Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-23 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting Minutes312 ADJOURNED ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School April 23, 1981 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, John W. Faria, at 8:00 P.M., there being a quorum present. The invocation was given by the Rev. Lewis MacLean of the Church of the Nazarene, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ARTICLE 2. On motion of John W. Price it was voted to take Article 2 from the table. ARTICLE 2. The following report presented by Ellen C. Childress was accepted as a report of progress: Planning Board Report Article 11 - Restaurant Parking Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this propoosal was held on Thursday, April 9, 1981 at 8:30 P.M. in Room 17, 52 Sanborn Street (the Community Center), with Board members E. Childress, B. Mitchel, J. Shaw, K. Messina and Chairman J.Zorabedian, Jr., present. There were two citizens present for this meeting: Mr. Arsenault of Harrow's Restaurant and Mr. Gentile from Pleasant Street. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Thursday, March 26 and April 2, 1981 and was read into the meeting record. This petition was placed on the Town Meeting Warrant by the Planning Board after consultation with the Building Inspector. It was felt by both the Board and the Building Inspector that the present zoning included many establishments for parking spaces and loading and unloading spaces, but inadvertently there was not a requirement for restaurants. After consulting with other Town and researching their requirements, (Wilmington -1 parking space for every 2.5 seats; North Reading - 1 parking space for every 4 seating capacity; Lynnfield - 1 parking space for every 180 sq. ft. of ground floor level plus 1 additional space for each 360 sq. ft. of floor area above 1st floor level OR 1 space for every 3 seats, whichever is greater; Andover - 1 space for every 3 seats plus 1 space for every 2 employees on principal workshift; Concord - 1 parking space for every 4 seats plus 1 space for every 4 persons normally on the premises at the time of maximum use, etc.) the Board felt that the following table would give adequate protection to the Town and not be unreasonable for the merchant. Principal Use Restaurants Minimum Number of Off - Street Parking Spaces Required One Space for each sixty (60) square feet of dining area Minimum Number of Off - Street Loading and Unloading Spaces Required One space - 0 -2000 square feet of floor area Two spaces - 2001 -4000 square feet of floor area Three spaces - over 4000 square feet of floor area After the discussion the Chairman took a sense of the meeting and all present, including Mr. Arsenault, were in favor of this Article as written. Ll 3I�� Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to recommend adoption of Article 11 on the Annual Town Meeting Warrant. READING PLANNING BOARD John Zorabedian, Jr., Chairman Barry J. Mitchel, Clerk Ellen C. Childress John W. Shaw Kenneth G. Messina ARTICLE 2. The following report presented by Barry J. Mitchel was accepted as a report of progress: PLANNING BOARD REPORT r. Article 12 - Non -use Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on Thursday, March 26, 1981, in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street, with Board members K. Messina, J. Shaw and Chairman J. Zorabedian present. There were no citizens present at this hearing. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Thursday, March 12, 1981 and March 19, 1981 and was read into the meeting record. This petition was brought to the Planning Board by the Building Inspector. As presently written the By -law is vague and difficult to interpret. The present wording states, "When a non - conforming use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of more than two(2) years, etc." The new paragraph reads, "When a non - conforming use is not used for a period of two (2) or more years, etc ". The present wording is vague and could be interpreted to mean that the owner would have to take a positive, formal action to declare the use discontinued or abandoned. The rewording as proposed in this By -law revision is a more positive statement. It allows the Building Inspector to make a better determination because as reworded the By -law does not call for any formal action on the part of the owners to declare the use abandoned or discontinued. It is a matter of fact that if the use has not been used for a period of two (2) or more years, then the Building Inspector has the absolute right not to reissue a Building bm" Permit for such non - conformity. The owner would still have legal recourse by making a petition to the Board of Appeals for a variance. The Board on a unanimous vote recommended adoption of this Article which would allow the Building Inspector a more definitive By -law to enforce. READING PLANNING BOARD John Zorabedian, Jr., Chairman Barry J. Mitchel, Clerk Ellen C. Childress John Shaw Kenneth Messina ARTICLE 2. The following report presented by Ellen C. Childress was accepted as a report of progress: PLANNING BOARD REPORT Article 13 - Inclusion of Industrial District Within Buffer Strip Dimensional Control Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on Thursday, March 26, 1981 at 9:00 P.M. in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street with Board members B. Mitchel, K. Messina, J. Shaw and Chairman J. Zorabedian present. There were no citizens present at this meeting. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on March 12, 1981 and March 19, 1981 and was read into the meeting record. This Article was placed on the 1981 Annual Town Meeting Warrant in response to concerns with respect to proposed future development in the Industrial area of the Town. The Board felt that those residents abutting the Industrial District would not be adequately protected by any wording within the current Zoning By -laws and they should be afforded the same protection as those residents abutting Business C property. 314 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 The present buffer strip requirement was passed by Town Meeting at their 1980 Annual Town Meeting by petition of the West Side Citizens Committee. The Planning Board actively participated in the formulation of that article and feel that with the present plans to phase out the dump within the next 2 - 3 years and the proposal to commence development within this area in the next 5 - 10 years, the inclusion of the buffer strip for abutting residential and Industrial districts should be provided. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to recommend adoption of Article 13 on the 1981 Annual Town Meeting Warrant. READING PLANNING BOARD John Zorabedian, Jr., Chairman Barry J. Mitchel, Clerk Ellen C. Childress John W. Shaw ,A,g Kenneth G. Messina ARTICLE 2. The following report presented by Barry J. Mitchel was accepted as a report of progress: PLANNING BOARD REPORT Article 14 - Apartment Redefinition Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on Thursday, April 2, 1981, at 7:35 P.M., in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street, with Board members K. Messina, E. Childress and Chairman J. Zorabedian, Jr. present. There were approximately 30 citizens present as well as the attorney for the petitioners, O. Bradley Latham and the attorney for the developer, Carl A. Amon, Jr. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Thursday, March 19, and March 26, 1981 and was read into the meeting record. The petition was placed on the Annual Town Meeting Warrant by Mr. and Mrs. Eugene T. Gentile, Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. Adams, Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Adams and Mr. and Mrs. Salvatore J. Gentile, Jr. and proposed by Tambone Corporation. Mr. Amon was recognized and read two letters into meeting record. The March 27, 1981 letter requested the Board cancel the Public Hearing because the petitioners and *am developers were unable to complete the engineering studies in time and would therefore be seeking that this Article be "indefinitely postponed" at Town Meeting. The March 31, 1981 letter requests that the Planning Board discontinue the public hearing without rendering a final report. Mr. Zorabedian noted the receipt of both letters and gave the legal statute from Chapter 40A which required the hearing to go forward. Discussion under this proposal included: - the ability to convert apartments to condominiums. - condominiums is a right of ownership not a zoning right; if presently zoned for apartments then the right to conversion is included. - Unless the By -laws specifically define something, then they cannot regulate the same. - That presently "apartment" zoned is interchangeable with the "condominium" conversion sought within that zoning. At the end of the meeting the Chairman polled those present to determine a sense of the meeting. - Approve a By -law change - unanimously disapproved - Oppose a By -law change - unanimous The Board unanimously recommends indefinite postponement of this Article. READING PLANNING BOARD John Zorabedian, Jr., Chairman Barry J. Mitchel, Clerk Ellen C.Childress John W. Shaw Kenneth G. Messina Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 ARTICLE 2. The following report presented by John Zorabedian, Jr. was accepted as a report of progress: PLANNING BOARD REPORT Article 15 - Rezoning of French Property at 259 Main Street Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on Thursday, March 26, 1981 at 8:15 P.M. in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street with Board members B. Mitchel, K. Messina, J. Shaw and Chairman J. Zorabedian present. There were no citizens at this meeting. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on March 12, 1981 and March 19, 1981 and was read into the meeting record. A request from the petitioner and their attorney to indefinitely postpone the subject matter under this Article was presented by Chairman Zorabedian. The petitioners will be presenting a revised Article to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the Special Town Meeting Warrant. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to recommend postponement of the subject matter under Article 15 on the 1981 Annual Town Meeting Warrant. READING PLANNING BOARD John Zorabedian, Jr., Chairman Barry J. Mitchel, Clerk Ellen C. Childress John W.Shaw Kenneth G. Messina ARTICLE 2. The following report presented by John Zorabedian, Jr. was accepted as a report of progress: PLANNING BOARD REPORT Article 16 - Rezone Property Owned by Adams, Gentile, et als, from 5 -10 to A -80 Pursuant to Section S,Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this propsal was W " held on Thursday, April 2, 1981 at 8:15 P.M. in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street, with Board members, K. Messina, B. Mitchel, E. Childress and Chairman J. Zorabedian present. There were approximately 30 citizens present as well as the attorney for the petitioners, O. Bradley Latham and also the attorney for the developer, Carl A. Amon, Jr. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public meeting notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Thursday, March 19 and March 26, 1981 and was also read into the meeting record. The petition was placed on the Annual Town Meeting Warrant by Mr. and Mrs. Eugene T. Gentile, Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. Adams, Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Adams and Mr. and Mrs. Salvatore J. Gentile, Jr. and was proposed for development by Tambone Corporation. Mr. Amon was recognized and read two letters into the meeting record. The March 27, 1981 letter requested that the Board cancel the public hearing on this matter because the petitioners and developer were unable to complete the engineering studies in time and would therefore be seeking indefinite postponement of this Article at Town Meeting. The March 31, 1981 letter requested the Planning Board to discontinue the public hearing without rendering a final report. Mr. Zorabedian noted the receipt of both letters and proceeded with the hearing as per his interpretation of Chapter 40A, G.L., Section 5, and per opinion of Town Counsel. �. Mr. Amon requested that the hearing be adjourned inasmuch as no specific technical or engineering data was available nor was any formal plan of development being proposed. In light of these facts, Mr. Amon argued that it would be in the Town's best interest to allow Article 16 to be indefinitely postponed until such time as a more thorough study could be completed. Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 The Planning Board disagreed with this reasoning because the matter under consideration was not a request for a variance or special permit, but rather a proposal to rezone. The Plannning Board and Town Meeting can determine the difference in intensity of use allowed under the Zoning By -laws, and this information is more than adequate to decide upon a general zoning change from S -10 to A -80. Were the property to be rezoned A -80, specific details of any development would be addressed by the Building Inspector, Board of Survey and Conservation Commission. On this basis, the hearing proceeded. Attorney for the petitioners and developer declined to elaborate further upon their position. Comments were solicited from members of the Board and from citizens present at the hearing. By Board Members: Mr. Messina twice voiced his opinion that recent By -law changes, variances and comprehensive permits were by- passing and disregarding the original intent of the Zoning By -laws. Mr. Mitchel noted that, to their credit, the petitioners and developer were attempting to address and resolve the concerns raised by residents and Town officials. By Citizens: Pro: Condominiums demand little in service compared to single family residences and return more in taxes. Additionally, a condominium development is responsible for its own refuse collection and road repair and would be less likely to attract families with children (thus placing less burden on the school system). Con: - Intensity of the area already greatly increased by presence of Horizon Homes apartments for elderly; - Development of this size would severely tax water supply; - Development of this size would aggravate existing sewerage problems in the area; - Environmental mpact on the abutting wetlands; - Trend toward increasing density is devaluing property; - Reading is rapidly losing its semi - rural, small -town character; - Increased vehicular traffic on Salem Street would jeopardize pedestrian school traffic; - Increased vehicular traffic along the residential streets (such as Pleasant) would not only jeopardize the safety of school children, but aggravate existing safety problems incidental to the nearby playground and Little League Park; WMN - Loss of open space; - Uncontrolled development could adversely affect the Town. Stoneham was cited as one nearby town that allowed developers to erect apartments, condominiums, business and commercial buildings at whim with disastrous results. Mr. Amon responded by pointing out that recognition of citizens' concerns was why: - The petitioners are withdrawing their motion; - The hearing should not go forward; - No report should be issued to Town Meeting; - Article 16 should be indefinitely postponed. Mr. Amon stated that he had taken note of the concerns of the citizens expressed at the hearing and would advise the developer accordingly. He closed by saying that until the engineering data could be compiled and evaluated, that only speculation was possible. At the close of the hearing, the Chairman asked for a sense of the meeting. In favor of A -80 zoning - 1; opposed - 26. The hearing was then adjourned. On Wednesday, April 8, 1981, the Board met in open session to consider a decision re: Article 16. Several area residents and one of the petitioners (Mrs. Virginia Adams) were present. Discussion focused on the problems of increasing density of residences, population, and business. Utilizing section 5 of the Reading Zoning Map, the Planning Board calculated that approximately 50 -60 single family residences could be constructed within the 23 acre site; but if the property were rezoned A -80, 500 -600 apartments /condominiums could be erected. (See appendix). It is obvious that A -80 zoning would be 10 times as intense as S- 10. This concentration of new development in such a small area, representing a potential 5% increase in the Town's population, raised a grave concern among the Board. The Board felt that such a rapid pace of growth sould be checked. Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 The Planning Board unanimously voted a decision of "Do Not Recommend ". READING PLANNING BOARD John Zorabedian, Jr., Chairman Barry J. Mitchel, Clerk Ellen C. Childress John W. Shaw Kenneth G. Messina (Appendix) Article 16 - Rezone Gentile, Adams, et als from S -10 to A -80 5 -10 Density 23.15 acres (approximately % of which is in Wetlands Protection District). Land available for development Land needed per dwelling (includes roadways, etc.) Potential number of Dwellings A -80 Density Site % lot coverage Maximum floor allowed Estimated floor area Floor space /unit (includes hallways, util.) Potential number of units Area for parking (includes driveways) Total "developed" area 13 acres (566,280 sq. ft.) 12,000 sq. ft. 47 23.15 acres (1,008,414 sq. ft.) 12.5% (125,052) 6 756,310 1,200 630 400,000 sq. ft. 12 acres 31.7 ARTICLE 2. The following report presented by Douglas A. Cowell was accepted as a report of progress: AM-- Report of the Board of Public Works to 1981 Annual Town Meeting on Roadway Maintenance In 1977, the Board of Public Works adopted a twenty year roadway maintenance program for the repair and upkeep of all the Town's ways. The level of effort that report recommended has not been followed due to budgetary constraint. The purpose of my report tonight is to report the progress to date, and show how the inflation of bituminous based products has impacted the various methods used in maintaining our highways. The main portion of the Town's residential streets are constructed with a stone seal. This process, in general, is expected to last between six and eight years. The actual cost for construction in 1977 was $6,336.00 per mile while the cost in 1982 will be aproximately $24,000.00 per mile. In the five years since the implementation of the program 19.4 miles of stone seal work has been done. The program originally called for 23.9 miles to be completed by 1982. The 4.5 miles of roadway still not completed as planned in the original program, would have cost $41,455. For us to complete the 4.5 miles of roadway in 1982, the cost would be $106,600. This emphasizes the impact the delay has on the eventual cost to the Town. Not only does the price of the work increase due to inflation, but the amount of preparation work required on the streets prior to the surface treatment, also increases. There is always the risk that the surface may fail thereby requiring an even more expensive maintenance procedure or reconstruction process. The next most common maintenance method is the bituminous concrete overlay program. This is used on the major streets and the treatment is expected to last from twelve to fifteen years. The cost of this material has escalated from $44,630 per mile in 1978 to $75,570 per mile in 1982, plus the escalating cost of adjusting curbs and manholes, etc. In the five years of work performed some three miles of streets were overlaid. The program originally called for 4.5 miles of streets to be completed. The difference between the planned program and the actual construction represents 1.5 miles. If the work had been completed in accordance with the program the cost would have been $38,600. Now, to complete the work in 1982, it will cost $74,100. The Town's current roadway system has seven miles of roadways that are beyond their 75% useful life. Studies indicate the roadways beyond the 75% life expectancy will deteriorate at an accelerated rate. This could, very easily, increase the cost 300 %, or better. Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 The last major roadway maintenance item is the reconstruction of streets that have far exceeded their life expectancy. The cost for this type of construction has increased from $106,600 per mile in 1979 to approximately $196,100 per mile in 1982. The increase here is not so dramatic because of the new method of reconstruction, mainly the reclamation process. In the last five years, some 2.8 miles of roadways have been reconstructed in the Town. The program called for 6.6 miles to be reconstructed during this time. The 3.8 miles not completed, in accordance with the program, would have cost $445,280: the cost to complete this in the year 1982 would be $750,500. The problem with delaying this program is, increased maintenance cost, poor condition of the road, inconvenience to the public, and related safety concerns. Therefore, the reduction that the Town has made through the years has arnounted to $525,335. The cost to do this work now is $931,200. Therefore, the budget constraint over the last five years in the Town's highway maintenance program has, in effect, increased the cost of work yet to be done by $405,875. Bituminous concrete overlay street inventor Streets between 25 and 30 years since last overlay Lincoln Street from Woburn Street to Washington Street Woburn Street it Main Street of High Street Minot Street All South Street West Street to Sturges Park Streets between 20 and 25 years since last overlay Birch Meadow Drive from OaklandRoad to Main Street Summer Avenue 11 Main Street to Oak Street Prescott Street tl Sunnyside Avenue to Lincoln Street Streets between 15 and 20 vears since last overla Linden Street from Lowell Street to Haven Street Pleasant Street it Main Street to John Street Summer Avenue it Oak Street to King Street John Street it Village Street to Town Line Streets between 10 and 15 years since last overlay Oak Street from West Street to Summer Avenue Haven Street it Parker Street to John Street Haven Street " Main Street to High Street Gould Street Haven Street to Ash Street Washington Street Prescott Street to Main Street Summer Avenue Woodbine Street to King Street High Street Washington Street to Vine Street High Street Vine Street to Lowell Street Middlesex Avenue High Street to Lowell Street Summer Avenue Main Street to Brook Street Ash Street Main Street to Main Street Ash Street Main Street to Wakefield Forest Street Main Street to Van Norden Road Hartshorn Street Lowell Street to John Carver Road John Carver Road Hartshorn Street to Birch Meadow Drive Bancroft Avenue Lowell Street to Weston Road Harnden Street Main Street to Salem Street Knollwood Road Summer Avenue to Main Street Pearl Street Salem Street to Charles Street Roadwav Reconstruction Partial Street Invent STREET Franklin Street Short Street Locust Street Wakefield Street Wakefield Street Franklin Street Eaton Street South Street Timberneck Drive Van Norden Road County Road LOCATION Emerson Street to Main Street Mill Street to Main Street Main Street to Beacon Street Haverhill Street to Charles Street Charles Street to Pearl Street Main Street to Haverhill Street Pleasant Street to Green Street Walnut Street to Main Street Charles Street to Tamarack Road All Lewis to near end Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 J � Mill Street John Street Forest Street Forest Street Pearl Street Pearl Street Libby Avenue Federal Street Beacon Street Torre Street Belmont Street Knollwood Road Gleason Road Pearl Street Border Road Main Street to No. Reading Line Pleasant Street to Salem Street Van Norden Road to Colburn Road Martin Road to Arthur B. Lord Drive Willard Road to Charles Street Main Street to Franklin Street All Main Street to Highland Street Locust Street to Chestnut Street Salem Street to Harvest Road Salem Street to new section Main Street to Sufmmer Avenue Greenwood Road to MacIntosh Road Franklin Street to Lucy Drive All ARTICLE 2. The following report presented by Ronald V. O'Connell was accepted as a report of progress: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Report of Progress April, 1981 The Industrial Development Commission was created by a vote of Town Meeting in the Spring of 1980. Appointments were made by the Board of Selectmen in July of 1980 and the Commission met for the first time shortly thereafter to formalize its charter and to establish a direction in which the Commission would proceed. The charter that evolved had three principal elements: 1. Review and evaluate parcels of town land that are potential industrial /commercial sites. 2. Review and evaluate proposals received by the town of Reading for reuse or development of town owned property for industrial /commercial usage. 3. Perform any duties requested by the Board of Selectmen consistent with the above. Several items were handled by the Commission during 1980, but the primary focus was on three major items: 1. The McManus proposal to purchase a parcel of land on John Street adjacent to the current "128 Auto Sales ", currently under negotiation. 2. The review of the proposal by the MBTA for a fringe parking facility at the former incinerator site. 3. A review and evaluation of the development potential of the John Street dump site. The major effort of the Commission in recent months has centered on the latter item. Because of its extreme importance to the town and a certain amount of timeliness involved in the topic, I would like to spend a little time this evening to elaborate on the Commission's progress and findings to date. The present dump site covers an area of roughly 35 acres and is situated within sight of route 128 and within a mile or so of route 93. Access to and egress from the property is via John Street, which has excellent entrances to and exits from route 128. Electric and telephone facilities are available to the site and it is serviced by sewer and water, although it appears that neither the sewer nor water system is adequate to handle any large scale development. The site is mostly level and is currently being filled as part of the DPW's multi -year filling project. The site has served as a dump for the town of Reading for many, many years, although the records as to precisely what has been dumped there and what has been done to it, that is, whether it has been burned, or buried, or whatever, are somewhat unclear. Certainly testing would have to be done before any type of construction was begun at the site. The Industrial Development Commission developed a plan for reviewing the potential value and development possibilities of the dump. The plan called for careful study and review of all information available both locally and at the State and Federal levels. This included a review of the report that was completed for the town of Reading some five years ago by the Sasaki Associates, dealing with the dump site and several other concerns of the town at that time. The Commission also met with or communicated with the State Department of Commerce, the DEQE, the MAPC, (Massachusetts Area Planning Council) and other relevant agencies. Additionally, communications were sent to all town boards and committees that may have some interest in the development of this land. Where requested, `? `r Meeting Adjourned Annual Town �, c. �� J g A P ril 23 1981 meetings or conversations were held with those boards or committees. The Commission particularly wanted to meet with the Board of Public Works, since they technically "own" the land, to get their input and to find out what their plans were for the facility. At the meeting with the BPW, the Board indicted that the land is no longer necessary as a dump or landfill for the town because of the contract that was signed with an outside contractor for unlimited rubbish removal. Accordingly, the BPW is proceeding with a four year prograrn for "closing" the landfill. (The four year figure is essentially an economic derivative of how much it will cost to close the landfill to DEQE standards and the number of years the BPW feels it will take to fund that amount. In theory, it could be closed in a matter of weeks if the funds were available.) The Commission also asked the assessors to review the dump site and provide us with an appraisal of the current market value of the property and some indication of the tax revenues that could be generated from the development of that site. However, the rigors of "' Proposition 2yz precluded the assessors office from performing this task by town meeting. Accordingly, the Commission prevailed upon one of its members, who is in the real estate industry, to develop this information. Research was done on a number of recent sales of similar type properties in the area to determine the range of values into which this property might fall. A similar exercise was done for the tax revenues that would be generated by the property given the various development options. The results show - and please bear in mind that these are unofficial, preliminary estimates - that the market value of property of this type is probably around $2.00 to $2.50 a square foot. (One should remember, however, that in selling commercial property, the determination of a selling price in this manner has to be viewed with the understanding that development costs or site preparation costs may be deducted from the selling price. If, for example, special treatment of the site was necessary because of the fact that this property was formerly a dumpsite, the selling value of the property may be reduced by the amount of the preparation costs. Therefore, the value of this land could be from $0 to $3.5 million.) Additionally, it was found that tax revenue generated from properties under consideration ranged from $.50 to $1.25 per square foot of building area. A determination of the annual return to the town is not possible at this time because we do not know how much of the land is actually buildable. Reading's Industrial Development Commission has recently been negotiating with the MAPC for assistance in reviewing the dump site. The MAPC is considering a request by the town to supply up to 200 hours of research time by the MAPC staff. The MAPC research would include alternative uses of the land, feasibility studies with respect to the technical, legal and economic considerations, possible problems with methane gas, hazardous waste, etc., and other information that would be useful. It should be pointed out that the MAPC will perform up to 200 hours of research work at no cost to the town. The MAPC study will no" be limited to research and will not include any engineering probes, coring, and so forth, at the site. The Commission is hoping for a favorable response from the MAPC sometime in April with work beginning after July 1st. We would presumable have a report by fall town meeting. The Commission is now going to begin a review of the development alternatives for the site, that is, an assessment of what is the highest and best use to which that property can be put to allow the town of Reading to reap the greatest benefit both in terms of selling price and tax revenue, in keeping with the present character of the town. Additionally, the Commission is going to be reviewing State or Federal sources of funding that the town could make use of in conducting engineering tests of the site. However, it may be necessary to ask Town Meeting for some funding for this purpose at some point in the future. It is obvious to the most casual observer that the scarcity of commercially buildable land around Boston and along route 128 is such that the attractiveness of Reading's dump site grows daily. The Commission feels that the likelihood of the town receiving serious offers from potential developers increases with each passing day. While it is true that the passage of time increases the value of this land as real estate marches ever upward in value, the passage of time also increases the likelihood of further regulation on the development of former dumpsites. Although that is not necessarily bad, it does generally mean more bureaucratic red tape that one must pass through to sucessfully develop a piece of land. The Commission will continue its efforts to fully explore the development potential of the town dump site and the implication of that development. Furthermore, we will keep the Selectmen and Town Meeting informed of our progress so that any decision regarding this property will be made from an informed position. Respectfully submitted, Industrial Development Commission Roc O'Connell, Chairman Dan Ensminger Ed McPartlin Charlie Hewill; Curt Nitzsche Don Stroeble Phil Walcott 3)1 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 Exhibit 1 CHARTER READING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISISION * Evaluate Town property having industrial or commercial potential * Review proposals for Town property re -use or development * Perform duties as requested by the Board of Selectmen Exhibits 2 and 3 - Copies attached ARTICLE 2. On motion of John W. Price it was voted to lay Article 2 on the table. ARTICLE 3. On motion of John W. Price it was voted to lay Article 3 on the table. ARTICLE 4. On motion of John W. Price it was voted that the sum of Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($350) be raised from the tax levy and appropriated for the Care and Lighting of the Old South Clock. ARTICLE 5. On motion of Elizabeth W. Klepeis it was voted that the Town authorize the Town Treasurer with the approval of the Selectmen, to borrow money from time to time in anticipation of the revenue of the financial year beginning July 1, 1981, in accordance with the provisions of the General Laws, Chapter 44, Section 4, and to issue a note or notes therefore, payable within one year, and to renew any note or notes as may be given for a period of less than one year in accordance with the General Laws, Chapter 44, Section 17. ARTICLE 7. On motion of Bayard R. Lincoln it was voted that the Town amend "Schedule B - Compensation Plan" of Article XXIV of the By -Laws of the Town by deleting the existing Pay Ranges and Substituting the following: EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1981 GRADE MIN 1/4 POINT MID MAX ,wa„ 1 126 134 141 157 2 139 149 159 180 3 160 172 183 207 4 180 194 209 239 5 203 221 238 274 6 227 249 270 314 7 256 283 309 363 8 288 320 352 416 9 323 362 400 478 10 365 412 458 552 11 412 467 523 634 12 462 529 596 730 ARTICLE 8. On motion of Bayard R. Lincoln it was voted that the Town amend "Schedule A - Classification Plan" of Article XXIV of the By -Laws of the Town by deleting "Library Pages - Pay Grade 1 ". ARTICLE 9. On motion of Bayard R. Lincoln it was voted that the Town amend Section 7A "Sick Leave" of Article XXIV of the By -Laws of the Town by deleting the first sentence of the last paragraph and insert in its place: "Effective July 1st, 1980, upon termination, (except termination by the Town for just cause) after (7) years of employment, at retirement or death, an employee shall be paid for unused sick leave not exceeding 90 (ninety) days at 50% (fifty per cent) of his daily rate of pay in effect at the time of termination. Before re- employment in any department of the Town, employee shall be required to repay to the Town an amount equal to that received from the Town at the time of his termination." ARTICLE 10. John L. Fallon, Jr, moved, and it was voted in the negative, that the Town amend "Section 4 Classification and Compensation Plans" of Article XXIV of the By- Laws of the Town: "Overtime Compensation." by adding the following paragraph: "Under conditions which shall be defined by the Board of Public Works as an emergency, and administered by the Superintendent of Public Works, the following exempt employees: Supervisors of Highway, Water and Sewer, Pumping Station, Forestry and Parks; X22 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 also Senior Civil Engineer, Pumping Station Engineer and Assistant Civil Engineer, may be paid overtime if hours actually worked in any regular work week exceeds forty (40). They shall be paid for all ours worked in excess of forty -three (43) in any work week at an hourly rate which shall be computed at their weekly salary divided by forty, times one and one - half. ARTICLE 11. On motion of Ellen C. Childress it was voted that the Town amend the Zoning By -laws by adding the following requirements after those established for Retail Stores, Offices and Consumer Service Establishments in Section 6.1.1.3., and under the following tables: Principal Use Restaurants Minimum Number of Off - Street Parking Spaces Required One Space for each sixty (60) square feet of dining area 113 voted in the affirmative 5 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required Minimum Number of Off - Street Loading and Unloading Spaces Required One space - 0 -2000 square feet of floor area Two spaces - 2001 -4000 square feet of floor area Three spaces - over 4000 square feet of floor area ARTICLE 12. Barry J. Mitchell moved that the Town vote to amend the Zoning By- laws by deleting the existing paragraph 6.3.2.4. and inserting in place thereof the following: 6.3.2.4 When a non - conforming use is not used for a period of two (2) or more years, its non - conforming status shall not be reestablished and any future use shall be in conformance with this By -law. On motion of Nathan C. White it was voted that Article 12 be indefinitely postponed. ARTICLE 13.On motion of Ellen C. Childress it was voted that the Town amend the Zoning By -laws by deleting the existing paragraph 5.3.1.3. and inserting in place theeof the following section: 5.3.1.3. As part of all new construction of any building, parking lot, structure, or any extension or addition thereto in a Business C or Industrial District and where such construction abuts within one hundred twenty -five (125) feet of any Residential District, a buffer strip is to be established subject to the following requirements: a) Said buffer strip shall have a twelve (12) foot minimum depth and shall contain a curb to prevent parking within the strip, a six (6) foot high fence which shall be located a maximum of two (2) feet from the abutting Residential/ Business C and /or Industrial lot line and shall contain an evergreen hedge on the Business C and /or Industrial side of the fence which is to be at least three (3) feet in height at the time of planting and will provide a yearround dense visual screen and attain a height of at least seven (7) feet within five (5) years of planting; b) Said buffer strip shall be constructed along the full abutting length of any Residential District lots so affected and lie entirely within the Business C and /or Industrial District; c) Said buffer strip screening, fencing and vegetation shall be maintained in good condition at all times by the owners of the Business C and /or Industrial property; and d) Where a roadway separates an abutting Residential district from a Business C and /or Industrial District, dimensional controls for said buffer strip shall be implemented from the existing Business C and /or Industrial lot line along the roadway. ARTICLE 14. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted to lay Article 14 on the table. ARTICLE 15. On motion of John Zorabedian, Jr. it was voted that Article 15 be indefinitely postponed. 1 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 ARTICLE 16. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted to lay Article 16 on the table. ARTICLE 17. To see what action the Town will take regarding the installation of additional street lights on the public streets during the year 1981 or what it will do in relation thereto. On motion of Allan E. Ames it was voted that the subject matter of Article 17 be referred to the Municipal Light Board, and that said Board be, and hereby is, authorized to install such additional street lights as in its judgement are required, and to make such changes in the size, type and location of existing street lights, as it may deem advisable, the expense of the same to be paid from the income of the plant. ARTICLE 18. On motion of John W. Price it was voted that the Town amend Section 104.5 of the Building Code of Reading by deleting the fee schedule in its entirety following the words "receipt of the permit" and substituting therefor the following: FEE SCHEDULE $ 35.00 sq. ft. New Dwelling $ 100.00 min. 2 story - Garrison, Colonial, etc. 4/1000 Additions, Alterations & solid fuel appliances 15.00 min. add 1000.00 Double 4/1000 Garages - Residential 1 car 20.00 Single 4500.00 2 car 25.00 3 car 30.00 Commercial or Industrial addition or alteration 50.00 min. Apartment Buildings 4/1000 Signs 15.00 min. Plumbing Fee Schedule in its entirety and substitute the following: 4/1000 Swimming Pools 25.00 min. for each additional fixture 4/1000 Accessory buildings, sheds, temp. buildings 15.00 min. �- 12.00 miscellaneous work 1 or 2 fixtures 4/1000 Razing Permit Residential Acc. Bldgs. 15.00 min. Residential Houses 35.00 min. Commercial 50.00 min. per fixture 4/1000 Foundation Permit (if Needed) 50.00 Move Building 50.00 min. 4/1000 INDEX FOR FIGURING VALUATIONS 1 story dwelling $ 35.00 sq. ft. 1%z stories (expansion cape, splits, etc.) 40.00 sq. ft. 2 story - Garrison, Colonial, etc. 50.00 sq. ft. Basement Garage Single add 1000.00 Double add 1500.00 Attached or Detached Garage Single 4500.00 Double 6500.00 Triple 7500.00 Commercial or Industrial buildings 40.00 sq. ft. Apartment Buildings 25,000.00 per unit ARTICLE 19. On motion of John W. Price it was voted that the Town delete the Plumbing Fee Schedule in its entirety and substitute the following: Dwellings: $15.00 for 1 to 6 fixtures 2.00 for each additional fixture 10.00 hot water heaters �- 12.00 miscellaneous work 1 or 2 fixtures 2.00 for each additional fixture 15.00 sewer connections Commercial $25.00 flat fee 5.00 per fixture Reinspections for faulty work - not to exceed $15.00 or value of permit. M G-s Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 ARTICLE 20. On motion of John W. Price it was voted that the Town delete the Gas Fee Schedule in its entirety and substitute the following: Dwellings $15.00 3.00 10.00 3.00 Commercial 25.00 5.00 5.00 15.00 for new installations - 1 or 2 fixtures for each additional fixture for replacements 1 or 2 fixtures for each additional fixture for new installations, plus per fixture for gas piping or piping replacement for replacement fixtures NNW Tanks 15.00 for 1 or 2 tanks #100 or smaller (if installed under same permit and by same gas fitter as installation & inspected at same time $2.00) Reinspections - not to exceed $15.00 or value of permit. ARTICLE 21. On motion of Maureen T. O'Brien, as amended by Stanley M. Nissen, it was voted that the Town amend the By -Laws of the Town by adding thereto the following as Article XXXIII relating to user fees: "Article XXXIII User Fees Section 1. All Town boards, officers, departments, commissions, and committees are hereby authorized to adopt by appropriate regulation, in accordance with all applicable provisions of law, a schedule of fees to be charged for services provided by said board, officer, department, commission or committee to Town residents, customers and other users of such services. The failure of any person or entity to pay for services provided in accordance with the appropriate schedule of fees or payment schedule within the time specified for payment of said fee or payment schedule shall be considered a violation of this By- Law." The amendment by Stanley M. Nissen of the By -Law Committee added the phrase "within the time specified for payment of said fees or payment schedule" in the last sentence. ARTICLE 22. On motion of Maureen T. O'Brien it was voted that the Town amend the Town By -Laws Article XXII by adding thereto, as Section 5, the following: The fees for licensing dogs under M.G.L. Chapter 140, Section 139 shall be the fees set forth in that Chapter as the same may be from time to time amended plus one dollar. Said fees are subject to all other conditions as set forth in M.G.L. Chapter 140, Section 139. ARTICLE 23.On motion of Maureen T. O'Brien, as amended by Catherine A. Quimby, it was voted that the Town amend the General By -Laws of the Town of Reading by adding the following: Article XVII, Section 7. The following schedule of fees shall be established: Filing and indexing assignment for the benefit of creditors Entering amendment of a record of the birth of an illegitimate child subsequently legitimized Correcting errors in a record of birth Furnishing certificate of birth Furnishing n abstract copy of a record of birth Entering delayed record of birth Filing certificate of a person conducting business under any title other than his real name Filing by a person conducting business under any title other than his real name, of statement of change of his residence or of his discontinuance, retirement or withdrawal from, or of a change of location of such business Furnishing certified copy of certificate of person conducting business under any title other than his real name or a statement by such person of his discontinuance, retirement or withdrawal from such business $ 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 5.00 f ll i 0111 3.00 0 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 Recording the name and address, the date and number of the certificate issued to a person registered for the practice of podiatry in the Commonwealth 10.00 Correcting errors in a record of death 5.00 Furnishing a certificate of death 3.00 Furnishing an abstract copy of a record of death 2.00 Issuing and recording licenses to keepers of intelligence offices 25.00 Issuing and recording Pawnbrokers License 100.00 Issuing and recording licenses to keepers of billiard saloons, pool or sippio rooms or tables, bowling alleys, etc., 1st table or alley 30.00 add'1. 15.00 Entering notice of intention of marriage and issuing certificate thereof 10.00 Entering certificate of marriage filed by persons married out of the Commonwealth 3.00 Issuing certificate of marriage 3.00 Furnishing an abstract copy of a record of marriage 2.00 Correcting errors in a record of marriage 5.00 Recording Power of attorney 5.00 Recording certificate of registration granted to a person to engage in the practice of optometry, or issuing a certified copy thereof 10.00 Recording the name of the owner of a certificate or registration as a physician or osteopath in the Commonwealth 10.00 Recording order granting locations of poles, piers, abutments or conduits, alterations or transfers thereof, and increase in number of wires and cable or attachments under the provisions of Sect. 22 of Chapter 166 flat rate 25.00 add'1 fee 5.00 Examining records or papers relating to birth, marriage or deaths upon the application of any person, the actual expense thereof 5.00 Copying any manuscript or record pertaining to a birth, marriage or death 3.00 Receiving and filing of a complete inventory of all items to be included in a "closing out sale ", etc. per page 2.00 Filing a copy of written instrument or declaration of trust by the trustees of an association or trust, or any amendment thereof as provided by Sect. 2, Chapter 182 10.00 Recording deed of lot or plot in a public burial place or cemetery 5.00 Recording any other documents per 1st page 5.00 each add'1 page 2.00 Voter's card 2.00 ARTICLE 24. On motion of John W. Price it was voted that Article 24 be indefinitely postponed. ARTICLE 25. On motion of Allan E. Ames it was voted that the Town of Reading sell 7050 square feet of Tax Possession land on Causeway Road, Lot 11, Plat 119, to the Reading Municipal Light Department for $609.42, such figure representing the back taxes and charges on the property at the time of foreclosure. 102 voted in the affirmative 6 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required ARTICLE 26. On motion of Elizabeth W. Klepeis it was voted that the Town rescind the action taken under Article 10 of the Special Town Meeting held November 14, 1977, by eliminating the authorization of the $500,000 remaining unbonded. 109 voted in the affirmative 0 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required 326 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 23, 1981 ARTICLE 27.On motion of John W. Price it was voted that Article 27 be indefinitely postponed. ARTICLE 28. On motion of George A. Theophanis it was voted that the Town amend Section 11 of Article III of the General By -Laws by inserting after the second sentence a new sentence "No funds may be appropriated for any capital item unless such item is included in the Capital Outlay Plan and is scheduled for funding in the fiscal year in which the appropriation is to be made." so that Section 11 shall read in part: "Section 11. The Finance Committee shall present to each November Town Meeting a five year Capital Outlay Plan to be adopted by Town Meeting with or without amendment. Adoption of the Plan shall not constitute authorization of the expenditure of any funds. No funds may be appropriated for any capital item unless such item is included in the Capital Outlay Plan and is scheduled for funding in the fiscal year in which the appropriation is to be made. The Capital Outlay Plan may be amended by action of any regular or special Town Meeting. The Finance Comittee shall..." On motion of John W. Price it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned to meet at 8:00 P.M. on June 1st, 1981, at a place to be determined. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 P. M. 139 Town Meeting members were present A true copy. Attest: Lawrence Drew Town Clerk