HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-11 Board of Selectmen Minutes Board of Selectmen Meeting
September 11,2012
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these minutes reflects the order in
which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the
order in which any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Stephen Goldy, Vice Chairman Ben
Tafoya, Secretary Richard Schubert, Selectmen John Arena and James Bonazoli,
Student Liaisons Mary Kate Kelley and Eric Johnson, Town Manager Peter
Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Office
Manager Paula Schena, and the following list of interested parties: Bill Brown, Bob
Nelson, Ken Lyons, Mark Cardono, Stephen Zufes, Ellen Emmons, Jeanne Teague,
Roberta Sullivan, Jeanne Borawski, Bob Quinn, Bob Lynch, John Carpenter, Virginia
Adams, Angela Binda, Mary Ann Quinn, Michael Gordon, Liz Rogers, Elaine Webb,
David Mancuso, Erin Calvo-Bacci, Art Hayden, Bobbie Botticelli, Kevin Sexton, Marsie
West, Lisa and Andy Mykyto.
Reports and Comments
Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments — Stephen Goldy offered a moment of
silence for the victims of 9-11 and then thanked everyone for their hard work on the Fall
Street Faire.
Ben Tafoya also thanked everyone for their help on the Fall Street Faire and he informed
everyone that the main stage on High Street was running on solar power. He also noted
that the Town of Reading provides the best information on elections.
James Bonazoli noted that the Sturgis Park Master Plan is continuing and they are going
before the Conservation Commission to create a rink like the one at Memorial Park.
Richard Schubert indicated that he attended the first Green Award presentation at the
Swiss Bakers.
Mary Kate Kelley noted that the Interact Club had a dunk tank at the Fall Street Faire and
raised $450. They also sold Girl Scout calendars.
Eric Johnson thanked the Boy Scouts for setting up the tents at the Fall Street Faire. The
RMHS football team won 46 — 2 and the boys soccer is playing tonight. The High
School has a new Principal and there is much to do about the desserts being taken out of
the school lunches.
Public Comment — Bill Brown noted that the Cemetery Board had their annual cemetery
tour. He also noted that he has a letter from the Attorney General's office that Town
Meeting committees are not subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Town Manager
Board of Selectmen Minutes— September 11, 2012 —page 2
indicated that Town Meeting is not subject to it, but multi-member bodies are subject to
it.
Town Manager's Report—The Town Manager noted that outdoor picnic tables have been
installed at the High School and he gave the following report:
Administrative matters
♦ Volunteers are still needed for the Bylaw Committee; Conservation Commission,
Finance Committee (2); Trails Committee; Historical Commission, West Street
Historic District Commission; and Zoning Board of Appeals.
♦ Primary Election— 8% turnout
♦ Old South is conducting a community wide fundraising campaign to repair and
restore the steeple and bell tower. www.readingsteeple.org
♦ Reading Pop Warner was permitted to use Amplified Sound for their annual pep rally
last Saturday night, September 8, on the Stadium Football field from the hours of 4
pm—6 pm. This was posted on the Town Website to alert the public.
♦ Linda Dockser and Elizabeth Lemons made a very helpful presentation to the School
Committee regarding the various Jewish Holidays.
Community Services
♦ Retail Visioning Workshop - scheduled for September 12, from 8 to 10:30 am at
the Police Station Community Room to offer assistance to existing businesses.
♦ The Reading Health Division will be providing seasonal flu vaccinations at the
Killam School cafeteria on Wednesday, October 3rd, from 2:30 pm until 4:30
pm for adults 18 years and older. We ask that you bring your insurance cards so
that we may be reimbursed for the vaccinations. The accepted insurances are:
Medicare Part B, Harvard Pilgrim, Tufts Health Plan, Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Massachusetts (please check your card), UniCare, Health New England,
Neighborhood Health Plan, Fallon, and MassHealth.
The fee for the vaccination without one of the accepted insurances is $10. Please
do not get a flu vaccination if you are allergic to eggs or any other component of
the flu vaccine. Please wear short-sleeved shirts. If you wish to complete the
paperwork in advance, consent forms are available on the Reading Health
Department website.
♦ Issues with the State regarding Veterans Service Officer District
♦ Open House—Northeast Ballet School September 29
♦ "Green Business Award" to Swiss Bakers.
♦ October 11, 2:00 pm—Ribbon Cutting—Oaktree. Special guest will be Greg Bialiki
Finance
♦ Joint Meeting on September 10 regarding all day Kindergarten.
Public Safety
♦ Underage drinking—response from Reading Police
Board of Selectmen Minutes— September 11 2012 —page 3
Public Works
Street Paving—next projects:
• Main Street (Washington Street to the Railroad Tracks),
• Garrett Road
• Boswell Road
• Irving Street
• West Street (thin overlay over water trench; Arcadia Avenue to Woburn Street).
Curbing/Sidewalk
♦ Haven Street— (Contractor experiencing materials delay)
♦ Mineral Street—RMLD getting access rights addressed
Utilities
♦ Howard Street water main— Summer Street to West Street is completed, and
West Street to County Road is in progress.
Personnel and Appointments
Climate Advisory Committee and Human Relations Advisory Committee — Richard
Schubert noted that the Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee did not interview either
applicant because they are both well known and worthy.
A motion by Arena seconded by Schubert that the Board of Selectmen confirm the
Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee's recommendations to the Board of
Selectmen for the appointment and/or reappointment of the following members to
various Boards, Committees and Commissions for terms beginning September 11,
2012 as listed below:
♦ Michelle Benson to a full member on the Climate Advisory
Committee with a term expiring June 30, 2013;
♦ Camille Anthony to an Associate position on the Human Relations
Advisory Committee with a term expiring June 30, 2013
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Discussion/Action Items
Town Accountant Quarterly Meeting — Town Accountant Sharon Angstrom noted that
her first three months went well and her overlap with Gail LaPointe was very helpful.
She will be closing the budget this Friday and she is working on the free cash allocation.
After the budget is closed she plans on spending time with other employees in her
department to see what their duties include.
Confirm Betterments — Stewart Road and Edgemont Avenue Curbing — The Town
Manager noted that the November 2011 Town Meeting approved the curb betterment for
Stewart Road and Edgemont Avenue. The proposed interest rate is 3.97%
Ken Ryan, 69 Edgemont Avenue, indicated he is a new homeowner and was surprised to
get a bill in the mail. He also noted that he is surprised the Town would do a project
without knowing the cost. Chairman Stephen Goldy explained the process to Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan asked if the Town considered an asphalt berm and the Town Manager noted
Board of Selectmen Minutes— September 11 2012 —page 4
that the asphalt berm is fine for larger roads, but not for the smaller roads. Also, granite
is the standard for the Town.
Bob Nelson, 63 Edgemont noted that the curbs should have been installed years ago.
Ellen Emmons, 19 Stewart Road, noted the curbs look great. She requested a detailed
estimate for the loam and seed to determine if it is correct. Town Engineer George
Zambouras noted that there was an adjustment on the curb and the loam and seed is 52
square yards.
Stephen Goldy indicated that the Board can defer the vote until the numbers are
confirmed. The Town Manager noted he would put it on the October 91h agenda and will
send the agenda as notice.
Review Status of Technology Improvements — Bob LeLacheur gave an overview of the
old software and old website. He noted that the Town funded over $1.3 million for
technology and 85% of that has been spent. The IT budget is $300,000 now. Very few
communities are doing what we are doing.
Kevin Furilla noted that a lot of work has been done on the data center including network
upgrades and security. Remote access and the wireless network is in place — just for
internet access. Technology has been added to the conference rooms. The technology is
interactive and the Wad is the tablet of choice.
Stephen Goldy indicated it would be nice to have the same technology at the Senior
Center.
John Arena noted that it would be nice if the presentations could be mirrored on tablets in
the audience.
Town Clerk Laura Gemme gave an overview of Laserfische. She noted that each Board,
Committee and Commission will have their own webpage with the ability to edit it.
There will also be a calendar on each page and this will eliminate duplication. She hopes
to have the new website up and running in the fall.
Richard Schubert noted there is a need for policies regarding use of technology and he
asked if technology is a problem with the Open Meeting Law. The Town Manager noted
that the Attorney General's office is developing policies. Any document created at a
public meeting is a public document. If members of a Board, Committee or Commission
are communicating electronically during a meeting then that is a violation if it is not
disclosed.
Town Planner Jean Delios reviewed View Permit. She noted that FY12 budget cuts
resulted in loss of staff and View Permit was seen to be more efficient. She works
primarily with the clerks to assist applicants. Contact information has been inputted and
Board of Selectmen Minutes— September 11 2012 —pie 5
a checklist created. There is an insurance and license information database. There are
internal signoffs and improved communications.
Kim Honetschlager reviewed more details about View Permit.
Bob LeLacheur noted that the Fire Department has joined the Police Department in
Microsystems.
Request from Austin Preparatory School to use Amplified Sound after 10.00 -P.m. —
Attorney Brad Latham and Tony Panetel were present. Brad Latham noted that they
were granted a one day liquor license for this Saturday's fundraising and entertainment
event. They had a similar event around 12 years ago and there were no complaints. The
field is surrounded by woods on three sides. The sound will only be heard by those there.
The request is to have amplified sound until 11:30 pm.
Richard Schubert asked if the neighbors have been notified and Mr. Panetel indicated
they notified everyone within 300 feet.
A motion by Tafoya seconded by Bonazoli that the Board of Selectmen approve, as
part of the Special (one day) liquor license for the "Juke Box Night" within a tent on
the football field at Austin Prep on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the playing of
music until 11:30 pm. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Hearing — New Demolition Delay ylaw — The Secretary read the hearing notice. The
Town Manager noted that the existing demo delay bylaw is confusing so he did a redraft
(a copy of which is attached to these minutes). A working group was put together and
Virginia Adams did a good job reviewing the bylaw.
The major changes are to expand the process of how a structure gets on the list and to
provide an appeal to the Board of Selectmen. He received input from the Historical
Commission and an email at the end of the day today. The changes from August 16 are
in red, Richard Schubert's changes are in blue but do not include the revised language in
Section 7.2.6.4, and Ben Tafoya's changes are in purple.
The definition of premises has been clarified. He added the following wording to Section
7.2.3: "all structures that were added in 2010 pursuant to the process in existence at that
time; and." Town Counsel also suggested mailing the notice of the hearing no later than
seven days before the hearing. He also made modifications and clarification to the
section on the appeal to the Board of Selectmen. The Town Manager also noted that
there is a letter from Angela Binda and an email from Art Hayden in the packet.
Stephen Goldy asked Richard Schubert to explain his changes to section 7.2.6.4 and
Richard Schubert indicated it was his intent to add clarification as follows:
Board of Selectmen Minutes— September 11 2012 —page 6
The following pages have been added to the minutes of the Board of Selectmen
meeting held on September 11, 2012 in order to more fully and accurately capture
the record of what has been stated by Selectman Schubert.
Date: Board of Selectmen Meeting on August 7, 2012
Agenda Item: Reviewed Town Manager's draft amendments to Demolition
Delay Bylaw
The first draft of amendments to the Demolition Delay Bylaw was presented to the BOS
for the board's review and input. NOTE: This draft was a product of the Town
Manager's work; the Demolition Delay Bylaw Working Group took no formal action
relating to the language of the draft. Selectman Schubert submitted his comments at the
meeting (see subsequent 2 pages for full list of comments); in particular, see comments
relating to Section 7.2.6.4 Appeal of the Imposition of the Demolition Delay.
The following is from the Town Manager's first draft presented at the BOS Meeting on
August 7:
7.2.6.4 Appeal of the imposition of Demolition Delay
The owner of a structure for which the Commission has imposed a
demolition delay may appeal from the imposition of the delay, and/or
conditions of the imposition of the delay, by filing with both the Chairman
of the Historical Commission and the Board of Selectmen a written notice
of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision of the
Commission to impose the Demolition Delay.
Within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the Board
of Selectman shall convene an appeal hearing which shall include the
Historical Commission and the owner or the owner's Legal Representative
for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal. The appeal shall review the
record of the proceedings before the Commission and input provided by
the owner and Commission representatives. Notice of the hearing shall be
given to the parties and to abutters within 300 feet of the property. Within
fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of
Selectmen will render a decision on the appeal.
The following are a subset of Selectman Schubert's comments regarding the Town
Manager's first draft presented at the BOS Meeting on August 7:
7.2.6.4 Appeal of the Imposition of the Demolition Delay
a. Clarify how this Appeal can impact (or not) the 6 month time frame; does this
take away from the time frame intended for the property owner and RHC to work
together?
b. Clarify role of RHC; to offer record of hearing and opinion only?
C. Clarify vote of BOS; simple majority?
d. Clarify the grounds (basis for decision) by which the BOS can overturn the vote
of the RHC. Without a proper framework, this "Appeal" could:
a. be capricious and random, and/or
b. essentially nullify the by-law.
Board of Selectmen Minutes— September 11, 2012 —page 7
C. (For comparison, the ZBA has explicit grounds under which they will
grant a variance.)
Selectman Schubert indicated that the intent of the above comments was to point out lack
of clarity without offering specific language or direction.
Date: Board of Selectmen Meeting on September 11, 2012
Agenda Item: Public Hearing on New Demolition Delay Bylaw
A second draft of the Town Manager's amendments to the Demolition Delay Bylaw was
presented by the Town Manager during the public hearing. This revision incorporated
comments from various contributors, and most revisions were attributed to the individual
who submitted a relevant comment.
The following is from the Town Manager's second draft presented at the BOS Public
Hearing held on September 11 with revisions in bold and/or strilke though:
7.2.6.4 Appeal of the imposition of Demolition Delay
The owner of a structure for which the Commission has imposed a
demolition delay may appeal from the imposition of the delay, and/or
conditions of the imposition of the delay, by filing with �'^*�i
Chairman of the Histor-ieal Commission and the Board of Selectmen a
written notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of the
decision of the Commission to impose the Demolition Delay. Filing of an
appeal will not extend the delay of up to 6 months imposed under
section 7.2.6.1 of this bylaw.
Within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the Board
of Selectman shall convene an appeal hearing. Notice of the hearing
wh-ieh shall include the be sent to the Chairman of the Historical
Commission and to the owner or the owner's Legal Representative, for the
purpose of adjudicating the appeal. The Board of Selectmen at the
hearing appeal shall review the record of the proceedings before the
Commission and input provided by the owner and by Commission
representatives.
Notice of the hearing shall be given to the pasties owner, to the
Commission, and to abutters within 300 feet of the property.
Within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of
Selectmen will render a decision on the appeal. The decision shall be
based on the record of the Commission's hearing at which the
Demolitions Delay was imposed; information provided by the owner
or the Commission at the Board of Selectmen hearing; consideration
of the purpose of the bylaw as stated in section 7.2.1; how the
structure meets the criteria established in 7.2.3.1.; the uniqueness of
the structure; quality of the materials remaining on the-outside of the
structure; and financial or other hardship that might be created to the
owner
Board of Selectmen Minutes— September 11 2012—page g
With respect to the second draft of Section 7.2.6.4 Appeal of the Imposition of the
Demolition Delay, the new language was attributed to Selectman Schubert but only
because his August 7 comments questioned the clarity of the language in the first draft,
prompting the Town Manager to revise the wording. During the hearing, Selectman
Schubert pointed out that the new language was not authored by him and offered no
support for the revised wording.
The following 2 pages are Selectman Schubert's full list of comments regarding the
Town Manager's first draft presented at the BOS Meeting on August 7:
Historic Demo Delay Draft
August 7, 2012
RS comments
General questions about process:
a. What is the process and timeline from now until Subsequent Town Meeting?
b. Review/update of language; input from BOS, Town Council, RHC, others?
C. Public hearing; BOS and/or RHC?
7.2.1 Purpose
a. Replace: "intent" with "purpose" (The intent purpose of this bylaw...)
b. Replace: "is not to permanently prevent demolition" with "even if it ultimately
cannot prevent demolition, is to find a reasonable option to prevent complete
demolition" (something along those lines)
7.2.2.7 Premises
a. Is "Significant Structure" the correct wording? Should it be replaced with
"Historic Structure that appears on the List as defined in 7.2.2.6"
7.2.3 Commission to Establish a List of Historic Structures
a. This list shall be made up of:
Add: 3rd bullet to include structures that were added in 2010
Board of Selectmen Minutes— September 11 2012 —page 9
7.2.3.2 Owner's Appeal
a. Delete reference to "on the inside" (not within jurisdiction of RHC)
7.2.6 Determination of whether the Demolition Delay is imposed
a. The word "detrimental" (in the first sentence) should have some definition or at
least a reference back to the first paragraph of 7.2.1 Purpose; otherwise, the
interpretation could be too broad.
7.2.6.1 Demolition Delay Imposed
a. Add language that allows for a"partial save" as an option. It's not always "all
or nothing" from the RHC's perspective.
b. Tweak wording... should it include responsibilities of property owner?
7.2.6.3 Release of Delay
a. Same as above: Add language that allows for a "partial save" as an option. It's
not always "all or nothing" from the RHC's perspective.
b. ' Replace "and" with"or" in 2nd bullet ("rehabilitate or restore" instead of
"rehabilitate and restore")
7.2.6.4 Appeal of the Imposition of the Demolition Delay
e. Clarify how this Appeal can impact (or not) the 6 month time frame; does this
take away from the time frame intended for the property owner and RHC to work
together?
f. Clarify role of RHC; to offer record of hearing and opinion only?
g. Clarify vote of BOS; simple majority?
h. Clarify the grounds (basis for decision) by which the BOS can overturn the vote
of the RHC. Without a proper framework, this "Appeal" could:
a. be capricious and random, and/or
b. essentially nullify the by-law.
C. (For comparison, the ZBA has explicit grounds under which they will
grant a variance.)
End of added pages.
Stephen Goldy indicated it seems to drill too far and John Arena indicated there is a lot of
redundancy. Ben Tafoya asked on what basis the decision is made and Richard Schubert
noted there has to be some issue of importance other than not liking the Historical
Commission decision. Stephen Goldy indicated that the changes are too confining and
recommended stopping after the word "hearing" in the fourth line of the fourth paragraph
of section 7.2.6.4.
Ben Tafoya suggested making the appeal to the ZBA in section 7.2.6.4 because other
appeals go to the ZBA. He also noted that the Board of Selectmen authorized the
Historical Commission to do the inventory and this is a result of a lack of
communication. This will offer guidance for the next generation.
Board of Selectmen Minutes — September 11 2012—page 10
James Bonazoli noted that the ZBA deals with appeals on a weekly basis, but some
people say the Selectmen are the higher being and this affects the whole community.
John Arena noted that the process doesn't work and some people are stuck in the middle
and can't get out. He's willing to listen to appeals and he doesn't feel this should go to
the ZBA. He's wants the exceptional cases to come to the Selectmen so they can hear if
there is a financial hardship. Stephen Goldy also noted that he is in favor of the appeals
going to the Selectmen.
Elaine Webb noted this bylaw will still be standing 10, 20 even 100 years from now and
there needs to be some clarification. She noted that the timeframes are excessive; there is
no word of structural integrity or condition of material inside the home; there is an
expense to notify the abutters and all paragraphs should be numbered.
Bobbie Botticelli, 58 Chapel Hill Drive, noted that she has been a realtor for 27 years and
a lot of properties are difficult to sell because they are on the inventory, but the Historical
Commission has been great to work with. She noted that the ZBA knows nothing about
history or historical value like the Historic Commission. She also feels there is no reason
to notify abutters just because there is a plaque on the structure and she feels the
Selectmen should hear the appeals.
Arthur Hayden, 89 King Street, noted that he was one of the people who received a
congratulations letter without any prior contact. He indicated there needs to be an
appeals process.
Maura Green, formerly of 75 Cross Street, noted that she is an attorney and her house
was on the list and when she tried to sell it people were not happy because it was on the
inventory. She feels there is a need for an appeal to being put on the inventory and an
appeal to the demolition delay.
Marsie West asked what makes the property unique and structural issues also need to be
addressed. She feels there should be an appeal to being added to the list and an appeal to
the demolition delay and it belongs with the Selectmen.
Mark Cardono, Chairman of the Historical Commission noted that he emailed several
comments to the Board. He noted that the right of demolition is never taken away. There
also needs to be mentioned that the property be taken off the list when it is demolished.
The Commission feels mailing to the abutters within 300 feet is too much—just notify the
direct abutters. They recommend not sending out a notice of continuance and they agree
on adding structural integrity. Mr. Cardono also noted that requiring five members to
vote could be difficult. He asked how the Commission should judge financial hardship
because they are not qualified and finances are not a public record. He also noted that the
Historical Commission helped out a family working with the Building Inspector to allow
a family to live in the house while the new one was being built.
Board of Selectmen Minutes — September 11 2012 —page 11
Stephen Goldy asked Mr. Cardono to explain why the Commission wants to remove
section 7.2.6.4 and Mr. Cardono noted that the Historical Commission does not agree and
it cuts back the demo delay to 4 '/z months. He also noted that a final appeal is not
necessary because the Commission works with owners.
Angela Binda of 10 Orchard Park Drive noted that there has been a lot of confusion and
misunderstandings. Many homeowners were pleased that their homes were on the list.
She does support a first appeal though.
Mary Ann Quinn, a realtor, noted that the Selectmen offering an appeal shows respect to
due process and she is in favor of this.
Richard Schubert noted that this is the only tool that the Historical Commission has to
achieve their purpose. There is no incentive for anyone to work with them. He is in
support of some kind of appeal process.
Ben Tafoya asked if we can undo all of the structures that were put on the list and the
Town Manager indicated we cannot.
John Arena noted that fear is based on lack of trust. Both Mr. Hayden and Ms. Webb
indicated they were not properly notified. The ZBA will not know what to do with the
appeals and he does not advocate making the appeals to the ZBA.
James Bonazoli agreed with keeping the appeal to the Board of Selectmen.
Jim Cole, a resident of Pearl Street, noted that the appeals reverse decisions so there is no
need to reverse because it reverses itself.
Art Hayden noted that the six month delay is his six month delay.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafoya to close the hearing on the proposed new
Demolition Delay Bylaw was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
No further action was taken.
Review Alternatives for Town Manager Search Process—The Town Manager noted there
is a timeline and a portion of the Charter in the packet. The Selectmen need to develop a
candidate profile and he suggests involving Department Heads and the community. The
decision also needs to be made as to whether to proceed in-house or hire a consultant.
The Town Manager noted that he cannot be involved in the process.
Human Resource Administrator Carol Roberts noted that she spoke with the Collins
Center and they can do as much or as little as wanted. The community profile costs
approximately $2,000 and the whole process runs from $15,000 to $17,000.
Board of Selectmen Minutes—September 11 1 2012—page 12
Stephen Goldy suggested including the Department Heads, Superintendent of Schools,
and Assistant Superintendent of Schools in developing the community profile.
It was decided to invite two groups in to give a presentation of their services and then
schedule a meeting to develop the candidate profile.
The Town Manager noted that if the Board creates a subcommittee then they can enter
into executive session and they will draw more candidates.
Authorize Sale of Town Land — The Town Manager noted that counsel is trying to get a
title search done so there is no action required this evening.
Approval of Minutes
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafoya to approve the minutes of Aulzust 7, 2012
as amended was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafoya to approve the Executive Session
minutes of August 7, 2012 as written was approved on a roll call vote with all five
members voting in the affirmative.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafoya to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 pm was
approved by a vote of 5-0-0. -
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Draft Demolition Delay Bylaw
with comments received as of 8-16-12
7.2 Historic Demolition Delay
7.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this bylaw is to provide the Reading Historical Commission with a tool to assist
the Commission in its efforts to preserve the Town's heritage and to protect historically significant
structures within the Town, which reflect or constitute distinctive features of the architectural,
cultural, economic, political or social history of the Town.
The intent purpose of this bylaw is not to permanently prevent demolitioneven if it
ultimately cannot prevent demolition, is to find a reasonable option to prevent complete
demolition, but rather to provide owners of such structures with time to consider alternatives, by
encouraging owners to seek out ways to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore such structures
To achieve these purposes, the Reading Historical Commission is empowered to create a List of
Historic Structures, and to provide a copy of that List, as it may be updated from time to time, to
the Building Inspector. With the Building Inspector, the Reading Historical Commission will
implement the provisions of this bylaw with respect to the issuance of permits for demolition of
structures that are included on the List of Historic Structures
7.2.2 Definitions
The following terms when used in this bylaw shall have the meanings set forth below.
7.2.2.1 Commission
Reading Historical Commission.
7.2.2.2 Demolition
Any act of pulling down, destroying, removing or razing a structure or commencing the
work of total destruction with the intent of completing the same aln"r which work
would require requiring a Demolition Permit.
7.2.2.3 Demolition Application
An official application form provided by the Building Inspector for an application for a
Demolition Permit.
7.2.2.4 Hearing
A public hearing conducted by the Commission after due public notice as provided in this
bylaw.
7.2.2.5 Legal Representative
A person or persons legally authorized to represent the owner of a structure that is or is
proposed to be subject to this bylaw.
7.2.2.6 List
The List of Historic Structures as it is constituted pursuant to this bylaw.
7.2.2.7 Owner
Current owner of record of a structure that is included in or proposed to be included in the
List of Historic Structures.
7.2.2.8 Premises
The parcel of land upon which a demolished Significant Structure structure that
appears on the List as defined in 7.2.2.6 was located and all adjoining parcels of land
under common ownership or control.
7.2.2.9 Structure
Materials assembled at a fixed location to give support or shelter, such as a building.
7.2.3 Commission to Establish a List of Historic Structures
The Commission will provide a List of Historic Structures to the Building Inspector. This List shall
be updated from time to time as needed when properties are added to or subtracted from the List
of Historic Structures. The List shall also be provided on the Town's web site or other electronic
means of publishing information to the community.
This List shall be made up of:
• all structures listed on, or located within an area listed on, the National Register of Historic
Places, or the Massachusetts Historical Register of Historic Places ; and
• all structures included in the Town of Reading Historical and Architectural Inventory, as of
September 1, 1995, maintained by the Commission; and
• all structures that were added in 2010 pursuant to the processes in existence at that
time; and
• following the procedures included in Section 7.2.3.1 of this bylaw, all structures that have
been determined from time to time by the Commission to be historically or architecturally
significant.
7.2.3.1 Procedures for expanding the List of Historic Structures
In considering additional structures to be included on the List of Historic Structures,
pursuant to section 7.2.3, the following process shall be followed:
• The Commission shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, an inventory form for each
structure considered for addition to the List of Historic Structures. The inventory form
for each property shall be prepared using a standard form provided by the
Massachusetts Historical Commission. The criteria to be used for consideration for
inclusion on the List of Historic Structures will include:
• The structure is determined to be importantly associated with one or more
historic persons or events, or
• The structure is determined to be associated with the broad architectural,
cultural, economic or social history of the Town or Commonwealth, or
• The structure is believed to be historically or architecturally significant in terms of:
• Period,
• Style,
• Method of building construction,
• Association with a significant architect, builder or resident either by itself or
as part of a group of buildings;
• The Commission will inform by regular US mail each property owner whose structure
is being considered for preparation of an inventory form
• The owner of each structure for which an inventory form has been prepared shall be
sent a notice of a public hearing at least 30 days in advance of the hearing. The
notice shall be sent by Certified Mail — return receipt requested — or by service by a
Constable. The notice shall include the following information:
• that the structure that they own is being considered for inclusion on the List of
Historic Structures,
• a copy of the inventory form for the structure,
• a statement as to the criteria considered in including additional structures on the
List of Historic Structures, and
• a copy of this bylaw.
In addition to the notice of the hearing delivered to each owner, legal notice of the hearing
including the street address of all structures proposed to be added to the List of Historic
Structures shall be published at the Commission's expense at least 14 days in advance of the
hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the community. Additionally, at least 7 days prior
to the hearing a copy of the newspaper notice will be mailed by regular U.S. mail to all property
owners within 300 feet of each property containing a structure to be considered for inclusion on
the List of Historic Structures
At the hearing, the Commission will hear comment from all owners and abutters who wish to be
heard, and following the close of the hearing the Commission will make a determination as to
which of the structures proposed for inclusion on the List of Historic Structures shall be voted onto
that List. The decision as to what properties to include shall be made by the Commission, with the
inclusion of a property on the List of Historic Structures requiring the affirmative vote of at least 4
members of the Commission. The vote shall be taken at a public meeting, and the vote may be
made either the same day as the close of the hearing, or at a later meeting of the Commission. If
at a later meeting, the Commission shall inform each owner either upon closing the hearing or by
regular US mail at least 3 days in advance of a public meeting, of the date of the meeting at
which the matter is to be further discussed. Nothing shall preclude the Commission from voting to
add structures onto the List of Historic Structures at different meetings.
7.2.3.2 Owner's Appeal of addition of a structure to the List of Historic Structures
An owner, at the public hearing at which additions to the List of Historic Structures are to
be considered, may object to inclusion of their structure onto the List of Historic
Structures. At the hearing or such later date as agreed by the Commission, the owner
shall submit information or documentation in support of their objection. The Commission
may consider their objection at the hearing and/or subsequent public meetings, and the
Commission shall not vote to include the structure in question onto the List of Historic
Structures until all information supplied by the owner can be fully considered by the
Commission. In considering whether to finally vote to include a structure on the List of
Historic Structures the Commission will consider the information provided by the owner,
and particularly how the structure meets the criteria established in 7.2.3.1. In addition to
those criteria, the Commission will consider the uniqueness of the structure, quality of the
materials remaining on the inside and outside of the structure, and financial or other
hardship that might be created to the owner by inclusion of the structure onto the List of
Historic Structures. A structure whose owner objects may only be included on the List of
Historic Structures if all 5 members of the Commission vote to do so.
7.2.4 Referral of Demolition Applications of structures on the List of Historic Structures by the
Building Inspector to the Commission
Upon the receipt of a completed Demolition Application for a structure on the List of Historical
Structures, the Building Inspector shall
• As soon as possible but not later than 30 days from the submission of a complete Demolition
Application, notify the owner that the structure they want to demolish is on the List of Historic
Structures, and therefore subject to this bylaw.
• Provide the owner with a packet to apply to the Commission for demolition approval, along
with a copy of the inventory of their structure, a copy of this bylaw, and a copy of any
guidelines that the Commission has adopted regarding the demolition delay process.
• Inform the Chairman of the Commission of a pending application under this bylaw.
• Obtain an abutters list, at the expense of the owner, of all properties within 300 feet.
• Upon receipt of a completed application for Commission demolition approval, determine the
completeness of the application.
• Notify the Chairman of the Commission who will provide the Building Inspector with
alternative dates for a public hearing not sooner than 7 days nor more than 21 days from the
determination that the application to the Commission is complete
• Arrange for the publication of a legal notice of the hearing, at the owner's expense, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the community including the street address of all
structures proposed to be demolished. The notice shall be published not later than 7-14 days
prior to the hearing.
• Arrange for a mailing not later than 7 days prior to the hearing, at the owner's expense, of
a copy of the newspaper notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the property
containing a structure to be considered for demolition.
• Immediately forward a copy of the application to each of the members of the Commission.
7.2.4.1 Completed Application
The Owner shall be responsible for submitting seven sets of the following information as
a completed application prior to the scheduling of the public hearing:
• Completed application form (if any)
• Description of the structure to be demolished (the inventory is an acceptable
document for this purpose);
• A demolition plan
• Assessor's map or plot plan showing the location of the structure to be demolished
on its property with reference to the neighboring properties;
• Photographs of all facade elevations;
• Statement of reasons for the proposed demolition and data supporting said reasons;
• Description of the proposed reuse of the premises on which the structure to be
demolished is located.
• If applicable, the name and contact information of the Legal Representative;
7.2.5 Public Hearing
The Commission will hold a hearing to allow all interested parties to voice their opinions and to
present pertinent information concerning the structure, as well as its value and importance to the
neighborhood and the Town. The Owner or the Legal Representative will present the requested
demolition plan and supporting documentation. The public may present their opinions and
additional relevant information. After the presentation and the public comments, the Commission
will make one of two decisions:
• The presented information is insufficient for the Commission to make a final determination on
requested demolition of the Structure. Therefore, the Commission may continue the hearing.
A continued hearing shall be not later than 21 days from the initial hearing and the hearing
shall be closed within 30 days of the initial hearing.
• The presented information is sufficient to make a final determination on the requested
demolition of the Structure. Therefore, the Commission shall close the hearing.
7.2.6 Determination of whether the Demolition Delay is imposed
Once the Hearing is closed, a motion shall be made to determine if the loss of the structure would
be detrimental to the Town when considering the purpose of this bylaw as detailed in
section 7.2.1:
• An affirmative vote by 4 members of the Commission will declare that the structure is
protected by this Bylaw, and therefore, a demolition delay of up to six (6) months is imposed
beginning the date of the vote.
• A negative vote by the Commission (affirmative vote of less than 4 members of the
Commission) will declare that the structure is not protected by this Bylaw, and the Building
Inspector may issue a permit to demolish the structure.
The Commission will notify the Building Inspector within seven (7) days of the Commission's
decision. If the notice is not received within the expiration of seven (7) days of the close of the
hearing, the Building Inspector may act on the Demolition Permit Application with no further
restrictions of this bylaw.
7.2.6.1 Demolition Delay imposed
The Commission shall advise the Owner and the Building Inspector of the determination
that the Demolition Permit will be delayed up to six (6) months. During this time,
alternatives to demolition shall be considered. The Commission shall offer to the Owner
information about options other than demolition, including but not limited to resources in
the preservation field, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Town Planner, and
other interested parties that might provide assistance in preservation or adaptive reuse.
7.2.6.2 Responsibilities of Owner if Demolition Delay is imposed
The Owner shall be responsible for participating in the investigation of options to
demolition by:
• Actively pursuing alternatives with the Commission and any interested parties;
• providing any necessary information;
• allowing reasonable access to the property; and
• by securing the premises.
7.2.6.3 Release of Delay
Notwithstanding the preceding section of this bylaw, the Building Inspector may issue a
Demolition Permit at any time after receipt of written notice from the Commission to the
effect that the Commission is satisfied that one of the following conditions has been met:
• There is no reasonable likelihood that either the Owner or some other person or
group is willing to purchase, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the structure;
• The Owner, during the delay period, has made continuing, bona fide and reasonable
efforts to locate a purchaser to preserve, rehabilitate a-Rd or restore the structure, and
that such efforts have been unsuccessful;
• The Owner has agreed in writing to accept a demolition permit on specified
conditions, including mitigation measures approved by the Commission. Such
mitigation could include a demolition of only a portion of the structure; or
• A period of six (6) months has elapsed since the conclusion of the Hearing and
provided.
7.2.6.4 Appeal of the imposition of Demolition Delay
The owner of a structure for which the Commission has imposed a demolition delay may
appeal from the imposition of the delay, and/or conditions of the imposition of the delay,
by filing with hoth the Chairman of the HisteriGal Commission and the Board of
Selectmen a written notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision
of the Commission to impose the Demolition Delay. Filing of an appeal will not extend
the delay of up to 6 months imposed under section 7.2.6.1 of this bylaw.
Within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the Board of Selectman
shall convene an appeal hearing. Notice of the hearing which-shall include-the be
sent to the Chairman of the Historical Commission and to the owner or the owner's
Legal Representative, for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal. The Board of
Selectmen at the hearing appeal shall review the record of the proceedings before the
Commission and input provided by the owner and by Commission representatives.
Notice of the hearing shall be given to the parties owner, to the Commission, and to
abutters within 300 feet of the property.
Within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of Selectmen will
render a decision on the appeal. The decision shall be based on the record of the
Commission's hearing at which the Demolitions Delay was imposed; information
provided by the owner or the Commission at the Board of Selectmen hearing;
consideration of the purpose of the bylaw as stated in section 7.2.1; how the
structure meets the criteria established in 7.2.3.1.; the uniqueness of the
structure; quality of the materials remaining on the-outside of the structure; and
financial or other hardship that might be created to the owner
7.2.7 Emergency Demolition
Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the Building Inspector from ordering
pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 143 the emergency demolition of a structure included in the List of
Historic Structures. Before issuing an order for an emergency demolition of such a structure, the
Building Inspector shall make reasonable efforts to inform the Chairperson of the Commission of
his intent to issue such an order.
7.2.8 Enforcement and Remedies
In the event a structure on the List of Historic Structures is demolished in violation of this bylaw,
then no building permit shall be issued for the premises for a period of two (2) years after the date
of such demolition.
Note—the sections in boxes are alternative language for the Board of Selectmen to consider
Schubert
Town Counsel
Tafoya