Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-10 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting Minutesi ADJOURNED ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School June 10, 1982 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, John W. Faria, at 8:40 P.M., following close of the Special Town Meeting, there being a quorum present. ARTICLE 19. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted to take Article 19 from the table. ARTICLE 19 (107- 112) On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted that the sum of $30,000 be transferred from Cemetery Bequest Interest and the sum of $20,000 be transferred from Cemetery Sale of Lots Fund and that the sum of $88,140 be raised from the tax levy and that said sums totalling $138,140 be appropriated to the Cemetery Department to be expended under the direction of the Cemetery Trustees as follows, each item being considered a separate appropriation: Salaries $ 107,900 Energy Expenses 3,710 Expenses - Non - Energy Related 14,930 Cemetery Development 10,000 Care of Soldier's Graves 1,600 ARTICLE 19 (1 -8a) On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal as amended by Walter J. Palmunen it was voted that the sum of One Hundred Forty -Four Thousand Sixty - Four Dollars ($144,064) be raised from the tax levy and appropriated to the Board of Selectmen as follows, each item being considered a separate appropriation: Salaries $ 86,023 Expense 7,325 Miscellaneous 50,716 (Special Committees 300 Town Report 3,000 Telephone 31,000 Memorial Day Observance 1,500 Duplicating Costs 11,500 Fuel Assistance) 3,416 ARTICLE 19. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted to lay Article 19 on the table. ARTICLE 2. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted to take Article 2 from the table. ARTICLE 2. The following report of the Planning Board, presented by Barry J. Mitchel, was accepted as a report of progress. PLANNING BOARD REPORT 1982 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ARTICLE 27 - DOOLEY LAND Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on Wednesday, March 31, 1982 in the Community Center Auditorium at 8:00 P.M. with Board members Kenneth Messina, Alan Burne, Maureen Rich present and Chairman Barry Mitchel presiding. There were approximately 75 citizens present as well as the developers, the petitioners and their attorneys. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, notice of the public hearing was published in the Reading Chronicle on March 17 and March 24, 1982 and conspicuously posted at Town Hall. All abutting residents were notified by mail. This petition was placed on the 1982 Annual Town Meeting Warrant at the initiation of David L. and Elinor Dooley. Attorney O. Bradley Latham represented the petitioners and asked the Board to consider the following benefits to the Town with the granting of rezoning: - the land in question extends from 150 to 250 feet from the center line of the roadway of Main Street and represents less than 1 Acre of land; - the area of Main Street under consideration is located at a level area of roadway and has good visibility; �p Adjourned Annual Town Meeting June 10, 1982 the natural buffer of trees would remain, as the proposed development would stop approximately 10 feet before the tree line; the area proposed for rezoning would be confined to landscaping and parking; the building would be constructed entirely within the prsently -zoned A40 land; Attorney Latham then addressed some of the concerns he felt the neighboring residents might have: - the back land would not tie into Cross Street and would be deeded over to the landowners in a Master Deed; - traffic and safety issues have been studied and a report has been rendered by TAMS (Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy and Stratton) stating that no significant negative impact will be felt from this development. Chief Marchand of the Reading Police Department was also contacted and he was quoted as stating to Attorney Latham that he also felt there would be no significant effect on traffic safety from such a development. Attorney Latham then addressed the benefits to the Town, as he saw it: - this development would provide affordable housing (prices will range from $59,000- 79,000) which is lacking in this area; - the development would generate over $76,000 per year in taxes, (based on a rate of $23 /per $1000 of valuation) to the Town with a smaller demand on the Town for services; - this development as proposed would preserve a large open green area as a natural buffer between it and the abutting residential zones; - such a development would be consistent with developments presently built on both sides of the street. The Chairman then noted that the Planning Board does not have site plan review powers, and asked what assurances the Town would have that this plan will be constructed as outlined. The petitioners' attorney then stated that the developers and proponents of this development would be willing to sign agreements to this effect. The Board posed many questions regarding the safety issues involved. The Chairman then opened the floor to concerns of the citizens. Among those cited were: - Safety Issues: traffic problems at various intersections; difficulty entering Main Street from Cross Street by vehicle; the necessity of school - age children crossing Main Street to get to school if the Pearl Street School is closed; the increase in vehicular traffic in this area would prove an additional safety hazatd. - Water Problems: Annual Spring runoff, which periodically overflows the brook and results in flooded basements of neighboring residences; drainage from such a project being directed into this area would aggravate this situation; Zoning Creep: The encroachment of higher density use into single family districts; the rights of present landowners to protect their investments by maintaining the current zoning. Road Design: this roadway has no turnoff lane from Main Street from the north approach; roadway has traffic entering and exiting from businesses along the roadway which is hazardous; a project of this size would generate more traffic at peak hours and prove to be an even greater hazard, not just for neighboring residents but for anyone using this roadway; speed of cars is picking up in this area because the road is straight and flat, and any traffic entering onto Main Street from a development of this size would be hazardous to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The Board then requested that the petitioners and developer provide the Board with additional traffic data for this area, as well as the necessary legal framework that would have to be formulated with Town Counsel for retaining the back portion of land open, natural and undeveloped. A sense of the meeting was then obtained with 35 in favor and 36 opposed to rezoning. The abutters asked that a separate vote of registered Reading voters also be taken. The Chairman noted this as an irregularity, but complied with the request. This vote was: 25 in favor of rezoning, 28 opposed. After 2 hours and 15 minutes of testimony and questioning, the Chairman called the public hearing to a close. 1 r� v/ Adjourned Annual Town Meeting June 10,1982 On April 7, 1982, the Board at their regular meeting discussed Article 27, pro and con. The possibility of placing a perpetual restriction on the back portion of this land which would prohibit any future development for use as a roadway, driveway, swimming pool, tennis court, outbuilding or the like was explored. Town Counsel stated that the Town of Newton was successful in their approach to such a restriction and that this "contract zoning" approach could be followed, with Newton case as the guideline (Reference - Sylvania Electric Co. vs. Town of Newton, 1962). The possibility of placing a conservation restriction on this land to provide adequate protection for abutting residents was also explored. Present at the Board's next meeting were Town Counsel, H. Theodore Cohen, Board of Seleactmen members John Russell and Paul Dustin and Co- chairmen of the Conservation Commission Harold Hulse and Sally Hoyt. At this meeting the Board further explored the pros, cons and legal mechanisms of a "Conservation Restriction" as well as the alternative processes of contract zoning" or "conditional zoning ". At subsequent meetings the Board asked for, received and reviewed information from the Town Assessor, Board of Public Works, the Conservation Commission and Town Counsel. The Board also more fully explored the allowable development under present zoning vs. the proposed development. On May 13, 1982, the Board met to determine their recommendation to Town Meeting on Article 27. Additional written input from the citizens and the petitioners was received and reviewed. A proposed draft "Conservation Restriction" prepared by Town Counsel was reviewed and discussed. After due consideration of all pertinent information from Town Counsel, Board of Public Works, Conservation Commission, Town Assessor, neighboring residents and the petitioners, the Board voted (4 -1) to recommend the rezoning as outlined in Article 27, subject to the recording of an agreement to voluntarily place a conservation restriction. If Town Meeting votes to rezone this portion of land with such a restriction "contracted" freely between the petitioners and the Town, the next step is approval from the Attorney General's office, as with all rezoning articles voted at Town Meeting. When the Attorney General's approval has been received, the next step will be for the Conservation Commission to accept the "Conservation Restriction" (CR). The Planning Board is in receipt of a letter from the Conservation Commission which states that they would accept a conservation restriction on this land if Town Meeting first votes their approval of the rezoning. The Board of Selectmen would then have to approve such an acceptance by the Conservation Commission. This Board has contacted the Board of Selectmen asking what if any problems they would have with such approval. To date the Board of Selectmen have not presented a formal response. After all Town approvals have been obtained, it would then be sent to the State Secretary of Environmental Affairs for his approval. After all necessary approvals have been received, the conservation restriction would be recorded by Town Counsel at the Middlesex Registry of Deeds. Any subsequent owner of this land would then be bound by the conservation restriction. All agreements have been freely signed by the owners of said property to restrict the future use of this portion of their land, as described, and have been duly recorded by Town Counsel at the Middlesex Registry of Deeds on the first day of June, 1982. Therefore, it is this Board's recommendation that Town Meeting vote to rezone from 5 -10 to A -40 that portion of land, located at 259 -267 Main Street, from a distance of 150 feet to 250 feet from the center line of said roadway. Reading Planning Board Barry J. Mitchel, Chairman Kenneth G. Messina, Clerk John W. Shaw Alan R. Burne Maureen Rich ARTICLE 2. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to lay Article 2 on the table. ARTICLE 27. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted to take up Article 27 out of order. ARTICLE 27. Carl H. Amon, Jr. moved that the following described land be rezoned from Single Family 10 District (S -10) to Apratment 40 District (A -40) and that f) Adjourned Annual Town Meeting June 10, 1982 the Reading Zoning By -Law and the map referred to in Reading Zoning By -Law Section 3.2 as "Reading Zoning Map" dated September 10, 1978, as amended, be amended to reflect the rezoning of the following described land from Single Family 10 District (S- 10) to Apartment 40 District (A -40): A portion of land located in the Town of Reading, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts, on the easterly side of Main Street, and being a portion of the land shown as lot 6 on Reading Assessor's Plat 27, and being further bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point located 150 feet distant from the center line of Main Street at other land of Dooley; thence running Northeasterly by a line 150 feet distant from and parallel to the center line of Main Street, 342 feet, more or less, to a point at land now or formerly of Emil R. Weretelnyk; thence turning and running Northeasterly by the land of said Weretelnyk 121 feet, more or less, to a point 250 feet distant from the center line of Main Street; thence turning and running Southwesterly by a line 250 feet distant from and parallel to the center line of Main Street 481 feet, more or less, to a point at land now or formerly of Vincent and Domenica M. Masse; thence turning and running Northwesterly by the land of said Masse and other land of Dooley, 122 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; all as described and contained more fully on a plan of land dated February 11, 1982, by Dana F. Perkins and Associates, Inc. and on file with the Reading Town Clerk. Meaning and intending to describe that property owned by David L. Dooley which is situated between 150 feet and 250 feet Easterly from the center line of Main Street. This Article was voted in the negative 75 voted in the affirmative 52 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required During a discussion of this Article it was necessary for the Moderator to remind Mr. Benjamin Nichols that he should confine his comments to the present Motion and refrain from discussion of past events. Mr. Nichols refused to comply with the Moderator's direction, therefore the Moderator requested the Town Meeting's decision as to whether to uphold the Moderator's decision. They voted to support the Moderator in his decision. Mr. Carl Amon addressed the Moderator and requested that the minutes of this Meeting so reflect the fact that he did not vote on this matter. On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned to meet at 8:00 P.M. on Monday, June 14, 1982, in the Reading Memorial High School auditorium. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M. 142 Town Meeting Members were present. A true copy. Attest: Lawrence Drew Town Clerk