Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-08 Board of Selectmen HandoutDRAFT MOTIONS BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING MARCH 8, 2016 Ensmineer, Halsey, Sexton, Arena, Berman LeLacheur 5a) Move to place the name of into nomination for Chairman. Move to close the nominations. Move to place the name of Move to close the nominations. Move to place the name of Move to close the nominations. into nomination for Vice Chairman. into nomination for Secretary. 5c) As provided under MGL Chapter 60, Section 69, the Board of Selectmen hereby move to vacate the final judgment entered on February 24, 2014 in tax lien foreclosure case Town of Reading v. Frederick J. Boni, Case No. 13 TL 147026 covering the property located at 116 Van Norden Road, Reading, MA, Assessors' Map 39, Lot 72, formerly known as Map 155, Lot 1, upon payment by FREDERICK J. BONI on or before MARCH 31, 2016 of all amounts due to redeem the tax taking covering the property, which include, but are not limited to, taxes and interest to the date of payment, all charges and fees associated with the foreclosure case and any costs incurred by the Town in the care, custody and control of the property after the entry of the judgment. 6a) Move to approve the minutes of January 19, 2016 as amended. 6b) Move to approve the minutes of January 26, 2016 as amended. 6c) Move to approve the minutes of February 23, 2016 as amended. Move that the Board of Selectmen adjourn at p.m. Ad Hoc Library Building 8 members Committee David Hutchinson, Chairman Rachel Baumgartner, Vice Chair Cherrie Dubois, Secretary Gregory Stepler Nancy Twomey Bob Newton Jane Kinsella Marc Moll Permanent Building Committee 5 +2 3years Temporary Appoint. Com. Gregory Stepler, Chairman 77 Mineral Street (15) 2018 Patrick Tompkins 83 King Street (15) 2018 John Conte 332 Summer Avenue (15) 2017 Nancy Twomey 23 California Road (15) 2017 Bradford Congdon, Vice Chair 80 Prospect Street (15) 2016 Michael Bean (Associate) 14 Nichols Road (15) 2017 David Tmniello Associate 1 Old Mill Lane 15 2016 6 DRAFT - BOARD OF SELECTMEN 2016 AGENDAS 2016 31812016 Responsibility Start time Local elections March 1, 2016 Tuesday March 8, 2016 Office Ilour Barry Berman 6:30 Board Reorganization LeLacheur 7:00 Board Liaison Assignments Chair 7:05 117 Van Norden Tax Title LeLacheur 7:20 Preview - Annual Town Meeting LeLacheur 7:25 Project update - Library Building Committee LeLacheur 7:30 Project update & committee overview - Permanent Building Committee LeLacheur 8:15 Town of Reading Financial Overview LeLacheur 9:15 `. March 22, 2016 location TBA Hearing Alteration of Premises - Liquor Junction LeLacheur 7:20 Hearing Amend Liquor License Policy Town Counsel 7:30 Town Accountant Quarterly Report Angstrom 8:00 Town of Reading Financial Overview Ethics - Rules for an Override; Joint Meeting with School Committee and Library Trustees Town Counsel 8:15 Calendar & next steps LeLacheur 9:15 Hearing Water, Sewer and Storm Water Rates for FY17 (effective December 2016 billing) LeLacheur 9:30 Hearing Approve Amendments to FY16 Classification (Purchasing Agent to be shared with Schools) LeLacheur 9:50 Vote Annual Town Meeting Warrant Articles LeLacheur 10:00 Office Hour April 5, 2016 i 6:30 Hearing Recreation Fees - joint meeting with the Recreation Committee LeLacheur 7:30 Board & Committee updates - RIAA 7:45 CAB Member Report - 8:00 Liaison Reports 7:45 Bylaw Committee - November 2016 Town Meeting recommended Bylaw changes Review Town Manager Goals LeLacheur April 19, 2016 Approve Inter Municiapl Agreement with North Reading, Saugua & Wilimngton for Regional Housing Services Officer Delios 7:30 Board & Committee updates 7:45 Liaison Reports 7:30 Woburn Street 40B (St. Agnes) update 8:00 Bylaw Committee - November 2016 Town Meeting recommended Bylaw changes Town Meeting April 25, 2016 Monday Town Meeting April 28, 2016 Thursday Town Meeting May 2, 2016 Monday Town Meeting May 5, 2016 Thursday May 3, 2016 Office Hour 6:30 Board & Committee updates: Council on Aging; 7:30 MAPC Member Report 7:45 - May 17, 2016 Board & Committee updates 7:30 Climate Advisory Committee Report 7:45 June 7,2016 Office Hour 6:30 Board & Committee updates 7:30 June 21, 2016 July 12, 2016 July 26, 2016 August 16,2016 September 6, 2016 Preview Warrant for Subsequent Town Meeting State Election September 8, 2016 Thursday Special Town Meeting September 12, 2016 Monday September 20, 2016 Close Warrant for Subsequent Town Meeting October 4, 2016 Close Warrant for Special Election 10/18/16 Vote Warrant Articles for Subsequent Town Meeting 11114/16 Special Election October 18, 2016 Tuesday October 25, 2016 Close Warrant for Presidential and State Elections 11/8/16 Town Meeting November 14, 2016 Monday Town Meeting November 17, 2016 Thursday Town Meeting November 21, 2016 Monday Town Meeting November 28, 2016 Monday November 15, 2016 November 29, 2016 December 13, 2016 C Future Agendas Board of Selectmen Policies: Article I General Operating Procedures LeLacheur Board of Selectmen Policies: Article 2 Volunteer Boards / Committees /Commissions LeLacheur Board of Selectmen Policies., Article 3 Licenses LeLacheur Multi Board/Committee Summit Reading 2020 Community Meeting Downtown Parking Joint Meeting with RMLD Commissioners Strout Avenue Master Plan Discuss forming Cable Advisory Committee - cable agreements expire 11/23/18 - 3yr formal process is allowed Town Counsel Recurring Items Close Warrant: Nov TM by 9/27 Close Warrant: Presidential & State Elections by 11 /1 (Elections are 11/8) Review BOS/TM Goals Mar & Sep Semi -ann Review Customer Service survey results Feb & Aug Semi -ann Review Regionalization efforts as needed Appointments of BCCs June Annual Approve Classification & Compensation June Annual Appoint Town Counsel June Annual Tax Classification Hearing October Annual Approve licenses December Annual Reports to BOS Town Accountant Report Qtrly RCTV members Report Semi -ann CAB (RMLD) member Report Semi -ann MAPC member Report Semi -ann Reading Housing Authority Report Annual Reading Ice Arena Report Annual BOS Appointed Boards, Committees & Commissions NEW Annual C Schena, Paula From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Monday, March 07,2016 11:11 AM To:. Schema, Paula Subject: FW: Comments /Memo from Reading STAND community group re: Reading Village 40B density Attachments- 401b memo to town draft v2 on behalf of STAND v3 final.pdf; 40b memo to town draft Q on behalf of STAND v3 final.docx Importance: High BOS packet, include attachment PDC Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA Town Manager, Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 townmanaaer0ci.readina. ma. us (P) 781- 942 -9043, (F) 781- 942 -9037 www.readinama. aov; Please fill out our brief customer service survey at: htto: / /readi nzma -su wey.virtua ttown ha I I. net /survey /sid /ff5d 3a5f03e8e b60/ Town Hall Hours: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p. m.;Tuesday: 7:30 a. m. - 7:00 p.m.; Friday: CLOSED From: Marianne Downing [mailto:r - Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 11:02 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Knight, Maureen; Delios, Jean; Town Manager Cc: sWard018[ m Subject: Comments /Memo from Reading STAND community group re: Reading Village 40B density Importance: High Dear Town Manager, Town Planner, Board of Selectmen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Community Planning and Development Commission: Attached hereto, in both PDF and MS Word format, is a memo to all of you relating the concerns and recommendations about the proposed Reading Village 40B project, that I drafted in connection with and on behalf of a local group of citizens (Reading STAND — Supporting our Town through Appropriate Neighborhood Development), of which I am a member. Some of you heard me speak to some of these density concerns during the BOS meeting of 2/23/2016. At least one CPDC member asked me to follow up and email the CPDC my notes. This memo includes those notes and much more supporting information. Rather than directly attaching all supporting documents, I have instead chosen to provide clickable links in the memo. However, I can provide PDFs of all supporting documents, if needed. Contact information for STAND can be found on our website �,ww.standreadinz.weebly.com, our Facebook page at , or you can email us at stand01867Pgmail.com . I �1 am also happy to respond personally to anything in the attached memo (my contact information is listed below). I look forward to seeing all of you at the 3/17/2016 ZBA meeting and continuing public hearing for this 40B project. Best Regards Town Meeting Member— Precint 3 Home Phone: 781- 944 -3447 Mobile: 508- 265-4214 Home Address: 13 Heather Drive — Reading MA 6 Date: March 7, 2016 To: Town Manager Robert Lal-acheur, Jr. Town Planner lean Delios Reading Board of Selectmen (BOS) Reading Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Reading Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) From: Marianne McLaughlin- Downing, Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member (13 Heather Drive), on behalf of STAND up for Reading (Supporting our Town through Appropriate Neighborhood Development) (http: / /standreading.weebly.com and https: / /www.facebook.com /groups /STAND01867 /) Re: "Reading Village " — proposed 40b development, density concerns: Suggestions, Data, and Research 1. INTRODUCTION TO STAND STAND (Supporting our Town through Appropriate Neighborhood Development) is a group of Reading citizens dedicated to supporting appropriate and responsible development in the town of Reading Massachusetts. We formed STAND in 2015 in response to our learning about the 408 development proposed at the site of the former Doucette Moving and Storage and Certainly Wood buildings. After experiencing the effects of several new residential apartment complexes built in our town, it became apparent to us and many others that more community involvement was necessary to control growth and guide developers to create more appropriate sites that serve the needs of Reading. Like many other municipalities in Massachusetts, Reading is struggling to maintain its historic character while allowing the commercial and residential development necessary for our community to thrive and provide the amenities our citizens need. Maintaining this balance requires us to monitor development proposals and if possible modify or even stop development proposals that many of us feel are inappropriate for our community. The purpose of this memo from STAND is to inform the above public bodies about some of our research into and concerns relating to the density of the proposed project as compared to other of 408 and 4011 projects in Massachusetts, especially suburban 40B projects located within existing single family zoned neighborhoods. We hope that the information provided herein will help the above boards, especially the ZBA, craft and impose appropriate conditions and limitations, including a significant limitation on project density, into any approvals it might grant to the Comprehensive Permit Application that developer Reading MKM LLC submitted. 2. SUMMARY OF OUR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPROPRIATE DENSITY FOR READING VILLAGE Based on the independent data we have found, it appears that the most comparable and appropriate density for Reading Village, which would appear to be economic for this developer (based on numerous similar projects in Massachusetts and other comparable projects in Reading) is in the range of 18 -30 units /acre. Given the actual size of the property (approximately 0.82 acres), this translates to about 25 units. STAND's research, excerpted herein, shows that the 93 dwelling unit/acre density proposed for Reading Village not only exceeds that of virtually every suburban, neighborhood 40B and 40R development that we have looked at, but even exceeds that of many dense Boston neighborhoods, including Beacon Hill and the Back Bay. It is more comparable to areas of Paris and New York City and is utterly inappropriate for this location. Thus, STAND maintains that any conditions our ZBA propose to the Applicants ought to first begin with a reduction in density for Reading Village. A reduction in density means a reduction in units, which will go a long way towards addressing many of the other serious issues (building height towering over abutting homes, insufficient parking for 77 units, lack of sidewalk setback, etc.). We in STAND are optimistic that the Reading ZBA will be able to achieve some cooperation from the Applicant in reducing the density of Reading Village. In particular, as noted herein, STAND has found that at least two of the three individuals listed as being associated with applicant Reading MKM LLC (namely, Kenton Chase and Matthew Zuker) already appear to have shown willingness (before the ZBA in at least two other municipalities) to reduce a proposed V 40B project size in response to community concerns. For example, as noted herein, Mr. Zuker, over the past two years, reduced a 40B project size from 80 units to 24 units (70% reduction). A similar 70% reduction in the currently proposed 40B project would result in a size of 23 units. In view of the Information provided herein. STAND strongly urges the Reading ZBA to make approval of the Comprehensive permit conditional on a reduction in overall density to less than 30 units /acre, corresponding to a protect size of about 25 units. 3. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH ON HOUSING DENSITY At the BOS meeting on 2/23/2016, the Developer of the current project (Reading MKM LLC) presented details about its proposed 40B project called "Reading Village ". During the public comment period of this meeting, STAND member Marianne Downing spoke about our concerns about how the proposed density of this project (93 units /acre) appears to significantly exceed any reasonably average of suburban 406 density (which average approaches about 18 -22 units per acre for both ownership and rental projects). She referenced specific data, which we will now explain and for which we will provide citations. She also noted that at least one principal associated with the developer (Matt Zuker) has in the past, in Westwood, made significant concessions to that town, in a past 408 project he proposed (going from 80 to 24 units), before he withdrew the project. We would like to provide more information (including backup data and links) about the information Marianne Downing spoke to at this meeting, along with our key recommendations. a. DENSITY OF 93 UNITS /ACRE HAS NO PRECEDENT IN EXISTING OR PROPOSED 40B OR 40R DEVELOPMENTS THAT As was noted numerous times in Reading's letter of 5/31/2015 to the Massachusetts 40B Program specialist Jessica Malcom, the density currently proposed for Reading Village is nearly 5 times the allowed density of 20 units /acre for the existing Downtown Growth Smart District (DGSD) in Reading. Indeed, our preliminary research has shown that the proposed density for Reading Village, of 93 units acre, would be one of the largest residential project densities ever permitted for a suburban location in Massachusetts, especially a location that directly abuts existing single family homes (i.e., is directly in the middle of an existing single family neighborhood, versus being located in the middle of an existing commercialfindustrial zone or as part of a reuse of an already existing industrial building). In understanding appropriate and typical 40B development density, STAND found it useful to consider comparable 40B densities, actual city densities, and comparable 40R densities, to further understand what has worked out to be "reasonable" and "economical" for other developers, and to better understand what is "livable" in actual suburban and urban locations. Even if land area is computed differently, it is still useful to note that the proposed Reading Village density is higher than every single 40R project proposed in a suburban location, as of 2009. For example, consider the following table (which is reproduced later herein) of densities of existing 4011 projects, which is taken directly from page 12, Table 5, of this document entitled "The use of Chapter 40R in Massachusetts" (link: -s/ dhcd/ cd /ch40r /theuseofch40rin- ma.pdf) by Ann Verrilli, Citizens' Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) Jennifer Raitt, Metropolitan Area Planning Council, (MAPC), October 2009 ) (hereinafter "Use of 40R"). Use of 40R analyzed 27 different 4011 districts and various 40B districts, and, in discussing density, at p. 11 -12, Use of 40R states [emphasis added]: "The 27 districts authorize 9,780 future zoned units or a median of 23 units per acre of developable land, but the average masks differences by construction type. The 9 districts that primarily involve adaptive reuse allow much higher density, averaging 53 future zoned units per developable acre (30 median), while the 18 new construction districts allow an average of 19 units per developable acre (20 median)." In particular, the "adaptive reuse" examples in the table (which include cities such as Lowell and Haverhill) involved repurposing an existing non - residential structure, such as a mill building, into apartments, at a density of 100 (Lowell) to l/ 135.9 (Haverhill) units per acre. That is, in the adaptive reuse 40R examples, the existing building, with all its existing height, setbacks, shadowing, etc., is being repurposed, in a dense urban location, into high density 40R housing. No new construction or new impacts to abutters results. In sharp contrast, the other 40R examples in the table, for suburban locations not unlike Reading (and, in fact, including Reading) have an average 40R density of just 18.8 units per acre. Table 5 from p. 12 of Use of 40R is reproduced below: Table 5: City and Town Districts by Size (Future toned Units Allowedl AtIaIM�y 1dY 33rty�y ffW 4MOYtkt Aaw a9rFlr96k13 Ova Rl.e IasN Urb• Oaa�Mrallalr�at�a74ra6 rIxY3WOwIM�1Y34e9[ INW aroc3ton 60.0 470 1,096 13.3 Iawm,oe 36.1 31.0 1,031 •303 Boston ] 42.0 uD sn 331 NaarNll 510 39 S% •1359 Wttdlak ]0.] ]A.) 1% 31.6 Naho3e 1310 aA z% ]x.D towtll 33 29 230 '100A WestMW 331 353 SM 15.9 Northampton 1 16.6 9.0 356 ]].3 owNea 13 z.] ass u3 svMabrl IOngston 109.0 69.6 730 ]OS Plymouth 561 33.6 675 MI edd3ersater 126A 14) 544 339 Norm Mdorar 169A 26.s 530 MD North Reaary 1 46.0 317 aN 30A WnmouN 40.7 333 319 13.7 fasmn 6117 Ito 260 116 AmuMxy 32.0 9.1 249 t).x Dr.non 33.7 10.0 :w 3L0 Ia3Ml. IID 104 :o) zaa tvnaMUry 9.0 90 IN 33.7 Readlrp ]DD l9 201 ]3.] lynnntld 803 65.3 160 23 SMron 11.6 93 167 179 Wikk 50 SAP 136 27.6 Btlmmtt 15 IS ]8 13-0 Norwood 0.8 04 15 tDA Told lam 46 s7e 2" •ier ntubraxpn ma bran As is clear from reviewing Table 5, as of 2009, there has never been a suburban 40R density, especially in the middle of an existing settled neighborhood, even remotely comparable to the proposed 408 density of 93 units /acre for Reading Village. The Use of40R paper does recognize that "Because of differences in way land area data has been collected for Chapter 40B projects, it is difficult to compare the densities of projects developed under the two laws" (p. 12) and Use of 40R notes in a footnote after this quote that [emphasis added] "The most comprehensive study of 40B project land area -see footnote ' - looks at total land (including land reserved for open space, wetlands, etc.), while the 40R densities are based on developable land. 40B developments approved between 2001 and 2005 had an average density of 31 units per acre (8 for owners hip and I8 for rental projects) Arguably, however, Reading Village, with its utter lack of open space, zero setback, location adjacent to an existing rail station, etc., is being proposed in a manner much more akin to the proposed 40R developments, and indeed the f. IV 1 it is difficult to compare the densities of projects developed under the two laws" (p. 12) and Use of 40R notes in a footnote after this quote that [emphasis added] "The most comprehensive study of 40B project land area -see footnote ' - looks at total land (including land reserved for open space, wetlands, etc.), while the 40R densities are based on developable land. 40B developments approved between 2001 and 2005 had an average density of 31 units per acre (8 for owners hip and I8 for rental projects) Arguably, however, Reading Village, with its utter lack of open space, zero setback, location adjacent to an existing rail station, etc., is being proposed in a manner much more akin to the proposed 40R developments, and indeed the f. IV 1 developer at these meetings repeatedly has compared Reading Village to Reading's existing 4ll on Haven Street; thus, these comparisons seem appropriate. STAND located another very relevant table of suburban 408 densities on the website for the Needham Zoning Board of Appeals. This table was included in a memo (see http://www.needhamma gov /documentcenter/ iew /90011 prepared by the law firm of Goulston & Storrs in 2013, in connection with Needham ZBA's imposition of conditions on a 300 unit 40B project, Needham Mews, and the developer's appeal to the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Commission (HAQ. The table was described by its authors as showing developments that were near transit or open space and located in towns that are themselves proximate to a highway —in other words, towns not unlike Reading. The table is reproduced below. As this second table shows, nearly all the listed 40B developments have densities far lower than 93 units /acre. Tow. Nzmt of Prabct/Develo r J Pe Namberaf t'mb Acrea 1'aits/ACrc Andover Avalrm Andover 115 9.12 1 12.59 Ilniatme Hanover 186 15.7 1 11.85 Dedham Swim 250 285 9.5 30.00 Jefferson at Dedham Smtmn 301 1106 25.95 F.zhamugh Ledge at Faxbmmugh 250 22.85 10.94 McHboro k S 332 22 15.09 Natck Avalon Natick 407 6,5 62.62 ClowdearApxn=ems 183 1.49 122.00 Needham Chad. River Landin g 350 7.9 44.30 Nehoiden Glen 61 4.6 13.26 Ne A Avalon Highlands 294 8.1 3619 Avalon Chestnut Hill 204 4.68 1 43.58 Arborpoint w WoMiand Station 180 3.66 d6.59 Reath Readin Commons 204 10.55 19.34 Sta hwe Hanover 1 240 13.08 1 18.35 The two 40B developments with the highest density on the above table, namely Cloverleaf Apartments (122 units /acre) and Avalon Natick (62 units /acre) are both, like the proposed 40B for Waltham described below, located adjacent to commercial /industrial areas. For these two Natick developments, both are located in the busy commercial /industrial and retail area of Speen St. in Natick, surrounded by businesses like a Home Depot, and not in the middle of an existing neighborhood of existing single family homes. This is drastically different than the proposed Reading Village location. As a pertinent follow up on the aforementioned Needham Mews development: this 40B project originally was proposed with a density of 50 units /acre, which was described as being very different than the surrounding area (see htto,//www.wickedlocal.com/article/20130923/news/309239796 ). By October 2015, post -HAC appeal, during negotiation with Needham's Board of Selectman, the developer reduced the project size to 136 units, working out to the much more typical suburban 40B density of 23 units /acre (see hffp://www.pat6otiedger,00rrdarticle/20151021/news/I 5102875Q) b. MASS DHCD SUGGESTS DENSITY OF 93 UNITS /ACRE IS FOR HIGH RISE BUILDINGS, NOT MIDRISE BUILDINGS Even the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) appears to recognize that a density such as 93 units /acre is not typical or usual for mid -rise multifamily buildings like Reading Village. In a DHCD presentation entitled "Zoning and Permitting Tools for Smart Growth Housing" I at p. 18, this presentation (see _::. - - .: -- i,,20CMRPC %2003 -13- characterized a density of 40 units /acre or greater as corresponding to "high rise apartment" and instead suggests a density 20 -40 units /acre for so- called "midrise apartments" (e.g., a 5 -6 story development like Reading Village). s "� c. DENSITY COMPARABLE TO 93 UNITS /ACRE IS NOT EVEN TYPICAL FOR BOSTON, BUT CAN BE FOUND IN SELECTED DENSE URBAN SETTINGS. AS WELL AS IN CERTAIN BUILDINGS SITUATED IN COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL AREAS 93 units /acre for Reading Village is even greater than densities found in many areas of Boston. For example, the average density in the North End section of Boston is 21 units /acre (see ', s .org /casestudies /profile.phn?id =530); in Beacon Hill (Louisburg Square), it is about 52.9 units/ acre ( see rtemakers.com/2012/O5/31/the- drea, ); in the Back Bay area of Boston, density range ranges from 30 -70 units /acre (see httf sentea ,.:,). To approach the 93 units /acre density proposed for Reading Village, instead, one needs to look at places like the 94 units /acre of 5'b avenue in New York City (see ate _; ) or the 91 unit/acre Plaine Monceau area of Paris (see i, 91 units) As of March 6, 2016, STAND has located only one other currently pending suburban 40B project in Massachusetts with a density comparable to that currently proposed for Reading Village: a 40B project for Second Avenue in Waltham Massachusetts. This 40B project has a slightly higher density (106 units /acre), but it is extremely important to note that this other 408 project, like the aforementioned Natick 40B apartment buildings, is situated entirely in the middle of a busy commercial /industrial area and is not adjacent to any existing residential areas of any kind. Thus, many concerns pertinent to Reading, like density, building height, setback from adjacent homes, fitting into an existing single family environment, etc., are less of a primary concern with the Waltham proposal. Nonetheless, a Waltham city councilor stated [regarding the project as proposed in Waltham]: "The density of the proposed development is beyond ridiculous. It's offensive... it's an abuse of the 40B system." (see hUpl / /waltham.wickedlocal.com /article /20151224 A:arl =2 ). We respectfully submit that the proposed density for Reading Village, given its location directly abutting single family homes, is arguably even more troublesome and inappropriate. READING VILLAGE CAN BE REDUCED WHILE REMAINING "ECONOMIC' STAND hopes that the above independent data and information shows clearly the many objective and unbiased reasons why the density of 93 units /acre is utterly unprecedented and inappropriate for a suburban, settled neighborhood such as the current area being considered for Reading Village. In addition, virtually all other 40B and 40R developers are building far lower density 40B and 40R developments in other municipalities (including places like Newton, Andover, and Lynnfield)) having average property values and land costs greater than or equal to that of Reading. This and the other data herein strongly implies that a 40B density of less than 30 units /acre, for a rental development, in a suburban neighborhood location, is achievable, reasonable, AND profitable. STAND is confident that the above - listed illustrative comparable densities for suburban 40B and 40R projects, as well as actual comparable city densities, will provide appropriate guidance to the Reading ZBA in determining the level of density that it should specify in any conditions it may add to any approval of the Comprehensive Permit Application for Reading Village. 4. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH ON COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT APPLICANTS /DEVELOPERS: THEY HAVES A HISTORY OF REDUCING PROJECT SRE /DENSITY IN RESPONSE TO LOCAL CONCERNS As noted above, public documents (including documents from other municipal ZBA's and news articles from online sites) have provided useful information about at least some of the current development team's willingness to work with local governing boards. This information, combined with examples of other town boards negotiating with other developer, hopefully will inspire Reading town officials to seek a compromise and reduction in density with this Applicant. /Z e. Principal of Developer /Applicant: Matthew Zuker and "Four Seasons Village" in Westwood. MA Matthew Zuker, a principal with Applicant Reading MKM, was recently involved in proposing senior housing complex in Westwood called "Four Seasons Village ". According to this April 2015 news article (see htto: / /westwood.wickedlocal.com /article /201504281news/150426574 ), "The project was altered several times during the public hearing, reducing the number of units from 80 to 24 in hopes of aligning with the board's suggestions." Indeed, Mr. Zuker started in 2013 with a proposal for 80 units on 8.6 acres, then by March 2014 had reduced to 72 units over 8.6 acres (8.95 units /acre); see Comprehensive permit application at http://westwoodblog.org/files/5D005185.pdf Ultimately, Mr. Zuker decided to withdraw his application. But, nonetheless, it is clear that Principal Matt Zuker of Reading MKM LLC has worked with a local ZBA, recently, to significantly reduce 40B project density at least once. f. Principal of Developer /Applicant: Kenton Chase and "Kickemuit Woods Apartments" In Swansea, MA Reading MKM LLC, at p. 23 of their Comprehensive Permit application, lists several 40B projects in which indicate one or more principals associated with the Applicant "has or had an interest". For the listed "in process" development in Swansea, it does appear (see article http: / /www.heraldnews.com /article /`20130605 /news/306059452 ) that Reading MKM LLC principal Ken Chase submitted a 40B proposal in 2012 for an apartment complex named Kickemuit Woods Apartments, which proposal was modified to 163 units on 35 acres (6.52 units /acre) in 2013, and now apparently stands at 144 units over 25 acres (5.76 units /acre) (per current Reading Village permit application), a 12% density reduction from the level known in 2013. Thus, it is clear that Principal Ken Chase of Reading MKM LLC has worked with a ZBA to reduce 40B project density in the past, as well. In summary, the above information appears to infer that at least two of the three listed principals associated with Reading MKM LLC have shown a clear willingness to address concerns raised by a local zoning board by reducing project density /size, during the public hearing process. STAND respectfully requests that our Town Manager, Town Planner, ZBA, BOS, and CPDC exert all possible efforts to achieve similar concessions from this developer in connection with Reading Village. S. OTHER GENERAL CONCERNS AND FUTURE TOPICS STAND shares the concerns listed by many in the town, including the proposed height of the project being too high for both the area and for safety, insufficient parking, lack of sidewalk setbacks, and inability of fire trucks to enter garage and /or appropriately reach highest levels of Reading Village. STAND is currently researching other aspects of this 40B project, such as building height, parking, fire safety, water /sewer usage, pedestrian safety, and building setbacks, and we hope to provide at least one further memo covering some or all of these topics. However, by requesting that this developer achieve a more reasonable density, of 25 units /acre or fewer, the revised design likely inherently would fix all of these other problems by being smaller, with lesser height, sufficient parking, improved setbacks, and overall a better fit for the neighborhood. Sincerely, Marianne McLaughlin- Downing, on behalf of STAND (STAND (www.standreading.weebly.com) Town Meeting Member, Precinct 3 13 Heather Drive Reading, Massachusetts 08167 ma ria n nedowni ngP com cast. n et Contact STAND: stand01867PRmaiLmm STAND Facebook page: https: / /www.facebook.com /groups /STAND01867/ I�� Schena, Paula From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 9:23 AM To: Schena, Paula Cc: Mercier, Julie Subject: FW: 77 Unit Complex @ Doucette Storage BOS /ZBA packets From: Ron McLaughlin [n _ J Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 9:21 AM To: Knight, Maureen; Reading - Selectmen Cc: Ron McLaughlin; Katie McLaughlin Subject: 77 Unit Complex @ Doucette Storage Good Morning, I'm email in regards to the proposed 77 unit complex proposed to be built at the Doucette Storage and Certainly Wood site. I moved my family from Somerville to Reading 10 years ago with the goal of transitioning from urban to suburban living. At the that time, Reading had a small town feel with a sense of community. Over the last 10 years the town has been transforming into a more "city-like" feel with massive housing expansions in form of large scale apartment complexes and condos (i.e. Archstone, Johnson Woods, South St.). This massive growth in transient residents has put a major strain on our schools, public resources and town finances. Reading can not and should not allow further apartment complexes to be built for the sake of our town's future. Me and my family are completely against putting 77 units at the Doucette site and as representatives of this town I urge you to prevent this from happening. We missed out on the beautiful Lynnfield Market Place when we allowed it to be built in Lynnfeld rather than in Reading, only to replace the opportunity with a housing complex. Please don't make similar missteps by allowing an apartment complex on the Doucette site. We should be focusing on building small and appropriate business in the downtown area not more resource draining apartment complexes. Reading is a fantastic family town and as our town leaders you're primary responsibility should be in preserving what makes it great. Regards, Ron McLaughlin 115 Howard St. �I Schena, Paula From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 9:05 AM To: Schena, Paula Subject: Fwd: commercial tax increase BOS packet Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Dr. Jane Harrison" < Date: March 5, 2016 at 8:55:28 AM EST To: "selectmen(iDci.readine.ma.us" <wIectmm(a),ci.reading.ma.us> Subject: commercial tax increase Dear Selectmen Daniel Ensminger and Barry Berman, I opened my small business, Middlesex Animal Hospital, in downtown Reading in January 2000. My business grew quickly until the recession of 2008. Coupled with the downtown renovation project, which made it very difficult for my clients to assess my facility (no parking, no sidewalks, lots of rain and mud), it was tough going for awhile. By trimming expenses, including laying off staff, we managed to stay afloat. I mention this because I feel that municipal expenses need to be controlled like in any business. It takes tough decisions to manage costs. Unfortunately, many municipalities' default is to squeeze small business to make up for any deficit in the budget. I presently pay, as part of my lease agreement, real estate taxes, utilities, insurance and maintenance for my facility, trash pick -up and personal property tax. I don't have any children in the Reading school system nor do I have the right to vote on town issues. I presently employ 5 people (one is a long -time, Reading resident) to help run my practice but also employ many ancillary services to help run this small business. Here is a partial list of these other services: • Jack, window washing service • Joann, Floor cleaning service • Jennifer, drug and medical supply rep (Reading resident) • Yuri, rr services • Peter, HVAC services • Walter, CPA services • Kathryn, bookkeeping • Greg, security services • Medical laboratory and courier services _ 1 • Jennifer, printing services • Pet food distributors and their drivers • Carting services Any tax increase will require me cutting back on some of these services, which hurts the job market or I'll be forced to pass the increase on to my clients (mostly Reading residents) in the form of higher fees for my services. Any business would have to do the same in order to stay solvent. I respectfully ask for your explanation why local businesses should bear this additional burden of a tax increase. In my opinion, it is a short- sighted view without any benefit to the community. Sincerely, Jane L. Harrison, DVM U Schena, Paula From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 10:53 AM To: Schena, Paula; Mercier, Julie; Delios, Jean; Kraunelis, Matthew Subject: Fwd: Doucette /Certainly Wood project concerns Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message From: Sharon Olivardia Date: March 4, 2016 at 10:42:20 AM EST To: <mknieht@a ci.readine.ma.us >, <selectmenaci.readinu.ma.us> Subject: Doucette /Certainly Wood project concerns Dear Zoning Board of Appeals and Reading's Board of Selectman, My name is Sharon Olivardia and I am a resident at 41 Minot Street. I want to urge you to use whatever means possible to negotiate the Doucette /Certainly Wood project down to a scope and scale more suitable to Reading. As many pointed out during the selectman's meeting on Feb 23, 2016 there are considerable concerns with this project. Those concems include the density of 77 units on less than an acre of land, the height of 63 feet which is more than double the average neighboring home, the lack of setback from the street, and the lack of parking spots provided. There are also concerns with the traffic on Minot Street to get to Lincoln, Washington and Prescott. My soon to be middle school student will need to pass by these busy intersections from Parker without a crossing guard. I hope to make it to the ZBA meeting on March 17th. I'm looking forward to the town negotiating with the developer to make this project more agreeable to the neighbors and the Town of Reading. Sincerely, Sharon Olivardia 41 Minot Street Schena, Paula From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 6:46 PM To: Schena, Paula Cc: Mercier, Julie; Delios, Jean Subject: FW: Proposed 77 -unit apartment complex for Prescott Street For BOS and ZBA packets Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA Town Manager, Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 townmanaaerCatci.readina. ma. us (P) 781 - 942 -9043; (F) 781 - 941 -9037 www. reodinama.aoy, Please fill out our brief customer service survey at http: / /re a d i ngma -su wey.virtualtownhal I. net /su mey /sid /ff5d3a5fO3e8eb60/ Town Hall Hours: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 am - 5:30 p.m.;Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.; Friday: CLOSED From: Erin Gaffen I j Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 5:26 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Proposed 77 -unit apartment complex for Prescott Street To the Board of Selectmen, I am writing to express my extreme dislike like for the proposed 77 -unit apartment complex intended for the site of Doucette Moving & Storage and the former Certainly Wood. I am unable to attend the Zoning Board meeting on 3/17, so I am writing to voice my concerns. If I could be there, I most definitely would be, as I take our town seriously. There are so many flaws with this plan that I do not even know where to begin. For one, I think it is an extreme waste of an opportunity to turn that location into a completely residential site. I propose that this site be re-zoned for mixed use, such as the development along Haven Street. I realize that parking is limited - more on that below - but being so close to the train, and homes, and downtown, it is a excellent spot for retail, dining, or another sort of business. All I keep hearing and reading is that Reading needs more businesses. Here we are facing a space crunch in our schools, and a potential override in order to meet the growing needs of our town (an override which I fully support, by the way), and I cannot believe that you would even consider this grossly over sized monstrosity for that location. Which brings me to my next complaint - the proposed building is too large for the site and too large for Reading. Even the current Doucette building is an eye sore at four floors. Five floors would be far too high. And 77 units crammed into that space is ridiculous to even consider. It will look as tight and towering and out of place as it sounds. If s right on top of the sidewalk too. That is not what we want for downtown Reading. The next issue is parking. 83 spaces for 77 units is laughable. Already, just due to the proximity to the train station, Prescott is backed up with parking every day, lower Washington is tough to get through, and cars even �J crowd on High Street. Any building going into that location would need to offer significantly more parking in order to accommodate those living there. I also do not believe that residents will be without a car. Not in a town like Reading. Perhaps one or more members of a couple or family might be commuters and use the train, but for anything else they would need a car in Reading. Even Market Basket would be a far walk, not to mention an undesirable walk. Personally, I would like to see the site re -zoned for mixed use, so that retail/business can be on the ground level, and significantly fewer units can cover two floors above. No higher. I would like to see the building pushed back a bit from the sidewalk for safety and for appearances. I would like to see more parking incorporated. Or, the same parking if the number of units were cut in half, for instance. Anything less is a disservice to the neighbors and those of us who frequent that area of town. Thank you for your consideration Erin Gaffen 15 Hemlock Road 1 Schena, Paula From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 6:46 PM To: Schena, Paula Cc: Mercier, Julie; Dallas, Jean Subject: FW: No to Reading Village For BOS and ZBA packets Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA Town Manager, Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 townmonaaerAci.readina ma us (P) 781- 942 -9043; (F) 781- 942 -9037 www.readingma. oov, Please fill out our brief customer service survey at: http:/ /read inema- sumey.virtua ltown ha Il .net /survey /sidIff5d3a5fO3e8eb60/ Town Hall Hours: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.;Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.; Friday: CLOSED From: J Ross [ Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 6:09 PM To: Reading - Selectmen; Knight, Maureen Subject: No to Reading Village To The Selectmen of Reading and Zoning Board of Appeals, I am writing to express my deep concerns for the building project proposed for 2 -12 Prescott Street. The height of the proposed property, lack of parking and zero setback from the sidewalk are worrisome, let alone the fact that we are once again adding residential development to this town rather than businesses. Our schools will undoubtedly be impacted by this development and this area of town has already seen massive amounts of residential space added in Reading Woods. Enough is enough. Its time to bring businesses to town and stop developments such as this. This is simply not the location for a high rise complex of this size and scope. Thank you and I look forward to attending the meeting regarding this matter on 3/17. Sincerely, Julie Ross 16 Kensington Ave. 2L *0F.4Q6 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Board of Selectmen Date: 2016 -01 -19 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Chairman Daniel Ensminger, Vice Chairman John Halsey, Secretary Kevin Sexton, John Arena and Barry Berman Members - Not Present: Others Present: Town Manager Bob Lelacheur, Assistant Town Manager lean Delios, Fire Chief Greg Burns, Police Chief Mark Segalla, Library Director Ruth Urell, Public Works Director Jeff Zager, Jeanne Borawski, Nancy Docktor, Stephen Crook, Paula Schena Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Secretary Topics of Discussion: Reports and Comments The Town Manager announced that on Monday, January 18, 2016, there was an accident in front of 279 Lowell Street between a Town of Reading sidewalk plow and a resident. The resident was taken to the hospital and died of his injuries. The State Police are conducting an investigation and that is all of the Information that is available at this time. Selectmen Liaison Reports and Comments Barry Berman noted that he attended the Martin Luther King Celebration and it was a fabulous event that was well attended. Kudos to the Human Relations Advisory Committee and thanks to Bagel World and Honey Dew Donuts for contributing. Town Manager's Report - Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios noted that she received a filing for Reading Village 40B. The ZBA will hold a hearing on February 41 ". The developer is showing a collaborative style and will have 77 units in a building taller than the Doucette building. It is a dense development. We will file a grant application with the state and the state will hire consultants and they will assist the ZBA. The ZBA can put conditions on the project. It is 63 feet high. Barry Berman noted that this will bypass zoning so what leverage does the ZBA have? Jean Delios noted that they could have one member meet with the developer to negotiate. John Arena noted there are public safety parking issues and Jean Delios noted that there is but we cannot speak to density. Barry Berman noted that parking overflow hurt other businesses and Jean Delios noted that we have to discuss residential parking, visitor parking, etc. Page 1 1 Board of Selectmen Minutes - January 19 2016 - pace 2 John Arena noted that 30 Haven Street is already there but we have to Include it in that area because it is more developed now. John Arena asked how many spaces the project has and Jean Delios Indicated they have 83 spaces for 77 units. We will need a parking consultant. John Halsey asked how many two bedroom units and Jean Delios noted she was not sure but there will be seven three bedroom units. She also noted that the state cited certain things that they must work out with the Town. Jean Delios noted that she is scheduling a joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and CPDC to review this project. Discussion /Action Items Hearing - Alteration of Premises - Anthony's Coal Fired Pizza - The Secretary read the hearing notice. Attorney Caroline O'Connell and the Regional Manager for Anthony's Coal Fired Pizza were present. Attorney O'Connell noted that the verbiage was not on the license for the patio plan which shows four tables with 16 seats and four bar stools. She noted that CPDC has approved this plan. The Regional Manager gave an overview of their restaurant and the Board welcomed them. o. FY17 Budoet - Public Safety - Fire /EMS - Fire Chief Greg Burns noted that the department functions Include fire suppression, fire prevention, EMS and emergency management. The Department responded to 3507 emergency calls and 2166 of those were medical. They also responded to 38 fires and treated 17 patients with Narcan. They collected $784,518 in ambulance fees and there has been an increase in storm events since 2001. The Safe Program is done in the schools and now includes seniors. Barry Berman asked if FEMA reimbursements go to free cash and the Town Manager indicated it does. John Arena suggested that next year It would be helpful to see the description of trending breakdown by category. Kevin Sexton noted that the ambulance fees were increased in 2014 to get closer to the average so where are we now? The Town Manager noted that we are at more than expected but still below the average. Kevin Sexton asked if the fees are sufficient and Chief Burns noted that he would have to look at other communities. Daniel Ensminger asked if the Fire Chief's salary was bumped up and the Town Manager noted yes, it was changed from 37.50 hours to 40 hours. Barry Berman asked if the revenue from running ALS could be used to ease out overtime costs or medical supply costs. Chief Burns noted that right now we are trending $2000 less in overtime than last year. We hired a new Fire Fighter because the trend was If a Fire Fighter was out on medical or vacations then more overtime. The Town Manager noted that there are costs that need to be covered. We only hire ALS Fire Fighters and they are more expensive. John Arena asked where ambulance billings go and Sharon Angstrom noted into a miscellaneous account. -� Page 1 2 Board of Selectmen Minutes - January 19, 2016 - oaoe 3 Mark Dockser asked if we could look at how we bill compared to other communities and Chief Burns noted that we could. Police Chief Budget - Police Chief Mark Segalla reviewed the Department's vision and goal. He feels we could improve on Community Policing. We need to make the Honor Guard permanent. He wants to reinstitute the Police Academy and the RAD Program. We are hiring two new officers now. The Community Service Officer will be the liaison to the business community for such events like the Fall Street Faire. He wants to hold an Open House and Institute "Coffee with a Cop." Chief Segalla noted that calls for service are down a little bit. John Arena asked how long a typical investigation takes and Chief Segalla noted it could be 2 days or 30 days. Chief Segalla noted that the proposed budget has an increase of 4.4 %. Over 95% of the budget is spent on personnel. His request for an additional School Resource Officer was removed by the Town Manager even though there is an increase in requests from the schools, parents and students. There has been 173 documented incidents since September. Expenses have increased 7.4% over last year. We are negotiating with North Reading to regionalize an Animal Control Officer. John Arena asked if the Animal Control Officer was the only thing to regionalize and the Town Manager noted RCASA could if it wasn't grant funded. Kevin Sexton noted that the School Resource Officer began in 2006 and he asked if the responses increasing because there is more need or because they know us better? Chief Segalla said both. Barry Berman asked what he would do with another School Resource Officer and Chief Segalla noted he would use that Officer in the Middle Schools because we are triaging right now. John Arena noted it would be interesting if the School Resource Officer tracked the trends by category. John Halsey noted that there is an absence of proactivity without another School Resource Officer. The impact could be a life. We need to quantify the absence - this is not just a budget discussion. Mark Dockser asked if the RCASA grant Is expiring and the Town Manager noted that not the whole grant, just the alcohol part. The Youth Coordinator position is eliminated next year because that part of the grant expires. Chief Segalla noted that the Dispatch budget has an increase of 5.3% and 95% of the budget is spent on personal. There is $500,000 in the FY21 capital budget for new Dispatch equipment. Library - Library Director Ruth Urell, Assistant Library Director Amy Lannon, Library Trustees David Hutchinson, Alice Collins, Vicki Yablonsky and Cherne Dubois were present. Vicki Yablonsky noted that they are facing going into a new Library and they just completed a five year planning process. They are trying to bring the budget back up. Ruth Urell reviewed the Executive Summary. She noted that 9000 children attended educational programs. They support lifelong education for adults. They held two Harry Potter events and winter warmers and held pints and pages for young adults. Page 13 v Board of Selectmen Minutes - January 19. 2016 - oaae 4 John Arena asked if the visits by youth were by group or with parents and Ruth Urell noted that was an actual head count. John Arena asked if they were 30 groups of 30 or 900 families. Ruth Urell Indicated she didn't have that information but they keep a lot of statistics. John Arena asked the age of young adults and Ruth Urell noted 20 - 21 year old. Daniel Ensminger asked about their three year forecast. Ruth Urell noted they need to maintain the level of staffing. Updating the Librarians with MLS degrees cost $18,000. John Arena asked if we are at or below surrounding communities and are we doing a good job i.e. are we equivalent to others. Ruth Urell noted she will have to look that up. Ruth Urell noted that she is requesting a Digital Services Manager to do staff training and public classes. John Arena asked what kind of training and Ruth Urell noted internet, software, etc. John Arena asked if that could be done by a third party and we could charge to cover it and Ruth Urell noted that the Library doesn't charge for services. Ruth Urell noted she is also requesting $5800 for substitutes when people are absent and there is a $22,000 difference from what the Town Manager recommends for the books line. Daniel Ensminger noted that a budget increase of 8 - 10% each year is not sustainable. Ruth Urell noted that the reality Is they are asking for a position to manager the move Into the new Library. Daniel Ensminger asked how she reconciles or prioritizes and Ruth Urell noted that adding Thursday hours is pushed into the second year and Sunday hours the third year. John Arena asked if there are any costs improved by virtue of what we just purchased and Ruth Urell noted in circulation services. John Arena asked why it drops in year 3 and Ruth Urell noted in year 1 we have more to learn and will have a three level building. In year 2 and 3 people are more comfortable and we could see savings. Barry Berman noted that the Town spent a lot of money on a new building and we need to staff it adequately. He suggests figuring out the minimum for this year and then come back next year. John Arena noted he is surprised with the amount spent on reference services when more is available electronically. Ruth Urell noted that it Is more complicated now. Previously, encyclopedias were self- intuitive but people don't know which data base to go through electronically. She can't forecast when we will see a savings in circulation but she Is sure by year three. Kevin Sexton asked if there is any game plan for rental of conference rooms and Ruth Urell noted they have discussed that. They currently use the Town rates. There is a lot of tutoring done at the Library. A nominal fee is charged for use of the meeting room during hours. Alice Collins noted that they are looking at the same thing that the Schools do. John Halsey asked if the revenue could be used to offset expenses and Sharon Angstrom noted that it can but we have to decide what expenses and how to Identify it. It has to be identifiable costs such as custodian expenses, etc. John Halsey noted there are a whole series of things that could be used to create revenues. There is a huge demand for meeting space. He thinks there could be ways to get Ruth what she needs. The Town Manager agreed. He noted that the schools are taking the professional approach and we're amateurs. We need to talk to the schools and now is the time with the new Library coming onboard. John Arena noted that the meeting room holds 150 and we should be able to offset expenses. Vicki Yablonsky noted that the Library Trustees are open to discussion on `1 anything but they don't charge for services. John Arena noted that circulations, etc. are Page 1 4 Board of Selectmen Minutes - January 19 2016 - pace free. Ruth Urell noted that their policy is not commercial events in the meeting rooms. She also noted that there is a fair amount of public ownership with this building. Barry Berman noted that we could charge a user fee for major authors and Ruth Urell noted that this discussion would be more useful in 10 months. Nancy Docktor asked how Boston Library manages to rent out for weddings and Ruth Urell said she did not know. John Arena noted that the new Library will have more potential and if someone wants to use it then take advantage of it. He feels 10 months is too long to wait and we should at least start now. DPW - Public Works Director Jeff Zager and Assistant Public Works Director Jane Kinsella were present. Jeff Zager noted that the budget has an Increase of 1.7 %. They have 55 FTE and are down one Engineer position. The intern in Engineering is being eliminated and that will leave five Engineers. The current Town Engineer is retiring in June. He has added $4000 in overtime in Engineering to cover inspections on Fridays. Administration wages is increasing to 40 hours per week. There is a small increase in professional development and a small increase in traffic control to do maintenance. There is a small Increase in Highway for parts. Snow and ice is level funded. Street lighting has a slight decrease and rubbish has a slight decrease. The current trash vendor proposed a 10 year contract but that is too long so we're looking for a proposal for 5 years. Kevin Sexton asked if we would consider manual recycling and Jeff Zager noted we could go to single source but automatic is expensive to buy containers. In 2012 we were awarded winning community for recycling. John Arena asked if there is any revenue source from old televisions and Jane Kinsella noted that we pay a nominal fee to take them away so there is no money to be made. Jeff Zager noted that there are three new supervisors in place. They have a strong professional development training going on and the Town receives benefits from MIIA for these. Since 2011 we have resurfaced 107 roads or sections of roads at a cost of $6.1 million. John Arena noted that it would be nice to have public index availability. The Town Manager noted that there is new legislation being offered to towns re: double poles and utilities digging up the roads. Jeff Zager noted that 35% of all trash is recycled. There were 557 issues reported on See Click Fix and 92 potholes fixed. There is online access to water and sewer cards. They will be starting capital projects in the spring. Barry Berman noted that in previous years the bids have come in out of sorts and Jeff Zager noted the estimates have been an issue for the past two to three years. The Town Manager noted that there is not a lot of competition. John Arena asked if there is any volatility in asphalt and Jeff Zager noted that there have been some reductions in other communities. Enterprise Funds - The Town Manager noted that one full time Engineer is paid out of water fund but not doing water all of the time. Sewer is 3/4 MWRA so sewer staff cost is smaller. Federal regulations have had an increased effect on storm water. There will be a series of infrastructure needs over the upcoming years including sewer station repairs. n,7 ' Page 1 5 Board of Selectmen Minutes - lanuary 19. 201 Shared Costs - The Town Manager noted that health insurance has Increased 8 %. Previously the schools were higher than the Town and that has reversed now. Debt and Capital - The Town Manager noted that our reliance on debt is far less than it was 10 years ago. John Arena asked if we have been reimbursed from the state for snow and ice and the Town Manager noted that we are still waiting they keep changing liaisons. The Town Manager noted that the overall budget is well behaved. If there are available funds he would fund the Economic Development Planner; $2000 for the Library; a Crossing Guard; the pay and class; Human Resource training and Public Safety training. The Town Manager noted that we will be making cuts in FY38. Daniel Ensminger asked if the Finance Committee can develop two budgets - one with override and one without. Barry Berman noted that we cannot ask for more unless adding services. John Arena asked if we can do three budgets. The Town Manager noted it is mostly a marketing tool and he would prefer a list of items. He also wants to discuss how the money is split - 2/3 and 1/3. A motion by Sexton seconded by Berman to adiourn the meetina at 10.05 P.m. was approved by a vote of S -0 -0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Page 1 6 � orx� 0 �4° Town of Reading 9 �.: Meeting Minutes ,a t. .3` J a'6J9'IF[OPtOPP Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Board of Selectmen Date: 2016 -01 -26 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Minutes Time: 7:00 PM Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Session: Open Session Version: Chair Dan Ensminger, Kevin Sexton, John Halsey, Barry Berman Members - Not Present: John Arena Others Present: Town Manager Bob Lel-acheur, Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Police Chief Segalla, Town Clerk Laura Gemme, Town Counsel Ray Miyares and Jenny Merrill, Administrative Assistant Caitlin Saunders, Stephen Crook, lack Sullivan, Mike Sullivan, Sid Silveira, Elaine Webb Topics of Discussion: Submitted By: Secretary Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Mr. Halsey noted he attended Birch Meadow Committee meeting. They are moving field by field at the moment and they will probably have an info session in the spring. Mr. Berman attended the Mass Municipal Meeting. He noted Reading is doing a lot of things right. There was a lot on opioid use and attendees were impressed with RCASA. There was a section on what towns should do when building so we had a lot to offer with the new Permanent Building Committee that was just formed. He said overall they had a great turnout and it was a great learning experience. Mr. Ensminger said he watched the financial forum and said it was a very good turnout. Mr. Berman noted there were a lot of new faces in the room looking to help. Mr. Halsey noted a lot of people with ideas have been filling their inboxes. Mr. Berman suggested letting them know about the Selectmen's next meeting. Town Managers Report - Mr. LeLacheur just wanted to remind the BOS that Town Meeting is not necessary to get the override on the ballot. Mr. Halsey noted there seems to be a strong urgency to get this for the FY18 budget and people are looking to us to take a leadership role. Mr. LeLacheur suggested a joint meeting to see the boards you don't interact with on a regular basis. Discussion/ Action Items Animal Control Bylaw - Town Counsel Ray Miyares and Jenny Merrill were present. Page I 1 6--, �` Board of Selectmen Minutes - January 26 2016 - pace 2 Ms. Merrill noted they changed the Bylaw to bring it up to date. It now cites to statue regarding hearings. They took out numerous repeated definitions and made it clear the Animal Control Committee was the authorizing board. Our Bylaw gives authority to the Animal Control Officer to give restraining orders. Mr. LeLacheur asked if a constable is necessary for that. Mr. Miyares said no the officer can do that. Mr. Berman asked what changes if we regionalize animal control. Mr. LeLacheur said we would hope all participating towns would just adopt our bylaw. Mr. Miyares said that would not even be necessary but it would make things easier. Mr. Ensminger asked for a quick summary of the major changes in the bylaw. Ms. Merrill noted the hearing process is slightly different, a lot of definitions were removed and there are four different categories of kennel licenses now. Mr. LeLacheur asked the best way to present this to Town Meeting so they understand it. Mr. Miyares said he could provide us with a bold and cross out version. Mr. Halsey also suggested doing a summary of new vs old. A summary would probably be best with the interest in time at Town Meeting. Mr. Berman asked when the last time we had a dangerous dog hearing was. Town Clerk Laura Gemme answered in 2012. Town Meetino Warrant Summaries Mr. LeLacheur noted Article 5 is changing the current years' budget. Article 6 closes the OPEB issue. He noted we fund about 25% of what we should be. Article 8 is to approve the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan which is something we do every year. Article 9 is the annual revolving fund authorization and there are no changes to that. Mr. Berman asked if we talked about creating one for the building committee for when they do studies. Mr. LeLacheur noted there was a conversation about funding them but not which avenue to take to actually do it. Article 10 is surplus. Article 11 is an unpaid bill. Article 12 is the budget. Article 13 is Chapter 90 funding and we accept whatever they give us. FY17 Bucket Mr. LeLacheur noted there is $29,000 that did not get allocated. He prioritized what he thought the departments would want as follows: • $2,000 to the Library to average with all the other town departments. The library always wants more but it is hard to say what they will need because they will be moving to a new building. • Any amount towards the pay and class. • Any amount to technology but not more than $5,000. • Any amount for overtime for public safety. • Any amount for facilities. Page 1 2 Board of Selectmen Minutes - January 26 2016 - page 3 • Asking for more money for the Public Services Department. A planning position would cost upwards of $80,000. Mr. Halsey stated he would rather see us fund one meaningful project rather than allocate $29,000 to little things. He would like to see a planning position get funded to help with economic development. Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios noted she would like to sit down and come up with a job description with goals of what this person needs along with what type of economic development work they would be doing. Mr. Sexton said his thoughts are this person would be like a sales person to go out and market the town to businesses. Mr. Halsey commented we need to find the right person for this job and not just hire someone because we need someone. He suggested having a meeting to discuss this specific position. Woburn Street Housino Proiect Update - Mr. Ensminger wanted to announce that he is a parishioner at St. Agnes but is not Involved in any decision making process so if no one has any objections he would like to stay on the quorum. There were no objections. Attorney Brad Latham, Applicant Mike Sullivan, Engineer lack Sullivan and Mike Jacobs were present. Mr. Latham stated there was an applicant before this one for this location but that applicant wanted more units and CPDC shut it down so he dropped It. Mr. Latham noted the applicant plans on softening the front appearance and doing a lot of landscaping to make it attractive. There will be 20 units with affordable units. The parking exceeds the zoning requirements. The applicant would like to work with the town and make this a friendly 40B. Engineer Jack Sullivan, representing the developer, noted there will be no footprint change. They would make it a one way traffic flow. They may eliminate a few parking spaces along the entrance to make sure there is the 18 foot width for the fire truck. There were previous concerns from neighbors about drainage which will be looked at if the project moves forward. The applicant also plans on changing the fence in the back for the neighbors. Mike Jacobs noted 1 /40 of the units will be affordable, which will be 5 units. There will be a lottery to determine who gets the units. He also noted 70% would get local preference. Mr. Ensminger asked if this Is currently zoned residential and it was noted it is. Mr. Berman asked that if the recycling and trash are at the end of the property, does that mean residents will have to carry out their trash all the way out there. Mr. Latham noted as of right now, yes, but they are looking into a trash room in the building with internal recycling bins. Ms. Delios asked if parking will be included in the rent and it was noted it will be and they will most likely assign specific spots to each tenant. Mr. Halsey asked the applicant to please invite the Board of Selectmen to their neighborhood meetings when they have them. Attorney Miyares asked what their time frame was to get this permitted and Attorney Latham noted about a month. Attorney Miyares asked if we could please work on having most of the issues resolved before we go into hearings and Attorney Latham agreed. �I L' Page 1 3 Board of Selectmen Minutes - January 26 2016. - pace 4 Mr. Sexton asked about snow storage and Mr. Sullivan noted they are thinking of doing a turf surface but In the event of a large snow storm they will most likely need to have snow trucked out. Mr. Ensminger asked what the next steps are for this project. Attorney Latham said a neighborhood meeting is next and then they will come back to the Board. Mr. Berman asked the applicant to please communicate a lot with the neighbors Ms. Delios asked if this will actually be a friendly 40B and filed as a LIP or a normal 40B. Mr. Jacobs noted he does not think this can be formally a LIP but they want to work with the Town as much as possible as if it was. Ms. Delios asked if that means they will be filing with MassHousing and Mr. Jacobs said yes. The Board reconvened in Open Session at 9:10 PM. Hearst - Recuest for 2nd driveway at 126 -128 High Street - The Secretary read the hearing notice. Applicant Robert Aiello was present. He noted the purpose of the circular drive is not for more parking but it is a safety concern so the tenants don't have to back out on High Street. Mr. Aiello is the new owner of the property and he is trying to make the property nice while updating and renovating it. He noted parking is on the left or right and there will be no cars parking in the circular drive. The Engineers suggest eliminating the parking spot in the front so no one has to back out onto High Street and make the arc wider so the cars can make the swing around. Mr. Berman asked if you cut that corner does the applicant still need both driveways. Mr. Aiello noted yes because it is a two family home. Mr. Halsey said the existing parking requires users to back onto High Street and he thinks this makes perfect sense to do. Jim Denardo, neighbor, noted there has never been parking there before until Mr. Aiello bought this property. This is such a tiny yard he would hate to see it paved over and does not think this is the right direction to go for the neighborhood. Mr. Ensminger noted the owner has a right to have as much parking as they want. Mr. Denardo commented their driveway is directly opposite of theirs and they have to back out and it is already tricky without having to now watch out for a driveway behind us. Mr. Ensminger noted the memo from Safety Officer Savio noting they have no objections from a public safety standpoint. Mr. Denardo disagreed and said there is a huge safety concern and they complain to the police all the time about it. Mr. Ensminger noted the owner has a right to do whatever they want with their property. Mr. Halsey noted this would help Mr. Denardo's safety concerns. Mr. Aiello commented it would be safer for this driveway because no one will be backing out they will be driving out. n Page 1 4 Board of Selectmen Minutes - January 26 2016 - page 5 Mr. Denardo also wanted to point out the tree in the front of the house is very old and should be saved. Mr. Aiello noted he is not touching the tree. vote. Hearing - Reauest for second driveway at 315 Pearl Street - The Secretary read the hearing notice. Applicant Elaine Webb was present. She noted her and her husband recently purchased the 315 Pearl Street and they currently live next door. The driveway is in bad shape and it is a big struggle to get in and out of the driveway. They are renovating the house. The new proposed driveway would be the daily driveway but they would keep the current driveway to be able to use the garage. The Town Engineer wrote a memo expressing he has no objections and Public Safety also has no concerns. A motion by Sexton second by Mr. Halsey that the Board of Selectmen close the hearing on the second driveway request at 315 Pearl Street was approved by a 4- 0-0 vote. Mr. Sexton moved the Board of Selectmen approve the second driveway request at 315 Pearl Street, seconded by Mr. Halsey and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote. 0 vote. Mr. Berman said at the MMA meeting he attended, they talked to the See, Click, Fix people and asked them how to get more residents to use It. He asked if the Board could ask for 5 minutes at Town Meeting to ask Town Meeting members to download the app on their phones. Mr. LeLacheur noted the Selectmen can put it in their report but they cannot make it a separate report. Mr. Halsey suggested making a handout to give out. Mr. Sexton moved that the Board of Selectmen adiourn at 10:00pm, seconded by Mr. Berman and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Page 15 JAN Orq 0 ° Town of Reading ?�� jr ,. �. Meeting Minutes r° a'�acoxv ° °� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Board of Selectmen Date: 2016 -02 -23 Time: 7:00 PM Building: School - Parker Location: Multi- Purpose Room Address: 45 Temple Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Chairman Daniel Ensminger, Secretary Kevin Sexton, Vice Chairman John Halsey, Barry Berman Members - Not Present: John Arena Others Present: Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Administrative Assistant Caitlin Saunders, CPDC members Jeff Hansen, David Tuttle, John Weston and Nick Safina, Everette and Virginia Blodgett, Kevin Brown, Christine Hansen, Damase Caouette, Phil Pacino, Robert Redfern, Robert Mooney, Marianne Downing, Matthew Noman, Gregg Jones, Jackie Carson, Pamela Congdon, Gary Hylan, Christine Hylan, Mary Ellen O'Neill, Al Sylvia, David Traniello, Gina Snyder, Bo Garrison, Nancy Docktor, George Katsoufis, Megan Fidler -Carey, Nicole Barletta, Nichola Aiello, Lynn O'Brien, Denis Gagnon, loan Cotter, Joe Gesmundo, Karen Stromm, Julie Aylward, Geoffrey Coran, Eric Burkhart, Kate Grant, Amy Hussey, Holly Gallant, Ashley Quinn, Amy Cole, Julie Joyce, Stephen Crook, Nick Pernice, Carolyn Whiting, Robert Ferrari, Ann Cruickshank, Dennis and Lorraine Lee, Jen Hillery, Robyn Ferrazzani, Colleen DeRosa, Jeff Barton, Amy Scicchitani, Jeanne Thomases, Vonda Gauthier, Denise Ewald, Dan McCarthy, Michele Sanphy. Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments Mr. Berman said he attended the Library Building Committee meeting and it looks like the project will use all of its contingency but is on schedule. Mr. Halsey noted he attended the Birch Meadow Committee. They are working on bringing a report to the Recreation Committee to then bring to Town Meeting to give them an update. The RFP for the lighting is due to go out in a couple weeks. Mr. Ensminger wanted to make it known there are a lot of open Town Meeting seats available. - Mary Ellen O'Neill wanted to encourage the women of Reading to get involved with Town Meeting. Page 1 1 �L Board of Selectmen Minutes - February 23. 1016 - oaoe 2 Mr. LeLacheur noted the Town expects a very large turnout for this election and to remember that there will be two ballots, one for the primary and one for the local election. Proclamations/ Certificates of Appreciation Gas Leak Resolutions Mr. LeLacheur noted there are two bills that came to the legislative that have not been acted upon. The Climate Advisory Committee is asking the Board to support it and voice an opinion to the legislation. Mr. Sexton moved that the Board support, (House Bill 2B70 "An Act relative to Protecting Consumem of Gas and Electr)cit from Paving for Leaked and Unaccounted for Gas ") (House Bill 2871 "An Act Relative to Gas Leak Repairs Durina Road Protects-) And that the Board through its designee notify the I cted Reading delegation in the House and Senate second by Mr. Berman and approved with a 4-0-0 vote Mr. Halsey noted at first he did not think this was a good idea to poke our noses into this but Reading has a lot of leaks that affect Reading residents and we should be here to help them. Mr. Ensminger agreed and Mr. Berman agreed as well saying we need to do something to push them along. Discussion /Action Items Acknowledge Withdrawal of Liouor License Transf r Mr. LeLacheur noted Ristorante Pavarotti's sale is falling through but the application is still in the ABCC so the Board needs to formally withdraw the application. Community Compact Mr. LeLacheur said this vote will make the chair the signatory on an application to be a compact community and to approve the list of best practices submitted as a part of the application. Personnel & Appointments Mr. Sexton noted they had six appointments total last week. He expressed how impressed he was with the applicants and encouraged more volunteers as we have many spots available. Mr. Halsey explained how volunteerism is very important and they had a great round of interviews. Mr. LeLacheur said he has been involved with volunteers for the past 20 years and most recently he has seen a lot of new residents to Reading starting to volunteer and it is a great thing to see happening. Page 1 2 Board of Selectmen Minutes - February 23 2016 - Vie' 3 Mr. Sexton moved and Mr. Berman seconded that the Board of Selectmen acc of the recommendation of the Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee as follows, • Harry Curtis for a term on the Conservation Commission endina June 30 2018; • Amy Scicchltani for a term on the Conservation Commission ending June 30 2 The vote was aparoved 4 -0 -0. Joint Meeting with CPDC• Readino Village 40B Proiect CPDC called to order at 7:25 PM. Mr. Ensminger explained what a 40B project is and outlined the process a 40B applicant must go through. The applicant, Matthew Zuker, from MKM Reading, LLC was present on behalf of the project proposed at 39 -41 Lincoln Street and 2 -12 Prescott Street. He noted that the next public hearing with the ZBA is March 17th. He explained that the proposal is for 77 units, 70% of which will have just one bedroom. The goal is to build a transit - oriented project that encourages people to live, work and shop in the downtown. He mentioned that the development team is starting to organize meetings with neighbors to hear their comments and concerns. Mr. Zuker's business partner Ken Chase was also present. He commented that they are in the beginning stages of the project and the ZBA process. He explained that the biggest recurring question regards the height of the building and its proximity to buildings around it. He noted that the existing building, home to Certainly Wood, is currently on the property line. The buildings that are proposed will meet applicable building and fire codes. He explained that the Fire Code only requires that a fire truck be able to get within 150 feet of each side of the building, which is feasible under the proposal. Architect Peter Bartash explained that vehicle access to the site is via a two -way ingress /egress off of Prescott Street with and a one -way exit out onto Lincoln Street. The garage is technically considered 'S2' Storage by code due to its design. There are 170 feet of frontage along Prescott Street and 90 feet along Lincoln Street. The building will have stairs at each end with a corridor down the middle. An elevated courtyard with landscaping is proposed as a common area for the residents. There will be an internal trash chute in the middle of Building A. The roof plan shows a roof with a low slope to help lower the perceived height of the building. There will be deep overhanging awnings for pedestrians. Mr. Bartash explained the results of the shadow studies at different times of day throughout the year. Mr. Ensminger asked Mr. Bartash about the memo from the Fire Chief regarding the sprinkler system and the open garage. j /� i Page 1 3 Board of Selectmen Minutes - February 23, 2016 - oaoe 4 Mr. Bartash explained that according to code - based on the construction classification - the garage and the residential areas are considered separate structures. This means that the overall height of the residential building is measured from the top of the parking podium and is allowed to be much higher than what is proposed. The materials of the building are non - combustible and have a one -hour fire rating. The parking podium, as well as the stairways, trash chute and elevator that penetrate it, are required to have two -hour fire ratings. Mr. David Tuttle, CPDC member, asked if the applicant plans to have a management company oversee the building once it is constructed. Mr. Zuker noted that details like this will be worked out further into the process, but that it will be professionally managed. Mr. Nick Safina, CPDC member, commented that this building is not right for the area and does not address residential property lines on all sides. He pointed out that the front of the building is at a 0 lot line, which could create problems with snow and ice falling off the roof onto pedestrian areas. He asked whether anything could be done to address the pedestrian views into the parking garage. He opined that the building will isolate the whole block from the neighborhood, as it is too tall on most facades. He stated that the massing should address the context of the neighborhood. He asked what section of the fire code allows the building height to be measured from the top of the podium, and what the fire rating will be between the garage and the building. Mr. Bartash replied that depending on the building materials used it will be two -hour or three -hour rated. Mr. Berman mentioned that a big concern with the project is the lack of parking. The site does not propose enough parking to handle all the residents and their guests. He opined that the depot is already overwhelmed with commuters. He noted that if people start finding it hard to park downtown, then they will shop elsewhere. This is not something the town wants. He asked the applicant to look into ways to address this issue. Mr. Ensminger asked Ms. Delos if the applicant has to justify all the waiver requests. Ms. Delos deferred to Town Counsel. Town Counsel replied in the affirmative, that the ZBA will look at each waiver request and examine supporting information from the applicant. The ZBA will have the benefit of peer reviewers, who are outside experts, who will look at the application as well. The ZBA has to consider whether denial of a waiver will render the project unbuildable and whether granting of a waiver will violate the public health, safety and welfare in such a way that trumps the Town's need for affordable housing. Mr. John Weston, CPDC member, opined that the applicant's use of the term 'transit - oriented development' is only somewhat correct in this scenario. The applicant is taking credit for the proximity of the train to reduce parking ratios, yet has done nothing to aid In transit mode options for residents. It would be hard to live in Reading without a car and there is no grocery store downtown. The development is near the train but that is not enough. Mr. Halsey asked the applicant who determines which residents are income eligible for the affordable units. Mr. Zuker responded that the affordable housing component would be handled by a company certified in 40B lotteries. He noted that local preference is an option that can be explored, but it would still have to be managed in accordance with the requirements of the subsidizing agency as well as Fair Housing laws. Mr. Bartash added that Mass Housing has to review and approve the distribution by type and location of the affordable units. Page 1 4 P Board of Selectmen Minutes - February 23 2016 - page 5 Mr. Sexton asked if these plans could change or if they are final Mr. Zuker expressed that the development team wants to make the project work for tenants and that neighborhood reality and buyer needs have to be balanced. There is some fluidity In the plans. Creative options for parking will be explored. Mr. Sexton asked why the applicant is proposing 77 units and inquired whether the purchase of Brown's Autobody could mitigate the height and footprint of the building. Mr. Zuker noted that they have not designed the project to include that parcel. Mr. Tuttle opined that the traffic analysis needs to be reviewed before any decisions can be made. Mr. Ensminger suggested that the parking analysis should include traffic flow in the morning for all the commuters that come into that area. The Board opened the hearing up to public comment. Jackie Carson, Sanborn Place, expressed her opinion that the Town should manage the affordable units instead of doing a lottery. Marianne Downing of 13 Heather Drive noted concerns about the density. She believes that 93 units per acre is proposed by the applicant as a starting point for negotiation. She spoke about other projects in the greater Boston area that the development team is involved with. Christine Hansen of 30 Haven Street said that the already significant population of seniors will increase over the years. She asked what accessible features the project has. Mr. Bartash explained that the project is required to meet ADA and MAAB regulations, which require that 5% of units be fully compliant while all the others have to be adaptable. The elevator will be handicap accessible and there will be accessible pathways on -site. Nancy Docktor of 371 Pearl Street asked if a recyclable chute will be provided with the trash chute. She asked whether the one bedroom units are truly one bedroom. Mr. Bartash answered that there will be a recycling chute next to the trash chute. He also noted that the one bedroom units are traditional with a closet. Gregg Jones of 26 Avon Street asked what the actual number of parking spaces is. Mr. Bartash answered 82. Mr. Jones expressed his concern that the project does not fit the neighborhood and agrees that Reading is not quite a commuter community. Uber in Reading is not realistic. Mary Ellen O'Neill of 125 Summer Avenue asked what will happen to the trees behind Doucette's. She opined that the project provides no green space for the neighborhood. Mr. Chase indicated that the trees are not on their property. Nick Aiello of 92 -94 Washington Street stated that his backyard abuts the property. He is not opposed to redevelopment of the site, but he thinks the proposed project is too large to be so close to his property line. He noted that the neighborhood already has a drainage problem and asked whether this project will impact it. Page 15 Board of Selectmen Minutes - February 23, 2016 - vaoe 6 Mr. Chase replied that the DEP mandates that post - construction runoff be no worse than pre - construction runoff. He explained that roof leaders and drainage chambers will help recharge stormwater to the ground. Mr. Bartash added that the rate of recharge is regulated as well, such that rainwater must be captured, retained and released. Cadence Thomases of 21 Arlington Street asked the applicant to show the shadows at B in the morning so she can see how it affects her home. She said she hopes for visitor parking. Jeanne Thomases of 21 Arlington Street noted that Arlington Street has not been mentioned at all in these plans but that the garage exits across from Arlington Street. She asked what the sounds associated with the garage doors will be like and what the landscaping plans are. Mr. Bartash responded that they will work with neighbors on sounds and landscaping but need to be mindful of safety concerns as well. Virginia Blodgett of 99 Prescott Street asked if the existing sewer system can handle all the new units. She opined that it would be nice to see what the building will look like from the perspective of surrounding streets. Gina Snyder of 11 Jaden Terrace mentioned that the Town was considering different options for the site before the applicant came forward. Ms. Dellos explained that the ZBA will continue their public hearing on March 17" and encouraged everyone to come and speak up to help shape the project within its neighborhood. She explained that 40B is a challenging process driven by state laws, but that the Town is hiring peer review consultants to help the ZBA examine the site. Joint Meeting with CPDC: 40R districts Ms. Dellos explained unlike 40B, 40R allows the community to adopt an overlay district that allows the Town to have options and a say in shaping developments. It gives the Town a measure of control and expertise which hopefully leads to projects suitable for Reading. For example, 30 Haven has been a successful project that has helped revitalize the downtown. Tonight the discussion will be focused on expanding the existing Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD). The Economic Development Plan suggests expanding the 40R district and MAPC suggests a close look at PDA 1A and 1B (the site of the proposed 40B) as expansion areas. The Town is currently in talks with a developer for the post office. Mr. Jeff Hansen, CPDC member, noted that the CPDC Is putting together a subcommittee for the 40R expansion and that the Board of Selectmen's opinion on this is paramount. The CPDC wants to get this on the warrant for November Town Meeting. Mr. Weston explained that there has been a lot of discussion of how to expand without affecting too many homes. He reminded the Board that the current DSGD is the smallest area the State would allow and includes all commercial buildings. He opined that the CPDC really needs to figure out what it is trying to accomplish for this area. Mr. Berman commented that often zoning chases a project, but that projects should chase zoning. He agreed that 30 Haven has been a great addition to the downtown, but that it needs to be expanded to allow people to live downtown without a car. History shows that when the Town is proactive it gets better results. Expanding the district will also show the community the Board is serious about economic development. 57 Page 1 6 Board of Selectmen Minutes - February 23 2016 - Dace 7 Mr. Sexton commented that expanding the district is a great idea. The EDSAT identified that the Town's demographic in twenty years will be mostly seniors and young professionals who will be looking for housing and retail options in the same area. Mr. Tuttle noted that the initial proposal for smart growth expansion was to include all of Business B, which is a much larger area. He opined that there has been a lot of change in what was possible then versus now. He pointed out that the 40R is only an overlay that gives an owner or developer more choices of how to redevelop the land; it does not mean it has to or will be done. Mr. Halsey agreed that people are afraid when they see their home included in an area for proposed rezoning, but that expanding the 40R only creates options and opportunities for the Town in the future. He also reminded the room that PDA 1B was proposed and then denied as a smart growth area, and now there is a pending 40B (Reading Village) for the site. He commented that the Town needs to create its own destiny. Mr. Halsey believes the Town should expand 40R even more to allow further opportunities. Mr. LeLacheur noted that last night the CPDC put out priorities for November Town Meeting and 40R was one of them. There is a lot of work to be done in that time frame. The Board opened up the discussion for public comment. Mary Ellen O'Neill noted that she was at the CPDC meeting last night and is concerned for the people with homes within the area considered for 40R expansion. She opined that the Town should start talking to these people sooner rather than later. Jeanne Thomases asked if Reading Village would be stopped if the smart growth district were expanded to include PDA 1B. Mr. Tuttle responded in the negative. Although the 40B is not a done deal per say yet, a 40R at this point would not affect them. Furthermore, the presence of a 40R overlay district does not preclude development of a 40B. Mr. Safina noted that the downtown smart growth district can have sub - districts for which the CPDC can craft design guidelines and rules for different streets and sections. The CPDC adjourned at 9:37 PM. Financial Overview Mr. LeLacheur noted they will look at and discuss the timeline for an override, if current funds are managed correctly, are these temporary or permanent funds that we need, communication rules for government workers /volunteers, how much we need and what we are trying to solve. In the next 12 months we have three chances to get an override question on a ballot. September 8 - October 25 window would be the best time frame. We need to present a budget explaining position cuts to show the community but not lay out which specific positions would be cut. The Board would have to decide whether to call a Special Town Meeting or not; they don't have to but it has always been good politics. We would need to start planning neighborhood meetings right away. The Town Manager and Superintendent of Schools both agree a fall vote would be best from a morale standpoint. Mr. Ensminger wanted to make It clear that this override would be for FY18. FY17 is already basically in the books and there will be cuts and it will hurt a little. r Page 1 7 ��]� Board of Selectmen Minutes — February 23. 201 Mr. LeLacheur noted we have to remember that there are plenty of people in town who cannot afford an override and we have to protect them somehow. Mr. Berman said he thinks it is better to pick the later fall date. It would give us more time to figure out exactly what we're going to be asking and really get good community feedback. Mr. Ensminger agreed the October option seems better. He also noted the Board of Selectmen appreciate all the emails /comments /phone calls they have been getting and they urge you to contact the School Committee to get them to communicate their opinions more. Mr. Sexton also agreed saying October would be best and not to show specific position cuts. Mr. Halsey wanted to clear some miscommunications that may be coming from all the emails. Encouragement from the community to put this on a ballot is great but the ultimate decision is the Board of Selectmen's and they will be making that decision soon. The Board of Selectmen has to be careful not to take sides; they must be respectful to everyone. Their job is to assemble information and present it so people understand the current state, the current state with an override and the current state without an override with ramifications, without being a cheerleader for one side. Once and if the vote happens we have to go forward with the results and deal with managing new taxes or figuring out how to continue without more money. Eric Burkhart of 161 Belmont Street wanted to make sure he was clear on the way an override gets on a ballot. The Board ultimately makes the decision but public input helps them make that decision. Mr. Burkhart asked the Board to elaborate on that decision making process. Mr. Ensminger stated the Board has made it clear they value public opinion. They then have a large decision with themselves and with Mr. LeLacheur's expertise. A resident asked if there was Flexibility with the timing of the neighborhood meetings and the Board answered yes. Jeff Barton of 23 Thomas Drive asked if an override does go on a ballot and it is successful, what is the process for deciding where the money goes. Mr. LeLacheur noted that is one of the key things we need to answer when we ask for this override. He also noted the town has predetermined ways to allocate money. Once those things are subtracted, there Is a formula to use on the leftover money to split between the departments. This will be a large discussion between boards and staff about our priorities. There is a budget process in place that is not taken lightly. Mr. LeLacheur also mentioned he looks at budgets as far out as 2030 to see where we may need money in the future to help make these decisions as well. Jackie Carson asked if the neighborhood meetings can be at different times and the Board stated they could be. A resident commented he didn't like that Mr. Halsey said the Board shouldn't be a cheerleader for one side. He thinks if the Board feels one way, the town deserves to know that and know If there was an overwhelming amount of public comment towards one way or not. Mr. Ensminger explained the Board needs to be mindful of all residents. Legally the board cannot take sides; personally, they each can have their own opinion. / i Page 18 rd of Selectmen Minutes - F bruary 23. 2 Mr. Halsey stated they can Inform the community on what the majority of the public comment has been. He said to look at it this way, if the Selectmen chose to put an override on a ballot that is the Board telling the residents they seriously need to consider this. The Board will guide you but they have to be on everyone's side. The Board cannot tell you what to think or what to do; they have to let the facts speak for themselves. Michelle Sanphy of 75 Glenmere Circle asked if she was sensing the Board is thinking of putting an override on the ballot with respect to people who can't afford it and small businesses. Mr. Sexton answered yes, it Is a big balancing act and we have to take everything into consideration. Mr. Tuttle commented the budget is approved by Town Meeting which is a different set of Individuals. Mr.. Ensminger noted it has been an honor and a privilege to chair this board and he thanks you for giving him the opportunity. The Board of Selectmen will be reorganizing at their next meeting. Mr. Sexton moved and Mr. Berman seconded that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of January 20, 2016 and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote Mr. Sexton moved and Mr. Berman seconded that the Board of Selectmen approve the Executive Session minutes of January 26 2016 as written the vote was as follows: Ensminger - Yes Halsey - Yes Sexton - Yes Berman - Yes The motion carries with a 4 -0 -0 vote. Mr. Sexton, second by Mr. Berman move that the Board of S I ctmen adiourn the meeting at 10:26 PM, approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Page 1 9 Permanent Building Committee March 8, 2016 Presentation to the Board of Selectmen Background • Proposed via Friendly Amendment at Town Meeting. • Bylaw approved by Town Meeting. • Formed October 6, 2015. • Met seven times since: • Cemetery Building. • Development of a process. Process • Establish defined process for initiating, evaluating and discharging projects that come before the Committee. • Review process in context of Bylaw language; identify proposed revisions. - Plw P.,. Evebefipn Gnleria k awep a oadlne - AvanalyM atl Mexity f MW, -A ,n a elim ilym mg npmjecls. - AppliwmnmafiWoa ereawnady ile mat. C yol na DHTa Fi imum e. "-M olM1er mabk5a minimum Cnlene. I'mgm.d "I E.. Raowed Roie t OrgMales hom Itlme alecledbw A,: ,c ds, -Wl DSRStnmentW InW st Ayo - UpIRe DMFf Slelemenl W Inlaresl Appemlipn. Permanent Building Committee Project Assessment Process Wt es. repots. desigr snllerll rePMSI5111Ma. Yom AoM s oM SMEs. EwMb , S Wi 9, RIM. His k. CM C emwl Heats mn. it pm VecMO EvNaYm oeco.rned � -- �w - Compare Dab10lion a5 p mat MOAcnlMia. - Analysis prganlzalion aM tmmdt 51�puM IBM Ilsell 10lnclusion in a report as figures or appeMires. ddmsaed b ee fioarda aM Town Manager . bpodk ings aM rewmmendallons, amenazee bmlm, wnmxiw b weaemm Tern WON antl adWbtkn as an Mich. '6G nm a detiaion -makes EM - H.eang g i w wgen comgk. 0TWizev m erq aM dckglW�k IIIIMmalbn M! IUINa r1IBRM1. APPLICATION I EVALUATION I REPORTING Pro.Manini.o. lrifiti T. Manage /B O S adise PEI o proceed III tobwltg Tarn M.." MpMMme M II porary members to eeprmenl slaMelaMxw. Fanlilele Eevalopmenl M RFP IV OPM SVf iM - Facilitate deveiopi M cesipn SVAVV RFe I - Facilitate eslabliNmenl M Selecfm Vitt padivione in Intoonfoo; aM nVon tlawyd. - Town at Reado, onw.ns co V. ing VIi and Iepal popd overyOM reSFOnstilnY. Permanent Building Committee Project Administration Doi of non Qeo slr i, EI Additional entlel l>On availa41Ty o1PEC west al e.cem t coninfootin I - - -- CIOee4U1 I. Oocyment wneoh ion. - Loi leaned. L EMottlisb onVoi for NWre oni I.- Compare ryM Monti Pry to Prgal Iexeailion Io.oni t .evaluationei Oryaoie arM wore'i IMwmetlon b DESIGN I CONSTRUCTION I CLOSE -OUT Fatlq RqM Cemetery Building • Reviewed available data and previous site evaluations. • Conducted a site visit. • Reviewed operations, equipment and building needs. • Developed site selection /feasibility analysis. • Upcoming: • Finalize understanding of Conservation /Wetlands boundaries and relationship with available building sites. • Develop detail for inclusion in solicitation for design services consistent with money authorized by November 2015 Town Meeting. a� orx Town of Reading c Permanent Building Committee n ��o' Statement of Interest to Construct, Repair, Renovate or Demolish a 0 `� >:, „�o,w °” Town of Reading Owned Building Requirements for Applicant The Town of Reading Permanent Building Committee (PBC) has created this form to gather initial details on potential town-sponsored construction projects brought to us for evaluation. Projects for consideration by the PBC for review are typically sponsored by the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Board of Library Trustees, or through Town Meeting. The information requested m this Statement of Interest (SOD is structured to present the PBC with pertinent details to allow for a preliminary evaluation process to begin. To reduce efforts by the PBC to track down missing information, the applicant is responsible for gathering the initial information and may need to contact other Town of Reading departments such as Engineering, Historical and Conservation Commissions, Facilities, Public Safety, etc. Filing Instructions Please complete and submit the attached application to The Town Manager's Office. The materials will be forwarded to the PBC for review, and to schedule an interview and site visit of the facilities or proposed construction site. All materials shall be submitted electronically on a compact disc(s) or can be distributed via email if total of all files is less than LOMB. This application is available in two file formats; Adobe PDF and MS Word. The applicant may print the POP, fill out in pen, and then scan the document for submission Alternatively, the applicant may use the MS Word version and fill it out electronically. Please direct any questions you may have to the project sponsor. Town of Reading Permanent Building Committee Statement of Interest to Construct, Repair, Renovate or Demolish a Town of Reading Owned Building (This Section For Internal Use Only) Parameter 1: Parameter 2: Parameter 3: SECTION 1: LOCATION & SPONSOR Name of Existing Building: Address: Project Sponsor: Board of Selectmen ❑ I School Committee ❑ I Library Trustees ❑ Other ❑ SECTION 2: PROPOSED WORK If New Construction check here ❑ or check all that apply in the sections below Existing Building i Repair ❑ Alteration ❑ Addition ❑ I Demolition ❑ I Other ❑ Specify: ❑ Replacement or renovation of a building which is structurally unsound or otherwise in a condition seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of the occupants, where no alternative exists. ❑ Inadequate space in existing facility. ❑ Replacement, renovation, or modernization of facility systems, such as roots, windows, boilers, heating and ventilation systems, to increase energy conservation and decrease energy related costs in the facility. ❑ Replacement of or addition to obsolete buildings in order to provide for a full range of programs consistent with state and approved local requirements. ❑ New building required to support population, department, or other growth for which there are no other known solutions. Brief description of proposed work or problematic condition requiring the PBC review: SECTION 3: COMPLETE THIS SECTION IF EXISTING BUILDING IN NEED OF RENOVATION check appropriate box and attach the documents that exist to this application) Have any existing building investigations or evaluations been performed? Yes ❑ No ❑ (Engineering Department, Facilities, Fire /Safety, Insurance Agent etc) Have any building plans and /or com murfion documents been developed? Yes ❑ No ❑ (Include existing building plans or any conceptual plans that have been developed) Are there any Historical Preservation aspects to this project? Yes ❑ No ❑ If Yes, describe: SECTION 4: GENERAL DESCRIPTION Building History - Please provide a detailed description of when the original building was built, and the date(s) and project scope(s) of any additions and renovations. Attach additional pages as necessary. Building Size Existing Pro osed Total Finished Area Square Feet Square Feet Total Number of Occupants Occupants Occupants Are there any known hazards in the existing building that will need to be addressed such as asbestos, lead -based paint, mercury, soil contamination, etc? Describe: SECTION 5: USE GROUP (Check all that apply) Athletics ❑ Educational ❑ Facilities ❑ Fire /Safety ❑ Residential Storage Town Business LJ I Utilities Other ❑ Description: SECTION 6: EXISTING SME INFORMATION Site Description - Please provide a detailed description of the current site and any known existing conditions that would impact a potential project at the site. Describe any other buildings that share this current site with the existing facility. Electric Service - Does existing building have adequate electric service to support renovations /addition? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑ Describe existing electric service to building (overhead /underground, voltage /amperage, main panel size, etc? Distance to nearest electric supply tie in? feet Unknown ❑ Additional details related to electric service: Water Supply Will facility require water? Yes ❑ No ❑ Does existing building have town water supply? Yes ❑ No ❑ Existing pipe size to building? inches Unknown ❑ Existing pipe size in street? inches Unknown ❑ Distance b nearest town water tie in? feet Unknown ❑ Does existing building have adequate fire suppression /sprinklers? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑ Additional details related to water supply: Sewage Disposal Will facility require sewage disposal? Yes ❑ No ❑ Connection to municipal sewer available in area? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑ Existing pipe size from building? inches Unknown ❑ Existing pipe size in street? inches Unknown ❑ Distance to nearest town sewer tie in? feet Unknown ❑ Additional details related to sewage disposal: Energy Systems Will facility require natural gas, propane, oil, gasoline, diesel, or other fuel systems? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑ List the services that require fuel (facility heating, vehicles, equipment, etc) : Is natural gas available nearby? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑ If yes, approximate distance to tie in? feet Have any alternative energy sources been considered (wind, solar, geothermal, etc)? Describe: Additional details related to energy systems: Roads and Access Are improvements to the public roads required "pad of this project? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑ Are significant civil improvements required as part of this project? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑ Will parking need to be increased as part of this project? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑ Additional details related to roads and access'. Conservation Commission Are there wetlands or other considerations that require Conservation Committee review? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑ Is the area in a possible Rood zone? Yes ❑ NO ❑ Unknown ❑ Was the Town of Reading Engineering Department contacted to obtain the above information? Yes ❑ No ❑ SECTION 7: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS Item Estimated Costs Notes on Costs (Labor and Materials) 1. Building $ 2. Electrical $ 3. Plumbing $ 4. Mechanical $ 5. Site Development $ 6. Total Cost $ SECTION $: FUNDING SOURCES Discuss how and to what extent this project will be funded for both design and construction (Le. existing department funds/ reserves, Town Meeting appropriated funds, state or federal grants, etc.). SECTION 9: TIMELINE Discuss any timeline requirements for this project (i.e. does the project need to be completed prior to the start of a given school year, are there weather or logistics impacts, are there funding constraints that drive the project schedule, does the project require a considerable design effort, are there major safety issues that require immediate attention, etc). SECTION 10: SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT By entering my name below, I hereby attest that all of the information contained in this application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and understanding. Further, I am authorized to submit this application on behalf of the Town of Reading agency with jurisdiction and /or ownership of the subject property. - . x Electronic Signature (Please type name) Email Telephone Date Title I Street Address City/Town State zip 3.3.6 Permanent Building Committee There shall be a Permanent Building Committee conslsilifig of five (5) Permanent Members and, except as otherwise provided herelm, up to two (2) Temporary Members for each project that the Permanent Building Committee undertakes. Permanent and Temporary Members of the Permanent Bullding Committee shall be appointed by an Appointment Committee consisting of the Chair of the Board of Selectmen, Me Chair of the School Committee and the Town Moderator, Permanent Members shall be valunteem having practical experience and shills In professions that concentrate on the design, construction, management and /or financing of commercial / Institutional buildings such as architects: civil engineers; Structural engineers; mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineers, building contractors, project managers, property managers, attorneys and building tradespersons. The terms shall be so arranged that as nearly an equal number of terms as possible shall expire each year. Temporary Members may be appointed for each Individual project that the Permanent Building Committee undertakes. Temporary Members shall have the same participation and voting rights as Permanent Members on matters affecting the particular project for which they were appointed. Temporary Members shall be registered voters of We Town, selected by the Board or Committee that proposes a particular building or renovation project (the "Sponsoring Agency') and shall serve only for the time during which the Permanent Building Committee Is exerciBing Its functions with respect to such project. In the event that a particular project Is subject to participant requirements of a state funding authority, the Appointment Committee may appoint additional members to the Permanent Building Committee for that particular project; provided, however, that, in no event, shall Me aggregate number of Permanent and Temporary Members with full voting rights for a particular project exceed nine (9). Quorum requirements for the Permanent Building Committee shall be Me majority of the Permanent and Temporary Members for a particular project. The Permanent Building Committee shall be res onsibl fQ or Ne oversl ht and /fir management of all. major unldpai antl.SC oo Ilding tleslgn SLLdlee an conZruc on projects having expect aggregate c� c0s[s ezc E81nq' two Mgt dollars ($2,000,000). The Permanent Building Committee's jurisdiction shall not extend to projects of 'Me Reading Municipal Light Department. The Permanent Building Committee shall present all such projects M the France Committee for consideration of funding options and shall sponsor and present all such projects to Town Meeting for Its consideration and approval of funding. —The Permanent Building Committee shall work with the School Committee, Me Board of Selectmen and any other Sponsoring Agency. The Sponsoring Agency shall notify the Permanent Building Committee of Its Intention to undertake any such projects within eight (8) calendar days of a positive vote or general affirmation to do so. The Permanent Building Committee shall work with the Director of Fatllitles to complle an Inventory of Me physlml carol and anticipated repairs and renovations of all existing municipal buildings and wall summarize Its findings In an annual report to Town Meeting.