HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-09 Subsequent Town MeetingCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading:
By virtue of this Warrant, I, on October 20, 1992
notified and warned the inhabitants of the Town of Reading,
qualified to vote in elections and town affairs, to meet at the
place and at the time specified by posting attested copies of
this Town Meeting warrant in the following public places within
the Town of Reading:
Precinct 1. Video Arena, 1349 Main Street
J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street
St. Athanasius Church, 300 Haverhill Street
Precinct 2. Cumberland Farms, 305 Salem Street
Registry of Motor Vehicles, 275 Salem Street
JoAnn's Variety, 143 Salem Street
Precinct 3. Friendly Variety Store, 245 Washington Street
Reading Police Station, 67 Pleasant Street
Wayside Bazaar, 107 Main Street
Precinct 4. Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue
Dragon Corner Store, 206 West Street
Spence Farm Market Gardens, 40 West Street
Precinct 5. Reading Library, Local History Room,
64 Middlesex Ave.
B & M Railroad Station, High Street
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street
Precinct 6. Fire Station, 267 Woburn Street
Housing for the Elderly, 1 Frank D. Tanner
Drive
Alice M. Barrows School, 16 Edgemont Avenue
Precinct 7. Meadowbrook Golf Club, 292 Grove-Street
P & S Convenient Store, 287 Lowell Street
Memorial High School, 62 Oakland Road
Precinct 8. Arthur W. Coolidge, Jr. High School, 89 Birch
Meadow Drive
Birch Meadow School, Arthur B. Lord Drive
Marshall's, 1342 Main Street
The date of posting being not less than fourteen (14) days
prior to November 9, 1992 the date set for the Subsequent Town
Meeting in this Warrant.
I also caused an attested copy of this warrant to be pub-
lisped in the Reading Chronicle in the issu of October 14, 1992.
A" ;
Const le of Re ing
SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
(Seal)
COMMONWEALTH OF.MASSACHUSETTS
November 9, 1992
Middlesex, ss.
To either of the constables of the Town of Reading,
Greetings:
In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts you are
hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of
Reading, qualified to vote in elections and Town affairs, to meet
at the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium, 62 Oakland Road
in said Reading, on Monday, November 9, 1992, at seven-thirty
o'clock in the evening, at which time and place the following ar-
ticles are to be acted upon and determined exclusively by Town
Meeting Members in accordance with the provisions of the Reading
Home Rule Charter.
ARTICLE 1 To hear and act on the reports of the Board of
Selectmen, Town Accountant, Treasurer-Collector, Board of Asses-
sors, Director of Public Works, Town Clerk, Tree Warden, Board of
Health, School Committee, Contributory Retirement Board, Library
Trustees, Municipal Light Board, Finance Committee,... Cemetery
Trustees, Community Planning & Development Commission, Town
Manager and any other Boards or Special Committees.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 2 To choose all other necessary Town Officers and
Special Committees and determine what instructions shall be given
Town Officers and Special Committees, and to see what sum the
Town will raise by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or
otherwise, and appropriate for the purpose of funding Town Of-
ficers and Special Committees to carry out the instructions given
to them, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 3 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Capital
Improvement Program as provided for in Section 7-7 of the Reading
Home Rule Charter and as previously amended, or take any other
action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 4 To see if the Town will vote to amend one or more
of the votes taken under Article 31 of the Warrant of the Annual
Town Meeting of April 13, 1992, relating to the Fiscal Year 1993
Municipal Budget, and to see what sum the Town will raise by bor-
rowing, or transfer from available funds, or otherwise and ap-
propriate as the result of any such amended votes for the opera-
tion of the Town and its government, or take any other action
with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
1
ARTICLE 5 To see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing
or from the tax levy or transfer from available funds, or other-
wise, and appropriate for the purpose of repairing or replacing
sections of the roof at Reading Memorial High School, 62 Oakland
Road, Reading, Massachusetts, such appropriation to include all
engineering fees and preparation costs required to complete the
purpose of this Article, all monies to be expended under the
direction of the Reading School Committee, or take any other ac-
tion with respect thereto. School Committee
ARTICLE 6 To see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing
or from the tax levy or transfer from available funds, or other-
wise, and appropriate for the purpose of removal of underground
fuel tanks and for the conversion to gas heat at Coolidge Middle
School, 89 Birch Meadow Drive, Birch Meadow School, 27 Arthur B.
Lord Drive, and Reading Memorial High School, 62 Oakland Road,
Reading, Massachusetts, such appropriation to include all en-
gineering fees and preparation costs required to complete the
purpose of this Article, all monies to be expended under the
direction of the Reading School Committee, or take any other ac-
tion with respect thereto. School Committee
ARTICLE 7 To see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing
or from the tax levy or transfer from available funds, or other-
wise, and appropriate for the purpose of installing chair lifts
at Coolidge Middle School, 89 Birch Meadow Drive, Reading, Mas-
sachusetts, such appropriation to include all engineering fees
and preparation costs required to complete the purpose of this
Article, all monies to be expended under the direction of the
Reading School Committee, or take any other action with respect
thereto.
School Committee
ARTICLE 8 To see what sum the Town will raise from the tax
levy or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, and ap-
propriate for the purpose of further evaluating the methods of
meeting the future space needs of the Reading Public Schools; all
monies to be expended under the direction of the School Building
Committee.
School Committee
ARTICLE 9 To see what sum the Town will raise from the tax
levy or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, and ap-
propriate for the purpose of purchasing unwanted grave spaces, or
take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Cemetery Trustees
2
ARTICLE 10 To see if the Town will vote to accept one or
more gifts to be administered by the Commissioners of Trust
Funds, such gifts to be used for the purposes for which they are
given to the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 11 To see if the Town will vote to accept the provi-
sions of General Laws Chapter 44, Section 53F 1/2 to establish an
enterprise fund relating to the collection or disposal of refuse,
garbage and solid waste, or take any other action with respect
thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 12 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the
Board of Selectmen to sell, or exchange, or dispose of, upon such
terms and conditions as they may determine, various items of Town
tangible property, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 13 To see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing
or from the tax levy or transfer from available funds or other-
wise and appropriate for the purpose of completion of subdivision
roadway and right-of-way work in Sanborn Village Phases III and
IV in accordance with the terms of certain Covenant Agreements
dated October 4, 1985 and July 11, 1988 executed to the benefit
of- the Town of Reading by The Bank For Savings and Rivers
Development Corp. pursuant to the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Subdivision of Land of the Town of Reading in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, such funds to be expended
by and under the direction of the Board of Selectmen, or take any
other action with respect thereto.
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 14 To see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing,
or from the tax levy, or transfer from available funds, or other-
wise, and appropriate for the purpose of completion of construc-
tion of roadways and associated improvements, known as Partridge
Road, in the Batchelder Estates Subdivision, in accordance with
the terms of a certain Covenant Agreement dated March 27, 1990
between the Town of Reading and Edward G. Knudsen and Robert W.
Murray as Trustee of Batchelder Estates Trust, pursuant to the
Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the
Town of Reading in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 41, such funds to be expended by and under the direction
of the Board of Selectmen, or take any other action with respect
thereto.
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 15 To see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing,
or from the tax levy, or transfer from available funds, or other-
wise, and appropriate for the purpose of completion of construc-
3
tion of roadways and associated improvements, known as Fairchild
Drive, Lindsey Lane, and a portion of Ashley Place, in the Fair-
wood Acres Subdivision, in accordance with the terms of certain
Covenant Agreements dated April 18 and May 16, 1988 between the
Town of Reading and Felix Quinn and Mary Ann Cerat, Trustees of
Fairwood Acres Realty Trust and a certain Tri-Party Agreement
dated August 10, 1989 between the Town of Reading, Mary Ann Cerat
and David J. Carlberg as Trustees for Fairwood Acres Realty Trust
II, and the Danvers Savings Bank, pursuant to the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the Town of
Reading in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41,
such funds to be expended by and under the direction of the Board
of Selectmen, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 16 To see if the Town will vote to accept the gift
from John McMillan of easements for sidewalks and sight lines in,
to and over a portion of his land at the intersection of Village
and Washington Streets, or take any other action with respect
thereto.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 17 To see if the Town vill vote to accept the gift of
all of the owner's right, title and interest in and to the fol-
lowing described parcels of land currently believed to be owned
by the Trustees of the Batchelder Estates Trust for the following
described purposes, or take any other action with respect
thereto:
Those certain parcels of land situated off of Partridge Road
and shown as Lots 5A-1, 5A-2 and 5A-3 on the plan entitled: "Plan
of Land in Reading, Mass. Prepared For: Batchelder Estates Trust
Scale 1" = 40' August 24, 1992" by Commonwealth Engineering, Inc.
Lot 5A-1 is shown on said plan as containing 31,282 square feet
(.72 acres) and is proposed to be acquired by the Town of Reading
for general municipal purposes including use by the Board of
Cemetery Trustees; Lot 5A-2 is shown on said plan as containing
189,764 square feet (4.36 acres) and is proposed to be acquired
by the Town for conservation purposes; and Lot 5A-3 is shown on
said plan as containing 13,508 square feet (.31 acres) and is
proposed to be acquired by the Town for general municipal pur-
poses including drainage purposes.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 18 To see if the Town will vote to transfer the care,
custody, management and control of the following described land
or portions thereof, which is' commonly known as Batchelder Field,
from the School Committee and/or Board of Selectmen to the Board
of Cemetery Trustees for cemetery purposes and to the Conserva-
tion Commission for conservation purposes; and to see if the Town
will vote to file a petition and/or approve the filing of a peti-
tion to the General Court, if necessary, for a special act or for
leave of the General Court, pursuant to Articles 49 and 97 of the
Articles of Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, or any
other enabling authority, authorizing the Town to transfer the
4
care, custody and control of any portion of the following
described land currently being held for conservation purposes to
the Board of Cemetery Trustees, or take any other action with
respect thereto.
I The land shown as Lot 1 on Town of Reading Board of. Asses-
sors' Map 227, Revised January 1, 1984, and consisting of ap-
proximately 37.14 acres situated on the northerly side of
Franklin Street, said land being shown as Parcels B, C and E on
the plan of land entitled: "Plan of Land in Reading, Mass. Scale:
1" = 100' March 9, 1983" recorded at the Middlesex South District
Registry of Deeds as Plan 295 of 1983.
Board of Selectmen
ARTICLE 19 To see if the Town will vote to file a petition
and/or approve the filing of a petition to the General Court for
a special act or for leave of the General Court, pursuant to Ar-
ticles 49 and 97 of the Articles of Amendment to the Mas-
sachusetts Constitution, or any other enabling authority,
authorizing the Town to transfer the care, custody and control of
the following described land from the Board of Selectmen and/or
Conservation Commission to the Board of Selectmen and/or Conser-
vation Commission for the purposes .of conveying it to Richard and
Arlene Harper of 695 Pearl Street, Reading, MA for consideration
of the transfer by Richard and Arlene Harper to the Town of Read-
ing of an equal or greater amount of land for conservation pur-
poses; and to determine the minimum amount to be paid for such
conveyance; and to authorize the Board of Selectmen and/or Con-
servation Commission to convey all or any part of said property
for such amount or a larger amount, and upon such other terms and
conditions as the Board of Selectmen and/or Conservation Commis-
sion shall consider proper, and to deliver a deed therefor to
said purchaser; and to see what sum the Town will raise by bor-
rowing, or transfer for available funds or otherwise and ap-
propriate to carry out the purposes of this article, or take any
other action with respect thereto:
Approximately 22,737.6 square feet of land in the Bare
Meadow Conservation Area off of Pearl Street being a portion of
Lot 2 on Town of Reading Board of Assessors' Map 238, revised
January 1, 1978.
Conservation commission
ARTICLE 20 To see if the Town will vote to file a petition
and/or approve the filing of petition to the General Court for a
special act or for leave of the General Court, pursuant to Ar-
ticles 49 and 97 of the Articles of Amendment to the Mas-
sachusetts Constitution, or any other enabling authority,
authorizing the Town to transfer the care, custody and control of
the following described land from the Conservation Commission
and/or Board of Selectmen to the Conservation Commission and/or
Board of.Selectmen for the purposes of conveying it to the Read-
ing Rifle and Revolver Club, Inc. for consideration of the trans-
fer by the Reading Rifle and Revolver Club, Inc. to the Town of
Reading of an equal or greater amount of land for conservation
5
purposes; and to determine the minimum amount to be paid for such
conveyance; and to authorize the Board of Selectmen and/or m Con_
s e r v a t i o n
mission to convey all or any part of such property for such
amount or a larger amount, and upon such other terms and condi-
tions as the Board of Selectmen and/or Conservation commission
shall consider proper, and to deliver deed therefor to said Read-
ing Rifle and Revolver Club, Inc.; and to see what sum the Town
will raise by borrowing or transfer from available funds or
otherwise, and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this ar-
ticle, or take any other action with respect thereto:
The land off of Haverhill Street shown as Parcels C and D on
a plan of land entitled: "Plan of Land in Reading, Mass., Scale:
111 = 100' dated June 9, 1992 prepared by Gerrit Consulting." Par-
cel C contains 270,254 square feet (6.204 acres) and Parcel D
contains 25,581 square feet (.587 acres) all as shown on said
plan. Parcels C and D are portions of Lot 1 on Town of Reading
Board of Assessors' Map 125, revised October 10, Commission
1972.
Conservation ARTICLE 21 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the
Board of Selectmen to convey and/or abandon certain rights of
easements for emergency access and pedestrian access in Reading,
Middlesex County, MA, situated on Lots 16 and 17 shown on a plan
entitled: "Definitive Plan Benton Circle & Aurele Circle, Read-
ing, Mass." dated August 28, 1979 and recorded in the Middlesex
South District Registry of Deeds, which were conveyed to the Town
in a Conveyance of Easements and Utilities" dated October 17,
1979 recorded at said Registry of Deeds in Book 13824, Page 84,
including authorizing the reduction of the size of said thirty
(30') foot wide easement and/or the size of the ten (101) foot
wide paved emergency access located thereon, and to determine the
minimum amount to be paid for such conveyance and/or abandonment,
and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey or abandon all
or any part of said rights of easements for such amount or larger
amount and upon such other terms and conditions as the Selectmen
shall consider proper and to deliver a deed therefore if neces-
sary; or take any other action with respect thereto.
By Petition
ARTICLE 22 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the
Board of Selectmen to convey and/or abandon a certain forty (401)
foot right of way and easement in Reading, Middlesex County, MA
situated on Lot 8 on a plan entitled: "Final Subdivision Plan of
Pine Grove Estates, Reading, Mass. Scale 1" = 4011' dated June 1,
1973, as revised, recorded at the Middlesex South District
Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 516 of 1974; to determine the mini-
mum amount to be paid for such conveyance and/or abandonment, and
to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey or abandon all or
any part of said right of way and easement for such amount or
larger amount and upon such other terms and conditions as the
Selectmen shall consider proper and deliver a deed therefor if
necessary; or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
6
ARTICLE 23 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Reading
Zoning By-Laws as follows, or take any other action with respect
thereto:
1. Amend Section 2.2.13. definition of "Frontage" by ad-
ding the phrases "a lot line along" and "having a depth into the
lot of not less than twenty (20) feet," so that Section 2.2.13.
shall read as follows:
112.2.13 FRONTAGE: the continuous length of a lot line
along a street line, having a depth into the lot
of not less than twenty (20) feet, not burdened by
access easement at the time of subdivision, across
which access is legally and physically available
for pedestrians and vehicles. The end of a street
without a cul-de-sac shall not be considered
frontage."
2. Add the following new Section 2.2.21.1.:
112.2.21.1 LOT WIDTH: the width of a lot governed by the
diameter of a circle, said circle fitting entirely
within the lot and being tangent with the front
lot line."
3. Amend Section 5.1.2. "Table of Dimensional Controls" by
adding under "Minimum Lot" a new column entitled "Lot Width,
Circle Diameter, feet" and by inserting the following figures
into said new column in the following rows:
"Lot Width
Circle Diameter
One or Two Family Dwelling feet
in S-10 District 60
in S-20 Districts 60
in S-40 Districts 60"
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 24 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 4.9
of the Reading Zoning By-Laws as follows, or take any other ac-
tion with respect thereto:
1. Amend Section 4.9.2.1. by inserting the following
definitions in proper alphabetical order in said section:
"DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid"
"RDNA technology: The industrial science of molecular con-
struction outside living cells by join-
ing natural or synthetic DNA segments to
DNA molecules that can replicate in a
living cell."
7
2. Amend
tence after the
"The need for a
be discussed by
be made as to
requirement."
Section 4.9.3.2. by inserting the following sen-
first sentence of the third paragraph thereof:
three-dimensional model for large projects shall
the developer and CPDC and a determination shall
whether such a model shall be an application
3. Amend Sections 4.9.3.3. and 4.9.3.10. by deleting from
the last sentence of each section the phrase "in the CPDC's
regulations"
4. Amend Section 4.9.3.4. by deleting from the second sen-
tence thereof the phrase "or in a fee schedule for PUD review
specifically adopted and amended by the CPDC from time to time"
5. Amend Section 4.9.3.6. by adding at the end of the
first sentence thereof the phrase and whose fees are paid for
by the developer."
6. Amend Section 4.9.4.2 by deleting the subsection com-
mencing with the words "Research and Development uses" in its en-
tirety and substituting therefor the following: "Research and
Development uses, such as electronic and computer laboratories;
biotechnology laboratories including those which utilize RDNA
technology; light manufacturing related to electronic or computer
laboratories or biotechnology laboratories including those which
utilize RDNA technology, but excluding activities which ex-
clusively possess, use or transfer licensed nuclear materials
(including source materials, special nuclear materials, or by-
product materials as defined in Title 10, Chapter 1 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 20, "Standards for Protection
Against Radiation"), or other toxic or hazardous materials;"
7. Add the following new Section 4.9.5.7.:
114.9.5.7. Special Requirements for Biotechnology Uses
The following provisions shall apply to any establishment involv-
ing the use of biotechnology:
a. Biotechnology exclusion: Any RDNA technology use.re-
quiring P4 level of containment or involving the use of
insect viruses to propagate DNA sequences, as clas-
sified by guidelines or regulations promulgated by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United
States Department of Health and Human Services, includ-
ing those contained in 46 F.R. 34463-34487 on July 1,
1981 as may be amended and 45 F.R. 24968-24971 on April
11, 1980 as may be amended, shall be prohibited.
b. Safety Requirements: Any use of RDNA technology shall
require compliance with the administrative safety re-
quirements of Section- IV-D of the "Guidelines for
Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules" (46 F.R.
34463-34487) promulgated by the National Institutes of
Health on July 1, 1981, as may be amended, including
but not limited to the following:
8
(1) Establishment of an Institutional Biosafety Com-
mittee (IBC),
(2) Development of safety plans and manuals,
(3) Appointment of a Biological Safety officer (only
in establishments using biotechnological research
or manufacturing requiring P3 level of containment
as defined in section 4.9.5.7.a. above).
C. Permits and Inspections: Any use of RDNA technology
within a Zoning Overlay District shall require a spe-
cial permit issued by the Reading Board of Health.
Such permit shall be issued upon certification by the
IBC that the facility is in compliance with this PUD
By-Law and NIH guidelines. The Board of Health shall
conduct annual inspections to ensure compliance. The
IBC shall renew certification annually.
d. Environmental Surveillance Program: The IBC shall es-
tablish medical and environmental surveillance programs
in. accordance with NIH guidelines and submit such
programs to thke Board of Health for approval. Such
surveillance programs shall include wastewater sample
monitoring and reporting of test results to the Board
of Health on a periodic basis to ensure that recom-
binant organisms are not released into the environment.
Emergency preparedness training for the Department of
Human Services, Fire Department, Police Department, and
Department of Public Works shall be conducted to train
personnel for emergency response.
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 25
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Reading Zoning
By-Laws by amending Section 6.2.1. thereof as follows, or take
any other action with respect thereto:
1. Delete Section 6.2.1.1. in its entirety and substitute
therefor the following:
116.2.1.1. There shall be no permanent special promotion
signs or banners or temporary or permanent streamers, pennants,
balloons, or placards erected, suspended, posted, or affixed in
any manner outdoors or on the building exterior or premises."
2. Amend Section 6.2.1.2. by adding the phrase except
for temporary special promotion signs as provided in section
6.2.1.3. hereof" after the phrase "located and" so such Section
shall read as follows:
9
116.2.1.2. Signs shall relate to the premises on which they
are located and, except for temporary special promotion signs as
provided in section 6.2.1.3. hereof, shall only identify the oc-
cupant of such premises, the services available, hours of opera-
tion, the products sold and their respective trade names."
3. Add the following new Section 6.2.1.3.:
116.2.1.3. Temporary special promotion signs shall be allowed
in any business or industrial zoning district only under the fol-
lowing conditions:
They shall be allowed only through the issuance of a tem-
porary sign permit issued for a maximum period of sixty (60) days
by the Building Inspector upon his satisfaction that all of the
following conditions are fulfilled; should the Building Inspector
find that one or more of these conditions are not being ful-
filled, he shall revoke said permit, whereupon failure to remove
such sign immediately shall be a violation of these Zoning By-
Laws.
. They shall be only for purposes of informing the public of
non-recurring, seasonal or temporary special sales, promotional
events, open houses or grand openings conducted on the premises.
They shall contain no internal illumination or be il-
luminated by any flashing, travelling, intermittent, revolving or
moving lighting.
Not more than three (3) such signs shall be permitted on any
premises at any one time.
They shall not be hand-lettered, but shall be professionally
lettered on paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic signboards, or on
cloth banners, affixed to a building wall, window or pre-existing
permanent post.
Placement and maximum signboard area of any such sign shall
be as follows:
(1) If, affixed to a wall, no more than forty-eight (48)
square feet and affixed parallel to the wall;
(2) If affixed to a window, no more than twenty-five per-
cent (25%) of the area of the window; if no temporary
sign permit is in effect for the premises, then there
shall be no limitation as to interior signs on those
premises.
(3) If affixed to a post, no more than twelve (12) square
feet, no closer to the.front property line of the
premises 'than f ive. (5) feet, and no lower than eight
(8) feet above the ground as measured to the bottom of
the signboard."
Community Planning and Development Commission
10
ARTICLE 26 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section
4.10. of the Reading Zoning By-Laws by making the following dele-
tions and insertions to Sections 4.10.1., 4.10.2., 4.10.2.1.,
I 4.10.3.3.', 4.10.3.3.4.1 4.10.3.3.8., 4.10.4.1., 4.10.4.2.1.,
4.10.4.2.2., 4.10.4.3., 4.10.4.3.1., 4.10.4.3.2., 4.10.4.4.,
4.10.5.4. and 4.10.6., or take any other action with respect
thereto:
(Proposed insertions are shown in underlined boldface type,
proposed deletions are shown in overstrike.)
4.10. Planned Residential Development (PRD)
4.10.1. Purpose:
The purpose of the Planned Residential District (PRD) is to per-
mit integrated high-quality residential developments with vari-
able densities while permitting preservation of open space and
natural features, allowing reduced infrastructure and site
development costs, to promote a greater diversity of housing op-
portunities within the Town while respecting and enhancing the
existing character of the Town and of the neighborhood, and to
promote attractive standards of appearance and aesthetics consis-
tent with that character.
There shall be three types of PRD Districts:
PRD-A: Affordable Planned Residential Development
PRD-G: General Planned Residential Development
PRD-M: Planned Residential Development on -current`or
former municipally owned properties.
4.10.2. Planned Residential District as an overlay District:-
A PRD Zoning District shall take the form of an overlay district
covering any part of an existing residential s-16-a-~A-86 zoning
district on the Reading zoning map. The A PRD-A or PRD-M Zoning
overlay District shall be applied to a specific parcel or parcels
only through specific action by Town Meeting in a manner identi-
cal to that required to effeet-~ y- of i r--c~ e--o-r amendment-tte
the Reading Zoning Map. A PRD-G Zoning Overlay District may be
- ---_,-_.0.,.4'1. ,
through action by Town Meeting to amend the Reading Zoning Map_
For any land subject to a PRD Overlay District a Developer may
choose to conform either to the zoning regulations which govern
the underlying district or to the PRD overlay regulations and
procedures set forth by this Section, the specific provisions of
which shall supersede all other provisions in the Zoning By-Laws
with respect to the underlying district including, without
limitation, use, intensity, dimensions, parking, signage and site
plan review; however, the provisions of any other overlay dis-
trict shall continue to apply.
4.10.2.1. Definitions:
The following terms shall have for the purposes of this PRD By-
Law the meanings hereby assigned to them:
Developer: one or more entities proposing together to
develop a Planned Residential Development parcel.
11
Existing: in existence at the time of filing a complete
Preliminary PRD Plan submission.
Floor Area Ratio (or "FAR"): in a PRD, the ratio of total
gross building floor area in a PRD to the area of the
development parcel. Gross floor area shall be measured
from outside wall surfaces and shall include ground
floor areas of interior atriums and lobbies, and
mechanical and utility spaces on habitable floors; but
shall exclude rooftop space, balconies, elevator pits,
or non-habitable areas enclosed by ornamental roofs.
Structured parking and garages shall not be counted in
the determination of Floor Area Ratio. Areas clas-
sified as wetlands in MGL Chapter 131 Section 40 or
Reading General By-Laws Article XXXII, may not exceed
ten percent of the development parcel area eligible to
be used in any computation of FAR.
Height: the vertical distance from the average grade around
the perimeter of a building to the top of a flat roof,
including any parapet, or to a point halfway between
the bottom of an eave and the top of a ridge of a
sloped roof.
Inclusionary Housing:
(1) Affordable Housing: Housing units available for
purchase by households with annual incomes less
than one hundred percent (100%) of the median an-
nual household income for the Boston Metropolitan
Area as determined by the most recent calculation
of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development,
(2 Moderately Priced Housing: Housing units available
for purchase by households with annual incomes be-
tween one-hundred percent (100%) and one-hundred-
twenty five percent (125%) of the median annual
household income for the Boston Metropolitan Area
as determined by the most recent calculation of
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment.
Major Street: a street used for through access and carrying
traffic volumes of greater than 10,000 vehicles per
average day.
Minor Street: a street used primarily for access to abutting
properties or carrying traffic volumes of less than
10,000 vehicles per average day.
PRD By-Law: Section 4.10. of the Reading Zoning By-Laws in-
cluding all subsections thereof.
Site: the development parcel upon which a PRD is proposed.
Structured Parking: in a PRD, a parking garage, or all or
part of building floors above or below grade to be used
for automobile parking.
4.10.3.3. Preliminary Plan:
A Developer who wishes to apply for a Special Permit to construct
a PRD shall submit to the CPDC an application including a
Preliminary PRD Plan submission for the entire proposed project.
12
If the Developer of the PRD comprises more than one entity, all
participating entities shall be signatories to the Special Permit
application.
Two copies of the Preliminary PRD Plan shall remain available to
the public during the application process and shall be located in
the office of the Community Development Department and the Read-
ing Public Library. -~y-i~ee-els3oa3-e3--of-°
eligplapeel-at-a-suitable-pttl~lie-19ttileli~g-within-the-Yawn-
4.10.3.3.4. Town Review:
Between the date a Developer submits a complete application for a
Special Permit to construct a PRD and the date of the first
Public Hearing, CPDC may require the distribution of the Prelimi-
nary PRD Plan for review to Town departments, elected and ap-
pointed boards and commissions, and such professional planning,
architectural, and engineering consultants as the CPDC deems ap-
propriate and whose fees are paid for by the developer. All com-
ments on the Preliminary PRD Plan shall be submitted in writing
to the CPDC no later than five days before the scheduled date of
the first Public Hearing. All written comments shall be made
part of the public record on the application for a Special Permit
and shall remain a public record.
4.10.3.3.8. Submission of Final Plan:
The Final PRD Plan shall be a definitive plan of the proposed
development with design sufficiently developed to provide the
basis for - CPDC's review and determinations regarding the
proposal's satisfaction of the requirements, standards, and .
guidelines of this PRD By-Law, and shall conform to the submis-
sion and content requirements specified in sections 4.10.3.3.3.
and 4.10.3.3.9.. The Final Plan shall be consistent with the ap-
proved Preliminary PRD Plan except for changes by amendment or in
accordance with conditions attached to the CPDC's approval of the
Preliminary PRD Plan, and shall satisfy all such conditions. The
Developer shall submit a Final PRD Plan no later than 59 days
after the close of the Public Hearing referred to in section
4.10.3.3.5. Failure to submit the Final PRD Plan within the
specified time period shall result in a termination of the ap-
plication for a PRD Special Permit.
The Developer shall submit complete sets of all plans and all ac-
companying material as specified in subsection 4.10.3.3.9. in ac-
cordance with the procedure set forth in section 4.10.3.3. Two
copies of the Final PRD Plan shall remain available to the public
during the application process and shall be located in the office
of the Community Development Department and in the Reading Public
Library.
An}~-tb~ee-elimensienal-x~eelel-a€-the-p~epesee~-p~e~eet-as-may-be-~e-
eft~i~eel-~-n--GgHE~Le-~~tz3-at
publ4:e-bu4:ld4:ng-with4-n-the-Tewn-
4.10.4.1. Parcel Size:
Tke-1~t~i`i~Rttt2ft-S~c a-ef-any-P~2H-e7evelepment-pa~eel-91~a11-be-eiefH.t-fSj-
aeres- A development parcel may consist of land in more than one
ownership, provided that all lots comprising the parcel lie en-
tirely within a PRD Overlay District and are contiguous.
13
Proposed PRD developments may include pre-existing buildings
provided that all PRD requirements are satisfied by each new or
existing building and by the PRD as a whole. More than one prin-
cipal building may be located on the parcel.
The minimum size of any PRD development parcel shall be as fol-
lows:
PRD-A: eight (8) acres,
PRD-G• sixty-thousand (60,000) square feet,
PRD-M: eight (8) acres.
4.10.4.2.1. Required Bew--and-Mederate-Ineeme Inclusionary Hous-
ing:
PRD-A- Any PRD-A development shall provide on-site af-
fordable housing units at a minimum equal to ten-per-
cent (10%) of its total number of housincr units and may
provide a larder portion as allowed in section
4.10.4.3.1. - - -
4.10.4.3.1.,
PRD-M:Any PRD-M development shall contain or provide off-
site in a manner acceptable to the Reading Housing
Authority affordable housing units at a minimum equal
to ten percent of its total units (both on-site and
off-site).
4.10.4.2.2. Standards. for On-Site Inclusionary Housing units:
Inclusionary housing units shall have a minimum gross floor
area of nine-hundred (900) sc(uare feet,
Inclusionary housing units shall be integrated into the PRD
terior appearance shall be designed to De 3Lnaisz3.n-
guishable from the market-rate units in the same
development,
The developer shall provide adequate guarantee, acceptable
to the CPDC, to ensure the continued availability of
the inclusionary units in perpetuity; such guarantee
may include deed restrictions, recorded deed covenants
relative to equity limitation, or other acceptable
forms,
No more than eighty percent (80%) of the building permits
for the market-rate units shall be issued for any PRD
development until construction has commenced on all the
inclusionary units in the PRD development; no more than
eighty percent (800) of the occupancy permits for the
market-rate units shall be issued until all of the oc-
cupancy permits for the inclusionary units have been
issued.
4.10.4.3. Intensity of Development:
For all PRD developments, the following basic intensity factors
shall apply:
Maximum coverage of the parcel by the aggregate ground area
of all buildings: 25%,
Maximum floor area ratio: 0.40,
14
Minimum separation between buildings: equaf'to the height of
the taller building but in no case less than 40 feet,
Maximum building height:
(1) PRD-A and PRD-G: as allowed in the underlying
zoning district,
(2) PRD-M: 48 feet, not to exceed four stories,
Minimum setbacks as measured between bounds of the parcel
and any portion of any building or structure: 60 feet
in all directions,
Parking: -~5-sra-~ae-ia~-unit;-eewer -trat an
enclosed garage for an individual residential unit may
count as one required parking space and a driveway for
an individual residential unit may count as one re-
quired parking space provided said driveway has minimum
dimensions of 10 feet by 20 feet:
(1) PRD-A and PRD-M: 1.75 spaces per residential unit,
(2) PRD-G• 2 spaces per residential unit.
Loading and unloading:
(1) PRD-A and PRD-M: one space per building containing
multiple units with a common entrance, except that CPDC
at its discretion and in accordance with section
4.10.5.4. may allow fewer spaces,
(2) PRD-G• none, except that one space shall be
provided for any common building or facility, except
that CPDC at its discretion and in accordance with sec-
tion 4.10.5.4. may allow fewer spaces.
Maximum number of dwelling units per.gross area of land con-
tained within the parcel shall be based-upen-the-under-
~ying-~enine}-elistriet as follows:
(1) PRD-A• Allowable basic development density, ac-
cording-to the underlying zoning district in which
the parcel is located, shall be based on the per-
centage of affordable housing units relative to
the total number of housing units contained in the
PRD-A development parcel, according to the follow-
ing formula:
percent of
maximum
underlying inclusionary
development
zoning: housing units:
density:
S-10 10%:
3.900
unitsfacre
each additional
0.065
additional
one percent:
unitslacre
50%:
6.500
units/acre
51% to 100%•
6.500
units/acre
S-20 and S-40 10%• 2.300 units/acre
each additional 0.105 additional
one percent: units/acre
50%: 6.500 units/acre
51% to 100%: 6.500 units/acre
At least fifty percent (50%) of the total number
of inclusionarv_housing units shall be affordable
housing units.
15
(2) PRD G• Maximum basic development density for a
PRD G development shall be based on the underlying
zonins district in which the development is lo-
cated, as follows:
-S-10. 3.25 units per acre,
-S-20: 1.25 units per acre,
-S-40: 1.00 units per acre;
(3)--S 1-0--and- A-&OPRD-M: 10 dwelling units per gross
acre, with the additional limitation that no PRD
development may contain more than 100 residential
units.
4.10.4.3.1. Increased Development Intensity and Height:
PRD-A: The basic intensity and height factors specified in
section 4.10.4.3. may not be increased,
P_RD-G: The basic intensity, but not height, factors
specified in section 4.10.4.3. may be increased as fol-
lows, provided that in no case shall the development
density be increased to a level equal to more than
one-hundred-twenty percent (1200) of the basic density:
(1) For every affordable housing unit provided, one
additional market-rate housing unit may be
provided,
(2) For every two moderately priced housing units
provided, one additional market-rate housing unit
may be provided,
PRD-M: The basic intensity and height factors specified in
section 4.10.4.3. may be increased up to the following
levels if the CPDC finds that a proposed provision of
public improvements or amenities by the Developer would
result in substantial benefit to the Town and the
general public:
(1) maximum floor area ratio: 0.65
(2) maximum building height: 72 feet, not to exceed
six stories, except that not more than one-third
of the total number of any PRD development's
residential units may be contained in a building
or buildings greater than 48 feet in height
(3) maximum number of dwelling units per gross acre of
land contained within the parcel7-based-en-the-um-
derly~en~1-Bening-di9tiet=- 16
dwelling units per-egress-aere, with the additional
limitation that no PRD-M development may contain
more than 160 residential units.
The aforementioned improvements or amenities which CPDC
may consider in granting some amount of increased in-
tensity and height shall include one or more of the
following, provided that, in the estimation of the
CPDC, the benefit to be derived from the proposed im-
provements or amenities shall be commensurate with the
amount of increased intensity or height allowed:
16
(1) significant improvement of the environmental
quality or condition of the site and its surround-
ing areas, including a decrease in runoff,
(2) provision of or contribution to off-site public
facility improvements beyond those necessary to
mitigate the effects of the proposed development
which improvements would enhance the general con-
dition of the surrounding areas,
(3) dedication of open space or recreational
facilities for use by the general public,
(4) active cooperation by the Developer with other
owners in the vicinity to develop and achieve
district-wide and adjacent neighborhood improve-
ment goals and objectives,
(5) provision of public art, distinctive and ap-
propriate design, or other amenities which would
provide unique advantages to the general public or
contribute to achieving Town-wide goals and objec-
tives,
(6) provision of lew---frr-e~ate-ineeme--or--e~e~ely
affordable housing within the PRD in conformance
with this PRD By-Law and/or off-site in a manner
acceptable to the Reading Housing Authority in ex-
cess of the amount required in section 4.10.4.2.1.
4.10.4.3.2. Fractional Computations:
rounded up to the next highest whole number; all other fractional
numbers shall be rounded down to the nearest lower whole number.
4.10.4.4. Limitation of Subdivision:
No lot or development parcel shown on a PRD plan for which a per-
mit is granted pursuant to this PRD By-Law and remains validly in
effect may be further subdivided, and a note to this effect shall
be shown on the plan.
4.10.5.4. Site Circulation and Parking:
Site circulation shall meet accepted standards for private
automobiles, service vehicles, and emergency vehicles. It is
highly desirable to consolidate access to a PRD in a small number
of widely spaced principal access points, which may be driveways
or Town-accepted side streets within or adjacent to the PRD over-
lay District. Principal access should be consolidated in as few
locations as possible and, if feasible, it is desirable for ad-
jacent developments to share principal access. Principal access
points should be spaced and aligned or alternated according to
good traffic engineering practice, and should be signalized if
necessary.
Parking stall size shall be in accordance with the Reading Zoning
By-Laws and shall be landscaped in accordance with section
4.10.5.5.5. A minimum of five percent of the gross area of each
17
parking lot shall be devoted to interior landscaped areas, of as
uniform a distribution as practicable throughout the parking lots
and planted intensively with trees and taller shrubs.
Roadways and drives within a PRD shall be constructed in confor-
mance with standards established by the Reading Department of
Public Works, whether if proposed to be dedicated to the pub14:e
er_~.ta--~v~t-e-a~anerskip Town. The design of the
overall circulation pattern shall be prepared in accordance with
the principles and concepts established in "Recommended Practices
for Subdivision Streets" prepared by the Institute of Traffic En-
gineers (1965) or such other standard as accepted by the CPDC
through duly adopted regulation.
Private on site roadways shall be allowed in any PRD development,
provided that:
Pavement widths for travelled ways (that is, not including
parallel or perpendicular on-street parking) shall not
be less than twenty (20) feet for two-way traffic or
twelve (12) feet for one-way traffic,
Drainage and surface runoff are suitably accommodated if no
curbing is to be provided,
Construction standards referenced above, other than pavement
private roadways; and all deeds conveying any porz3.on
of land or a structure in any PRD development contain-
ing private roadways shall specify that such private
roadways are and are always to remain private roadways.
All on-site and off-site improvements, which include the instal-
lation of utilities, public lighting, sewers, and other public
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the stan-
dards of the Reading Department of Public Works and other ap-
propriate departments. Utilities, including water, sewer, or
storm drainage, proposed to be dedicated to the Town shall be
contained in suitable easements which conform to standards set
forth by the Reading Department of Public Works.
~Pl~e-p~e~*igiens-ef-seetian-6-~--ef-tHe-Reae~ing-$ening-Hy-~awg-net-
~vithstaneling;
tThe determination as to whether any lesser number of off-street
loading and unloading spaces are allowed shall be determined by
the CPDC as part of its review and approval of the Preliminary
PRD Plan.
4.10.6. Residents Association:
In order to ensure that common open space and common facilities
within the development will be properly maintained, each PRD
development shall have a Residents Association, which shall be in
the form of a corporation, non-profit organization, or trust, es-
tablished in accordance with appropriate state law by
a suitable legal instrument or instruments recorded-at the Mid-
dlesex South Registry of Deeds or Registry District of the Land
Court. As part of the Final PRD Plan submission, the Developer
shall supply to the CPDC copies of such proposed instrument,
18
which shall at a minimum provide the information required by said
PRD Plan Submission and Development Regulations in effect at the
time of Final PRD Plan submission.
In cases where the PRD Plan proposes private roadways which do
not meet standards established by the Reading Department of
Public Works, said legal instruments pertaining to the Residents
Association shall specify that the Residents Association shall be
solely responsible for roadway maintenance, snow-plowing, and im-
provements, for all costs associated with the operation and main-
tenance of street lighting, and for reimbursement to the Town of
all costs incurred by the Town relative to such private roadways
in all acts of maintaining or repairing utility lines contained
in utility easements dedicated to the Town. In cases where the
PRD Plan shows private utilities, said legal instruments shall
t
Community Planning and Development.Commission
ARTICLE 27 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section
4.2.2. "Table of Uses" of the Reading Zoning By-Laws by adding
the phrase 5-20, S-40, A-40" after the phrase "S-10" ir_'the
footnote so that such footnote shall read as follows, or
take any other action with respect thereto:
Planned Residential Development may be permitted only
within a PRD Overlay District, which may exist only in an S-10,
- S-20, S-40, A-40 or A-80 underlying Zoning District on the Zoning
Map."
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 28 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Reading
Zoning By-Laws as follows, or to take any other action with
respect thereto:
Add Section 5.2.3.7. to read as follows:
115.2.3.7. Exception on corner lots
Notwithstanding anything in this Section 5.2.3 to the con-
trary, no building, or garage or other accessory structure in a
Residence District shall be located nearer than twenty (20) feet
to any street line."
Amend Section 5.1.2. Table of Dimensional Controls, by ad=
ding a note at the bottom of the Table reading:
" * See exception on Corner Lots, Section 5.2.3.7.11, and add an
asterisk next to the numbers in the Table under the Minimum
Yards, Side, feet column corresponding to any row labelled S-10,
S-20, S-40, A-40, or A-80.
Community Planning and Development Commission
19
f ARTICLE 29 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Reading
Zoning By-Laws by deleting Section 4.6. "Townhouse Development"
in its entirety and by indicating that that Section is intention-
ally being left blank, or take any other action with respect
thereto.
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 30 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Reading
Zoning Map by renaming the Planned Residential Development Over-
lay District established under Article 13 of the Warrant for the
1989 Annual Town Meeting as a PRD-M Overlay District, or take any
other action with respect thereto.
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 31 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Reading
Zoning Map to establish a PRD-G Zoning Overlay District, as
referenced in Section 4.10. of the Reading Zoning By-Laws, and to
include within that Overlay District all areas of the Town con-
tained in all S-10, S-20 and S-40 underlying Zoning Districts, or
take any other action with respect thereto.
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 32- To see if the Town will vote to amend the Reading
Zoning Map to establish a PRD-A Zoning Overlay District as
referenced in Section 4.10. of the Reading Zoning By-Laws, and to
include in that Overlay District the Nitzche property at 453
Haverhill Street shown as Lot 1 on Reading Board of Assessors'
Map 198, dated January 1, 1975, or take any other action with
respect thereto.
Community Planning and Development Commission
ARTICLE 33 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 5.7
the General Bylaws of the Town by adding the following two sen-
tences at the beginning of Section 5.7.16 thereof, or take any
other action with respect thereto:
"The Conservation Commission may issue enforcement orders
directing compliance with the provisions of this bylaw and the
regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and may undertake any other
enforcement action authorized by law. Any person who violates
the provisions of this bylaw or the regulations adopted pursuant
thereto may be ordered to restore the property to its original
condition and take other actions deemed necessary to remedy such
violations."
Conservation Commission
ARTICLE 34, To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 5.7
of the General Bylaws of the Town by renumbering the present
5.7.17 to 5.7.18 and adding the following thereto as Section
5.7.17, or take any other action with respect thereto:
20
r
115.7.17. No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter any
area subject to protection under the provisions of this bylaw
without the required authorization, or cause, suffer or allow
such activity, or leave in place unauthorized fill, or otherwise
fail to restore illegally altered land to its original condition,
or fail to comply with an enforcement order issued pursuant to
the provisions of this bylaw. Each day such violation continues
shall constitute a separate offense except that any person who
fails to remove unauthorized fill or otherwise fails to restore
illegally altered land to its original condition after given
written notification of said violation to the Conservation Com-
mission shall not be subject to additional penalties under this
bylaw unless said person thereafter fails to comply with an en-
forcement order or order of conditions."
Conservation Commission
ARTICLE 35 To see if the Town will vote to amend the General
Bylaws of the Town by adding the following as Section 3.8
thereof, or take any other action with respect thereto:
113.8. AUDIT COMMITTEE
3.8.1 There shall be an Audit Committee consisting of five
(5) members appointed for three (3) year terms so arranged that
as near an equal number of terms as possible shall expire, each
year. No member of the Audit Committee shall be a Town employee;
however, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.4.6 of these
Bylaws to the contrary, a Finance Committee member may.,be a mem-
ber of the Audit Committee. One (1) member shall be appointed by
the Board of Selectmen, one (1) member shall be appointed by the
School Committee, two (2) members shall be appointed by the
Finance Committee and one (1) member shall be appointed by the
Town Moderator.
3.8.2 The Audit Committee shall, recommend to the Town
Manager the firm of independent auditors that is to audit and
report on the financial statements issued by the Town. The Audit
Committee shall review the audit plan with the independent
auditors and, upon completion, of the audit, meet with the inde-
pendent auditors to discuss the results of the audit and the an-
nual financial reports. The Audit Committee shall transmit a
copy of the completed annual audit and report to the Board of
Selectmen, the Finance Committee, and the School Committee by the
end of the calendar year within which the Fiscal Year covered by
the audit occurs."
Town Accountant
ARTICLE 36 To see if the Town will vote to approve an Ad-
ministrative Code pursuant to Section 6-1 of the Reading Home
Rule Charter, or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
21
ARTICLE 37 To see if the Town will vote to amend the General
Bylaws of the Town by adding the following as Section 5.12, or
take any other action with respect thereto.
5.12 Regulation of Certain Motor Vehicles
5.12.1 No unregistered, uninspected or disassembled motor
vehicle may be kept on any property within view from
any public way, private way or abutting property, un-
less one of the folliwng exceptions applies and such
use or exception is otherwise in compliance with the
General and Zoning Bylaws of the Town.
5.12.1.1 The vehicle is regularly operated on the premises as a
farm or other utility vehicle.
5.12.1.2 The owner is licensed as a dealer of new cars, used
cars, or used parts under G.L. c. 140, Section 58, and
operates such a business at that property location.
5.12.1.3. The owner is in the business of autobody repair at that
property location.
5.12.1.4 The vehicle is insured personal property regularly used
in show or operating competitions or displayed as a
collectible. Only one such vehicle shall be allowed
per property.
5.12.2 Enforcement
5.12.2.1 Any vehicle(s) maintained on property in violation of
Section 5.12.1 hereof fourteen (14) days after issuance
of notice of such violation from the Building Inspector
or Police Department shall be in violation of this
Bylaw; and any person violating the provisions of this
Bylaw shall be punished by a fine of Twenty-five Dol-
lars ($25) for each offense and each day that such of-
fense continues shall be considered a separate offense.
5.12.2.2 In addition to any
provisions of this
criminal disposition
of Section 5.11 of
Chapter 40 of the Gei
other means of enforcement, the
Bylaw may be enforced by non-
in accordance with the provisions
these Bylaws and Section 21D of
feral Laws."
Board of Selectmen
22
And you are directed to serve this Warrant by posting an at-
tested copy thereof in at least three (3) public places in each
ij precinct of the Town not less than fourteen (14) days prior to
November 9, 1992, the date set for the meeting in said Warrant,
and to publish this Warrant in a newspaper published in the Town,
or by mailing an attested copy of said Warrant to each Town Meet-
ing Member at least fourteen (14) days prior to the time of hold-
ing said meeting.
Hereof fail not and make due return of this Warrant with
your doings thereon to the Town Clerk at or before the time ap-
pointed for.said meeting. .
Given under our hands
this th day of Ocvober, 1992.
Daniel A. Ensminger Ch rman
Geor V. Hines, Vice Chairman
-.4
Sally M. Hoyt, Se retary
Willard J4
Eugene R.
SELECTMEN
itt
Nigro
OF READING
A TRUE COPY. ATTEST:
Catherine A. Quimby
Town. >.Clerk
Signature of Constable:ry
SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
(Seal)
FIRST BUSINESS SESSION
November 9, 1992 - Reading Memorial High School
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 the Reverend Jean Russo-Parks, Old
South United Methodist Church, followed by the Pledge of Al-
legiance to the Flag.
The Warrant was partially read by Town Clerk, Catherine A.
Quimby, when on motion of Daniel A. Ensminger, 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 Daniel A. Ensminger presented the following:
STATEMENT HONORING READING EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS FOR THEIR PART
IN THE SEPTEMBER 30 GASOLINE SPILL
Good evening. I'd like to ask you to join with the Board of
Selectmen this evening in recognizing the efforts of a group of
Town employees and officials who displayed uncommon courage and TM
dedication in dealing with the September 30 gasoline spill that
happened on Interstate 93 in Wilmington, adjacent to the Town of
Reading wellfields. The Town's response to this incident was out-
standing, and makes us all very proud of the people who serve us.
In addition to the people I will name, there were countless
others who assisted in other roles.
I will ask each of the people whose names I call to come forward
as their names are called.
Immediately after the incident, off-duty firefighter Paul Guarino
was traveling in the southbound lane of I 93, and stopped to as-
sist. He is a trained EMT and paramedic, and was able to stabi-
lize the medical condition of the truck driver until he could be
transported to the hospital by ambulance.
The Reading Fire Department, under the command of newly appointed
Chief Donald Wood was part of the emergency response to the
scene. Many of the firefighters worked straight through the inci-
dent, after having completed their regular tour of duty. Others
worked long and hard during the incident in a very hazardous en-
vironment. Firefighters who responded in addition to Chief Wood
and firefighter Guarino included Lieutenant William Campbell,
Newly appointed Lieutenant Peter Marchetti, and Firefighters
David Ballou, Brian Ryan, Dan Cahoon, Paul Murphy, Mike
Blanchard, Jim Hennessy, Arthur Vars, and Mark Dwyer. In addi-
tion, Captain Ken Campbell and firefighter David Roy worked the
evening of the 30th to assist the cleanup crews with providing
1
Subseqent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
standby fire protection and lighting as they worked through the
night.
While the major part of the emergency at the scene was handled by
the Fire Departments of surrounding Towns, the traff is control
fell to the local and State Police. In Reading, under the command
of Lieutenants Mike Cloonan and Bob Silva, the traffic control
was handled in a professional and expeditious manner. The follow-
ing Police officers who were involved deserve a special mention:
Lt. Kevin Patterson, Sgt. Mark O'Brien, Sgt. Dick Robbins, and
officers Matt Edson, Chris Voeglin, Pat Iapicca, Bill Arakelian,
Hobart Nelson, Joe Veno, Paul Peoples, Larry Fredrick, and Peter
O'Brien.
A major part of any emergency response is the people who answer
the phones and handle the radios. In Reading's Public Safety Dis-
patch Center, dispatchers John Rawcliffe, Keith Gauvreau, and
Andy Nichols performed expertly.
The immediate and long term concern was for the Town's public
water supply, and the fragile wetlands where the wells are lo-
cated. Conservation Administrator Don Nadeau was on the scene al-
most immediately, and was there constantly for weeks. His
knowledge of this wetland area and of wetlands in general proved
invaluable in helping to protect the water supply, reducing the
risk to the Ipswich River, and speeding the clean-up. Jim Biller,
Conservation Commission Chairman, spent countless hours of his
own time, and his knowledge has been invaluable.
In the short term and long term impacts of the gasoline spill,
most of the impact falls on the Department of Public Works. As
with the other Departments of the Town, almost every employee had
an involvement in this incident, and all responded well. A few
people stand out in the Department for exemplary service.
First is Acting Director Ted McIntire, who is heading up the
department since Tony Fletcher's retirement in September. Ted has
been everywhere, doing everything to keep the response and
remediation efforts on course, and ensuring that the Town con-
tinues to have a safe, potable water supply. Kevin Valcour, one
of the operators at the Water Treatment Plant deserves a tremen-
dous amount of credit for shutting down the entire well and
treatment system as soon as he heard the sirens and smelled
gasoline. That single action has saved the responsible party and
the Town untold amounts of money and future difficulties. The
other Water Treatment Plant Operators, Eric Cefalo, Dan Howland,
and Bob Morse have put in tremendous amounts of hours and effort
to keep the water flowing to our homes and businesses in Town.
Peter Tassi, the Supervisor of the Water Treatment Plant, has a
2
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
major role in keeping the water system operating, working with
the clean-up crews on ensuring the long term viability of our
water supply, and making sure that the temporary systems in place
are operating properly and safely.
The water distribution division of the Department of Public Works
has also played a tremendous role. Bill Winkler has worked to
coordinate and oversee distribution work, including coordination
with other communities. Jimmy Richardson, Bob Stark, Fred MacKin-
non, J. P. Cormier, Gary Boutin, Mark Spataro, Alan Nickerson,
Ronan; Laskey, Tom Fennelly, and Ralph Coffill all worked on im-
plementing the interconnection systems and fine-tuning the dis-
tribution system as needed.
The picture here is one of a prompt, professional, well coor-
dinated response to perhaps the worst emergency to befall the
Town of Reading in recent times. Through it all, these in-
dividuals, and all of the employees and officials of the Town
have had only the safety of the residents of Reading in mind as
they have spent countless hours and suffered personal incon-
venience and hardship. Please join me in saluting these fine
people who serve us.
ARTICLE 1 Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner presented the
following:
REPORT TO 1992 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING ON THE STATUS OF THE
GASOLINE SPILL OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
i
This is a report of the status of cleanup and impacts of the Sep-
tember 30, 1992 spill of 10,000 gallons of gasoline on Inter-
state 93, adjacent to the Ipswich River and the Town of Reading
Wellfields.
As a result of the spill, 6 of Reading's 9 wells were shut off
immediately, and two more were shut down two days later. There
was no evidence of gasoline contamination of any of the wells, as
they were tested. The shutdown of the wells was a precaution to
prevent them from becoming contaminated either through the spill
directly, or through drawing contaminated ground or river water
into the wells.
The cleanup has progressed well, with the guidance of the DEP.
Soil removal has taken place, monitoring and recovery wells have
been installed and used, and much of the gasoline product has
been recovered and properly disposed of. The re-creation of the
wetlands will not be undertaken until all or most of the cleanup
has been completed.
3
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
Handex Corp, the clean-up consultant for Cumberland Gulf, has ap-
plied to use the Reading sewer system for disposal of treated
groundwater, and the MWRA is reviewing the permit based on input
from the Town of Reading. Limited amounts of treated water would
be permitted so as not to overload the capacity of our sewer sys-
tem, and Cumberland Gulf has agreed to pay for the installation
of a water line to the upper parts of Grove Street as a precau-
tion, in the event that any of the 5 households in that area want
to tie into Town Water.
Since the spill, the Town has activated interconnections with our
neighboring communities to provide us with water. The cooperation
has been outstanding. We are currently interconnected with Woburn
(3 connections), and with Wakefield. This is the first time since
1979 that these interconnections have had to be activated, and in
that case it was because of a broken water line and the intercon-
nection was only for a few hours. Article 4 on this warrant seeks
$264,000 to make a permanent emergency interconnection with the
MWRA 36" line in Woburn. We will want to start this work im-
mediately, so that it is complete for winter weather. All ap-
provals have been granted, and even if we are able to turn our
own water supply back on soon, it is a permanent interconnection
that we feel is necessary for the following reasons:
- as recent events have shown, our water supply is vul-
nerable.
- we will need the underground connection for winter use
this winter
- if we don't get our other wellfields on line by sum-
mer, we will need the additional flow for our regular
use
- as we rely solely on wells 82-20 and Town Forest
during the coming months, we will need to shut those
wells down for cleaning, and we will need an alternate
supply.
We need to do this work now, and will seek to recover at least
part of the cost from Cumberland Gulf, and seek state funds for
the remainder.
When can we turn our wells back on? The Town's approach has been
a very cautious and conservative one. We will, be turning the
wells back on when we are assured that there is no risk of draw-
ing contamination into the public water supply. The tests in the
River and in the 7 monitoring wells have been good--i.e. there
has been no detectable amount of gasoline contamination. We were
waiting for a good rain, which we got on election day, to gauge
the effect on the water. So far the results are good, and we are
meeting late this week with DEP to evaluate the current status.
Even with no levels of contamination in the River, we will do ex-
tensive testing when we do turn wells 82-20 and Town Forest back
4
Subsequent Town Meeting -.11/9/92
on. We will test at two upstream locations, at each well, the
combined "raw" water that comes into the plant, and the finished
i ( water as it exits the plant.
The Town's position has been and continues to. be that we want to
return to our own water supply as soon as possible, but only when
we can do it and assure residents that there is no contamination
of the water supply.
Meanwhile, residents will need to continue to conserve water,
which means no outdoor water use, and cautious use of water for
indoor purposes including sanitary use, bathing, and laundry and
other uses.
The cost to date has been immense. Salary costs are around
$45,000; other Public Works expenses are about $64,000; consult-
ant expenses are over $5,000. We have billed for fire services a
total of $11,950 to date, and have incurred $1,265 for police ex-
penses. All expenses related to the spill are being paid by the
Town, and being billed to Cumberland Gulf.
ARTICLE 1 Richard H. Coco, Finance Committee Chairman,
presented the following three reports:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Following approval by Town Meeting in April 1992, the Finance
Committee began the process of creating and staffing a CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS- ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CIAC) as a subcommittee of the
FINCOM.
In May.FINCOM drafted and following a review of the draft policy
by the By-Law Committee adopted the Policy in July which outlined
the subcommittee's purpose and makeup.
These are:
Purpose:
* review the Capital Improvements Program presented by
the Town Manager
* Consider the relative need, impact, timing and cost of
these expenditures and their effects on the Town's
financial position.
* Review annually the inventory of the Town's capital
assets.
5
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
* Prepare a report to FINCOM recommending: Capital
Budget for the next Fiscal Year and a Capital Improve-
ment Program for the following four fiscal years
The report due by December 1st, is also submitted to
the Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Reading
Municipal Light Board for review and comment.
* Issue a Report recommending a Capital Budget and a
Capital Improvement Program for inclusion in the FIN-
COM Annual Report to Town Meeting.
Makeup:
Five members with staggered terms of three years each;
appointments made by the FINCOM Chairman, Vice-
chairman and a FINCOM member elected by the committee.
In July through several Notices in the Chronicle the FINCOM ad-
vertised for interested citizens to volunteer to work on this new
subcommittee.
Response to these requests for volunteers was very slow, probably
due to the influence of summer vacation schedules; somewhat of a
surprise when one recalls the avid interest and debate at the
Spring Town Meeting.
The subcommittee is now in place, organized and has held several
meetings in its review of the Capital Improvements Plan proposed
by the town manager..
Subcommittee members including Jim Keigley, Mark Huber, Bill Mur-
phy, George Thompson and Victor Petri.
Petitions to Investigate the Reading Water and Sewer,
School Department and Reading Municipal Light Department
In April of this year, the Reading Finance Committee was peti-
tioned by a group of 179 Reading voters to "investigate the
books, accounts records and management of three Reading Town
departments; Water and Sewer; School Department and the Reading
Municipal Light Department.
With certification of the signatures FINCOM began the process of
reviewing these three operations.
For the record let me state, up front, that it was the sense of
the members of FINCOM that we would conduct the investigations
using our own time and resources rather than expend Town funds.
FINCOM believed that the first pass review could be accomplished
using our own resources. If we found a situation which we
believed warranted a professional auditor we would at that point
request funds to hire such expertise.
6
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
With the f inancial situation the Town faces we believed our
responsibility is to both complete the requested reviews while
working to minimize the financial impact of a full blown audit
unless warranted by the data initially reviewed.
At our meeting on May 27, following adjournment of the Town Meet-
ing, the FINCOM after some deliberation voted to request inputs
from Reading citizens to suggest areas within these three opera-
tions which they believed required study. We felt this action
necessary because of the very general nature of the wording of
the petitions.
FINCOM allowed the month of June for these inputs requesting them
either signed or unsigned to insure that there would be no reluc-
tance on the part of any citizen to voice their concerns.
Inputs were received from 6-7 individuals. One individual had
very specific inputs that related to the school department. Most
concerns with Water and Sewer related to the cost for this serv-
ice. No comments relative to RMLD were received.
At our June 24 meeting, FINCOM reviewed these citizen inputs and
voted to focus our initial investigations on the Water and Sewer
Department simply due to expediency. The size of this operation
would afford us an opportunity to develop and refine the process
to be followed to respond to the petitions.
FINCOM voted at this June meeting to request the Town Manager,
Peter Hechenbleikner to provide department invoices and payroll
time sheets that covered Water and Sewer Department expenditures
for three time "windows" in FY 1992; July 1991, November 1991 and
February 1992.
FINCOM reviewed the data at our meeting in early September and
provided a list of 10 specific items to the Town manager for
which the FINCOM desired further clarification. These included:
use of contracted services, time sheet review/signoff, review of
accounts receivable, list of Water/Sewer vendors by account and
the "paper trail" for the $1M given to Reading as part of the
General Electric Ipswich River settlement.
This data was provided for our meeting on September 23 at which
time it was reviewed and accepted.
FINCOM uncovered no major irregularity in funding disbursements
or time sheet allocations from focused review of the Reading
Water and Sewer operations. We found no irregularities in any of
the accounts to suggest-that further study was required.
All accounts and invoices reviewed were found in order with all
items purchased directly related to the operation of the water
and sewer department.
7
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
The FINCOM voted 9-0-0 at our September 23 meeting to conclude
our investigation of the Water and Sewer Department as requested
by petition of a group of citizens of Reading.
Based on the findings from our review we have made several recom-
mendations to the Town manager of possible areas for improvement.
First, FINCOM found that Reading pays all its invoices promptly
usually within 30 days of receipt. The town does not take ad-
vantage of the 2-3% deduction offered by some vendors if payment
is made within 30 days.
FINCOM recommends that Reading take advantage of these discounts
when they are available whenever possible.
Second: FINCOM recommended that supervisors verify employees work
time charges to insure that the proper water and/or sewer ac-
counts are charged and provide a "signoff" line on time sheets.
This is not a major area of concern but was listed since FINCOM
found one instance in which an employee may have incorrectly
charged the sewer account for work done under building main-
tenance.
Third: A large number of invoices were from RMLD.
FINCOM recommended that some mechanism be put in place to reduce
the amount of paper work required to essentially transfer funds
from one Reading town operation to another.
With the completion of the Water and Sewer Department review,
FINCOM has begun to review the Reading School Department.
Since FINCOM is an advisory board, our review will focus on the
financial aspects of the school department only. School committee
policy issues such as staffing, class size etc. will not be
reviewed as part of our efforts.
A list of information requested was submitted to the School
department in early October. This list was based both on comments
received from our request for public inputs; as well as FINCOM
generated questions.
The information requested was partially furnished on October 21
and FINCOM is currently reviewing this data and plans to meet
weekly in November and early December to complete the review in a
timely fashion.
The final review, that of the RMLD, will most likely occur in
December and go into January. There have been preliminary discus-
sions with RMLD and that board has stated its willingness to
cooperate with FINCOM and provide what ever information we re-
quire for our review.
8
Subsequent Town Meeting -,11/9/92
The FINCOM report at the Annual Town meeting will include the
results of both the School Department and RMLD investigations.
Financial Report to Town Meeting
With FY 1993 almost half completed, FINCOM can report to Town
Meeting and the citizens of Reading, that to date actual revenues
for FY 93 continue to closely track the conservative projections
made at the time the budget was being put together last spring
and no serious shortfalls are anticipated for the remainder of
this Fiscal year.
The income from revenue sources such as excise taxes, state aid,
fees or other miscellaneous sources, however continue to shrink
under the burden of the reduced economic health of both the
region and the local area.
To operate Town Government within these reduced revenues, dif-
ficult decisions were made for FY 93 and many town service nor-
mally funded in past budgets have now been either severely cur-
tailed, eliminated or are now supported by user fees.
The financial picture for FY 1994 is not expected to improve
markedly from the current situation. Revenues are expected to
continue low, impacted by regional economics in both real estate
and employment. State aid at best will remain level funded.
Furthermore several potential real estate transactions, which
would have provided Reading with an infusion of cash that could
have helped fund town government during these years of reduced
revenues, have not materialized. Again because of the depressed
office and retail space market.
The fact is that revenues over the next several years will con-
tinue low and at a level which is just suf f icient to meet the
basic operational needs of the Town. Any expenditures above and
beyond these anticipated revenue levels, for whatever purpose,
will require the approval of the electorate through some form of
a tax limit override, a route which has been tried several times
in the past with little success.
With this as a backdrop, the process of creating the FY 1994 tar-
get has already begun in both the municipal and school depart-
ments. Over the next several months the town budget for FY 94
will be defined, adjusted and fine tuned to fit projected
revenues for next year, crystal ball gazing at its best.
Finally the FY 1994 budget will be presented to FINCOM for its
review, recommendation in early February, and ultimately to Town
Meeting for final approval.
The very real risk is that greater reductions in the type and
level of services Reading provides its resident will be required
to make the projected budget match expected FY 94 revenues.
9
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
The bottom line of this brief summary is that while Reading must
continue to operate a local government that provides the essen-
tial services the citizens of our community expect and deserve,
services such as police, fire and education, cuts in other more
discretionary town services, and frankly very little of still ex-
ist, will be necessary.
As revenues from all sources continue to shrink, the major chal-
lenge to all levels of town government, both elected and volun-
teer, will be to prioritize those town services which are most
essential and then get the most effect for the dollars spent.
"the biggest bang for the buck" .
Ultimately, the need to ask the voters of Reading to approve an
override to provide additional revenues to ensure that public
safety and education are properly funded may be necessary.
ARTICLE 1 Sara Sabo, Solid Waste Committee, presented a
report of progress.
ARTICLE 1 Les York, Precinct 4, presented the following
remarks:
Thank you Mr. Moderator and my thanks to the Board of Selectmen
and Town Manager.
It has been my good wife, Irene, and my privilege, for the last
two years, to be advisors to the S.A.d.D. Program (Students
Against Driving Drunk) at the High School. This is a constant
menace on our highways. Our news media remind us of these young
folks who get in trouble. But actually we have the best young
people in the world right here in Reading.
I have asked Rob Bennett, President, and the officers of S.A.D.D.
to be with us for a while tonight. Also our most outstanding
principal, Mrs. Rena Mirkin. Rob would you please introduce your
officers. Thank you.
Not only are they outstanding young people, we have an undefeated
football team; a soccer team with the potential of a league cham-
pionship; a field hockey team not scored upon until last week;
championship track teams for several years as well as a swimming
championship.
My appeal to Town Meeting Members and citizens of the good Town
of Reading. . . let's not think of this as the year 5752-53 of
the Jewish faith or the year of the monkey in the Chinese
celebration or talk of our year of 1992. But let's make it the
year of the good young people. Support them in every way and set
an example for them in this Town Meeting to follow with the
incentive to become a part of their government with our country's
future in their hands. God bless them all!! Thank you!
10
subsequent. Town Meeting - 11/9/92
ARTICLE 2 On motion
Town Meeting amend its
Building Committee so a
_ tion of 5 (five) citi
Moderator.
of Russell T. Graham, it was voted that
instructional motion creating the School
s to expand the Committee with the addi-
zens at large to be appointed by the
Said Committee to then consist of one member of the School Com-
mittee, one member of the School Administration, one member a
teacher representative, one member a Town Meeting member and
seven members Citizens at Large.
ARTICLE 3 On motion of Willard J. Burditt, it was voted that
the Town amend the "TOWN OF READING MASSACHUSETTS, FIVE YEAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, Fiscal Years 1993 through 1997,"
adopted under Article 19 of the April 13, 1992 Annual Town Meet-
ing; such amendments being set forth as shown in the "Report on
the Warrant, Subsequent Town Meeting, November 9, 1992, " dated
October 28, 1992, and further modified and dated November 9,
1992.
ARTICLE 4 On motion of Richard H. Coco and amended by Doris
M. Fantasia, Precinct 1, it was voted that the Town amend the ap-
propriations made for the following line items of the Fiscal Year
1993 Municipal Budget by amending votes taken under Article 31 of
the Warrant of the Annual Town Meeting of April 13, 1992 as fol-
lows (unless otherwise indicated the source of the appropriation
remains the same):
TOWN
FROM:
LINE
NUMBER
C5
H2
L3
D12
TOTALS
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO FY 1993 BUDGET
ACCT #
DESCRIPTION
031
BD. OF ASSESSORS SAL.
080
BUILD. MAINT. EXP.
815
UNEMPLOYMENT
850
PROP./CAS. INSURANCE
WATER SURPLUS
FREE CASH
GRAND TOTALS
TO:
AMOUNT
$ 11,000
$ 10,818
$ 23,000
$ 2,000
$ 46,818
$264,000
$ 52,182
$363,000
C12
035
FINANCE SAL.
$
1,000
D8
051
TOWN CLERK SAL.
$
1,050
B10
062
COMM. DEV. SAL.
$
837
Bll
062
COMM. DEV.EXP.(MAST.PLAN)
$
250
Hl
080
BUILD. MAINT. SAL.
$
10,818
G2
111
POLICE EXP. (VEHICLE)
$
14,000
G2
111
POLICE EXP. (COMPUTER)
$
7,989
G6
121
FIRE SAL.
$
50,000
B8
141
INSPECTIONS SAL.
$
2,962
11
Subsequent town Meeting - 11/9/92
H4
302
ENG. SAL.
$ 1,460
K1
710
DEBT SERVICE
$ 5,188
M4
061-400
WATER CAPITAL
$264,000
El
511
HUMAN SERV. SAL.
S 3,446
GRAND
TOTALS
$363,000
ARTICLE 5 On motion of Matthew Cummings, it was voted that
the Town raise by borrowing as provided for under Chapter 44,
Sections 7 and 8 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts, or any other enabling authority, the sum of One
Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand Dollars ($136,000.00) and that the
Town appropriate the sum of Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-
Two and 17/100 Dollars ($7,432.17), representing a portion or all
of the balances of the bond authorizations for fire station con-
struction as voted November 14, 1988 under Article 4 of the Sub-
sequent Town Meeting, and appropriate the total amount of One
Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Two and 17/100
Dollars ($143,432.17) for the purpose of repairing or replacing
sections of the roof at Reading Memorial High School, 62 Oakland
Road, Reading, Massachusetts, including all engineering fees and
preparation costs, said sum to be spent by and under the direc-
tion of the School Committee; and to authorize the School com-
mittee to enter into all contracts as may be necessary to carry
out the purpose of this vote.
2/3 vote required
139 voted in the affirmative
0 voted in the negative
ARTICLE 6 On motion of Matthew Cummings, it was voted that
the subject matter of Article 6 be tabled.
ARTICLE 7 On motion of Matthew Cummings, it was voted that
the Town appropriate the sum of Thirty-One Thousand Dollars
($31,000.00), representing a portion or all of the balances of
the bond authorizations for fire station construction as voted
November 14, 1988 under Article 4 of the Subsequent Town Meeting,
for the purpose of installing chair lifts at Coolidge Middle
School, 89 Birch Meadow Drive, Reading, Massachusetts, including
all engineering fees and preparation costs, said sum to be spent
by and under the direction of the School Committee; and to
authorize the School Committee to enter into all contracts as may
be necessary to carry out the purpose of this vote.
2/3 vote required
139 voted in the affirmative
0 voted in the negative
12
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
ARTICLE 8 On motion of Matthew Cummings, it was voted that
the. Town appropriate, from Certified Free Cash, the sum of
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) and appropriate the
same to the School Committee for the purpose of further evaluat-
ing the methods of meeting the future space needs of the Reading
Public Schools; all monies to be expended under the direction of
the School Building Committee.
Roberta C. D'Antona presented the following report of progress:
The School Committee reiterated the charge to the School Building
Committee on August 31, 1992,
The School Building Committee, acting with the authority of
Reading Town Meeting and the Reading School Committee, will have
as its purpose the development of a two-fold plan for meeting.
First, the elementary school enrollment overcrowding and the need
for appropriate facilities in Reading's elementary schools must
be addressed. Secondly the plan to renovate the 70 year-old
building of Parker Middle School to modern standards must be
developed.
Both plans will lead, with School Committee endorsement, to
recommendations for financing renovations and additions which
call for State School Building Assistance Bureau approval and
funding, and Reading Town Meeting approval for bonding.
The School Building Committee will review architectural designs
and financing arrangement developed in 1989 and will revisit the
proposal to meet the needs for future enrollment and modern
programs."
The School Building Committee began meeting on Sept. 24, 1992
and made the following decisions:
- to reorganize and expand the committee, with the approval
of Town Meeting - Associate members were appointed
- to further define the charge by focusing on long range
planning for the schools - including both the physical
plant/space needs as well as educational needs t_
- to be committed to keeping in focus financial capability
of the community while developing the project proposal -
- to request of Town Meeting $25,000.00 for architect fees
- to meet weekly on Tuesday evenings at Town Hall
ARTICLE 9 On motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted that
the Town appropriate the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)
from the Cemetery Sale of Lots Fund to Cemetery Non-Personal Ex-
pense for the purpose of purchasing unwanted grave spaces.
ARTICLE 10 On motion of Sally M. Hoyt, it was voted that the
Town accept a gift of Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Two and
84/100 Dollars ($7,452.84) from the estate of Roderick G. McKay,
13
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
the entire sum of which is expendable for library uses; such
funds to be administered by the Commissioners of Trust Funds.
ARTICLE 11 On motion of Willard J. Burditt, it was voted that
the Town accept the provisions of General Laws Chapter 44, Sec-
tion 53F 1/2 to establish an enterprise fund relating to the col-
lection and/or disposal of refuse, garbage and solid waste.
65 voted in the affirmative
63 voted in the negative
ARTICLE 12(a) On motion of Daniel A. Ensminger, it was
voted that the Town authorize the Board of Selectmen to sell, or
exchange, or dispose of, upon such terms and conditions as they
may determine, the following items of Town tangible property:
Digital Vax 11-750 Computer and peripherals to be traded in
ARTICLE 12(b) On motion of Daniel A. Ensminger, it was
voted that the Town authorize the School Committee to sell, or
exchange, or dispose of, upon such terms and conditions as they
may determine, the following items of Town tangible property:
Compugraphic Typesetting Equipment and Supplies to be sold
ARTICLE 13 On motion of George V. Hines, it was voted that
the Town and its departments be authorized to expend the perfor-
mance bond in the amount of Forty-Five Thousand Twenty Dollars
($45,020.00) for the purpose of completion of subdivision roadway
and right-of-way work in Sanborn Village Phases III and IV, in
accordance with the terms of certain Covenant Agreements dated
October 4, 1985 and July 11, 1988 executed to the benefit of the
Town of Reading by The Bank For Savings and Rivers Development
Corp. as the same may have been amended, reduced, and/or super-
seded, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sub-
division of Land of the Town of Reading in accordance with Mas-
sachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, such funds to be expended by
and under the direction of the Town and its departments.
Thomas Stohlman gave the following report:
On Saturday, November 7, 1992 the Community Planning Development
commission voted to recommend the following ARTICLES:
ARTICLE 13: Sanborn Village Appropriations 4-0
ARTICLE 14: Batchelder Estates Bond Taking 4-0
ARTICLE 15: Fairwood Acres Bond Taking 4-0
14
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
ARTICLE 14 On motion of George V. Hines, it was voted that
- the Town and its departments be authorized to expend the perfor-
mance bond in the amount of Nine Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($9,500.00) for the purpose of completion of construction of
roadways and associated improvements, known as Partridge Road, in
the Batchelder Estates Subdivision, in accordance with the terms
of a certain Covenant Agreement dated March 27, 1990 between the
Town of Reading and Edward G. Knudsen, as the same may have been
amended, reduced, and/or superseded, pursuant to the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of, the Town of
Reading in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41,
such funds to be expended by and under the direction of the Town
and its departments.
ARTICLE 15 On motion of George V. Hines, it was voted that
the Town and its departments be authorized to expend the perfor-
mance bond in the amount of Seventy-Two Thousand Nine Hundred
Forty-Nine Dollars ($72,949.00) for the purpose of completion of
construction of roadways and associated improvements, known as
Fairchild Drive, Lindsey Lane, and a portion of Ashley Place, in
the Fairwood Acres Subdivision, in accordance with the terms of
certain Covenant Agreements dated April 18 and May 16, 1988 be-
tween the Town of Reading and Felix Quinn and Mary Ann Cerat,
Trustees of Fairwood Acres Realty Trust and a certain Tri-Party
Agreement dated August 10, 1989 between the Town of Reading, Mary
Ann Cerat and David J. Carlberg as Trustees for Fairwood Acres
Realty Trust II, and the Danvers Savings Bank, as the same may
have been amended, reduced, and/or superseded, pursuant to the
Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the
Town of Reading in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 41, such funds to be expended by and under the direction
of the Town and its departments.
ARTICLE 16 On motion of Sally M. Hoyt, it was voted that the
Town accept the gift from John McMillan of easements for
sidewalks and sight lines in, to and over a portion of. his; land
at the intersection of Village and Washington Streets; said`ease-
ment described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of Village Street and
Washington Street, thence N410-371-40" W for a clistance
of 40.83' to a point, thence by a curve to the left
having a radius of 20.00' for a distance of 44.611 to a
point, thence N860-10!-20" E for a distance of 40.831 to
the point at the beginning containing 370.56 square
feet.
15
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/9/92
ARTICLE 17 On motion of Sally M. Hoyt, it was voted that the
Town accept the gift of all of the owner's right, title and in-
terest in and to the following described parcels of land cur-
rently believed to be owned by the Trustees of the Batchelder Es-
tates Trust for the following described purposes:
Those certain parcels of land situated off of Partridge
Road and shown as Lots 5A-1, 5A-2 and 5A-3 on the plan
entitled: "Plan of Land in Reading, Mass. Prepared For:
Batchelder Estates Trust Scale 101 = 40' August 24, 1992"
by Commonwealth Engineering, Inc. Lot 5A-1 is shown on
said plan as containing 31,282 square feet (.72 acres)
and is proposed to be acquired by the Town of Reading
for general municipal purposes including use by the
Board of Cemetery Trustees; Lot 5A-2 is shown on said
plan as containing 189,764 square feet (4.36 acres) and
is proposed to be acquired by the Town for conservation
purposes; and Lot 5A-3 is shown on said plan as contain-
ing 13,508 square feet (.31 acres) and is proposed to be
acquired by the Town for general municipal purposes in-
cluding drainage purposes.
The above motion was voted following ninety minutes of discussion
and two amendments which failed.
On point of personal priviledge, William C. Brown, Precinct 8,
advised Town Meeting that he would be moving for reconsideration
of Article 11 on November 12, 1992.
On motion of Stephen W. Thomases, Precinct 8, it was voted that
this Town Meeting stand adjourned to meet at 7:30 p.m. on
Thursday, November 12, 1992 in the Reading Memorial High School
Auditorium.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
158,
\ 719x~p' ,Meeting Members were present.
Atu 9op~:~;'•Attest:
therine A. Quimby
J~ Town Clerk
ADJOURNED SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
SECOND BUSINESS SESSION
November 12, 1992 - Reading Memorial High School
The meeting was called to order by Moderator Paul C. Dustin at
7:40 P.M. there being a quorum present.
16
Adjourned subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/92
The invocation was given by the Reverend Arthur Flynn, Saint
Agnes Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ARTICLE 11 Town Meeting member William C. Brown, Precinct 8,
moved reconsideration of ARTICLE it to allow the Finance Com-
mittee to give a clearer report on their "Do Not Recommend" vote.
The motion was seconded by John D. Wood, Precinct 2.
Richard H. Coco, Chairman of the Finance Committee, advised that
FINCOM members were concerned over the amount of dollars that
could be held in reserve in an "Enterprise Account" citing Water
and Sewer as an example.
Stephen W. Thomases, Precinct 8, moved the question on recon-
sideration. The motion was seconded by Richard A. Radville,
Precinct 5, and reconsideration was voted.
2/3 vote required
94 voted in the affirmative
22 voted in the negative .
The main motion under Article 11 was voted in the negative.
2/3 vote required
47 voted in the affirmative
75 voted in the negative
ARTICLE 1 On motion of George V. Hines, it was voted to
take Article 1 from the table.
Philip C. Pacino, Chairman of the Reading Municipal Light Commis-
sion, presented the following Report of Progress:
Mr. Moderator, Town Meeting members
I'm Phil Pacino. I'm the Chairman of The Reading Municipal Light
Commission. Tonight I am reviving a tradition. It is a tradition
that the Commission and Town Meeting have gotten away from in
recent years. The tradition is that of the Reading Municipal
Light Commission annually appearing in front of the Reading Town
Meeting and presenting a report of the State of the Municipal
Light Department.
So with that in mind the following is the State of the Reading
Municipal Light Department or nicknamed "The World According to
Your Local Utility."
With me tonight is Leonard Rucker, the General Manager of the
Light Department, who is available to answer any technical ques-
tions any member of Town Meeting of the public may have.
The overwhelming good news I bring to Town Meeting is that the
17
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/12
Reading Municipal Light Department continues its practice of
being an outstanding utility for service to its ratepayers while
maintaining rates that are the 5th lowest among all 41
municipally and privately owned utilities in Massachusetts.
The rates of the Reading Municipal Light Department are 15% lower
than the nearest privately owned utility.
In terms of accomplishments during the last year the most impor-
tant, and affecting the ratepayers the most, is the renegotiation
of the Boston Edison Demand Contract and other power contracts.
The renegotiation of the Boston Edison Contract resulted in a
savings of $100,600 per month or $1.2 million per year start-
ing in September 1992. This savings along with the expected
savings from ongoing negotiations on 3 other power contracts
represent a significant change in our bulk power supply and will
stabilize rates.
During the year the Department performed energy efficient light-
ing audits for each of the town buildings within the Town of
Reading and reported the results to the Town Manager. We hope
these audits will allow the Town to conserve electricity and
manage its energy costs more efficiently.
The Department recently completed it study of jointly reading
water and electric meters and have reported the findings of the
study to the Town Manager and the Board of Selectmen.
other accomplishments during the year included meeting with the
29 largest commercial/industrial customers in an effort to assist
these customers in gaining savings in their bills, completely
revamping the credit and collection process, installing a new
Digital VAX computer system and the reconstruction work on Route
28 in North Reading.
Looking into the future the Commission sees the following:
1. Electric load growth increasing very slowly, no more
than 1% to 2% annually.
2. Under the present conditions a possible 3% rate in-
crease in mid 1993 and 2% in each year from 1994 to 1997.
This increase is due to future costs of power.
3. $3.3 million of rate stabilization funds were used to
offset a possible rate increase during 1992. At the end
of 1992 the rate stabilization fund will total $3 mil-
lion. By the end of 1994 the fund will decrease to S1.75
million. After that it is anticipated the fund will
start to go back up.
18
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/92
4. The value of the 8% return on equity will steadily
rise from $1.8 million in 1992 to $2.8 million in 1997
due mainly to continued capital plan investment.
5. A possible interconnection station at the New England
Electric transmission lines in North Reading. This
project will strengthen our distribution system and allow
us to negotiate more favorable transmission rates since
it would foster a competition for our power needs between
two competing, publicly owned utilities.
6. A possible fiber optic system to enhance system
reliability and communications.
7. Implementation of a geographic information and mapping
system which will greatly aid outage response.
8. To pay for the above projects and other possible
upgrades to the distribution system we see a bond issue
in 1994 of somewhere around $7 million.
9. Completing the final steps of severing our dependence
on MMWEC (Mass Municipal Wholesale Electric Company) and
taking steps that costs avoided from this action are not
passed thru to us in other ways by MMWEC.
10. Completing the purchase and renovation of the new
facility on Ash Street. Last week the department received
- final approval from CPDC for this project. It is an-
ticipated that the facility will be completed and ready
to be occupied in the late Spring of 1993.
No appearance before Town Meeting by the Reading Municipal Light
Commission would be complete without a discussion of the rate of
return allowed to the department under 85-121. To update those
not part of prior discussions by this body, 85-191 restricts the
RMLD to compute its return on equity on the net plant after
depreciation while all other municipal utilities compute their
return on equity on gross plant. The Commission is committed to
pursuing overturning this ruling of the Department of Public
Utilities. The pursuit will be very active and should be
launched with the month. We ask that the Town Meeting support
our position of changing this ruling. A word of warning here is
required. Changing this ruling could result in additional funds
available to the Town of Reading. However in order to have these
funds available there will need to be a 3% rate increase imple-
mented. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
ARTICLE 18a Eugene R. Nigro moved that the Town transfer the
care, custody, management and control of the following described
land or portions thereof, which is commonly known as Batchelder
Field, from the School Committee and/or Board of Selectmen to the
Board of Cemetery Trustees for cemetery purposes.
19
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/92
The land shown as a portion of Lot 1 on Town of Reading Board of
Assessors' Map 227, Revised January 1, 1984, situated on the
northerly side of Franklin Street, said land being shown as Par-
cel C on the plan of land entitled: "Plan of Land in Reading,
Mass. Scale: 1" = 100' March 9, 198311 recorded at the Middlesex
South District Registry of Deeds as Plan 295 of 1983. Said land
is more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the north side of Franklin Street and by
a curve along Franklin Street to the left, radius 1481.23' for a
distance of 348.98' to a point, thence N260-501-4811E for a dis-
tance of 514.54' to a point, thence N610-281-2911E a distance of
243.051 to a point, thence N140-501-0011W a distance 238.701 to a
point, thence S650-391-2111E a distance of 402.84-1 to an iron
pipe, thence S120-24'-50"W a distance of 338.05' to a drill hole,
thence N630-51'-20"W a distance of 157.11' to an iron pipe,
thence S240-241-1711W a distance of 667.47' to point of beginning.
Containing 310,773 ± square feet or 7.1344 acres.
After twenty-five minutes of discussion and debate, on motion of
Herbert W. Converse, Precinct 1, it was voted to indefinitely
postpone the subject matter of Article 18a.
ARTICLE 18b on motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted
that the subject matter of Article 18b be indefinitely postnoned.
ARTICLE 19 On motion of James E. Biller, it was voted that
the Town file a petition and/or approve the filing of a petition
to the General Court for a special act or for leave of the
General Court, pursuant to Articles 49 and 97 of the Articles of
Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, or any other ena-
bling authority, authorizing the Town to transfer the care, cus-
tody and control of the following described land from the Board
of Selectmen and/or Conservation Commission to the Board of
Selectmen and/or Conservation Commission for the purposes of con-
veying it to Richard and Arlene Harper of 695 Pearl Street, Read-
ing, MA for consideration of the transfer by Richard and Arlene
Harper to the Town of Reading of an equal or greater amount of
land for conservation purposes; and that the minimum amount of
One Dollar ($1.00) be paid for such conveyance; and that the
Board of Selectmen and/or Conservation Commission be authorized
to convey all or any part of said property for such amount or
larger amount and upon such other terms and conditions as the
Selectmen shall consider proper; and to deliver a deed therefor
to said purchaser:
Approximately 22,737.6 square feet of land in the Bare Meadow
Conservation Area off of Pearl Street being a portion of Lot 2 on
Town of Reading Board of Assessors' Map 238, revised January 1,
1978 and described as follows:
20
Adjourned subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/92
Land to Harper
Beginning at a point on Pearl Street at the northerly
corner of property of Harper and southerly corner of
property of Bare Meadow Conservation Area, thence north-
erly along Pearl Street a distance of 20.00' to a point,
easterly a distance of 177.34 to a point, southerly
219.26' ± to a point, westerly by land of Harper three
distances of 54.87', 183.071, and 32.66' to point of
beginning containing 22,737 ± square feet.
2/3 vote required
128 voted in the affirmative
1 voted in the negative
ARTICLE 20 On motion of James E. Biller, it was voted that
the Town file a petition and/or approve the filing of petition to
the General Court for a special act or for leave of the General
Court, pursuant to Articles 49 and 97 of the Articles of Amend-
ment to the Massachusetts Constitution, or any other enabling
authority, authorizing the Town to transfer the care, custody and
control of the following described land from the Conservation
Commission and/or Board of Selectmen to the Conservation Commis-
sion and/or Board of Selectmen for the purposes of conveying it
to the Reading Rifle and Revolver Club, Inc. for consideration of
the transfer by the Reading Rifle and Revolver Club, Inc. to the
Town of Reading of an equal or greater amount of land for conser-
vation purposes; and that the minimum amount of One Dollar
($1.00) be paid for such conveyance; and that the Board of
Selectmen and/or Conservation Commission be authorized to convey
all or any part of said property for such amount or larger amount
and upon such other terms and conditions as the Selectmen shall
consider proper; and to deliver a deed therefor to said Reading
Rifle and Revolver Club, Inc.:
The land off of Haverhill Street shown as Parcels C and
D on a plan of land entitled: "Plan of Land in Reading,
Mass., Scale: 1" = 100' dated June 9, 1992 prepared by
Gerrit Consulting." Parcel C contains 270,254 square
feet (6.204 acres) and Parcel D contains 25,581 square
feet (.587 acres) all as shown on said plan. Parcels C
and D are portions of Lot 1 on Town of Reading Board of
Assessors' Map 125, revised October 10, 1972.
ARTICLE 22 On motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted that
the Town authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey and/or aban-
don a certain forty (401) foot right of way and easement in Read-
ing, Middlesex County, MA situated on Lot 8 on a plan entitled:
"Final Subdivision Plan of Pine Grove Estates, Reading, Mass.
Scale 1" = 40111 dated June 1, 1973, as revised, recorded at the
Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 516 of
21
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/92
1974; and that the minimum amount of One Dollar ($1.00) be paid
for such conveyance and/or abandonment; and that the Board of
Selectmen be authorized to convey or abandon all or any part of
said right of easements for such amount or larger amount and upon
such other terms and conditions as the Selectmen shall consider
proper; and to deliver a deed therefor if necessary.
2/3 vote required
123 voted in the affirmative
0 voted in the negative
ARTICLE 23 On motion of George V. Hines, it was voted that
the Town amend the Reading Zoning By-Laws as follows:
1. Amend Section 2.2.13. definition of "Frontage" by adding the
phrases a lot line along" and "having a depth into the lot of
not less than twenty (20) feet, said depth measured at an angle
to said street line of not less than 65 degrees," so that Section
2.2.13. shall read as follows:
112.2.13 FRONTAGE: the continuous length of a lot line along a
street line, having a depth into the lot of not less than twenty
(20) feet, said depth measured at an angle to said street line of
not less than 65 degrees, not burdened by access easement at the
time of subdivision, across which access is legally and physi-
cally available for pedestrians and vehicles. The end of a
street without a cul-de-sac shall not be considered frontage."
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/92
2. Add the following new Section 2.2.21.1.:
112.2.21.1 LOT WIDTH: the width of a lot governed by the
diameter of a circle, said circle fitting entirely within the lot
and being tangent with the front lot line."
3. Amend Section 5.1.2. "Table of Dimensional Controls" by ad-
ding under "Minimum Lot" a new column entitled "Lot Width, Circle
Diameter, feet" and by inserting the following figures into said
new column in the following rows: "Lot Width
Circle Diameter
One or Two Family Dwell inct feet
in 5-10 District 60
in 5-20 Districts 60
60"
in S-40 Districts
2/3 vote required
121 voted in the affirmative
2 voted in the negative
Nancy E. Shipes, Chairman of the Community Planning and Develop-
ment commission, presented the following recommendations as voted
by CPDC after holding a public hearing:
22
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/92
Article 23: Frontage & Lot Width
Voted to recommend with amendments 5-0
Article 24: PUD/Biotechnology
Voted to recommend with amendments 5-0
Article 25: Signs
Voted to recommend with amendments 4-0
Article 26: PRD Zoning
Voted to recommend with amendments
Motion #1: PRD-General 4-0
Motion #2: PRD-Affordable 4-0
Article 27: Amend "Table of Uses"
Voted to recommend 4-0
Article 28: Corner Lots
Voted to recommend
4-0
Article 29: Delete Townhouse Bylaw
Voted to recommend 4-0
Article 30: PRD-M Zoning Map
voted to recommend 4-0
Article 31: PRD-G Zoning Map
voted to recommend 4-0
Article 32: PRD-A Zoning Map
voted to recommend 4-0
ARTICLE 25 George V. Hines moved that the Town amend the
Reading Zoning By-Laws by amending Section 6.2.1. thereof as fol-
lows:
1. Delete Section 6.2.1.1. in its entirety and substitute
therefor the following:
116.2.1.1. There shall be no permanent special promotion
signs or banners or temporary or permanent streamers,
pennants, balloons, or placards erected, suspended,
posted, or affixed in any manner outdoors or on the
building exterior or premises."
2. Amend Section 6.2.1.2. by adding the phrase except for
temporary special promotion signs and banners as provided
in Section 6.2.1.3. hereof" after the phrase "located
and" so such Section shall read as follows:
116.2.1.2. Signs shall relate to the premises on which
they are located and, except for temporary special promo-
tion signs and banners as provided in Section 6.2.1.3.
23
Adjourned Subsequent Town meeting - 11/12/92
hereof, shall only identify the occupant of such
premises, the services available, hours of operation, the
products sold and their respective trade names."
3. Add the following new Section 6.2.1.3.:
116.2.1.3. Temporary special promotion signs and banners
shall be allowed in any business or industrial zoning
district only under the following conditions:
They shall be allowed only through the issuance of a tem-
porary sign permit issued for a maximum period of sixty
(60) days by the Building Inspector upon his satisfaction
that all of the following conditions are fulfilled;
should the Building Inspector find that one or more of
these conditions are not being fulfilled, he shall revoke
said permit,-whereupon failure to remove such sign im-
mediately shall be a violation of these Zoning By-Laws.
They shall be only for purposes of informing the public
of non-recurring, seasonal or temporary special sales,
promotional events, open houses or grand openings con-
ducted on the premises.
They shall contain no internal illumination or be il-
luminated by any flashing, traveling, intermittent,
revolving or moving.lighting.
Not more than three (3) such signs or banners shall be
permitted on any premises at any one time. Not more than
three (3) permits for such signs or banners shall be al-
lowed for any premises during one (1) calendar year.
They shall not be hand-lettered, but shall be profes-
sionally lettered on paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic
signboards, or on cloth banners, affixed to a building
wall, window or pre-existing permanent post.
Placement and maximum signboard area of any such sign
shall be as follows:
(1) If affixed to a wall, no more than forty-eight (48)
square feet and affixed parallel to the wall;
(2) If affixed to a window, no more than twenty-five
percent (25%) of the area of the window; if no temporary
sign permit is in effect for the premises, then there
shall be no limitation as to interior signs on those
premises.
(3) If affixed to a post, no more than twelve (12)
square feet, no closer to the front property line of the
premises than five (5) feet, and shall be either below
three (3) feet in height or be at least six (6) feet in
height above average ground level."
24
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/92
Leslie McGonagle, President of the Reading Chamber of Commerce,
presented the following report:
Dear Town Meeting Member and Fellow Reading Citizen:
The business community is here to serve the Reading residents.
They are here for your emergency service, i.e, your car died, or
you need to send flowers to a sick relative, you need food,
clothes need dry cleaning, a special occasion so you need your
hair cut or coiffed, take out service for a quick family meal,
"donuts on a Sunday morning on the way home from church,
newspapers that need to be delivered, clothes need to be pur-
chased, eye glasses need to be fixed, train tickets need to be
purchased, medicine has to be obtained, special gifts are needed
for special occasions, or you need to make travel arrangements or
require many banking. services.... Reading offers this to you and
much much more, not very far from your doorstep. The Reading
business community responds to you with good, personal, services.
For years, these businesses could advertise their products in lo-
cal newspapers and you would have time to read about it. They
still advertise, but the results are definitely not the same. Now
we live in a drive by drive thru society and the sign-bylaw of
the 70's is outdated. These very businesses that are here for you
are being ticketed by town government for making any announcement
to you or the community relative to grand opening to plant sale,
tire sale to christmas trees because they have placed on their
properties, promotional signs. The need. is there for these
businesses to survive by capturing the consumers attention to
what they have to offer.
This is the problem: the businesses mast erect temporary promo-
tional signs on the EXTERIOR of their properties, but they do not
want to be in violation of any zoning sign by-laws. Thus the
Chamber of Commerce, along with the Community Planning & Develop-
ment Commission, as well as members of the original sign-bylaw
committee and the building inspector sat down together for many
evenings to work out a solution to this perplexing problem. The
result was Article 25 on this fall's Town Warrant. This article
defines the type of permitted temporary signs, the length of time
they can be used and the number of signs per event. It was also
proposed by the Chamber to pay a permit fee to the town which was
not requested by the CPDC. Such fee to be set by the Board of
Selectmen.
This does not mean that the town will be filled with signs
everywhere. What it does do is provide control of the signs that
currently are erected to promote a business event, which will be
tastefully and professionally lettered.
We can't turn back the clock to an era of time gone, but we can
look forward to the future and improve upon today for tomorrow.
Everyone wants to preserve the wholesomeness of Reading, but the
25
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/92
services you require as home owners are serviced by those very
businesses that need to be promoted to survive. Don't turn your
back on the business community as they are the support factor for
many of the towns needed services as well as civic, academic and
revenue base.
The Chamber of Commerce along with the CPDC feel that this is a
good by-law for the times. It takes away the necessity to ticket
the very businesses trying to survive so they can be here for you
when you need them, it takes away alienating the business com-
munity from town government, it controls the issue and it is a
step towards government and business working together to create a
better Reading.
So let's work together and pass Article 25 for a better Reading.
Thank you for your affirmative vote!
The following amendments were offered and left on the table:
(1) Motion by John A. Lippitt, Precinct 6, to amend 6.2.13. by
inserting in the second paragraph "up to a maximum of three signs
shall be allowed."
(2) Motion by Frederick Van Magness to add to 6.2.1.3.
paragraph seven #3 the following words - "the entire sign!' before
shall be either....
After lengthy debate, on motion of Gerald L. MacDonald, Precinct
3, it was voted that the subject matter of Article 25 be tabled.
ARTICLE 28 George V. Hines moved that the Town vote to amend
the Reading Zoning By-Laws as follows:
Add Section 5.2.3.7. to read as follows:
115.2.3.7. Exception on corner lots
Notwithstanding anything in this Section 5.2.3 to the contrary,
no building, or garage or other accessory structure in a
Residence District shall be located nearer than twenty (20) feet
to any street line." and
Amend Section 5.1.2. Table of Dimensional Controls, by adding a
note at the bottom of the Table reading:
" * See exception on Corner Lots, Section 5.2.3.7.11, and add an
asterisk next to the numbers in the Table under the Minimum
Yards, Side, feet column corresponding to any row labeled S-10,
S-20, S-40, A-40, or A-80. This motion was voted in the nega-
tive.
2/3 vote required
43 voted in the affirmative
61 voted in the negative
26
Adjourned Subsequent Town meeting - 11/12/92
ARTICLE 33 On motion of James E. Biller, it was voted that
i the Town amend Section 5.7 of the General Bylaws of the Town by
adding the following two sentences at the beginning of Section
5.7.16 thereof :
"The Conservation Commission may issue enforcement orders direct-
ing compliance with the provisions of this bylaw and the regula-
tions adopted pursuant thereto, and may undertake any other en-
forcement action authorized by law. Any person who violates the
provisions. of this bylaw or the regulations adopted pursuant
thereto may be ordered to restore the property to its original
condition and take other actions deemed necessary to remedy such
violations."
ARTICLE 34 On motion of James E. Biller, it was voted that
the Town amend Section 5.7 of the General Bylaws of the Town by
renumbering the present 5.7.17 to 5.7.18 and adding the following
thereto as Section 5.7.17:
115.7.17. No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter any area
subject to protection under the provisions of this bylaw without
the required authorization, or cause, suffer or allow such ac-
tivity, or leave in place unauthorized fill, or otherwise fail to
restore illegally altered land to its original condition, or fail
to comply with an enforcement order issued pursuant to the provi-
sions of this bylaw. Each day such violation continues shall
constitute a separate offense except that any person who fails to
remove unauthorized fill or otherwise fails to restore illegally
altered land to its original condition after given [sic giving)
written notification of said violation to the Conservation Com-
mission shall not be subject to additional penalties under this
bylaw unless said person thereafter fails to comply with an en-
forcement order or order of conditions."
ARTICLE 35 On motion of Willard J. Burditt, it was voted that
the Town amend the General Bylaws of the Town by adding the fol-
lowing as section 3.8 thereof:
113.8. AUDIT COMMITTEE
3.8.1 There shall be an Audit Committee consisting of five (5)
members appointed for three (3) year terms so arranged that as
near an equal number of terms as possible shall expire each year.
No member of the Audit Committee shall be a Town employee;
however, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.4.6 of these
Bylaws to the contrary, a Finance Committee member may be a mem-
ber of the Audit Committee. One (1) member shall be appointed by
the Board of Selectmen, one (1) member shall be appointed by the
School Committee, two (2) members shall be appointed by the
Finance Committee and one (1) member shall be appointed by the
Town Moderator.
27
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/12/93
3.8.2 The Audit Committee shall recommend to the Town Manager
the firm of independent auditors that is to audit and report on
the financial statements issued by the Town. The Audit Committee
shall review the audit plan with the independent auditors and,
upon completion of the audit, meet with the independent auditors
to discuss the results of the audit and the annual financial
reports. The Audit Committee shall transmit a copy of the com-
pleted annual audit and report to the Board of Selectmen, the
Finance Committee, and the School committee by the end of the
calendar year within which the Fiscal Year covered by the audit
occurs."
ARTICLE 36 On motion of George V. Hines, it was voted that
the subject matter of Article 36 be tabled.
ARTICLE 37 On motion of George V. Hines, as amended by Philip
D. LeBlanc, it was voted that the Town amend the General Bylaws
of the Town by adding the following as Section 5.12:
115.12 Regulation of Certain Motor Vehicles
5.12.1 No unregistered, uninspected or disassembled
motor vehicle may be kept on any property within view from any
public way, private way or abutting property, unless one of the
following exceptions applies and such use or exception is other-
wise in compliance with the General and Zoning Bylaws of the
Town.
5.12.1.1 The vehicle is regularly operated on the
premises as a farm or other utility vehicle.
5.12.1.2 The owner is licensed as a dealer of new cars,
used cars, or used parts under G.L. c. 140, Section 58, and
operates such a business at that property location.
5.12.1.3 The owner is in the business of autobody repair
at that property location.
5.12.1.4 The vehicle is insured personal property
regularly used in show or operating competitions or displayed as
a collectible. Only one such vehicle shall be allowed per
property.
5.12.1.5 The vehicle is a fully assembled operable
vehicle which would qualify for inspection and registration.
5.12.2 Enforcement
5.12.2.1 Any vehicle(s) maintained on property in viola-
tion of Section 5.12.1 hereof thirty (30) days after issuance of
notice of such violation from the Building Inspector or Police
Department shall be in violation of this Bylaw; and any person
violating the provisions of this Bylaw shall be punished by a
fine of Twenty-five Dollars ($25) for each offense and each day
that such offense continues shall be considered a separate of-
fense.
5.12.2.2 In addition to any other means of enforcement,
the provisions of this Bylaw may be enforced by non-criminal dis-
position in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.11 of
these Bylaws and Section 21D of Chapter 40 of the General Laws."
28
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
On motion of Michael F. Slezak, Precinct 7, it was voted that
this Town Meeting stand adjourned to meet at 7:30 p.m. on Novem-
ber 16, 1992 in the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
147 members; present.
A true copy. Attest:
Catherine A. Quimby
Town Clerk
ADJOURNED SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
THIRD BUSINESS SESSION
November 16, 1992 - Reading Memorial High School
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 Reverend E. Lewis MacLean, Church of
the Nazarene, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ARTICLE 24 On motion of George V. Hines, as amended by
Frederick Van Magness, it was voted that the Town amend Section
4.9 of the Reading Zoning By-Laws as follows:
1. Amend Section 4.9.2.1. by inserting the following defini-
tions in proper alphabetical order in said section:
"DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid"
"Recombinant DNA (RDNA) technology: The industrial science of
molecular construction outside living cells by joining natural or
synthetic DNA segments to DNA molecules that can replicate in. a
living cell."
2. Amend Section 4.9.3.2. by inserting the 'following sen-
tence after the first sentence of the third paragraph
thereof: "The need for a three-dimensional model for
large projects shall be discussed by the developer and
CPDC and a determination shall be made as to whether such
a model shall be an application requirement."
3. Amend Sections 4.9.3.3. and 4.9.3.10. by deleting from
the last sentence of each section the phrase "in the
CPDC's regulations"
29
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
4. Amend Section 4.9.3.4. by deleting from the second sen-
tence thereof the phrase "or in a fee schedule for PUD
review specifically adopted and amended by the CPDC from
time to time"
5. Amend Section 4.9.3.6. by adding at th6,,end':.;.of;•the. first
sentence thereof the phrase and whose e'es, ~are• paid
for by the developer."
6. Amend Section 4.9.4.2 by deleting the subs~.tion commenc-
ing with the words "Research and Development-uses" in its
entirety and substituting therefor:.: the fallowing:
"Research and Development uses, such as electronic and
computer laboratories; biotechnology laboratories includ-
ing those which utilize RDNA technology and low-level
nuclear materials; light manufacturing related to
electronic or computer laboratories or biotechnology
laboratories including those which utilize RDNA technol-
ogy and low-level nuclear materials, but excluding ac-
tivities which exclusively possess, use or transfer
licensed nuclear materials (including source materials,
special nuclear materials, or by-product materials as
defined in Title 10, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against
Radiation"), or other toxic or hazardous materials;"
7. Add the following new Section 4.9.5.7.:
104.9.5.7. Special Requirements for Biotechnology Uses
The following provisions shall apply to any establishment involv-
ing the use of biotechnology:
a. Biotechnology exclusion: Any RDNA technology use requir-
ing BL4 level of containment or higher, as classified by
guidelines or regulations promulgated by the National In-
stitutes of Health (NIH) of the United States Department
of Health and Human Services, including those contained
in 46 F.R. 34463-34487 on July 1, 1981 as may be amended
and 45 F.R. 24968-24971 on April 11, 1980 as may -be
amended, shall be prohibited.
b. Safety Requirements: Any use of RDNA technology shall
require compliance with the administrative safety re-
quirements of Section IV-D of the "Guidelines for
Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules" (46 F.R.
34463-34487) promulgated by the National Institutes of
Health on July 1, 1981, as may be amended, including but
not limited to the following:
(1) Establishment of an Institutional Biosafety Com-
mittee (IBC),
30
Adjourned subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
(2) Development of safety plans and manuals,
(3) Appointment of a Biological Safety Officer.
C. Permits and Inspections: Any use of RDNA technology
within a Zoning Overlay District shall require a special
permit issued by the Reading Board of Health. Such per-
mit shall be issued upon certification by the IBC that
the facility is in compliance with this PUD By-Law and
NIH guidelines. The Board of Health shall conduct annual
inspections to ensure compliance. The IBC shall renew
certification annually.
d. Environmental Surveillance Program: The IBC shall estab-
lish medical and environmental surveillance programs in
accordance with NIH guidelines and submit such programs
to the Board of Health for approval. Such surveillance
programs shall ensure compliance with all applicable
State and Federal codes and regulations, and all test
results shall be submitted to the Board of Health on a
;`periodic basis. Emergency preparedness training and any
associated additional cost for the Department of Human
Services, Fire Department, Police Department, and Depart-
ment of Public. Works shall be conducted by facility
safety personnel and paid for by the occupant to train
Town personnel for emergency response. Such training
shall be paid for by the developer or facility."
2/3 vote required
116 voted in the affirmative
17 voted in the negative
Upon motion of Daniel A. Ensminger it was voted to suspend read-
ing the entire motion as it was printed in its entirety in the
Warrant.
The following reports of progress were submitted by (a) Daniel
Ensminger and (b) Board of Health as follows :
(a) This is an update of the continuing saga of Reading's efforts
to sell the 33.5-acre former landfill property. As many of you
know, Town Meeting in 1986 authorized the sale of the landfill to
Homart Development Corporation for a minimum price of $6.25 mil-
lion. In 1987, the Selectmen entered into a purchase and sale
agreement with Homart that allowed up to three years for Homart
to obtain all necessary local and state permits and proceed with
purchase of the land. The initial landfill development concept
that Homart presented to Town Meeting in 1986 consisted of about
750,000 square feet of first-class office space plus a hotel. The
office market was still in its heyday and the Town's financial
future never looked brighter.
However, a number of events conspired in 1986 to put the entire
plan on hold. First, the designated hotel developer, Embassy
31
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/93
Suites, pulled out of its agreement with Homart because of fina-
cial problems its parent company was having. Then, a combination
of tax law reform and the softening of the local office-space
market conspired to dramatically lower the incentives for new
office-park construction in the Boston metropolitan area. The
upshot of all this was that the sale of the landfill was not con-
summated by the original September 1990 deadline.
When the purchase and sale agreement came up for renewal in 1990,
the Selectmen questioned whether Homart was still interested in
seriously pursuing development of the landfill site. T
Selectmen noted that Homart had already sunk over a million dol-
lars into the design and permitting phases of the development,
and had also secured preliminary approval from the state DEP for
a phased closure of the landfill, which was to be done at
Homart's expense. Homart had also agreed to pay for various
street widenings and traffic control measures deemed necessary
for mitigating traffic impacts, and had expressed a willingness
to continue to work with the Town to secure a willing buyer. The
Selectmen did express skepticism to Homart about their ability to
perform. However, based on the belief that good faith efforts
were continuing by Homart, the fact that Homart had proposed a
plan for capping the landfill at no cost to the Town and that
there was no other "white knight" developer waiting to develop
the site, the Board of Selectmen decided to grant two one-year
extensions of the purchase and sale agreement, which extended the
period of performance to September 1992.
As the commercial office market continued to deteriorate in 1991
and 1992, it became clear to both the Town and Homart that the
original office park/hotel concept for the landfill was not
feasible for the forseeable future. Office space rental values
had been driven by the market to such low levels and the vacancy
rate along Route 128 had grown so high, that office park / hotel
development was years from being economically feasible on the
landfill, in the opinion of the Town's own financial advisors.
Yet the need for fresh tax dollars in Reading was as keen as
ever, especially with the deep cuts in state aid and the result-
ing cuts to the Town's budget.
In September 1992, Homart approached the Town with a new plan for
developing the landfill as a so-called "big-box" retail site.
This is one of the few "hot" development markets right now. "Big-
box" refers to large retail buildings that sell products ranging
from groceries to hardware: the examples most familiar to people
are stores like Costco, BJs, and Home Depot. Homart's sub-
sidiary, Homart Community Centers, Inc. (HCCI), would do the
development. HCCI told the Selectmen that it would like a six-
month extension of the agreement, to March 31, 1993, to obtain
letters of intent from potential retailers. The interest level in
big-box retail is high, by the Town's own reckoning, the sales
price would be comparable to the $6.25 million previously nego-
tiated, and the tax revenues approximately half a million dollars
32
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
a year or so. Development would take place in a single phase in-
stead of being spread out over multiple phases. On the positive
side, it is development with a market, the developer is a known
quantity, the financial benefits are substantial, and the busi-
ness community has given its preliminary support to the concept
as long as care is taken not to duplicate downtown business func-
tions. On the negative side, there will be additional traffic
generated by this concept, there are character of community
issues involved that an office park does not present, and it rep-
resents a clear departure from the concept initially presented to
Town Meeting in 1986.
The picture is further complicated by the emergence of the so-
called Biotech market in New England. The Selectmen have asked
Homart to investigate the feasibility of utilizing the site for
Biotech use, which would preserve more of the original office
character of the site. Homart has agreed to take this matter un-
der advisement and report back to the BOS. YOU WILL BE HEARING
MUCH DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE TONIGHT. The Board of Selectmen
will continue to explore all options open to it and will attempt
to take that action which, in its opinion, is the best course of
action for the Town as a whole. As Mick Jagger put it, "You can't
always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might
find, you get what you need."
Thank you for your patience, and stay tuned!
(b) At their meeting of November 9, 1992 the Board of Health met
with Jonathan Edwards and William Goodrich to discuss Article 24.
The Board supports the concept of the article, with the concern
that appropriate staffing be available to carry out the work as-
sociated with it. It is the Board's intent to promulgate regula-
tions enabling the protection of the public's health and safety.
Mr. Al Vaz, Director of Operations, Vertex Pharmacutical,
Cambridge, MA and a representative of Mass BioTechnology Council
was present to respond to questions and offer industry input.
Fifteen Town Meeting Members spoke to the article during discus-
sion and two amendments were offered by Fred VanMagness, Precinct
8, which were subsequently voted.
ARTICLE 26(a) - First Motion On motion of George V.
Hines, it was voted that the Town amend Section 4.10. of the
Reading Zoning By-Laws by making the following deletions and in-
sertions to Sections 4.10.1., 4.10.2., 4.10.2.1., 4.10.3.3.,
4.10.3.3.4., 4.10.3.3.8., 4.10.4.1., 4.10.4.2.1., 4.10.4.2.2.,
4.10.4.3., 4.10.4.3.1., 4.10.4.3.2., 4.10.4.4., 4.10.5.4. and
4.10.6.:
4.10. Planned Residential Development (PRD)
33
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
4.10.1. Purpose:
The purpose of the Planned Residential District (PRD) is to per-
mit integrated high-quality residential developments with vari-
able densities while permitting preservation of open space and
natural features, allowing reduced infrastructure and site
development costs, to promote a greater diversity of housing op-
portunities within the Town while respecting and enhancing the
existing character of the Town and of the neighborhood, and to
promote attractive standards of appearance and aesthetics consis-
tent with that character.
There shall be the following types of PRD Districts:
PRD-G: General Planned Residential Development
PRD-M: Planned Residential Development on current or former
municipally owned properties.
4.10.2. Planned Residential District as an overlay District:
A PRD Zoning District shall take the form of an overlay district
covering any part of an existing residential zoning district on
the Reading zoning map. A PRD-M Zoning Overlay District shall be
applied to a specific parcel or parcels only through specific ac-
tion by Town Meeting in a manner identical to that required to
amend the Reading Zoning Map. A PRD-G Zoning Overlay District
may be applied to all or any portion of an underlying single-
family residential zoning district (that is, S-10, S-20, or S-40)
through action by Town Meeting to amend the Reading Zoning Map.
For any land subject to a PRD Overlay District a Developer may
choose to conform either to the zoning regulations which govern
the underlying district or to the PRD overlay regulations and
procedures set forth by this Section, the specific provisions of
which shall supersede all other provisions in the Zoning By-Laws
with respect to the underlying district including, without
limitation, use, intensity, dimensions, parking, signage and site
plan review; however, the provisions of any other overlay dis-
trict shall continue to apply.
4.10.2.1. Definitions:
The following terms shall have for the purposes of this PRD By-
law the meanings hereby assigned to them:
Developer: one or more entities proposing together to develop a
Planned Residential Development parcel.
Existing: in existence at the time of filing a complete Prelimi-
nary PRD Plan submission.
Floor Area Ratio (or "FARM : in a PRD, the ratio of total gross
building floor area in a PRD to the area of the development par-
cel. Gross floor area shall be measured from outside wall sur-
faces and shall include ground floor areas of interior atriums
and lobbies, and mechanical and utility spaces on habitable
34
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
floors; but shall exclude rooftop space, balconies, elevator
pits, or non-habitable areas enclosed by ornamental roofs.
Structured parking and garages shall not be counted in the deter-
mination of Floor Area Ratio. Areas classified as wetlands in
MGL Chapter 131 Section 40 or Reading General By-Laws Section
5.7, may not exceed ten percent of the development parcel area
eligible to be used in any computation of FAR.
Height: the vertical distance
perimeter of a building to the
parapet, or to a point halfway
the top of a ridge of a sloped
Adjourned
Inclusionary Housing:
from the average grade around the
top of a flat roof, including any
between the bottom of an eave and
roof.
Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
(1) Affordable Housing: Housing units available for purchase by
households with annual incomes less than one-hundred percent
(100%) of the median annual household income for the Boston
Metropolitan Area as determined by the most recent calculation of
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
(2) Moderately Priced Housing: Housing units available for pur-
chase by households with annual incomes between one-hundred per-
cent (100%) and one-hundred-twenty-f ive, percent (125%) of the
median annual household income for the Boston Metropolitan Area
as determined by the most recent calculation of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development.
Major Street: a street used for through access and carrying traf-
fic volumes of greater than 10,000 vehicles per average day.
Minor Street: a street used primarily for access to abutting
properties or carrying traffic volumes of less than 10,000
vehicles per average day.
Net Parcel Area: the area used for purposes of computing maximum
development density of a PRD parcel. Net parcel area must con-
tain the following minimum percentage of land outside the Wet-
lands Protection Overlay Zoning District (W) or the Flood Plain
Overlay Zoning District (F):
Underlying District:
S-10
S-20
S-40
Minimum Percentage:
80%
60%
50%
PRD By-Law: Section 4.10. of the Reading Zoning By-Laws including
all subsections thereof.
Site: the development parcel upon which a PRD is proposed.
35
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
Structured Parking: in a PRD, a parking garage, or all or part
of building floors above or below grade to be used for automobile
parking.
[Note: Existing Sections 4.10.3.1. and 4.10.3.2. are included in
this Motion by reference and are not be amended by this Motion.]
4.10.3.3. Preliminary Plan:
A Developer who wishes to apply for a Special Permit to construct
a PRD shall submit to the CPDC an application including a
Preliminary PRD Plan submission for the entire proposed project.
If the Developer of the PRD comprises more than one entity, all
participating entities shall be signatories to the Special Permit
application.
Two copies of the Preliminary PRD Plan shall remain available to
the public during the application process and shall be located in
the office of the Community Development Department and the Read-
ing Public Library.
[Note: Existing Subsections 4.10.3.3.1., 4.10.3.3.2., and
4.10.3.3.3. are included in this Motion by reference and are not
to be'amended by this Motion.]
4.10.3.3.4. Town Review:
Between the date a Developer submits a complete application for a
Special Permit to construct a PRD and the date of the first
Public Hearing, CPDC may require the distribution of the Prelimi-
nary PRD Plan for review to Town departments, elected and ap-
pointed boards and commissions, and such professional planning,
architectural, and engineering consultants as the CPDC deems ap-
propriate and whose fees are paid for by the developer. All com-
ments on the Preliminary PRD Plan shall be submitted in writing
to the CPDC no later than five days before the scheduled date of
the first Public Hearing. All written comments shall be made
part of the public record on the application for a Special Permit
and shall remain a public record.
[Note: Existing Subsections 4.10.3.3.5., 4.10.3.3.6., and
4.10.3.3.7. are included in this Motion by reference, and are not
to be amended by this Motion.]
4.10.3.3.8. Submission of Final Plan:
The Final PRD Plan shall be a definitive plan of the proposed
development with design sufficiently developed to provide the
basis for CPDC's review and determinations regarding the
proposal's satisfaction of the requirements, standards, and
guidelines of this PRD By-Law, and shall conform to the submis-
sion and content requirements specified in sections 4.10.3.3.3.
and 4.10.3.3.9. The Final Plan shall be consistent with the ap-
proved Preliminary PRD Plan except for changes by amendment or in -
36
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92..
accordance with conditions attached to the CPDC's approval of the
Preliminary PRD Plan, and shall satisfy all such conditions. The
Developer shall submit a Final PRD Plan no later than 59 days
after the close of the Public Hearing referred to in section
4.10.3.3.5. Failure to submit the Final PRD Plan within the
specified time period shall result in a termination of the ap-
plication for a PRD Special Permit.
The Developer shall submit complete sets of all plans and all ac-
companying material as specified in subsection 4.10.3.3.9. in ac-
cordance with the procedure set forth in section 4.10.3.3. Two
copies of the Final PRD Plan shall remain available to the public
during the application process and shall be located in the office
of the Community Development Department and in the Reading Public
Library.
[Note: Existing Subsections 4.10.3.3.9. through 4.10.3.3.15. in-
clusive and Section 4.10.4. Use and Dimensional Requirements are
included in this Motion by reference and are not to be amended by
this Motion.]
4.10.4.1. Parcel Size:
A development parcel may consist of land' in more than one owner-
ship, provided that all lots comprising the parcel lie entirely
_ within a PRD Overlay District and are contiguous. Proposed PRD
developments may include pre-existing buildings provided that all
PRD requirements are satisfied by each new or existing building
and by the PRD as a whole. More than one principal building may
be located on the parcel.
The minimum size of any PRD development parcel shall be as fol-
lows:
PRD-G: sixty-thousand (60,000) square feet,
PRD-M: eight (8) acres.
4.10.4.2.1. Required Inclusionary Housing:
PRD-G: Any PRD-G development may provide affordable and/or
moderately priced housing units as allowed in section
4.10.4.3.1.,
PRD-M: Any PRD-M development shall contain or provide off-site in
a manner acceptable to the Reading Housing Authority affordable
housing units at a minimum equal to ten percent of its total
units (both on-site and off-site).
4.10.4.2..2. Standards for On-Site Inclusionary Housing Units:
Inclusionary housing units shall have a minimum gross floor area
of nine-hundred (900) square feet,
37
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
Inclusionary housing units shall be integrated into the PRD
development and not grouped together, and their exterior ap-
pearance shall be designed to be indistinguishable from the
market-rate units in the same development,
The developer shall provide adequate guarantee, acceptable to the
CPDC, to ensure the continued availability of the inclusionary
units in perpetuity; such guarantee may include deed restric-
tions, recorded deed covenants relative to equity limitation, or
other acceptable forms.
No more than eighty percent (80%) of the building permits for the
market-rate units shall be issued for any PRD development until
construction has commenced on all the inclusionary units in the
PRD development; no more than eighty percent (800) of the oc-
cupancy permits for the market-rate units shall be issued until
all of the occupancy permits for the inclusionary units have been
issued.
4.10.4.3. Intensity of Development:
For PRD developments, the following basic intensity factors
shall apply:
Minimum parcel frontage: 50 feet,
Maximum coverage of the parcel by the aggregate ground area of
all buildings: 25%,
Maximum floor area ratio: 0.40,
Minimum separation between buildings:
PRD-M: equal to the height of the taller building but in no case
less than 40 feet,
Maximum building height:
(1) PRD-G: as allowed in the underlying zoning district,
(2) PRD-M: 48 feet, not to exceed four stories,
Minimum setbacks as measured between bounds of the parcel and any
portion of any building or structure: 60 feet in all directions,
Parking: an enclosed garage for an individual residential unit
may count as one required parking space and a driveway for an in-
dividual residential unit may count as one required parking space
provided said driveway has minimum dimensions of 10 feet by 20
feet:
(1) PRD-M: 1.75 spaces per residential unit,
(2) PRD-G: 2 spaces per residential unit.
Loading and unloading:
38
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
(1) PRD-M: one space per building containing multiple units with
a common entrance, except that CPDC at its discretion and in ac-
cordance with section 4.10.5.4. may allow fewer spaces,
(2) PRD-G: none, except that one space shall be provided for any
common building or facility, except that CPDC at its discretion
and in accordance with section 4.10.5.4. may allow fewer spaces.
Maximum number of dwelling units per net parcel area of land con-
tained within the parcel shall be as follows:
(1) PRD-G: Maximum basic development density for a PRD-G
development shall be based on the underlying zoning district in
which the development is located, as follows:
-S-10: 3.25 units per acre,
-S-20: 1.25 units per acre,
-S-40: 1.00 units per acre;
(2) PRD-M: 10 dwelling units per gross acre, with the addi-
tional limitation that no PRD development may contain more than
100 residential units.
4.10.4.3.1. Increased Development Intensity and Height:
PRD-G: The basic intensity, but not height, factors specified in
section.4.10.4.3. may be increased as follows, provided that in
no case shall the development density be increased to a level
equal to more than one-hundred-twenty percent (1200) of the basic
density:
(1) For every affordable housing unit provided, one additional
market-rate housing unit may be provided,
(2) For every two moderately priced housing units provided, one
additional market-rate housing unit may be provided,-
PRD-M: The basic intensity and height factors specified in sec-
tion 4.10.4:3..may be increased up to the following levels if the
CPDC finds that a proposed provision of public improvements-or
amenities by the Developer would result in substantial benefit to
the Town and the general public:
(1) maximum floor area ratio: 0.65
(2) maximum building height: 72 feet, not to exceed six stories,
except that not more than one-third of the total number of any
PRD development's residential units may be contained in a build-
ing or buildings greater than 48 feet in height
-I (3) maximum number of dwelling units per gross acre of land con-
tained within the parcel: 16 dwelling units, with the additional
limitation that no PRD-M development may contain more than 160
residential units.
39
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting- 11/16/92
The aforementioned improvements or amenities which CPDC may con-
sider in granting some amount of increased intensity and height
shall include one or more of the following, provided that, in the
estimation of the CPDC, the benefit to be derived from the
proposed improvements or amenities shall be commensurate with the
amount of increased intensity or height allowed:
(1) significant improvement of the environmental quality or con-
dition of the site and its surrounding areas, including a
decrease in runoff,
(2) provision of or contribution to off-site public facility im-
provements beyond those necessary to mitigate the effects of
theproposed development which improvements would enhance the
general condition of the surrounding areas,
(3) dedication of open space or recreational facilities for use
by the general public,
(4) active cooperation by the Developer with other owners in the
vicinity to develop and achieve district-wide and adjacent neigh-
borhood improvement goals and objectives,
(5) provision of public art, distinctive and appropriate design,
or other amenities which would provide unique advantages to the
general public or contribute to achieving Town-wide goals and ob-
jectives,
(6) provision of affordable housing within the PRD in confor-
mance with this PRD By-Law and/or off-site in a manner acceptable
to the Reading Housing Authority in excess of the amount required
in section 4.10.4.2.1.
4.10.4.3.2. Fractional Computations:
For all PRD density calculations which result in a fractional
number, only fractions equal to or greater than x.76 may be
rounded up to the next highest whole number; all other fractional
numbers shall be rounded down to the nearest lower whole number.
4.10.4.4. Limitation of Subdivision and Ownership:
No lot or development parcel shown on a PRD plan for which a per-
mit is granted pursuant to this PRD By-Law and remains validly in
effect may be further subdivided, and a note to this effect shall
be shown on the plan.
All wetlands and adjacent 25-foot buffer area contained in a PRD
parcel shall be held in common ownership under the purview of the
PRD's Residents Association; such 25-foot buffer area shall not
count toward open space as required in Section 4.10.5.3.
40
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
[NOTE: Existing Sections 4.10.5. Development Standards, 4.10.5.1.
1 Screening, 4.10.5.2. Shadows, and 4.10.5.3. Open Space are in-
cluded in this Motion by reference and are not to be amended by
this Motion.]
4.10.5.4. Site Circulation and Parking:
Site circulation shall meet accepted standards for private
automobiles, service vehicles, and emergency vehicles. It is
highly desirable to consolidate access to a PRD in a small number
of widely spaced principal access points, which may be driveways
or Town-accepted side streets within or adjacent to the PRD Over-
lay District. Principal access should be consolidated in as few
locations as possible and, if feasible, it is desirable for ad-
jacent developments to share principal access. Principal access
points should be spaced and aligned or alternated according to
good traffic engineering practice, and should be signalized if
necessary.
Parking stall size shall be in accordance with the Reading Zoning
By-Laws and shall be landscaped in accordance with section
4.10.5.5.5. A minimum of five percent of the gross area of each
parking lot shall be devoted to interior landscaped areas, of as
uniform a distribution as practicable throughout the parking lots
and planted intensively with trees and taller shrubs.
Roadways and drives within a PRD shall be constructed in confor-
mance with standards established by the Reading Department of
Public Works, if proposed to be dedicated to the Town. The
design of the overall circulation pattern shall be prepared in
accordance with the principles and concepts established in
!'Recommended Practices for Subdivision Streets" prepared by the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (1965) or such other standard as
accepted by the CPDC through duly adopted regulation.
Private on-site roadways shall be allowed in any PRD development,
provided that:
Pavement widths for traveled ways (that is, not including paral-
lel or perpendicular on-street parking) shall not be less than
twenty (20) feet for two-way traffic or twelve (12) feet for
one-way traffic,
Drainage and surface runoff are suitably accommodated if no curb-
ing is to be provided,
Construction standards referenced above, other than pavement
widths and curbing, shall be adhered to, and
All PRD Plans shall specify that such roadways are proposed not
to be dedicated to the Town but are to remain private roadways;
and all deeds conveying any portion of land or a structure in any
41
Adjourned Subsequent Town meeting - 11/16/92
PRD development containing private roadways shall specify that
such private roadways are and are always to remain private road-
ways.
All on-site and off-site improvements, which include the instal-
lation of utilities, public lighting, sewers, and other public
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the stan-
dards of the Reading Department of Public Works and other ap-
propriate departments. Utilities, including water, sewer, or
storm drainage, proposed to be dedicated to the Town shall be
contained in suitable easements which conform to standards set
forth by the Reading Department of Public Works.
The determination as to whether any lesser number of off-street
loading and unloading spaces are allowed shall be determined by
the CPDC as part of its review and approval of the Preliminary
PRD Plan.
[NOTE: Existing Sections 4.10.5.5. Design Quality, 4.10.5.6. Sig-
nage, and 4.10.5.7. Environmental Standards and General Develop-
ment Guidelines, and all subsections thereof are included in this
Motion by reference and are not to be amended by this Motion.]
4.10.6. Residents Association:
In order to ensure that common open space and common facilities
within the development will be properly maintained, each PRD
development shall have a Residents Association, which shall be in
the form of a corporation, non-profit organization, or trust, es-
tablished in accordance with appropriate state law by a suitable
legal instrument or instruments recorded at the Middlesex South
Registry of Deeds or Registry District of the Land Court. As
part of the Final PRD Plan submission, the Developer shall supply
to the CPDC copies of such proposed instrument, which shall at a
minimum provide the information required by said PRD Plan Submis-
sion and Development Regulations in effect at the time of Final
PRD Plan submission.
In cases where the PRD Plan proposes private roadways which do
not meet standards established by the Reading Department -of
Public Works, said legal instruments pertaining to the Residents
Association shall specify that the Residents Association shall be
solely responsible for roadway maintenance, snow-plowing, and im-
provements, for all costs associated with the operation and main-
tenance of street lighting, and for reimbursement to the Town of
all costs incurred by the Town relative to such private roadways
in all acts of maintaining or repairing utility lines contained
in utility easements dedicated to the Town. In cases where the
PRD Plan shows private utilities, said legal instruments shall
specify that the Residents Association shall be solely respon-
sible for the operation and maintenance of said utilities.
42
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
ARTICLE 26(a) - First Motion
2/3 vote required
91 voted in the affirmative
34 voted in the negative
Upon motion by Daniel A. Ensminger, it was voted to suspend the
reading of the entire motion as it was printed in its entirety in
the Warrant.
Town Meeting Member Curt Nitzsche, Precinct 1, spoke on the con-
cept of affordable housing.
Lengthly discussion, mostly centered on maximum density allowed
which was emphasized to be consistent with underlying district in
this motion ensued. Two amendments were offered which failed to
carry as was a motion to indefinitely postpone. The motion was
voted as presented.
ARTICLE 26(b) - Second Motion George V. Hines moved that
the TOOn'vote to amend section 4.10. of the Reading Zoning By-
Laws by making the following deletions and insertions to Sections
4.10.1., 4.10.2., 4.10.4.1., 4.10.4.2.1., 4.10.4.3., and
4.10.4.3.1.:
1. Amend' Section 4.10.1. by adding at the end thereof the
following:
"PRD-A: Affordable Planned Residential Development."
2. Amend the first paragraph of Section 4.10.2. by adding
the words "or PRD-A" between the words "A PRD-M" and the
words "Zoning Overlay District..."
3. Amend Section 4.10.4.1. by adding at the end thereof the
following:
"PRD-A: eight (8) acres."
4. Amend Section 4.10.4.2.1. by adding at the end thereof
the following:
"PRD-A: Any PRD-A development shall provide on-site inclu-
sionary housing units at a minimum equal to ten percent (10%) of
its total number of housing units and may provide a larger por-
tion as allowed in section 4.10.4.3.1."
5. Amend Section 4.10.4.3. so as to read as follows:
114.10.4.3. Intensity of Development:
For PRD developments, the following basic intensity factors
shall apply:
Minimum parcel frontage: 50 feet,
43
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
Maximum coverage of the parcel by the aggregate ground area of
all buildings: 25%,
Maximum floor area ratio: 0.40,
Minimum separation between buildings:
PRD-M: equal to the height of the taller building but in no case
less than 40 feet,
Maximum building height:
(1) PRD-G and PRD-A as allowed in the underlying zoning
district,
(2) PRD-M: 48 feet, not to exceed four stories,
Minimum setbacks as measured between bounds of the parcel and any
portion of any building or structure: 60 feet in all directions,
Parking: an enclosed garage for an individual residential unit
may count as one required parking space and a driveway for an in-
dividual residential unit may count as one required parking space
provided said driveway has minimum dimensions, of 10 feet by 20
feet:
(1) PRD-M and PRD-A: 1.75 spaces per residential unit,
(2) PRD-G: 2 spaces per residential unit.
Loading and unloading:'
M PRD-M and PRD-A: one space per building containing mul-
tiple units with a common entrance, except that CPDC at
its discretion and in accordance with section 4.10.5.4.
may allow fewer spaces,
(2) PRD-G: none, except that one space shall be provided for
any common building or facility, except that CPDC at its
discretion and in accordance with section 4.10.5.4. may
allow fewer spaces.
Maximum number of dwelling units per net parcel area of land con-
tained within the parcel shall be as follows:
(1) PRD-G: Maximum basic development density for a PRD-G
development shall be based on the underlying zoning dis-
trict in which the development is located, as follows:
-S-10: 3.25 units per acre,
-S-20: 1.25 units per acre,
-S-40: 1.00 units per acre;
44
Adjourned subsequent Town Meeting - 11/19/92
walkway and the installation of curbing at the Benton Circle end
I thereof, and that the minimum amount of One Dollar ($1.00) be
paid for such conveyance and/or abandonment; and that the Board
of Selectmen be authorized to convey or abandon all or any part
of said right of easement for such amount or larger amount and
upon such other terms and conditions as the Selectmen shall con-
sider proper; and to deliver a deed therefor if necessary.This
motion was voted in the negative.
CPDC Recommendation on Article 21
At its meeting of November 7, 1992, the Community Planning and
Development Commission voted 4/0/1 to recommend approval of Ar-
ticle 21, based on the Article text which would authorize the
Board of Selectmen to convey and/or abandon certain Town rights,
subject to a favorable action by CPDC after holding a Public
Hearing according to Subdivision Laws, such hearing to be in-
itiated by a private party, and sujbect to the legal rights in
the easement held by other interested parties.
ARTICLE 27 On motion of George V. Hines, it was voted that
the Town amend Section 4.2.2. "Table of Uses" of the Reading
Zoning By-Laws by adding the phrase 5-20, 5-40, A-40" after
the phrase "5-10" in the footnote so that such footnote
shall read as follows:
Planned Residential Development may be permitted only within
a PRD Overlay District, which may exist only in an 5-10, 5-20,
5-40, A-40 or A-80 underlying Zoning District on the Zoning Map."
2/3 vote required
105 voted in the affirmative
1 voted in the negative
ARTICLE 29 On motion of George V. Hines, it was voted that
the Town amend the Reading Zoning By-Laws by deleting Section
4.6. "Townhouse Development" in its entirety and by indicating
that that Section is intentionally being left blank.
2/3 vote required
106 voted in the affirmative
0 voted in the negative
ARTICLE 30 On motion of George V. Hines, it was voted that
the Town amend the Reading Zoning Map by renaming thee, Planned
Residential Development Overlay District established under Ar-
ticle 13 of the Warrant for the 1989 Annual Town Meeting as a
PRD-M Overlay District.
2/3 vote required
106 voted in the affirmative
0 voted in the negative
47
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/19/92
ARTICLE 31 George V. Hines moved that the Town vote to amend
the Reading Zoning Map to establish a PRD-G Zoning Overlay Dis-
trict, as referenced in Section 4.10. of the Reading Zoning By-
Laws, and to include within that Overlay District all areas of _
the Town contained in all S-10, 5-20 and 5-40 underlying Zoning
Districts. This motion was voted in the negative.
2/3 vote required
64 voted in the affirmative
41 voted in the negative
ARTICLE 32 On motion of George V.Hines, it was voted that the
subject matter of Article 32 be tabled.
ARTICLE 25 Ronald L. D'Addarrio moved to take Article 25 from
the table. This motion was voted in the negative.
37 voted in the affirmative
63 voted in the negative
ARTICLE 2 On motion of Daniel A. Ensminger it was voted to
take Article 2 from the table.
ARTICLE 2 On motion of Virginia M. Adams, Precinct 2, it was
voted that an Ad Hoc Cemetery Site Committee be established for
the purpose of studying possible sites for additional cemetery
space.
The Committee is to be comprised of two (2) nominees from the
Cemetery Trustees and three (3) Town Meeting Members appointed by
the Moderator and up to two (2) citizens appointed by the
Selectmen if anyone desires to serve; said Committee to report
back to Town Meeting at the next annual meeting.
ARTICLE 2 On motion of Philip B. Pacino, Precinct 4, it was
voted that the Reading Town Meeting instruct the Board of
Selectmen to meet with the Reading Municipal Light Board of Com-
missioners in order to mutually explore options for resolving the
issues relating to the DPU 85-121 and to report back to Reading
Town Meeting.
ARTICLE 2 Robert R. Lynch, Precinct 6 moved to instruct the
Selectmen to look into any design possible to be built on the old
dump site. This motion was voted in the negative.
ARTICLE 2 On motion of Daniel A. Ensminger it was voted to
place Article 2 on the table.
48
Adjourned subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
(2) PRD-M: 10 dwelling units per gross acre, with the addi-
tional limitation that no PRD development may contain
more than 100 residential units."
(3) PRD-A: Allowable basic development density, according to
the underlying zoning district in which the parcel is lo-
cated, shall be based on the percentage of inclusionary
housing units relative to the total number of housing
units contained in the PRD-A development parcel, accord-
ing to the following formula:.
underlying
zonina•
S-10
S-20
S-40
percent of
inclusionary
housing units:
10%
each additional
one percent:
o:
500.
51% to 1000:
10%:
each additional
one percent:
.
500o.
51% to 100%:
o.
100.
each additional
one percent:
.
500o.
51% to 100%:
maximum
development
density:
3.58 units/acre
0.033 additional
units/acre
4.90 units/acre
4.90 units/acre
1.50 units/acre
0.025 additional;.
units/acre
2.50 units/acre
2.50 units/acre
1.20 units/acre
0.020 additional
units/acre
2.00 units/acre
2.00 units/acre
At least fifty percent (50%) of the total number of inclusionary
housing units shall be affordable housing units.
6. Amend Section 4.10.4.3.1. by adding at the end thereof
the following:
"PRD-A: The basic intensity and height factors specified in sec-
tion 4.10.4.3. may not be increased."
This motion was voted in the negative.
2/3 vote required
23 voted in the affirmative
48 voted in the negative
Upon motion by Daniel Ensminger it was voted to suspend reading
of the motion printed above as it was printed in its entirety in
the Warrant.
Prior to the vote there was a lengthly debate by Town Meeting
Members on the concept and the need for "affordable housing."
Density and impact on schools was the major concern.
45
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/16/92
Resident Sanford Matathia, 439 Haverhill Street, spoke on behalf
of area residents. He offered a petition signed by ninety resi-
dents opposed to the Article. He advised Town Meeting that they
felt the Bylaw, as proposed, offered no language for CPDC to
mitigate density increase nor did it provide them with necessary
authority.
A motion by Gerald MacDonald, Precinct 3, to indefinitely
postpone failed to carry.
The main motion was subsequently voted in the negative.
On motion by Philip B. Pacino, Precinct 4, it was voted that this
meeting stand adjourned to meet at 7:30 p.m. on November 19, 1992
at the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium.
The meet\incg," 'ad_jflurned at 11:00 p.m.
142„aenar'werp present.
A true copy. Attest
Catherine A. Quimby
Town Clerk
ADJOURNED SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
FOURTH BUSINESS SESSION
November 19, 1992 - Reading Memorial High School
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 Anthony L. Rickley, Precinct 2, fol-
lowed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ARTICLE 21 George V. Hines moved that the Town vote to
authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey and/or abandon a cer-
tain right of easement for emergency access in Reading, Middlesex
County, MA situated on Lots 16 and 17 shown on a plan entitled:
"Definitive Plan Benton Circle & Aurele Circle, Reading, Mass."
dated August 28, 1979 and recorded in the Middlesex South Dis-
trict Registry of Deeds, which was conveyed to the Town in a
"Conveyance of Easements and Utilities" dated October 17, 1979
recorded at said Registry of Deeds in Book 13824, Page 84, and
authorizing the reduction of the size and the paving material of
the ten (10") foot wide paved pedestrian access located thereon
to a three (31) foot wide stonedust walkway for pedestrian ac-
cess, together with the installation of several steps along said
46
Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting - 11/19/92
On motion of Daniel A. Ensminger it was voted that this meeting
stand adjourned sine die.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
10"6 Town Meeting Members were present.
A true copy. Attest:
atherine A. Quimby
Town Clerk
49
Project
Project Description
FIN-2
Replace Data Proc Equip
PS-F-5
Replace Bucket Truck
PS-F-6
Replace Pickup Truck
PS-F-7
Replace/Reft.lrbish Pumper
PS-F-8
Replace Ambulance
SUBTOTAL - FIRE
PW-8-2
Reconstruct Lib Park Lot
PW-a-8
+
Rept.Fuel Sup.-Pol.Sta.
PW-8-9
Remodel./Addition.Pol.Sta.
SUBTOTAL - BUILDINGS
PW-C-3
Cemetery Development
PW-C-6
Replace Backhoe
PW-C-7
+
Cem.St.Reconstruction
SUBTOTAL - CEMETERY
r,W-E-1
Replace Backhoe/loader
PW-E-4
Replace Dump Trucks
PW-E-5
Replace Pickup Truck
r OW-E-7
Replcmt. Other Equip.
SUBTOTAL - EQUIPMENT
PH-P-1
Renovation of Pool
PW-P-2
Park Development
SUBTOTAL - PARKS
PW-R-1
Street Overlay
PW-R-2
+
St.Reconstruction
PW-R-3
Drainage Improvements
PW-R-4
+
St. Acceptances
PW-R-5
Walkers Brook Drive
Improvements
PW-R-6
+
West Side Imp.
PW-R-7
Curb/Sdewlk Const/Recon
PW-R-8
East Side Neigh. Imp.
PW-R-9
Depot Parking
PW-R-10
Realign/Reconst. Ash/Main
PW-R-11
+
Signals/Imp. - Square
SUBTOTAL - STREETS
PW-S-1
+
Inflow/infiltration
-
PW-S-2
Main Reconstruction
PN-S-4
Vehicle Replacement
SUBTOTAL - SEWER
ARTICLE 3
TOWN OF
READING MASSACHUSETTS
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
Fiscal Y
ears 1993 thro
ugh
1997
(cost
in 0001s
)
Cost by year and
source
of f
unding
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
0.0
15.0
A
15.0
A
15.0
A
0.0
37.0
D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
A
0.0
0.0
10.0
A
200.0
D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.0
215.0
0.0
0.0
42.0
A
0.0
0.0
7.5
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
D
0.0
0.0
7.5
92.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
C
75.0
C
75.0
C
0.0
20.0
C
0.0
0.0
6.0
C
8.1
C
9.5
C
9.5
C
6.0
103.1
84.5
84.5
0.0
45.0
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
A
55.0
S
55.0
S
0.0
12.0
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
A
100.0
S
100.0
S
0.0
142.0
155.0
155.0
0.0
100-0
D
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
D
50.0
D
50.0
D
0.0
150.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
75.0
A
75.0
A
75.0
A
250.0
G
250.0
G
250.0
G
250.0
G
0.0
300.0
D
0.0
300-0
D
0-1
A
15.0
B
15.0
8
15.0
B
0.0
440.0
G
0.0
0.0
0-0
145.0
B
0.0
0.0
70.0
G
1,500.0
G
0.0
0.0
0.0
200.0
G
100.0
G
100.0
G
0-0
100.0
G
0.0
0.0
0.0
80.0
G
0.0
0.0
0.0
320.0
G
0.0
0-0
270.0
G
750.0
G
0.0
0.0
590.1
4,175.0
440.0
740.0
77.5
E
75.0
E
75-0
E
75.0
E
0.0
450.0
G
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
E
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
E
0.0
0.0
77.5
589.0
75.0
75.0
FY97
15.0 A
0.0
0.0
0.0
85.11 A
85.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0 C
0.0
0.0
75.0
45.0 S
55.0 S
0.0
100.0 S
200.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0 A
250.0 G
0.0
15.0 e
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 G
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
440.0
75.0 E
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
TOTAL
60.0
37.0
15.0
210.0
85.0
347.0
42.0
7.5
50.0
99.5
300.0
20.0
33.1
353.1
90.0
220.0
12.0
330.0
652.0
100.0
150.0
250.0
300.0
1,250.0
600.0
60.1
440.0
145.0
1,570.0
500.0
100.0
80.0
320.0
1,020.0
6,385.1
377.5
450.0
50.0
14.0
891.5
9-Nov-92
ARTICLE 3
TOWN OF READING MASSACHUSETTS
FIVE YEAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
_
Fiscal
Years
1993 through
1997
b
(cost in.000's)
Cost by year a
nd source
of funding
Project
Project Description
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
TOTAL
PW-W-2
+ Treat.Ptant Mod./Imp.
82.0
E
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,000.0
ED
8,082.0
PW-W-3
Vehicle Replacement
0.0
55.01- E
'
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
PW-W-4
New Well Development
0.0
00.0
100.d
E
0.0
100.0
E
0.0
200.0
PW-W-5
Woburn Water Interconnect
264.0
E
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
264.0
SUBTOTAL - WATER
346.0
155.0
0.0
100.0
8,000.0
8,601.0
SD-1
Computer/Wd Proc Equip
100.0
A
100.0
A
100.0
A
100.0
A
100.0
A
500.0
SD-2
Roof Replacement
143.0
D
46.0
A
206.0
D
0.0
0.0
395.0
SD-3
Space Remod.-Elem.Sch.
0.0
1,400.0
D
0.0
1,400.0
D
0.0
2,800.0
SD-4
Chp 504-Lifts-Toilet Rem
31.0
D
15.0
A
15.0
A
0.0
0.0
61.0
SD-5
Space Remod- - Middle Sch-
0.0
50.0
D
0.0
20.0
A
1,000.0
D
1,070.0
SD-6
Energy Related Proj
15.0
A
15.0
A
15.0
A
15.0
A
15.0
A
75.0
SD-7
Vehicle Replacement
12.0
A
12.0
A
15.0
A
15.0
A
15.0
A
69.0
SD-8
Floor Tile Replacement
15.0
A
15.0
A
15.0
A
15.0
A
15.0
A
75.0
SD-9
Install Suspnded Ceiling
22.0
A
0.0
25.0
A
0.0
0.0
47.0
SD-10
Window Replace. - Parker
0.0
175.0
D
30.0
A
0.0
0.0
205.0
SD-11
Refurbish Kitchen
0.0
0.0
50.0
E
0.0
0.0
50.0
SD-12
Rplce Ctsrm/Cafe Furn-
18.0
A
18.0
A
20.0
A
20.0
A
20.0
A
96.0
SD-13
Gate/Zone Vlve Reptcmt
10.0
A
10.0
A
10.0
A
10.0
A
10.0
A
50.0
SD-15
Oil Tank Remov./Gas Conv.
0.0
10.0
G
50.0
G
50.0
G
50.0
G
160.0
SD-16
Asbestos Abatement
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SD-18
Track Renovation
0.0
30.0
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
SD-19
Boiter Reptacement-H.S.
0.0
65.0
A
0.0
130.0
D
0.0
195.0
SD-22
+ Refurbish Elev. RMHS
38.0
D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.0
SUBTOTAL - SCHOOLS
404.0
1,961.0
551.0
1,775.0
1,225.0
5,916.0
LD-1 •
+ Ongoing Capital Projects
4,950.0
ED
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.4,950.0
LD-2
Distribution System Imp.
0.0
7,000.0
ED
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,000.0
SUBTOTAL - ELECTRIC
4,950.0
7,000.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11,950.0
GRAND TOTALS
6,381.1
14,429.1
1,585.5
2,994.5
10,115.0
35,505.2
+ Included in 1992 Town Meeting Warrant as Articles
or in Budget
SUMMARY OF CA
PITAL IMPROVEME
NT PROGRAM BY
YEAR BY S
OURCE
OF FUNDS
(Cost in
000's
)
SOURCE OF FUNDING
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
TOTAL
A Annual Appropriation
199.6
610.0
350.0
285.0
350.0
1,794.6
B Betterment
0.0
160.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
205-0
C Sale
of Cemetery Lots
6.0
103.1
84.5
84.5
75.0
353.1
D Debt
to be Authorized
212.0
2,162.0
456.0
1,880.0.
1,000.0
5,710.0
E Enterprise Appropriation
423.5
294.0
125.0
175.0
75.0
1,092.5
ED Enterprise Debt
4,950.0
7,000.0
0.0
0.0
8,000.0
19,950.0
G Grant or Outside Funding
590.0
4,100.0
400.0
400.0
400.0
5,890.0
S Sate
of Real Estate
0.0
0.0
155.0
155.0
200.0
510.0
1
6,381-1
14,429.1
1,585.5
2,994.5
-
10,115.0
35,505.2
9-Nov-92