HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-13 Subsequent Town Meeting Minutes1995 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
Reading Memorial High School November 13, 1995
The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Paul C. Dustin, at 7:45 p.m., there being a
quorum present.
The Invocation was given by Rev. David Reid, First Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
The Warrant was read by the Town Clerk, Catherine A. Quimby, when on motion by Sally M.
Hoyt, it was voted'to dispense with further reading of the Warrant except for the Officer's Return,
which was read by the Town Clerk.
ARTICLE 1 - Stephen J. Blewitt, Precinct 6 and Chairman of the Finance Committee, moved
Article l and presented the following Finance Committee Report which was accepted as a Report
of Progress:
On behalf of the Finance Committee, I would like to give Town Meeting a short review of (1) the
budget process being developed by the Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Finance
f I Committee; (2) a status of the current year's budget; a status of cash reserves; and a preliminary
look at the Town's 5-year budget forecast.
I
The Selectmen, School Committee and Finance Committee have made an enormous effort during
the past six months to improve communications between the three bodies, enhance Town and
school cooperation, and to develop a budget process which identifies and attempts to resolve
issues earlier. The agreement that we have reached involves reviewing and accepting revenue
estimates, expense guidelines and a process to address items which do not meet these guidelines.
To date, we have adopted initial revenue estimates and expense guidelines for FY 1997.
With regard to our current year's budget, the Finance Committee has reviewed revenues and
expenditures as of September 30th. Both revenues and expenditures are running approximately
$200,000 greater than expected which is the subject matter of Article 5. Looking forward, the
School Committee has indicated that their budget may require an additional $280,000 which they
expect to address at Spring Town Meeting, if necessary.
With regard to Cash Reserves, which includes free cash and monies in the reserve account, the
Finance Committee recently adopted a policy which will guide its recommendations to Town
Meeting: The policy is to have 5% of annual revenues as the amount of cash reserves in the
beginning of each fiscal year; to not use more than 1% of annual revenues to balance the budget
at the beginning of the fiscal year, and to maintain at least 3% during the course of the year.
The purpose of this policy is to maintain adequate reserves but to also have some flexibility to
resolve short-term budget issues. Our current reserves of $1.9 million is a healthy 5.25% of
revenues and we do not expect to go below 3% during the year.
A quick look at the Town's five year projections indicate potential shortfalls in the annual
operating budget of approximately $1 million per year. The cumulative deficit in the capital
budget is approximately $1.8 million which will hopefully be offset by proceeds from the sale
of real estate. While the $1 million shortfalls are of concern, the projections do tend to be
conservative on.the revenue side, and allow for funding of some new programs on the expense
side. What the projections show clearly is that there is little room for significant negative
adjustments such as the timing of reimbursement for Parker, or other issues, during the next five
years.
ARTICLE 1 - Sally M. Hoyt, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, Precinct 4, presented the
following report, which was accepted as a Report of Progress:
This is a report to Town Meeting on the status of the Town's efforts to sell surplus real estate as
previously instructed by Town Meeting.
Bear Hill - The Town has accepted today, a treasurer's check in the amount of $1,282,900.73,
which represents the purchase price of the Bear Hill property, less the previous deposit of
$50,000 plus interest and plus pro-rated real estate taxes. The funds will be deposited tomorrow
as soon as the Deed is filed. In addition, as the market rate units are sold, the Town will receive
an additional payment in a minimum amount of $2,000 per unit. The benefits of this sale, in
addition to the $1.5 million sales price and the ongoing property taxes to be generated, include:
• Additional open space
• 13 affordable housing units
• Playground
• Improved drainage, and
• Sidewalks in the area
one additional issue to be resolved is the sharing of the payment for off-site improvements. The
Board of Selectmen have agreed to a process of resolving this dispute without holding up a 1.5
million dollar deal waiting for resolution.
Pearl Street School - Closing on this project is scheduled on or about November 17, 1995
depending upon the pricing of the bonds by the MI F'A. The sale price is $665,200. The benefits
of this project, in addition to the sales price and the taxes it will generate, include:
• 18 units of affordable housing
• An imnroved soccer field that will be leased back to the Town for 99 years for $1
• A community room to be scheduled by the Town and to be used for purposes
compatible with the primary use
• Retaining the LaPierre School of Dance in the community
• Preservation of an historic building
All local and state approvals have been granted.
2
Reading Business Park (Landfill Site) - The site needs to be formally closed - Article 8 will begin
the design process. A brochure for the site has been developed.
25 Haven Street - The RMLD Board will be making a presentation this evening on this issue.
There are two bidders who appear to be qualified, one for a desirable retail use. The proceeds
from this sale go to pay the bonds on the new RMLD facility on Ash Street. The sale will put this
property on the tax roles, and will fill an important gap in Reading's Downtown.
The proceeds of both sales that have been closed or are close to closing will generate $1,988,400
to increase to $2,226,400 when the Bear Hill project is completed. These funds will be placed in
the "sale of real estate fund" to be appropriated by Town Meeting for capital projects, debt
service, or unfunded pension liability. The capital plan adopted by Town Meeting will dedicate
major portions of these funds to pay for the debt service on the Parker Middle School project in
the interim before the SBAB reimbursement takes effect.
At this time, Mrs. Hoyt accepted the checks referenced above from Bruce Dolben, President, The
Dolben Company, Inc.
AR'T'ICLE 1 - Mr. Peter Simms, Simms Jewelers, presented the following report on behalf of the
Downtown Revitalization efforts:
Good Evening:
My name is Peter Simms. My dad and I own and operate Simms Jewelers in Downtown Reading.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to report the efforts and progress of the Downtown
Steering Committee.
The Committee was formed approximately five months ago to help find a tenant who would fill
the Eugene's space with a retail business to benefit the residents of Reading. Since that time, the
focus of the Committee has broadened to include the revitalization of the entire Downtown.
One of the strengths of our Committee is in its growing membership. Members have included,
and continue to include, citizens, business owners and Town officials. The strength of those
alliances will prove to be invaluable as we continue to build broad-based support.
Over these last months, new members have joined our meetings every week. Both Town officials
and professionals from the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission have commented on the
number of volunteers, the level of enthusiasm and amount of energy on the Committee the likes
of which they have not seen before.
This past August, the Committee mobilized its volunteers to do a marketing blitz of Downtown
Area businesses from nearby communities. This event included handing out brochures describing
Reading in terms of demographics and geographics, and to encourage businesses to consider
Reading's Downtown as a potential location for expansion. The groups reported back many
leads, all of which have been explored, but none of which has yet resulted in new retail business
moving to the Downtown. It has become clear that some physical issues will need to be
addressed in order to attract new retail business. These issues include: parking, traffic, signs,
landscaping, building facades, lamp posts and others.
The Downtown Steering Committee, through discussion and consensus among its members, has
charged itself with the task of creating a "Vision" of the Downtown. The "Vision" of Reading's
Downtown will result from the input of its citizens. The role of the Committee is to give
structure to the planning and action necessary to achieve common goals. Over time, the focus of
the Committee will change, as it already has, to keep pace with the special issues facing the
Downtown.
In order to unite the community around a set of shared goals, the Downtown Steering Committee
launched two projects: A "Shoppers' Survey" was created and distributed by various means
throughout the Town. In just one month's time, 350 surveys have been returned. The other
project undertaken by the Committee was "The First Step." The First Step took place on
Saturday, November 4. Members of the Committee and other volunteers led groups of interested
citizens on guided tours of the Downtown. The day was celebrated with balloons lining Haven
and Main Streets, and with a reception on the Common for participants to discuss the activity
which had just taken place.
During the First Step, tour groups stopped at predetermined places throughout the Downtown.
Participants were instructed to look critically at all they saw. Each group listed the assets and
liabilities of that which they had inventoried. So, the question is, where do we go from here?
Survey results will begin to be compiled this week. The notes which are the result of the First
Step are also in the process of being compiled, and should be available to the Committee by
month's end.
The Committee's next step will be to summarize and analyze all of the data and come up with
goals and objectives to report back to the public and private sectors. Thursday, January 4th, has
tentatively been set as the date on which the Committee will report its findings back to the
Community.
At its meeting later this week, it is expected that the Committee members will discuss finances.
Thus far, many members have expended their own funds to help get this project off the ground.
Many goods and services have been donated by area businesses, as well as by Committee
members. The group will look at the possibility of establishing itself as a non-profit organization
and begin fundraising activities.
I thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to report the activities of the Downtown
Steering Committee, and look forward to speaking with you again in the near future.
4
ARTICLE I - Dr. Harry Harutunian, Superintendent of Schools, presented the following report,
which was accepted as a Report of Progress:
Good Evening. Tonight, I would like to present to you the State of the Schools Report.
As Superintendent of Schools, I would like to express to you how proud and honored I am to be
the Superintendent of Schools in Reading. During my first 100 days, I have had the opportunity
through my entry plan to sit down and speak to over four hundred people who are associated with
our school system.
This Fall, we opened our schools with almost 4,000 students enrolled in the seven public schools
in Reading. We have seen an increase of over 100 students from last year in this year's enroll-
ment. The opening of school was smooth and very exciting. We in the Reading school system
were fortunate to open up a renovated Joshua Eaton Elementary School this Fall. The project
was completed in just enough time for the first day of school. We are now winding down to the
finishing touches in completing this project.
This past month, we broke ground for a new $13.9 million Walter S. Parker Middle School which
will have its first phase completed in the Fall of 1996 and total completion in the Fall of 1997.
This Fall, we have completed contract negotiations for the next three years with our teachers,
secretaries and educational assistants. We have also reached one year agreements with principals,
all non-union central office staff and reached a one year agreement with our custodial and
maintenance people.
Since early Fall, there has been strong collaboration between the Superintendent, the Town
Manager, the Finance Committee, the Selectmen and the School Committee here in Reading.
The three boards have met in September, October and November, and will meet again in
December and January to find new ways to collaborate on the budget process. We are also
meeting to explore ways to share services in the areas of maintenance, library and technology.
All of these steps bring to Reading a stronger town government, a better run community and a
much more efficient school department.
When I became Superintendent, starting on August 1, one of my first tasks was to reconcile this
year's budget. After analyzing every line item in last year's budget with the help of Beth Klepeis
and Richard Foley, we determined what our projected needs would be for the remainder of this
year. Based on our financial projections, there appears to be a projected shortfall of approx-
imately $489,000 in the School Department budget for FY 1996.
This number was arrived at after careful scrutiny of our budget and was forwarded to the School
Committee and the Finance Committee in early Fall. We in the School Department have been
able to revamp our accounts and redistribute approximately $214,000 to try to offset this
projected shortfall. At this time, it appears that we will need an estimated $280,000 for us to
complete the FY 1996 budget year.
5
With the support of the School Committee and The Finance Committee, we have decided not to
ask Fall Town Meeting for this amount of money. Rather, we would like to make every attempt
that we can to offset this deficit through good fiscal practices until April Town Meeting.
In the Spring of 1996, we will be approaching the Town Meeting with an amount of money that
we will need to offset this year's costs. We have a 20% hold on all our schools, on our
administration and on our custodial accounts so that we will be prepared if Town Meeting is not
able to give us the full amount of money. We are holding an amount of money equal to $280,000
in abeyance until the Spring.
This Fall and early Winter, the School Department will be putting forward a new budget format -
easier to read, user friendly, very comprehensive and it will be laid out in two formats. A line item
budget which people have used in the past, and a program budget, new to our budget process,
will be included. We have met many times with the leadership of the Finance Committee in trying
to develop a School Department budget that parallels the needs of the Town and the community.
In short, the School Department is developing an even stronger understanding and knowledge of
the financial situations of the Reading School Department.
For me, the first one hundred days have been exciting, challenging and very rewarding. I want to
thank publicly the Reading School Committee for its confidence in selecting me as Superintendent
of Schools in Reading. I have enjoyed my relationship with the Selectmen and the Finance
Committee and I see a strong relationship developing between the school administration, the
- School Committee and the other Town boards and organizations throughout Reading. It is truly a
privilege to be the Superintendent of Schools in Reading and I feel very lucky to work with such a
dedicated staff and truly supportive parents.
Finally, I look forward to many outstanding years as your Superintendent of Schools serving the
parents, the teachers, the community at large but most of all the children of the Reading public
schools. Thank you and good night.
ARTICLE 1- Russell Graham, Chairman of the School Building Committee, presented the
following report, which was accepted as a Report of Progress:
The School Building Committee is pleased to report progress is ongoing on all projects presently
being addressed by the Committee, some albeit quicker than others.
The Joshua Eaton School renovation and addition is, with the exception of a few wrap up items,
done and the school opened on the first day of school with seconds to spare. An Open House is
scheduled for the near future, and we urge you to attend to see, feel and touch what your
commitment to our school system has created for the benefit of the children of Reading.
A rather large hole takes up a significant part of the Parker Middle School site, evidence of the
beginning of new construction ongoing of the new Middle School.
6
At the end of July, bids for the Parker project were opened and low bidder was TLT Construction
of Lynnfield with a low bid for construction of $9,763,700 versus a construction budget of
$11,409,000. Based on that bid in conformance with Mass. Law, award for the Parker project
was accordingly given to TLT Construction. They have subsequently begun construction and, at
this early stage, we are pleased to report that all seems to be going as smoothly as such a large
project would expect to be.
While we should be pleased with this low bid, the scope of the project, and the magnitude of the
dollars, are such as to temper that euphoria with the realistic belief that much could happen
between now and the completion of the job, and the School Building Committee urges, and the
School Committee and Administration concur, that a conservative and cautious approach must be
taken in any view of the budget vs. bid scenario.
The superintendent has appointed a Clerk of the Works for the project, and happily Rich Radville
of the School Building Committee has volunteered to serve as liaison to the project. This along
with participation of the Administration, particularly the intense involvement of Dr. Delaney,
provide overview and supervision of the Parker construction by the Town of Reading.
In accordance with the motion passed by Town Meeting in the Spring, a request for proposal for
a feasibility study for the renovation of the Reading Memorial High School was issued. A
vendors conference was held on October 18, 1995, and a site visitation and tour of the high
school was given on October 24. Proposals for the study are due to the Building Committee by
November 30, 1995.
We have in effect asked the vendors for a shopping list of proposals beginning with what can be
done at a low end renovation up to the most that can be done to bring the building to a state
providing a 21 st Century education to high school students. All, of course, are consistent with
standards that meet the requirements of the State School Building Assistance Board. Such a list
can then be viewed in context with the stark fiscal realities which overshadow all of municipal
government, and thus hopefully allow us to bring back to Town Meeting recommendations which
will address in some way both the physical and fiscal aspects of the problem.
To put the high school in perspective, we are talking about 325,000 square feet of space. All of
the other buildings in the Reading school system could together fit in the high school. We cannot
delude ourselves in not believing that any attempt to address renovation of that much space in its
present configuration would represent a very major project.
On a personal note, I have to tell you that if I have to traipse through that building many more
times behind the ever exuberant Rena Mirkin, then survival will dictate that the Committee choose
a more youthful and certainly, and obviously, a more physically fit Chairman.
7
We anticipate that given the amount of time needed to labor over the alternatives and given the
complexity of the FY 97 budget that a Report of Progress will be made in April, and
recommendations made to Town Meeting at next Falls Subsequent Town Meeting.
Finally, Mr. Moderator, the Committee again wishes to express its thanks to the staff of both
Town Hall and the School Department, and to our Town elected officials. The spirit of
cooperation and level of competence evidenced in working on these projects make the
Committee's life far easier and more pleasant. A special note of thanks and welcome to Dr.
Harutunian who must on some days feel that he is climbing Mt. Everest without benefit of
mountain gear. His immediate involvement, his response and his decisiveness at this difficult time
are deeply appreciated by the Committee.
The ultimate thanks, of course, is to you Town Meeting. We are your Committee, you created us
and give us direction. It is gratifying to us that our efforts do not become exercises in rhetoric
and futility. You have by your vote and your commitment turned those recommendations into
reality. That reality will have a long term effect on education in Reading and, ultimately, on the
future of our children. For that, your School Building Committee sincerely thanks you.
ARTICLE 1- Joseph Delaney, Town Engineer, presented the following report on the proposed
improvements to Route 129, which was accepted as a Report of Progress:
Route 129 will be reconstructed in the Spring of 1996. The goals of this project are to:
• Construct sidewalks and curb for the length of Route 129;
• Update signalized intersections to current standards; and
• Improve the existing pavement structure.
The limits of the project are Interstate 93 on the westerly end and Interstate 95 on the easterly
end. The project will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes, two 3-foot shoulders, vertical granite
curb, four foot grass strips and 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street.
The status of the project is as follows:
The 25% design plans were submitted to the State in September 1995;
The Public Hearing will be held on November 29, 1995 at the High School;
The anticipated start of construction will be April, 1996.
The project will be 100% financed by a combination of State and Federal money appropriated
through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The estimated project
cost is $3,000,000.
ARTICLE 1 - David M. Swyter, Precinct 7, Chairman, R1\4LD Board, presented the following
report which was accepted as a Report of Progress:
On behalf of the Reading Municipal Light Board and the Light Department, I am proud to present
the one hundredth and first Annual Report to Town Meeting.
This brief presentation will touch upon a general overview of four areas: the RMLD's relationship
to the Town; its financial condition; current issues and future challenges. Our audited Annual
Report, available at the Spring Town Meeting, provides complete, detailed and comparative data.
In such a brief presentation, it is impossible to cover all areas of the Department. However, these
few statistics will illustrate the most vital parts of the RNILD's relationship to the Town of
Reading.
Electrical sales, as of September 30, 1995, totals Forty Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars.
Projected sales are anticipated to exceed Fifty One Million Dollars by the end of our fiscal year.
Reading leads in residential sales, Wilmington in industrial, commercial and overall sales.
A typical RMLD residential customer (500 KWH) pays $49.86 per month. The same residential
customer in the Boston Edison service area would pay $64.81 and similarly in the Mass. Electric
service area would pay $56.90. At the moment, surrounding Towns that have municipal electric
utilities are reducing their rates to customers by refunding unexpended monies from certain past
purchases such as the Seabrook Nuclear Station that the RMLD's Board of Commissioners chose
not to invest in. Once these refund accounts are expended and/or returned to their rate payers,
their electric bills will very likely return to being higher than the RMLD's.
All electric utilities are being deregulated at both the wholesale and retail levels. To prepare for
the impending competitive challenges, we have examined our organization and our processes.
The RMLD has reorganized. We are now two divisions instead of three, we have broadened job
classifications, flattened the management structure, formed quality improvement teams and are
responding directly to customer feedback. Our goal is to become as flexible as possible so that
we can quickly react to competitive forces and ensure our resources are focused on satisfying
customers and their changing expectations.
Customers have asked for more information, flexible rates that better fit their needs and are
demanding new ways of paying their bills. To accommodate these requests, we have revised our
residential and commercial/industrial newsletter, and are reviewing rate structures and new
payment programs such as credit card and electronic transfers.
Our financial picture is healthy. Based on September 30, 1995 sales data, we project annual sales
will exceed Fifty One Million Dollars with net income to exceed Four Million Eight Hundred
Thousand Dollars. Refer to our annual audited financial report for detailed information.
9
In 1992, our expenses exceeded our revenues. Rate stabilization fund transfers were utilized to
avoid rate spikes. In 1993, we reversed that situation and in 1994 and 1995 transfers have
allowed us to start rebuilding these reserves.
The RMLD returns a substantial amount of money to the Town of Reading. In 1995, we will
return One Million Four Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars from net income as a voluntary
"in-lieu-of tax payment" (return of equity), and anticipate the distribution of approximately One
Hundred Eight Thousand Dollars from operating expenses as "voluntary payments" (in-lieu-of
taxes) based on a twenty year agreement formula with the neighboring towns of Lynnfield Center,
North Reading and Wilmington. The RMLD reimburses the Town of Reading approximately
Ninety Four Thousand Dollars for the cost of its employees health insurance and the proportional
costs of the Town's Treasurer and Accountant expense. The RMLD also reimburses the Town of
Reading approximately Six Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Dollars for pension reimbursements for
its employees.
The telephone, airline, natural gas and banking industries have been deregulated. Many federal
and state governments feel that now it is time to deregulate the electric utility industry to allow
competition at wholesale and retail levels for each others large commercial, light manufacturing
and industrial customers.
The State process is expected to be enacted in mid-1996 and may allow any customer to buy
electricity from any source. The Board and the Department anticipate an opportunity in
competition and see this transition to full competition as the single most important issue facing the
RMLD, its owners and rate payers. The RMLD will continue to deliver electricity to your home
or business: There are many issues such as outage response, billings, and power quality, etc. that
still need resolution at the state and federal levels. The RU LD will continue to emphasize
flexibility, technology, high system reliability, excellent customer service and low rates.
During the past year, we have solicited feedback from our rate payers through several methods:
customer satisfaction surveys, residential and commercial/'industrial newsletter surveys; the
"Share-A-Thought" program, and directly from customer letters, phone calls and visits.. Your
feedback has allowed us to see how we are doing and what we need to improve. The
"Share-A-Thought" program alone has shown us that there are a lot of customer questions about
street lighting and tree trimming. Also, our customers want a clearer explanation of fuel charges
and summer/winter rates. Finally, they want changes in payment methodology and larger return
envelopes.
The men and women of the RMLD, past and present, have worked hard to provide quality,
reliable and rep-sonably priced electrical services to each customer 24 hours a day, 365 days per
year. On behalf of the Board of Light Commissioners, we salute the employees of the RMLD and
join with them in a pledge to thrive in this new arena of competition.
10
On behalf of the Department and the Board of Commissioners, I would like to thank each o you,
( the citizens of Reading and every rate payer for your continued support. We look forward to
mutually developing a better understanding and addressing your needs throughout our second
century of community service.
Sincerely,
Reading Municipal Light Department
Board of Commissioners:
David M. Swyter, Chairman
William J. Hughes, Jr. Secretary
Allan E. Ames, Member
Philip B. Pacino, Member
John P. Holland, Member
ARTICLE 1 - Lt. Robert Silva, Reading Police Department for the Police Station Building
Committee presented the following report, which was accepted as a Report of Progress:
The Police Station was built in 1930. It was comprised of two floors with only five thousand
square feet. In 1979, it was expanded to the present eight thousand square feet. The Police
Station in 1930 housed fourteen sworn officers and served a population of approximately nine
thousand. We now have fifty-one sworn and non-sworn personnel serving a population of
approximately twenty-two thousand.
The Police Station fails to adequately protect those who work there and fails to service the public
in an effective and efficient way. The Police Station does not meet the American with Disabilities
Act standards, it does not conform to local building codes, and it violates a number of safety and
environmental requirements. The architect hired by the Town says the Police Station should have
nineteen thousand two-hundred square feet to effectively and efficiently service the public.
The Board of Selectmen established a Police Station Designer Selection Advisory Panel to review
the R.F.P.'s. At the same time, the Board established a Police Building Committee with a repre-
sentative from Town Meeting, Department of Public Works, Historical Commission, Pleasant
Street Neighborhood, Finance Committee, Board of Selectmen and the Police.
In February 1995, representatives from over twenty architectural firms toured the Police Station.
We received twenty-one Request for Proposals (RFP) applications. All of the architects felt we
could do very little with the existing building to meet our needs. They concluded that the
adjoining property would have to be purchased or an alternate site would have to be found.
The Selection/Advisory Panel interviewed ten of the twenty-one applicants. We then
recommended three to the Town Manager. Preservation Partnership of Fall River, MA was
selected to conduct a feasibility study. The Selection/Advisory Panel was then disbanded.
11
The Police Building Committee was charged by the Board of Selectmen to conduct an extensive
search for the most appropriate site. The Committee toured a number of area Police Stations to
educate ourselves to the current building styles in Police Stations. The Committee established
availability, affordability, accessibility and an adequate lot size as essential criteria when discussing
a number of potential sites.
We viewed the R.M.L.D. Building on Haven Street, the present site, the property on Walker
Brooks Drive, the Union Street Parking Lot, the D.P.W. Complex, Cerretani's and the.Oakland
Road site. We also explored various funding mechanisms that included State Grants and a
Proposition 2 1/2 override. .
The Committee held numerous meetings with the architect and narrowed the potential sites to the
expanded existing site and the Oakland Road site. The Oakland Road site is the preferred site
because it meets all of the criteria and, in fact, has a lot of advantages that will benefit the entire
community.
The Committee stands by its decision that Oakland Road be the preferred site. However, we
know we must continue to search for other potential sites and to maintain an open dialogue with
public and private groups to gain the necessary support to accomplish the Committee's goals. We
look forward to returning to Town Meeting with all the necessary information that will provide
Reading with a Police Station that services the public in the best possible way.
ARTICLE I - Lorraine Salter, Chairman, Teen Center Committee, presented the following
report, which was accepted as a Report of Progress:
The Teen Center Committee has been together since 1991 meeting monthly. Our main objective
was to find a proper location. As you all know, this has not happened as nothing seems to be
available.
We have been providing afternoon activities on early release days for the middle school students
from September to June. The Committee also runs Friday night activities for middle school
students at least once a month at the high school. We plan to continue these activities until a
proper Teen Center can be found.
On motion by Sally M. Hoyt, Precinct 4, it was voted to lay Article 1 on the table.
ARTICLE 2 - On motion by Robert Lynch, Precinct 6, it was moved to request that the Board of
Health reverse their position on NO SMOKING in restaurants to allow a twenty to twenty five
percentage of seats to be for smoking customers.
This motion was voted in the negative.
12
Prior to vote, Cathy Baranofsky, Chairman, Board of Health, offered the following information:
MISSION OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH: To protect the health and well being of the
citizens of Reading as well as protect the Town's environment from pollution and damage. As
new health issues arise, the Board develops new programs and services to respond to citizen's
needs.
• November, 1992
• FY 195 $35,150
• FY '96 $29,878
• FY'97 $29,878
BACKGROUND
Voter Referendum
To Board of Health (8 MONTH "YEAR")
To Board of Health
Stoneham joins Reading Program October 1, 1995
To Board of Health
WHAT IS THE MONEY USED FOR?
PUBLIC AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
Annual health fair
T-shirt and button contests with camp children
Presentations to community groups, preschools, etc.
Working with local youth groups
Regional smokefree dining guide
Physician networking
SMOKING CESSATION PROGRAMS
8 Programs
141 Participants
86 Smokefree
Comprehensive referral list of other programs in the area
ENFORCEMENT
Signage check during regular inspections of retail food stores
Compliance checks for selling to minors
5 compliance checks
53% noncompliance first time to 15.4% low
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
Adopting state law locally concerning sale of tobacco to minors
Eliminating cigarette vending machines except in private club
Updating smoking in restaurants regulations
13
PROCESS IN DEVELOPING REGULATIONS
• Which Tobacco Issues To Address?
Sale To Minors
Vending Machines
Self Service Displays
Advertising
Distribution Of "Freebies"
Workplace
Restaurants
• Draft Regulations December, 1994 and January, 1995
• Breakfast Meeting with Restaurants February 1, 1995
• Public Hearing February 16, 1995
• Vote March 9, 1995
• Effective July 1, 1995
WHY BE CONCERNED ABOUT SECONDHAND SMOKE
WHAT IS SECONDHAND SMOKE?
OR
ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE?
A mixture of "mainstream" smoke exhaled by the smoker and "sidestream" smoke from the
burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco product.
It is a mixture of over 4000 substances, 43 of which are know human carcinogens. It actually has
higher concentrations of some of the carcinogens than that inhaled by the smoking person as the
sidestream smoke is not filtered.
Acetone (Nail polish remover)
Ammonia
Arsenic (Poison)
Carbon Monoxide (Car exhaust fumes)
Formaldehyde. Tl reserver of body tissues)
Hexamine (Barbecue lighter)
Hydrogen Cyanide (Gas chamber poison)
Naphthalene (Mothballs)
Nicotine (Insecticide)
14
EPA'S GROUP A CARCINOGENS
GROUP A: KNOWN HUMAN CARCINOGENS
® Arsenic
Asbestos
® Benzene
® Bis(Chloromeythl)Ether
® Chromium Vi
® Coke Oven Emissions
® Disthylstilbestetrol
m Direct Black 38 (Benzidene-Based Dye)
® Direct Blue 6 (Benzidine-Based Dye)
® Secondhand Smoke*
® 2-Naphthylamine
® Nickel
o Radon
® Vinyl Chloride
*Secondhand smoke is the only carcinogen in Group A for which the cancer risk in humans was
detected at environmental levels, rather than occupational or pharmaceutical levels.
EACH DAY IN MASSACHUSETTS:
® 3 people die as a result of involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke.
0 11 children contract lower respiratory infections due to exposure to secondhand
smoke.
® Secondhand smoke is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children as well as
a cause for increased episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with
asthma.
® Secondhand smoke has significant effects on the respiratory health of nonsmoking
adults including reduced lung function, increased coughing and chest discomfort.
IS THERE AN ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT WHEN RESTAURANTS
ARE REQUIRED TO BE SMOKEFREE?
July, 1994 American Journal of Public Health
Study looked at first 15 Towns to have smokefree restaurant regulations in Colorado and
California. Compared them to towns of comparable size, income, smoking prevalence. Data
obtained from the State's Department of Revenue.
Smokefree Ordinances had no statistically significant effect on restaurant sales.
15
IN READING:
® Three new restaurants have opened/are in the process of opening since the smoke-
free regulation went into effect four months ago.
® Another restaurant had expressed interest in the Eugene's location.
e A professional restaurant company is negotiating to purchase a restaurant in
Reading
® There has been more new restaurant activity in the first four months of this regulation
than all of last year.
AREA TOWNS WHO HAVE 100% SMOKEFREE RESTAURANTS
Andover, Arlington, Bedford, Belmont, Brookline, Concord, Lexington, Newton, Sharon,
Tewksbury, Wakefield and as of last week, Winchester.
The above motion was debated for approximately forty-five minutes during which time fifteen
Town Meeting Members asked questions or offered comments. Town Counsel, Ted Cohen,
responded to questions of legality. One amendment was offered but defeated. The instructional
motion, when voted, did not carry.
On motion by Sally M. Hoyt, Precinct 4, it was voted to lay Article 2 on the table.
ARTICLE 3 - On motion by George V. Hines, Precinct 7, it was voted to amend the 10 year
Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1996 to 2005, as provided for in Section 7-7 of
the Reading Home Rule Charter by adopting the changes to lines PW-C-3 and PW-L-1 as shown
in pages 1, 3, & 5 of the Capital Improvement Program and reflected in the "Report on the
Warrant - Subsequent Town Meeting - November 13, 1995," and as further amended by
Frederick Van Magness, Precinct 8, to increase line PW-R 3 from $10,000 to $38,000.
ARTICLE 4 - On motion by George V. Hines, Precinct 7, it was voted to indefinitely postpone
the subject matter of Article 4.
ARTICLE 5 - On motion by Stephen Blewitt, Chairman of the Finance Committee, it
was voted to an rend one or more of the votes taken under Article 14 of the Warrant of
the Annual Town Meeting of April 20, 1995, relating to the Fiscal Year 1996 Municipal Budget,
as follows, with the source of funding as previously voted unless otherwise stated:
16
ARTICLE 5 - 1995 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
AMENDMENTS TO FY 1996 BUDGET
Budget New Budget
dQet # Description Modification Amount
Al
Accounting Personal Services - clerical 1995 retro
1,130
89,505
B8
Community Development Personal Services -
clerical 1995 retro
319
72,919
C9
Finance Personal Services - clerical 1995 retro
5,135
270,115
D11
Property and Casualty Insurance
-40,000
98,975
D12
General Services Personal Services - clerical 1995
retro
1,996
101,472
E10
Human Services Personal Services - clerical 1995
retro
1,508
95,050
G1
Police Personal Services - clerical 1995 retro
591
2,129,591
G1
Police Personal Services
108,600
2,238,191
G2
Police, Non-Personal expenses
41400
187,525
H1
DPW Personal Services - clerical 1995 retro
1,936
80,305
El
Health Personal Services - weights and measures
-1,700
28,637
E2
Health Non-Personal Services - weights and
measures
1,700
42,730
J1
School Personal Services - Custodian retro
67,000
181042,000
J2
Vocational School Assessment
24,287
86,722
K14
Capital - Drainage imp. on Haverhill Street at
North Reading
28,000
38,000
TOTAL - GENERAL FUND
204,902
N2
Sewer - Total Non-Personal Expenses
-100,000
2,503,075
TOTAL - SEWER FUND
-100,000
Source of
Funding
Modification
N2
Use of Sewer Surplus to offset Sewer Fund
Non-Personal Expenses
67,000
171,839
-
17
ARTICLE 6 - On motion by W. Bruce MacDonald, Precinct 4, it was voted to establish a
revolving fund in accordance with Chapter 44 Section 53E 1/2 of the Massachusetts General
Laws for receipts from the sale of compost bins. The proceeds from the sale of compost bins will
be used to purchase additional compost bins and pay sales tax from such sales. The program is to
be administered by the Department of Public Works with expenditures not exceeding $2,500
during Fiscal Year 1996.
ARTICLE 7 - On motion by Camille W. Anthony, Precinct 5, it was voted that the Town
authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with haulers or operators of solid waste
collection and/or disposal facilities for the collection, hauling and disposal of refuse, garbage and
waste or for the purchase or use of by-products or residue resulting from the operation of such
solid waste hauling and disposal facilities; such contract shall be for such period as agreed upon
by the parties and upon such other terms and conditions as agreed upon by the parties and shall be
in accordance with the applicable provisions of General Laws Chapter Forty, Section Four,
General Laws Chapter Forty D, Section Twenty-one, General Laws Chapter Forty-four, Section
Twenty-eight C or any other applicable enabling authority.
ARTICLE 8 - On motion by Camille W. Anthony, Precinct 5, it was voted that the Town
appropriate the sum of one hundred forty eight thousand, three hundred and seven dollars
($148,307) from the "State distribution for RESCO funds" for the purpose of developing plans,
specifications, and all other things required for the closure of the former Reading Landfill site on
Walkers Brook Drive on property known as plat 57 lots 20 -26 and plat 68 lots 7 and 8 on the
Tax Assessors' map, such appropriation to include all planning, engineering, testing, and other
preparation costs required to complete the purpose of this article, all moneys to be expended
under the direction of the Board of Selectmen.
ARTICLE 9 - On motion by Camille W. Anthony, Precinct 5, it was unanimously voted that the
Town raise by borrowing under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 44 Section 7 (20) and any
other enabling authority, the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) and appropriate
said sum for design and construction and all other costs associated with the development of the
Wood End Cemetery on Franklin Street, said sum to be expended under the direction of the
Board of Cemetery Trustees.
121 voted in the affirmative
0 voted in the negative
18
Mary Vincent, Cemetery Trustee, presented the following report:
Brief History of Wood End Cemetery
1. Site Selection:
a. Search began in 1981 due to restrictions on development at Charles Lawn.
b. Trustees recommend Franklin Street.
c. Site included in Master Plan 1991.
d. Land Bank Approval 1993.
e. Site Selection Committee appointed at Town Meeting in 1993.
f. In 1994 the Site Selection Committee recommended the Franklin Street
site to Town Meeting and the area was transferred to Cemetery Trustees.
2. Development:
a. Surveying, engineering and layout supervised by the Cemetery Director with
BSC Group of Norwell - Input from Conservation Administrator.
b. Cooperation of Department of Public Works and availability of loam and
boulder results in rapid progress.
c. Reduction of cost estimation from $300,000 to $200,000.
d. Received necessary permits from Conservation Commission and Board
of Public Health.
e. Presented program to Selectmen, Capital Advisory Committee and Finance
Committee.
3. Time Frame:
a. Full development at this time will result in lower cost, more attractive area,
and more appeal to potential buyers.
b. Work through winter and spring will result in seeding next fall and sales the
following year.
c. Earlier return on investment and availability of lots to public.
4. Financ
With approval of Town Meeting, borrow money to be paid back from income
of Sale of Lots and Bequest Fund at no cost to taxpayer.
19
Elizabeth Klepeis, Town Treasurer, reviewed the financing proposal for Wood End Cemetery
Development as follows:
Borrow the funds, using Bond Anticipation Notes (six years)
® Borrow $100,000 in Spring of 1996.
o Roll over the original $100,000; Borrow additional $100,000 in Spring
of 1997.
® Start paying principal in Fiscal Year 1999.
® Pay debt service from proceeds of Sales of Lots and interest on Bequest
Trust Fund
v Cemetery Department continues to fund operations budget from income.
ARTICLE 10 - On motion by W. Bruce MacDonald, Precinct 4, it was voted to table the subject
matter of Article 10.
ARTICLE 11- On motion by W. Bruce MacDonald, Precinct 5, it was voted to table the subject
matter of Article 11.
ARTICLE 12 - On motion by Sally M. Hoyt, Precinct 4, it was voted to table the subject matter
of Article 12.
On motion by Sally M. Hoyt, Precinct 4, it was voted that this Subsequent Town Meeting stand
adjourned to meet at 7:30 p.m. at the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium on Thursday,
November 16, 1995.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
165 Town Meeting Members were present.
A true copy. Attest: - atherme A. Quimby
Town Clerk
20
ADJOURNED SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
Reading Memorial High School
November 16, 1995
The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Paul C. Dustin, at 7:40 p.m., there being a
quorum present.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Arthur C. Flynn, Saint Agnes Church, followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
ARTICLE 13 - On motion by Edward G. Smethurst, Precinct 4, it was voted to amend the
General Bylaws by adding the following new section:
5.13. Demolition of Structures of Potential Historical Significance
5.13.1. The purpose of this Bylaw is to preserve and 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 and to encourage owners of such
structures to seek out persons who might be willing to purchase, preserve, rehabilitate or restore
such structures rather than demolish them. To achieve these purposes, the Reading Historical
Commission is empowered to advise the Building Inspector with respect to the issuance of
permits for demolition of such historically significant structures. The issuance of demolition
permits for such historically significant structures is regulated as provided in this Bylaw.
5.13.2. Definitions
5.13.2.1. Business Day: A day which is not a legal municipal holiday, Saturday
or Sunday.
5.13.2.2. Demolition: Any act of pulling down, destroying, removing or razing
a structure or commencing the work of total or substantial destruction with the
intent of completing the same.
5.13.2.3. Emergency Demolition: In the event of an imminent danger to the
safety of the public, nothing in this Bylaw shall restrict the Building Inspector
from immediately ordering the demolition of any structure or any part thereof.
5.13.2.4. Potentially Significant Structure: Any structure or a portion of a
structure that:
a. Is listed on, or is within an area listed on, the National Register of Historic
Places, the Massachusetts Historical Register or Historic Places, or is the
subject of a pending application for listing on said registers, or;
b. Is included in the Historical and Architectural Inventory, as of September 1,
1995, maintained by the Reading Historical Commission or structures for
which complete historical and architectural survey forms may be pending
as of that date, or;
21
c. Has been determined by an affirmative vote of at least four (4) members of the
i Commission to be historically or architecturally significant in terms of period,
style, method of building construction or association with a significant architect,
builder or resident either by itself or as part of a group of buildings, provided
that the owner of such a structure and the Building Inspector have been notified
in hand or by certified mail at least thirty (30) days prior to such vote.
5.13.2.5. Preferably Preserved Historic Structure: Any historically significant
structure which is determined by the Commission to be in the public interest to
preserve because of the important contribution made by such structure to the
historical and/or cultural resources of the Town.
5.13.2.6. Commission: The Reading Historical Commission.
5.13.2.7. Structure: Materials assembled at a fixed location to give support or
shelter, such as a building, framework, wall, tent, reviewing stand, platform or
the like.
5.13.3. Procedures
5.13.3.1. The Commission will provide a listing of Potentially Significant
Structures to the Building Inspector. This list is subject to the following criteria
and periodic modification:
Criteria for Potentially Significant Structures:
a. The structure is determined to be importantly associated with one or more
historic persons or events, or
b. Is determined to be associated with the broad architectural, cultural, economic
or social history of the Town or Commonwealth.
c. The structure is defined in Definition 5.13.2.4 as a Potentially Significant
Structure.
5.13.3.2. Upon the receipt of application for a Demolition Permit for a Potentially
Significant Structure, the Building Inspector shall immediately forward a copy
thereof to the Commission for review.
5.13.3.3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date upon which the Commission
receives the Demolition Permit, the Commission shall make an Initial
Determination that is:
Positive if the structure is historically inventoried, or in the process of being
inventoried or determined by the Commission to have historic significance, or
b. Negative if the Initial Determination is negative, the property is no longer
subject to this Bylaw, and the Building Inspector may act on the Demolition
Permit.
22
5.13.3.4. If the Initial Determination is Positive, the Commission shall hold a public
hearing on the application within twenty-one (21) days of the Initial Determination,
and shall give public notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing in a local
newspaper at least fourteen (14) days before said hearing; at least seven (7) days
before said hearing, the Commission shall mail a copy of said notice to the
applicant, to the owner(s) of all property deemed by the Commission to be affected
thereby as they appear on the most recent local tax list, and to such other persons
as the Commission shall deem entitled to notice.
The Commission may require that the applicant maintain on the property, which is
the subject of a Demolition Permit application, a notice in a form designated by the
Commission, visible from the nearest public way, of any hearing on the subject
matter of such application. The Town shall be responsible for costs associated
with the mailing, posting or publishing of the required notices.
No less than five (5) business days before the public hearing, the applicant shall
submit three (3) copies of a demolition plan which shall include the following:
a. An Assessor's map or plot plan showing the location of the structure to be
demolished on its property with reference to the neighboring properties;
b. Photographs of all facade elevations;
c. A description of the structure to be demolished;
d. The reasons for the proposed demolition and data supporting said reason;
e. A brief description of the proposed reuse of the property on which the
structure to be demolished is located.
5.13.3.5. If, after the close of such hearing, the Commission determines that the
demolition of the Potentially Significant Structure would not be detrimental to
the historical or architectural heritage or resources of the Town, the Commission
shall so notify the Building Inspector within fifteen (15) business days of the
conclusion of the hearing. Upon receipt of such notification or after the expiration
of the fifteen (15) days, the Building Inspector may act on the Demolition Permit if
he has not received notification from the Commission.
5.13.3.6. If the Commission determines that the demolition of the Potentially
Significant Structure would be detrimental to the historical or architectural
heritage or resources of the Town, such structure shall be considered a
Preferably Preserved Historic Structure. The Commission shall so advise
the applicant and the Building Inspector, and a Demolition Permit may be delayed
up to six (6) months after the conclusion of the hearing during which time
alternatives to demolition shall be considered. The Commission shall offer the
owner information about options other than demolition, such as resources
23
in the preservation field, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the
Town Planner, and other interested parties that might provide assistance in
preservation, funding and/or adaptive reuse.
5.13.3.7. Responsibility of Owner/Applicant
The owner of record shall be responsible for participating in the investigation of
options to demolition by actively seeking alternatives with the Commission
and any interested parties, by providing any necessary information, by allowing
reasonable access to the property, and by securing the premises.
5.13.4. Release of Delay Enforcement
Notwithstanding the preceding section of this Bylaw, the Building Inspector may issue a
Demolition Permit for a Preferably Preserved Historic Structure at any time after receipt
of written advice from the Commission to the effect that either:
a. The Commission is satisfied that there is no reasonable likelihood that either
the owner or some other person or group is willing to purchase, preserve,
rehabilitate or restore such building, or;
b. The Commission is satisfied that during the delay period the owner has made
continuing, bona fide and reasonable efforts to locate a purchaser to preserve,
rehabilitate and restore the subject structure, and that such efforts have been
unsuccessful.
As a condition of releasing the delay enforcement, the Commission may require the
applicant to submit measured drawings or other documentation for the Town's historic
records.
5.13.5. Emergency Demolition
Nothing in this Section shall be construed to derogate in any way from the authority of the
Building Inspector derived from Chapter 143 of the General Laws. However, before
acting pursuant to that Chapter, the Building Inspector shall make every reasonable effort
to inform the Chairperson of the Commission of his intentions to cause demolition before
he initiates same.
5.13.6. Enforcement and Remedies
5.13.6.1. In the event a structure governed by this Bylaw 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. As used herein "premises"
includes the parcel of land upon which the demolished structure was located and
all adjoining parcels of land under common ownership or control.
24
Mr. Edward Palmer, Chairman, Historical Commission, gave a brief history as to purpose of this
article. After affirmative reports from the Community Planning and Development Commission
and the Bylaw Committee, Mr. David O. Sullivan, Historical Commission Member, reviewed the
proposed bylaw and responded to questions from Town Meeting Members for two hours before
motion was voted.
Town Meeting Member, William Brown, Precinct 8, offered three amendments of which one was
voted:
Amend 5.13.3.4 by changing the word "applicant" in the last sentence of first paragraph to the
"Town" so that sentence shall read: "The Town shall be responsible for costs associated with the
mailing, posting or publishing of the required notices." This amendment was voted:
78 - affirmative; 57 - negative.
Mr. Frederick Van Magness, Precinct 8, offered five amendments, two of which were voted as
follows:
5.13.3.4. - Change the word "structure" to "property" in the next to last sentence of first
paragraph so that sentence shall read: "The Commission may require that the applicant maintain
on the property, which is the subject...." This amendment was voted unanimously.
5.13.2.4c. - Amend to change the word ten (10) to thirty (30) and delete the word "business" so
that the last sentence shall read: "...or by certified mail at least thirty (30) days prior to such
- vote." This amendment was voted unanimously.
During the two hour debate on Article 13, twenty five Town Meeting Members spoke to this
issue in addition to Town Counsel and members of the Historical Commission. The main motion,
as amended, was voted at 9:35 p.m.
ARTICLE 14 - On motion by Jonathan Barnes, Precinct 5, it was unanimously voted to
authorize the Board of Selectmen to acquire all or any part of a temporary construction and
permanent drainage easement as shown on the plan entitled "Plan of Proposed drainage easement
- Plat 123, lots 4 and 4a" dated 11-13-95 as "PROP 30 FT. WIDE EASEMENT 8850 + S.S."
on, over and/or under that portion of the land currently believed to be owned by Ann Minotti
located at 908 Main Street and shown on Town of Reading Board of Assessors' Revised January
1, 1989, Plat 123 as Lots 4 and 124A in fee or rights of easement therein by eminent domain
under the provisions of Chapter 79 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
or to acquire said interests in said land or any part thereof by gift, purchase, or otherwise, and that
the Town will rRise the sum of $1,000 and appropriate said sum to the Board of Selectmen to pay
for appraisals of said property and to pay for the acquisition of said land or rights of easement
therein, or to be used for payment of land damages or other costs and expenses of such
25
acquisitions, and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to enter into agreements with private
parties or state and federal agencies for financial and other assistance in connection with such
acquisition, and to do all other acts and things necessary and proper for carrying out the
provisions of this vote.
136 voted in the affirmative
0 voted in the negative
Bryan Irwin, Chairman, Community Planning and Development Commission, read the following
letter into the record:
Re: Fall 1995 Town Warrant - Article 14
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Relative to the above referenced, I hereby authorize this letter to be read into the record at the
Fall 1995 Town Meeting.
Please be advised that I have decided to support Article 14 at the Fall 1995 Town Meeting. Since
the public hearing held on Monday, November 6, 1995, I have been convinced that the proposed
easement will not interfere with any buildable or usable portions of my property.
Over the course of the past several years, misunderstandings and miscommunications have
strained negotiations concerning the drainage problems along Main Street. It is my hope that by
supporting this Article 14, the Town, my neighbors and I now will be able to work together to
solve the problem at hand.'
While I, like my neighbors, am eager to address the problem, I call on the Board of Selectmen to
use patience and discretion in exercising the authority granted to it under Article 14. My support
of this Article is contingent only upon the commitment of the Board of Selectmen to work closely
with any engineers or professionals that I might retain to assist me in this matter.
Very truly yours,
(signed) Ann Minotti
ARTICLE 15 - On motion by Jonathan Barnes, Precinct 5, it was moved to amend the Reading
Zoning By-Laws by amending Paragraph 6.2.3.2.d.(2) by adding the word "generic" after the
phrase "establi zhment and the" and before the phrase "type of goods and services" and by adding
the words not including brand names, corporate names, trademarks, logos, symbols, or other
particular identification relative to specific goods or services," after the phrase "type of goods or
services it offers" and before the phrase "shall be displayed", so that said paragraph shall read as
follows:
26
11(2) Permanent signs shall be of a durable material, such as wood, metal, plastic, neon
tubes, decals, or paint, and shall be displayed only on the interior side of the surface of a window
and door, provided that no lettering contained in such sign shall exceed six inches in height and
that the only the name of the establishment and the generic type of goods or services it offers, not
including brand names, corporate names, trademarks, logos, symbols, or other particular
identification relative to specific goods or services, shall be displayed, or may state "OPEN"; no
such sign shall be internally illuminated except for those of neon tubes and these shall not be
illuminated except during hours of operation of the business; no such sign shall require a permit."
2/3 vote required
66 voted in the affirmative
52 voted in the negative
Motion did not carry
The Community Planning and Development Commission and the Bylaw Committee both offered
affirmative recommendation. Wayne MacLeod, Chairman, Sign Review Board, reported that they
voted not to support Article 15 by 5-0-0.
Town Meeting Members discussed this proposal for twenty minutes with those opposed
expressing concern that it was too restrictive and would be detrimental to the business
community.
ARTICLE 16 - On motion by Jonathan Barnes, Precinct 5, it was unanimously voted to amend
Section 7.2.2. of the Reading Zoning By-Laws by adding at the end thereof the following new
sentence:
"The provisions of this Section 7.2.2. shall equally apply to the record owner of the real
property upon which a violation of this By-Law occurs regardless of who caused or committed
such violation."
2/3 vote required
118 voted in the affirmative
0 vote in the negative
ARTICLE 17 - On motion by Jonathan Barnes, Precinct 5, it was voted to table the subject
matter of Article 17.
Mr. Barnes advised Town Meeting that the Community Planning and Development Commission
felt there were several issues raised at the Public Hearing that needed to be resolved or clarified.
ARTICLE 18 - On motion by Jonathan Barnes, Precinct 5, it was voted to amend the Reading
Zoning By-Laws by adding thereto Section 4.9.3.1.1. which shall read as follows:
"4.9.3.1.1. Alternative Procedure: As an alternative to the provisions of Sections 4.9.3.3.,
4.9.3.5., 4.9.3.7., 4.9.3.8. and 4.9.3.11., a Developer may elect to follow an alternative process as
specified below:
27
a. The Developer shall submit a Request for Determination to the Reading Conservation
Commission according to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131 Section 40 and Reading
General Bylaws Section 5.7., and obtain a Determination of Applicability relative to the proposed
site, including an official delineation of any wetlands contained on the site, such delineation to be
accurately depicted on development plans subsequently submitted for the site.
b. Subsequent to such Determination of Applicability, the Developer shall request in
writing that a joint public meeting of the CPDC and the Conservation Commission be held with
the Developer to review the Developer's proposed development. The Developer shall supply such
written and graphic material, in twenty copies, as fully to explicate the intended development
concept, together with potential alternative options, including number, location, and height of
buildings, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, parking, landscaping, open space, drainage control,
wetlands protection, off-site improvements, and any other features relevant to the development
concept.
Within thirty-five days of such a request, the CPDC and the Conservation Commission
shall hold at least one session of a joint public meeting with the Developer to discuss the
development concept and the options, issues, concerns, and other matters relative to the proposal.
Particular attention shall be paid to:
(1) Obtaining input from both Commissions simultaneously,
(2) Identifying concepts, options, and approaches relative to the development,
potentially acceptable to both Commissions within their respective purview,
authority, and responsibilities,
(3) Reviewing mitigation measures which meet the concerns of both Commissions.
All "parties of interest" shall be given such notice of this meeting as required for a public
hearing under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
C. Within sixty-five days of the filing by the Developer of a complete Final PUD Plan,
the CPDC shall hold a public hearing to consider issuance of a Special Permit to construct a PUD.
The Final PUD Plan shall be a definitive plan of the development and contain such information as
specified in Section 4.9.3.10. Approval of the Special Permit shall be granted upon determination
by the CPDC that the Final PUD Plan conforms with and meets the requirements, standards, and
guidelines set forth in Sections 4.9.4. and 4.9.5. in a manner consistent with the concept presented
and the Commissions' input received according to Paragraph 4.9.3.1. Lb. The Special Permit may
be granted with conditions, or not granted, or granted by inaction, according to Section 4.9.3.12.
The Final PUD Plan may include application for approval of a proposed subdivision of the
site in accordance with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in Reading.
A separate endorsable Definitive Subdivision Plan meeting the requirements of said Rules and
Regulations may be included as part of the Final PUD Plan documents, and the public hearing for
consideration of such subdivision plan shall be held by CPDC concurrent with the Special Permit
public hearing referenced above.
28
At the Developer's election, the Conservation Commission shall hold at least one session
of a public hearing simultaneously with the CPDC Special Permit public hearing referenced above,
for considering the Developer's Notice of Intent relative to the proposed PUD development. The
hearing shall be scheduled mutually between the CPDC and the Conservation Commission.
The request for such simultaneous public hearing must be accompanied by or preceded by
a complete Notice of Intent submission and all relevant application fees in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131 Section 40 and Reading General Bylaws Section 5.7.,
and a waiver of the time requirements for the Conservation Commission's holding of a hearing and
issuance of an Order of Conditions under said Chapter 131 Section 40 and said General Bylaws
Section 5.7. The Conservation Commission may at its discretion continue sessions of its public
hearing to or deliberate an Order of Conditions at places and times independent of the CPDC's
public hearing or meetings."
2/3 vote required
104 voted in the affirmative
2 voted in the negative
Sally Hoyt, Precinct 4, moved and it was voted to suspend reading of entire article, after the first
paragraph, as Town Meeting Members had the wording in their Warrant Report.
AR'T'ICLE 19 - On motion by Jonathan Barnes, Precinct 5, it was voted to table the subject
matter of Article 19.
AR'T'ICLE 20 - On motion by Jonathan Barnes, Precinct 5, it was voted to amend the Reading
Zoning Map by placing a Planned Residential Development General (PRD-G) Overlay District
on property located at 19 Harold Avenue identified as Parcel 2 on Board of Assessors Plat 155.
2/3 vote required
98 voted in the affirmative
7 voted in the negative
At this time, the Moderator called all Articles presently on the table.
ARTICLE 2 - On motion by Philip Pacino, Chairman, Bylaw Committee, Precinct 4, it was voted
to instruct the Board of Selectmen to amend Section 2.1.7. of the General Bylaws by deleting the
phrase "fifth Tuesday preceding" and substituting therefor the phrase "seventh Tuesday preceding.
Such change to.make the closing of the Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant two weeks earlier
than it is being closed.
On motion by Sally Hoyt, Precinct 4, Article 2 was laid on the table.
29
At the close of Town Meeting, the Moderator, Paul Dustin, congratulated Town Clerk, Catherine
Quimby on her impending retirement, and thanked her for her many years in Town Government,
not only in her capacity as Town Clerk for the last six years, but for her many years of service as a
volunteer and elected Town Meeting Member for 27 years.
On motion by Sally Hoyt, it was voted that this Subsequent Town Meeting stand adjourned sine
die at 10:50 p.m.
143 Town Meeting Members were present.
A true copy. Attest: atherine A. Quiiy
Town Clerk
30