Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-16 Bylaw Committee MinutesQ Bylaw Committee Minutes #124 March 16, 1988 Members present: Ed Murphy, George Theophanis, Delores Carroll and Phil Pacino 7:35 Meeting called to order by Chairman Murphy in the Employees Lounge of Town Hall Minutes of meeting #123 were approved by a vote of 4 -0. Article 28 was the first piece of business taken up. Present to explain the substance of the article for the Assessor were Bob Nordstrand and YAno Tine. It was explained that the article would allow a raise in the property exemption granted to certain non - profit organization from $400,000 to $700,000. The Assessors stated that they do not have a point of view in favor of the article or against it. After discussion on a motion of George Theophanis and seconded by Phil Pacino the committee approved to recommend the Article by a vote of 4 -0. The committee then discussed Article 27. Chairman Murphy reported that it was his understanding that the article would be indefinately postponed. The committee decided that as a precaution if a motion to that effect did not pass then they should take a stand on the article. On a motion of George Theophanis and seconded by Phil Pacino the committee agreed not to recommend Article 27 by a vote of 4 -0. Chairman Murphy reported that the CPDC would be holding a public meeting on Article 32. The committee agreed to hold any action on the article under after the public hearing. The committee then turned its attention to Article 21. Present to explain the article was the petitioner Bud Mangosian. Also present were Conservation Committee member Harold Hulse and Joan Nickerson along with Conservation Administrator Beth MacKillop. Mr. Mangosian presented his reasons for the proposal and adoption of the article. In summary he stated that the article would eliminate the present ConsCom rules and regulation and replace them with a set of standards set forth in DEQE regulations. He felt that this change would make the Rules and Regulations the ConsCom would operate under more uniform with those used in other parts of the state. Harold Hulse read a statement into the record on the reasons why the Conservation Committee is against approval of the article. A copy of that statement is attached herewith. After considerable discussion the committee decided that it needed to see a copy of the DEQE regulations proposed to be made part of the Bylaws and a copy of the ConsCom rules and regulations that they presently operate under. 11 Additionally Chairman Murphy at the request of the members would be in touch with Town Counsel on the wording of the article. Chairman Murphy read a memo from Doris Fantasia, Town Clerk, on an instructional motion made at a prior Town Meeting that the committee had not acted on yet. The instructional motion dealt with the issue of who could request reconsideration of a Town Meeting vote. The present Bylaw allows anyone to ask for reconsideration. The instructional motion directed that Bylaw Committee change the Town Bylaws to allow only an individual who voted on the prevailing side to ask for reconsideration. The committee decided that this was an issue that should be part of the recodification of the Bylaws and felt that it should be taken up at that time. 9:00 Committee adjourned to meet on Wednesday, March 30, 1988 at 7:30. Respectfully submitted, CK" A t-L--� Philip B. Pacino, Clerk A Statem�n_ts UUr preliminary r ;;.:'v'iew of Article 21 and its lmnll(: atjonF, twh.icn include discussion with Town Counsel and an environmental lawyer) is incomplete. 4. The Conservation Conmls5171 recommends tnat the BV taw Committee 1556ue can untavor<= n to recommendation to Town r''if,etini� regard i.nr_:, Article 21 beca "se the implications have not been fua P. evaluated and it has not ORen shown to be in the Town s best_ in- terest. (If it isn t. broken, don't. +ix it!) �/I�if1Wa17 - L(NdWand to A S"Wizzoution Of OU7. _Aatuza[,:�RF_:ioazcz:i J. The Conservation Commission has not been approached by anv wroup or individual. indicating that changes to the Reading wet-' lands tiv-t...aw, Artic. ie 32 are needed would be happy to meet at any time or desired. The regarding desired Eommissinn changes to Article 52 or its administration. 2. The .intent of Article 21 is unknown therefore, it is Im- QOssIble to determine 1't• Article 21 as written will accompl ch its intended purpose. UUr preliminary r ;;.:'v'iew of Article 21 and its lmnll(: atjonF, twh.icn include discussion with Town Counsel and an environmental lawyer) is incomplete. 4. The Conservation Conmls5171 recommends tnat the BV taw Committee 1556ue can untavor<= n to recommendation to Town r''if,etini� regard i.nr_:, Article 21 beca "se the implications have not been fua P. evaluated and it has not ORen shown to be in the Town s best_ in- terest. (If it isn t. broken, don't. +ix it!) �/I�if1Wa17 - L(NdWand to A S"Wizzoution Of OU7. _Aatuza[,:�RF_:ioazcz:i