on Ash Street as a permanent access. This is currently being contested in court by the residents of Ash Street. The amount of land needed for this crossing is more or less academic, as at this location part of the Transitron land will be needed to site the DPW facility. This will be taken up later in this report relating to siting. It should also be pointed out that the cost of a crossing can be treated as a betterment with part of this being charged to Transitron. The Task Force spent a good deal of time trying to determine the cost of a grade crossing access as discussed. Although some discussions were held with the principals regarding the Biggio and Transitron land, there were no formal negotiations started or made. No meetings were held with TASC. As a result, any cost figures here are only estimates made from material gathered from realtors, engineers, etc. It should also be kept in mind that all work must be done under law at the prevailing wage rate, at State and Federal specifications, and by MBTA and B&M work crews. Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting An estimated cost is as follows: Cost of road construction from John Street to tracks $ 103,000 Cost of Right -of -Way from John Street to tracks 240,000 Cost of Utilities 105,000 Water - 16,000 20,000 Sewer - 20,000 20,000 Gas - 9,000 11,000 Electric - 60,000 175,000 Cost of Crossing - Rubberized with Signals 650,000 and Gates (minus Betterment Cost to Transitron) Cost of Transitron Property (See Siting) Cost of Railroad Right -Of -Way 100,000 TOTAL $1,198,000 Novanber 14, 1985 In addition, maintenance costs and inspection fees for the crossing will run approximately $15 to $20 Thousand per year. The cost of the Railroad Right -of -Way is not known. Several points of access from Ash Street were briefly discussed, but considered too controversial to be seriously considered with one exception. That exception was a proposed right -of -way off Ash Street across and between the south end of land currently owned by Lux at 238 Ash Street and land currently owned by Shurman at 246 Ash Street. This right - of-way would run in an easterly direction to the end of the Lux property and turn southerly about 80 feet across land now owned by Babcock and then across land owned by Paulson to the Biggio property (see Exhibit B). This right -of -way would be on industrial zoned property. If this Is seriously considered and not negotiated, the Task Force would recommend taking by eminent domain. Costs associated with this as an access option are as follows: Roadway Construction (with full curbing but no sidewalks, due to lack of proper width). $ 52,000 Electrical 60,000 Water Main Construction 20,000 Sewer Main Construction 20,000 Gas Main Construction 11,000 Right -of -Way Costs 175,000 TOTAL $339,000 Consideration was given to the portion of Biggio property fronting on Ash Street. Because of the sharp grade at the rear of the house lot, this idea was rejected. The Task Force did not really consider the Ash Street access as an ideal access. Among other things would be traffic problems created at the junction of Ash and Main Streets. The third consideration was determining a foot print for siting the DPW facilities on the property (see Exhibts A do C). Two separate siting plans were made by the DPW. The first was with office space, and the second without. The first plan would involve taking approximately 4.32 acres of Transitron land. It would also involve relocating the wetland vegetate area to a storm water storage area consisting of about an acre next to the railroad tracks at the northeast side of the Biggio property. In looking at Exhibit A, the arrows by the shop areas, maintenance and heated vehicle storage indicate door bays. The area outlined in a dotted line and stating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands would be an outdoor storage area for pipe, sand, etc. The buildings are located to act as a shield to obscure this I 6ri t 0 J n Adjourned Subsequent Tom Meeting November 14, 1985 J1 ' unsightly yard area from Transitron, keeping in mind future development of the Transitron property. There is really little room to place the DPW buildings in another formation. The site topography with the steep embankment on the west side (see dotted line edge of embankment) has the rear of the heated vehicle storage building acting as a retaining wall against the embankment. To the east are relocated wetlands. In the second siting by eliminating the office building and, therefore, the need for office parking space, some land Is gained, but not much. Borings were taken by the Task Force at four points, basically one at the proposed salt storage, cold storage, shop area, and vehicle storage. It would appear that a normal foundation design could be utilized at this site. .. Cost of development for the Biggio / Transitron site are estimated as follows: Clear and grub 7 acres at $1,000 $ 7,000 Strip and remove loam 12,000 c.y. at $3.50 42,000 Excavate and remove surplus 20,000 c.y. at $3.75 75,000 Relocate wetland Excavate and dispose 1,500 c.y. at $3.50 5,250 Replace loam 1,500 c.y. at $1.25 1,875 Vegetation L.S. 15,000 Compensatory Area Excavate and dispose 700 c.y. at $3.50 2,450 Fine grade 20,000 s.f. at $.05 1,000 Control structure L.S. 6,500 TOTAL $156,075 Finally, full cost options for acquiring, preparing and developing access to this site were compared. Option No. 1 With Rail Crossing Cost of acquiring Blggio land without house and Cost of acquiring Transitron land $ 900,000 Cost of Access with Rail Crossing 1,198,000 Cost of land development 156,075 TOTAL $2,254,075 Option No. 2 Access from Ash Street Cost of acquiring Biggio land without house and Cost of acquiring Transitron land $ 900,000 Cost of access from Ash Street 338,000 Cost of land development 156,075 TOTAL $1,394,075 GENERAL TIRE DESCRIPTION The General Tire Plant is a large rambling light manufacturing plant with buildings having a total area of about 260,000 square feet. The land is zoned Industrial and access is from a road leading to the plant from John Street near Boston Stove. The southerly line of the lot abutts the railroad tracks; the easterly side Boston Stove; the northerly side John Street and Bolton Street; and the northwesterly side Cerretani's Supermarket. The facility is made up of many separate buildings of different design and construction and obviously was developed over a long period of time. The major amount of floor space is + four feet above grade, and the design criteria is for light diversified manufacturing. Column spacings vary from building to building, as do elevations. The buildings at the south q(rCt 7 Adjourned Subsequent Tcwn Meeting November 14, 1985 end are of fairly "modern" construction: steel columns, structural steel, metal deck, concrete floors and sprinklers. Column spacing varies from 24' x NY, 16' x 181, to 16' x 161. Walls are generally 6" and 8" concrete block raised to the metal deck. Windows are quite closely spaced. DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES The plant has recently been bought by Damon Industries of Watertown, MA, a manufacturing company making metal fastenings. It is the company's intention to use 1009000 sq. ft. of the 260,000 sq. ft. available. The company is renovating the building through industrial revenue bonds and a U.D.A.G. grant. Some of the remaining space has already been leased. Members of the Task Force spoke with the owner, Mr. George Danis, who offered as the only space available for a DPW facility an area in the northeast corner of the lot along with approximately 1.8 acres of yard. (See Exhibit D). Although no serious discussions were held with Mr. Danis, he indicated that portion of the plant would rent for about $3.42 per sq. ft. Given the amount of space needed, this would be approximately $200,000 per year. A great deal of renovation would be needed before the space could be used. Some of the required work is as follows: 1. Garage door openings made (none exist) and overhead doors installed. 2. Ramps into the building would have to be constructed, and these would only be allowed in the small yard area, cutting more space for outside storage. 3. Truck, garage and shop areas would have to be separated by two (2) hour fire walls and doors necessitating new interior footings. 4. Major sprinkler, heating and window modifications are necessary, and a complete ventilation system would have to be installed. S. Office partitioning would have to be made, along with wiring, etc. If all of the above were accomplished, there would still be a major obstacle which is the columns. Their spacing would make it very difficult for vehicle maneuvering. In fact, more space than normal would be needed for any maneuvering. CONCLUSION I When first considering this building, the Task Force had in mind a ten year lease. It was felt that this would immediately solve the time problem of the DPW move and would allow time needed to explore other possibilities. It was also felt that within the ten year period the Town's financial picture would have Improved considerably with an increased tax base resulting from the landfill development. It became apparant that this option would be too costly. Estimated renovations could run as high as One Million Dollars and this done on property we would not own. In addition, even with the renovations there would be the column problems, as well as outside storage space. JOHN STREET SITE Much has been written and discussed concerning this site, and It is not the intention of this report to be redundant in reviewing the possibility. For its deliberation the Task Force looked at this site for comparative purposes of the site only and the ramifications of its use In the proposed development of the Town's industrial land. For comparative analysis the Task Force used a site preparation cost figure of One Million Dollars for this site. THE REVENUE CONSIDERATIONS The Task Force felt from the beginning of its deliberations that not only must a site be feasible from a cost and utilization standpoint, but also that it not impede the revenue potential of an expanded tax base for the Town through Industrial development. The Town faces a financial crisis with very little light at the end of a long tunnel. On one side the Town is tightly restricted in its ability to raise revenue, and on the other side a series of rising costs and lost revenue over which It has no control. Liability insurance, health insurance, pensions, water and sewer rates, architectural barriers, mandates, environmental mandates, Fair Labor Standards Act mandates, are all costs over which we have no control and are rising faster each year than the Town is allowed to increase revenue under Proposition 2%. To add to the problem is the potential loss of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and cost of living Increases to employees. The so called "Doom and Gloom" report of the Finance Committee (see Exhibit E) is If anything optimistic. Nor will the current projected sale of land in itself answer the problem (see Exhibit F). In addition the Town faces other building problems. The Central Fire Station is not structually sound to house proposed new equipment. The sale of the Community Center means the cost of new quarters for the Town offices housed there. I &�e Adjourned Subsequent 4bam Meeting November 14, 1985 373 The Town has only three means to meet these problems: override of Proposition 214 which has already been rejected, large cuts in service the Town already has rejected, small cuts such as the elimination of the dog officer, or increasing its tax base. In regards to the latter, the Town has eliminated most residential expansion through zoning and conservation which leaves industrial development. It is for these reasons the Task Force spent a good deal of its time relating the DPW location and its Impact on the industrial zoned area at John Street. FINANCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LANDFILL The landfill is a vital resource for the future financial stability of the Town of Reading. Its importance is seen in two ways: in the financial gains that it can yield in its own right and in the effect that the landfill will have on enhancing the development potential of our entire 90 acre industrial area. Be assured on two points - first, there IS a demand for additional first -class office park and hotel development along the Route T28 belt, as the Planning Board's consultant showed; and second, there are a number of well- known developers who have expressed serious interest in developing the landfill. The Task Force, with the assistance of the Industrial Development Commission, has prepared some estimates of the land sales and tax revenues which the Town can expect to realize over the next ten years from development of the landfill (see Exhibit G). Three different development scenarios are portrayed here, the top two with the DPW on the landfill, and the bottom one, without the DPW there. Scenario IA represents the most likely type of development one can expect next to the DPW: average - quality motel and R&D facilities. Scenario 1H represents a far less likely outcome, with the assumption that a first -class hotel Is built next to the DPW and that top- quallty office buildings occupy the remainIng landfill. Scenario 2 represents the most likely type of development if the DPW is moved off the landfill. In this scenario, first -class office space shares the front of the landfill with a quality hotel, with further office development of similar quality being built on the rear of the landfill In three years. A comparision of land sales revenues for these scenarios shows values of $1.9 Million from Scenario IA, $4.4 Million from Scenario 1H, and $7.8 Million from Scenario 2. The first revenues, which result from sale of the front dump land along John Street, are Predicted to occur in FY 88, Under Scenario IA these revenues are $1.2 Million, while under Scenario 2 they are $3.6 Million. This is a difference of $4.4 Million in land sales revenues two years down the road. When land sale revenues from the back of the landfill and tax revenues from both front and rear are added, the difference between Scenarios IA and 2 widens to $16 Million over a 10 year period and to $39 Million over a 20 year period. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS After reviewing all of these studies, the Task Force reached the following conclusions: GENERAL TIRE PROPERTY The Task Force rejected this as an option. The potential modification cost of a Million Dollars, plus the fact that with modifications there is not adequate yard space and the column problem made the site impractical. BIGGIO PROPERTY The possibilities of this as an option are dependent upon obtaining permission for a rail crossing and permission to relocate the wetlands. The prospects of obtaining a rail crossing are not good. The environmental process for receiving permission to relocate the wetlands is a fragile one. At any one of the steps that have to be taken for this process, problems can occur. The site as proposed does not offer many options for modifications or expansion due to the topography and wetlands. This should be taken into consideration if future plans for expansion are considered. It should also be noted the Task Force felt that TASC would hardly be enthusiastic at the prospect of a fleet of trucks crossing their property every day. TASC has been rapidly expanding and has indicated they might want to build a third building. They have already rented the new office space at Boston Stove. "l �a l Adjourned aftegtmt 4bam Meeting November 14, 1985 Last but not least, this option is expensive. The rail crossing option would add $1.2 Million for site cost over the $�1 MillIon site preparation figure at John Street. The Ash Street option would add approximtely $200,000 for site costs over the site preparation at John Street. Some members of the Task Force felt that in spite of the additional cost this was a good investment, if based against the possible $9 Million extra the John Street site would produce without the DPW facility. The Ash Street costs do not include any costs which might arise for legal expenses arising from litigation on the takings. If the Ash Street option was taken, the traffic problems at the junction of Ash and Main Streets would still persist. i RECOMMENDATIONS During the review process a feeling developed that the Town had lost control Every option seemed to rest on the decisions of outside influences. Cost of land acquisitions, permits, right -of -ways, time restraints all seemed to be being determined by others. It became apparent that it is extremely difficult to bargain or negotiate with tight time and financial restraints. In its final deliberating the Task Force felt it was time for the Town to take back the initiative and to have the parties bargaining with us and not us with them. The Task Force felt the best way to accompish this and to solve many problems at the same time was to send out the R.F.P: s (Request For Proposals) to national and international development companies offering them the opportunity to present to the Town their best plan to develop our entire industrial area. Attached to the R.F.P. would be a condition of linkage where it would be up to the developer to determine how the DPW facilities would be part of his plan. The Task Force recognizes that neither it, nor the Town, are experts in this field. The developers have the experience, money, and political know how necessary for the project. Let's use It This is not the first time the Town has used linkage. The sale of the Community Center included the Developer accommodating the Elderly Drop -In Center. The Adams -Gentile property swap involved accommodating low income housing. The Task Force feels with the right R.F.P., developer Initiative will provide several solutions to the DPW question. One such scenario might Include a four story office building with a garage on the first floor to house the DPW facilities. In this scenario site costs could be reduced to the Town, but there are many other alternatives. Fortunately 80% of such an R.F.P. has been done by our Industrial Development Committee with all information concerning the site. Such an R.F.P could be sent out in December with replies due back by the end of February and negotiations taking place with a recommendation to the Annual Town Meeting. If this recommendation is followed through, other benefits to the Town will accrue. A timetable of development will be realized enabling the Finance Committee and the Town to know the time of revenue projections and be able to plan. Even if there is some delay in the TASC timetable, the cost involved is certainly not greater than the alternatives we have been studying. It should also be considered that TASC itself has much to gain from a well thought out and planned development. The vote of the Task Force was unanimous to send out the R.F.P.'s and the follow through. The Task Force also voted to proceed with the two hearing processes that have been requested for the rail crossing as outlined in the Biggio option. y §(6-0 Respectfully submitted, TASK FORCE COMMITTEE Board of Selectmen John W. Agnew, Jr., Chairman Paul C. Dustin John H. Russell Charles A. Darby Board of Public Works Douglass L. Barker Robert P. Griffin Anthony V. Fletcher Conservation Commission Camille V. Anthony Charles T. Costello Planning Board Maureen Rich Michael F. Slezak Industrial Development Comm. Daniel A. Ensminger Donald C. Stroeble Curt E. NItzsche State Representative Geoffrey C. Beckwith Finance Committee Donald C. Allen Brian J. McMenamin y §(6-0 0 J � 1� Novenber 14, 1985 375 ARTICLE I. The following Five Year Plan prepared by the FinCom, was presented by Philip B. Pacino as part of the study being made by the "Task Force" on the the Department of Public Works. relocation of Mr. Moderator: The FinCom as part of the study being made by the Task Fora on relocating the DPW has prepared a Five Year Plan relating to the sale of real estate funds. SALE OF REAL ESTATE FUNDS Year Worst Case FY 1986 Presently available $1,666,500 FY 1987 Community Center sale 1,117, 000 FY 1988 Bear Hill sale 1,117,000 John Street Landfill sale- 1,200,000 front section only FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 John Street Landfill sale - rear section only TOTAL JZLM3 500 Probable Ben Case Case $1,666,500 $ 1,666,500 1,117,000 1,117,000 1,200,000 1,800,000 1,170,000 3,600,000 700,000* 2,100,000* S 833 300 $12,283,500 The FinCom prepared 3 possible scenarios. The first is the worst case. This would be if no additional property is sold. The second is the probable case. This would be what the FinCom could conservatively expect to happen given certain assumptions. The third case is what we could expect to happen if everything worked perfectly. For FY86, presently available is what the Town has on hand from the sale of the TASC property, a portion of the landfill site sold to McManus and the sale of the Depot, less the funds used to fund the current operational budget. For FY87, the Community Center sale is the amount set forth in the present P do S Agreement on the property. For FY88, the Bear Hill sale figures are based, under the probable case, on two buildings of 60 units each possibly being built and, under the best case, on three buildings of 60 units each. A neighbor to this property, Summit Towers, built three buildings on their property. The Bear Hill property has a similar acreage to the Summit Tower property. However, FInCom, not being architects, is unsure three buildings will fit on the Bear Hill property- The John Street landfill sale - front section only figures are calculated with the DPW garage on the landfill site under the probable case and with the DPW garage not on the landfill site under the best case. For FY90, the John Street landfill sale - rear section only is calculated on the same assumptions as the front section. The probable case has the DPW garage on the landfill. The best case has the DPW not on the landfill. The FinCom has asterisked this sale due to the possible problems relating to possible DEQE requirements. If required this would certainly have an effect on the sale involving both timing and price. I want to thank the assessors, the members of the IDC and Ben Nichols of the Land Bank Committee for their assistance in preparing this Five Year Plan. On motion of Paul C. Dustin it was voted to lay Article 1 on the table. ARTICLES 11 do 12. On motion of Paul C- Dustin It was voted to take Article 11 and 12 from the table. 11. ARTICLE 11. On motion of Maureen Rich it was voted to Indefinitely postone Article q X11) I Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 1985 ARTICLE 12. On motion of Maureen Rich it was voted to indefinitely postpone Article 12. ARTICLE 33. On motion of Paul C. Dustin it was voted that Article 33 be taken up out of order. ARTICLE 33. On motion of Daniel A. Ensminger it was voted that the sum of Six Thousand ($6,000) Dollars be transferred from the Overlay Reserve and appropriated for the purpose of marketing the John Street Industrial Area with provisions for the location of a new Department of Public Works facility. Said sum to be expended under the direction of the Industrial Development Commission, with the concurrence of the Task Force for the relocation of the Department of Public Works. On motion of Michael A. Pacillo it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned to meet at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, November 18th, 1985, in the Memorial High School auditorium. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. 126 Town Meeting Members were present. A true copy. Attest: Lawrence Drew Town Clerk c. Cpl 3 q &`p2, 0 REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON RELOCATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 14, 1985 Board of Selectmen Board of Public Works Conservation Commission Planning Board Industrial Development Commission State Representative Finance Committee TASK FORCE John W. Agnew, Jr.,Chairman Paul C. Dustin John H. Russell Charles A. Darby Douglass L. Barker Robert P .` Griffin Anthony V. Fletcher Camille V. Anthony: Charles T. Costello Maureen Rich Michael F. Slezak Daniel A. Ensminger Donald C. Stroeble Curt E. Nitzsche Geoffrey C. Beckwith Donald C. Allen Brian J. McManamin q -/ 03 TOWN C L E R K READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 MUNICIPAL BUILDING IAwrenoe Drew 617 - 942.0500 Town CIWk ADJOURNED SPECIAL TOWN MEETING October 3, 1985 ARTICLE 2. On motion of Elizabeth W. Klepeis as amended by John W. Price, it was voted that Town Meeting instruct the Board of Selectmen to establish a Task Force consisting of a representative or representatives of the Board of Selectmen, Board of Public Works, the Planning Board, the Conservation Commission, the Industrial Development Commission and the Representative of the General Court. The Finance Committee shall appoint a liaison to this Task Force. The Board of Selectmen shall Chair said Task Force and each above- mentioned Board or Commission shall have one vote (regardless of the number of representatives serving). The Task Force shall . be charged with reviewing the land -currently zoned for industry located o I f Ash Street known as the Biggio property, and any or all contiguous, property for the purpose of establishing a site for t-he Reading Board of Public Works facility. Said Task Force shall report back its findings to the November Town Meeting. This motion, as amended, was voted in the affirmative. A true copy. Attest: - Lawrence Drew Town Clerk -1- q 61 b [ PREFACE In doing this study and report certain premises were determined by the Task Force. Although the Task Force realizes there has been controversy regarding the need for all the facilities as requested by the B.P.W., they did not feel any determination along these lines was in their charge from Town Meeting. Indeed they did not feel they had the knowledge or time to make any such decisions. All costs of land acquisition, right -of -way, or other costs that would have to be negotiated and that are given in this report are only estimates. The estimates are based on information for similar costs in other projects, and were obtained from engineers, realtors, etc., who are knowledgeable in the field. The Task Force felt it had no authority to enter negotiations with anyone. The-Task force briefly considered sites in other locations in Town that have already been considered. It did so,however, not as a possible option for a full permanent site, but only if perhaps some small part of the DPW functions might be located away from the main facility. No con- clusions were drawn. When I took the job as Chairman of the Task Force, I must admit I was somewhat apprehensive as the members initially seemed almost diametri- cally opposed in their philosophies regarding a solution to the problem. I was delighted to find.that everyone did their best, exploring with equal effort all possibilities. The Town has a right to be thankful they have such citizens, and I am grateful to them and honored to have served with them. John W. Agnew, Jr. Task Force Chairman -2- L, (� t uS RTn nTn RTTp npGf RTPTTnm The Biggio land consists of approximately 5.01 acres of land with .6 acres as a developed house lot with a 175 foot frontage on Ash Street and the remainder undeveloped. From its Ash Street frontage the northwest property line abutts residential property running in a northeasterly direction for about 165 feet. At this point the line turns about 90° running northwesterly along the rear of the abutting residential property for about 160 feet. Making an opposite 90° turn, it again runs northeasterly for about 650 feet abutting industrial properties and ends at the railroad tracks. The rear property line at the northeast of the lot abutts the railroad tracks for about 350 feet, making another approximate 90° turn to the southwest back to Ash Street. This property line abutts Transition industrial land for about 665 feet, and then residential property to Ash Street for about 245 feet. The front portion consisting of .6 acres is a developed house lot with a residential house. At the rear of this lot the topography of the land drops from about 117 feet to about 85 feet. Fortunately, however, the major part of this drop is in the first 50 feet. A borderline vegetated wetlands consisting of about an acre runs through the center of the rear portion of the land with the wettest part abutting the railroad tracks. Currently the only access to the property is from the Ash Street frontage. THE STUDY The Task Force approached this property as a possible site from four different concerns: cost of development, access to the property, environ- mental concerns, and potential for siting-the proposed DPW facility on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Wetlands - The wetland area on this site is approximately one acre in size (see exhibit A). The wetland area receives runoff from the upland watershed of the northern side of Ash Street. A defined channel running through the -3- i] &IptD wetland basin directs the water flow toward the railroad tracks. The wetland area is extremely flat and water moves through the site slowly. The site also has been disturbed by human activity. In some sections, the topsoil has been removed and the natural vegetation resultingly altered. The State law defines the boundaries of wetlands by the existing vegetation. Predominant wetland plants on the site include: Buckthorn Arrowwood Sensitive Fern Purple Loosestrife Swamp Maple Tussock Sedge Black Alder Swamp White Oak Joe -Pye Weed -American Elm Wetland Implications - Due to the wetland and floodplain conditions on this site, it would be necessary to relocate the wetlands to a site on the property abutting the railroad. Three different types of permits would be required. 1. Army Corps of Engineers, 404 Permit issued under the Federal Clean Water Act (application delay period = 60 -90 days). This permit would be for the filling of a wetland area and would involve an assessment of the potential impacts of this proposed activity on the quality of the ad- joining and downstream water. 2. Water Quality Certificate. This is a State permit issued by the Depart- ment of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE). This permit is required prior to the issuance of the 404 Permit referred to above and the applica- tion delay period is 90 days. 3. State Wetlands Protection Act (application delay period = 90 -120 days). This proposed project calls for the alteration of more than the allowable maximum of wetlands under the State Regulations (max. = 5000sq. ft.). Therefore, a variance from the limitations of this specific regulation would be required. This request for a variance would be directed to the Commissioner of the DEQE for his approval. The request for a variance should include the following information: A) a description of alternatives explored that would allow the project to proceed in compliance with the regulation(s), and an explanation why each is unreasonable; B) a description of the mitigating measures to be used to contribute to the protection of the wetland interests identified in the Wetland Protection Act; and C) evidence that an overriding public interest is associated with the project which justifies waiver of the regulation. -4- . q &101 Significant Interests - The wetland area of the Biggio property is presumed to be significant to groundwater supply, to flood control, to storm damage prevention, and to the prevention of pollution. The site must be studied to determine the actual wetland value of these specific interests. A request for a variance, as described above, should demonstrate that the subject site does not provide the wetland value that is presumed as a part of the Regulations. Also, the request for a variance must provide a replicated wetland area that will function as well or better than the original. Runoff Problems - The Biggio property presently is wooded and offers signi- ficant percolation for stormwater runoff. The proposed DPW facility, however, would require the paving and roofing of major areas of the site. This inevitable increase in stormwater runoff (per unit time) would be required to be detained in a pond -like basin. It is estimated that somewhere between one - half and three quarters of an acre would be. required for this utility. What The Regulations Mean - Environmentally, the Biggio property has signi- ficant problems for its potential use as a DPW facility. From the outset, an alteration of the quantity of wetlands proposed is outside the allowable tolerances of the State Wetlands Protection Act. Thus, a variance must be requested from the State. Variances are given sparingly. The variance re- quest will only be considered if the Biggio property is a politically acceptable solution to the Town's siting of its DPW facility. Other permits which are necessary quite possibly present less problems than the variance procedure. It goes without saying, that any attempt to apply for permits and variances would require the unanimous cooperation of Town government and the Public. Summation - The Biggio property presents serious environmental constraints. The fact that the site preparation work for this site is outside the limits of the State permit process casts serious doubt as to the-feasibility of the project. Once the means of access to this site is settled, the next major hurdle will be the request to alter more than six times the allowable maxi- mum of wetland area. The process for this permitting will require a period of four months and will demand enlightened preparation and political lobbying. ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY The Task Force-examined the access problem from two points. First, an access road from John Street with a right -of -way over the railroad tracks; and second, from a righ -of -way off Ash Street. -5- C ( � From a practical viewpoint the only site for a road from John Street to the rail tracks would be along the property line of Boston Stove and the new TASC land. This is a distance of about 950 feet. It would require a negotiated sale from TASC for the land. There were two approaches to crossing the tracks: the first by a bridge, and the second a grade crossing. Different types of bridge construction were examined from a pier to a sloped fill section, as well as the amount of land needed for a bridge siting, and vehicle maneuverability getting off and on at the .Biggio side. Estimated costs ran from one to three and one half million dollars. In addition, the bridge siting and access used up acres of land. Although the B$M and MBTA favored a bridge over other types of crossing, the Task Force rejected this option as too costly and not practical. The second approach was a grade crossing which meant crossing four tracks at the location considered. A rubberized crossing with siganls and gates was proposed. Through the efforts of Representative Geoff Beckwith we met with appropriate State Officials to discuss the possibilites of a crossing, and to determine what steps and procedures are necessary to gain State approval. Meetings were held with Tom Hubbard from the Governor's Economic Development Office; Eugene Sullivan, Jr., MBTA Director of Railroad Operations; and Daniel Breen, MBTA Assistant Chief Engineering Officer. As a result of these meetings it was learned that two public hearings are necessary. The first is before the Middlesex County Commissioners, at which time the Town and the MBTA present their case for the Commissioner's approval. This has been scheduled for December 3, 1985. The second is before the Mass. Dept. of Public Utilities. Prior to this hearing the Town must request and pay for a study of costs to construct a grade crossing which must be done by the MBTA. The cost for this will be $1500. It should be pointed out that if a crossing is approved the MBTA will handle all construction, although the Town will pay for it. It should also be pointed out that the MBTA and the B$M are very reluctant to. approve any grade crossings, including this one; and that only rarely are these approved. Nevertheless, the Task Force feels there is a possibility for an approval. Once across the track the crossing would end on land now owned by Transi- tion. It should be noted that in September of this year Transitron had no permanent industrial access to their property. At that time the Reading Board of Appeals allowed a variance to them to cross residentially zoned property on Ash Street as a permanent access. This is currently being contested in 14 I C)q -6- Court by the residents of Ash Street. The amount of land needed for this crossing is more or less academic, as at this location part of the Transitron land will be needed to site the DPW facility. This will be taken up later in this report relating to siting. It should also be pointed out that the cost of a crossing can be treated as a betterment with part of this being charged to Transitron. The Task Force spent a good deal of time trying to determine the cost of a grade crossing access as discussed. Although some discussions were held with the principals regarding the Biggio and Transitron land, there were no formal negotiations started or made. No meetings were held with TASC. As a result, any cost figures here are only estimates made from material gathered from realtors, engineers, etc. It should also be kept in. mind that all work must be done under law at the prevailing wage rate, at State and Federal speci- fications, and by MBTA and B$M work crews. An estimated cost is as follows. Cost of Road Construction from John Street $103,000 to Tracks Cost of Right -of -Way from John Street 240,000 to Tracks Cost of Utilities 105,000 Water - 16,000 Sewer - 20,000 Gas - 9,000 Electric - 60,000 Cost of Crossing - Rubberized with Signals 650,000 and Gates (Minus Betterment Cost.to Transitron) Cost of Transitron Property (See Siting) Cost of Railroad Right -of -Way 100,000 TOTAL $1,198,000 In addition, maintenance costs and inspection fees for the crossing will run approximately 15 to 20 thousand dollars per year. The cost of the railroad right -of -way is not known. Several points of access from Ash'Street were briefly discussed, but con- sidered too controversial to be seriously considered with one exception. That exception was a proposed right -of -way off Ash Street across and between the south end of land currently owned by Lux at 238 Ash Street, and land currently owned by Shurman at 246 Ash Street. This right -of -way would run in an easterly -7- q &110 direction to the end of the Lux property and turn southerly about 80 ft. across land now owned by Babcock, and then across land owned by Paulson to the Biggio property (see exhibit B). This right -of=way would be on industrial zoned property. If this is seriously considered and not negotiated, the Task Force would recommend taking by eminent domain. Costs associated with this as an access option are as follows. Roadway Construction (With full curbing but no sidewalls, due to lack of proper width.) $52,000 Electrical 60,000 Water Main Construction 20,000 Sewer Main Construction 20,000 Gas Main Construction 11,000 Right -of -Way Costs 175,000 TOTAL $338,000 Consideration was given to the portion of Biggio property fronting on Ash Street. Because of the sharp grade at the rear of the house lot, this idea was rejected. The Task Force did not really consider the Ash Street access as a ideal access. Among other things would be traffic problems created at the junction of Ash and Main Streets. The third consideration was determining a foot print for siting the.DPW facilities on the property. (See exhibits A & C.) Two separate siting plans were made by the DPW. The first was with office space, and the second without. The first plan would involve taking approximately 4.32 acres of Transitron land. It would also involve relocating the wetland vegetate area to a storm water storage area consisting of about an acre next to the railroad tracks at the northeast side of the Biggio property. In looking at exhibit A, the arrows by the shop areas, maintenance and heated vehicle storage indicate door bays. The area outlined in a dotted line and stating Bordering Vege- tated Wetlands would be an outdoor storage area for pipe, sand, etc. The buildings are located to act as a shield to obscure this unsightly yard area from Transitron, keeping in mind future development of the Transitron property. There is really little room to place the DPW buildings in another formation. The site topography with the steep embankment on the west side (see dotted line edge of embankment) has the rear of the heated vehicle storage building acting as a retaining wall against the embankment. To the east are relocated -8- q i cjc Relocated'u ? Storm w j. ey at ; 4 I � 4 I 7 \Wetiandsi Pp-nderga Sto,ago I A�e a Area Cold S hore.ge E \ ,; mp Oy8e Parkin iii e 8, f e I d�t W-TWiT e ce Parking 0 n Salt BB -0 de r i n g R-9. d A --liege late d G 0 I �F Shop. Areas 00 % OIv 0 Heated Vechicle Of i i OS ca, Storage G a I a n t e eao 19910 C-1 G c. e.7 3abcock- ca S.t 0 6 'S fan S -11 e n Evans 14 i 1T Durj'(i.n Up is S n e -9- Lj IND. G o?:�- O Generai re • Mu iclpal � ✓w� Light Dept. / �\ ' • '� 1• Lux Lux ice• ,.' ;ems;` " \.� �� O ender as� Be fo at 30 10 71 Bigoo Tra!W 4. ® �j ° I z. i ACCESS_ OPTION Ilb (MEW LUX) � • � �a % � .m jeldt r t r 1 Bgrin9 J ggetated wetlands • Q '- r i 1' C seine idsor Milano �X1t�0�T" c soi 7i! l i A\rpand0. Shen on 4, 1'/ \� of 70 /0O o rea\ . OQ, i Babcock ogliano r ahoney ampie;--- 29a Evans uf1ru wetlands. In the second siting by eliminating the office building and, there- fore, the need for office parking spac6 some land is gained, but not much. Borings were taken by the Task Force at four points, basically one at the proposed salt storage, cold storage, shop area, and vehicle storage. It would appear that a normal foundation design could be utilized at this site. Costs of development for the Biggio / Transitron site are estimated as follows. Clear and Grub 7 Acres @ $1000 Strip and Remove Loam 12,000 c.y.@ $3.50 Excavate and Remove Surplus 20,000 c.y.@ $3.75 Relocate Wetland Excavate and Dispose 1500 c.y. @ $3.50 Replace Loam 1500 c.y. @ $1.25 Vegetation L.S. Compensatory Area Excavate and Dispose 700 c.y. @ $3.50 Fine Grade 20,000 s.f. @ .05 Control Structure L.S. TOTAL $7,000 42,000 75,000 5,250 1,875 15,000 2,450 1,000 6,500 $156,075 Finally, full cost options for acquiring, preparing and developing access to this site were compared. Option No. 1 With Rail Crossing Cost of Acquiring Biggio Land Without House & Cost of Acquiring Transitron Land $900,000 Cost of Access With Rail Crossing 1,198,000 Cost of Land Development 156,075 TOTAL $2,254,075 Option No. 2 Access From Ash Street Cost of Acquiring Biggio Land Without House & Cost of Acquiring Transitron Land 900,000 Cost of Access from Ash Street 338,000 Cost of Land Development 156,075 TOTAL $1,394,075 -12- (4 G 11 _( GENERAL TIRE np CCR T ATTnM The General Tire Plant is a large rambling light manufacturing plant with buildings having a total area of about 260,000 square feet. The land is zoned industrial and access is from a road leading to the plant from John Street near Boston Stove. The southerly line of the lot abutts the railroad tracks, the easterly side Boston Stove, the northerly side John Street and Bolton Street, and the northwesterly side Cerrentani's Supermarket. The facility is made up of many separate buildings of different design and construction and obviously was developed over a long period to time. The major amount of floor space is ;L four feet above grade, and the design criteria is for light diversified manufacturing. Column spacings vary from building to building, as do. elevations. The buildings at the south end are of fairly "modern" construction: steel columns, structural steel, metal deck, concrete floors, and sprinklers. Column spacing varies from 24' x 301, 16' x 181, to 16' x 161. Walls are generally 6" and 8" concrete block raised to the metal deck. Windows are quite closely spaced. DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES The plant has recently been bought by Damon Industries of Watertown, Mass., a manufacturing company making metal fastenings. It is the company's intention to use 100,000 sq. ft. of the 260,000 sq. ft. available. The company is renovating the building through industrial revenue bonds and a U.D.A.G. grant. Some of the remaining space has already been leased. Members of the Task Force spoke with the owner, Mr. George Danis, who offered as the only space available for a DPW-facility an area in the northeast corner of the lot along with approximately 1.8 acres of yard. See exhibit D. Although no serious discussions were held with Mr. Danis, he indicated that portion of the plant would rent for about $5.42 per sq. ft. Given the amount of space needed, this would be aproximately $200,000 per year. A great deal of renovation would be needed before the space could be used. Some of the required work is as follows. -13- q o ( to 1. Garage door openings made (none exist) and overhead doors installed. 2. Ramps into the building would haveito be constructed, and these would only be allowed in the small yard area, cutting more space for outside storage. 3. Truck, garage and shop areas would have to be separated by two (2) hour fire walls and doors necessitating new interior footings. 4. Major sprinkler, heating and window modifications are necessary, and a complete ventilation system would have to be installed. S. Office partitioning would have to be made, along with wiring, etc. If all of the above were accomplished, there would still be a major obstacle which is the columns. Their spacing would make it very difficult for vehicle maneuvering. In fact, more space than normal would be needed for any maneuvering. CONCLUSION When first considering this building, the Task Force had in mind a ten year lease. It was felt that this would immediately solve the time problem of the DPW move, and would allow time needed to explore other possibilities. It was also felt that within the ten year period the Town's financial picture would have improved considerably with an increased tax base resulting from the landfill development. It became apparent that this option would be too costly. Estimated renovations could run as high as one (1) million dollars, and this done on property we would not own. In addition, even with the renovations there would be the column problems, as well as outside storage space. -14- Cq 6ll� y.✓ v,.r ; strJ, y nw,.�.,t� s +•,JA:•..sra . • } L, svarn,�a�,i - • t Ir7 trra. — • KA-•••sr s � • •q r.,.tT � L I O w,r . r 1 .u+,+ I 00o • V• ,.....t , r-- �' aua►ri A7T••. ---------- ,�-_ -_ -_ I..:.j..�r.- �t�..Y•�N111 ANIIt �V li �j ^� r • ,rTA ,711Paa•� ,t1y O Ul vp Jtwrs Vftl Mj . • ••rw I ' • A . r'i ' - Ml,lbO�' fAYJAWT1,.�lI �• t • 1��- ''''��5. - _--- •_- ___ -... . i ffD • ' 1 1 I33U .1 =0M [9Z Q � � � i •�•(� � N- PC1l -'yi30 32+? j 9NIiCG'ddM JOHN STREET SITE Much has been written and discussed concerning this site, and it is not the.intention of this report to be 'redundant in reviewing the possibility. For its deliberation the Task Force looked at this site for comparative purposes of the site only, and the ramifications of its use in the proposed development of the Towns industtial land. For comparative analysis the Task Force used a site preparation cost figure of 1 million dollars for this site, -16- q,(Iq THE REVENUE CONSIDERATIONS The Task Force felt from the beginning of its deliberations that not only must a site be feasible from a cost and utiliziation standpoint, but also that it not impede the revenue potential of an expanded tax base for the Town through industrial development. The Town faces a financial crises with very little light at the end of a long tunnel. On one side the Town is tightly restricted in its ability to raise revenue and on the other side a series of rising costs and lost revenue over which it has no control. Liability insurance, health insurance, pensions, water and sewer rates, architec- tual barriers, mandates, environmental mandates, Fair Labor Standards Act mandates are all costs over which we have----no control and are rising faster each year than the Town is allowed to increase revenue under Proposition 2]s. To add to the problem is the potential loss of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and cost of living increases to employees. The so called "Doom and Gloom" report of the Finance Committee (see exhibit E) is if.--an�.tbing optomistic. Nor will the current projected sale of land in itself answer the problem (see exhibit F). In addition the Town faces other building problems. The Central Fire Station is not structually sound to house proposed new equipment. The sale of the Community Center means the cost of new quarters for the Town Offices housed there. The Town has only three means to meet these problems. Overide of Proposition 211 which has already been rejected, large cuts in service -the Town already has rejected small cuts such as the elimination of the dog officer or increasing its tax base. In regards to the latter the Town has eliminated most residential expansion through zoning and conservation which leaves industrial development. It is for these reasons the Task Force spent a good deal of its time relating the DPW location and its impact on the industrial zoned area at John Street. q & 1-2-D -17- I 00 I Prior Year Budget Pension Group Insurance Casualty Insurance -1111ti1I1u1 1'111 ati11 11111W PY87 26,792,394 250,000 100,000 200,000 FY88 27,859,768 250,000 100,000 Fxtfl 4 ri_ U. FyU9 29,527,912 250,000 100,000 iH't,� I fit+i� � 11,' } +1 j l►1i !"Y90 30,780,713 250,000 100,000 1?Y91 31,729,154 250,000 100,000 Debt Service Decrease (238,000) (65,000) (74,000) (232,000) (357,500) New Debt Service 590,000 270,000 New Debt Service Decrease (260,000) (44,000) (44,000) Salary Increase 755,375 793,144 832,801 874,441 918,163 27,859,768 2,5 ,9 30, 0,713 31,729,154 32,555,817 Other Appropriations 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 29,759,768 31,427,912 32,780,713 33,629,154 34,495,817 Less Receipts &Revenues 12,300,000 12'1'100,000. 12.;100,000 12,100,000 12,100,000 To be raised from levy 17,459,769 19,327,912 21,680,713 21,529,154 22,395,817 Levy limit Prior Year levy 15,693,497 16,235,834 16,811,730 17,572,023 18,361,324 2h thereon 392,337 405,896 420,293 439,301 459,033 New construction 150,000 170,000 340,000 350,000 460,000 16,235,834 16,811,730 17,572,023 18,361,324 19,2.80,357 Surplus (Deficit) (1,223,935) (2,5161182) (3,1031690) (3,167,830) (3;115;460) Sale of Real Estate funds 590;000 834,000 790,000 746,000 1.223,935) 1,926,182 (2,274,690) ,377,830 (2,369,460) C'' EXHIBIT F SALE OF REAL ESTATE FUNDS FY 1990 FY 1991 John St. Landfill sale - rear section only 700,000 2,100,000 TOTAL 2,783,500 5,853,500 12,283,500 -19- �� WORST PROBABLE BEST YEAR CASE CASE CASE FY 1986 Presently available 1,666,500 1,666,500 1,666,500 FY 1987 Community Center Sale 1,117,000 1,117,000 1,117,000 FY 1988 Bear Hill sale 1,200,000 1,800,000 FY 1988 -John St. Landfill sale - front section 1,170,000 5,600,000 only FY 1990 FY 1991 John St. Landfill sale - rear section only 700,000 2,100,000 TOTAL 2,783,500 5,853,500 12,283,500 -19- �� FINANCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LANDFILL The landfill is a vital resource for the future financial stability of the Town of Reading. Its importance is seen in two ways: in the financial gains that it can yield in its own right, and in the effect that the landfill will have on enhancing the development and redevelopment potential of our entire 90 acre industrial area. Be assured on two points first, there IS a demand for additional first -class office park and hotel development along the Route 128 belt, as the Planning Board's consultant showed; and second, there are a number of well -known developers who have expressed serious interest in developing the landfill. The Task Force, with the assistance of the Industrial Development Commission, has prepared some estimates of the land sales and tax revenues which the Town can ' expect to realize over the next ten years from development of the landfill.(see exhibit G). Three different development scenarios are portrayed here, the top two with the DPW on the landfill, and the bottom one, without the DPW there. Scenario 1A represents the most likely type of development one can expect next to the DPW: average- quality motel and R &D facilities. Scenario 1H represents a far less likely outcome, with the assumption that a first -class hotel is built next to the DPW and that top - quality office buildings occupy the remaining landfill. Scenario 2 represents the most likely type of development if the DPW is moved off the landfill. In this scenario, first -class office space shares the front of the landfill with a quality hotel, with further office development of similar quality being built on the rear of the landfill in three years. A comparison of land sales revenues for these scenarios shows values of $1.9 million from Scenario 1A, $4.4 million from Scenario 1H, and $7.8 million from Scenario 2. The first revenues, which result from sale of the front dump land along John Street, are predicted to occur in FY 88. Under Scenario 1A these revenues are $1.2 million, while under Scenario 2 they are $5.6 million. -20- This is a difference of $4.4 million in land sales revenues two years down the road. i When land sale revenues from the back of the landfill and tax revenues from both front and rear are added, the difference between Scenarios 1A and 2 widens to $16 million over a 10 year period and to $39 million over a 20 year period. q( l Zq -21- i N N N EXHIBIT G REVENUES FROM LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT (In Millions of 1985 Dollars) Development Land Sale 10 Year Tax 20 Year Tax Total 10 Year Total 20 Year Scenario Revenues Revenues Revenues Revenues Revenues Scenario 1A DPW on landfill ' Average - quality hotel and RED on remainder $1.2 0.7 $1.9 (FY'88) (FY' 91) $5.5 ', $18.9 $7.4 $20.8 Scenario 1H $2.4 (FY'88) $9.9 $33.5 $14.3 $37.9 f DPW on landfill $2.0 (FY 91) High - quality %$4.4 i and office ark on remaindhotel e Scenario 2 $5.6 (FY'88) $15.6 $52.2 $23.4 $60.0 DPW at another. 2.2 FY'915 site 7.8 i High - quality hotel and office:: park on entire landfill * Optimistic scenario, less likely than 1A SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS After reviewing all of these studies, the Task Force reached the fol- lowing conclusions. GENERAL TIRE PROPERTY The Task Force rejected this as an option. The potential modification cost of a million dollars, plus the fact that with modifications there is not adequate yard space and the column problem made the site impractical. BIGGIO PROPERTY The possibilities of this as an option is dependent upon obtaining per- mission for a rail crossing.and permission to relocate the wetlands. The prospects of obtaining a rail crossing are not good. The environmental process for receiving permission to relocate the wetlands is a fragile one. At any one of the steps that have to be taken for this process, problems can occur. The site as proposed does not offer many options for modifications or expansion due to the topography and wetlands. This should be taken into consideration if future plans for expansion are considered. It should also be noted the Task Force felt that TASC would hardly be enthusiastic at the prospect of a fleet of trucks crossing their property every day. TASC has been rapidly expanding, and has indicated they might want to build a third building. They have already rented the new office space at Boston Stove. Last but not least, this option is expensive. The rail crossing option would add 1.2 million dollars for site cost over the 1 million dollar site preparation figure at John Street. The Ash Street option would add approx- imately $200,000 for site costs over the site preparation at John Street. Some members of the Task Force felt that in spite of the additional cost. this was a good investment, if based against the possible nine million dollars extra the John Street site would produce without the DPW facility. The Ash Street costs do not include any costs which might arise for legal expenses arising from litigation on the takings. -23- L4 &/762 If the Ash Street option was taken, the traffic problems at the junction of Ash and Main Street would still persist. i -24- L, &121 RBCOMME14DATIONS During the review process a feeling developed that the Town had lost control. Every option seemo-d to rest on the decisions of outside influences. Cost of land acquisitions, permits, right --of -ways, time restraints all seemed to be being determined by others. It became apparent that it is extremely difficult to bargain or negotiate with tight time and financial restraints. In its final deliberating the Task Force felt it was time for the Town to take back the initiative and to have the parties bargaining with us and not us with them. The Task Force felt the best way to accomplish this, and to solve many problems at the same time was to send out R.F.P.s (request for proposals) to national and international development companies offering them the opportunity to present to the Town their best plan to develop our entire industrial area. Attached to the R.F.P. would be a condition of linkage where it would be up to the developer to determine how the DPW facilities would be part of his plan. The Task Force recognizes that neither it, nor the Town are experts in this field. The developers have the experience, money, and political know how necessary for the project. Lets use it! This is not the first time the Town has used linkage. The sale of the Community Center included the Developer accomodating the Elderly Drop In Center. The Adams - Gentile property swap involved accommodating low income housing. The Task Force feels with the right R.F.P.,developer initiative. will provide several solutions to the DPW question. One such scenario might include a four story office building with a garage on the first floor to house the DPW facilities. In this scenario site costs could be reduced to the Town, but there are many other alternatives. Fortunately 80% of such an R.F.P. has been done by our Industrial Development Committee with all information concerning the site. Such an R.F.P. could be sent out in December with replies due back by the end of February and negotiations taking place with a recommendation to the Annual Town Meeting. -25- If this recommendation is followed through, other benefits to the Town will accrue. A timetable of developureiit will be realized enabling the Finance Committee and the Town to know the time of revenue projections and be able to plan. Even if there is some delay in the TASC timetable,the cost involved is certainly not greater than the alternatives we have been studying. It should also be considered that TASC itself has much to gain from a well thought out and planned development. The vote of the Task Force was unanimous to send out the R.F.P.'s and the follow through. The Task Force also voted to proceed with the two hearing processes that have been requested for the rail crossing as outlined in the Biggio option. y�'(zq -26- TOWN OF REAnTNG BOARD OF PL BL-IC WORKS REPORT TO SPECIAL- TOWN MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 198S X130 SUBJECT Letter from Board of Pub General Overview of John General Overview of Nike Letter from Town Counsel Facility Information: TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE lic Works 1 Street 2 Site 4 on Public Bidding 7 Space Requirements g Design & Costs 10 Facility Relocation Committee Report Update 11 Time Table Schemes 14 Motion Under Article 6 15 Motion Under Article 7 15 ,� � � 31 TOWN OF READING MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MUNICIPAL BUILDING READING. MASS. 01887 Dear Town Meeting Members: DOUGLASS L. BARKER. Chairman BARRY E. HANWON. Secretary ARTHUR POLYCHRON'ES ROBERT P. GRIFFIN J. R. BOUCHER A. V. FLETCHER. P. E.. Superintendent During the past seven months (since February Town Meeting), the Board of Public Works has conducted further review and analyses of the process necessary to relocate the John Street facility displaced by the sale to TASC. The Board of Public Works continues to favor the plan previously approved by the April 1984 Town Meeting of moving to the landfill site. Attached, you will find a series of information pages, some updated from the Facility Relocation Committee Report, which we hope will answer any questions you may have. Please feel free to contact any member of the Board and discuss this matter in more detail. Respectfully submitted, h Chairman Secretary JOHN STREET OVERVIEW; Since our last report, work has continued on the John Street site. The sewer line has been completed and the drainage ditch has been relocated. Work continues in the areas outside of the facility site to meet D.E.O.E. requirements for the closure of the sanitary landfill according to the approved plan. Delivery of the ash used for cover is complete, and the loaming and seeding will be done in the fall, pending the availability of loam stock. Since the final bids were received, additional thought has been devoted to the design and the cost of the facility. We can expect to spend additional money to reopen the process and to meet expected inflation increases of + 5%. In addition, the Board now believes that we must reverse one of the compromises originally agreed upon to lower the final price. The Board now feels that reducing the final bid price by eliminating the structural floors in the main vehicle storage shed sacrificed quality and created an unwanted risk factor. Assuming that the facility is still to be built as planned on the John Street site, the Board now feels that the structural floors should be reinstated to assure the structural integrity of the facility. As an adjustment against the added cost, the welding bay has been eliminated. Elimination of the welding bay - Savings $68,000 Add Structural Floors - Cost $100,000 (For the final breakdown of costs please see Facility Design & Cost schedule - Page 10) -2- q& X33 One idea has been whether the facility could be relocated to the rear portion of the dump site where the debris from the front portion has been deposited. The Board does not consider this to be a viable option. The general attitude of the Solid Waste Division of D.E.Q.E. has been to reject grant permits for construction on new or "young" landfills. In addition, the costs for constructing on this portion of the landfill will be prohibitive. Site assessment alone could cost approximately $100,000. Time delays of upward to two years can be anticipated in order to assure compliance with all current laws and regulations pertaining to the protection of the environment. In the unlikely event that a permit was eventually obtained, an extensive boring and solid waste anlaysis would be required at an expenditure of approximately $100,000 and a delay of two to three months can be anticipated. When this proposal was reviewed by our consultants, they concurred that an additional expenditure of $1,000,000 would be a realistic projection. —3— NIKE SITE OVERVIEW: The parcel is located on Haverhill Street adjacent to property number 321 and is accessed by a narrow road approximately 400 feet long. The property is owned by the Town of Reading. This site contains 24.4 acres of land, 5 acres of which is delineated wet land. Due to the shape of the site, facility construction would effectively block out development on the additional acreage. The wet land area is mainly confined to the north end of the property and the site is large enough so that construction of a facility could take place without violating the provisions of the Wet Lands Protection Act. Existing buildings: Formerly used for missile storage and launching, the site contains grade level, simply constructed block buildings used for barracks, offices, vehicle storage and maintenance. Three existing sub surface launching pits have been stripped and the pad doors have been welded shut. Buildings can be easily and cheaply demolished, but the launching pits, which are full of water, would have to be pumped dry and filled with acceptable fill material. Demolition costs to remove existing buildings in the missile storage area and to fill the pits is estimated to be approximately $50,000. Development Concerns: Past experience with the site indicates no unusual sub surface conditions that would result in extraordinary construction costs; however, the narrow access road would not be acceptable for Public Works trucks entering Haverhill Street. A land taking of some size, either the whole —4— abutting property or a portion thereof would be necessary. Cost of eminent domain taking is approximately $150,000, but present owners have expressed an unwillingness to sell. Citizens Concerns: Traffic safety: The site is located in a highly residential area and is in close proximity to an elementary school, parks and a church. Haverhill Street is already heavily travelled as an access road from the 128 Wakefield area to North Reading. In addition, the site is located on a short radius curve and visibility is limited; a costly arrangement of traffic signals and flashing approach signs will be required. Haverhill Street traffic is heavy in the morning and evening hours, a time when Public Works crews are in full operation. Operational Noise: The noise levels will be higher than the relatively quiet ambient background is at present. The site is 400 feet from the street and the facility would be located an additional 200 feet easterly. Environmental Issues: Though the Wet Land Protection Act does not impair the possibility of construction, the concerns for preservation of this site as the only currently identified future water source have great impact in the decision making process. There is a strong public concern that the Cedar Swamp -Clare Meadow area is a source of potable water. The only way to substantiate this perception is to do a ground water study that would include test wells and quite possibly seismic analysis. &t36 -S- Conclusion; Though the site may be implementabl.e, ci.ti =en concerns and the potential of the site as a future water source will have a negative effect on the selection process. The least that should be done, if consideration of this site is demanded by Town Meeting, is to perform a complete hydrological survey. The cost would be about '100,000 and require a year or year and one half to complete. Additional costs for assessment of highest and best use are undetermined. q � 37 —6— TYLER & REYNOLDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION COUNSELLORS AT LAW ONE BOSTON PLACE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 TELEPHONE 617-523-6550 August 9, 1° Mr. Anthony V. Fletcher Superintendent Board of Public Works Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Public Bidding Dear Tony: , . --- ...__... --.1 RECEIVED BOARD OF MUM WORKS ' I2 C C, �QTOWN OF READING.. You have asked my advice as to the propriety of putting a public works contract out to bid prior to Town Meeting appropriating the funds for such project. I have discussed the matter with the Department of Labor and Industries; and it is their position that it is totally inappropriate to take such action even under the Awarding Authority's reservation of right to reject all bids and that it could subject the Awarding Authority to claims for reimbursement of bidders' costs and expenses incurred in preparing their bids. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesistate to contact me at any time. H TC /c f dz Very t ly yours, H Theodore Cohen q �(3s Q MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Public Works FROM: A.V. Fletcher, P.E., Superintendent DATE: July 26, 1985 RE: John Street Facility Location; Space Requirement There has been comment circulated that the Board of Public Works should and could build a facility on a piece of property not exceeding five acres. The facility proposed for John Street will be located on a site of 8.2 acres. The drainage ditch that traverses the site is two acres in size, and effectively cuts off approximately I acre along the frontage line, leaving a net of 5.7 acres for actual use. The facility proposed contains 50,000 square feet, reducing available storage area to 4.5 acres. Minimum parking requirements and paved areas for vehicle routing and fuel storage requires 11 acres, leaving a total of 3 acres for planned storage use. Sand and salt storage and area mixing requires a minimum of I acre reducing final storage area to 21 acres. The Town nursery and loam stock pile require an area of one acre, leaving an area of 1'j acres to handle pipe, curbing, cast iron, lumber, pea stone, and gravel storage without consideration for areas for vehicle passage to load and unload materials. Use of the proposed John Street site will be very restricted and really should contain two additional acres. Doubters need only look at the five acres that the Department is trying to operate from at the present time and most of our storage operation is not on site but has been moved across the street. Imagine the present site after a snowfall! Operations currently restricted to the five acres provided on the TASC site have been severely curtailed, and that is with the storage operation moved across the street. A great number of towns and cities were contacted relative to building size and area used. These figures were included as part of the Facility Committee Report. In evaluating each community the following must be taken into consideration: a. Size of community b. Services rendered C. Functions under DPW d. Sewered or unsewered community e. Water Treatment (Plant or direct MDC) f. Satellite storage areas g. Plowing (private, town, or combination) I feel confident that there is no community providing our level of operations with less than 7 - 8 acres. q & 139 M11 Memorandum July 26, 1985 Page 2 There has also been discussion that the Department of Public Works should be utilizing Town owned land behind the Texaco Station on John Street. Since all the acreage in this parcel is in wetlands, and there is no possibility of developing compensatory wetland area, these three (3) acres can not be considered for any Public Works use other than for snow dumping. There is little doubt that the Department will have to utilize space somewhere on the Water Treatment Plant property on Strout Avenue. No consideration will be given to a site smaller than that net area of the John Street site! AVF:cmk -9- q � (qD 9/23/85 S.T.M. MOTION UNDER ARTICLE 6 MOVED: THAT THE TOWN VOTE TO REAFFIRM THE VOTE TAKEN UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE WARRANT FOR THE APRIL 26, 1984 SPECIAL TOWN MEETING WHEREBY THE CARE, CUSTODY, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF A PORTION OF THE TOWN OF READING LANDFILL WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR USE AS A SITE FOR THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE AND RELATED FACILITIES. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MOTION UNDER ARTICLE 7 MOVED: THAT THE SUM OF THREE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,700,000.00) BE RAISED AND APPROPRIATED FOR THE CONSTRUC- TION OF A BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE AND RELATED .FACILITIES INCLUDING DESIGN, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION, FURNISHINGS AND ALL OTHER ASSOCIATED COSTS, AND TO MEET SAID APPROPRIATION THE SUM OF THREE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,700,000.00) BE RAISED AND APPROPRIATED BY BORROWING, AND THAT THE TOWN TREASURER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SELECTMEN, BE AND SHE HEREBY IS, AUTHORIZED TO BORROW SAID THREE MILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,700,000.00) AND TO ISSUE AT ONE TIME OR FROM TIME TO TIME, BONDS OR NOTES OF THE TOWN FOR SAID THREE MILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,700,000.00) PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 44 OF THE GENERAL LAWS SO THAT EACH SUCH ISSUE SHALL BE PAID IN NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS (10) FROM ITS DATE OR AT SUCH EARLIER TIME AS THE TREASURER AND SELECTMEN MAY DETER- MINE AND SAID BONDS OR NOTES SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE TREASURER AND COUNTERSIGNED BY THE SELECTMEN, AND THAT THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED WITH SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND ENTER INTO ALL CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO AND TO DO ALL OTHER ACTS AND THINGS NECESSARY OR PROPER FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS VOTE. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS (DRAFT MOTIONS, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL FROM TOWN COUNSEL) q (�'1q1 -15- REPORT ON THE DUBITZKY PROPERTY SPECIAL TOWN MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1985 On motion of Mr. Philip D. LeBlanc at the Special Town Meeting held June 24, 1985, the Board of Public Works was instructed to review the Dubutizky property on Salem Street as a potential site for the new Department of Public Works facility. The following analysis of the property was completed by the DPW staff, and reviewed and accepted by the Board. This information was sent to Mr. LeBlanc on August 7, 1985, with copies to the Board of Selectmen, Town Moderator, Planning Board, Industrial Development Commission, Conservation Commission and Board of Health. AREA: The attached map shows the location of the subject property at the intersection of Salem and Torre Streets, formerly the site of a super- market and flea market. The property consists of two parcels as discussed below: a. The 6.01 acre parcel is zoned S -10 and more than half of this parcel is within the Wetland Zone or within the 100 foot buf- fer zone included in the wetlands protection act. There is little chance that waivers can be obtained to fill the wet- lands as the area acts as a large retention pond for a major drainage system. Review of old topological maps and data from excavations for water and sewer systems in the immediate area clearly indicate that this parcel was filled in over peat bogs. Only an extensive and expensive boring study can . q �,IqZ determine the actual subsurface conditions, but it is reason- able to assume that subsurface ground conditions are of major concern to construction. The approximate cost of such a site investigation will be $30,000. b. The 3.38 acre parcel is zoned for business and contains structures previously housing commercial enterprises. This parcel also borders the wetland zone, and though filling of wetland in not required, subsurface conditions are suspect for the same reasons given above. Note that neither parcel can be used for the Public Works facility on its own. When combined, the two parcels contain less than 7 acres of useable land. Both parcels are privately owned and, if they are to be used for the Public Works facility, would have to be purchased or taken by eminent domain proceedings. The appraised value of the land a year ago was approximately $2,000,000, and it is estimated that land values in Reading increased from 12 to 20 percent since then. EXISTING BUILDINGS: The smaller parcel contains structures previously used for light commercial activities, most recently as a supermarket and as a flea market. Though original construction plans are not available for review, there is nothing to suggest that the buildings have structural foundations in order to support the loads developed by heavy vehicles. Structural steel, which can be seen, is light and appears to have been designed for simple rood loading. Exterior walls are "curtain" walls and do not lend themselves to modification for the installation of multiple openings with overhead doors. Existing heating and cooling systems are clearly designed to treat large open areas and are not & I Ll easily adapted to space requirements of a public works facility. In order to adapt these structures for vehicle storage and repair, the entire structure would have to be rebuilt to conform with the state building codes for that use, and would also have to conform to the requirements for energy efficiency. Costs for demollition of the structures is estimated to be between $50,000 and $75,000 depending on a location for disposal of the materials. There is value in recovery of the structural steel and joists, but the value will not cover the costs of demolition. LAND AVAILABILITY: The property is privately owned and there is the possibility of long term leases in effect. It has not been determined if the pre- vious lease holder, Gallahue's Market, gave up the original lease. The BPW has been recently advised that a new 5 -year lease has been executed for this property. A letter was sent to Mr. Dubitzky on July 2, 1985, asking if the subject property was for sale. A reply was received from his attorney on July 12, 1985, stating that "The owners of the property are not interested in selling the property for use as a garage". CITIZEN CONCERNS: The Facility Relocation Committee held open meetings concerning various potential sites, and documented the concerns of citizens. The following concerns pertained to the Dubitsky property: a. Traffic safety - the property is located on a sever curve, thereby making access difficult. Construction of a public works facilility at this location would add approximately 500 truck mover per day. This number could be equal to those � (' I L4 Ne � `k i GD� .-.r - -, - • .. .. _ � .558 ,50 . J \ i BUS, g , • o � o •o � C'` q DUBITZRY PROPERTY RECAPITULATION On motion made by Mr. Philip LeBlanc, the Board of Public Works was instructed to review the Dubitzky property for use as a site for the Public Works Facility. On July 2, 1985 a letter was sent to Mr. Dubitzky, asking if the property was for sale. A reply was received on July 12, 1985 from Aviva D. Neuman, of Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent & Lehrer, a law firm representing Mr. Dubitzky. The reply was in the negative. The attached analysis of the property was completed by staff, and reviewed and accepted by the Board. This information was sent to the maker of the motion with the feeling of the Board that no further action should be taken regarding this property. u is q In accordance with the instructional motion filed at the last Town Meeting a review of the Dubitzky property follows; AREA; See attached map. (a) The 6.01 acre parcel is zoned S -10 and approximately 2 acres of this parcel is within the Wetland Zone area. In addition, approximately 2 acres is within the 100 foot buffer zone included in the latest wet lands protection act. In effect, only three (3) acres of this parcel is useable. There is little, or no chance that waivers can be obtained to fill the wet lands as the area acts as a large retention pond for a major drain system. Review of old topo maps, and support from excavations for water and sewer systems in the immediate area clearly indicate that this parcel was filled in over peat bogs. Only extensive and expensive boring investigation can determine the actual subsurface conditions, but it is reasonable to assume that subsurface ground conditions are of major concern to construction. (b) The 3.38 acre parcel is zoned for business and contains structures previously housing commercial enterprises. This parcel also borders the Wet Land zoned area and though filling of wet land is not required, sub surface conditions are suspect for the same reasons given above. Note that neither parcel can be adopted for use for a Public Works facility on its own and when combined, the two parcels contain approximately 7 acres of useable land, less that amount of buffer required by Wet Land requlations. This amount of land is not acceptable for the Towns use for a public works facility. Both parcels are privately owned and if these parcels are to be used for the construction of a public works facility they would have 1 to be purchased or taken by eminent domain proceedings. EXISTING BUILDINGS: The 3.38 acre parcel contains structures previously used for light commercial activities, most recently as a grocery store and a flea market. Though original construction plans are not available for review there is nothing to suggest that the buildings have structural foundations in order to support the loads developed by heavy vehicles. Structural steel, which can be seen, is light and appears to have been designed for simple roof loading. Exterior walls are "curtain" walls and do not lend themselves to modification to construct multiple openings for overhead doors. Existing heating and cooling systems are clearly designed to treat large open areas and are not easily adopted to space requirements of a public works facility. In order to adapt these structures for vehicle storage and repair, the entire structure would have to be rebuilt to conform with the Massachusetts building codes for that use, and would also have to conform to the requirements for energy efficiency. In addition it is clear that the concrete floors are not structural, and there is no evidence that pile supports were used. My opinion is that the buildings would have to be demolished if these parcels are to be used for construction. Costs for demolition of the structures is estimated to be between $50,000 and $75,000 depending on a location for disposal for the materials. There is value in recovery of the structural steel and bar joists , but the value will not cover the costs of demolition. If the judgement that the buildings are not convertible is to be researched, evaluation by a consultant in the discipline would cost in the area of $10,000. � � I � q CITIZEN CONCERNS: The Facility Relocation Committee held open meetings concerning various parcels under consideration for construction of a new facility and documented the concerns of citizens. The following concerns pertaining to the Dubitzky property are as follows: Traffic safety: The two parcels are located on a severe curve , thereby making entrance and exit to the parcels very difficult. Construction of a public works facility at this location would add approzimately 500 truck moves a day. This number could be equal to those moves created by a shopping center of this size, but public works moves would be heaviest during those hours that Salem Street has heavy traffic to serve industry and commercial facilities in North Reading, Wilmington and Burlington... early morning and late afternoon. Operational Noise:- There would be an impact to the surrounding residential area's during the day but the impact would be greatest during night activities, particularly during sanding and snow removal operations. Environmental Issues: Due to periodic flooding in the area, residents are concerned about additional runoff created by paved area's necessary for operations. In addition to residential concerns it appears doubtful that permits could be obtained to fill in wet lands or to alter drainage patterns. General Neighborhood Concerns: Negative effect on property values in the immediate area. LA DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS: The following items need to be addressed to evaluate development of the parcels: Land Availability: The parcels are privately held and there is the possibility of long term leases in effect. The professsional appraised value of the land twelve months ago was approximately $2,000,000 and values in the Reading area have been noted to have risen from 12 to 20 percent in the past year. When questioned during committee activity the owner has been quoted as saying that "anything is for sale at the right price." Subsurface Conditions: The parcels lie in the same drainage area as the land fill, and only investigation by borings and soils analysis can confirm actual conditions. Value of a site investigation study is approximately '30,000. Existing Leases: It has not been determined if the previous lease holder, Gallahue's Market , gave up the original lease or retained the lease and is now attempting to sub lease. The department has been made aware recently that a new five year lease has been executed for this property. The owner of the parcels has been sent a letter requesting the status of the properties, and if there is interest in selling. It would appear however that recent execution of a lease precludes selling. Conclusion: Given the size and nature of the parcels, site problems , probable aquisition costs, existing leases , and local concerns, the sites should be eliminated from consideration for construction of the new facility. MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Facility Relocation Committee FROM: Frank H. Baggs DATE: January 12, 1984 RE: Minutes of Meeting, January 11, 1984 Attending: (Members) - C. Arthur, F. Robie, P. Dustin, F. Baggs, R. Sullivan, R. Tulikangas, D. Barker, E. McIntire, Jr., and W. Bergeron. (Guest) - Marvin Cohen (TASC) • Chairman Doug Barker called meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. • Minutes of last meeting were distributed. After review, they were accepted with no additions or deletions. • Doug Barker made three appointments: 1. Richard Sullivan and Robert Tulikangas to develop a questionnaire for sending to other Town D.P.W. operations inquiring about their organization. 2. Francis Robie to determine what procedures would be necessary if a site were chosen involving an Environmental Impact Study. 3. Charles Arthur, Edward McIntire and William Bergeron to look at Causeway Road site of Route 129 and 5 - 6 acres of Camp Curtis Guild site mentioned by Ken Latham in his letter to Doug Barker. • Chairman Barker mentioned that the computer printout of all 4 acre or better sites was not available. We had been preempted by an item of higher priority for time on the Town Computer. Instead, for this meeting, Bill Bergeron had some Land Bank Committee information available to begin our site search. Bill Bergeron then passed out copies of a package of information. It contained: 1. Public Works outside storage space requirements. 2. Land Bank Committee list of prospective lots of Town -owned land suitable for Public Works. 3. Land Bank Committee information on available land in Reading for housing. Bill then went over each section: • Section 1 - Bill went over D.P.W. space requirements item by item. To summarize: u ��, I -2- Building Space -- 1.08 Acres Outside Storage - 5.06 of Snow Dumping -- 4.00 it 10 Acres Total Paul Dustin requested detailed information on D.P.W. Property other than the.John Street site. Paul said that this would give the Committee a more complete picture. Section 2 - Bill started to discuss the 8 lots of Town owned land from the Land Bank Committee list. This was the start of the Committee's site search. The Committee used its 4 acre minimum criteria. 1. 2 Acre section of dump site, Northerly end Rejected: Environmental concern as formed dump site, too small (2 acres), prime industrial land; however, possibility as snow dump site. 2. Nike Site, Haverhill Street Possibility: 12 Acres of land, access to main road, built in buffer zone *, problem with environmental impact to Ipswich River Watershed. 3. Nike Site, Bare Hill Rejected: 6 acres of land, but limited access, terrain problem, close to Summit Tower Property, and prime residential property. 4. Gravel Pit, Strout Avenue Possibility: Enough acreage 5. Higgins Lot, entered from Birch Meadow Drive Rejected: Headwaters of Aberjona River, Wetlands 6. Batchelder Field, Franklin Street Rejected: Difficulty of access, prime residential property 7. School Site, Fox Run Lane -- Dividence Road Rejected: Difficulty of access, not near main road, however, good size property 8. Conservation Land, upper Pearl Street Rejected: Flood Plain,. potential well field Committee decided that Nike Site, Haverhill Street and Gravel Pit, Strout Avenue worth a closer inspection. *Bill Bergeron mentioned that any site chosen next to a residential area would need a 100 foot Buffer Zone around it. on a 4 acre site, this woul. add 3.22 acres of Buffer Zone. Paul Dustin asked how the Town is bound by such a zoning restriction. 4 2 -3- Section 3 - Bill then went over the different plats of land in Reading to pick out and discuss those 4 acres in size or better. Plat 22, Lots 3 -9 and 4, Spence Farm Possibility: 7 acres Plat 14, Lot 17 -2 Rejected: Difficult access and terrain Plat 23, Lot 17 -7 Rejected: Being developed for other use Plat 36, Lot 1 -8 -10 and 15 Rejected: Not contiguous Plat 58, Lot 4, 7, 8, Longwood Poultry Farm Possibility: 18 acres Plat 68, Lot 1 -3, Adams Property Possibility: 20 acres, has house and greenhouses Plat 80, Lot 30 Possibility: 12.5 acres, balance has house and barns Plat 92, Lot 14.,'Dubinsky property on Salem Street Possibility: 4 acres Plat 96, Lot 12, Off West Street Possibility: 5 acres, balance has two houses and one garage Plat 128, Lot 1 -4, Girl Scouts Rejected: In process of being sold Plat 180, Lot 2 Rejected: No access, residential Plat 181, Lot 6 -2 -1 Possibility:- 21 Acres Plat 183, Lot 7- 2 -3 -5, Sherman Property Rejected: Flood Plain Plat 193, Lot 3 Rejected: Being developed Plat 206, Lot 1 -4, Fox Run Lane, School Site Rejected: Previously Plat 210, Lot 1, Dr. Lester Property Possibility: 6.5 Acres q g 1�'3 -4- Plat 213, Lot 3, McDonald Farm Possibility: 4 Acres Plat 222, Lot 1 -2 -3 Rejected: Being Developed Plat 223, Lot 9 Rejected: Being developed Plat 226, Lot 8 Rejected: Being developed Plat 232, Lot 1 -3 Rejected: Flood Plain Plat 234, Lot 1 Rejected: Being developed Plat 235, Lot 1 -2 -4 -5 Rejected: Being developed Plat 236, Lot 18B, 17B -14 Rejected: Being developed Plat 245, Lot 2 Rejected: Being developed Committee chosen sites worth a closer inspection: Plat 22, Spence Farm Plat 58, Longwood Poultry Farm Plat 68, Adams Property Plat 80 Plat 92 Plat 96 Plat 181 Plat 210 Plat 213 • Idle General. Tire Property rejected because of cost and prime industrial land. • Chairman Barker reminded members of Saturday's D.P.W. Tour • Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. g615� MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Facility Relocation Committee and the Board of Public Works Municipal Space Building Committee FROM: Gail F. Wood, Chairman of the Board of Public Works DATE: January 25, 1984 After a lengthy discussion on the needs of the new Public Works Facility including a discussion of the merits of housing operations, engineering and administrative functions under one roof, the Board of Public Works wishes to impart the following information to both the Public Works Facility Relocation Committee and the Municipal Space Building Committee: 1. The Board has recently voted to hire a new Superintendent, Mr. Anthony Fletcher, who will start on February 27. Mr. Fletcher has been spending some time in Reading learning about the Department he will run but has not yet had sufficient time to map out any change in direction of the Board of Public Works he may wish to recommend. 2. The Board has unanimously agreed that a central location to house all of the existing Public Works operations currently located at the John Street site is important - any fractionalization may require duplica- tion of personnel and /or equipment. This may result in a lack of productivity rather than the increase in productivity that is an acceptable goal. (SEE SHEET 1A) 3. The Board has unanimously agreed that the Assistant Superintendent of Operations will spend more time at the operational headquarters, this however, is an internal matter and should not either add or decrease space needed at either the new facility or Town Hall as he now has a desk at both places which we would expect to continue and an alloca- tion of time spent at each place to be at the discretion of the Department Head. 4. An inventory of the current facilities and a workup of additional space needed at the new facility has been prepared and enclosed. The Board wishes to remind you that plans for this additional space at the current facility had already been made because of the present needs. It had been thoroughly discussed and planned for well over six months as part of our capital planning and has been "in the works" for a much longer time. 5. The Board would like to strongly recommend (a) secure storage for the inactive files for the Board of Public Works, (b) the discussion of incorporating the Civil Defense function and secure storage for other departments and (c) the building of additional space that could accomodate a future central maintenance for all Town vehicles. The first is much needed space that would help solve the general space crunch that Reading government, including the Board of Public Works, has experienced over the last few years largely due to the necessity of keeping copies of the volumes of paper produced in its activities. The second would find a home for the Civil Defense function, put it in a facility that would in all likelihood be open in time of emergency and if any funding were available to increase qualification, the secure storage would have the same benefit for other departments as � ��SS it would for our own. The last recommendation should not add extensively to the present building costs but the lack of planning could be quite costly to the Town at a later time. b. The question of whether the Hoard of Public Works should move its entire function to the new facility can not be considered as a separate entity. The centralization of the Board of Public Works in this manner causes the decentralization of Town Government as a whole which is a point that the Town has been moving to in order to create a more efficient and productive service to the people of the Town. If it could be located in an area within walking distance of the Town Hall complex this would seem to be a logical move. However, we must consider that a practical impossibility at this present time. The move could put a strain on'the financial and personnel welfare of the Government that would seem to make it a likelihood that should not be considered. (SEE SHEET 2A) Presently a memo is being circulated within the other Departments of the Government that should help us to understand better the relation- ship of the Board of Public Works to them, particularly the financial branch. The Board would like you to plan for the expansion and inclusion of their Adminstrative, Office and Engineering functions if in the future the Town is willing to pay for the increased space by virtue of adding additional personnel and equipment and the citizens are willing to accept the idea of going to satellite locations to meet their different needs. The additional cost and inconvenience however is not something that the Board of Public Works sees that the Town is ready to accept at this time. 7. Movement of all or any of the functions to Strout Avenue Treatment Plant Facilities - The Board is adamently against moving to the Strout Avenue site. It' was fully discussed. The possibility of endangering the well field in a situation that the citizens of Reading can control is out of the question from the Water Commissioners viewpoint. The operation of the Treatment Plant is regarded as a specialization in nature. Water and sewer maintenance operations are in actuality maintenance operations and should be included in a maintenance facility. (SEE SHEET 1A). q C I e60 SHEET 1A MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Facility Relocation Committee FROM: Board of Public Works Municipal Space Building Committee DATE: January 10, 1984 I. A new central location to house all of the existing Public Works operations currently located at the John Street site in one location is important for the following reasons; 1. Centralization of our maintenance functions provides control over the entire operation. (Better coordination of the services provided by the Department with personnel and equipment). 2. Allows Supervisors to cover for each other during times of vacation or sick leave (Three supervisors will be working out of the new facility). 3. Storage of equipment allows interdivision use of all equipment easily. (Water, Sewer, Highway, Forestry & Parks Divisions coordinate the use of equipment). 4. Storage of materials allows ease of access and control over inventory, loading and unloading. (Gravel, stone, sand, loam, etc.). 5. Allows personnel to be allocated between divisions as required. (Transporting personnel would not be necessary). 6. Allows one person to maintain records, answer phones, receive shipments, and visitors. (Dispatcher - Clerk). 7. Reduces the duplication of space, manpower and storage require- ments. (Additional locations may require an additional Dis- patcher -Clerk and require more office and material storage areas). 8. Provides better opportunity for supervisors to manage equipment and personnel. (coordination of effort). 9. Would probably allow a larger buffer area between residential areas and operations, but would require a smaller percentage of the overall site; i.e., a 4 acre site may require an additional 3.2 acres to maintain a 100 foot buffer zone 80.5X of site, a 10 acre site may require an additional 4.89 acres to maintain a 100 foot buffer zone 48.9Y. of site. 9 &15? 1 SHEET 2A Comments from Treasurer /Data Processing Coordinator, Beth Klepeis, at Board of Public Works Meeting of January 17, 1984 regarding relocation of the Department of Public Works from the Town Hall; Three years ago we started with the Computer Study Committee. The Committee thought long and hard. The Board of Public Works representatives did decide, with the support of the Board, that they did want to be part of the central computer system. When we set this up it was with the idea that this would be a user- friendly language. The Department of Public Works functions are very much integrated into the central computer system. Right now there is a lot of dependency on tote Computer Coordinator and her Assistant. The people from the central office are up here (at the D.P.W.) all day long. If you wanted to move somewhere else you would have to hire someone full time to oversee your computer operations. We don't have the capability (manpower) to do your functions. If you wanted to buy duplicate computer equipment it would cost approximately $40,000.00. It would still not be feasible for you to be apart from the central offices. This move for us would be very expensive and very impractical. From a Treasurer's standpoint, I deal with the Superintendent of Public Works very frequently. There is much Department interaction. Your funding and bonding would be integrated with us. During audits, the DPW input would be needed. For you to move to another location would really put us back a big step. Chairman Wood asked if we were going to move the entire Department, from a financial standpoint, what types of things would it take? Mrs. Klepeis replied we would need someone trained as a computer "troubleshooter" to go with you. Mrs. Wood asked for your general billing would you need at least a high speed printer? Mrs. Klepeis replied yes, but for your operation to move does not seem feasible to me. The logistics would be very difficult. The.bill roll function is also done by you and is not a function of our office. We would need to hire at least one more person in my office to take care of your Payroll and Bill Roll functions. Mr. Griffin asked if we did set up our own computer system, are we talking $40,000 - $507000? Mrs. Klepeis replied yes, just for the hardware, and the entire move would be fairly expensive. I don't think adding another layer of computer coordinating would be optimum at this time. I think we should force Town Government to give us optimum space to have a centralized government. Chairman Wood stated the Tax Collector has also spoken similarly to Mrs. Klepeis. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES INVENTORY I - Public Works John Street Site Old Garage n Water Division . .............................. ......1,488 ft2 SewerDivision .. ............ ..........................1,596 ft2 RadioRoom ..................... ..................::........297 ft2 Toilet........................ ............................264 ft2 BoilerRoom ..................... ..........................*.286 ft MeterRoom .................... ............................297 ft2 Supervisor's Office ........... ............................216 ft Storage#1 ..................... ............................472 ft Storage #2 ..................... ............................487 ft2 Sign Shop ...................... ............................543 ft2 Hallway...................................................... 838 ft2 Highway Division ......................................... .1,579 ft Park Division ........................................... .2,064 ft2 Forestry Division .............. ..........................1,574 ft Park Division Storage .......... ............................858 ft Repair shop office ............. ............................259 ft2 Repair shop .... ............................... ...........2,493 ft Repair shop (oil storage) ...... .............................89 ft2 Mezzanine - Repair shop ........ ............................368 ft2 Hallway (between repair & welding shop) ................. .77 ft 16,145 ft2 Cold Storage Building (between Garage and access road to incinerator) TOTAL..... .3,200 ft2 (vehicle storage) NEW PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE ................ .....................10,873 ft2 INCINERATOR REFUSE RECEIVING BUILDING ....... ... ........................4,200 ft2 (vehicle storage) SALT STORAGE BUILDING ................ ..........................3,360 ft2 John Street Space Existing ....... 37,778 ft2 Park and Recreation Storage at-Bear Hill Nike Site ............1,200 ft2 Public Works Administration and Engineering Offices in Town Hall Existing Areas 2,213 ft (Excludes Hallways and Bathrooms) Total Building Area - John Street ... .........................37,778 ft2 Bear Hill Nike Site ................ ..........................1,200 ft2 TownHall ................... ............................... .2,213 ft2 Existing Total Building Areas ...... .........................41,191 ft2 -2- Current Additional Space Needs: 7,500 s.f. Cut Tree Storage 2,500 John Street Site - Areas requiring expansion: 2,500 s.f. Water Pipe Storage 1. Vehicles are jammed into center isle of equipment storage 28,800 s.f. 2 24,000 building now. Additional space is required. + 5,000 ft 2. Meter room requires more room Salt, Sand & Mixing Area + 200 ft 3. Maintenance Garage Addition Manholes,-Etc. +2,400 s.f. ft 4. Office Space for Supervisors Roadways and Driveways + 900 ft2 5. Parks Addition required for increased work and equipment Employee Parking - Existing John Street Facility 12,000 2 TOTAL with new agreement from School Department + 1,000 ft Subtotal 9,500 ft Bear Hill Nike Site 1. No planned expansion but existing space could be made available to other departments if relocation of all. functions is to one location. Town Hall Office Areas Additional Space for Office and Storage 1,000 ft Additional Space for Hallways and Bathrooms 700 ft Subtotal 1,700 ft John Street Existing and Planned Building Space 50,691 ft Nike Site Bear Hill Existing and Proposed 1,200 ft Town Hall Offices Existing and Proposed 3,913 ft2 Total Future 55,804 ft Public Works Outside Storage Space Requirements (Excluding Snow Dump Area) Nursery Area 7,500 s.f. Cut Tree Storage 2,500 s.f. Wood Chip Storage 2,500 s.f. Water Pipe Storage 8,000 s.f. Gravel, Stone, Pavement Area 28,800 s.f. Loam Stock and Shredder Operation 24,000 s.f. Drain Manholes & Pipe Storage 5,400 s.f. Snow Plow Storage 1,750 s.f. Salt, Sand & Mixing Area 24,000 s.f. Old Materials,'Drain Pipe, Curbing, Manholes,-Etc. 12,500 s.f. Grass Areas 24,.000 s.f. Roadways and Driveways 62,600 s.f. Gas Storage & Pumping'Facilities 4,800 s.f. Employee Parking - Existing John Street Facility 12,000 s.f. TOTAL 223,950 s.f. Total Building Space 55,804 ft = 1.28 Acres Total Outside Storage223,950 ft = 5.14 Acres Total Useable Area ti 6.42 Acres Snow Dump Area 4.00 Acres v Total 10.42 Acres MFMnV AMnTTM TO: Public Works Facility Relocation Committee FROM: Frank H. Baggs DATE: February 18, 1984 RE: Minutes of Meeting, February 15, 1984 Attending: (Members) - C. Arthur, F. Baggs, D. Barker, P. Dustin, F. Robie, R. Sullivan, R. Tulikangas (Associate Member - Non - Voting) - W. Bergeron, E. McIntire, Jr. (Guests) - M. Cohen (TASC), Fin. Comm. Rep., Reading Chronicle, and interested citizens Chairman Barker called meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Minutes of last meeting approved with no corrections Doug Barker reported on a letter received from Allen Kline, son -in -law of Aaron Dubitzky. Mr. Kline was responding to a letter from the Committee about the Dubitzky property off Salem Street. In the letter, Mr. Kline indicated that the family was willing to discuss sale. • Joan Nickerson, from the League of Women Voters, read a letter to the Committee from the League. The League urged the Committee to reject the Haverhill Street Nike Site for D.P.W. consideration. They saw it as a threat to Town future water needs. • A Mr. O'Brien, representing a group of Haverhill Street residents, gave a presentation in opposition to the proposed Haverhill Street Nike Site. Key Points: 1. Safety - entrance to Nike Site at busy part of Haverhill Street; being near school, church, and several homes. Also, entrance is not far from curve in road adding to safety concern. 2. Environment - letter from Conservation Commission advising of close proximity of Nike Site to potential Town water supply. The potential for pollution jeopardizes a freshwater supply used all the way to the sea. 3. zoning - Town zoning by -laws protect residential areas. Haverhill Street area in question is S -40 (40,000 ft residential), not compatible with a D.P.W. Supporting the presentation was a petition signed by 400 residents. 4 &1(01 -2- Committee member Charlie Arthur presented information from the Town Planning Board relative to site selection. (1) Analysis by Planning Board of five remaining sites plus adding two more; Dooley property on Main Street and Eric's Greenhouse property on Main Street. (2) A comparative analysis between area town D.P.W. sites Continued Site Review 1. Landfill —dump site off John Street Plus Side: 35 to 37 acres of town owned land not in anyone's back yard. Also, no environmental concerns because site no worse than present site and new facility would only be an improvement. Negative side: A landfill site with all inherent ground settling problems. Not sure Town could build on property right away. Also, landfill site has always been earmarked as future industrial development property. 2. Adams- Gentile property off Salem Street Plus side: 13.84 acres of non - wetland available for.sale. Neighborhood concern appears only to be with proposed access road and associated increase of traffic. Negative side: Lack of suitable access with no obvious possibilities However, owner does have option on possible access route. Site Review Data Sheets The Site Review Data Sheets passed out by Doug Barker were then looked at. Committee filled in data with best information available. Chairman Barker put forward a list of considerations for any site considered: 1. Cost of acquisition 2. Time to make available 3. Site preparation expense 4. Abuttors 5. Site Drainage patterns 6. Proximity to water 7. Current assessment 8. Proximity to snow dump 9. Access to various areas of Town 10. Safety ��1�Z -3- Doug Barker reported a phone call from the Lester family indicating a letter was coming. This letter would tell the Committee that the Lester property on Main Street was not for sale. • March 14th was set as the date for a Public Hearing The date of April 2 was set for the Committee report to Town Meeting Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. 4 &1G3 MEMORANDUM TO: B.P.W. Facility Relocation Committee FROM: D.L. Barker, Chairman DATE: February 27, 1984 RE: Agenda for Meeting - Wednesday, February 29, 1984 The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, February 29, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in Room 16, Municipal Building. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Meet at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approve minutes of previous meeting 3. Reading of correspondence to Committee (if any) 4. Meet with Industrial Development Committee 5. Report of progress from Environmental Subcommittee 6. Work on refinements of site matrix 7. Other Business a) Firm up details of tour - March 3 at 9:30 a.m. 8. Adjourn by 9:30 P.M. DLB:cmb D.L. Barker, Chairman B.P.W. - Facility Relocation Committee � &I0 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Facility Relocation Committee FROM: Frank H. Baggs DATE: February 25, 1984 RE: Minutes of Meeting - February 22, 1984 , Attending: (Members) - C. Arthur, F. Baggs, D. Barker, P. Dustin, F. Robie, R. Sullivan, R. Tulikangas (Associate Member - Non - voting) - W. Bergeron (Guest) - M. Cohen (TASC), Fin. Comm. Rep., Reading Chronicle, and interested citizens • Chairman Barker called meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Minutes of last meeting approved with one correction. Doug Barker's correspondence with Aaron Dubitsky'.s son -in -law, Allen Kline was by phone not letter. General Site Discussion: a) South Main Street - Dooley property After brief discussion, committee unanimously rejected site. b) Dr. Lester's property off Main Street Doug Barker reported a phone conversation with Mrs. Lester in which she indicated that they did not wish to sell. In view of this, the Committee rejected site. c) Dubitzky Property - Off Salem Street Chairman Barker described his interest in this site. He said that if you include the entire property, part with Gallahue's and Flea Market building, it amounted to 9h acres, 7h acres of which usable non - wetland. Also, that Mr. Dubitzky was willing to talk about sale. Another point was that the property had large frontage on Salem Street providing easy accessibility. Other Committee members questioned whether the Town could get fair value for Gallahue's - Flea Market building plot, or whether neighboring citizens would be opposed to the site. It was decided that Mr. Dubitzky would have to be contacted about his - selling price. A public hearing would possibly answer the other question. One citizen questioned why the Committee was looking for a 6 acre site minimum. She noted that Malden had recently built a new D.P.W. on four acres. Bill Bergeron answered that the D.P.W. did indeed need six acres and that four acres more was needed for snow dump. ,I &q Memorandum February 25, 1984 Page 2 d) Adams /Gentile Property - Set in from Pleasant Street and Manning Street Committee Member Frank Baggs described his interest in the site. The property contains 14 acres of usable land, owners willing to sell, owner's having option to purchase access route to Salem Street, and property adjacent to Town Dump - Landfill creating possibility of access route to John Street. Other members cautioned about possible selling price, and also that owner's land option access route to Salem Street was right against neighbors yards. The Committee needed more information about this site. Mr. Gentile pointed out a possible access route around neighborhood towards Dubitzky property. This route would access Salem Street and not be in anyone's back yard. e) Landfill - John Street Dump Site Two objections raised: 1. Buildability on ground still settling 2. Future use of property for industrial development Site discussion ended with.arrival of Town Counsel, Ted Cohen. • Ted Cohen discussion (main points): a) Zoning By -Laws - Town's requirements Mr. Cohen said that the Town is exempt from Zoning By -Laws. One Haverhill Street resident, Mr. O'Brien, took exception to this opinion. b) Wetland Act - Town's requirements Mr. Cohen said that Town was not exempt from Wetlands Act (Town By -Law 131 -40). That the Town would have to approach the Conservation Commission about any question. The Conservation Commission would render any decision on the matter. c) Eminent Domain - General review of procedure. Town Counsel said that the Town had the extraordinary power to take the land of others for public purpose. A two -third vote of Town Meeting would be needed to approve any such action. A Letter of Notice would follow (Order of Taking). Fair market evaluation would take place to reach an agreed upon amount. Appeal was only possible for the agreed upon price. Memorandum February 25, 1984 Page 3 d) Procedure for discussing possible acquisition of private site(s): Mr. Cohen said that Committee could enter into preliminary discussions. However, only Town Meeting could authorize actual agreement. • Committee decided to make a tour of possible sites, Saturday, March 3, 1984 at 9:30 A.M. • Committee unanimously voted to go into Executive Session to consider the purchase and value of Real Property. Vote of Record: C. Arthur, F. Baggs, D. Barker, P. Dustin, R. Sullivan, F. Robie and R. Tulikangas all voting in affirmative. Citizen present, Mrs. Adams, wanted to be on record as opposing Committee's action. • Committee came out of Executive Session at 10:10 P.M., adjourned for the evening. q (, / ('0 (0 B.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 Page 1 A meeting of the BPW - Facility Relocation Committee convened at 7:35 P.M. in the Reading Memorial High School Lecture Hall. Present were Chairman Douglass L. Barker, Secretary Frank H. Baggs, Jr., Committee Members Charles R. Arthur Jr., Francis B. Robie, Paul C. Dustin, Richard L. Sullivan, Robert J: Tulikangas and Randy Harrison. Also present were DPW Superintendent Anthony V. Fletcher, Assistant Superintendents William R. Bergeron and Edward D. McIntire, Jr., Marvin Cohen of TASC and Mark Pillsbury of the Daily Times and Chronicle. Mr. Baggs read the Notice of Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M.. The purpose of this Hearing will be to gather public input and comment relative to sites currently under discussion; (1) area near and including Gallahue's Market off Salem Street, (2) Adams - Gentile property off Salem Street, (3) Landfill off John Street and (4) Nike Site off Haverhill Street. Chairman Barker welcomed everyone to the Hearing and introduced the Committee Members. There were approximately 154 residents present. Chairman Barker explained the first order of business would be statements by Town Boards, Commissions and Committees. Chairman Gail Wood of the Board of Public Works stated in many respects the people here are angry. Given time and money, anything can be engineered. If we are to learn from the past, both right and wrong, we must look forward and backward at the same time so that when we move forward we make the right decision. The Board of Public Works unanimously opposed the selling of the DPW site at the November Town Meeting. When this passed at Town Meeting, however, the Board was forced to look at alternative sites. The landfill site was rejected for economic reasons. & 11 l9 Q.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 Page 2 She stated the Nike Site looked like the answer to a dream, as it may well appear. However, the Board of Public Works implores you to not recommend the Nike Site. She stated two well fields were established in years back, one off Lowell Street and one near the North Reading line. The Great Cedar Swamp was also investigated as a watershed area. The revay well field has been closed due to sodium contamination. The current water problems should alert the citizens to the fragility of a water supply. Look at Bedford's well contamination problems. Anyone that thinks the MDC is a great salvation to our water problems is greatly misinformed. The MDC does not want Reading as one of its customers. They can not now supply enough water to the customers they have. As Water Commissioners, the BPW asks that this Committee not mortgage the water future of the children and grandchildren of this Town, but to plan ahead with foresight, and not recommend the Nike Site as a location for a DPW facility, and please keep the Cedar Swamp area clean in case it is needed as a well field and water resource in the future. Thank you. Kenneth Messina, Chairman of the Planning Board, read a letter from the Planning Board. He stated the Board, by unanimous vote, endorses the following sites in order of preference; (1) Dubitzky Property off Salem Street (only the undeveloped portion); (2) Lester property off Main Street; (3) Strout Avenue Town -owned land. I� &[ (, 9 VI B.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing March 14, .1984 Page 3 He stated the Planning Board does not recommend the landfill site, the Nike Site or the Adams - Gentile site because of the negative impact on neighbors. The Board would prefer the current residential S -10 Zoning. Dan Ensminger, TASC employee and Chairman of the Industrial Development Commission stated his Commission has investigated the potential of Town -owned land for industrial use. As we see it, Reading is poised for substantial reconstruction and industrial growth. The economic and development potential available to Reading is the envy of many surrounding Towns. He stated the IDC has initiated two studies of the John Street property, one by the MAPC and one by Whitman & Howard. He stated the Kennedy Library and U. Mass Campus in Boston were both built on landfills. Reading's landfill will close on July 1, 19841 all dumping will cease at that time. Mr. Ensminger showed a viewgraph of the existing landfill. A one year moratorium period is required by the State DEGE. He stated although additional study is needed, our belief is that the John Street Landfill should be suitable for industrial or commercial use in the future. The Town of Reading holds the keys to its own economic future. He stated tax revenues are estimated to amount to $500,000 per year, this is in addition to the $400,000 per year projected from TASC. For these reasons, we are against the use of the landfill for the DPW site. However, the IDC urges the Committee to act as we must act and to take the concerns of the whole Town into consideration. For example,. the parcels smaller than six acres should be investigated. l� B.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 Page 4 Chairman Barker read a letter from the Board of Health, stating that due to time constraints they have not reviewed the four sites under consideration, but will at another time offer their views to the Committee. Jim Ballantine of the Hazardous Waste Committee stated the H.W.C. did a survey of the facility at John Street and came up with a listing of materials stored and used. He stated there are 12 underground storage tanks, 250 gallons of chemicals are used in sewerage cleaning, 400 gallons of chemicals are used by the Forestry Department (the most potentially injurious) and 1100 gallons of oils and grease. In the incinerator area poles and wooden materials are treated with chemicals. He stated the Hazardous Waste Committee believes there are three mechanisms by which a Public Works Facility could impact the environment; 1. Leakage from underground storage tanks; 2. Accidental spills of these materials during loading and handling; and 3. Disaster or "Act of God" (explosion or fire). Mr. Ballantine stated based upon the Hazardous Waste Committee's observations, the Nike Site is much too close to the current and potential water suply to be considered to be a viable relocation alternative. We would recommend against relocation in the Nike Site area. Mr. Frank Robie of the Conservation Commission stated the Nike Site is town -owned and previously used. The missile firing areas are now flooded with water. The entire area is above the flood plain and the soil is extremely good for construction purposes. 1, B.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 Page 5 The next agenda item was the discussion of the Dubitzky Property off Salem Street by Committee Member Richard Sullivan and the DPW. Mr. Sullivan explained the location of the property. The usable area is about seven acres. The present use is commercial with significant open land beside it. The impact on the neighborhood would be property valuations and noise of operations. Superintendent Fletcher stated Ted McIntire, Assistant Superintendent will make a presentation relating to extraordinary costs developed by the Department of Public Works for each site. He stated there are no land aquisition costs involved here. There are no legal fees addressed and no environmental concerns addressed. Mr. McIntire stated due to the fact this land abuts Salem Street, the utilities are readily available. He stated demolition of the two buildings would cost approximately $25,000, and fill $20,000 for a total of $45, 000.00. Mr. Reggie Peters of 62 Bay State Road asked do you have any idea what the cost of the aquisition of that land will be. Chairman Barker replied the appraisers are working on this now and we hope to have that answer this Spring. Mr. Kenneth Messina of the Planning Board stated I want to make it clear we did not advocate taking of the Gallahue's buildings at all. Janet Allen of 45 Johanna Drive presented the Board with a petition relating to the Dubitzky property and the Gentile property signed by abuttors of both properties in protest of relocating the DPW facility to either of these sites. Chairman Barker read the petition for the record. B.P.W.- F.R:C. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Bill Andrews of 228 Pleasant Street stated he has asked realtors if a DPW site in his neighborhood would devaluate his property and the answer was "yes ". Carol A. Glowacki of 36 Johanna Drive stated there are two houses missing on either side of the street on the overhead projection of the area. Have any studies been done regarding the wetlands? What do you mean by "unknown" soils? Mr. McIntire stated there have been no borings done on the Dubitzky property to my knowledge. We know there is peat located at the sewer and water main lines. The impact on the sewer and water services would be that the DPW facility would be on the same system it is on now, and would therefore not increase the flows. Superintendent Fletcher stated there has been no study or environmental concerns addressed. Charlie Costello, Administrator of the Reading Conservation Commission, stated in reference to the question about the wetland impacts - this area would come under the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. Richard Allen of 45 Johanna Drive stated at present the sewer line is overtaxed, it overflows now. Would the sewer problem be corrected before the new facility is put in there. Chairman Barker stated the time frame for the new sewer pumping station is 1986, which is about the same time this building should be finished. Superintendent Fletcher again repeated we are not at this time addressing any of the environmental concerns. J -72., l� B.P.W.- F.R.G. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 Page 7 Chairman Barker stated it should be made clear to you the Board of Public Works was not in favor of moving. The majority of Town Meeting members voted for us to move. Committee Member Charles Arthur next discussed the Adams - Gentile property off Salem Street. He stated some of the citizens concerns are traffic volume and congestion on Salem Street and surrounding streets, another major concern is the proximity to wetlands. Existing soils at this time are unknown. The topography is flat and the land is clear. We would need main extensions to this site. Assistant Superintendent McIntire stated there are two possible alternatives to this site; Scheme A - Purchase of Entire Area Land /House Taking (Road) $100,000 Road Construction 78,000 Drain Construction 31500 Demolition & Prep 50,000 Utilities 5,000 Estimate $236,500 Scheme B - Partial Site Aquisition Land Taking $70,000 Road Construction 71,500 Cut /Fill 59,000 Culvert /Drain Construction 30,000 Demolition and Prep 20,000 (� 3 Utilities 5,000 B.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 Page 8 Mr. Neil Caddigan of Arrow Circle asked how do you relate the landfill area, or in this case, the Adams /Gentile property to the UMass Boston Campus being built on a landfill. There are no abuttors to UMass or the Kennedy Library. What is the comparison? Dan Ensminger of the I.D.C. replied I was just illustrating the point that it has been done. Reggie Peters of Bay State Road stated I think the Industrial Committee did a good job by recommending that this land be sold. This money should, however, be spent on presently town -owned land. Chairman Gail Wood of the BPW stated the Board of Public Works was very much opposed to a new site being built at the Strout Avenue town -owned land site. Martha Carriere of Salem Street stated the petitions submitted to the Committee were for both the Dubitzky property and the Adams - Gentile property off Salem Street. She stated the traffic volume on Salem Street is very high. There have been 25 reported accidents on Salem Street in the last year, according to the Reading Police Department. Louis Meier of Belmont Street stated that one of the biggest drawbacks to locating the new site off Salem Street is the Little League Park on Pleasant Street, because of the safety factor involving the children. Bob Tulikangas, Committee Member, next discussed the John Street Landfill Site. He stated the present use of the site is a sanitary landfill. He stated its potential for buffers as rated by the Committee is excellent. Whitman & Howard has done an environmental impact study on the landfill. The 'existing soils are poor and unstable and the existing q �i -7 -.5' B.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing starch 14, 1984 Page 9 topography is variable. The utility requirements are such that main extensions would be required on piles. He stated the Volvo building on John Street has problems with settling because the building is on piles. Mr. Thompson, a Town Meeting Member, stated as a Town Meeting Member, I am sorry I voted the way I did. I personally feel the more we research this, the existing John Street site would be the most practical. Mr. Earle Kaufman of Boston Stove stated I want to state it is not my purpose to try to advocate a specific site. My purpose is really to bring to the Committee's attention some relevant facts. We (Boston Stove) have been more than 2 1/2 years trying to begin our development at John Street. Committee Member Frank Robie next discussed the hike Site on Haverhill Street. The Department of Public Works estimated the extraordinary costs at this site to be $64,000.00. He stated the Committee's largest concern is the fact that the area is a possible future well site; and is in the Ipswich River Watershed. Sally Hoyt,. Chairman of the Conservation Commission, stated the Conservation Commission is unanimously opposed to the Nike Site for the relocation of the Department of Public Works. She read a very lengthy report on the opposition of her commission to the Nike Site. She stated the Conservation Commission feels the new facility should be located in the vicinity of the present landfill and DPW Site on John Street. Joanne Nickerson of the League of Women Voters read a letter from the League stating their opposition to the Nike Site. Michael Pacillo of 38 Cross Street recommended a Court Injunction for stopping the sale of land to TASC. qo� B.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 Page 10 At 10:00 P.M. Chairman Barker read a petition to support the present location of the DPW facility signed by 31 residents. Bill Brown, Town Meeting Member from Precinct 8, stated I think a simple Article at a Special Town Meeting to rescind the motion taken at the Fall Town Meeting could be undertaken to stop the sale of this. He stated he would be willing to present an Article. Let's go back to Town Meeting and do it all over again. I would be willing to sit through this again. I certainly think this should be done. Brenda A. Stinson of 293 Haverhill Street presented the Committee with a petition signed by 400 people against the relocation of the DPW site to the Nike Site property. Mr. Barry Hampson of 37 Joseph Way stated as a point of information, those petitions should be able to be signed by anyone here tonight. He stated I am a member of the Board of Public Works and a resident of Precinct 8. He stated I am speaking to you as a concerned citizen. He stated I would like the BPW Facility Relocation Committee to consider a fifth alternative. I request this Committee evaluate the real cost of keeping the Department of Public Works at the present site. He stated I am in favor of selling part of the parcel to TASC or someone else. Mr. Hampson stated, based on a proposal from the American Realty Development Corporation for part of the parcel, I don't think the presence of an upgraded DPW Facility would be detrimental to any private industry. He showed overhead projections of his conception of the expenses and income involved in selling part or all of the existing parcel to TASC or someone else, or staying where we are. He stated we would gain +1.6 million dollars by staying exactly where we are. () �� B.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 Page 11 Jim O'Hare of Precinct 4, and a Town Meeting Member, stated I think it is very important that we stay with facts and they do not get distorted. The truth is that TASC's bid was $1.2 million dollars or fair market value. Jim Ballantine of the Hazardous Waste Committee stated we need a good deal of planning. It is very important to get a lot of public input to make certain we have done our planning. We should also think about what a facility is going to look like. He stated I think it is quite possible to design and install a facility on certain portions of the landfill which are stable. Superintendent Fletcher stated to address your concern about the design of the facility if we are forced to do this, the present facility is 50 years old. A new garage could be the best looking building on the block. New buildings are designed in terms of the highest technology in terms of hazardous wastes, heat, light and power. There also has to be a concern about the quality of ground this building goes on. If the public were to choose to stay on John Street, you must certainly consider a good amount of money to bring the existing building up to par. Mr. Bill Andrews of 228 Pleasant Street stated my thoughts on this are to keep the facility where it is now. Michael Pacillo of 38 Cross Street stated I agree we should look down the road as to what is best for this Town. I think we should sell part of the land to AROC and stay where we are. Louis Meier of Belmont Street asked the longer we wait how much more is it going to cost us? Assistant Superintendent McIntire stated it could increase 10 -15% Q per year. 4 ( ( V B.P.W.- F.R.C. Public Hearing March 14, 1984 'Page 12 Earle Kaufman of Boston Stove stated I may be accused of being one who wants TASC next to us. He suggested the Committee make a thorough evaluation of the long term factors. I 'think you have to take a 20 and 30 year approach to this. Morton Nickerson of 299 Pearl Street stated all of the tax dollars are not positive dollars for the Town. It is quite possible it will cost the Town more to keep industry in Town. Martha Carrierre of Salem Street stated when people purchase property they do so knowing what they have next door. Chairman Barker stated thank you for coming. The Committee has tried to listen intently. He thanked the Department of Public Works for preparation of information, research and viewgraphs. The meeting adjourned at 11;02 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Secretary q &1-7� rKUr.c(C/ % 6,7_, l+-^rr tt--r l�e.Si6.J4r /GJ /ulujV RtiA W.tT I.4 .,11, AR4,A /Jr T rCX,,) / /n14i t 7-1e- r /t5 __.___ A✓�c.fsrc,rr __....... -. V✓ic�,r.o� ^ 1 u/L/ZF.l f CNIeRKI.1 ! �XrSrI�$ S/TE �..n rrR. /� Zo-�iG u�N•L. la< M f FiAa /�/LItr9 LR1.►D �o.J J 6 Or.JrJw� /�dAcA�rcr AQtiA L /+>tIr4r/a//S *JD PoG>°l"Wx NrC D J 6S LrM.TATI�JS C'aMMGw/ >r.?oc.r R ✓6ava J.}TG2 DcPT,. f%A2 ro�tS 9G . / 3 Acr2F v`Z 6.2. /►4rrcc +s .rQ✓Art,4 dL/E LoT Hr4s O✓,�,'rQ 7DD' -S - oZ a 7-o W n1 �//4ie /LD SutRe.,gJerJ6+Itt P120�OQTy ✓ /� /� r`/CiG E S Fyooa,�tA /a Ac�ES op Q)Z AJD Oa 49 :✓c F/PDJra66 - oa 6R0 ✓L Sr -- t /CLOODfcgl O/C RF-4 7-t*A -+4113 WIr / .l EAP -6 MdP,�,rY Is i- *&Gcty RRjLA cMlr+4rJs tir4vc,eNltc ST. AJ1KC. 5/T� RAT /7o [ors 12 tS PLgr j.fj o� y• y� y3� Ae2,erS FLOOhPc,4r.J %9• a� r. Wq >�,e .as SE$Jt.Q /S ,gccESS ✓+A A 30.0' ��,y0 bI AJ(o %Wnl wh s AnrY 6E.J- � uW -nwu.♦ toyer q /g r1c,C Exsr., ✓ [ors / f� �GkS O.BB �4c4cs Sr9./D,•IC� /�jGIQ�$ R ✓arLg6LE eu /216HTOFWAY ; OF Lg-jb Fcgr+A e.Ht cow ALA +S APA2oX. me 3a.•_ , , J: G.,l HArecrJ.ct S!r Te NA✓� ,pa 3T r /" G 00 D �eAI.J / �.f�J4 D r ^rG SwAMPY /,wRe•.e� EAbT a [S Uaat,� ✓ANUS ftar yb /-/ Z 7 0.0 H• A7 reN..r sRU�,e /.IC &...0 Ac Access ro Sofia S -fvzar //JOUST• ply'j ✓rRruALCY a 4614 Por�JTrj cvA naa ✓ A�}Gleres 5 [OTS H $ ACRES Aclecs SO..Tw i%#P.tla r A /s er A ao.o• _ vF q,i� sw Za.�t JPeda As Nsa r4s Ryr SS t� .te r"+ wrArL /er, ,p /'F.AD/rJr. �_` /,A,JD /F uSGa S.J..a �NnP s.JOw DwMP ✓ /e 7S y 7r E 8' 1 3/. let Q.0 3(.72 IaArKrt Arse - r4F -Xre 13 t, or NAS o✓ee- /°o' �A�D GJ,I1,,gM Gg:sj KALLY co «to u�rr rk,*r Fro Lor3O 9crets ACrz�S 'Ic,e,)cS a/AILAdIJc to LJLSrsr, Xeo•snea&E- ? ° --d20 . �T. N ttY�D' Woea �y+sTTW0b P1-14 r y� as WEST S% �\� A,67- ;q �, ! /• Col ACR, cs [/. 4i3 '°rck •'a.,0 c,� c.►at� `.or /44s Sy8 6,ee.1 1, gup $,� S' -� o # /9 i� 1e o ^� MOSTLY i�AT MM u w IfH A6w rs $.,s. 8' ra 5 /4 G P-fS 6J4e re A N D AG >Q ES oa sAt,e.� S T o,J s4lxm sr• /.Soo w r� /4+� D k D N B r T'Z ICY SaIA/• & _Shc< sj.+� ra j D gResr a PLAT(�8 �orS (:3 �D.18 AC/ZG (o•3y /q� -reES /3.8L1 arise raao JCL is q ✓14/u4 t oa /,or dwTs T+fE E/JD of 4443> /Y, 800 s-/0 Lor J ADaM3 /riosrtr /CLAr /ArD wrrH wooaeo 35 -.VA 0-% [,A JD /s C4Rac.Jr�y MAX SEwGR7Q S GJ/ErLgJ D Acr2�S sn+r a .J O• s*Nr P"- .,,,I SLOG R67.1900 GJ$TLr9rJD loT3 LoJ 4eWAS WEtL 3NtP4,etb Pete py,gT9lo 9. 6,1 0.O 8.%LI whTLiQ A.J� e13fIA /s � ✓6,e�oo' /Aa'' S-o� 0 6cNrIC�E C/-AA.E,JG�E gekaE,tr.Jb, 6t,JTLG BNFfdQ ? I o I- /a .9CQ�� /}c12J�S A. C��S A✓.slcAdc,G as /ceaa) 8y 70o LicaGr 19 IiJG�/i�► M. st oPla6 [a�+ mosrcr �o.sE R[p,. ,4erch ro �, W6sr, sr. oN WC.srs7- Y7 76o E.J os woeaeD , SY Rc+eeS PG rq T , g, / 8l �O a O 7. q% W *mse ANC /a.A�tiID.L l.lawD S-oio J'oH� t�. (rst+eAcLY orort,jNr4r ✓ L, or ? jM AGteG.S 4C /Z /.-s 9 G eES tw" rS f a r ges t-Ts sy /QtEY TYAC2R/tAD / 94" wJ 0IAWb 6 A LJeTL r.JD STR F.fir ° WET }A.1p FA /reC H /L� L.,oODI,R^I� P)irc,c. L-r TV N FFc.G /0's-0 0.0 / 0. S O WATLr2 AAA 4or N4s 4+91uD: D9vrD F. /RR°��opp`S,.FFt,P Q ,Ctrs (F y 14r-P -ES AG2/LS 5 Sc1J E,e , s A ✓Arcd6c.COr: X50 +' 4T"t. a.J 47 700 Lb S-'oZ0 /,IZY6S lSi4an� WrTN ,t}C12e FB 4aKLIJ ST QNKNJ Sr 3 boo `Me•�t T�/Aa $eiA P4/4Ta /0, 9,Y8 /.yS c9•03 CIJ,97VI, ,eASD SorN l•grJD s-aa eD /-►,CRA.6f-49 4A Li- /oo'BNFiiR 7*4NK ✓ /d /,07 - / AGIe. -s gcie& -S G12.ES �4 ✓N/cA6a,C as rle^4kur4 Aa) oa F2AaKt1.� 73, 000 /.3LDG j S � MA v,61 A. WooA[D Ler o/rTp 3amK o.1 j 31DKs RLD�tCS sgwgL MA Au a 44 ErLAa 1> Mgla cS'TE(.LT3 Mgl.1 •WZ"rs (a I, 900 i�Zr( -i1 xib 4JES7"G2 Lew A4s.FS Ar1D semx 141cy JAIS A,QKA ro q..T Nc,e,- SswTN /9!1 So. / PLAT a/3 Lot 3 S. 8 /1G2 /. a 1 AG&�S y. a 43*rErt 40b s wte- IS AiArcAdcEo.J car F,e4J*m 004 ,8o7'H /,4,jh. �cI/oDo 3 - o'ZO .1� MAaGA2.cr 6Earcys+�� /K A ✓D WrrH /oo',6u.FFEa L/rJ FLOOpP/ IA /gc.,eiccs eel 0�ItIJ A.1D HAi ►MCC s •/►tu.+AN.D Fie #.i M9 ✓L2 /31tf 573 3L b.� t M. MACDeJ,atp pMK E.e4� R6DHCeSDIS 049Z+ PLAr b 2j LOTs. 1 / /&, L� 41 (0.83 G- 3 3 O. SO , 47hT,e+t AND ZAF*IX t IS AoT- Nl�s Op 1--f /ei•o' SSC000 FLOoD } c� J -/ 0 %O Lj ICJ ArPEAS VI Qrt, *0 Y cEc3 loo' Cu prsx ACRES /9C►e,�S ACEf-S 1411141t+dt -co F�Co.Jri4GF z OF W /,a 0) N 3 srLu PNCCS rAT.'e< c/ TLIQ l,r TtM nE ST; N 77Ga �E Sr (J eri AdD - ��jj /�.E 14D //J6 SWAMPY I'*0A 3 ro 10 /4/ ,jr. L> y[ ryr // No t,sr ^+o. T ` 7! °� % h+ H WAT6.4 LS A ✓hrLAb L!� a.a zi HAS ySD' -s O CO A,4 6'er►6,eALCY BuFFCQ / rc oFlc 3 gctsty"e AQs16.1cb. /iC►Qfs /2 S' AC gE �Gi2E S Cr4ustuav Ra ;7&17 c,� oa L,.rAy __ t Low of r l4NDwrrN K NI6ys,e Zo/Jc NrGt>a.GO 79TH Cb.JSr• P/42r o;- ICLeopgArll �. 0 ,2aAa PR-oT. 4o7- FL60;, -4 ,,J M ASS• Fluxp AR AS 4� "Jr_ ru T ooc �ilcei�L c5 T O`iS O for / 4 G/r'!L,$ /4C&AS 0.0 AG2ES srewict Is SENrE.Q +S A ✓alLAdlL ea N/4S /000 / __ S - 7 O C OF M oiTf y�6A °4 As A& T- ax / �i ci- a 0d PLA'.J -M4 ✓6e yl t, 1. Wjq4 reWr4SE oy VveWll t 3r. FLGb D )IZ /rJ M /F SS _ S,&JA.N P y REDu c�T g'e� hiMOrn S"'gMP TIN G I ti U .arc / Dxsci2iPrio , �,-, , DEs,c,j*rio.J 7 0�-,4 -L ,Q2 ca AK a , Ftoo9�ca „J AktGyq nlG7' A�6A , � FXtsil tnFiL.TiE$ ✓A.u96Ic. f X/,r,TArID.JS ,,.� ,��, dot Tiea / � rps Cwke�,�r 2o.ci.J6 Cu�2 ,1r Ov)nJ2R Ex,s r,.4 6 SiT�E 7aPdG��OHJyA✓AttA6,u is - -.cite Zoa� ; onwx,e /dFetrsrC. CaMMti. )PC,icG FA2M yL Burn46 nor PcATo?oZ <ors ��3 Lf I9 /p, O 9 AC,2>;S D. U t2ES /O. �%O 4c2.ES w,�nr.t.4v� Ewcie is v *#dA4&L4. &#A WCST 55 fors ygJE OVER. Feo�rTaat ' o.d w r Y-. L�4,JD / 98 000 .StaG' ` 300 s —°? � bona 3 } W,w.SPG.lccjS+ 4Dn `/c 9 .W,c.�oe.Y S�oAl its � oPC�1 L.A+tD oa' NF6LL oa s secs RLDLAe- _c A ro tS. H�er� on REVIEW OF POTENTIAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY LOCATIONS 2/10/84 AARON DUBITZKY NIKE SITE LANDFILL SITE ADAMS- GENTILE (A) ALL LAND (B)VACANT LAND LESTER ITEMS OF CONCERN HAVERHILL_STREET JOHN STREET OFF SALEM STREET SALEM STREET SALEM STREET MAIN ST. 1. Land Area Total .24.4 Ac 35Ac 24AC 9.5 Ac 6.1 Ac 9.5 Ac 2. Usable Land Area 19.2 Ac 24AC 14Ac 7.8 Ac 4.4 Ac 8.0 Ac 3. Usable Land Shape Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair - Good 4. Potential for Buffers Very Good Excellent Excellent Fair - Good Fair - Good Good 5. Present Zoning 5 -40 Industrial S -10 5 -10 & Bus. 5 -10 S -20 G Neighborhood Type Residential. Industrial Residential Res. & Business Residential Residential 7. Existing Access Haverhill St. John Street Pleasant St.- SmithA ? Salem Street Salem Street Main 6 Frankl 8. Addition Access Req'd. Yes No Yes No No No 9. Access Roadway Type Ch. 90 Ch. 90 Ch. 90 Ch. 90 Ch. 90 Ch. 90 10. Existing Traffic 6,000 t 6,000 ± 7,200 ± 7,200 ± 7,200 ± 17,900 + 11. Proposed Traffic Would Add Would add Would add Would Add Would Add 12. Existing Water Mai Ext. R uired Ma 'd Ex ' 13. Existing Sewer Sewer Ext. Req'd. Tchhan Main q'd. Main Ext. Req'd. ervice Ext. Req' . Service Ext. Req d. Main Ext. 14. Existing Drain Drain Ext. Re 'd. Main 'd. Main Ext. Re 'd. ervice Ext. Rea' Service Ext. Re 'd. .Main Ext. 15. Existing Gas No Yes q'd) Yes (Ext. Req'd) Yes Yes No 16. Existing Electric Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17. Existing Soils No apparent problem Dump Fill No apparent problem Buildings and? Unknown Unknown Ledge 18. Existing Topography Flat Variable Flat Flat Flat Hilly 19. Existing Water Supply No No No No No No 20. Potential Water Supply Yes, high No No No No No 21. Existing Use Municipal Dump Commercial Vacant & Business Vacant Residence 22. Location from Center o f Tower 2.5 miles _ 2.0 miles 1.8 miles 1.9 miles 1.9 miles 1.7 miles 23. Site Value ? ?Potentially high ? ? ? ? _Existing - 24. Other i I _ oC� COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SITES FOR RELOCATION OF BPW GARAGE 2/14/84 - READING PLANNING BOARD - ::SCRIPTION ASSESSED VALUE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANC SriOCATION IMPACTS SAFETY sITSKY PROPERTY 2 parcels of land has There is a small brook which tuns Area currently has busi- Salem Street ALEM STREET AND TORRE ST. current assessed value along the rear of this property. nesses to the east and is a major road Brook,-originates from Lake west /to the rear of the and connects well .1 A next to Gallahues Map 92, Lot 14 6.1A Quannopowitt and flows to the property there is a deve- with other major arket and an additional $82,500 Saugus River. Disturbance of the lopment of higher priced roadways within /4 A off Torre Street. brook could have adverse impacts 'homes, which is screened the Town and from : :rviced by major roadway Map 79, Lot 176 on water supplies for communities by a natural buffer. A the Center. there ,ito center of'Town; has 13,861 sq ft $24,600 downstream. Lot seems to be new water & sewer line hat are some traffic rtary and access ramps adequate in size for BPW function been installed in this problems on this Rt. 95. but must consider placing activi- area. Traffic would be road when 95 gets. ties away from brook. using major roadways from clogged. Salem St all parts of town to react becomes access b this site.- Rt 93 and joins 95 at Willow /West Sts Work shifts are somewhat different :NTILE -ADAMS PROPERTY 2 parcels of land that Farrelli land is high and dry and Area of Salem Street is Salem Street is a >LEASANT STREET contain greenhouses has connector of dry:.land to 10 +A currently residential. ajor roadway in and /or vacant are: parcel of land owned by Gentile / Access over small residen- Town. This portion )proximately 6.5 A of 268 Pleasant Street Adams. Area.has had many problems tial streets would have. is in residential are; ind currently house the Map 68, Lot 3 5.82A with drainage and sewer discharge. major impact on neighbor- and has curve toits •eenhouses and rest is $ 201,000 Portion of property that could hood. W, creating site :cant. Entire parcel as 266 Pleasant Street be used for BPW activities is distance problem. -oposed for development Map 68, Lot 10 adequate, but is surrounded by Stop lights at Pearl •eviously contains 23.5A 10,869 sq ft $76,000 wetlands. This area is known to Street would have to land; 1/2 of which is have iepeated water problems esp. be moved after school !tlands. Farrelli land during heavy rains, etc. closing and installed A house on Salem Street closer to BPW access ,s to provide access from for safety. ,at road. Other accesses n be obtained over 'all !sidential streets, COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF bi =Sb r'VA "J VldfTlVq ve am %X^— ar. 2/14/84 - READING PLANNING BOARD'' .vtmtar_ %W�r verc DESCRIPTION b LOCATION ASSESSED VALUE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ... ........... NEIGHBORHOOD .. IMPACTS TRAFFIC AND SAFETY 'STER PROPERTY 1 parcel of land Large lot with some Wetlands. Primarily in a residen- Main Street is a )RTH MAIN STREET Map 210, Lot 1 w 110 A tial area but has business major state road properties close by. A and could easily ,ere is a 10A parcel of $ 137,900 major roadway would provid a handle the traffic ,nd directly off Main adequate access for-BPW associated with a :reet with adequate access use. Has adequate access BPW garage. A stoF f this road. Large lot into property. (There is light at Main and th wooded buffer from some current activity.for Franklin wouldFro- .rrounding properties.. sale and reuse of this vide good traffic land. flow. Only major problem is distance from center of Dwn. Proximity to water treatment plant and gravel pit by way c Franklin Street, wh has recently been widened and repaved OOLEY PROPERTY 2 parcels df land Area has•brook and wetlands..' Land is on State major 2iis portion oftein 9 MAIN STREET and 259 Main Street Periodic flooding during high roadway. Close proximity Street would have 7 MAIN STREET .;14,850 sq-ft =$ 105,000 water table. Some flooding df. , to center of Town. Hag some problem with neighboring properties during adequate access to property traffic exiting fr tire parce of land is 267 Main -Street' these times. Residential properties to site and heading 14 prox. 4.5- A. Has good' 3.9 A of'land- $'160,400 rear, also turing traffi cess off Main Street. from N entering si rrently is being business Traffic signals.to ed. be installed at Ma South Sts wouldlei traffic flows in t regard. Road caul r` easily handle BPW functions and traf Close to center of Town. r -Z SCRIPTION LOCATION ?IC's GREENHOUSES \IN STREET ;:P= oximately �5 A of .nd still remain in ;enson control: Flori ,siness and supply.hou properties. :Good .cess to-land off Main .reet with good site .stance and stop signs S to control traffic Ow. :E SITE /ERHILL STREET - A of land. Currently ,n-owned and operated. :ses Police annex and noting range. Doea not •e adequate access off -erhill Street. l� COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SITES FOR RELOCATION OF DPW GARAGE 2/14/84 - READING PLANNING BOARD • ASSESSED.VALUE 2 parcels of lands 1090.Main Street Map 158, Lot 10 2.06A - $ 298,700 2.5 Forest Street Map 158, Lot 28 3.49A - $99,900. This land abuts MainSt property. Real estate activity on these properties. All of the land may not be avail- able. Some land w /fr on Main St has been sol for 2 house lots. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS Igo wetland's on property Primarily residential neighborhood. Currently operates.florist business -and usea other building for supplies.. Major road with good site dis- tince and traffic signals to,control traffic flow. Area does not seem to have natural buf -fer from surrounding residential properties. did not determine as Land ib surrounded by wetlands. land values. for'Town Conservation Commission has many owned.property.are concerns about pollution'of assessed very high in area - :presently abuts Lynnfield• order to keep Town'-s wellfields, who.have.severe water total assessment high. . problems. Potential bite for future welifields for Town.. Area is residential. .A school and church are in,the immediate vicinity Road is major roadway but has site distance problem to,S because of curve in road: Access to and from property would have to be dbtained, perhaps by takii of residential property ti TRAFFIC AW) SAFETY Good access off Main Street. Has good traffic flow because of traffic. signals just S at Main /Forest Sts. No problem with entering or turning traffic. Close to center of Town and within good distanc,2 to other DPW facil- ities; water treat- ment plant and gravel pit laverhill Street is a well - travelled roadway. It is a major street within Town. Service to this site from other than Salem Street would be over resi- .,dential streets. Franklin Street frog Main to Haverhill _. too narrow and cur-.-: Not close to center of Town or other 5F, facilities. Rush hour traffic could be problem, but difference in work shifts would lessen impact. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SITES -FOR RELOCATION OF BPW GARAGE . " +T "1V"WAW ti!t'1l k 2/14/84 READING PLANNING BOARD ' IN TIAL•ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION ASSESSED VALUE ENVIRONMENTAL.ISSUES NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC AND s LOCATION IMPACTS SAFETY yP SITE Town owned land Land in this region has to be Currently IND zoned. Good access on FIN STREET carefully evaluated because of. Impact of development of major street. its former use as a landfill. this land on future use Good site d.s- rrent landfill has some Gases and -leachate are probable as high -cost, high tance. Good nd available for develop- in such an area. There is a tech, etc. development access to center it and storage (e.g.- ring around the dump. Also this must be thoroughly evalu of Town. No Kt to Exxon Station on land is in the National Flood ated. To move across real change on in Street). Insurance Flood Protection area. the street to a parcel impacts of traffic of land whose potential safety and /or,flow for development and $ return to the Town is as great or greater than the site currently being use could proved to be only "temporary ". Assessment of compatible use must be made with future potential development 1.