HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-05 Town Meeting MinutesANNUAL TOWN MEETING
Reading Memorial High School May 5, 2011
The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Alan E. Foulds, at 7:43 PM, there being a quorum
present. The meeting was started with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ARTICLE 23
Motion made by David Tuttle, Community Planning and Development Commission to move that the Town
vote to amend Section 4.3.3 of the Town of Reading Zoning By -Laws as follows: (note — GFGSS through
represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language)
Motion made by Camille Anthony to dispense of further reading
Motion to dispense Carried
4.3.3 SITE PLAN REVIEW
Applicability. The following types of activities and uses require site plan review by the CPDC: Routine
maintenance or replacement in -kind is exempt.
Any exterior construction, or alteration or expansion of more than five hundred (500) gross square feet of
an institutional, commercial, industrial, or multi - family structure with four or more dwelling units;
GGMrneFG4a!, iRdustrial, eF MUlti family strUGtUre with fGur er more dwe"'Rg units-,
family StFUGtYFe OF n Urnn o
A change of use within an institutional, commercial, industrial, or multi - family structure;
Interior renovations over two thousand (2, 000) gross square feet;
Construction or expansion of a parking lot for an institutional, commercial, industrial, or multi - family
structure or purpose.
4.3.3.2. Procedures. Applicants for site plan approval shall submit twelve (12) copies of the site plan to
the CPDC for review, and within three (3) days thereafter request a determination from the Town Planner
on completeness of application. The Town Planner shall make a determination of completeness within
thirty (30) days of receipt of such application. The CPDC shall review and act upon the site plan, with
such conditions as may be deemed appropriate, within sixty (60) days of its determination of
completeness, and notify the applicant of its decision. The decision of the CPDC approving site plan
review, shall be a majority of the commission and shall be in writing. No building permit or certificate of
occupancy shall be issued by the Building Inspector without the written approval of the site plan by the
CPDC, or unless 60 days lapse from the date of a determination of completeness of the site plan without
action by the CPDC.
4.3.3.3. Requirements:
4.3.3.3.1. Where the CPDC serves as the special permit granting authority for proposed work, it shall
consolidate its site plan review and special permit procedures.
4.3.3.3.2. The applicant may request, and the CPDC may grant by majority vote, an extension of the time
limits set forth herein.
2011 Annual Town Meeting
4.3.3.3.3. No deviation from an approved site plan shall be permitted without modification thereof
approved by CPDC.
Preparation of Plans. Applicants are invited to submit a pre - application sketch of the proposed project to
the CPDC and to schedule a comment period at a regular meeting of the CPDC. Site plans shall be
submitted on 24 -inch by 36 -inch sheets, or larger if necessary for clarity. Plans shall be prepared by a
registered professional engineer, registered land surveyor, architect or landscape architect, as
appropriate. Dimensions and scales shall be adequate to determine that all requirements are met and to
make a complete analysis and evaluation of the proposal.
4.3.3.5. Contents of Plan. The contents of the site plan are as follows:
4.3.3.5.1. Five (5) separate plans prepared at a scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or forty (40)
feet or such suitable scale as may be approved by the CPDC. The plans are as follows:
a. Site layout, which shall contain the boundaries of the lot(s) in the proposed development,
proposed structures, drives, parking, fences, walls, walks, outdoor lighting, loading facilities, and areas for
snow storage after plowing. The first sheet in this plan shall be a locus plan, at a scale acceptable to the
CPDC, showing the entire project and its relation to existing areas, buildings and roads for a distance of
one thousand (1,000) feet from the project boundaries or such other distance as may be approved or
required by the staff.
b. Topography and drainage plan, which shall contain the existing and proposed final topography at
two -foot intervals and plans for handling storm water drainage, including resource area delineation.
c. Utility plan which shall include all facilities for refuse and sewerage disposal or storage of all wastes,
the location of all hydrants, fire alarm and fire fighting facilities on and adjacent to the site, all proposed
recreational facilities and open space areas, and all wetlands including flood plain areas.
d. Architectural plans, which shall include the floor plans and architectural elevations of all proposed
buildings and a color rendering or photographs of similar structures.
e. Landscaping plan, showing the limits of work, existing tree lines, and all proposed landscape
features and improvements including screening, planting areas with size and type of stock for shrub or
tree, and including proposed erosion control measures.
4.3.3.5.2. The site plan shall be accompanied by a written statement indicating the estimated time
required to complete the proposed project and any and all phases thereof.
4.3.3.5.3. A written summary of the contemplated projects shall be submitted with the site plan
indicating, where appropriate, the number of dwelling units to be built and the acreage in residential use,
the evidence of compliance with parking and off - street loading requirements, the forms of ownership
contemplated for the property and a summary of the provisions of any ownership or maintenance thereof,
identification of all land that will become common or public land, and any other evidence necessary to
indicate compliance with this By -Law.
4.3.3.5.4. The site plan shall be accompanied by drainage calculations by a registered professional
engineer. Storm drainage design must conform to the Town of Reading subdivision regulations and
Department of Environmental Protection storm water regulations.
4.3.3.5.5. The CPDC may require a narrative statement detailing the impact of the proposed use on
municipal services and the environment, lighting, traffic, hazardous materials storage, trash, hours of
operation and construction impacts.
4.3.3.5.6. Certification that the proposal is in compliance with the provisions, if applicable, of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Massachusetts Architectural Barriers Board.
2011 Annual Town Meeting
4.3.3.5.7. All plans submitted shall be in digital format as well as prints as approved by the Town
Engineer. Number of prints submitted shall be determined by the Town Planner.
4.3.3.6. Approval. Site plan approval shall be granted upon determination by the CPDC that the
plan meets the following objectives. The CPDC may impose reasonable conditions at the expense of the
applicant, including performance guarantees, to promote these objectives. Any new building construction
or other site alteration shall provide adequate access to each structure for fire and service equipment and
adequate provision for utilities and storm water drainage consistent with the functional requirements of
the CPDC's Subdivision Rules and Regulations. New building construction or other site alteration shall be
designed in the site plan, after considering the qualities of the specific location, the proposed land use,
the design of building form, the grading, egress points, and other aspects of the development, so as to:
Minimize the volume of cut and fill, the number of removed trees 6" caliper or larger, the length of
removed stone walls, the area of wetland vegetation displaced, the extent of storm water flow from the
site, soil erosion, and the threat of air and water pollution;
Maximize pedestrian and vehicular safety both on the site and approach /egression from it;
C. Minimize obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations;
Minimize visual intrusion by controlling the visibility of parking, storage, or other outdoor service areas
viewed from public ways or premises residentially used or zoned through the use of landscaping and
fencing;
Minimize glare from headlights and lighting intrusion;
f. Minimize unreasonable departure from the character, materials, and scale of buildings in the vicinity, as
viewed from public ways and places;
g. Minimize contamination of groundwater from on -site wastewater disposal systems or operations
on the premises involving the use, storage, handling, or containment of hazardous substances;
Ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning By -Law;
Maximize property enhancement through use of landscaping and other site amenities;
Minimize environmental impacts to adjacent properties through hours of operation, deliveries, noise,
rubbish removal and storage.
Lapse. Site plan approval shall lapse after two (2) years from the grant thereof if a substantial use thereof
has not sooner commenced except for good cause. Such approval may, for good cause, be extended in
writing by the CPDC upon the written request of the applicant.
Regulations. The CPDC may adopt and from time to time amend reasonable regulations for the
administration of these site plan guidelines.
Fee. The CPDC may adopt reasonable administrative fees and technical review fees for site plan review
at levels necessary to cover costs. The CPDC may also require the applicant to fund professional review
of the filing.
4.3.3.10. Appeal. The appeal of any decision of the CPDC hereunder shall be made in accordance
with the provisions of Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 40A. §17.
4.3.3.i i. ExemPtiG.,T
2011 Annual Town Meeting
A Z� er of Site DI
4.3.3.11. Minor Site Plan Review
The Community Planning and Development Commission or the Town Planner by administrative
approval may waive grant approval for a minor site plan review with or without conditions provided the
proposed construction, expansion or alteration will not result in any adverse impact in the areas described
in Sections 4.3.3.5 or 4.3.3.6 and for any of the following reasons provided however that the property has
not been approved for a minor site plan review within the last three (3) years; the requirement fer site pla-
Fe ie w fnr any of the fGllGW'Rg three reaSGRS•
a. The construction, expansion or alteration only involves the interior renovation of an existing space
such as plumbing, electrical, furniture, fixtures, mechanical systems, or interior changes to comply with
the current building code such as handicap accessibility. and the proposed GhaRges ,rill not result ir-iR afrr +n
adverse mrnpaGt in the areas deSGrihed Sertinns 4.3.3.5 4.3m3-.6m
r
b. The proposed change in use is in the same use category and Will I„t FE-9631-11f M -adverse Irnpu�t
iR the are in Sevtivn 4.3.3.5 r A Z Z a
The property has WRd been developed according to a full site plan review and approval within the
past five years.
If the Community Planning and Development Commission or Town Planner does not act within 60
W days of receiving a complete waiver Minor Site Plan Review Project request, the request shall be
deemed granted.
4.3.3.12. Waiver of Loadinq Zone Space Requirements
The Community Planning and Development Commission may waive the requirements of 6.1.1.3 as to the
number of loading zone spaces, provided there is no adverse impact in the areas described in Section
4.3.3.6., or take any other action with respect thereto.
4.3.3.13. Waiver of Parking, Loading Space and Related Design Requirements in the Business C
District.
Upon the applicant's request and submission of supporting documentation, the community
Planning and Development Commission may waive or reduce the requirements under Section 6.1.1.3
and Section 6.1.2, provided there is no adverse impact in the areas described in Section 4.3.3.6.
Background: The purpose of Article 23 is to promote ease of permitting and improving customer service
and thereby promoting economic development.
The Zoning By -Law includes a provision under Section 4.3.3 for Site Plan Review. The purpose of Site
Plan Review is to promote development that will be beneficial to the community and that is in keeping
2011 Annual Town Meeting
with its character. Site Plan Review allows the Town to manage growth and insure that it is consistent
with the Zoning Bylaw and the Reading Master Plan. Site Plan Review is not required for residential
construction of less than four (4) dwelling units.
Article 23 seeks to modify (lessen) the threshold requirements for site plan review, omit the waiver
requirement, and add a provision for Minor Site Plan Review. Article 23 proposes to change the threshold
for exterior construction or alternation from 300 square feet to 500 square feet and for interior
construction or alteration from 1,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet.
In an effort to streamline Site Plan Review Article 23 eliminates the requirement for seeking a waiver for
projects that currently qualify for site plan review but still are required to appear before the Community
Planning and Development Commission (CPDC).
To promote economic development and ease of permitting, Article 23 includes a new provision for Minor
Site Plan Review which allows administrative approval by either the CPDC or the Town Planner for
projects that meet the stated criteria as follows:
• Construction, expansion, or alteration involving an interior renovation (no exterior work) of an
existing space such as plumbing, electrical, furniture, fixtures, mechanical equipment or interior
changes to comply with the current building code such as handicap access;
• The proposed change is in the same use category (no change of use);
• The property has been developed according to a full site plan review and approval within the past
five years;
In summary, Article 23 supports on -going efforts to streamline regulations, simplify reviews to be more
customer friendly, and promote economic development. It should be noted that smaller projects that can
be handled through administrative approvals will result in a big benefit to applicants who otherwise have
to attend evening CPDC meetings. Public hearings for larger projects sometimes pre -empt the smaller
projects as they are scheduled first on the agenda, weeks in advance, due to advertising requirements.
This requires smaller projects to be scheduled later on the agenda which can be very late into the
evening.
Finance Committee Report: No Report
Bylaw Committee Report -given by Philip Pacino: The Bylaw Committee recommends the subject
matter of this Article by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Economic Development Committee Report -given by Sheila Clarke: The EDC recommends to the
Board of Selectmen support of Article 23, by a vote of 5 -0 -0.
Community Planning and Development Commission Report -given by David Tuttle: The CPDC
recommends the subject matter of the Article by a vote of 4 -0 -0
Motion made by John Carpenter to amend as follows:
Any exterior construction, or alteration or expansion of more than five hundred (500) gross square feet of
an institutional, commercial, industrial, or multi - family structure with four or more dwelling units;
GE)FnFneFG*al, industrial, er multi family StFLIGtLIFe with four er mere dwelling UR46;
Change five hundred (500) gross square feet to two thousand (2000) gross square feet....
Motion Ruled out of Order
2/3 Vote required
2011 Annual Town Meeting
109 Voted in the affirmative
6 Voted in the negative
129 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
Motion Carried
ARTICLE 24
Motion made by Richard Schubert, Board of Selectmen to move that the Town vote to approve an
Affordable Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan entitled "2011 Town of Reading Affordable Housing Trust
Fund Allocation Plan" dated April 26, 2011 pursuant to Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2001 entitled "AN ACT
AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF READING TO ESTABLISH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST
FUND ",
Background - given by Peter Hechenbleikner: Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2001 authorized the Town of
Reading to establish an Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). This legislation was done as a Home
Rule Petition by the Town. The legislation provides in part "The Town of Reading may establish a
separate fund to be known as the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the purpose of creating or preserving
affordable housing by the Town of Reading, the Reading Housing Authority or a housing trust, community
development corporation or similar entity created under the laws of the commonwealth for the purpose of
creating, maintaining or operating affordable housing." Among the state purposes is to: "develop new or
rehabilitate existing dwelling units for purchase or rental by low and moderate income housing purchasers
or tenants;"
According to the legislation, "Expenditures shall follow an allocation plan submitted by the Board of
Selectmen annually to Town Meeting at the Annual Town Meeting, and approved by Town Meeting." "[a]ll
expenditures from the fund, . .. shall be in accordance with the allocation plan and approved by a
majority vote of the full combined memberships of the Board of Selectmen and the Reading Housing
Authority."
The purpose of this legislation is to provide a framework for the Town to expend funds on affordable
housing. The current balance in the Affordable housing Trust Fund is $458,017.68 which has been
accumulated over the years as funds secured for the purpose by the CPDC, and funds deposited in at
least one instance when an existing affordable unit was no longer able to be kept affordable after efforts
were made to do so. There have been no expenditures to date from this fund, although there have been
several attempts at using these funds — in one instance to subsidize a Reading Housing Authority project.
As part of the Oaktree development (the former Atlantic site) a total of 20% of the units will be affordable
units, or 11 units of the total of 57 units in the development. The Town has negotiated to provide up to
$400,000 from the Affordable Housing Trust fund to subsidize the development of those 11 affordable
units. All of the affordable units will be affordable in perpetuity. All of the 57 units will count on the Town's
inventory of affordable housing units because the units will be developed as rental units.
An affordable housing restriction will be required that must be approved by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (DHCD). This request is based on the stated need for the funds to
carry out the project and will require a joint agreement between Oaktree, the Board of Selectmen, and the
Housing Authority.
As part of the due diligence related to this request, the Town has been working with Oaktree reviewing
pro - formas to clarify the finances of this project including the need for our help through the AHTF. The
process is on -going and the Town has asked for additional information to clarify what has been provided
to date.
In addition to analyzing the pro- forma, the Town has indicated to Oaktree that we would be drafting a set
of legal documents with conditions in order to satisfy our requirements. The discussion has included
2011 Annual Town Meeting
protecting the Town's investment of funds by use of the following which would be recorded at the Registry
of Deeds:
• Deferred Payment Loan (DPL) Agreement — this is commonly used in affordable housing
projects where the funds are provided as a grant, but with conditions that could trigger repayment
of all or some of the funds. For example, if the project were sold as a permitted project to another
developer then the terms of the DPL could require repayment in full. or
• Promissory Note — another legal document that assures compliance with stated terms. or
• Mortgage —just like a bank would place a mortgage on a house, we would do so here.
By taking these steps the Town of Reading will be protected and a viable redevelopment project will be
supported. The redevelopment of the former Atlantic Supermarket, 30 Haven Street, is an important
project that will be an anchor to both Haven Street and High Street. It will increase foot traffic throughout
the downtown and promote Smart Growth. With just under 100,000 square feet of new construction
including approximately 20,000 square feet of retail with 57 units of residential above (11 of which will be
affordable) this project is consistent with the Master Plan, Housing Plan, and Economic Development
efforts. As a rental project under the 40R zoning, the Town of Reading will get credit for all 57 units in its
affordable housing inventory maintained by the State. Even if the development were to change to
condominiums, the Town would still be credited with 11 affordable units.
Finance Committee Report - given by Berry Berman: The Finance Committee voted 0 -1 -8 at their
March 30, 2011 meeting not to recommend the subject matter of this Article. If financial information
becomes available to Finance Committee they will review it at their April 13, 2011 meeting and may
reconsider their vote. A majority of the Committee is not opposed to using Trust Funds for this project, but
felt there was not enough information at the time of the vote to feel comfortable supporting this Article.
Members questioned the need for the Town to subsidize the developer for construction costs and urged
the Town to drill down further and analyze the project's financial statements. Finance Committee wanted
to know what steps the Town would take to protect the investment, including structuring the Trust funds
as a loan. The lone member opposing the article felt it was inappropriate for the Town to utilize Trust
Fund proceeds to subsidize a private developer for housing units the Town does not own.
Bylaw Committee Report: No Report
Information presented by Peter Hechenbleikner:
Pursuant to Article 24 of the 2011 Annual Town Meeting, an Affordable Housing Trust Fund Allocation
Plan for the Fiscal Year 2012 in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2001 is as
follows:
Available Balance — Unrestricted Funds:
Available Balance —.Restricted Funds
$458,017.68
$0
a. Unrestricted funds shall be used for the following purposes:
99% for constructing affordable housing (including loan and grant programs); or for
maintaining and improving affordability of existing housing stock; or for the purchase of
existing housing stock to add it to or maintain it as a part of the existing affordable
housing inventory
1 % for administration of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
b. Restricted funds received into the AHTF for designated purposes from grants, gifts, donations, or
the like, shall be allocated at 100% towards the stated purposes.
Motion made by Bill Brown, Precinct 8 to Indefinitely Postpone this Article
Motion to Postpone does not Carry
After discussion among Town Meeting Members
2011 Annual Town Meeting
Motion Carries as presented by Peter Hechenbleikner
ARTICLE 25
2011 Annual Town Meeting
Motion made by Bill Brown, Precinct 8 to move to indefinitely postpone the subject matter of Article 25
Motion Carries
ARTICLE 26
Motion made by Bill Brown, Precinct 8 to move to indefinitely postpone the subject matter of Article 26
Motion Carries
ARTICLE 27
Motion made by Bill Brown, Precinct 8 to move to indefinitely postpone the subject matter of Article 27
Motion Carries
ARTICLE 29
Motion made by James Bonazoli to move that the Town vote to transfer from Free Cash and appropriate
the sum of $25,000 to the Employee Sick Leave Buy -back and Vacation Leave Buyback Stabilization
Fund.
Background - given by Bob LeLacheur: The 2009 Annual Town Meeting voted to establish a
stabilization fund for Town employee sick -leave and /or vacation leave buy -back. This was done because
the Town Departments could not accurately forecast 18 months in advance what employees might leave
their employment and be eligible for these payments. In most cases, the various Town wage budgets as
voted by Town Meeting did not have the capacity to support these unpredictable payments, unless a
position remained unfilled for a sufficient period of time.
In FY11 the Town has had several circumstances that required these payments and in most cases we
were able to fund the costs through unused wages because a position was unfilled. In Article 5 of this
Town Meeting we are requesting a transfer out of $10,000 for a department that does not have sufficient
funds to cover an FY11 obligation.
If this transfer under Article 5 is approved, the remaining balance of the fund would be approximately
$5,400. Article 29 seeks to add $25,000 from free cash to supplement this amount, to be used in future
years by vote of Town Meeting as needed.
The potential for Sick Leave buy -back is diminishing as changes in Personnel Policies and collective
bargaining agreements work towards eventual elimination of this benefit. For example, as part of the
bargaining process in 2010, all Sick Leave Buy -back for Police Patrol Officers and Police Superior
Officers was eliminated — currently and prospectively. All other Town non -union and most other Town
unions have given up sick leave buy -back prospectively from a variety of dates. Many non -union
employees have never been eligible for this benefit.
2011 Annual Town Meeting
Vacation leave buy -back is already severely constrained by limits on vacation leave carryover, and is the
smaller amount of the buy -back leave.
Finance Committee Report - given by Bryan Walsh: The Finance Committee voted 9 -0 -0 at their
March 30, 2011 meeting to recommend the subject matter of this Article. If a transfer was approved
earlier at this Annual Town Meeting under Article 5, then the balance of this stabilization fund is about
$5,420. Increasing that amount will allow the Town to meet future obligations without skewing the
individual department budgets, which was the intention when this Fund was created.
Bylaw Committee Report: No Report
2/3 Vote required
Declared unanimous by Moderator
129 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
ARTICLE 30
Move that the Town vote, pursuant to Section 2 -6 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, to declare the
seats of the following Town Meeting Members to be vacant and remove said persons from their position
as Town Meeting Members for failure to attend one half or more of the Town Meeting sessions during the
previous year:
Precinct 2
Lizabeth Ann Malinski
Kim Marie Sullivan
Richard J. Moore
Robert R. Morelli
Brooks E. Rice
George A. Snow
Precinct 3
Anthony D'Arezzo
Precinct 5
Susan A. Giacalone
Precinct 6
Allison M. Piper
Chad R. Smith
Precinct 7
Mario A. Jarrin Hurtado
Nancy B. Matheson
Precinct 8
William O. Finch
Donald J Golini
Robert I Nordstrand
Background - given by Alan Foulds: The Reading Home Rule Charter provides for the removal by
Town Meeting of Town Meeting Members who did not attend at least half of the Town Meeting sessions
during the previous year. There are 24 members who meet those criteria, as listed above. This compares
to 10 members who were listed in the Town Meeting warrant report in 2010.
2011 Annual Town Meeting
The remaining Town Meeting Members from Precincts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be asked to meet in a
caucus before this Article is taken up, and to evaluate the particular circumstances of each of these
situations. The affected precincts will then make a recommendation to Town Meeting as to whether the
member should be removed
Finance Committee Report: No Report
Bylaw Committee Report: No Report
Precinct 2 Report - given by Precinct Chair, Priscilla Ryan: Precinct 2 voted to remove the following
members:
Lizabeth Ann Malinski
Brooks E Rice
Kim Marie Sullivan
Precinct 3 Report - given by Precinct Chair, Frank Driscoll: Precinct 3 voted to remove the following
members:
None
Precinct 5 Report - given by Precinct Chair, Janice Jones: Precinct 5 voted to remove the following
members:
None
Precinct 6 Report - given by Precinct Chair, James Mulvey: Precinct 6 voted to remove the following
members:
Alison M Piper
Chad R Smith
Precinct 7 Report - given by Precinct Chair, Daniel Ensminger: Precinct 7 voted to remove the
following members:
None
Precinct 8 Report - given by Precinct Chair, William Hecht: Precinct 8 voted to remove the following
members:
None
Motion Carried to Remove the Above Members
ARTICLE 3
To choose all other necessary Town Officers and Special Committees and determine what instructions
shall be given Town Officers and Special Committees, and to see what sum the Town will vote to
appropriate by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, for the purpose of funding Town
Officers and Special Committees to carry out the instructions given to them, or take any other action with
respect thereto.
The following Instructional Motions were submitted as follows:
Motion made by Ronald D'Addario, Precinct 6:
In recognition of May as National Bike month, this motion instructs our selectmen to work with our
Walkable Reading Committee and the Reading Climate Committee to provide safe street lanes for
bicycles.
2011 Annual Town Meeting
Background: We have already in place bike racks installed around town at our schools and municipal
buildings to our depot. We need to take the next step to make bike riding safer for family outings whether
to our downtown or to one of our recreational parks.
Installing bike lanes, whether a separate path or just a white line on the street, provides a margin of safety
required by bicyclists especially those with younger children. Presently, moving about town by bike can
be hazardous to your health. Let's work to improve this dangerous situation to make Reading a bike
friendly town. If Boston can do it, surely, Reading can too. Thank you.
Motion Carried
Motion made by Russell Graham, Precinct 4:
Move that the Reading Board of Selectmen appoint a committee for the purpose of studying the Oakland
Road property to determine the best use of or disposition of said property. Such committee to include
members of Town Meeting and representatives of the Reading School Committee and representatives of
the Reading Recreation Committee.
Motion Carried
Motion made by Marsie West, Finance Committee:
Move that Town Meeting instruct the Board of Selectmen, Town Manager, and School Committee /School
Department to explore the following revenue enhancement ideas recommended by Reading citizens at
the Financial Forum held on September 15, 2010 and report back to Town Meeting and Finance
Committee by October 2011 with:
• Specific actions taken (organizations consulted, timelines)
• Comments on feasibility of opportunity
• Follow up tasks to achieve additional revenue
The goal of this motion is to include all feasible opportunities in the revenue budget for FY 13. Finance
Committee would appreciate interim monthly updates beginning in June 2011 until the ideas are either
implemented or the responsible Board /Manager votes to take other action on them.
1) Town Manager:
a) Additional cell tower opportunities
b) Advertising / Billboards (including electronic billboards)
c) Expanded rental of space /increased rental fees
2) School Committee / School Department:
a) Expanded rental of existing space
b) Naming rights for buildings and other property
3) Board of Selectmen
a) Increase parking fees at Depot
b) Sponsoring of town trees, benches, lights, etc.
c) Sale of Town land (Oakland Road)
Background: The Finance Committee sponsored a series of Financial Forums last fall to encourage
citizens to bring forth their ideas on revenue enhancement as well as cost reductions. At the September
15, 2010 session, approximately 50 citizens and board members attended and offered their revenue
enhancement ideas, then voted their priorities. More than 25 ideas were generated and received votes.
Each of the items listed above was among the top voted items (7+ votes for each). Many of the cost
reduction opportunities identified at the October 27, 2010 Financial Forum have been incorporated into
the FY2011 budget proposal.
The goal of this motion is for the Boards, Town Manager and Schools to actively pursue these
opportunities and implement all feasible revenue enhancement measures. Finance Committee would like
to be informed of their status on a regular basis using the evaluation criteria on the attachment developed
by the Committee to help assess the opportunities. Our goal is to keep these ideas front and center to
help provide additional revenues that benefit the Town.
2011 Annual Town Meeting
Motion Carried
Motion made by Frederick Van Magness Sr, Precinct 8:
Move that the Board of Selectmen and the Reading Housing Authority, in implementing any distribution of
funds to other than non - profit entities from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Trust) per the plan
approved under Article 24 of this Town Meeting or any subsequent Town Meeting, be instructed to loan
funds for a period not to exceed 10 years, with security and guaranteed repayment of principal to the
Trust, instead of providing outright grants.
In addition, to ensure the maximum long term affordable housing benefit to Reading from the use of these
Trust funds, the Board of Selectmen and the Reading Housing Authority are instructed to limit
distributions to any single entity to not more than 50 % of the available Trust funds.
Motion made by Philip Pacino, Bylaw Committee to change non - profit to qualified tax - excempt entities
Motion Accepted
Motion made by Stephen Crook, Precinct 3 to delete the entire second paragraph
Motion to Amend Carried
Original Motion as Amended does not Car
Motion made by Daniel Ensminger, Precinct 7; John Carpenter, Precinct 7; Maryann Quinn,
Precinct 6; Erin Calvo -Baci, Precinct 5; David Mancuso, Precinct 4:
Move that Town Meeting instruct the Town Moderator appoint a five - person review committee comprised
of two (2) Reading citizens or businessmen at large, one (1) Historical Committee member, one (1) liaison
from the Economic Development Committee and one (1) liaison from the Community Planning and
Development Committee to conduct a public review of Reading General Bylaws, Section 5.13, Demolition
of Structures of Potential Historical Significance, reporting back to Town Meeting at its Adjourned Meeting
approximately November of 2011 with:
• Identification of the sufficiency or deficiency of the aforementioned bylaws relating to the
protection of private property owners' legal rights under the 5th amendment of the US constitution
and the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
• Draft Bylaw amendment including a public process that complies with US and Commonwealth
Constitution and laws and preserves property owners' rights, for (a) adding, revising, and
removing specific properties from Reading's list of historically significant buildings; (b) appealing
and adjudicating decisions of the Historical Commission regarding such properties; (c)
establishing unambiguous and specific criteria for adding, revision, and /or removing specific
properties from said list; and (d) provides for public posting of the list of protected properties and
periodic notification of subject property owners.
• Identification of areas for improvement in the business processes of the Historical Commission for
the selection, notification, and hearing process that ensures owners of properties under
consideration for addition to the Demolition Delay list are ensured due process prior to having
their property added to the list and throughout the process of renovating, demolishing or selling
the property in question.
• Recommendation of other historic preservation processes and functions that represent the best
and most public processes of other Historical Commissions in the Commonwealth.
• Specific actions required to revise the aforementioned bylaw to ensure a transparent public
process for the preservation of historic properties and the protection of private property owners'
rights under the law.
Town Counsel should be made available as a resource to answer written questions from the committee
regarding constitutionality. The goal of this motion is establish a clear, concise and equitable bylaw that
enables the Town to balance its desire to preserve properties of historic significance while fully respecting
2011 Annual Town Meeting
the rights of the individual property owner in a manner that harmonizes relationships between concerned
parties.
Background: Discussion surrounding the recent 75 to 73 vote to return the Demolition Delay to its
original 6 month waiting period graphically depicts the Town's desire to preserve properties of potential
historic significance while respecting the rights of private property owners and preventing undue financial
or emotion hardship on those property owners. While the vote was in effect, a laudable compromise
between views on either side of the issue, it failed to address the substantive question of whether the
town needs to revise Section 5.13 of the General Bylaws to ensure the legal protection of private property
owners rights. By conducting a formal review of Bylaw 5.13, Reading will ensure a smoother process for
protecting historic properties, minimizing possible legal liabilities for the Town and setting a new standard
of cooperation within the community.
Motion to make an amendment by Angela Binda, Precinct 5
Committee to evaluate all aspect of the demolition delay bylaw - 7 member committee
2 Historical Commission Members
1 Board of Selectmen Member
2 Members (total) from the following committees which have Regulatory Authority and oversee land use:
CPDC
ZBA
Conservation Commission
1 Member EDC
1 Town Meeting Member (not serving on one of the above named boards)
Motion to Amend does not Car
Motion as Presented does not Carry
Motion made by Ronald D'Addario, Precinct 6:
The Town Manager and Selectmen are instructed to find a town or village in the tornado ravaged
American south who desperately needs help. The Town Manager is instructed to contact the selected
town's mayor to determine the needs of the community especially those needs that we could fill. By
whatever means possible funds are raised, we load a rental box truck with those provisions and drive
them to our sister town.
Motion does not Carry
Motion to adjourn made by a Town Meeting Member
Move to adjourn the 2011 Annual Town Meeting sine die at 10:14 PM
Motion Carried
A true copy Attest
Laura A Gemme
Town Clerk
2011 Annual Town Meeting
3
0
c�
El
T
Irm
O
N
a. •ssr C
4
s
L
^_m
n
L
0
?�
U
. N
N
>
Q
M
U)
N
v
v
U)
a)
C
.>1
E
U
�
a)
>
E
-0
Q
0
co
m
a)
cn
a)
�C:
n
0
N
c�
N
r---q
V
i`I
C�
C�
r
c�
i
�0
bA
O
N
0
N
v
0
O
a�
r�
W
V J
t ' J
•
t " J
0
V
4)
�o
� N
b!J
H '�
aj
I�
�I aj
C�
c�
� O
V
O
uno
(2)
�Q
v�
v
C)
AM
cc�
O
d�
V
0
W
V
O
r
E�
4�
4�
4�
c�
O
u
O
4�
c�
O
v
4-1
V
(0.)
O
N-
0
O
CJ�
0
U
a�
0
a�
a�
Q
.-1
0
U
I I
U
Q
U
9
N
a�
H ��
•
,.�
W
V
O
r
E�
4�
4�
4�
c�
O
u
O
4�
c�
O
v
4-1
V
(0.)
O
N-
0
O
CJ�
0
U
a�
0
a�
a�
Q
.-1
0
U
I I
U
Q
U
9
N
a�
H ��
(Z.
4�
4�
79d,
C�
G�
4�
a�
i
n.
�d
a�
v
7dl�
9
a�
a�
� o
B aA
a
C16.
4�
C�
0� N
a�
C)
�Wn
O
0
a�
a�
c�
4-1
V
O
W
4-1
� � U
U
� o �
O
u
tc
O � O
V
0
O O
r U)
v�
N
bO
H '�
O
4�
ITS
�;49
u
4�
�-I
C6
a)
4
M
cn
W
E
E
0
O
O
cn
O Q
zQ
O
H A.4
C
21
N
O
4�
wo
'c/)
0
U)
O
O
U
O
p
Q
L
O
L-
N
N
W
06
O
�
C:
C:
�
o
o
a,
O
O
�O
L
IZ-
O
L
.a)
•L
(�
a)
X-
(D
O
}i
O
■
y-
O
}+
'U)
0
i
v
O
00
Q
0
.0
V
O
O
O
0
U
M
4-
O
n
x
L
C6
a)
4
M
cn
W
E
E
0
O
O
cn
O Q
zQ
O
H A.4
C
21
a,
v
N
a�
V
N
cc�
4�
.�
ED]
ME
• r-i
V)
X
(2)
N
O
v
U
Q
R,
V
4�
4�
c�
bA
a�
V
O
4�
c�
W
0
c�
bl0
O
O
3
0
V
.C)
O
bA
.k
0
WN
c�
�I
�I
1:�
el
"ME4
P004
ww
0 7=4
Cis
i�
�ie
U�
C-0
tz
u
O •�
0
UO
V
O
WN
bA
c�
r�
0
a�
u
O
yO
y.
A
10E I
C)
O
bA
c�
U
of
I
Ln
O
c�
a
.
X
O
u
y,
a�
a�
m
bA
c�
U
u J
irt+
•• r-1
a�
N
c�
O
N
O
U
Q
U
cc�
O
20:
a�
� o
� bo
H '�
n•
O
t1y
O
w
0
v
O
O
4�
O
-�
4-1
4�
4�
u
0
.rmlq
a�
c�
4�
u
u
4�
c�
4�
C�
N
V)
a�
a�
O
b,10
O
20:
u
O
O
O
O
a�
u
0
0
O
4�
4�
4�
X
4�
4�
u
0
A
4�
4�
4�
. r..q
c�
O
U
Q
U
0
c�
.(3)
4�
7�
c�
Al
N
O
H
�o
a�
=O
v
� O
u
elf ' i i ly li,
r
v�
tjo
to
ON
-�--�
elf ' i i ly li,
r
v�
tjo
l=
L
■
tt``wW I
f
Cool
v
R� C�
O
V J
O
h� • r-1
r
4-j
N •
0
B aA
H 'CL4
V
w
4-0
el
Z
Clf)
Lr)
Lr)
V
O
(3)
4-j
•
.9
U
CL4
O
c�
To
c�
Oi0
rO
V
O
4�
b.A
O
b.A
c�
V
O
4�
X
W
•
�o
aCq
�V)
z
0
w
N
O �
H �
■
C
3
0
El
0
N
a a
o •, 3
3o e'
S9,61,
.I
O
N
m
Q�
U
�
O
�
a
L
L
O
0
O
c�
CD
C:
�
o
O
•