Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes

Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to real property. 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.

Mr. Ciccariello moved, seconded by Mr. Ball, approval of the Rotary Club of Natick’s request for an entertainment license to hold the Clyde Beatty-Cole Brothers Circus on Wednesday, July 3 and Thursday, July 4, 2002 at the Natick High School. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote.

Although the purpose of this evening was not a public hearing, Mr. McKinley said he would allow the public to comment and participate because he understood people feel strongly about it. He recalled that approximately 6 months ago the then Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to name the property known as Pegan Cove as the Tony Anniballi Memorial Park. In the interim the sign has been changed and

Mr. McKinley continued that eight weeks ago the Board voted to re-name it the Tony Anniballi Memorial Park. There was some dissent to that and a compromise was set forth to name it the Tony Anniballi Memorial Park at Pegan Cove. The representatives of the Veterans’ organizations and the Anniballi family have agreed to that, but he understood that some other parties have not. The issue before the Board tonight was pending legislation that the Board already voted to support. The decision was does the Board reconsider that vote, support it, and in what fashion – specifically to add the words Pegan Cove.

President of the Veterans’ Council, Wayne Anthony, was of the opinion that the park was named after Tony Anniballi who was from the Navy Yard and gave his life in defense of his country. The naming of the park says that Natick cares about its veterans. Taking the name of Tony Anniballi off the name, says the Town doesn’t care about the veterans.

A Richard Miller stated that he was sorry to be speaking on a different position from the Natick veterans as he respected the veterans, but he wanted to make a correction. He had hoped to be speaking after the Natick Praying Indians who were on their way here.

Mr. Miller referred to the Natick map of 1750 which was the earliest Natick map the Town had and noted that on the map you couldn’t see Pegan Cove because Lake Cochituate doesn’t bend around. The lake was raised to serve mills, but there was the name Pegan on the map and the Pegan home. Pegan’s have been living in Natick since 1651, and if the Board didn’t want to create an injustice to the veterans, the Board

Mr. Miller continued that the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee was just starting to hand out maps of the rail trail that says Pegan Cove Park. Pegan Cove Park was on the map a few years ago and in the 1989 report there was no talk about changing the name. That report referenced a report in which he (Mr. Miller) participated in 1972-1974 and the result of that committee was to get Pegan Cove Park from the U.S. Army. Instead of a park it would have been officers’ housing. A member of the Board of Selectmen was on the committee and it was appointed by the Board of Selectmen and all of the Board of Selectmen approved Pegan Cove Park. Mr. Miller said he proposed the name and everybody agreed it was appropriate, but he didn’t invent the name. It had been the Pegan Cove filter beds. The name has stayed on the land since the Pegan’s arrived in 1651.

Mr. Miller noted that with all due respect to the Board’s concern about the theft of a name, he was concerned about the theft of a name. There shouldn’t be fighting over the theft of a name. History will ensure the name by whose there in the long run. What was needed was an honorable way to name something, and if this wasn’t going to be Pegan Cove Park, but Anniballi Park, then the name Pegan will be taken off and we will be compromising things away and denying the history. That was the history of the treatment of the Indians. The name Pegan Cove has asked to be kept there by other groups including the Historical Commission. The Natick Praying Indian veterans would tell the Board what was right and wrong and he knew the Board would want something that was right.

David Joslin told the Board that he was a native American and had lived in this Town for 56 years and because he lived in that neighborhood he felt this was pitting people against people. The veterans gave their lives and he felt Mr. Miller was playing games with it.

John Crisafulli agreed that Pegan Cove was an important name and an important recognition that shouldn’t be lost. The proposal was not to lose it, but he thought the name of someone who gave their life for the freedom of his country was not something to take away. He saw this as a plus, not a negative and he thought the proposal (Tony Anniballi Memorial Park at Pegan Cove) would add to the original and not detract from it.

Mr. Ball noted that there were six members of the Pegan family involved in the Revolutionary war so the park was in fact named after veterans who served this country. The idea of erasing the name of one set of veterans and replacing it with another filled him with dread. He would hate to think that fifty years from now that Tony Anniballi’s name would be erased and replaced with another.

Mr. Fletcher stated that he had been on the ZBA for four terms and was completing his 12th years. He had lived in Natick for 25 years and had raised his children here. This was a valuable experience for him and lets him payback Natick for the fine atmosphere in the Town.

Mr. Havener advised that he had been a regular member of the ZBA for 15 years. He felt the ZBA was a board that acted very fairly to both the applicant and the abutters and did a good job for Natick. He liked to give back to the community he was raised in.

Mr. Cavanaugh stated that he was an attorney with 10 years of practice at a small general practice firm in Wellesley and had experience in zoning issues. He had represented both applicants and a group of neighbors. His wife was third generation Natick and he was looking for an opportunity to serve the Town. He believed his experience would lend itself to the ZBA, and he felt it was important for new voices to be heard.

Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Cavanaugh asked if Mr. Cavanaugh was seeking an appointment as a regular or an associate member, and Mr. Cavanaugh responded that his preference would be a regular member, but if appointed an associate, he would be happy to serve in that capacity.

Ms. Godin told the Board that she had been a Natick resident for four years and wanted to serve the Town. She was impressed by the Town and where it was going. Part of her job as a real estate agent was to be aware of the property values and statistical information regarding the values for Natick and surrounding towns and she could bring that knowledge to the board.

added that there was very little distinction between a regular member and an associate member. To Mr. Stern’s inquiry as to the duties of an associate, Mr. Lustig responded that he had chaired the ZBA and allowed associate members to participate on a case-by-case basis. The chairman will choose five people to sit and there was no real distinction. Everyone gets to participate.

In making his motion, Mr. Ciccariello explained that the makeup of the present ZBA includes two attorneys, possibly three, and he would like to get a little different flavor on the board and have someone who represents the typical Natick resident as opposed to another attorney.

One accomplishment the Council on Aging was working for this past year was trying to develop a strategic plan. They utilized some assistance through the Framingham Health Prevention Center, but unfortunately the funding has disappeared and the decision was made to focus on wellness. Through the MetroWest Health Care Foundation, the Council was working on an outreach program. They hoped to enhance visibility in the community and awareness of the programs available. This project will be completed by the beginning of June.

Another thing being worked on this past year was working with an architect. Funding was received through the Executive Office of Elder Affairs and Representative Linsky to do a feasibility study. The Board of Selectmen appointed a building committee and Graham Meus was selected as the architect. Hopefully that process will be finished in the summer.

Mr. Ball noted that the organizational chart showed that two part-time volunteer coordinators were needed and asked if the reason they were unfilled was because there was no funding or was there nobody available. Ms. Ryder advised that she had not secured anyone after advertising. She was advertising again this week.

Looking at the extensive list of volunteers, Mr. McKinley asked if there was an annual get together to recognize the volunteers. Ms. Ryder informed the Board that there was a recognition dinner once a year usually in September. Funding for that project was eliminated in last year's budget, but there some funding available under the volunteer coordinator to do a small recognition. When asked the cost of the dinner, Ms. Ryder noted that it was $1,500-2,000. Mr. Ball felt it important to find some way to resurrect the volunteer recognition dinner. He realized the importance of volunteers and they weren’t given anything but a thank you. He would assist the Chair to find the money.

Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer reported that he had taken bids last week for $22 million on bond anticipation notes – primarily for the Wilson School construction. He noted that there would be an additional borrowing a year from now to complete the construction of the School and $1M to be raised for Kennedy. Included in the $22M was $500,000 for the high school plans and that will be paid off in 5 years if the

He noted that he had met with the Fire Chief and the Building Commissioner to look at the possibility of this land and one proposal was that this piece of property could be used as an emergency access road to serve Natick Mall and Sherwood Plaza. When fire trucks leave West Natick, they have to jump on Speen, cross the emergency driveway and go through two intersections and into Natick Mall. If an emergency driveway was constructed, the fire trucks could eliminate crossing the

Mr. Sarkisian stated that he called DCAM to ask how much and asked if they would be willing to donate the property and DCAM’s answer was that everyone pays, but because it would be a direct public benefit for the Town and would serve Route 9, they would assign a lower value. DCAM would conduct an appraisal and come back with a number, but would assess it as recreation space which would be lower. The Town has to reply to DCAM’s RFP by April 29, 2002.

Mr. Sarkisian advised that the site distance was very good at this location. At some point a warning device would probably be constructed, but approval would be needed from Mass Highway. He noted that he spoke to Mass Highway and they thought this was an excellent idea.

Mr. Stern moved to adopt the drafted motion with the following amendments: Under Item 1, 3rd line and ‘and and before sushi’ insert “nothing other than”. That same change would carry down to Item 3 at the identical place in the paragraph. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. After further discussion, the hearing was continued and no vote taken.

Peter Gianncopoulos, owner of the Dolphin restaurant, told the Board that he believed the dining experience occurs with many other situations such as raw bars and other things. Just allowing sushi bars to serve liquor was inconsistent with what the rules were about. He noted that he was the next item on the agenda, but if the Board would like, he could discuss now what he would like to have in his restaurant.

The Board had no objections to hearing Mr. Gianncopoulos and he proceeded to tell them that he was not asking for a change in the service bar. He was asking for seats or stools at the counter where he can serve people and set up a raw bar to serve food. He was prepared to divide the area from the service bar and counter so he can have the same opportunity as someone with a sushi bar and attract and serve

clients the same way they (sushi bar) do. Liquor in his restaurant has always been incidental and he would not make it into a bar. He was looking for 10-15 seats. He takes liquor very responsibly and he thought he should be given the same opportunity to serve clients. The objective was to bring people into the downtown. There was a lot of competition and he hoped the Board would consider allowing all the restaurants the same opportunity. People have come to Natick, opened a sushi bar, have stools and serve liquor there. If you open a seafood or Italian restaurant the rules were different, and he hoped the Board would give him the same opportunity as others have been given.

Mr. McKinley explained that the problem was this (sushi) was not a bar. In Mr. Souliopoulos’ cultural environment, it would be a booth or a table. These people were sitting and eating food and incidental to that they can order wine or a drink. The primary purpose for sitting at a sushi bar was to eat sushi and not drink liquor, and the Board was trying to find a way to accommodate a cultural distinction. The term bar was somewhat unfortunate, but it was not a bar in the traditional liquor sense, but a booth. He didn’t see sushi bars competing with Agostino’s.

Mr. Ciccariello felt that Mr. Souliopoulos was raising the issue of what happens if someone decides to have a raw bar. Would the Board consider it similar to a sushi bar and allow them to serve raw seafood and alcohol. What was the difference between sushi which was raw fish and a raw bar serving clams and cohogs?

Mr. Stern stressed that the motion was not talking about a waiting bar or a bar of any type. Alcohol can only be served as long as sushi was being prepared and consumed simultaneously. It was not some place to wait and drink just because sushi was made there. To Mr. Stern there was no comparison to what Mr. Souliopoulos was talking about. This was done so that inconsistencies that came about from this Board and prior Boards could be addressed. The will of the Board to expand the rules & regs was a different issue.

Mr. Ball noted that service of alcohol to people waiting to be served was expressly prohibited. One of the objectives of Natick’s current policy was to prohibit service to people waiting for a table. It does not and will not happen at sushi bars because they were specifically constructed and were required to be primarily for the service of food. While Mr. Souliopoulos may think that because someone was sitting on a stool it translates into a waiting area, that was not the intent. If someone was using the sushi bar as a waiting area and serving alcohol without a meal, it will be evaluated. There was a police force in Town and a number of citizens aware of the requirements and when there were violations, they do get reported.

(Mr. Ball) would support that. If Mr. Souliopoulos wanted to set up another kind of bar where people sat on stools and alcohol was secondary to the service of a meal, he (Mr. Ball) would support changing (the rules & regs) for that, but whatever was done, a full meal would have to be served.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that as he read paragraph 1 and 3 of the motion, as long as someone was preparing and serving sushi somewhere in the establishment, they met the intent of the law. Someone could go to the bar and get a drink without eating sushi as long as sushi was being served in other locations of the premises.

Mr. Stern noted that Town Counsel had drafted the motion this way for the opposite reason (to what Mr. Ciccariello raised). It was to make sure that sushi prepared at the sushi bar could be served elsewhere in the restaurant and not be limited to being served at the sushi bar.

Mr. Moss continued that if someone was having a meal at something called a counter, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to allow someone to have some alcohol incidental to food. Limiting the definition to only sushi, Mr. Ciccariello raised the point of what’s the difference if it was raw fish served Japanese style or raw fish served American style. It was hard to understand the distinction and whether it was equitable. Why can’t the Dolphin have a counter with seats in front of it and no

Mr. McKinley responded that it was not the Board’s intent to disallow any other possibilities such as service of raw seafood. Specifically what the Board set out to do was to address what appeared to be an inequity in the existing by-law that intentionally burdened a cultural experience. People going out to eat sushi don’t sit at booths; they sit at a counter. That was what the Board was trying to solve.

Janet Cooper of Agostino’s asked how her restaurant could propose a change in the present regulations. They were only asking that customers not leave because they can’t serve them a drink while they wait for 15-20 minutes. The Dolphin can do it. Agostino’s was losing customers, and she thought it was unequal. Agostino’s has been in Town for over 20 years and never had one issue with liquor. The customers were mad at them and questioning why they can’t have a drink. Agostino’s doesn’t want a bar or bar stools or to serve sushi. They want their customers to not leave Friday and Saturday nights. Agostino’s has spent thousands of dollars to upgrade the restaurant and it was embarrassing that they have to have people sit in the room and have no drink.

Mr. Stern noted that Mr. Ciccariello’s comment led him to think that if Mr. Ciccariello could come to that conclusion, perhaps others could come to the same conclusion and he didn’t want ambiguity. He (Mr. Stern) had just prepared some additional language and maybe Town

The School committee’s vote to reduce school bus transportation to the level that was required by law was discussed. Fee-based replacement buses will be scheduled to fill the void. There will remain, however, school children who may find it necessary to walk rather than ride to school, which presents a problem that needs to be addressed by the school and police departments to ensure safe passage across busy streets. Chief Mannix discussed the reductions in the police department’s budget that may require consolidation of and possibly elimination of existing traffic crossing posts. The school and police departments will continue to collaborate on this matter.

The committee revisited the issue of the need for a stop sign at the intersection of Cedar and Front Street. Sergeant Davis reported that the warrants for a stop sign were not met for this location (lack of traffic volume, no crash data). The Safety Committee voted not to recommend installation of the requested sign.

The committee complaints of unregistered motor vehicles at 51 Marion Street, and whether or not the resident was running an illegal business out of the residence. Sergeant Davis found six unregistered vehicles on the property. Mr. Melchiorri stated that he had gone to court with the resident approximately one year ago and by the end of the trial the owner was compliant with the law. He was also in receipt of a letter from the phone company stated that the old business phone number had been disconnected. Sergeant Davis spoke with the owner and informed him he was in violation with the town bylaws and informed him he had 21 days to remove the vehicles and parts. Chief Mannix reported that the situation had now been resolved.

Sergeant Davis updated the Safety Committee on the issue of the configuration of the intersection at Bacon/Walnut Street. He advised that he spoke with Town Engineer Mark Coviello and was informed that an aerial photograph would be taken to assist in the redesign of the intersection. That was not due to take place until late summer.

The issue was raised about the need for a stop sign at the bottom of Belvedere Road. The committee discussed that the stop sign was put up for one day and removed. Sergeant Davis will investigate and report his findings back to the committee at the next meeting.

Mr. McKinley felt that it made sense to get the crosswalk back there, but Chief Mannix advised that the Committee decided before getting into anything that had a potential affect on the disabled, to refer it to the Commission on Disability for their input. While he agreed with that, Mr. McKinley stated that it could take months to get curbs and he didn't want it to go that long to get any kind of a crossing there. Chief Mannix advised

Chief Mannix noted that he was in the process of re-ordering parking tickets and had done a survey of the two contiguous towns – Framingham and Wellesley – and found that Natick was lower in all categories of parking fines. At this time he was looking to address the unpaid meter fees and the overtime meters and would recommend an increase from $5.00 to $10.00.

Ms. Moss complimented Chief Mannix on the whole new parking program, noting that the parking enforcement officer has been wonderful and everyone thought she was evenhanded. It was very fair. She also noted that the fines had been $5.00 back as far as 1996, and the

Mr. McKinley couldn’t see why it wasn’t possible, but questioned why the Town would want to. Ms. Moss explained that there was a feeling in downtown Natick that if the money goes back for maintenance or at rebuilding facilities, it will then get done.

Mr. Gianncopoulos then asked if, with the Board’s permission, he could open a sushi bar. Mr. McKinley responded that there was nothing that said Mr. Gianncopoulos couldn’t have a sushi bar in a seafood restaurant. Mr. Hughes, however, stressed that he wanted it to be clear that Mr. Gianncopoulos would have to come back to the Board (before opening up a sushi bar).

Mr. Reilly noted that the public notice of the hearing was required and had been done on April 8 and April 15, 2002. Cablecasting was required where available and that has been done from April 8-April 22, 2002. He submitted evidence of that notice for the record.

When asked to explain the purpose of the hearing, Mr. Reilly noted that pursuant to state law there was a requirement that cities and towns hold a hearing when there was either a transfer of the license or in this case a change of control of the license and tonight the Town was fulfilling that hearing requirement. Basically what was before the Board, that was filed on March 1, 2002, was federal form 394 which goes through the criteria for the management, technical, financial and legal ability of this entity to change control.

Mr. Reilly explained that there was a merger between AT&T Corporation assets known as AT&T Broadband and Comcast Cable. The entity held by Broadband stays in place. The merger happens at the parent level between Broadband and Comcast. Comcast was an 8-l/2 million subscriber cable operator in the U.S. based out of Philadelphia run by the Roberts family. This merger combines their subscribers with Broadband’s 14 million subscribers to create AT&T Comcast. Comcast has a little over 30 years experience.

Mr. Ball stated that his major concern was that when the merger takes place AT&T Comcast will continue to meet the financial obligations to the Town for the support of its public access corporation. He didn’t think this was the appropriate forum for detailed questions about

Mr. Reilly felt it was a valid question as to where the Town sits post a merger of the entity. Basically you have what was commonly known as debt to cash flow as a common way in which to analyze cable companies. AT&T Broadband has debt to cash flow of 8 to 1. This combined entity would have a debt to cash flow of about 5 to 1, with a projection by 2004 to be in the 2-l/2 to 1 range, so you’re looking actually at a better financially strong company under this new merger than what there was today.

Mr. Reilly noted that Natick still has that 3-l/2 percent that comes from the subscriber base and that would be paid to the Town on a going forward basis. The only thing that changes was how they do in terms of business in the community and whether competitors gain more of a stronghold against them. That was about the only thing that could influence those funds continuing.

Mr. Hughes noted that Attorney Peter Epstein prepared about 25 questions and asked if the Board could submit those to the representative and have responses by the next meeting. In his letter Mr. Epstein recommended that the hearing be continued to May 6th to accept follow-up written testimony. If that was appropriate he (Mr. Hughes) would so move.

Ms. Kirkpatrick submitted two letters – one requesting an extension and one a proposal on the I-Net. She noted that RCN was being forced to request reconsideration of their construction deadline and was requesting an extension to complete the underground portion to October 10, 2003. That would not, however, preclude RCN from resuming construction immediately if finances allow. She also assured the Board that RCN was committed to completion of the I-Net.

With regard to the I-Net, Ms. Kirkpatrick reported that virtually all inside wiring to connect to the I-net was completed. Natick High School was not only tied in but inside wiring was installed to provide 144 drops. A separate node was built to support the high school. She noted that RCN had spent over $1/4 million for construction of the I-net and they have committed the necessary resources to complete the I-net by the end of June. There were three concerns – the Springvale Treatment Plant may involve a grant of location from the State, the Bacon Free Library was historic and would require a permit, and the gazebo may require special consideration. Plus it (end of the June) assumes that RCN will receive cooperation of Town departments and schools.

difficult to schedule. The people they needed to see weren’t available. There have been internal meetings since then and they (RCN) will be able to get started right away. After some further determination, there may not be a problem with Springvale, but she cannot promise it because it requires more research.

Mr. Ball noted that there were two letters of breech of contract for failure to complete the I-net and failure to offer service to subscribers of underground. It struck him that there were four things on the table at the same time. The two letters from RCN promise to complete the I-net, with the possible exceptions listed, by June 30th and request an extension for supplying service to underground to two years after it should have been done. The underground should have been done by October 10, 2001.

Ms. Kirkpatrick noted that even if the money were to open up now, there was a bidding process that would be involved and that hasn’t begun. However, the money has not been budgeted for this year and absent something becoming available and the market turning around rapidly, it would be unrealistic for RCN to accomplish it by the end of this year’s construction season.

With regard to the underground, Mr. Ball suggested that the Board vote to send a non-compliance letter regarding the provision of underground so the notification process would be done according to the terms of the contract and the meter begins to run. At the same time, the Board could vote to grant RCN’s request for the additional two years, but advise them (RCN) that if the October 10, 2003 date was not met, the result was that RCN will owe this Town $500.00 per day.

In discussion of the motion, Mr. Hughes suggested that perhaps the Board should table consideration of the extension to October 10, 2003 and if RCN complies with the I-net timetable, then grant them the extension (underground) back to today and have no penalty. If RCN does not comply, RCN would be in breech from today on.

Mr. McKinley responded that he understood that RCN had some legitimate capital concerns that may prohibit them from meeting the terms of the license. The most important was completion of the I-net. That has a direct benefit to the Town and the schools, and he was interested in getting that completed.

Mr. Groux read a section of the license pertaining to non-compliance and recommended that both letters go out tomorrow. He pointed out that the time doesn’t begin to count until certified letters were received by the licensee. He also recommended that the Board not take any action on the extension because of the section of the contract that allows the licensee to respond in 30 days after they receive the Board’s letter of breech of license. Once the letters go out, the burden was on the licensee to report back every two weeks, and the Board will have the opportunity at any point along that process to grant an extension. He noted that to some degree the letters received tonight (from RCN) were a form of a response, but since they preceded the default letters, he recommended that the licensee follow-up.

In making the motion Mr. Hughes noted that he would like to see a written response to the letters and depending on the response and what’s happened either grant (on July 1st) or table again. He pointed out that granting the extension now obviates the need to send the letter and the Board doesn’t have any leverage.

Mr. McKinley wondered if the Board was not losing an opportunity to convey to RCN the Town’s priorities and have them make some accommodation for things that were important to the Board. Mr. Hughes noted that RCN was contractually obligated to do the I-net. He was hearing that RCN would have the I-net done by June 30 and these letters won’t have any affect.

to transfer their contractual obligation. They (letters) were generated by a request by the Town for a response. RCN was behind (in contractual obligation) and has not met the I-net or underground obligation, but she thought it was clear that RCN was acting in good faith under extremely difficult market conditions to meet the obligation. Mr. Steel has gone to great lengths to meet these commitments and RCN wants to work with the Town.

Mr. Groux told Ms. Kirkpatrick that the Board appreciated what she was saying, and was interested in getting it completed. What RCN has done so far was recognized and it was substantial, but the Town was concerned with the timing and as a priority of location, he would urge RCN to work on the schools first.

Mr. Ball suggested polling the Board to see if there was consensus that a June 30th completion date for the I-net would be satisfactory. He pointed out that there were three issues and while the gazebo didn’t keep him up at night, the Springvale treatment plant did. He favored agreeing to the June 30th completion date with Springvale.

Ms. Kirkpatrick responded that she couldn’t promise Springvale would be done because the State Highway Department was involved, but she could promise that the application and $500 fee for license would be sent this week and a copy of the application would be sent to the Board. She was, however, concerned when it was not within their control.

Mr. McKinley felt that RCN and the Board were on the same page, but he didn’t think the Board had given Ms. Kirkpatrick an indication of how they might respond in June or July. It would be useful for Ms. Kirkpatrick to be able to go back to management with an indication.

Ms. Kirkpatrick acknowledged an understanding that it (outcome) was premised on RCN and what they did. She said she was hoping to stand before the Board tonight and say that everything had been walked out and was ready to start to go but the reality was that in some cases no one was available to walk it out with them until today.

Mr. Hughes stated that if the I-net were done by June 30th, he would vote to waive the fines and if not, he would not. Mr. Ciccariello felt the same. Mr. Stern agreed, but added that if the hold up was because of Mass Highway, he would be sympathetic as long as all elements within RCN’s control were done. He also wanted to be sure that the work done at Springvale would accommodate the expansion that was being designed right now. Mr. McKinley was in agreement with the other members of the Board.

Since RCN was incurring financial constraints, a member of the audience, Robert Raisch, questioned if the Town knew what expenses it would incur if RCN defaulted completely. Was RCN in default of the performance bond and could the Town call it and ask for a new bond.

Robert Raisch noted that he had submitted a complaint against Automax at 104 West Central Street including a photo and a court ruling as a precedent. He had tried in vain to research the description of the non-conforming use, but was unable to obtain that description and there was a reluctance of Town departments to act on his inquiries.

Mr. Raisch advised that use of the property greatly increased since 1993 and has become a seven day, 24 hour a day business with a towing business, and he felt the property was in violation of Articles 74, 75, and 20. The neighbors tried to resolve the problem, but only get discourteous responses, and he would like some action by the Board of

Mr. McKinley responded that he drove by the location and noticed the increasing commercial aspect. Whether it was in non-compliance he didn’t know and suggested that it be referred to the Building Inspector, the Environmental Compliance Officer, and probably the Health Inspector and have them report back to the Board.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had received several telephone calls from residents and he would be happy to meet with the Building Inspector and the Environmental Compliance Officer. Mr. McKinley accepted Mr. Ciccariello’s offer to intercede and asked that he report back to the Board in two weeks.

Ms. Hanse apologized for not having been here earlier and felt that had she been able to hear what had been said, she would have been able to supply some answers. She noted that she and the people with her were representing the Pegan family members of their original tribe. It has been 352 years and a lot of times things that were that long ago become myths. They were direct descendants of one of the original Town fathers who sat on the Board of Selectmen.

Ms. Hanse questioned if the decision to change the name ended here (with the Board of Selectmen) and if the Board’s vote was set in stone. Was it the Board of Selectmen who make the decision or does the Board make recommendations. Originally there were factors involved with DEM and the Legislature.

Mr. McKinley advised that there were a number of ways it could take place and explained that the Board was trying to ratify a decision made by the Board of Selectmen and its predecessors six years ago. DEM suggested that a legislative act was the best and cleanest way to resolve it once and for all.

Ms. Hanse read a prepared statement on the proposed name change expressing the feeling of the Natick Praying Indians. In her statement she noted that there were many heroes deserving of such an honor. She thanked the efforts of Senator Kennedy and Margaret Heckler in securing the property and of the Miller’s and the Chair of the Natick Historic Commission in securing the name Pegan Cove.

Ms. Hanse’s statement continued that Natick was the first Christian Town. The Praying Indians have always been patriotic and they had a certificate of appreciation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. She stressed that they were not anti-veteran and only wish to maintain

the Pegan name in honor of their ancestors. Signs were important. They (signs) were important for the young and were reminders of where we were going and we have been. She didn’t think there was any malicious thought behind the name change, only a misunderstanding and a lack of historical knowledge.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Building Inspector had commented on any of the renewals and was told ‘no’. Mr. Stern inquired if Mr. Ciccariello was suggesting that there should be an inspection of each licenseholder and if so, it seemed like a burden. Mr. Hughes questioned what an inspection would accomplish, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Building Inspector could make the Board aware of any complaints that had been filed with him. Mr. Stern, however, didn’t think that that was a reason to hold a license under the statutes.

In making the motion, Mr. Ball stated that the Board of Directors of Pegasus voted to provide up to $40,000 for the purchase of their portion of the I-net system. There is some shared equipment and some other pieces of equipment used in connection with the I-net that Pegasus will be purchasing out of their pocket. That has been reported to the vice-chair of the Finance Committee.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to the amount being appropriated and method of payment, and was told by Mr. Palmer that the total estimate of equipment was $260,000. With $20,000 already appropriated and $40,000 from Pegasus the net was $200,000. He recommended doing a borrowing, but never permanent bonds and recommended paying off the principal from the beginning and have it paid for in 2-3 years. The money saved from the T-1 lines and 50% from AT&T’s money would be used to pay for it. He

Mr. Groux reported that the Fire Chief had advised that he (Chief Brien) plans to continue the practice that Chief Fredette began and put up the banners himself with the assistance of the fire alarm supervisor. At this point Mr. Groux saw no need for the Board of Selectmen to establish a fee for putting up the banners or taking them down. He (Mr. Groux) was contacting a private party for backup for the Town in the event the Chief was away.

Mr. McKinley agreed wholeheartedly and noted that that was an assignment that had been given to Mr. Conley (former Town Administrator). It never happened, but he agreed the Board needed formal guidelines for dealing with the issue. He felt that perhaps the best thing would be to put together a task force, and he would put it on a future agenda.