Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-18 Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting Minutes96 ADJOURNED SESSION SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School November 18, 1982 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, John W. Faria, at 8:00 P. M. there being a quorum present. The invocation was given by the Rev. E. Lewis MacLean of the Church of the Nazarene, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ARTICLE 21. On motion of Maureen T. O'Brien it was voted that the Town amend Section 1 of Article XXII of the By -Laws of the Town of Reading by deleting the portion of the second sentence following the word "follows ": and the third sentence thereof and substituting therefor the following: "In the event the Dog Officer is able to ascertain the owner or keeper of such unrestrained dog, the Dog Officer shall issue a written warning to such owner or keeper for the first offense within a calendar year. The Dog Officer shall levy a fine of twenty dollars ($20.00) for the second offense within a calendar year, thirty dollars ($30.00) for the third offense within a calendar year, and fifty dollars ($50.00) for each subsequent offense within a calendar year. In the event the Dog Officer is unable to ascertain the owner or keeper of any such unrestrained dog or upon one complaint from each of five households of the Town, delivered to either the Dog Officer or the Board of Selectmen, alleging that the provisions of this Section 1 are being violated, the Board of Selectmen shall, after issuing notice to all interested parties, hold a public hearing to determine if this Section 1 is being violated and by whom. If they determine that such violation exists and they determine the identity or keeper of such dog, the Board of Selectmen may issue to the owner or keeper a written warning or may levy a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first or any subsequent violation of this Section 1. Records of all warnings issued shall be maintained by the Board of Selectmen and /or the Dog Officer. The Dog Officer or the Board of Selectmen, as the case may be, shall enforce this By -Law by the issuance of a written warning or by written notice to the person complained against, setting forth the offense, the amount of any fine, and indication that said fine be paid to the Dog Officer within ten (10) days from the issuance date of said notice. ARTICLE 1 On motion of John W. Price it was voted to take Article 1 from the table. ARTICLE 1. The following report of the Blue Ribbon Committee presented by John J. Baronofsky was accepted as a report of progress. INTERIM REPORT OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE When originally commissioned by the Selectmen, the Blue Ribbon Committee was given the broad assignment of looking at the operation of the town from a business management point of view and reporting our findings and recommendations to 1983 Town Meeting. Although we are not prepared, at this time, to declare a crisis in town structure, we feel we can no longer delay reporting our deep concern over our initial findings. As a result of our reviews and meetings, buttressed by interviews with town officials and interested citizens, we conclude that a major reassessment of the structure of town government is now mandatory. GENERAL We find that the individual departments in the town are operating on a totally decentralized basis. In many corporations, decentralization works with great efficiencies and gives tremendous flexibility in terms of scheduling and reaction to outside requirements. However, decentralized businesses usually have a number of checks and balances that allow them to operate in an efficient manner. These include: 1) A top executive who runs the business, taking direction from a Board of Directors that is elected by the owners. 2) A stated plan with short and long range objectives. 3) Budgetary control systems that allow measurement of individual units of the business. J Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 4) Centralization of select functions to gain economies of scale (finance, purchasing, personnel, etc.). 5) Written policies and procedures, well defined job descriptions and information systems that provide succinct reports for intelligent management decisions. The Blue Ribbon Committee feels that there are elements of some of these in Reading; but, the pictured Hydra shown on a recent Reading Chronicle front page is a more appropriate description of the way our town operates. This is not the way to run an over $20 million per year business! RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, we recommend further pursuit of the following key items: 1) Codification of all laws that apply to the Town of Reading, to provide a clear baseline for proper implementation of any changes. 2) Concurrent with this codification, a reassessment of the need to have a charter for the town. 3) Establishment of a central management function such as a Town Manager. 4) Development of a strong management control system to keep individual department spending in -line and efficient. 5) Consolidation of long range planning activities to provide succinct summaries of goals and objectives. 6) Consideration of a central purchasing function, under a Town Purchasing Agent, to serve all departments (including School and Municipal Light). 7) Merger and reorganization of similar functions or departments (such as Cemetery and DPW). You have the opportunity to act, with the possibility that if these recommendations are pursued, this could be one of the most significant eras in modern Town Meeting history. It should be recognized that this could entail a commitment of resources and a need for selected professional assistance, but the potential yield should make it a worthwhile pursuit. Accordingly, we ask for guidance and support in the form of a "sense of the meeting" vote, or poll, that will provide the Blue Ribbon Committee with a mandate to pursue these recommendations. Respectfully submitted by The Blue Ribbon Committee: John Baranofsky, Chairman Kenneth DeMoura Earl K. Hawley Chester Higgins John Sweeney ARTICLE 1. On motion of John W. Price it was voted to lay Article 1 on the table. ARTICLE 23. On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal it was voted to take up Article 23 out of order. ARTICLE 23. On motion of Gail F. Wood it was voted that the Town amend Article VI of the Town of Reading By -Laws by deleting Section 5 in its entirety and renumbering Section 6 as Section 5. ARTICLE 24. On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal it was voted to take up Article 24 out of order. ARTICLE 24. On motion of Gail F. Wood it was voted that Article 24 be indefinitely postponed. ARTICLE 25. On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal it was voted to take up Article 25 out of order. ARTICLE 25. On motion of John W. Price it was voted that the Town accept Chapter 148, Section 26C of the Massachusetts General Laws. Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 ARTICLE 28. On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal it was voted to take up Article 28 out of order. ARTICLE 28. On motion of Douglass L. Barker it was voted that the Town accept a parcel of land containing 39,143 square feet from Parkwood Construction Corporation of Burlington, Massachusetts as recorded in the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 14570, Page 376 for Water Department purposes and for the protection of water supply. ARTICLE 29. On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal it was voted to take up Article 29 out of order. ARTICLE 29. Catherine A. Quimby moved that the Town amend Article 6 of the Zoning By -Laws by: a) inserting after the words "building exterior or premises" in Paragraph 6.2.1.1 the following words: "except for political signs relating to any federal, state or town election, such political signs to be displayed no earlier than thirty days before said election and to be removed no later than five days after said election, and to be displayed on private property only." b) inserting at the beginning of the first sentence of Paragraph 6.2.1.2 the words "Except for political signs as defined in Section 6.2.1.1" c) adding a new paragraph as follows: "6.2.2.3 The restrictions of Paragraph 6.2.2. shall not apply to political signs as defined in paragraph 6.2.1.1." d) adding a new paragraph as follows: 116.2.3.7 The number and sign area of political signs shall not be included in the computation of total number and total sign area allowed under Paragraphs 6.2.3.2, 6.2.3.3 and 6.2.3.4." e) adding a new paragraph as follows: "6.2.5.3 The provisions of Paragraph 6.2.5 shall not apply to political signs as defined in Paragraph 6.2.1.1." ARTICLE 29. On motion of Maureen Rich it was voted to lay Article 29 on the table. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Maureen Rich it was voted to take Article 1 from the table. ARTICLE 1. The following report presented by Maureen Rich for the Planning Board was accepted as a report of progress. PLANNING BOARD REPORT 1982 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING ARTICLE 29 Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on Wednesday, October 20, 1982 at 8:00 P.M. in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street, with all Board members present. There were also 6 citizens and a reporter from the Reading Chronicle present. Chairman Mitchel presided. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public meeting notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Wednesday, October 6 and 13, 1982 and also posted by the Town Clerk at Town Hall. Notice of this meeting was also sent to all agencies and boards pursuant to Sections 5 and 11, Chapter 40A. The meeting notice was read into the record by the Clerk, Kenneth G. Messina. The Chairman briefly outlined Article 29 stating that this By -law proposal would remove all restrictions on the size and number of political signs and would only restrict the time the signs could be posted on private property. This Article was placed on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant by the By -law Committee. Mr. George Theophanis from this Committee presented the reasons for placing this proosal on the Warrant. Mr. Theophanis gave a brief history on the development of this By -law and stated that political signs cannot be restricted from display on private property under the rights of the First Amendment. He cited numerous cases where Federal judges upheld the citizens' rights to freedom of speech and the only limits set were time limits, although there was one case cited which allowed some restriction on size and number of political signs. The By -law Committee felt that the present Zoning By -laws are not constitutional in prohibiting these signs and, if challenged, would not be upheld in Court. With this in mind, the By -law Committee felt it necessary to have a law that the Town could enforce. Another reason for allowing political signs was these signs would increase interest in the issues and candidates running in Town, State and Federal elections. Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 Chairman Mitchel then read into the meeting record a portion of a letter from Town Counsel which stated "by the absence of any exemption for political signs (in Town's Zoning By- laws), (it thus) bans all political signs." This letter further states "Baldwin v. Redwood City ... case does uphold the right to regulate political signs to a certain extent, particularly with regard to size limitations. Such restrictions, however, must again be tied to legitimate governmental interests such as preventing visual pollution and (promoting) traffic safety." Ms. Sally Nitzsche, a member of the League of Women Voters and active in political issues and candidates, spoke against the adoption of this By -law. In response to increasing voter interest, she stated that Towns with prohibitions against political signs have higher turnouts than Reading and quoted recent statistics as: Wakefield - 38% voter turnout Winchester - 28% Stoneham - 22% Reading - 17% Ms. Nitzsche also felt that the wording was too cumbersome and confusing and thus could easily be violated because of the language not being concise and exact. She also stated that at present the prohibition on erecting political signs was very clear cut and was easily enforceable. As to the number of signs, Ms. Nitzsche felt that these could cause a definite safety hazard by either blocking line of sight around curves and corners or by confusion with a proliferation of signs erected on private property. She questioned the necessity, time and expense involved with the implementation of this By -law. In response, Mr. Theophanis stated that although there had not been any request from the Town's citizens for the allowance of political signs, the By -Law Committee saw that the present Zoning Bylaw could be declared unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. The By- Law Committee sought to rectify this situation by having a law that was both constitutional and enforceable. After the public finished questioning Mr. Theophanis and the Board, a sense of the meeting was taken, with the results: 1 - in favor of Article 29 3 - opposed 2 - abstentions On November 4, 1982 the Board met and reviewed the issues raised at the public hearing. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (4 -0 -1) not to recommend adoption of Article 29 by Town Meeting. The reasons for this were: - the language was too cumbersome and confusing; - voter interest was evident by the recent State election turnout of 71% with the political sign prohibition in effect; - political signs were allowable within the confines of any structure and anyone wishing to make their political statement had adequate access for displaying signs from their windows without adding to visual pollution and traffic safety hazards with a proliferation of exterior signs; - the law as written did not limit either the number or total square footage of sign area. Upon consideration of these issues involved, the Planning Board recommends that Town Meeting not adopt Article 29 on this Fall Town Meeting Warrant. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Maureen Rich it was voted to lay Article 1 on the table. ARTICLE 29. On motion of Maureen Rich it was voted to take Article 29 from the table. ARTICLE 29. On motion of Maureen T. O'Brien it was voted to lay Article 29 on the table. ARTICLE 30. On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal it was voted to take up Article 30 out of order. ARTICLE 30. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to lay Article 30 on the table. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to take Article 1 from the table. ARTICLE 1. The following report presented by Barry J. Mitchel for the Planning Board was accepted as a report of progress. Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 PLANNING BOARD REPORT 1982 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING ARTICLE 30 Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on Wednesday, October 20, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street with all Board members present. There were 6 citizens present at this hearing. Chairman Mitchel presided. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public meeting notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Wednesday, October 6 and 13, 1982 and also posted by the Town Clerk at Town Hall. Notice of this meeting was also sent to all agencies and boards pursuant to Sections 5 and 11, Chapter 40A. The meeting notice was read into the record by the Clerk, Kenneth G. Messina. The Planning Board placed this Article on the Warrant in response to a request from the Building Inspector, who requested that new language be adopted that would alleviate abuses of the sign by -law. Presently the Zoning By -laws specify that all signs over 12 square feet in size require a Building Permit from the Building Inspector. Under Section 6.2.5.2., these signs must be included in the computation of the total sign area as allowed under Section 6.2.3.2. There have been many abuses of this provision and in order to assure that all signs comply with the total allowable sign area, all signs in Business and Industrial Districts would require a building permit from the Building Inspector with adoption of this proposal. Answers to the questions raised at the public hearing were: - This restriction would apply only to exterior signs. Signs inside buildings and in windows would not be affected. - Current zoning allows only a 1 square foot sign in Residence Districts to identify the occupants and /or home occupation. - This proposal would affect signs in only the Business and Industrial Districts. The Chairman then took a vote to determine the sense of the meeting. There were: 0 - in f av or 0 - opposed 6 - abstentions After considering the input from the public hearing, the Board, upon a motion duly made and seconded, unanimously voted to recommend that Town Meeting adopt the language in Article 30 regarding signs. table. table. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to lay Article 1 on the ARTICLE 30 On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to take Article 30 from the ARTICLE 30. The following motion by Barry J. Mitchel was voted in the negative. Moved that the Town vote to amend Section 6.2.5 of the Town's Zoning By -laws by deleting the phrase "except those smaller than twelve (12) square feet in size" and inserting in place thereof "except those permitted in Residence Districts," so that this Section shall now read: All signs, except those permitted in Residence Districts, shall require a sign permit issued by the Building Inspector." 13 voted in the affirmative 94 voted in the negative ARTICLE 31. On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal it was voted to take up Article 31 out of order. ARTICLE 31. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to lay Article 31 on the table. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to take Article 1 from the table. ARTICLE 1. Mr. Mitchel requested permission for Mr. Kenneth G. Messina, a Planning Board member but not a Town Meeting member, to give the report. This was voted in the affirmative. ARTICLE 1. The following report presented by Kenneth G. Messina for the Planning Board was accepted as a report of progress. 91 Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 PLANNING BOARD REPORT 1982 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING ARTICLE 31 Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on Wednesday, October 20, 1982 at 8:45 P.M. in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street with all Board members present. There were 6 citizens and a reporter from the Reading Chronicle also present. Chairman Mitchel presided at this hearing. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public meeting notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Wednesday, October 6 and 13, 1982 and also posted by the Town Clerk at Town Hall. Notice of this meeting was also sent to all agencies and boards pursuant to Sections 5 and 11, Chapter 40A. The meeting notice was read into the record by the Clerk, Kenneth G. Messina. This petition was placed on the Warrant because of the recent decision of the Woburn District Court in which the presiding Judge felt that under Section 6.2. the wording was ambiguous and not enforceable. After consulting with both the Building Inspector and Town Counsel the Board proposes to add one sentence to Section 6.2.1.2. to clarify the intent of the By -law. The current version of the sign by -law has been in existence since the 1965 revision of the Zoning By -law, and has always been interpreted by Town officials and in previous Court cases to exclude price information signs from being displayed within the Town. Town Counsel has informed the Planning Board that the Town has a right to regulate and restrict signs for legitimate governmental interest, such as preventing visual pollution and traffic hazards. The restrictions on price signs would apply only to exterior signs and, as is currently allowed, price signs displayed within the building, such as those posted inside windows, would not be affected. Mr. Arnold Berger, owner of Reading Liquors, spoke against the adoption of this wording and asked the Board to consider excluding marquee signs with interchangeable letters from such restrictions. He also asked who would be aggrieved by allowing price signs for the information of the consumer. The question of enforcement and its costs was also raised by Mr. Berger. Mr. Barry Kenney, Manager of the Main Street Citgo gas station, spoke on behalf of his interest as a businessman in the community. He stated that in order to protect his business, he had to erect price signs for gas. With the Court decision regarding the Arco station, all gas station owners and other types of businesses on Main Street have erected price signs. Mr. Kenney felt that the signs were not aesthetically pleasing and could even be confusing to traffic, but he would suffer financial loss if he alone obeyed the law. He was the last gas station owner in this area to erect price signs. The Board responded to the questions raised and stated that it would be illegal to allow only gas stations to display price signs. If everyone who wishedd to display price signs were permitted to do so, the resulting confusion and safety hazard, as well as the visual pollution within the Town, would be greatly increased. The Planning Board felt it to be in the best interest of the Town as a whole to alleviate the confusion and ambiguity in the law and protct the citizens from the confusion, safety hazards and visual pollution inherent with the proliferation of such signs. The Chairman then asked for a sense of the meeting. There were: 0 - in favor of Article 31 2 - opposed 4 - abstentions After discussing the input from the public hearing, the Board, upon a motion duly made and seconded, unanimously voted to recommend the adoption of Article 31 by Town Meeting. table. table. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to lay Article 1 on the ARTICLE 31. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to take Article 31 from the ARTICLE 31. The following motion by Barry J. Mitchel was voted in the negative. Moved that the Town vote to amend Section 6.2.1.2. of the Town's Zoning By -laws by adding the following sentence: "Price information shall not be set forth on any such sign except as otherwise mandated by Federal and /or State law. ", so that Section 6.2.1.2. in its entirety shall read: Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 "Signs shall relate to the premises on which they are located and shall only identify the occupant of such premises, the services available, hours of operation, the products sold and their respective trade names. Price information shall not be set forth on any such sign except as otherwise mandated by Federal and /or State law. 5 voted in the affirmative 94 voted in the negative ARTICLE 22. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted that the Town amend Article VI, Section 3, of the Town of Reading By -Laws by removing the dollar amount and figures of. $10,000 and substituting in its stead the dollar amount and figures of $20,000 so that the new Section of Article VI shall read as follows: "The Law Committee shall have authority to institute, prosecute and defend through the Town Counsel all claims, actions, and proceedings to which the Town is a party or in which any right or interest of the Town is involved. The Town Counsel shall not make any final settlement of any litigation to which the Town is a party unless he had been duly authorized by a vote of the Law Committee or by a vote of the Town Meeting. The Law Committee shall have the authority to compromise and settle all suits involving the payment by the Town of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) or less. A Town Meeting must approve the compromise or settlement of all suits involving the payment by the Town of more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000). ARTICLE 32. Donald B. DeHart moved that Town Meeting will rezone the following described land from Single Family 20 District (5 -20) to Business A District (Bus.A) and amend 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, to reflect the extension of the currently existing Business A District that abuts this property to include the following described land. The land located in the Town of Reading, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts, on the easterly side of North Main Street, and being the land as shown on Lot 1 on Reading Assessors' Plot 225, and being further bounded and described as follows: Being Lot 7 on a plan entitled "Plan of Land in Reading, Mass., March 7, 1956, Dana F. Perkins & Sons, Inc., Civil Engineers and Surveyors ", recorded with Middlesex South District Deeds, as Plan No. 907 of 1956, bounded and described as follows: WESTERLY: by Main (Route 28 - 66' wide) Street, as shown on said plan, one hundred twenty (120) feet; NORTHERLY: by Lot 8, as shown on said plan, one hundred seventy -three and 90/100 (173.90) feet; EASTERLY: by Lot 9, as shown on said plan, one hundred twenty -nine and 07/100 (129.07) feet; and SOUTHERLY: by land of Elmer hundred seventy -six and 04/100 (176.04) feet. R. Batchelder, as shown on said plan, one Containing 21,170 square feet, according to said plan. Meaning and intending to describe that property owned by Geraldine Cogen, which is situated at 1361 North Main Street, Reading, Massachusetts. However, no such rezoning from 5 -20 to Bus. A shall be construed as amending or changing in any way the boundaries of any overlay district which may be presently superimposed over all or any part of the 5 -20 District so rezoned. ARTICLE 32. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to lay Article 32 on the table. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to take Article 1 from the table. ARTICLE 1. Mr. Mitchell requested permission for Kenneth G. Messina to give the report. This was voted in the affirmative. Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 PLANNING BOARD. REPORT 1982 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING ARTICLE 32 Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on Thursday, November 4, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street with all Board members present. There were approximately 50 citizens present at this hearing. Chairman Mitchel presided. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public meeting notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Thursday, October 21 and 28, 1982, and also posted by the Town Clerk at Town Hall. Notice of this public hearing was also sent to abutters, and all agencies and boards pursuant to Sections 5 and 11, Chapter 40A. The meeting notice was read into the record by the Clerk, Kenneth G. Messina. The Chairman stated that this article had been placed on the Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant by petition. Chairman Mitchel presented a brief history of the property in question, 1361 Main Street, since Mrs. Cogen purchased it in June 1979. In briefs presented to this Board, it has been stated that Mrs. Cogen expected to use this property as a combined private home /business. Upon commencement of a retail florist shop, the Building Inspector obtained a cease and desist order. Mrs. Cogen then made an application to the Board of Appeals for a variance to operate the Busy Bee Florist and Gift Shop from this address. The Board of Appeals granted a variance to run with Mrs. Cogen's ownership to use the garage as a "roadside stand" and operate said business from this address. The Board of Selectmen appealed this decision by the Board of Appeals and this case is to be scheduled for a Court hearing. At present Mrs. Cogen has a restraining order that would allow her to sell only home -grown products from these premises, as per Sections 2.2.26 and 4.2.2 of the Town's Zoning By -laws. Mr. Carl W. Berger, attorney for Mrs. Cogen, requested the Board to give a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals to rehear this case, thus avoiding the rezoning of the entire property. The reason for this, he stated, was to allow Mrs. Cogen to operate her business without granting her a rezoning of her entire property. The Chairman explained that the request for a "repetitive petition" such as this would have to be legally advertised and all abutters, boards and agencies properly notified. The matter under discussion at this public hearing was ARticle 32, rezoning of 5 -20 land to Business A. Mr. Berger then presented his facts in support of rezoning of this property: - Without this rezoning Mrs. Cogen would be forced out of business and she is the sole support of her family, consisting of 4 children, 2 of which still live at home. - Mrs. Cogen has no plans for selling this property or developing it to its highest use under Business A zoning, but seeks this rezoning to allow her to continue operating her business. - Mrs. Cogen has been unsuccessful in trying to obtain a variance to operate her business from this address because of a technicality in the Board of Appeals decision. - Mrs. Cogen has improved the appearance of her home and is a good neighbor. She has given demonstrations and lectures to residents at the Cedar Glen elderly housing complex. - The surrounding area directly south and across the street is zoned Business A and this request is for an extension of that Business A zoning to include her property. Chairman Mitchel then read letters from the Conservation Commission and Town Counsel regarding the Wetlands area included in the portion of 1361 Main STreet, as an Overlay District. Attorney Berger agreed that the language contained in Town Counsel's letter regarding the Wetlands would be included in his motion under Article 32 on Town Meeting floor. Citizens present at this hearing spoke concerning the matter of rezoning. Those opposed stated: - surrounding properties will decrease in value because of the encroachment of the business zone, while Mrs. Cogen's property will increase in value. - A brief history of the changes resulting from rezoning in that area over the past 20 -25 years was presented. This change in character in the neighborhood was stated as having an adverse impact on the real value of the property owned by abutting residents. () A Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 - Town Meeting has not favored zoning creep into residential areas, as per recent Town Meeting decisions on such matters previously presented. - Mrs. Cogen agreed in the signing and recording of her real estate documents that she would comply with the Town's Zoning By -Laws and despite all attempts at having her cease operation of her business from this address, has disobeyed these laws and continues to do so even at present. - Rehabilitation of surrounding residential properties no longer would be a wise investment and residential properties will decay such as has occurred in the South Main Street area. Those citizens in favor of rezoning this property stated: - Mrs. Cogen has improved the aesthetic appearance of her property since she purchased it and therefore has increased the value of the surrounding properties. - The present business is an asset to the neighborhood and not a detriment. Mrs. Cogen has given lectures and demonstrations to the residents in the nearby elderly housing complex. - Mrs. Cogen is being unfairly prohibited from operating a business from this address because of technicality. After all citizens were given an opportunity to speak on this matter, the Chairman asked that a sense of the meeting be taken. There were: 28 - in favor of Article 32 3 - opposed 15 - abstentions After the formal close of this public hearing, the Board debated the relevant points associated with this rezoning. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, it was the unanimous vote of the Board not to recommend adoption of Article 32 by Town Meeting. The reasons for this recommendation were: - Mrs. Cogen bought the property and the responsibility to learn exactly what she could operate as a home occupation business was hers. - Mrs. Cogen still has avenues within the Town to pursue before requesting rezoning of the entire parcel. - Rezoning from 5 -20 to Business A would allow Mrs. Cogen or a subsequent owner the opportunity to develop this land to its fullest under Business A zoning. The Board felt that this area of Main Street already has a high volume of traffic and cross traffic and the further extension of the business district would have an adverse impact not warranted by current local needs. - Rental property within the Town (as close as the Edelweiss complex or properties within the Central Business District) are available and these areas are already Business zoned. The Planning Board therefore recommends that Town Meeting not adopt Article 32 on the 1982 Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant. table. table. table. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to lay Article 1 on the ARTICLE 32. On motion of Barry J. Mitchel it was voted to take Article 32 from the ARTICLE 32. On motion of Stanley M. Nissen it was voted to lay Article 32 on the 72 voted in the affirmative 40 voted in the negative ARTICLE 33. William V. Ahearn moved the following question: Shall the Town Meeting instruct the Board of Selectmen to send a resolution from the Town requesting the President of the United States to propose to the Soviet Union a mutual nuclear weapons freeze immediately halting the testing, production, and deployment of all nuclear warheads, missiles, and delivery systems; and to further propose future reductions in the number of said nuclear warheads, missiles and delivery systems. �aJ Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 ARTICLE 33. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted that Article 33 be indefinitely postponed. ARTICLE 1. On motion of John W. Price it was voted to take Article 1 from the table. ARTICLE 1. The following report presented by John W. Price for the Data Processing Committee was accepted as a report of progress. Data Processing Committee Final Report In September 1980, the Board of Selectmen formed a Data Processing Committee, to be chaired by Selectman John Price. Representatives from the Board of Assessors, Board of Public Works, Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Town Accountant, Town Clerk, Town Collector and Treasurer were designated as members. In addition, a member -at- large, Nancy Seavey was appointed and a member of the Finance Committee served as liason. The committee decided that the town's computer needs should be addressed jointly and interviewed the following firms who proposed a centralized system for the town; MISTI, IBM and Wang. Each computer vendor with whom the committee spoke stressed that they would tailor their equipment to fit Reading's needs. Committee members visited the centralized computer systems in Andover, Lowell and Melrose. At this point, the committee felt that an impartial viewpoint was needed to help assess Reading's computer needs, and to help write an ubiased request for proposal. Under Article 39 in the 1981 Annual Town Meeting, the committee asked that $8500 be appropriated for the purpose of engaging a consultant to assess the computer needs of the town and to prepare a request for proposal for equipment to address those needs. The request was approved by Town Meeting. In September, 1981, the committee voted to hire Peat, Marwick, and Mitchel as consultants from a field of fourteen applicants. Peat Marwick prepared a matrix, denoting the town functions which they recommended for a town centralized computer system, those they did not recommend and those desirable but probably not feasible applications. The functions recommended were general ledger and appropriation control, budget preparation, accounts payable, payroll, personal property, real estate, water and sewer, motor vehicle excise tax and parking fine billings, property tax assessment, and voter registration and census. Those functions considered desirable were vehicle maintenance, voter ballot counting, an engineering and scientific package, and word processing. The functions not recommended for a central computer at this time were equipment inventory control, library circulation, fire and police department functions, light department accounting, and school department scheduling, grading and instruction. The committee placed an article on the Fall Town Meeting warrant in November 1981, requesting that$113,000 be transferred from free cash and appropriated for the computer. Under Article 13, the town voted 123 to 0 to approve this request to obtain an in house centralized computer system, to be purchased under a lease purchase arrangement. In December 1981 requests for proposal for computer hardware and software were mailed to over fifty firms. Seventeen responses were received. The proposals were technical in nature and no one responded to the R F P in its entirety. For these reasons, the committee decided to hire a consultant to help review the proposals, evaluate the firms, and negotiate a contract. Massachusetts Municipal Association Field Services was chosen from the twelve applicants to perform these services. From March 5, 1982 through July 14, 1982, the committee met regularly. In Apr., four firms gave presentations on their proposals, and in May, the committee made three on site visits. The firms receiving consideration in these meetings were Arlington Trust, Burroughs, CMC, Haskins and Sells in conjunction with Wang, and MISTI. In June, contract negotiations were held under the auspices of Mdassachusetts Municipal Association with Arlington Trust and MISTI. MISTI was chosen as the firm with whom Reading would do business, after Ted Cohen of Tyler and Reynolds had reviewed the contract. At a special town meeting in June 1982, Article XXXIV was added to the town's bylaws to set up a municipal data processing center and to allow for a data processing coordinator, to be appointed by the Board of Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen have appointed Elizabeth Klepeis as Coordinator for a term to expire June 30, 1984. The Selectmen also dissolved the old Data Processing Committee and appointed a Data Processing Advisory Board to assist the Coordinator. The Advisory Board shall consist of one member appointed by each of the following: Board of Assessors, Board of Public Works, Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Town Clerk, Town Accountant, Town Collector and Town Treasurer. At an organizational meeting, Dewey Smith was elected Chairman and Elizabeth Klepeis as Secretary. Subsequent Town Meeting November 18, 1982 As of this date, the computer hardware has been installed and MISTI is working with town personnel to develop the software for accounts payable and payroll, both of which will be up and running by January 1, 1983. Subsequently, the other applications will be brought on the system. This report is to be considered as the final report of the Data Processing Committee and will be filed with the Town Clerk. Respectfully submitted, John W. Price, Chairman Elizabeth Klepeis, Co- chairman Lawrence Drew William Locke Roger Louanis Raphael McDonald Arthur Polychrones William Redford Dewey Smith Ernest Spence Ronald Winslow ARTICLE 1. On motion of John W. Price it was voted to lay Article 1 on the table. ARTICLE 2. On motion of Virginia M. Adams it was voted to take Article 2 from the table. ARTICLE 2. On motion of Virginia M. Adams it was voted that the By -Law Committee be instructed to present a By -law change to the next Town Meeting that would allow future Town Meetings to begin at 7:30 P. M. table. die. ARTICLE 2. On motion of Virginia M. Adams it was voted to lay Article 2 on the On motion of Marvin M. Rosenthal it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned sine Meeting adjourned at 11:25 P. M. 131 Town Meeting members were present. A true copy. Attest: Lawrence Drew Town Clerk