Town of Natick - Selectmen's Minutes

BOARD OF SELECTMEN

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Charles M. Hughes at 6:30 p.m.

PRESENT: Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley, Jeffrey A. Stern, Jay H. Ball, John Ciccariello

ALSO PRESENT: Frederick C. Conley, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary;

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on July 23, 2001 in the amount of $443,941.98. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $463,153.33.

Mr. Stern, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:30 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.

SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICER

Newly appointed police officer Andrew Thorpe was sworn in by Town Clerk Jane Hladick.

With corrections, Mr. Ciccariello moved approval of the minutes of the May 21, 2001 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

STEPHEN MACKINNON: PLEASANT STREET: BLOCK PARTY

On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve Stephen MacKinnon’s request to close Pleasant Street in North Natick on August 11, 2001 from 11:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. for a block party.

APPOINTMENT OF NATICK POLICE OFFICERS (2)

Police Chief Dennis Mannix introduced the two candidates he was recommending for appointment to the Natick Police Department – Vincent J. Forde and S. Christopher Salis.

Chief Mannix reviewed the background of Mr. Ford noting that he was presently a full-time sworn police officer employed by the Town of Dover for more than four years. All of his background interviewees have stated that Officer Forde has been highly regarded in each of his previously held positions, including employment as a police dispatcher for Harvard, MA Police Department, summer employment as a police officer in Barnstable, MA and as a case worker for the Commonwealth’s Department of Youth Services. Mr. Forde earned a Bachelor of Science degree in criminal justice at Northeastern University. Since he already completed the MCJR Police Officer Training Academy, Mr. Forde would be available for patrol duties in Natick after a relatively brief field training program.

Mr. McKinley commented that it had been his experience that the Chief’s recommendations have been thorough and have brought the Town good police officers. Mr. McKinley moved to appoint Vincent J. Forde as a patrolman in the Natick Police Department subject to the conditions outlined by the Chief. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Chief Mannix then reviewed the qualifications of Mr. Salis. He noted that Mr. Salis has been employed by automobile dealerships as both sales and loan manager, a graduate of Natick High and has attended Northeastern University. In 1992 Mr. Salis was certified as an emergency medical technician and has been a member of the Natick Auxiliary Police for more than 12 years. Recently he was named Lieutenant in Charge of the auxiliary police unit and has donated countless hours of his personal time and has been very cooperative and professional in his approach to policing. Chief Mannix recommended Mr. Salis’ appointment contingent on successful completion of the medical

and psychological testing exams, the physical ability test, and acceptance in and successful completion of the Criminal Justice Training Council’s Municipal Police Officer Academy.

APPOINTMENT OF NATICK POLICE OFFICERS (2) (contd)

Mr. McKinley noted that Mr. Salis was a lieutenant in the auxiliary and inquired if the Board would be appointing him as a regular officer. Chief Mannix explained that Mr. Salis would be a regular probationary officer. Auxiliary officers were not sworn positions.

A motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, to appoint S. Christopher Salis as a patrolman in the Natick Police Department subject to the conditions outlined by the Chief.

Mr. Hughes noted that he (Mr. Hughes) had asked that this be on the agenda to make it clear that the Town still had a water ban.

Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau confirmed that the water ban was still in place. He explained that before calling the water ban, the Town was in desperate need of it and it (ban) did exactly what was needed. At the time Elm Bank couldn’t be used. Elm Bank can now be used but the Elm Bank agreement says that once a water ban is put on, it can’t be taken off until September 14-15.

Asked about the effect of the ban, Mr. Perodeau responded that the Town was saving about 1,000,000 gallons per day although with the heat more will probably be used. Mr. Perodeau felt the Town was now in good shape, but the water ban had to stay.

Mr. Hughes noted that about l/2 the people were observing the water ban and the other l/2 were not.

Mr. Ball asked about enforcement, and Chief Mannix responded that his department had primarily been giving warnings. The Police have received very few complaints about the use, but when they do, they have given a warning. There have been no repeat violators of which they have been notified.

CHIEF FREDETTE: FIRE CHIEF EXAM

Fire Chief Richard Fredette told the Board that six months from today he would be retiring, and he was before the Board to ask that the Board call for a civil service list for his replacement.

As to when, Chief Fredette responded that he would like it as soon as possible. It takes about 30 days to get a list and another 30 days to be certified and approved by civil service. He felt it would be prudent to have the individual on board for the budget preparation and Fall Town Meeting.

Mr. McKinley noted that when this was discussed previously, the Board voted to limit the candidacy to Deputies Sabourin and O’Brien so why does the Board have to call for the list. Chief Fredette responded that the Board still had to call for the list. Asked if both (Sabourin & O’Brien) will appear on the list, Chief Fredette advised that that was correct. It was known that both candidates passed and their names will appear for appointment on the certified list.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that it was his understanding that the Board voted to restrict appointment to those two candidates, but Mr. Hughes advised that that was not exactly what the Board did. The Board did nothing.

Mr. McKinley stated that it was his understanding that the Board decided if there were qualified candidates internally, they (internal candidates) would be considered primarily. Based on information at the time there were at least two candidates who had taken the exam and passed and the Board felt either or both were viable candidates. It was Mr. Hughes’ recollection that at the time the Board was presented with three options. Because only two deputies took and passed the exam, the Board was not bound to use the list. If there were three deputies on the list, the Board would be bound to use it. The Board had the option of appointing an acting chief, using the list, or have another test. The Board decided not to do any of that.

Chief Fredette advised that it was not mandatory that any list be used and the Board could call for another list. His recollection was that

the Board felt it had two qualified candidates in the department and the Board would chose from those two candidates when the time came.

Mr. McKinley asked if the list would include the test scores. Chief Fredette wasn’t sure if the scores would be on the exam, but the scores can be requested. Mr. Hughes noted that the Board had been told that

CHIEF FREDETTE: FIRE CHIEF EXAM (contd)

the ranking wouldn’t be known until the Board called for the list. Chief Fredette confirmed that as correct.

A motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes for discussion, to call for the list and obtain the test scores. Unanimously voted.

In speaking to the motion, Mr. Hughes questioned if the Board called for the list would the Board have to use it. Chief Fredette’s response was, ‘no’. The Board can call for another examination at any time. If the list was less than 3, then the Board can chose from 2. The timeframe was approximately one month to get the certified list and then the Board has 90 days to make a choice.

Mr. Hughes requested an opinion from Town Counsel as to the timeframes.

PUBLIC ACCESS CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS UPDATE

Appearing before the Board was Jackie Ladd, Chairman of the Public Access Corporation Board of Directors – The Natick Pegasus, Inc.

Ms. Ladd told the Board that the Board of Directors of Natick Pegasus, Inc. was pleased to announce its incorporation, and hoped the community will enjoy the name. Pegasus in Greek mythology was the winged horse which rose to the heaves and became a constellation. Members of the Board included herself, Stuart Pologee, Treasurer, David Kahn, Clerk, David Phillipo, Randy Brewer, John MacGillivray.

Ms. Ladd noted that the Board of Directors has developed an implementation plan leading to complete responsibility for public, education and government cable television for the Town of Natick, a budget, and the Directors were in the process of negotiating an agreement with the Town. Upon execution of that agreement, the Pegasus Board will have the financial resources necessary to proceed with the plans including hiring an executive director for the cable station facility. At this point both Natick Pegasus, Inc. and the Town have made a series of modifications to a draft agreement and Natick Pegasus, Inc. looks forward to a speedy resolution of the remaining matters. She recommended a working session in the very near future to facilitate execution of this contract.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to the status the agreement and was told by Ms. Ladd that at this point the main sticking point was that Pegasus doesn’t have any cash. Execution of this contract will facilitate the ability to follow through with the plans to take over the operation of the station on West Central Street in January 2002. It was possible that there would be some phasing in earlier, but that was contingent on having the money to do so.

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Stern, Ms. Ladd explained that Pegasus was a private non-profit organization registered with the Commonwealth, but they have a relationship with the Town. She didn’t foresee any problems finalizing the agreement, but they have to do the work to get it done.

Mr. Ball pointed out that Monty Haas was a member of the Board of Directors. Ms. Ladd extended her apologies for the omission.

Mr. Ball then noted that the public access board’s first quarterly report was done in October 2000, but he didn’t recall any others that were generated. Mr. Phillipo explained that there were a lot of questions that stopped the access corp from making the reports. Ms. Ladd added that contracts weren’t negotiated until the end of January and that slowed them (Pegasus) down. Pegasus would appreciate an opportunity for a work session to go through their budget, reports and plans for the future.

Mr. Ball encouraged Pegasus not to let problems stop them from making quarterly reports. The Board depends heavily on those reports for an understanding of where the committees are and what were the problems.

Ms. Ladd apologized for not filing reports and assured the Board that that would be remedied in the future.

Mr. Ball inquired as to the timetable for working out the details, and Mr. Conley responded that Deputy Town Administrator Paul Cohen has been handling this for him and he (Mr. Conley) would ask to table.

PUBLIC ACCESS CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS UPDATE (contd)

When asked if there was anything the Board could do to move this agreement forward, Ms. Ladd suggested that a member of the Board meet with Pegasus to discuss the problem areas. Mr. Ball was volunteered to represent the Board and report back in two weeks.

Mr. McKinley noted that he had given Mr. Cohen a whole bunch of comments, but Ms. Ladd said she had not received them. He agreed to give those comments to Mr. Ball.

Finance Director Robert Palmer reported that Moody’s Investors Services reaffirmed Natick’s Aa2 rating and assigned a MIG-1 rating to current issue. MIG-1 was the highest BAN rating assigned by Moody’s. Standard & Poors upgraded Natick from AA to AA+ which was the second highest rating possible.

Mr. McKinley inquired as to how much Mr. Palmer attributed this rating to the Board’s action to clean up our house. Mr. Palmer noted that S&P had asked unusual questions this on background. When he called and asked them (S&P) (about the basis), they said one thing they looked at was the Town’s commitment to sound financial management.

CEC ENTERTAINMENT D/B/A CHUCK E. CHEESE: AMEND LICENSES

Before the Board was a request from CEC Entertainment to amend the automatic amusement device license from 50 to 57 devices and to amend the common victualer’s license to allow for an 8:00 a.m. opening every day of the week for the location at 801 Worcester Street. Chuck E. Cheese’s current license permitted a 10:00 a.m. opening on Monday-Friday; 8:00 a.m. on Saturday; and 11:00 a.m. on Sunday.

Representing Chuck E. Cheese was the district manager John Connolly.

A note had been received from the Building Inspector Michael Melchiorri indicating he had no objection to the increase in devices.

Mr. Ball asked if this petition to increase to 57 meant that the additional 7 was not as yet installed. Mr. Connolly advised that that was correct, noting that the machines were in storage awaiting the Selectmen’s approval.

Mr. Ball then inquired as to the rationale for opening at 8:00 a.m., and Mr. Connolly responded that Chuck E. Cheese was a restaurant looking to offer breakfast items. Moms and toddlers may come in when they drop the kids off at school. Mr. McKinley questioned how critical it was for Chuck E. Cheese to be open before 11:00 A.M. ON Sunday, and Mr. Connolly replied that Saturdays and Sundays were big business when the kids were out of school. Mr. Stern asked if there were any other licenses that have permission to open at 8:00 a.m., and Ms. Challis advised that most of the restaurants in town were allowed to open by 6:00 a.m.

Mr. McKinley moved to allow Chuck E. Cheese to increase the number of automatic amusement devices from 50 to 57. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Mr. Ciccariello moved to allow Chuck E. Cheese to open at 8:00 a.m. Monday-Saturday and maintain the 11:00 a.m. opening on Sunday. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion failed on a 2-3-0 vote. Mr. Ball and Mr. Ciccariello voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stern were opposed.

Prior to the vote, Mr. Connolly stated that he was trying to understand the apprehension in allowing the 8:00 a.m. opening. If Chuck E. Cheese were going to offer breakfast, it makes sense to offer it every day

when places like Dunkin Donuts can open. It was just a matter of convenience for the guests.

Mr. McKinley responded that if he had his druthers there wouldn’t be anything open on Sunday morning. He agreed with Mr. Connolly about

Dunkin Donuts but he wasn’t sure Chuck E. Cheese was like Dunkin Donuts.

Mr. Connolly floated the possibility of a 10:00 a.m., and Mr. McKinley responded that if someone made the motion he would probably vote for it.

Mr. Ciccariello explained that the reason he was against the 8:00 a.m. was that he viewed this more as a video game place than a place for the public to go to breakfast. Mr. Connolly said he understood, but Chuck E.

CEC ENTERTAINMENT D/B/A CHUCK E. CHEESE: AMEND LICENSES (contd)

Cheese has foods, games and merchandise. Food was 60-68% and games were somewhere in the 30-35% range. Chuck E. Cheese was a restaurant first.

Mr. Stern moved to allow a 10:00 a.m. Sunday opening and an 8:00 a.m. every other day. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello was opposed.

SOUTH AVENUE DRAINAGE COMPLAINT

Appearing before the Board were Irene & Frances Mailhiott concerning a drainage issue at 63 South Avenue.

Ms. Mailhiott referred to the correspondence she had forwarded to the Board. She noted that Town Engineer Mark Coviello and DPW Director Charles Sisitsky did respond but there was no resolution. She noted there were five drains in the area and any sudden rainstorm, those drains flood immediately and it comes into her reserve vault. This vault was never designed and intended that the Town’s problem would become their (Mailhiott) problem. This area has been flooding for some time and it was first brought to the Selectmen’s attention in 1988.

Ms. Mailhiott continued that what she was requesting this evening was the Board’s consideration of placing the South Avenue/Mulligan Street area on the same town warrant as the Middle Street area so there would

be funds to correct the problem. Ms. Mailhiott added that the Town has a parking lot on Mulligan Street but it was a center drain and it was pitched. It (drain) doesn’t take most of the water off the lot and the water proceeds on Mulligan up and over the granite curbing and into the Mailhiott’s drainage area. When the parking lot was resurfaced, she didn’t believe that any drainage vaults were put in and all that extra water comes down Mulligan Street. Their property (Mailhiott) was at the low point. They (Mailhiott) were required to put in perimeter drains and it worked well but the drains get overwhelmed and they can’t work and the water seeps in between the foundation and the floor.

Mr. Sisitsky noted that when the Mailhiott’s put a big addition onto their property in 1988, under the aquifer protection by-law they were required to keep the additional drainage on their property and were required to in leeching pits and an onsite catch basin. The catch basin is tied into their leeching pit and not the town drainage. When the streets and neighborhood floods, the water goes into their private catch basin and fills up their leeching pits. Both he and Mr. Coviello think it was a mistake to make the Mailhiott’s build that catch basin because without it they would be separate from the Town drainage. After the last storm the DPW got creative and blocked off most of the flow from that pipe. The DPW sent a crew out and pulled up all the catch basins and all pipes were running fee and clear. Whether those pipes were big enough was another question. A lot new drainage has been added to that area and in intense storms those pipes probably can’t handle it. The answer was does the Town want to put in larger pipes. A Town Meeting article was being prepared to look at the area and the only constraints would be how much money Town Meeting will appropriate.

Mr. Hughes noted that the plan was to file an article for the study of Middle Street, Waring Road, this area and an area off Glen Street. Will the study be done for the April meeting to propose some solutions? Mr. Sisitsky’s was, ‘yes’.

If someone was around to disconnect the catch basin and reroute it to the Town’s system, Mr. Ciccariello asked if in Mr. Sisitsky’s opinion that would solve the problem. Mr. Sisitsky responded, ‘no’, adding that it was his feeling that the catch basin wasn’t needed at all and without that catch basin any runoff would go out into the street.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if that requirement (for catch basin) came from the Planning Board or ZBA. Ms. Mailhiott advised that it was from the ZBA and was required on the recommendation of the Conservation Commission. They (Mailhiott’s) need to be in compliance unless the Town tells them it is all right to block that off. They were in a Catch 22.

Mr. McKinley said he was on the Conservation Commission and remembers the case. The ZBA administers the aquifer protection by-law. He remembered the discussion and it looked a little suspect if a lot of drainage enters the parking lot. What’s happening is that a large volume of water that has nothing to do with them is filling up the tanks and defects the purpose. He agreed that the best thing to do would be to block the catch basin.

SOUTH AVENUE DRAINAGE COMPLAINT (contd)

As to the proposed article, Mr. McKinley said he had a feeling that the dam has been broken and everybody will want to jump into the act before the warrant closes. He asked if the DPW had a strategy for identifying the problems.

Mr. Sisitsky responded that several years ago he proposed to do a town-wide drainage study, but the cost was prohibitive and there were other priorities. The strategy at this time was to bite off a little this year and work each year to put forward a town drainage plan. It all depends on how much money the Finance Committee and Town Meeting gives them.

Mr. Hughes inquired if Mr. Sisitsky had any sense on how much money the 4-5 areas cost. Mr. Sisitsky responded that he was putting together the figures and should know within another week or so. The article was just for the study and when the study was done, the DPW will be asking for money for capital improvements.

In the areas with problems, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the DPW was allowing anybody to connect to the existing systems or still being allowed to tie-in. Mr. Sisitsky responded that all the DPW can do was make a recommendation to the Planning Board. The Town Engineer attends every meeting of the Planning Board and he would hope they would respect his recommendations.

Mr. Stern felt the Mailhiott’s had a point and he would like to see this area added to the warrant article. Mr. Sisitsky responded that that was the plan.

When the Planning Board approves a subdivision, Mr. McKinley asked if they calculated a mitigation fee and divert funds to the DPW. Mr. Ciccariello responded that he didn’t believe it had ever been pointed out to the Planning Board when he was a member, that an existing drainage system would not support the development. It never seemed to go beyond once there was a connection whether the Town system down the line was able to handle it. Perhaps the Planning Board should be advised that more attention should be paid to that issue.

Mr. McKinley was of the opinion that if a drainage study hadn’t been done in 20 years and a lot of subdivisions have been approved, it seemed to him that it was time to be sure that each subdivision invests in the necessary infrastructure.

Mr. Hughes asked that Mr. Conley draft a letter to the Planning Board over his (Mr. Hughes) signature.

AMVETS: CHANGE IN MANAGER

The Board was in receipt of a petition from the Amvets requesting a change in manager from Donald Leger to William S. Suttill, Jr.

Mr. Hughes noted that the application indicates that Mr. Suttill has been the manager of the Amvets for quite some time and questioned why an application had not been made prior to this. Mr. Hughes stated that

he was disturbed that the Amvets was operating without having the manager approved.

Mr. Suttill explained that the license was currently under a member of the Board of Trustees who was coming off the Board. The Amvets believed that a member of the Board of Trustees can hold the license. Currently it was held by Donald Leger.

Mr. Ball stated that it was his understanding that the individual whose name appears on the license was someone on site 40 hours a week or more. He questioned if the member of the Board of Trustees was on site

40 hours a week. Mr. Suttill responded that he (Mr. Leger) had been, but was moving on. As a follow-up Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Leger was still there, and Mr. Suttill responded that in the last month or so the Amvets was trying to get into the Selectmen’s meeting.

Mr. Ball pointed out that Form A indicated that Mr. Suttill was charged with driving under the influence that was continued without a finding and asked if Mr. Suttill could explain what that meant. Mr. Suttill responded that he was required to appear in front of a judge and the judge required him to do certain tasks and when those tasks were completed, it was dropped. This occurred in 1997.

AMVETS: CHANGE IN MANAGER (contd)

Mr. Stern inquired as to prior experience, noting that on the form Mr. Suttill indicated he had experience but didn’t describe the experience.

Mr. Suttill responded that he had five years experience working at the Amvets and throughout college he worked at various restaurants in the area.

Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Suttill had Tips training, and Mr. Suttill’s response was, ‘yes’.

Mr. Stern moved to approve William S. Suttill, Jr. as manager of the Amvets. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball was opposed.

In speaking to the motion, Mr. Hughes reiterated that he would not want to see the Amvets again have a manager in place for months before coming in for approval. Most other licenseholders comply.

Mr. Ciccariello suggested sending a letter to the Amvets advising them that if they were going to change managers they must notify the Board promptly or action will be taken.

Mr. McKinley agreed that it shouldn’t happen again.

Mr. Ball stated that he was going to vote against the motion although it was nothing personal. It was a DUI and he realized that it was only one time, but the individual who is the manager is whose desk the buck stops in controlling alcohol and he (Mr. Ball) had to have confidence in that person and if there was one reason to lack confidence, it was a DUI. Everyone makes mistakes, but he (Mr. Ball) had a problem with someone making a mistake with alcohol being the guy who is the go to guy for the service of alcohol.

Amvets Trustee Paul Carew explained that many times the manager of record of a veterans’ club is a member in charge – the president or exalted ruler. That person is responsible for the building and the

operation. The Amvets had trouble getting this petition to the Board and one reason was the Board’s concern with getting the Core. Mr. Carew noted that in the past years the manager was manager in name only, but the name on the record was the person in charge.

Mr. Ball noted that he was disturbed that the name that appears on the license was not necessarily the manager. It was his understanding that the name on the license was the name of the person who is actually there supervising. It was a hands on 40 hour a week individual. If it was otherwise, Mr. Ball suggested that the Board find out which organizations and correct it.

Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board get an opinion from Town Counsel whether the person on the liquor license has to be the person described by Mr. Ball and if it is, send a letter to all groups informing them of that and correct it if that is the practice.

EAST COAST PIANO: PEDDLER’S LICENSE

The Board was in receipt of a letter from East Coast Piano requesting a two day permit to hold a piano sale at the Elks Lodge at 95 Speen Street.

Mr. Carew told the Board that he had talked to the East Coast Piano people and they said they spoke to someone in town and were told that no permit was necessary even though he (Mr. Carew) had told them that it was needed. East Coast has a state permit and a letter from the Department of Revenue. This was good business for the Elks and East Coast was a good group. They were here last year and there were no

problems. There was another event in October, and Mr. Carew said he made it clear to them that permits would be needed.

Mr. Ball questioned why the Board was involved and Mr. Hughes explained that the Police Department believes East Coast Piano needs a peddler’s license.

Mr. Stern noted that East Coast Piano’s letter stated that they had invested $30,000 in marketing the event and were expecting 70 families to participate. That was a lot of money and he wondered how much they expected to make from the sale.

EAST COAST PIANO: PEDDLER’S LICENSE (contd)

Mr. Carew responded that the pianos will range from $3,000-35,000. Last year they sold 100 pianos.

Mr. McKinley moved approval of granting East Coast Piano a two day peddler’s permit to sell pianos on July 28 and July 29, 2001 at the Natick Elks. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.

TNRC: SUMMER STREET PARKING WAIVER

Mr. Hughes explained that the Board had previously granted Barry Cluff of TNRC a 25% parking waiver for his project at 21 Summer Street. The ZBA had given Mr. Cluff a variance that took into account the 25% waiver and Mr. Cluff’s purchase of the 55 Middlesex Avenue lot. Mr. Cluff’s project is not going forward, and the Board approved an assignment of Mr. Cluff’s rights under the purchase & sales agreement for 55 Middlesex Avenue to Steven McComisky. The question now was whether to rescind the 25% parking waiver previously approved.

Mr. Cluff noted that as the principal of TNRC he applied for a waiver. It was granted and the approval by the ZBA of a special permit and variance for the project was contingent upon having that space available for the project by buying it from the Town. That piece of land (55 Middlesex) was put on the surplus property list. He was the high bidder. Subsequent to that the terms to build the office building came into question and because of that the deal wasn’t going to move forward and he (Mr. Cluff) asked for permission to assign his right to buy that property to the abutters. The Selectmen approved. The ultimate irony was that this property was put on the surplus property list last summer, but the Town doesn’t know whether it owns the property. The Town cannot convey the property because it does not know if it owns it. He wondered what kind of shape he would be in if he had steel in the air at Summer Street and the Town not knowing if it owned the property. Whether it was appropriate for the Board to revisit the waiver, he didn’t know, but he could say that the deal as proposed was not going forward.

Mr. Hughes stated that he didn’t think there was any objection if another deal came before the Board, but this waiver was based on something for which Mr. Cluff needed 70-75 spaces. Between the purchase of property and the Board’s waiver, it would get down to 51 and that was something Mr. Cluff could accommodate under that particular project. If Mr. Cluff had another project, Mr. Hughes said he would have no objection to reconsider some other proposal, but that project may not even be talking about the same number of spaces as before. He (Mr. Hughes) would just as soon make it clean and start fresh.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled that when the transfer to Mr. McComisky was discussed it was made clear that the original bidder was withdrawing his application and was no longer going to build the building (at 21 Summer Street). He believed the Board took that into consideration when it allowed Mr. Cluff to transfer the ownership.

A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. McKinley, to reconsider the 25% parking waiver and rescind the granting of the 25%

parking waiver for Mr. Cluff’s proposed Summer Street project. Unanimously voted.

In discussion of the motion, Mr. Stern noted that since the Town cannot establish ownership of that parcel, the question was whether the waiver was valid in the first place. Mr. McKinley pointed out that if the waiver were rescinded that was moot.

If the Board voted to rescind the waiver, Mr. Ball asked Mr. Cluff if that had any impact on him at this point. Mr. Cluff’s response was,

‘no’, adding that the deal cannot move ahead because he was not going to buy that property regardless of who owns it. If the Board decided not to rescind the waiver he can’t or someone else can’t come in and say they have that waiver.

Mr. Cluff noted that his expectation was that at some point he would propose another redevelopment for the Summer Street property and he might be in front of the Selectmen for a similar request.

Mr. Hughes stated that he thought the Board would treat any request with an open mind.

BETSY LEPAIN: REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT

Betsy LePain of 5 Bayberry Road appeared before the Board to request a reimbursement of $178.00 for the repair of toilet tanks on October 30, 2000 resulting from the manganese problem in the water.

Ms. LePain apologized for the delay in asking for the reimbursement and explained that when it happened she did not connect the two. She noticed there was black dirt in the bathroom, but the next morning it went away and she let it go. Within several weeks time she had to have a plumber at a cost of $178.00. It was after that that I called the Water Department because the water bill was high. The DPW came out and asked if she knew there had been problems in the area. It took her many months to get this bill and when she called the Town Hall, she was told to end a letter.

Ms. LePain again apologized for the delay, but noted that she had paid $178.00 because of the Town and would like to be reimbursed for it.

Mr. McKinley told Ms. LePain that she wasn’t the first person who came in after the deadline and if the Board allowed this one, they would have to go back and reconsider the others.

Ms. LePain was of the opinion that other people have come in after the deadline and got approved, but Mr. McKinley advised that that was not true.

Ms. LePain pointed out that it was the Town’s fault (why she needed the repair), and she questioned why, because she missed the deadline, it was too bad and she gets to just pay the bill even though it wasn’t her fault.

Mr. McKinley noted that he was sympathetic, but it was a question of procedure. Ms. LePain responded that she thought the procedure needed to change if someone showed a bill and was rightfully charged for it at that time.

Mr. Hughes advised Ms. LePain that this (denial) doesn’t close any other avenues she has to collect on that claim. The Town created a procedure that was an exception to the rules. There were ways to make a claim against the Town and those were not foreclosed.

Westlake Road Drainage

Tom Hopkins of 41 Westlake Road told the Board that he and his neighborhood has been experiencing flooding from drainage of streets into the intersection of Waring and Westlake. He attributed a lot of this to the Bennett-Hemenway School and the way the hills were sloped. He had placed marked balls in the drain and after a couple of rainstorms he went behind his house and those balls were in the easement behind his house.

Mr. Hopkins noted that he got a drainage map from the DPW dated 1979 and the drains are draining all the roads up to Wilson, East Evergreen,

Rutledge and it comes down to his intersection. Although you couldn’t trust a map dated 1979, the arrows all point to Waring/Westlake with no increase in pipe size and the fields of Ben-Hem were added to an overused 12” drain line. Before building the school a large pool of water stood there, but the new school was built in that area and that displaced all the water and put it on a hill. When the water comes down, it blows the manhole covers out of the ground.

Mr. Hopkins stated that his issue and everybody’s issue should be safety. All this water opens the drains in his road under dark murky

water and kids were playing out there in an area where manhole covers have broken out of the ground. The houses are ranch style and don’t have a second level. He also noted that this problem was happening not in freak storms or 100 year storms, but any heavy rainstorm. The other concern is a health situation. The stuff in the storm drains is pesticides, animal waste. Mr. Hopkins left a video showing the problem for the Board to view.

Todd Haugh of 39 Westlake Road recounted his experience during the June 17th rainstorm. He saw a car come past his house and the wake of the water was splashing against his front window. That day he felt like he was on an island, and he was told it was like that 3-4 times a year. He can’t get flood insurance.

CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)

Mr. Hughes advised that this was one of the areas that the DPW has under study, and Mr. Sisitsky has assured the Board that this area would be included in the warrant article.

In looking at the pictures, Mr. Ciccariello noticed that one photo showed that one catch basin on school property looked substantially higher than another. Mr. Hopkins responded that the way the schools pitched the land was down to the lower drain. The grade of the fields was towards the baseball backstop and the drain was one foot lower. There is so much pressure that it is blowing the manhole covers.

Mr. Ciccariello suggested that School Business Manager James Connolly be notified about this matter and have him look at the existing catch basins.

Joshua Ostroff raised concern that most departments don’t seem to be participating in web site initiative. A couple of months ago you could get the Town by-laws as well as property valuations on the web site. Now there doesn’t seem to be any information. He noted that he had offered before to come in and volunteered to help get information up on the web site. There was a lot of information that lives within Town Hall that would help people be more in touch with town government.

Mr. Hughes asked that the Town Administrator check with the Director of Information Services’ office.

Mr. Ball added that when Virtual Town Hall came on line it was impossible to get to the information that had previously been on the site. It turns out that there is a back door to get to the information and, he (Mr. Ball) has asked Mr. Perry (of Virtual Town Hall) or Mr. LaFrancois to put something on the home page so people can get to it.

That request was made over a week ago and nothing has changed. There seems to be inertia on the part of Mr. LaFrancois or Virtual Town Hall to make this right.

Richard Miller made the Board aware that the trails at Pegan Cove Park were thick with poison ivy. It was to be cleaned off last year by July 1st by Town agreement with DEM.

Mass Turnpike – Right-of-Way

A Richard Miller requested the Board’s support via letter to Peter Webber, Commission Department of Environmental Management requesting them to rethink the manner in which they were selling off the Mass Turnpike right-of-way of the old Saxonville branch. It was Mr. Miller’s position that this land could be used for the Cochituate rail trail to benefit the public. The Wayland Selectmen were also being asked to send a letter of support. The Planning Board already did it, and the Conservation Commission chairman indicated that he was in support and would bring it to his board.

Mr. Ball noted that he had heard about Mr. Miller’s request and would agree. The public has paid for this land once and he didn’t agree with the idea of selling it off to recoup the $100,000 to buy it.

Mr. Ball moved to send a letter of support for not selling the Turnpike right-of-way. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.

Bonnie McCormick announced her intentions to stand outside Town Hall this Saturday morning from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. with her sign against fluoride. She invited the Board to join her. She also noted that she was trying to make arrangements for everyone to see a documentary she saw on the rethinking of fluoride.

WELLESLEY SEWER TIE IN

Mr. Conley requested that discussion of this matter be tabled to the next meeting.

YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD REPRESENTATIVE

Mr. Ball reminded the Board that in January the Board voted to appoint an eight member Youth Advisory Board populated by students of high school age who lived in Natick. The object was to educate these young men and women about the functions of Town government and how it works and have them report back to their classes and impart some of that

YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD REPRESENTATIVE (contd)

understanding to their classmates. It has been clear to him over the past year that the youth were blissfully unaware of how government in the Town operates, and he would like them to have a better understanding of how a School Committee, ZBA, Conservation Commission, Board of Selectmen works. He felt the way to do that was to have a Youth Advisory Board member have a non-voting seat at these tables – not attend executive sessions, but sit here and ask questions.

Mr. Ball noted that he was prepared to send a letter to the Chairs of all major boards and committees requesting that each seat a member of the Advisory Board. That letter will have little impact if the Board doesn’t open the opportunity for someone to pull up a seat. He wanted

to see if the Board would invest in having the youth see how government works. If the Board can educate the Youth Advisory Board kids, they can educate their classmates and maybe even some of the parents. It works reasonably well with the School Committee which is mandated by state law.

Mr. Ball moved that the Board of Selectmen invite a member of the Youth Advisory Board to be a non-voting participant at all Selectmen’s meetings. There was no second. After some discussion the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. Hughes questioned why Mr. Ball was limiting it to the Youth Advisory Board. Mr. Ball responded that that was one of the main reasons the Board appointed the Youth Advisory Board. These kids were motivated to do this. Mr. Hughes noted that he didn’t recall seeing a member of the Youth Advisory Board other than at the meeting at which they were appointed.

Mr. McKinley expected that if they (Youth Advisory Board) were interested he would see them sitting out there a little more often. If the intent were to teach how Town government works, it would be more effective having the Youth Advisory Board come to one of the Board’s meetings. Having one person, the pipeline was too narrow and he (Mr. McKinley) thought it was a waste of time.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the function of the Youth Advisory Board, and Mr. McKinley responded that it was pretty much as Mr. Ball articulated. They were school-aged students interested in learning more about government. Mr. Ball added that the secondary charge was to communicate to the different boards when it was an issue that impacted youth.

Mr. McKinley reiterated that he would rather see all 8 go one week to the Board of Selectmen, one to the Planning Board, one to Town Meeting. That could take a whole semester and they would probably gain more. He felt that that was more effective than having someone for a whole year.

Mr. Ball noted that these were the kids who stated an interest in understanding and participating in government and more than likely the

ones running for Board of Selectmen in the future. Mr. McKinley countered that when he was interested in learning, he went to the library and if these students were interested why not seat them all.

Mr. Hughes suggested tabling for a couple of weeks and have the students come before the Board so we can find out what they have been doing in their capacity as the Youth Advisory Board.

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Mr. McKinley noted that the previous few times, the goals have been annually oriented, and he did not have in mind something that was 3-5 years away. He was thinking of what the Board collectively wants to see done in this year. For example the reorganization of the Treasurer/Collector’s office or collecting and banking the payment from the Army. Both of those the Board should be able to achieve this year.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Treasurer/Collector fix took more than one year and he wouldn’t want to see that kind of a goal of improving the Town’s financial management not included because it wouldn’t get accomplished in one year. Some of the things listed like the development of a long-term fiscal plan, the Board does every year. Some of the short-term things can be accomplished in one year.

GOALS & OBJECTIVES (contd)

Mr. Ball suggested recasting the list into 2-3 short-term goals, mid-range and long-term and identify which departments will assist in accomplishing that goal.

Mr. Conley volunteered to draft something for the Board. Mr. Hughes requested a draft for the August 6th meeting.

Mr. Ciccariello thought it was important to get some of the things sitting before the Board resolved and off the table so the Board can move on to other issues. Other issues will come up quickly such as the high school renovation and closure of the gravel pit which he would like to see pursued.

Mr. Ball mentioned the need to prune the Pending Issues list. He suggested that the Board members take it home, look it over, and at the next meeting be prepared to suggest a disposition. The Board agreed.

FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES

Mr. Hughes noted that he had sent a draft article to the Board with regard to a new by-law on the appointment of a Town Administrator. With the Board’s approval he would like to send that article to the By-Law Review Committee to see if they were interested in sponsoring it. If not, it could come back to the Board next week (to decide whether or not to sponsor). The Board agreed.

Mr. Hughes noted that the Vehicle Policy was to be reviewed annually and it hadn’t been done this year. He asked that by the next meeting the members of the Board submit any suggestions or proposals for change.

Mr. Ciccariello requested a list of who has Town-owned vehicles and who takes them home.

SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS

Police Detail Billing

Mr. Stern recalled that two meetings before the Board discussed the issue of private police details and the bills. At that time the request was for Chief Mannix to come before the Board and that was four weeks ago.

Mr. Hughes advised that the Police Chief was scheduled for August 6th.

Scarsdale Road Complaint

Mr. Ball called attention to a complaint received from Scarsdale Road resident David Fitzgerald. The telephone company had installed a pole and three guy wires. He asked Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian if the telephone company had a right to put guy wires on someone’s property, and Mr. Sarkisian said he would look into it.

Subsequent to this installation apparently two more wires were added, and Mr. Ball thought Mr. Fitzgerald had a legitimate complaint.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that Mr. Fitzgerald should send a letter to NSTAR. Mr. Ball responded that he would tell Mr. Fitzgerald that the Town was not involved and he should go to NSTAR.

Baseball Factory – Complaint

A resident of the old baseball factory Diane Ravosa complained that Mark Grupposo had put a sign advertising his business in the middle of the sidewalk making it difficult to get buy.