Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-20 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the Meeting of October 20, 1982. Chairman Mitchel called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. in Room 19, 52 Sanborn Street (the Community Center) with Board members A. Burne, M. Rich and K. Messina present. Mr. Shaw was expected at 8:00 P.M. due to a conflict in his schedule. Article 32 - Rezoning of Cogan/Main Street property The Board was informed that there had been an error in the legal notice sent to the Chronicle for publication last Wednesday and the newspaper held up publication for 1 day - thus making the legal notice have only a 13 day lead time. Due to this error, the Chairman contacted Town Counsel and he advised readvertising with the required 14 day notice time because this case has been in Court several times before and we would avoid any possibility of the public hearing being invalidated because of this technicality. With this in mind, the Board then moved and seconded and unanimously voted to move the date from October 27, 1982 to Thursday, November 4, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. Legal notices will be sent to the paper and as required to all state and local agencies and abutting residents. Articles 29, 30 and 31 - Sign By-laws Board members reviewed the letter from Town Counsel regarding political and price signs. Chairmen Mitchel gave a brief over- view and history of the sign by-laws and stated that since the 1965 edition of the Town's Zoning By-Laws, the sign by-laws have remained virtually unchanged. With the problems that the Building Inspector cited to this Board during their September 15, 1982 meeting, the Board felt the wording of the proposed by-law would alleviate the problem of ambiguity that the Woburn judge found in our by-laws and protect the citizens of the Town from both a safety hazard and visual polluting effect from the loosening of the law. The Chairman felt that the Board's vote to place this on the Warrant as written should not be interpreted as an endorsement of this policy. The Board will take a vote on its position after the public hearing on these articles is formally closed. At 7:15 P.M. the Chairman adjourned to the Auditorium to inform the 2 citizens present that he would delay the opening of the public hearings, until 7:30 P.M. because of the misprint of the Board's meeting time in the Chronicle on Monday. At 7:30 P.M. the Board members adjourned to the Auditorium to open the public hearings on Articles 29, 30 and 31 on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant. At 9:30 P.M. the Board reconvened in the Planning Board office. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to defer voting on the sign by-law revisions until the next meeting scheduled for October 27, 1982 at 7 P.M. Ms. Rich will present her report on "Accessory Apartments", as outlined in the report previously distributed to Board members, 10/20/82 Page 2 at next week's meeting. Reports on all Housing studies was also deferred until that meeting due to the lateness of the hour. Meeting Schedule Mr. Shaw will attend the hearing by the Board of Survey on Pine Grove Estates,(off Haverhill Street)on Monday, October 25, 1982 @7:30 P.M. and the hearing on Buckskin Drive,(off Franklin Street between Fox Run Lane and Blueberry Lane,)on Monday, November 1, 1982. Both of these public hearings will be held by the Board of Survey at Town Hall. Mr. Shaw will also attend the public hearing on Solid Waste disposal on Monday, October 25, 1982 at 8 P.M. This hearing is being held by the Board of Public Works at Town Hall. Planning Board meetings are scheduled for: Wednesday, October 27, 1982 at 7 P.M. and Thursday, November 4, 1982 at 7 P.M. with public hearing on Article 32-Cogan rezoning scheduled for 7:30 P.M. Fall Town Meeting is scheduled to open at 8 P.M. on Monday, November 8, 1982. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth G. Messina, Clerk October 20, 1982 - Community Center Auditorium Synopsis of Public Hearing on Article 29 - Political Signs At 8:00 P.M., Chairman Mitchel called the public hearing into, sep_sion with Board members M. Rich, J. Shaw, A. Burne and K. Messina present. There were 5 citizens present and Traci (fir from the Reading Chronicle. the Clerk o1a~igoac-, read the public notice into the meeting record. The notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on October 6 and 13, 1982 and posted at Town Hall by the Town Clerk. The Chairman briefly outlined Article 29 stating that this By-law proposal would Ian-est thr the size number of political signs,•but would only restrict the time the signs could be posted on Rid- t _a,1 property. Mr. Mitchel noted that thh'wording as presented on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant was, not as previously distributed to the Planning Board. Mr. George Theophanis of the By-Law Committee stated that this was an error that would have to be corrected by their motion on Town Meeting floor. Chairman Mitchel then read the following-into the meeting record for consideration: f) inserting after the words "of this by-law and" in Paragraph 6.2.5.2. the following words: "except where specified in this section," Mr. Mitchel then asked Mr. Theophanis to present the By-Law Committee's position on the presentation of this Article on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant. Mr. Theophanis then gave a brief'history on the develop- ment of this By-Law stating that s i ~ it 1 1 ~ not i.tical signs cannot be restricted from display on ~:esidesi`ialproperty under the rights of the 1st Amendment. He cited numerous cases where Federal judges upheld the citizens' rights to freedom of speech and the only limits set were time limits. one case was cited as allowing some restriction on size and number of political signs. Mr. Theophanis stated that the By-Law Committee felt that as the present Zoning By-laws are written, there is not a constitutional law and, if challenged, the current by-law would not be upheld in Court. With this in mind, the By-Law Committee felt it necessary to have a law that the Town could enforce. Another reason quoted by ,Mr. Theophanis-was that allowing political signs would increase interest in Town and State elections. During questioning the following points were made: - wording is quite elaborate but will encompass the entire by- law and not throw any of the by-laws into non-conformity, in Mr. Theophanis' opinion. Chairman Mitchel noted that the Board had received a letter from Town Counsel stating that "by the absence of any exemption for political signs (in Town ZBL), (it thus] bans all political signs." The letter further states "Baldwin v. Redwood City... case does uphold the right to regulate political signs to a certain extent, particularly with regard to size limitations. Such restrictions, Page 2-Public Hearing October 20, 1982 Article 29 r f ti e however, must again be tied to legitimaty~ governmental interests such as preventing visual pollution and /traffic safety." Chairman Mitchel then questioned Mr. Theophanis on the By-Law Committee's decision not to restrict either the size or number of political signs allowed under this By-law revision. Mr. Theophanis felt that the By-Law Committee's input from Town Counsel at the time of the writing of this revision did not include the Redwood City case and the By-Law Committee wrote the law with the assistance of Town Counsel.. The validity of the. 30 days before and 5 days after an election time limit was a question raised by Town Counsel. Mr. Cohen did not know whether a Court would uphold this particular time limit, as the shortest time period he could determine from his research was 42 days before/48 hours after an election. In response to this By-law being an answer to voter apathy, Mr. Theophanis stated that the issues and candidates before the voting public would be displayed and there for view. Hopefully, this would bring about greater interest in Town government and upward to State and Federal elections. Ms. Sally Nitzche, a member of the League of Women Voters and Town citizen, took exception with the By-law revision. In her research she found that the following Towns did not have allowances for political signs and their voter turnouts are: Wakefield 38 Winchester - 280; Stoneham - 22 These figures were all from the last election in September. Ms. Nitzche stated that the, cumbersome wording leads to confusion by the general public and such a By-law is easily violated. Signs appear too early and stay up too long; any number, of signs could be erected on private property adding to safety probelms as drivers would be distracted and si ns,po d interfere with line of sight. Ms. Nitzche felt that the pioMVTtion of political signs was very clear cut and ~:I_1 violations were handled quickly by the Building Inspector. She questioned the time and expense involved in enforcing such a by-law and the ultimate need of it. Mr. Theophanis answered that there had not been any desire by the Town's citizens for the allowance of political signs, but the By-Law Committee saw that the present Zoning By-law was unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. The By-Law Committee sought to rectify this by having a law that.was constitutional and enforceable. After the questioning, the Chairman asked for a sense of the meeting. There were: 1 - in favor; 3 - opposed 2 - abstentions. At 8:45 P.M., Chairman Mitchel formally closed the public hearing on this Article. 30 Public Hearing on Article _2* - Synopsis 7:30 PM - Community Center Auditorium, October 20, 1982 -Ihairman Mitchel called the public hearing to order at 7:30 P.M. in the community Center Auditorium with Board members A. Burne, M. Rich and the Clerk, K. Messina present. There were also 6 citizens present for this public hearing. The Clerk read the legal notice into the meeting record. This notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Wednesday, October 6 and 13, 1982 and posted at Town Hall by the Town Clerk. A notice of this was also sent to all agencies and boards pursuant to Sections 5 and 11, Chapter 40A. Chairman Mitchel outlined the reasons that the Planning Board placed this Article on the Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant. On September 15, 1982, the Building Inspector appeared before the Board and requested that the Board consider new language that would alleviate abuses of the sign by-law. Presently the By-law requires that all signs over 12 sq. ft. must have a building permit granted by the Building Inspector. Any sign under 12 square feet does not require such a permit. There is also a requirement under the Zoning By-laws for total allowable square footage for all signs, which is 4 square feet for every foot of building frontage. In order to assure that the total area limitation is not being exceeded, the Building Inspector felt that all signs under 12 square feet should also be included in the requirement of a building permit. 'Chairman Mitchel noted that the.present sign by-laws have been un- changed since their incorporation in 1965. Upon questioning from the citizens present the following facts were highlighted; - This requirement would be for signs in the Business Districts and Industrial District. Current zoning allows only a 1 square foot sign for identification and/or home occupation in a Residence District. - This restriction would apply only to exterior signs. Signs inside buildings would not be affected- Presently any sign larger than a 12 square foot sign requires a building permit from the"Building Inspector. The new proposal would include all signs in business districts and industrial districts obtain a building permit from the Building Inspector before any and all signs are erected to insure that the total allowable sign area is not being exceeded. There-being no further questions, the Chairman asked for a sense of the, meeting. There were'. 0 - in favor 0 opposed 6 - abstentions. At 7;45 P.M., the Chairman officially closed the public hearing on Article 29 on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant. Svnopsis of Public'Hearing on Article 31 - Price Signs October 20, 1982 - Community Center Auditorium Chairman Mitchel opened the public hearing on Article 31 at 8:45 P.M. with Board members A. Burne, J. Shaw, M. Rich and Clerk K. Messina present. There were 6 citizens present as well as,T-rev•r from the Reading Chronicle. The Clerk read the public notice into the meeting record. This notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Wednesday, October 6 and 13, 1982 and posted at Town Hall by the Town Clerk. Chairman Mitchel gave a brief overview of the reasons this article had been placed on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant. With a recent court decision in Woburn District Court, the price signs displayed .by gas stations were construed by the judge not to be "promotional signs. Because of the ambiguity of the wording, the judge felt that under Section 6.2. there was no way that he could force the gas station owners to take down these signs. After consulting with both the Building Inspector and Town C unS_e .,_thr- . current wording`., wa-s-to -be ac ed to Sec ion to clarify the intent of the By-law. The current version of the sign by-law has been in existence since the 1965 revision of the Zoning By-laws. This has always been interpreted by the Town's officials and from a previous court case in Woburn District Court to exclude price information signs from being displayed within the Town. In a subsequent deci- sion in Woburn District Court, the same judge felt that the langu- age was not specific enough to allow him to prohibit the gas station owners from displaying these signs. The Planning Board unanimously voted to place this Article on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant. Chairman Mitchel explained that this is not an endorsement of the article, but corrective action to clear up the ambiguity in the By-laws. After the formal close of the public hearing on this Article, the Planning Board will then take a position either to recommend to Town Meeting the adoption of the wording as proposed, or not to recommend the same. The Planning Board has been informed by Town Counsel that the Town has a right to regulate and restrict signs for legitimate govern- mental interests such as preventing visual pollution and traffic safety. If Town Meeting passes the wording of Article 31, the Attorney General's office will be the ultimate ruler of the consti- tutionality of the By-law. The question of constitutionality will be based on the lst Amendment rights i->f the Consumers Right to Know. Mr. Arnold Berger, owner of Reading Liquors, spoke against the adop- tion of this wording and asked the Board to consider excluding marquee signs with interchangeable letters be exempted from such restrictions., He also asked who would be aggrieved by allowing price signs for the information of the consumer. The question of enforcement and its costs was also raised by Mr. Berger. Page 2 Article 31-Price Signs The Board responded to the questions raised stating that the Board has an important function to serve in relating with other Town officials and helping to alleviate confusion and ambiguity in the wording of the Zoning By-laws. Mr. Barry Kenny, manager of the Main Street Citgo gas station, spoke on behalf of his interest as a businessman in the commun- ity. He stated that in order to protect his business, he has to do'erect price signs for gas. With the Court decision regarding the Arco station, all gas station owners and other businesses on Main Street, have erected price signs. Mr. Kenny stated that he was the last gas station in the area to erect the price sign, but felt that his business was suffering because all of the other gas station owners were displaying price signs. He also stated that he thinks that the signs are not aesthetically pleasing and could even be confusing to traffic, but he was not going to be able to suffer the financial loss of being the owner gas station owner to obey the law and not advertise his gas prices. Mr. Kennev stated that if the Town and the Planning Board feel that price signs are not to be displayed, then all merchants and businesses should abide by the law. With everyone violating the law, the honest merchant obeying the law is suffering financially. If the Town wants price signs to be allowed, then they should write clearly the guidelines for displaying such signs. The Board thanked both merchants for their opinions on the matter and asked for a sense of the meeting. There were: 0 - in favor of Article 31 2 - opposed 4 - abstentions The Chairman formally closed the public hearing at 9:25 P.M.- L Minutes of the Meeting of October 20, 1982. Chairman Mitchel called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. in Room 19, 52 Sanborn Street (the Community Center) with Board members A. Burne, M. Rich and X. Messina present. Mr'. Shaw was expected at 8:00 P.M. due to a conflict in his schedule. Article 32 - Rezoning of Cogan/Main Street property The Board was informed that there had been an error in the legal notice sent to the Chronicle for publication last Wednesday and the newspaper held up publication for 1 day - thus making the legal notice have only a 13 day lead time., Due to this error, the Chairman contacted Town Counsel &n&- e`'advised readvertising with the required 14 day notice time because this case has been in Court several times before and we would avoid any possibility of the public hearing being invalidated because of this technicality. With this in mind, the Board then moved and seconded and unanimously voted to move the date from October 27, 1982 to Thursday, November 4, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. Legal notices will be sent to the paper and as required to all state and local agencies and abutting residents. Articles 29, 30 and 31 - Sign By-laws Board members reviewed the letter from Town Counsel regarding political and price signs. Chairmen Mitchel gave a brief over- view and history of the sign by-laws and stated that since the 1965 edition of the Town's Zoning By-Laws, the sign by-laws have remained virtually unchanged. With the problems that the Building Inspector cited to this Board during their September 15, 1982 meeting, the Board felt the wording of the 'proposed by-law would alleviate the problem of ambiguity that the Woburn judge found in our by-laws and protect the citizens of the Town from both a safety hazard and visual polluting effect from the loosening of the law. The Chairman felt that the Board's vote to place this on the Warrant as written should not be-interpreted as an endorsement of this policy. The Board will take a vote on its position after the public hearing on these articles is formally closed. At 7:15 P.M. the Chairman adjourned to the Auditorium to inform the 2 citizens present that he would delay the opening of the public hearings until 7:30 P.M. because of the misprint of the Board's meeting time in the Chronicle on Monday. At 7-:30 P.M. the Board members adjourned to the Auditorium to open the public hearings on Articles 29, 30 and 31 on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant. At 9:30 P.M. the Board reconvened in the Planning Board office. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to defer voting on the sign by-law revisions until the'next meeting scheduled for October 27, 1982 at 7 P.M. J .`t'. _Ms. Rich will present her report on "Accessory Apartments", as outlined in the report previously distributed to Board members, Lv e~vc-- at next week's meeting. Reports on all Housing studies was also deferred until that meeting due to the lateness of the hour. Meeting ng Schedule, Mr. Shaw will attend the hearing,by the Board of Survey on Pine Grove Estates,(off Haverhill Street)on Monday, October 25, 1982 @7:30 P.M. and the hearing on Buckskin Drive,(off Franklin Street between Fox Run Lane and Blueberry Lane,)on Monday, November 1, 1982. Both of these public hearings will be held by the Board of Survey at Town Hall. Mr. Shaw will also attend the public hearing on Solid Waste disposal on Monday, October 25, 1982 at 8P.M. This hearing is being held by the Board of Public Works at Town Hall. Planning Board meetings are scheduled for: Wednesday, October 27, 1982 at 7 P.M. and Thursday, November 4, 1982 at 7 P.M. with public hearing on Article 32-Cogan rezoning scheduled for 7:30 P.M. Fall Town Meeting is scheduled to.open at 8 P.M. on Monday, November 8, 1982 Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth G. Messina, Clerk