HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-15 Subsequent Town Meeting MinutesSUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
Reading Memorial High School November 15, 2012
The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Alan E. Foulds, at 7:37 PM, there being a
quorum present. The meeting began with the Pledge of Alleglance to the Flag.
ARTICLE 6: John Arena, Board of Selectmen moved that the Town vote to transfer the
sum of three hundred and nine thousand dollars ($309,000) received from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in payment for development within the Town's 4011 Smart
Growth Zoning Districts into the Smart Growth Stabilization Fund.
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Backaround:The Town of Reading has received an additional $309,000 in payments from
the State for the 40R Smart Growth projects at 30 Haven Street and at Reading Woods. In a
program presented to Town Meeting in the fall of 2011, the Town Manager outlined a 3 to 4
year program of dedicating those funds to one time expenditures - primarily by accelerating
the road and sidewalk improvement program.
This article will move that $309,000 to the stabilization fund. It is anticipated that at the
2013 Annual Town Meeting a request will be made to appropriate all or part of these funds
for road improvements consistent with the 3 to 4 year plan.
Finance Committee Report - given by David Greenfield: The Finance Committee
recommends the subject matter of this Article by a vote of 7 -0 -0 at their October 17, 2012
meeting. The funds represent $3,000 per affordable housing unit within the two 40R Smart
Growth Districts. Passing this Article moves the funds from the general fund, where they
would ultimately flow to free cash, to the stabilization fund so that they may be used for
their intended purpose.
Bylaw Committee Report: No report
Presentation given by:
Bob LeLacheur - See Attached
2/3 Vote Required
Declared Unanimous by Moderator
141 Town Meeting Members In Attendance
ARTICLE 7: Stephen Goldy, Board of Selectmen moved that the Town vote to transfer
from Free Cash the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) into the Sick Leave Stabilization
Fund.
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Backaround:The Town set up a Stabilization Fund a number of years ago to be utilized to
pay sick leave buy back and /or accrued vacation leave to employees who are leaving the
employ of the Town - usually through retirement. Sick Leave buy -back is being phased out
for municipal employees, but there are still a number of employees who are eligible. The
fund currently has a balance of $ 3,800 (if the transfer in Article 4 is approved), and the
Town Manager is recommending putting an additional $ 50,000 into the fund as there are
known FY13 future expenses of $ 41,552 that will be paid out prior to Annual Town Meeting
In April 2013.
Prior to having a stabilization fund for this purpose Individual department budgets had to
anticipate retirements and increase or decrease from year to year to pay such expenses.
This resulted in periodic artificial increases in Department budgets, making it difficult to
budget from year to year.
Finance Committee Report - given by Jeanne Borawski: The Finance Committee
recommends the subject matter of this Article by a vote of 7 -0 -0 at their October 17, 2012
meeting. The Finance Committee supports the use of a sick Leave Stabilization Fund, as it
allows a more accurate historic look at operating budgets, without the distortion of these
one -time payments. The practice of "buying out" a retiring Town employee's sick time is
being phased out.
Bylaw Committee Report:No report
Presentation given by:
. Bob LeLacheur - See Attached
2/3 Vote Required
Declared Unanimous by Moderator
141 Town Meeting Members In Attendance
ARTICLE 8: Ben Tafoya, Board of Selectmen moved that the Town vote to authorize the
Board of Selectmen to accept the conveyance of drainage easements located at 152 and
156 Walnut Street which easements are shown on a plan entitled: "Drainage Easement
located at 152 and 156 Walnut Street, Reading MA" dated August 20, 2012 upon such terms
and conditions and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deems to be in the
best interest of the Town.
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Backaround: Residents located In the vicinity of 152 to 162 Walnut Street and 13 & 17
Curtis Street are experiencing periodic Flooding of their properties during heavy rain storms.
There is an existing Town owned drainage system and easement located In the area.
However the Flooding the residents are experiencing, which is the result of an Isolated
depression, is not tributary to the current drainage system.
The acceptance of a 3,240.9 +/- square foot drainage easement as depicted on the plan
entitled "Drainage Easement Located At 152 and 156 Walnut Street, Reading, Me" prepared
by the Reading Engineering Division dated August 20, 2012 will enable the Town to
construct and maintain the necessary drainage improvements to alleviate the flooding.
Funding for the construction is available in the Storm Water Management budget.
The following owners have agreed to transfer the following easement rights to the Town for
a nominal fee of $ 1.00.
Location Owner Easement Area
152 Walnut Street Stephanie A. Viani and James B. Hromadka 625 +/- SF
156 Walnut Street Daniel F. Fleming and Margaret A. Fleming 2,615.8 +/- SF
J � j
4 ii v
Finance Committee Report - given by David Greenfield: The Finance Committee
recommends the subject matter of this Article by a vote of 7 -0 -0 at their October 17, 2012
meeting.
Bylaw Committee Report: No report
Presentation given by:
George Zambouras - See Attached
2/3 Vote Required
Declared Unanimous by Moderator
141 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
ARTICLE 9: Richard Schubert, Board of Selectmen moved that the Town vote to raise by
borrowing pursuant to MGL Chapter 44, §7(1) and appropriate for the purpose of
reconstructing surface drains, sewers and sewerage systems, including the costs of
engineering services, plans, documents, cost estimates, bidding services and all related
expenses incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith the sum of four hundred
and twenty one thousand dollars ($ 421,000), said sum to be spent under the direction of
the Town Manager; and
Stephen Goldy moved to dispense of the reading of the Article
Motion to Dispense Carried
that the Town vote to authorize the Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen, or any other
agency of the Town to apply for a grant or grants to be used to defray all or any part of said
sewer construction and /or reconstruction and related matters; and
that the Town vote to authorize the Town Manager to enter into any or all agreements as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Article, and that the Town authorize the
Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen, or any other agency of the Town to apply for a
non - Interest bearing loan from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, and to
authorize the Treasurer - Collector, with the approval of the Board of Selectmen, to borrow
pursuant to said loan.
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Backaround:The MWRA's Infiltration and Inflow (I /I) Local Financial Assistance Program
provides support to MWRA member communities to perform sewer rehabilitation and reduce
infiltration and inflow into the sewer system. Infiltration occurs when surface water enters
sewers through leaks, cracks and faulty joints In pipes and manholes. Inflow is mused from
stormwater runoff that enters the sewer system through Improper connections such as
cross connected drains, roof drains and sump pumps.
MWRA Assistance
• The assistance is provided through a combination grant and no- interest loan
• Phase 8 Allocation is $ 421,000 - $ 189,450 (45 %) Grant $ 231,550 (55 %) Non -
interest loan
• Loan pay back to the MWRA - Equal Installments over a Five -Year Period beginning
one year after distribution of the funds
Acceptance of the grant/loan offer will enable the Town to continue with its I/I removal
program to remove unwanted storm water flows from the sewer system which reduces
excess sewer assessments from the MWRA and decreases the excess demand on the sewer
system.
The Town's I/I removal program consists of:
• House -to -house inspections
o The house -to -house inspections identify inappropriate direct connections (inflow)
to the Town's sewer system with the purpose of assisting residents with
identifying methods to remove the connections. The Town also provides limited
financial assistance to the homeowner.
• TV inspections, testing and sealing of manholes and sewer mains
o TV inspections and the testing and sealing of manholes and sewer mains allows
the Town to internally inspect sewer mains and manholes to with the purpose of
identifying and eliminating points of infiltration into the sewer system.
Sewer system smoke testing
o Smoke testing of the sewer system is a method of identifying points of infiltration
or inflow into the sewer system where visual or TV inspection access is not
possible
Spot repair, lining and replacement of sewers
o Spot repairs, lining and replacement of sewers are performed when damage to
the sewer system is not repairable or cost effective through internal sealing.
Flow metering and gauging
o The Town also performs now metering and gauging to assist the Town in
determining the areas of the sewer system that are experiencing the highest
levels infiltration and inflow. Flow metering also assists in determining how
affective the Town has been in mitigating I/I for the past several years.
Finance Committee Report - given by David Greenfield: The Finance Committee
recommends the subject matter of this Article by a vote of 7 -0 -0 at their October 17, 2012
meeting. This continues our repairs of sewer inflow and infiltration with favorable terms
Including a 45% grant and Interest free loan for the remaining 55% of this phase.
• u u t �
Presentation given by:
• George Zambouras - See Attached
2/3 Vote Required
Declared Unanimous by Moderator
141 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
Motion Carried
ARTICLE 10: Dick Curtis moved to Indefinitely Postpone Article 10
Motion to Indefinitely Postpone Carried
ARTICLE 11: James Bonazoli, Board of Selectmen moved that the Town vote pursuant to
MGL Chapter 82, 421 and MGL Chapter 40 to discontinue a portion of Jacob Way shown as
Parcel 7 on a plan entitled "Modified Subdivision Plan of Land & Jacob Way /South Street
Alteration Plan Reading Woods in Reading, MA" Prepared For Pulte Homes of New England,
-l-C, 115 Flanders Road, Westboro, MA 01581, dated September 20, 2011 and recorded
with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 327 of 2012 and
Stephen Goldy moved to dispense of the reading of the Article
Motion to Disoense Carried
That the Town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey Parcel 7 on said plan to
Pulte Homes of New England, L-C; and
That the Town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to accept a grant of land from Pulte
Homes of New England, LLC shown on said plan as Parcel 2, Parcel 3, and Parcel 4, subject
to a temporary construction easement reserved by Pulte Homes on said parcels, with
• Parcels 2 and 3 to become part of the Jacob Way alteration, and
• Parcels 4 and 5, Parcel 5 formerly being a portion of Jacob Way, to become part of the
South Street alteration
all as shown on said plan; and
That the Town vote to accept the layout of the Jacob Way and the South Street alterations
as shown on a plan entitled "Alteration of Jacob Way and South Street in Reading, MA"
prepared by Marchionda & Associates, L.P. dated October 23, 2012.
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Background: During the review and acceptance of the Reading Woods Condominium
complex the Town required the reconfiguration of Jacob Way and South Street. This Article
authorizes the necessary acceptance of land transfers, discontinuance of roadways and
acceptance of the alteration in the roadway layouts of Jacob Way and South Street as
approved by the Community Planning and Development Commission and the Board of
Selectmen following extensive public hearings.
Re- location of Jacob Way five (5) feet southerly
The existing Jacob Way is to be relocated approximately 5 feet in a southerly direction for
the majority of its length. To provide for this relocation and to keep the current minimum
width of Jacob Way forty (40) feet for the majority of its length, the Town will discontinue
the Portion of Jacob Way shown as Parcel 7 containing 4,100 +/- SF as depicted on the plan
entitled "Modified Subdivision Plan of Land & Jamb Way /South Street Alteration Plan
Reading Woods in Reading, MA" Prepared For Pulte Homes of New England, LLC, 115
Flanders Road, Westboro, MA 01581, dated September 20, 2011 and recorded with the
Middlesex South Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 327 of 2012. The discontinued Parcel 7 will
be transferred to Pulte Homes of New England LLC. for the consideration of no more than
One Hundred ($100.00)00/100 Dollars
Pulte Homes of New England LLC will grant to the Town of Reading Parcel 2 containing
3,121 +/- s.f. for roadway purposes as shown on the plan entitled "Modified Subdivision
Plan of Land & Jacob Way /South Street Alteration Plan Reading Woods in Reading, MA"
Prepared For Pulte Homes of New England, LLC, 115 Flanders Road, Westboro, MA 01581,
dated September 20, 2011 and recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds as Plan
No. 327 of 2012. Said parcel is necessary for the re- alignment of the Jacob Way in the
southerly direction.
The combination of Parcel 6 (the remainder of the current Jacob Way layout
discontinued), Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 (identified below) will form the relocated layout of
Jacob Way.
Alteration of the ]scab Way and South Street intersection
To provide sufficient roadway layout for the recommended alteration of the Jacob
Way /South Street intersection Pulte Homes of New England LLC will grant to the Town of
Reading Parcel 3 containing 1.197 +/- SF and Parcel 4 containing 3.498 +/- SF for roadway
purposes as shown on the plan entitled "Modified Subdivision Plan of Land & Jacob
Way /South Street Alteration Plan Reading Woods in Reading, MA" Prepared For Pulte Homes
of New England, LLC, 115 Flanders Road, Westboro, MA 01581, dated September 20, 2011
and recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 327 of 2012.
Parcel 3 will become part of Jacob Way layout alterations and Parcel 4 will become part of
South Street layout alteration.
Pulte Homes of New England LLC will grant parcels 2, 3 and 4 a total of 9,083 +/- s.f. to the
Town of Reading for the consideration of no more than One Hundred ($100.00)00/100
Dollars.
Jacob Way Alteration
Upon completion of the land transfers the layout of Jacob Way is hereby altered to the
following meets and bounds:
Beginning at a granite monument to be set which is located on south line of the
relocated South Street, a public, variable width right of way which is also the north east
terminus of Jacob Way, as relocated;
thence S 24 050'44" W a distance of 85.36';
thence 102.52' along a curve turning to the right with a radius of 250.00';
thence S 48 °20'26" W a distance of 134.38' to a granite monument to be set;
thence 162.82' along a curve turning to the right with a radius of 285.00' to a granite
monument to be set;
thence S 81 004'28" W a distance of 445.86' to a granite monument to be set;
thence 31.76' along a curve turning to the right with a radius of 100.00' to a granite
monument to be set which is located at the north west terminus of Jacob Way;
thence S 03 °19'02" E a distance of 45.22' to a granite monument to be set which is
located at the south west terminus of Jacob Way, as relocated;
thence N 81 °04'28" E a distance of 610.87' to a granite monument to be set which is
located on the north line of State Highway Route 128 also known as Interstate Highway
Route I -95;
thence along the north line of said highway 209.82' along a curve turning to the right
with a radius of 375.00';
thence N 33 °26'28" E a distance of 193.93' to a granite monument to be set on the
south line of South Street at the south east terminus of Jacob Way, as relocated;
thence along the south line of South Street N 56 033'32" W a distance of 58.96' to a
granite monument to be set;
which Is the point of beginning,
having an area of approximately 43,163 square feet, 0.99 acres.
as shown on the plan entitled "Modified Subdivision Plan of Land @ Jacob Way /South Street
Alteration Plan Reading Woods in Reading, MA" Prepared For Pulte Homes of New England,
LLC, 115 Flanders Road, Westboro MA 01581, dated September 20, 2011 and recorded with
the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 327 of 2012 and further depicted on a
plan entitled "Alteration of Jacob Way and South Street" prepared by Marchionda N
Associates, L.P. of Stoneham, MA, for the Town of Reading, dated October 23, 2012
South Street Alteration
Upon completion of the land transfers the layout of South Street is hereby altered to include
the following meets and bounds:
Beginning at a point located on south line of South Street, a public, variable width right
of way and the east line of land now or formerly of Murphy;
thence along land now or formerly of Murphy S O8 °47'52" E a distance of 5.17' to a
granite monument to be set;
thence N 80 °44'14" E a distance of 68.49' to a granite monument to be set;
thence 47.22' along a curve turning to the right with a radius of 75.00' to a granite
monument to be set;
thence 46.10' along a curve turning to the right with a radius of 30.00' to a granite
monument to be set;
thence S 56 033'32" E a distance of 58.96' to a granite monument to be set which is
located on the south line of Jacob Way, a public, variable width right of way;
thence along the south line of Jacob Way the following two courses:
N 33 026'28" E a distance of 120.95' to a granite monument to be set;
34.68' along a curve turning to the right with a radius of 40.00' to a point which is
located at the intersection of the south line of Jacob Way and the south line of South
Street;
thence along South Street the following three courses:
S 83 °07'18" W a distance of 128.34';
S 06 °52'42" E a distance of 7.66';
S 81 °12'08" W a distance of 147.66' to the point of beginning;
having an area of approximately 9,409 square feet, 0.22 acres.
as shown on the plan entitled "Modified Subdivision Plan of Land & Jacob Way /South Street
Alteration Plan Reading Woods in Reading, MA" Prepared For Pulte Homes of New England,
LLC, 115 Flanders Road, Westboro, MA 01581, dated September 20, 2011 and recorded
with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 327 of 2012 and further depicted on
a plan entitled "Alteration of Jacob Way and South Street" prepared by Marchionda &
Associates, L.P. of Stoneham, MA, for the Town of Reading, dated October 23, 2012
The Board of Selectmen held a public hearing on October 23, 2012 and unanimously voted
in favor of the discontinuance, alteration and relocation of Jacob Way and South Street.
Engineering plans, with metes and bounds description of the streets, are available for public
examination in the office of the Town Clerk and the Engineering Division
t
3i.. Si5
1`
ISL
FINAL RIGHT OF WAY
LINES
JACOB WAY AND
SOUTH STREET WITH
PAVEMENT
t
FINAL RIGHT OF WAY
LINES
JACOB WAY AND
SOUTH STREET WITH
PAVEMENT
Finance Committee Report - given by David Greenfield: The Finance Committee
recommends the subject matter of this Article by a vote of 7 -0 -0 at their October 17, 2012
meeting.
Bylaw Committee Report: No report
Presentation given by:
. George Zambouras - See Attached
2/3 Vote Required
Declared Unanimous by Moderator
141 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
Motion Carried
ARTICLE 12: John Arena, Board of Selectmen moved to see if the Town will vote to amend
the Reading General Bylaw by adding the following section 8.11:
Section 8.11 Trash Collection
No person shall collect, or cause others to collect trash, rubbish, garbage, recycling, offal or
other offensive substances (whether from dumpsters, barrels, or otherwise, and whether on
the public way, a private way or any lot) after 9:00 PM and before 6:30 AM in any
residential district of the Town or within 100 yards of such a district as shown on the then
current Zoning Map.
or take any other action with respect thereto
Background: Massachusetts General Law prohibits a community from enforcing regulations
restricting rubbish collection in commercial areas at night. However, a community may
regulate hours of rubbish collection in commercial areas by a local bylaw.
In residential areas the community may, as Reading does, establish hours of rubbish
collection through Board of health regulation.
This Bylaw would prohibit rubbish collection in any residential area or in any area within 100
yards of a residential area between 9:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., consistent with current Board
of Health regulations for residential areas. Appendix C shows on a town -wide map the areas
affected by this proposed bylaw.
This has become an issue because most of Reading's commercial areas are within 100 yards
of residential areas, and when rubbish is collected at hours of the night - such as 4 am it is
a nuisance to nearby residents. The Public Health Division has and continues to receive
frequent complaints.
Finance Committee Report: No report
Bylaw Committee Report - given by Phil Pacino: Recommends by a vote of 4 -0 -0
Presentation given by:
. Peter Hechenbleikner - See Attached
James Maughan, Precinct 4 moved to amend the word "collect" to "transport off site by
commercial vehicle ".
Motion to amend does not Carry
Majority Vote
Declared by Moderator
141 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
Motion Carried as Originally Proposed
ARTICLE 13: Stephen Goldy, Board of Selectmen moved to see if the Town will vote to
rescind the entirety of Section 7.2 of the Reading General Bylaw and replace it with the
following,
James Bonazoli moved to dispense of the reading of the Article
Motion to Dispense Carried
7.2Historie 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 purpose of this bylaw, even If it ultimately cannot prevent demolition, is to find a
reasonable option to prevent complete demolition, and 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 which work would require 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 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
In considering additional structures to be included on the List, 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. 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 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,
• a copy of the inventory form for the structure,
• a statement as to the criteria considered in including additional
structures on the List, 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 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.
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 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 mall 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 at different meetings.
7.2.3.2 Owner's Appeal of addition of a structure to the List
An owner, at the public hearing at which additions to the List are to be
considered, may object to inclusion of their structure onto the List. 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 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 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 outside of the structure, and financial or other hardship that might be
created to the owner by inclusion of the structure onto the List. A structure
whose owner objects may only be included on the List if all 5 members of the
Commission vote to do so.
7.2.4 Referral of Demolition Applications of structures on the List by the Building
Inspector to the Commission
Upon the receipt of a completed Demolition Application for a structure on the List,
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, 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 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
• 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 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
referenced in section 7.2.5.
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 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 shall 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 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 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 Emeraency Demolition
Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the Building Inspector from
ordering pursuant to MGL 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.
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Backaround: At least two Town Meeting warrants over the past several years have
included petitioned warrant articles amending the Demolition Delay bylaw. Most recently the
2012 Annual Town Meeting warrant included such a petitioned article, and the Board of
Selectmen asked the petitioner to agree to an Indefinite postponement of the article so that
the Board of Selectmen, through the Town Manager, could conduct a more thorough review
of the entire bylaw, since in the Board of Selectmen discussion on the matter it became
clear that there were differences of opinion even among members of the Reading Historical
Commission on how the bylaw actually worked.
This Article would rescind the existing bylaw, and replace it with the language as presented.
There are two new sections - 7.2.3.2 which provides for an appeal by a property owner from
having his /her property included on the List of Historic Structures, and Section 7.2.6.4
which provide for an appeal from the imposition of the demolition delay by an owner of
property which is on the List of Historic Structures.
Additionally, the proposed bylaw eliminates a confusing and redundant part of the process
from the current bylaw, clarifies the process by which properties get added to the List of
Historic Structures, and otherwise clarifies and simplifies the bylaw.
Finance Committee Report: No report
Bylaw Committee Report - given by Phil Pacino: Recommends with modifications by
a vote of 4 -0 -0
The Bylaw Committee reviewed the subject matter of this article in great detail with both
the Historic Commission and the Town Manager. Additionally, the Chair of the Bylaw
Committee was a member of the working group that discussed changes to the Demolition
Delay bylaw. This article is the result of all this discussion.
The Bylaw Committee did in.its final decision make recommendations for changes to the
Article in Sections 7.2.3, 7.2.3.2 and 7.2.6.4. With these changes the Bylaw Committee
feels that the changes to both the Establishment of the List of Historical Structures and the
Demolition Delay will result in a workable document that will serve all parties well.
Bylaw Committee Recommendations Changes to Article 13
Section 7.2.3
Change the second sentence to "This List shall be updated by the Commission from
time to time as needed."
Section 7.2.3.2
Change last sentence in paragraph to "A structure whose owner objects may only be
included on the List if a minimum of 4 members of the Commission vote to do so."
Section 7.2.6.4
Delete the sentence "Filing an appeal will not extend the delay of up to 6 months
imposed under Section 7.2.6.1 of this bylaw."
And replace it with "The filing of an appeal will stay the start of the 6 months
Imposed under Section 7.2.6.1 of this bylaw until the day following the final rendering of a
decision by the Board of Selectmen on the adjudication of the appeal."
Historical Commission Report - given by Mark Cardono: In 1995, Town Meeting
adopted the Demolition Delay Bylaw to encourage saving the Town's historical structures.
This bylaw enables the Historical Commission to work with property owners to seek
alternatives to demolition. To avoid misunderstanding, demolition is defined as total
destruction of a structure; demolition in no way refers to any interior or to any exterior
alteration or renovation, including additions, expansions, removal of a porch, remodeling a
kitchen or bathroom, or other types of major modifications.
Earlier this year in response to the Selectmen's request to simplify and to clarify the process
and procedures used and to allow for greater owner participation, the Reading Historical
Commission (RHC) wrote a series of revisions to make the process more transparent and
understandable. Much of that resultant document was used by the Town Manager to rewrite
the bylaws after a Working Group laid out the current process. While the Commission
generally supports the main body of the text and believes it meets the Selectmen's
objectives, if this bylaw is adopted, a couple of its key points would greatly compromise and
limit the Commission's ability to maintain the historical aspects of Reading. Therefore, the
RHC offers and encourages the acceptance of the following three recommendations:
Recommendations:
7.2.3 Commission to establish a List of Historic Structures.
Add wording to allow for the removal of a structure from the List after it is demolished,
which would enable the maintenance of an accurate List.
7.2.3.2 Owners Appeal of addition of a structure to the list.
Modify the votes needed "to an affirmative vote by 4 members".
7.2.6.4 Appeal of Imposition to the Demolition Delay.
Remove this appeal process from the bylaw. The Commission cannot support inclusion of an
appeal process after a short term demolition moratorium is enacted, which by its nature,
has a built -in rescission. Incorporating this appeal, as written, would severely diminish the
bylaw's purpose and Its effectiveness.
Overview of Changes and Rationales:
The Commission is in agreement with the Bylaw Committee's report that supports the intent
of the first two recommendations above.
The third, if adopted over the RHC's staunch objection must incorporate safeguards to
prevent overly hasty and /or frivolous appeals and to circumvent a reduction in the six -
month time allocation for the Demolition Delay, the RHC offers two Alternative
Recommendations if the majority chooses to retain this section of the bylaw:
1. If the Selectmen vote to release a property from the Demolition Delay, the vote
should be the same super majority vote to which the RHC is held during the initial inclusion
of the structure on the List and
2. If the Selectmen vote to deny an Appeal for Demolition Delay, the six -month
Demolition Delay time period should begin the day after the Selectmen's vote.
Specific Changes and Detailed Rationales:
Recommendation 1: Section 7.2.3 Commission to Establish a List of Historic Structures
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)
following the demolition of the property, 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 is an editorial change to add the phrase ", following the demolition of the property,"
after the words "or subtracted ".
• Point of clarification - List Update
Currently, there are no provisions in the bylaw to remove a demolished property from the
List. This phrase would allow the Commission to update the List and to have such an
accurate List available for the Building Inspector. Note: this removal from the List does not
remove the property from the Town of Reading's Historical and Architectural Inventory, as
this is a permanent record of Reading's past.
Recommendation 2: Section 7.2.3.2 Owner's Appeal of addition of a structure to the List
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 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 ` all ° ffieffibeFS ,e
-- IlignAfIrmative vote of at least 4 members of the Commission.
The RHC considers this to be an appropriate appeal and is not objecting to this addition to
the Demolition Delay Bylaw. However, we are offering one modification to this section:
Replace "if all 5 members of the Commission vote to do so" with "by an affirmative vote of
at least 4 members of the Commission ".
Rationale:
• Higher Standard
Requiring a unanimous vote of 5 members imposes a higher standard than required In
nearly all other Town bodies, and the change to an affirmative vote of 4 members (a super
majority) maintains consistency throughout the Demolition Delay Bylaw.
While this vote by the RHC would affect property owners, other decisions made by Town
bodies also affect property owners, and they are not required to have a unanimous vote.
Additional Information Submitted by Property Owner for RHC's
consideration for appeal
The appeal procedure requires the RHC to consider additional information presented by the
property owner and to consider the criteria differently, so even an affirmative vote by 4
members (the same vote as that required to add a structure to the List with no objection)
would be more difficult to achieve after considering the property owner's additional
information supporting that individual's objections.
Recommendation 3: Section 7.2.6.4 Appeal of the imposition of Demolition Delay
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 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 shall 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 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 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
The Commission does not endorse the appeal provision that allows for a property owner to
seek relief from a 6 -month delay after due process before the Commission. Aggrieved
owners do have the right to an appeal to Court. The owner never loses his /her right to
demolish his /her structure, as a Delay is only an interim protection provision. The RHC
considers this to be an inappropriate appeal and objects to this addition to the Demolition
Delay Bylaw. Therefore, the RHC's recommendation is to remove the entire 7.2.6.4
section.
Rationales for this recommendation follow:
• The demolition delay was reduced from 12 months to 6 months at the April 2011
Town Meeting. This was done as a compromise between the Town's desire to maintain its
historical heritage and to the benefit of the individual property owner.
A Demolition Delay Bylaw is a common tool used by many (130 +) cities and towns
in Massachusetts. No Demolition Delay appeals are in the template for bylaws from the
Massachusetts Historical Commission, which is the template upon which the RHC's bylaw is
based.
• Town Counsel Gary Brackett in an email, April 3, 2012, to an Inquiry from Peter
Hechenbleikner, Town Manager, noted "The Demolition Bylaw ... is a form of a
moratorium on development, sometimes referred to as an 'interim protection
provision'. These controls serve to protect the status quo for a limited period of time
(6 months) while alternatives to demolition of the structure in question are explored.
.. controls of this sort are temporary ..."
• The 6 -month delay is a temporary condition which is automatically rescinded after,
the 6 -month period. This automatic rescission is unlike other decisions made by
other Town boards, which are permanent. Therefore, no appeal is necessary.
• Section 7.2.6.4 is redundant and hence unnecessary. Working with the RHC early on
in the process may result in an early release from the delay, per section 7.3.6.2
Release of Delay. The Bylaw encourages owners and the RHC to work collaboratively
to find an alternative to demolition which is acceptable to the owner. It encourages
people to work together without creating animosity or adversarial positions.
• This appeal threatens all properties (350 +) currently protected from expedient
demolition not just the 99 which were added In 2010.
Therefore, the RHC recommends that Section 7.2.6.4 be removed from Article 13.
Thank you for considering these three recommendations from the Reading Historical
Commission to Article 13.
Include in Appendix D and E are:
• A copy of an information flyer that the RHC uses for information to the community
about the Demolition Delay Bylaw, and
• A copy of an inventory form developed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission
as referenced in the proposed bylaw
Presentation given by:
Peter Hechenbleikner - See Attached
On motion made by Andrew Grimes, Precinct 4 it was voted to move the question.
2/3 Vote Required
106 Voted in the affirmative
28 Voted in the negative
141 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
Motion to Move the Question Carried
Amendment # 4
Mark Cardono, Historical Commission moved to amend Article 13 by removing section
7.2.6.4
purpose of adjud eating the appeal. The BOaFd ef Seleetmen at the heaFing shall review the
Piet ce of the heaFing she" be @iYen te the ewneF, te the Gemm ss an, and te abutters within
399 feet of the ff8peFty.
Fender a deeisian an the appeal. The dec s an shall be based an the record of the
the ewner eF the Gefnrnqssien at the Beard ef Selectmen hear ng, cans derat an ef the
PUFpese ef the bylaw as stated in seet an 7.2.1; hew the StFUetuFe meets the eF teF a-
an the outside Of the SIEFUEWFe; and F nane a' or otigeF hardship that might be created to the
owner
Amendment #4 - Motion Did Not Carry
Amendment # 3
Phil Pacino, Bylaw Committee moved to amend Article 13 -
Edit section 7.2.6.4 as follows:
Delete the sentence "Filing an appeal will not extend the delay of up to 6 months imposed
under Section 7.2.6.1 of the bylaw"
And replace it with "The filing of an appeal will stay the start of the 6 months imposed under
Section 7.2.6.1 of this bylaw until the day following the final rendering of a decision by the
Board of Selectmen on the adjudication of the appeal."
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 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 -elan- appeal
extend will net months
The filing of an appeal will stay the start of the 6 months imposed under Section
7.2.6.1 of this bylaw until the day following the final rendering of a decision by the
Board of Selectmen on the adjudication of the appeal.
Counted Voted
80 Voted in the affirmative
50 Voted in the negative
141 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
Amendment #3 - Motion Carri
Amendment # 2
Phil Pacino, Bylaw Committee moved to amend Article 13 -
Change the second sentence in the first paragraph of Section 7.2.3 from "This List shall be
updated from time to time as needed when properties are added to or subtracted from the
List of Historic Structures" to "This List shall be updated by the Commission from time to
time as needed"
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 by the Commission from time to time as needed when
The List
shall also be provided on the Town's web site or other electronic means of publishing
Information to the community.
Amendment #2 - Motion Carried
Amendment # 1
Phil Pacino, Bylaw Committee moved to amend Article 13 -
Change the last sentence of Section 7.2.3.2 from "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" to "A structure whose owner objects may only be included on the List of Historic
Structures if a minimum of 4 members of the Commission vote to do so."
7.2.3.2 Owner's Appeal of addition of a structure to the List
An owner, at the public hearing at which additions to the List are to be
considered, may object to inclusion of their structure onto the List. 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 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 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 outside of the structure, and financial or other hardship that might be
created to the owner by inclusion of the structure onto the List. A structure
whose owner objects may only be included on the List if a" 5 Fnember; a
minimum of four (4) members of the Commission vote to do so.
i r
Majority Vote
Declared by Moderator
141 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
Motion Carried as Amended
ARTICLE 14: James Maughan, Conservation Commission moved that the Town vote to
amend Reading General Bylaw Article 1, Section 1.8 Non - Criminal Civil Disposition of
Certain Violations of the Bylaw, by:
Stephen Goldy moved to dispense of the reading of the Article
Motion to Dispense Carried
• changing the title to read: Non - Criminal Civil Disposition of Certain Violations of the
Bylaw and any Rule or Regulation of a town officer, board or department ";
• amending the first sentence to add after the word "bylaw" the following: "and any
rule or regulation of any town officer, board or department "; and
• deleting the monetary penalties set out in Section 7.1 and adding the following
subsections so that Section 7.1 Wetlands Protection should read as follows:
Bylaw
Bylaw /Regulation
Enforcing Person
Penalty
Penalty
Penalty
Section
Title
First
Second
Additional
Offense
Offense
Offenses
7.1
Wetlands Protection
Conservation
Commission,
Conservation
Administrator
Regulation
a. Failure to file a Notice of Intent or
$
Section 2.H.
Request for Determination of Applicability
300.00
and to receive a valid Order of Conditions
or Determination of applicability prior to
activity.
b. Failure to promptly comply with an
$
Enforcement Order
300.00
c. Failure to record Order of Conditions at
$ 25.00
the Registry of Deeds prior to activity.
d. Failure to notify the Commission prior to
$ 25.00
activity where a Condition of an Order of
Conditions or a Request for Determination
or a Minor Project permit requires such
notice.
e. Failure to install and /or properly
Warning
$ 25.00
$ 100.00
maintain erosion controls (per project).
f. Failure to comply with any Condition of
$ 25.00
an Order of Conditions or Determination of
applicability or Minor Project permit
g. Failure to apply for a Certificate of
Warning
$ 50.00
Compliance in a timely manner.
h. Conducting an activity subject to the
$ 50.00
Bylaw and Regulations after the expiration
of a valid Order of Conditions or
Determination of Applicability.
or take any other action with respect thereto
Backoround: Article 14 makes two changes to the Town Bylaw:
♦ The first Is a change in the wording of the title and introduction to make It clear that
the fines listed apply not only to violations of bylaws but also regulations. This was
suggested by Town Counsel for completeness and applies to fines of any Town
regulation, not just Conservation Commission violations.
The second change is an update of the wetland related fines to be consistent with the
more detailed description of fines currently in the Reading Wetland Regulations. The
current bylaw lists a single fine which is more or less an average of fines for
numerous infractions. Article 14 lists each individual fine for each type of violation
and is consistent with the Wetland Regulations and the historic practice of the
Conservation Commission. The Article is not intended to increase or decrease fines,
the changes are simply to provide a more detailed description and achieve
consistency with the regulations.
Town Meeting has the option of approving the specific chart of fines included in the article,
in order for them to be able to be enforced through non - criminal disposition, Town Meeting
does not have the ability to change the fines - only the Conservation Commission can do
that. If Town Meeting does not approve the schedule of fines, then enforcement of the
regulations may be done only through criminal enforcement.
Finance Committee Report: No report.
Bylaw Committee Report - given by Stephen Crook: Recommends by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Presentation given by:
• Peter Hechenbleikner - See Attached
• James Maughan - See Attached
Majority Vote
Declared by Moderator
141 Town Meeting Members In Attendance
ARTICLE 16: Charlie Adams, CPDC moved that the Town vote to amend Section 2.0
"Definitions ", Section 6.1 "Off Street Parking and Loading Areas" of the Town of Reading
Zoning By -Laws as follows: (note - cross- through represents language to be eliminated and
bold represents new language)
Richard Schubert moved to dispense of the reading of the Article
Motion to Dispense Carried
2.0 Definitions
2.2.26.1 Public Off - Street Parking Facility: Parking areas which are owned and
maintained by the Town that are open to the general public for the use of public
parking. This does not include parking facilities which are owned by the Town with
the primary use of providing parking for municipal employees or customers doing
business with the Town during normal hours of operation.
2.2.26.2 Remote Parking Facility: Parking areas which are not located on the
same lot for the use the parking facility serves.
6.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS AFFECTING ALL DISTRICTS
6.1 Off - Street Parking and Loading Areas
6.1.1 Required Spaces: Off - street Parking and Loading Spaces are required to be provided
in
accordance with the following provisions:
6.1.1.1 No land shall be used and no building shall be erected, enlarged or used
unless off - street parking areas, and off - street loading and unloading areas, conforming in
amount and type to that described herein, are provided except that retail stores, offices and
consumer service establishments located within three hundred (300) feet of a public off -
street parking facility shall be exempted from off - street parking requirements.
6.1.1.2 Off - street parking areas, or loading and unloading areas shall be provided on
the same lot as the use they serve, except that the Board of Appeals may permit off - street
parking areas to be provided on another lot, but in no event shall such areas be more than
three hundred (300) feet distance from the use they serve; provided, however, that in a
Business C District, off - street parking areas or loading and unloading areas may be provided
on or off the same lot more than three hundred (300) feet distance from the use they serve
without such permission from the Board of Appeals so long as they are located within the
Business C District and provided such parking and loading rights are evidenced by legally
sufficient instruments approved as to form by Town Counsel and filed with the Town Clerk."
except the CPDC, by Special Permit, may allow remote parking lots or shared
parking.
6.1.1.3 (Note this section is deleted under 6.1.1.3 and renumbered as 6.1.1.7)
9ff StFeet PaFl( ng areas, eF leading and unlead ng areas shall be prov ded n the arneunts
eenfliet ef nteFpFetat an as te the eategaFy ef the PF nC pal use, the Board of Appeals shall
Special Permit Criteria:
The CPDC may grant a Special Permit for remote parking or shared parking based
on the following criteria and other applicable provisions presented in this
subsection: -
(a) The capacity, location and current level of use of existing parking facilities,
both public and private;
(b) The efficient and maximum use in terms of parking needs and services
provided;
(c) The relief of traffic and parking congestion;
(d) The safety of pedestrians;
(e) The provision of reasonable access either by walking distance or shuttle
vehicle arrangements;
(f) The maintenance of the character of the area
6.1.1.4 Procedure:
Filing for a special permit shall follow all procedures required for Site Plan Review
under 4.3.3 of this Bylaw.
6.1.1.5 Remote Parking
The CPDC may grant a Special Permit for an alternative location for nonresidential
parking subject to the following provisions:
(a) the property to be occupied as parking shall be in the same possession by
deed, by easement or by written agreement (e.g. long -term lease) as the facility
served. All written agreements shall be subject to CPDC approval as to form and
length of time and a copy of the agreement shall be filed with and made part of
the application for a building or occupancy permit.
(b) Except where valet parking or other transportation between sites is provided,
the distance between the site of use and its parking area shall be recommended to
be four hundred (400) feet with a maximum of six hundred (600) feet.
(c) The remote parking area shall not create unreasonable traffic congestion or
create a hazard to pedestrians or vehicular traffic.
(d) The remote parking area shall be located on property zoned for the same or
other non - residential uses as the principal use being served by the parking.
6.1.1.6 Shared Parking Lots:
The CPDC may grant a Special Permit for shared parking facilities for
nonresidential parking subject to the following provisions:
(a) Up to fifty percent (SO %) of the parking spaces serving a building may be used
jointly for other uses not normally open, used or operated during similar hours.
The applicant must show that the peak parking demand and principal operating
hours for each use are suitable for a common parking facility. The approval may be
rescinded and additional parking may be required by the owners in the event that
the CPDC, after notice and public hearing thereon, determines the joint use is
resulting in a public nuisance or other adverse effects on public health and safety.
(b) A written agreement acceptable to the CPDC defining the joint use of the
common parking facility shall be executed by all parties concerned and approved
by the Planning Board as part of the special permit process. Such agreement shall
be recorded at the Middlesex Registry of Deeds.
(c) Any subsequent change in land uses for which the shared parking proposal
was approved, and which results in the need for additional parking spaces, shall
require review and approval by the CPDC under this subsection.
6.1.1.7 Off - street parking areas, or loading and unloading areas shall be
provided in the amounts set forth in the following table. Where the computation of
required spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one -half or more shall
be counted as one. In the event of a conflict of interpretation as to the category of
the principal use, the Board of Appeals shall determine the proper interpretation.
Off - Street Parking and Loading /Unloading Requirements:
(Note: Parking table does not change, is not repeated here.)
6.1.1.8 Phased Parking Spaces:
The CPDC may grant a Special Permit for the phasing of parking space
construction upon sufficient documentation of circumstance such as building size
or use with the following provisions:
(a) The total number of required spaces shall be in accordance with the standards
set forth in Table 6.1.1.3 and clearly identified on the site plan.
(b) The spaces which are not intended for immediate construction shall be labeled
°phased reserve parking" on the site plan and shall be properly designed into the
overall parking lot layout.
(c) No more than SO% of the total required spaces may be designated for future
construction.
(d) If at any time the Building Inspector and /or CPDC determines that additional
spaces may be needed, the "phased spaces" shall be constructed upon formal
approval from the CPDC.
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Backaround:The changes being proposed under Article 16 will allow for remote parking
lots, shared parking and phased construction of parking spaces, each through a Special
Permit from the Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC). The proposed
changes are initiated by the CPDC to provide additional tools to support and encourage
development of lots, where appropriate, that cannot meet the zoning requirements for on-
site parking. These recommendations are consistent with the recommendations of the 2009
parking study prepared by Nelson /Nygaard.
The existing Parking By -Law (Section 6.1 of the Reading Zoning By -Law) requires a certain
number of off - street parking spaces based on use and the spaces must be provided on -site.
These spaces must be located on the lot they serve, unless the Board of Appeals issues
approval for parking spaces on another lot located no more than 300 -feet from the use
being served.
Due to land limitations, cost and feasibility many businesses experience difficulty providing
the required number of on -site spaces. The proposed changes to the by -law will allow
flexibility for providing the required parking spaces affording businesses and property
owners more alternatives for development and /or redevelopment on sites which that may
be severely constrained.
The by -law amendment will:
- Provide an alternative from seeking approval from the Board of Appeals for off - street
spaces.
- Allow for Remote Parking Lots. Applicants must secure deed, easement or written
agreement to use the land in which parking is proposed. The land must be zoned for the
same or other non - residential uses as the use being served by parking.
Allow for Shared Parking. Up to 50% of the spaces may be used jointly by uses not
normally in operation (i.e. a restaurant utilizing parking spaces within bank parking lot). A
written agreement must be obtained by the Applicant.
- Allow for Phased Parkino Spaces. The construction of parking spaces may be phased
upon sufficient evidence of circumstance. Total number of required spaces must be
identified on the site plan and no more than 50% may be designated for phased
construction. Those spaces designated for phased construction must be noted as such on
the site plan.
The CPDC will consider a request for a Special Permit concurrently with Site Plan Review
and evaluate Impacts to safety, traffic, and the maintenance and character of the area.
Projects that fall below the thresholds for Site Plan Review, will present the request for
Special Permit at a Public Hearing with the CPDC prior to issuance of a building permit.
Finance Committee Report: No report
Bylaw Committee Report - given by Stephen Crook: Recommends by a vote of 4 -0 -0
The Bylaw Committee reviewed this article and agrees with the intent of the article. The
article will help the Town with the definitions, understandings and Interpret with regard to
parking issues. The Bylaw committee in reviewing the article did make some numbering
suggestions so the proposed Zoning Bylaws changes will fit into the Zoning Bylaws properly.
CPDC Report - given by Charlie Adams: On September 24, 2012 the CPDC convened to
hold a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment to Section 6.1 of the Zoning By-
Laws "Off Street Parking and Loading Areas" and Section 2.0 "Definitions" for consideration
at the 2012 Subsequent Town Meeting commencing on November 13, 2012. All documents
were made available on the town website and at Town Hall. The public hearing was held to
provide an opportunity for comment and to determine whether the provisions of the
proposed zoning amendments shall be adopted by the Town.
The September 24, 2012 Article 16 was taken up at the public hearing at approximately
7:30 p.m. The public hearing was closed that same evening. All comments received at the
hearing were included as part of the record of the hearing. CPDC voted 5 -0 -0 to recommend
Article 16 to Town Meeting.
Presentation given by:
Jean Dellos - See Attached
2/3 Vote Required
Declared Unanimous by Moderator
141 Town Meeting Members in Attendance
Motion Carried
Stephen Goldy, Board of Selectmen moved to adjourn the 2012 Subsequent Town Meeting
sine die at 10:52 PM with 141 Town Meeting Members in attendance.
Motion Carried
A true copy Attest:
Laura A Gemme - Town Clerk