Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-07 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the. Meeting of April 7, 1983. Chairman K. Messina called the meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. in Room 19, 52 Sanborn Street (the Community Center) with Board members M. Rich, C. Arthur, J. Shaw present. Mr. Mitchel arrived shortly thereafter. Also present was Ms. Barbara Hewitt from the League of Women Voters. Ms. Virginia Adams also arrived later in the meeting. Correspondence Mail was reviewed. Discussion on this was deferred until later in the-meeting. TOWN MEETING ISSUES Accessory Apartments-- Mr.. Mitchel wanted some- anguage-changes made in =the '-final -notion -to 7-7own Meeting. "Mr. Mitchel hiked : a more positive approach°under-"Purpose" and the'Board:decided that the Secretary-and Mr.'.-Mitchel can work :together to incorporate some of the-population statistics into the.,description under ":Purpose" =that will -be. mailed=out-to:--all=Town -Meeting -members. Ms. Rich 'will work wth.other ,Boards to try -and obtain =their support for this by-law. Mr. ,..Messina will contact Mr. Russell, Chairman of the Board of Se.lectjmen, for--their final--approval. Assignments were as ;follows: -Report and Motion by Mr. Messina, Presentation by Ms. Rich. The Board will have the Secretary copy-and send out the overview and explanation to all Town Meeting members before next week. Mr. Mitchel will 'work-with`the Secretary in.:order -todraft a cover letter and more comprehensible approach throughout the overview. Home `Business The Board reviewed their concerns with<the proposed Home Business by-law changes: Upon a motion duly made'and seconded, it was the unanimous_ opinion of the Board.'not.to recommend passage of these articles by Town Meeting. Reading residents'would-not be'well served by this`as.the:_language is too vagueand'too broad, according to Ms. Rich's opinion. Chairman Messina felt that passage of` -these by-law changes would open the Town to law suits of discrim- ination by businesses currently Legally operating. Mr..-Mitchel will prepare the finalreport to Town Meeting with the Secretary. Scenic Roads New articles were:;-presented to Special Town.Meeting on "Scenic Roads" and acceptance of Pearl Street as a scenic road. Ms..Rich supports.the article dealing with "Scenic Roads" and upon a motion.. duly made.and seconded, the-Board unanimously voted to support ' passage of this article by Special Town Meeting. Mr. Mitchel was not sure that the.Board'or Town Meeting could act on Pearl Street until, p"a :eage' o-f Scenic Road by-law. He will check on this. 17 Wakefield Street Reading, MA 01867 March 31, 1983 Planning Board Members 52 Sanborn Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Reading Chronicle Dear Board Members: I am in receipt of a letter addressed to Barry J. Mitchel from Bruce Morang of the Reading Chronicle. Several accusations have been made about me and my conduct concerning recent conversations with the-Chronicle staff about the.legal advertising for Articles 36-40. Two points should be made emphatically and clearly: 1) If any of the Chronicle staff had explained to me that the` costs for running legal ads off the type print set for the Town Meeting Warrant were going to be less expensive, why would I accuse the Chronicle of trying to "shaft or "be out to get the Planning Board? 2) In all of my conversations with the Chronicle, such language has never been used by me. Since last Spring Town Meeting and the proposed rezoning of the Dooley-Main Street property, an employee of the Chronicle staff that abuts said property and opposed the Planning Board position, has given me little or no cooperation in any dealings that I have had with the paper. I-find the solution for this. Board, and for me in particular, of dealing with either Bruce Morarig or Ed Coletta directly to be quite satisfactory.. I have verification (as witnessed by the signatures at the bottom of this letter) from 2 other Town employees who were witness to the telephone. conversation in question, that such language was not used nor was the.tone of the conversation on my part as described in the Chronicle letter.. Such language is not my style and accusations such as these are unfounded, untrue and maddening. I have always conducted myself in a professional manner in all of my dealings with the public and shall continue to do so. I refute all of the allegations made in this letter from the Chronicle. Very tr ly yours, WI RSS: e the Rea dinronicle MAIN STREET READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 TELEPHONE 944-2200 v BRUCE N. MORANG EDITOR Barry M&rcn l~~B? Confirming our telephone conversation this morning regarding Planning Board Legal Advertising: 1. The type used in your pre-Town Meeting hearing notices is the same type and format (wide measure) we use for the Town Warrant. Since we have already set this type for use in the warrant, we do not charge you for resbtting it.. This results in a 1/3 net savings on space used by the Planning Board. This is a policy I instituted 16 years ago when I came to the Chronicle, and has applied to all town boards and committees since, 2. In regard to your office complaint regarding "wide" measure and "larger" type: It is wider because it is town warrant (pre-set) measure and. costs you one-third less to advertise; and. it is NOT larger type, rather it is the same type size used in all legal notices for the past la years. On occasion, for such notices as voter registration, announcement of elaetions, etc. we move up a size to 10 point type IN THE INTEREST OF BETTER COMMUNICATION. The town, hove is billed and pays at the 9pt. (regulkar) measure. You have only to check with Town Clerk Larry Drew to substantiate any or all of those statements. 3. In years past, when DelCotreau did most of the town printing, he took all-type set at this newspaper for warrants, etc., and used that type in the printing of such things as the zoning by-law book (all Chronicle type, with no typesetting charges), the -inCom report on th warrant, etc. In very recent years, however, the town has gone into i own word-processing system, which in many ways is a duplication of th 9hronicle word-processing (typesetting) system. We are at present attempting to determine if our typesetting devices are compatible wit those of the town. If they are, further savings can accrue to the tow In short, we realize that tax dollars spent on legal advertising are in fact our dollars. We do not squander them. We treat equally our twin obligations of; 1. communication to the public as the paper of record in the community; and 2. monitoring costs to the town. Because we (editoe, proofreaders, and even Planning Board chairmen) are human mistakes can occur. When they do we make every effirb to adjust and make good. We wpuld.nf t have existed in thin community for 113 years without such an attitude, 5. In regards to specific complaints regarding your advertising which ha come from your office to mine; I regret to report the attempts to explain these points to Peg Plansky by our girls has failed completel So much so, that I have instructed my office personnel that ALL com- munications between the Planning Board and the Chronicle are to be e ea din NrY~ rank le th R W_.lll.,-~11g4~ 7 MAIN STREET READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 TELEPHONE 944-2200 BRUCE N. MORANG EDITOR 2... by myself, or by News Editor Ed Coletta. I am sure you can apprec- iate the attitude arrived at by the Chronicle office girls, but quite frankly, they are tired of being accused of "shafting" the Planning Board, and of "'being out to get" the Planning Board. I'm sure that Peg has her side of this dilemma to tell , and. may have some very excellent reasons why she feels as she does. But for the time being, I reiterate that all communications between your baard and my office will be handled by (and only) myself and Ed Coletta, 6. The hwaring notice appearing Monday will be as it appeared the previous week. But I have taken the time and effort (and that's money!) to run your notice at the "narrow" measure you requested. Please note it measures 65 column inches at the narrow measure; and 54 inches at the wide measure. Note that you are billed for two insertions "our" way for $326.70. If we ran the ad "your" way you would be billed $393.25. Further, when it comes Sao your graphic representation of N--10, etc., and Principal Use-Min. Parking-Off-street Loading, etc., note the narrow measure is not conducive to claer communication, nor does it match the type style and measure of your by-law book:. Our intent 16 years ago was to set such type so ads could be clipped from the paper and kept as reference right beside old by-laws; and so the type could be"used insubsequent republication of ads (A.ttorney Gen.12 approval, etc.). In short, we thought we were doing you a favor all these years. If we were not;;, please advise. I deeply regret we have come to such an impasse, and deeply regret the language exchanges between our respective offices. Life is too short and full of too many other aggravations to allow such a situation to continue.