Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes

Mr. Guild reported that he had figured out a way to get the ramp to be handicap accessible without extending over the private property line. He would need to excavate the sidewalk and when he was done he would put the sidewalk back and repave from the doorway all the way down to the end of the building.

Mr. Ciccariello had no objection to approving the request, but wanted to see Mr. Guild submit an insurance certificate naming the Town as an additional insured. He also asked about the policy of obtaining a street bond to make sure it was repaired. Ms. Challis explained that the actual street opening permit would come from the DPW and they would require the bond.

Susan LeBlanc read a letter signed by 41 residents of the northern end of Oak Street describing what they considered a hazardous situation that was progressively worsening. Oak Street has a tremendous amount of traffic. Many vehicles avoid Route 27 with its traffic lights and instead use Oak Street as a main thoroughfare between Route 9 and Route 30. They often pick up speed in their neighborhood. The road was

All of Oak Street south of Pickerel Road has a sidewalk on one, if not both, sides. The northern end was the only section without a sidewalk. The neighborhood needs the sidewalk to be finished by extending it north from Pickerel Rd to the Wayland town line, so that the entire length of Oak Street was safe for pedestrians. The current situation requires the residents to walk in the street with the traffic. This was even more hazardous for those holding a child’s hand or pushing a stroller.

The installation of two STOP signs; one on Oak Street at Winter Street and the other on Oak at Pine Street. It was felt that this would slow down the through traffic in the residential neighborhood and have the added advantage of enabling the traffic on those two streets to enter onto Oak Street more safely.

Ms. LeBlanc pointed out that the 41 signatures represented 96% of the houses in this neighborhood. She noted that the neighbors were trying to come up with a solution because they felt the situation was getting even more dangerous. She pointed out that the Town had recognized the hazard in that there was a sign at Tech Circle that warns people about the pedestrians. In July 2001 there was a special speed study conducted by UMass Amherst and they found that over 15% of the traffic traveled 10 mph above the speed limit.

John McGourty expressed his pleasure at being able to introduce the project and noted that they had addressed the Planning Board last week. He advised that General Growth Properties was the owner of the Natick Mall and was very interested in the Tech Commons site that was adjacent to the mall. This was not new. He (Mr. McGourty) had been working on this for the past nine years and for one reason or another the timing didn’t fit for the retailers or developers. Mr. McGourty told the Board that he had been involved with the Natick Mall for the past twenty years and worked with former Town Administrator Frederick Conley on the development of Flutie Pass.

Mr. McGourty continued that he thought this was a great opportunity for the developer, the Town and the region. General Growth Properties was one of the largest in the United States and had over 163 malls and they looked at this project as one of the most dynamic in the country. A team has been put together. Leading the team would be Jim Grant, Vice-President of Development from Atlanta, himself, and Jim Elliman the current general manager for the mall. Outside counsel of Goulston & Storrs has been hired and the traffic consultant of Vanasse, Hangen & Brustlin will be handling the traffic issues as well as the environmental site work. The team put together understands the Town and he (Mr. McGourty) thought it could deliver the project they wanted and the Town wanted.

Mr. Grant advised that General Growth Properties was the country’s second largest mall owner with 163 shopping malls in 41 states. They have 140 million square feet and 15,000 retailers. It was a publicly traded real estate investment trust. They have had the site under control for the past 60 days which was the old Wonder Bread Bakery. The site was 16.9 acres. It was under their control through Tech Commons and they (General Growth Properties) would be seeking rezoning

Mr. Grant continued that they have learned of the need for a by-pass road from Speen Street to relieve traffic congestion. With the use of slides, he showed the outline of a new access road that would connect Chrysler Road along Tech Commons along EZ Storage to the ring road by Macy’s. Mr. Grant pointed out the wetlands in the area and advised that they had been working with Mr. Nolan, the owner of the mini storage, for access across his site.

Mr. Grant noted that when General Growth Properties started to do market studies on the site, they looked at their vision for the project next to Natick Mall and knew it had to be a high-end retail. They realized they had something similar in their portfolio – the Tyson Galleria in Suburban Washington, DC. Tyson was on 27 acres and was a three level enclosed mall anchored by Macy’s, Sak’s, Neiman Marcus and the hotel Ritz Carlton. There were four sit down restaurants that

In a slide presentation, Mr. Grant pointed out the highlights of the Tyson Galleria. He noted that there was a one level parking structure that surrounds the site with pedestrian bridges. Most of the landscaping was in pots. They tried to incorporate the restaurants within the building of the shopping center rather than on the outside, but give them streetscape. There was a great sight line from the public road. In addition there were views of the inside and the mall connection to the hotel.

Mr. Grant continued with the property tax analysis. By rezoning the 16.9 acres to commercial use and with the build out General Growth Properties was proposing, they estimated the retail property tax to be about $1.299 million. The current taxes paid by Tech Commons were $211,250. Phase II was a potential hotel and that had two components. The property tax for the hotel was estimated at $360,000 and looking at the expected occupancy rates, there would be another $204,400 in hotel tax for $564,400. The two together was about $1.65 million to the Town.

Mr. Grant advised that at this point there wasn’t a lot of detail. General Growth Properties was trying to develop site plans and working with major retail stores. That was very much ongoing. They have come to the understanding that high-end retail was needed and a number of restaurants have a great deal of interest in Natick.

Mr. Ciccariello asked for a rough idea of construction value, and Mr. Grant responded that it would depend on the site plan, but it would be in excess of $100 million. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello inquired about the number of job opportunities, and Mr. Grant noted that there were construction jobs and when developed there would be retail jobs. With the department stores and small businesses, there could be as many as 2,000 jobs.

In response to Mr. Ball’s inquiry as to timetable, Mr. Grant replied that there were some things to do with the Town and if successful in rezoning, they would need to apply for site plan and permitting. They would probably be in a position to start demolition early 2004. There would probably be a year of construction and open early 2005. He clarified that that was Phase I. Phase II was only the hotel and if the hotel market improved, they would bring it into Phase I.

Chairman of the Planning Board, Kenneth Soderholm noted that there had been some staff and subcommittee meetings on this and there would be a meeting Wednesday to consider a draft by-law. He expected that the Planning board would come before the Board on October 21 to request that the Board call a special town meeting. He expected that it would be the Planning Board coming with an article.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Planning Board would seek input from the Conservation Commission and the ZBA, and Mr. Soderholm responded that input from all boards and citizens were welcome and when there were hearings for the by-law, the Planning Board would take any input from anybody. At this stage it was more philosophical – does the Town want to re-zone. The site plan will come later. He would assume that the Conservation Commission would be more interested in the site plan.

Mr. McKinley questioned if this was part of the Golden Triangle, and Mr. Soderholm advised that it was. When asked what it meant in terms of notification to Framingham, Mr. Solderholm noted that Natick would need to at least inform them (Framingham). Mr. McKinley mentioned that the MetroWest Growth Management Committee had requested a presentation, and Mr. McGourty and Mr. Grant agreed.

Chairman of the Golf Course Oversight Committee, Dr. Edward Salamoff recalled that he spoke with the Board earlier in the summer with regard to how the course was doing and what was being done to change the situation. In May they embarked on an advertising and promotional campaign and were able to elevate the level of play at the course. In April/March the average was 48-51 rounds of play per day. It was 72-l/2 in May. The advertising kicked in and it went up to 98. July was 117-l/2 rounds per day. August would have exceeded that had there not been a ten day heat wave. So far in September the average has been 94+ rounds per day. A big day was lost on Labor Day because of the rain. To date the course was averaging about 90 rounds which was above last year. With the promotion they were trying to re-enforce the concept that ‘let them play it and they will come back’ which they do. Once people play it they enjoy it.

Finance Director Robert Palmer wanted the Board to be aware in looking at his projections that they were based on the fiscal year. Since the meeting with the Board in July, the July and August projections have been met and they were based on averaging the highest week the course had experienced. The number of rounds were increasing.

Mr. Palmer continued that the projections he had given before were solid. He thought they were conservative, but he felt there should be the actual experience of a year before making any adjustments. He noted that he had started to go through the budget for the enterprise fund to hold the operating deficit to a minimum.

Mr. McKinley noted that the forecast had been for the golf course to run a deficit the first few years. Mr. Palmer confirmed that in terms of fully supporting expenses and debt service, it would be year five and basically at this point one year has been completed. The advertising has been successful, but the rate structure needs to be looked at.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if the projection for the first year was in line with the estimate or was there a deficit above and beyond what was thought. Mr. Palmer responded that looking at the first year he didn’t think the play had been as high as anticipated. The rounds were not as high as anticipated, but he thought it was getting better.

Mr. Palmer pointed out that the Board had been given the numbers for the actual revenue. In July he told the Board that at the close of Fiscal 2002 with the supplemental appropriation, the operation ends up with $40,000 positive. When he projected this fiscal year’s budget, he thought it was about $150,000 short, but he thought that was conservative on the revenue and it may be less than that, but at this point he was not prepared to give a firm estimate for Fiscal 2003.

Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Palmer would concur that the course was still on track for breaking even in year five. Mr. Palmer replied that the more actual revenue experience he had the better, but he would say yes. The Town had favorable rates on borrowing and he thought the analysis was done correctly. He was cautiously optimistic that it was on track.

Peter Meagher, the golf pro, told the Board that he saw the original golf course consultant’s feasibility study. The projection for year one was almost 29,000 rounds and he (Mr. Meagher) was forecasting 19,000. The numbers he has compared to the feasibility study were significantly different. The marketing has helped in an economic condition where the game of golf was not growing and new courses were opening all the time. With new courses opening and the game not growing, the marketing has to be kept at a certain level. Right now the course was underutilized and the Town has to give the place away until people get accustomed to playing it. It was a great golf course and people love it. It was in great condition and it was a wonderful alternative to packed courses up the street that were hard to get on.

When asked by Mr. McKinley if he could see the sun rising in the near future, Mr. Meagher’s response was, ‘yes’. Every day there were new golfers who never heard of the place. The key was to keep getting the name in front of people. He thought the saturation point would be about 30,000, but the original estimate was 35,000.

With respect to the maintenance facility, Mr. Ciccariello reported that he met with Mr. Lemnios and Mr. Palmer. Presently there was $340,000 left for construction of the maintenance facility and clubhouse. Obviously the clubhouse would be set aside until the course makes money. The maintenance facility has been reduced in design and size and would be nothing more than a storage maintenance facility. It was being pursued through the Inspector General’s Office whether it can be put out to bid on a design build basis rather than redoing and spending the fees for architectural services. If that can be done, there will not be filed sub-bids and it would eliminate substantial architect fees. If it has to go to a straight bid, they were prepared to go back to the architect and negotiate a lower fee than he was asking for and if not, they will go out (to bid) for architectural services. He thought there would be an answer from the Inspector General in the next week.

Representing the Christopher House were Attorney Mark Mahoney of Baker, Braverman & Barbadoro and President Daniel Olsen. Mr. Mahoney explained that the Christopher House was a Massachusetts non-profit corporation to raise sufficient funds to construct and operate a temporary house for kids with cancer. He noted that the event was invitation only and the entrances and exits would be monitored by

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Stern, Mr. Mahoney advised that the Christopher House was similar to the Ronald McDonald House. It was strictly for kids with cancer. When asked if they planned to build the facility in this area, Mr. Mahoney responded that they were looking to raise funds to buy or build within the greater Boston area.

Mr. Cooney told the Board that American Bioanalytical Facility was in the process of expanding their facility at 15 Erie Drive and the purpose of the proposed storage was to handle the solvents in a chemical processing and chemical storage room at the facility. The tanks in the new addition would be placed and stored on secondary containment pallets sized to contain 110% of the total volume of chemicals. The new addition would also be used for repackaging chemicals. All repackaging would be done using a nitrogen based close-loop system. In addition the floor of the new addition would be sealed with an epoxy sealant.

Mr. Ball questioned if any of the chemicals produce fumes that would be toxic. American Bioanalytical Engineer Wayne Gagnon’s response was, ‘no’, noting that the only concern was the flammability and that was in the closed loop system. Mr. Cooney added that if the chemicals were introduced to the outside air, it just contaminates the chemicals and makes them unusable.

If there were an accident, Mr. Stern asked if any of the Fire personnel would need any special training. Mr. Cooney advised that he covered that with the Fire Department and they (Fire Department) have the backup information on it. Asked if the Fire Department had the equipment and materials necessary to respond, Mr. Cooney’s reply was, ‘yes’. Mr. Gagnon noted that the Fire Department had reviewed the plans and were happy with them.

Comptroller Ruthann Cashman noted that when she appeared before the Board a few weeks ago, she had estimated the number of employees interested in the Early Retirement Incentive at 62. After reviewing that number and going back to the departments, the assumption was there would be 23 people who would be eligible and interested.

Retirement Board member Mitchell Barlass referred to the spreadsheet given to the Board and noted that exhibit 1 was for illustrative purposes. It repeats the information provided to the Retirement Board from the actuary and estimates the cost if 62 employees accepted and assumed that those in public safety and the schools would be replaced and those in general government and DPW would not be replaced.

In exhibit 2, the Town approached the department heads to get a handle on how many employees might accept early retirement if offered and based on those discussions, the Town identified 23 likely candidates. Exhibit 2 showed the cost if of the 23, the public safety and school employees were replaced and those in general government and DPW were not replaced. The top half of the exhibit provided an estimate of the cost of the Early Retirement Incentive on a present value basis and the bottom l/2 provided the Board with the cost basis for Fiscal 2004. If school and public safety employees were replaced and general government and DPW were not, the net impact would be to add $1.662 million. That would be offset by salary savings from general government and DPW. The present value of those salary savings would be approximately $923,000. There would be additional health care costs because the public safety and school employees will have the cost of contributions for two employees - the retirees and the replacement. Those additional costs have a present value of $320,000. The net cost to the Town would be $1.059M.

Mr. Barlass continued that exhibit 2 showed that it (early retirement) would save money in Fiscal 2004 and the reason was because of the way the retirement system was funded. The additional liability was being funded over 21 years with amortization payments that increase 4-l/2% annually. The cost would be deferred to the future. The salary savings would be realized during a short period of time and produced the appearance of a savings despite the fact the ERI would add an additional $1.059M in net value.

Mr. Lemnios advised that he knew of 1 in general government, 4 in DPW, 6 in public safety, and 12 in schools who would accept the early retirement and those numbers were derived from contacting the departments. The DPW could be as many as 7 or 8, and if all employees were replaced, it would make the cost larger. He talked to the School Department and they said they would absolutely need to replace anybody who went out on retirement. He assumed that public safety would need to be replaced. Not replacing people in general government and the DPW would have an impact on some of those operations. The goal was to try to get to a point where there was a zero impact, but he can’t get the numbers to work that way.

Mr. Lemnios continued that in 1993 the Town went forth with the early retirement and right now that program was adding upwards of $290,000 as a result of the Town participation. You could get a long-term positive gain if none of the employees were ever replaced, but that assumption did not take place. It was a very difficult exercise and disappointing to hear there can be a cost to the Town because many employees thought

tip and become an expense. Mr. Barlass wasn’t exactly sure when it would be an expense, but noted that the FY04 savings would be the maximum and the savings would get less each year. Segal Associates (the actuary) estimates that the average years in which the Town would enjoy salary savings would only be 3-4 years. Then it would increase in cost because the additional liability to the retirement system would be amortized. The savings would probably be no longer than 4 years.

DPW Director Charles Sisitsky was in the audience, and Mr. McKinley asked if he (Mr. Sisitsky) could tolerate losing four employees. Mr. Sisitsky responded that he had discussed this with the Town Administrator and they came to an agreement that he could probably live with that (losing 4 employees) until economic times got better as long as the employees stayed on the employee list and just not funded.

Alva VanTassel spoke on behalf of the School Secretaries and pointed out that a number could retire right now. Regarding insurance, she noted that most of the secretaries (who would retire) don’t have Town insurance and the ones who would replace them most likely wouldn’t either. She questioned if those things had been taken into consideration.

Mr. Lemnios explained the additional cost as a result of people retiring five years earlier. The retirement system had to make up for the additional five years the employees would have been contributing to the system. In terms of positions being filled and not filled, he had talked to the department heads and tried to explain there could be a win/win scenario but to ask someone to do without a position for 21 years was not practical. The organization doesn’t have a lot of

Russell Somberet, DPW Engineering, felt that the difference wasn’t five years, but 2-l/2 because employees could take either five years of age or five years of time and that basically broke it down to 2-l/2. In his particular case if he took the five-year incentive he would be at the 80% and it would only take him another 2-l/2 years of staying with the Town to get that.

Daniel Hartwell, President of the Firefighters Union, felt this set of studies was more realistic. He knew of one in the Police and one in the Fire who were definite and 2 on the fence. With regard to the long-range cost studies, he questioned if any consideration had been given for those who employees who were going to leave in three years anyway.

Mr. Lemnios’ response was that the Town was paying somebody five years earlier. He continued that the State allowed the Board to set the number of years anywhere from 1-5 and can set the number in each class. These folks would be drawing on the retirement system five years earlier than if they waited. The Town has to be setting money aside and paying them earlier than anticipated and the amount of money they have paid into the system was less. He used the scenario of deferred comp that showed if you started at 46, you would have $100,000 and if you started at 25, there would be 1,000,000.

Firefighter Hartwell asked about the factor of people going out when they contributed 5-7% and the new hires coming in at 11%. It was Mr. Lemnios’ understanding that anybody less than 8% was not contributing enough to pay their retirement. People who were putting in 5% were not putting in enough to cover the full liability of their retirement. Firefighter Hartwell questioned if it wouldn’t benefit the retirement system to have them retire early.

Firefighter Hartwell then pointed out that if a member retires now vs five years from now, his benefit package would be better five years from now. It would cost less to retire now vs five years down the road. Pay scales for replacements would go down. He questioned if that had been taken into consideration.

Lieutenant Ted VanTassel noted that everyone kept saying five years, but there was a member in the Fire Department, who if he didn't retire in December it would be in April, and was that figured in. Mr. Barlass advised that it was, noting that an employee’s expected retirement was taken into account. Lieutenant VanTassel thanked the Board for looking at the early retirement bill and noted that right now the department was running one member short and he would like to see the person replaced as soon as possible.

Firefighter Michael Haigis told the Board that he had a five-page document of communities that had accepted it and he wondered about the differences in their systems and ours. Looking over the list presented by Firefighter Haigis, Mr. Lemnios pointed out that Middlesex County was a county, not a Town. There were quite a few school districts and a few cities.

Comptroller Ruthann Cashman reviewed the proposals for a three-year contract for facilities management services (copy center). Proposals had been received from IKON Office Solutions for a cost of $9,043 per month ($108,516 annually) with a cost of color copies at $.35 per copy and from Archer Management Services at a cost of $10,600 per month ($127,200 annually) with a cost of color copies at $1.00 per copy. She noted that she had sent out five RFP’s. Xerox did not want to submit a proposal due in part to the Town adopting to have Canon copiers in the system.

Mr. Stern was concerned that the material did not include a comparison of these particular proposals to the cost of purchasing and owning equipment and putting it back in-house. Given the fact of low interest rates, he felt there was a need to look at the cost of purchasing and running it vs outsourcing in order to make an informed decision.

Mr. Lemnios explained that this particular piece of the contract was not for the lease of the machines. It was a separate lease for $48,000 and those machines were being upgraded to allow for direct PC to copier and to fax directly from the PC. Between the two contracts it was $150,000 and that service provides for over 4 million copies, mail service, and specialty printing jobs. In essence if it was done in-house, you may be able to diminish cost but may lose more functionality. He didn’t see how this didn’t remain a cost-effective solution.

Town Engineer Mark Coviello introduced the discussion by noting that the purpose of tonight’s meeting was to update the Board on the status of the storm water master plan and to discuss the future need to create a storm water committee. About a year ago the Town received a loan through the zero interest fund that was used to hire a consultant to prepare a storm water master plan. The plan was required by the EPA to be filed by March 2003. Mr. Coviello turned the podium over to Mike McNally from Beta Group to give a presentation on the status of the plan and the future need of a committee.

Mr. McNally explained that this involved a complicated federal mandate that required the Town to submit a Phase II plan by March 10, 2003. The focus was on water quality. The Town had to look at drain water and anything that might cause pollution. Natick was included in the mandate because of its population density.

Mr. McNally continued that the plan was funded through the SRF program at a 0% loan. The bulk of the contract (with Beta Group) was to develop overall drainage mapping and complete hydraulic modeling of problem areas. The contract was also to meet the requirements of Phase II and file the notice of intent. The final guidelines have not been issued by the EPA as of yet. By December they will issue general guidelines. One major element of the program was to generate support of storm water which will be done through the committee. Beta will also develop a capital improvement program that the Town can use to fix infrastructure.

In an outline of the Phase II storm water plan, Mr. McNally listed the following components: The storm water system, public education and outreach, public participation/involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post construction runoff control, pollution prevention/good housekeeping, reporting procedures. Under public participation, Mr. McNally explained that typically a committee would be made up of the Board of Selectmen, Engineering, DPW, Board of Health, Water Shed Association, a developer, and the Conservation Commission. He further explained that the post construction site runoff included all developed sites. Beta will look at subdivision regulations and any other regulations that affect water quality and make recommendations on how many need to change to bridge the gap between where the Town was now and what was required.

With regard to reporting procedures, Mr. McNally advised that not everything needed to be complete by March 2003. A plan had to be written so the more information there was up front, the better the plan. The Town needed to identify measurable goals; i.e. improve water quality at a particular discharge and needed to specify what was going

Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Town was undertaking investigating all existing storm systems and asked if pipe sizing and inverts were being identified. Mr. Coviello advised that that was the largest component being done now. It would be a layer on the Town’s GIS system and different departments would be able to use it. This will be a great tool for the Town and was something that should be done anyway.

As to specific areas, Mr. Coviello noted that the Middle Street drainage was undersized and discharged to the railroad tracks. The preliminary plan to increase drainage size and increase the size of the pipes that discharge onto the railroad was a problem with the railroad. It wouldn’t increase the volume, but the railroad has a problem with flooding. Plus it was dealing with two entities to get permission out

Mr. Lemnios reported that after discussion with DPW Director Charles Sisitsky, they found an opportunity in the DPW budget to accommodate three leaf pickups in the fall and two in the spring. The initial plan was to have residents bring leaves to the recycling center. The office and the DPW have been receiving many calls, and after further examination they were able to identify an opportunity.

Attorney Burke noted that before the Board were documents that resulted from the settlement of the Winter Oaks lawsuits approved by the Planning Board, Conservation Commission and the developers. He noted that there were two documents – a grant of utility easements and a covenant with the homeowners association.

Mr. Gartrell reminded the Board that the Open Space Advisory Committee’s appointments had been extended so they could finish and submit the open space plan. He reported that since their appointment they had been able to accomplish the draft open space plan. The plan has already received preliminary approval of the state and the committee hoped to submit the final version to the state within the next week or so.

As to the role of the committee, Mr. Gartrell said he saw it as being advisory to the Board of Selectmen on open space and a resource for other committees. He didn’t see the committee being a regulatory body and didn’t expect to need a budget. He believed they could function with a minimum amount of staff support. It was his recommendation to continue with the same structure of the committee. He found the structure to be workable and that was evidenced by the fact that every member of the committee was active and participated in all facets. It was a seven-person committee with one member each from the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Recreation and Parks Commission, and three residents.

Mr. Gartrell continued that while the open space and recreation plan had consumed the majority of their time, the committee believed there were sufficient open space issues to occupy them until it was time to update the plan again in a little over four years. Having an experienced committee in place at that time may well save substantially on the startup time that took over two years this past time around. Other issues of concern in the coming years include: Continuing to work on zoning issues that directly impact open space; continuing to evaluate and assist in potential open space acquisition or preservation activities; coordinating and enhancing the Town’s trail system; working with the Conservation Commission and volunteers to produce trail maps for individual public open space resources and a town-wide map of open space and trails; assist with the application for grants for the acquisition and/or development of open space; assume a coordination role in educating the public about the Community Preservation Act.

Mr. McKinley explained that the P&S and the agreement with TCAN included a deed restriction stating that the firehouse would only be used as a performing arts center and if anything happened to TCAN as an organization, that deed restriction went forward to the new owners. TCAN had negotiated a mortgage with Middlesex Savings. The bank wanted to be able to remove that deed restriction, but the Town didn’t want it removed. The proposed compromise was that the bank would loan the money to TCAN and Natick would retain its right of first refusal. Should the bank institute foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage, the Town would have 180 days of right of first refusal and the Town’s obligation would be to only pay whatever principal, interest, and

foreclosure fees were owed the bank. The issue of capping the liability was raised and it was his (Mr. McKinley’s) understanding that the amount agreed to was $750,000. If within the 180-day period, the Town should opt not to exercise its right of first refusal, the foreclosure would go through and the deed restriction would no longer remain.

Mr. Lemnios advised that there would be a cap on the money TCAN could borrow and that would be $750,000. If the Town did not exercise its right of first refusal and the bank foreclosed, any dollars received in excess of the $750,000 up to $267,000 would be paid to the Town. That would protect the back end.

Mr. McKinley added that there was also language that the Board had to approve the lender. Mr. Hughes questioned if some lender was going to require the Town to sign a piece of paper they can record. Mr. Lemnios responded that Mr. Flynn (Town Counsel) was at the meeting along with the commercial loan officer from Middlesex Savings Bank and they felt confident the issues could be worked out.

If the restriction was lifted, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the Town would allow whatever use the zoning allowed. Mr. McKinley clarified that the restriction was not being lifted. That would only happen if TCAN failed, the bank foreclosed, and the Town did not exercise the right of first refusal. Mr. McKinley felt it was a good deal and pointed out that TCAN was in the process of putting $1.2-1.3 million into the building. The goal was to spend $1.5 million and the most they (TCAN) can borrow was $750,000. If the bank forecloses the Town has six months to think about it and potentially there was a $1.5M arts center. If the Town doesn’t buy it back, the bank was free to put whatever else in there they want, but if the Town elects to buy it back, the first thing the Town would be looking to do would be to remove the restriction and sell it at a profit.

He noted that it was a difficult discussion to have because you were talking about the death of something that today announced its birth. Hopefully it won’t occur, but everyone was trying to protect the Town’s interest if it did occur. TCAN needs to have the ability to borrow some funds and if the Town wants to see if be successful, this was what the Middlesex Savings Bank says needs to take place.

Mr. Richards advised that the article arose out of the Five Seasons proposal for the Mabardy land. In the spring Mr. Stern appeared before the Planning Board and suggested that the Planning Board look at it a little differently. Town Meeting formed a committee to look at the Five Seasons proposal, and the Planning Board was hoping the Committee would come up with some compromise or other proposals. The Planning Board’s member on the committee, Robert Eisenmenger, was frustrated from the lack of either supporting the Five Seasons or some other form of it and there seemed to be very little in the form of a new by-law coming out of the committee.

Mr. Richards continued that the Planning Board decided to look at it and at least provide another option for large parcels allowing more density in certain areas to allow for more units than currently allowed under the conventional subdivision or cluster – not as many as Five Seasons wanted, but roughly double. Fifty percent of the space would be

left as open undeveloped space and there would be an affordable housing component of 10% which was similar to the Five Seasons’ proposal. The article had a commercial aspect to it, but as of last week the Planning Board voted to remove it and would like the Board’s input. There was concern about Lookout Farm.

Mr. McKinley commented that the article reduced what Five Seasons wanted so much that it wouldn’t work for them. Mr. Richards, however, noted that the Planning Board didn’t really look at Five Seasons, but rather what was a good use of this parcel for the Town. There was a tremendous amount of opposition to the recreation and commercial aspect. If there was no other proposal by Five Seasons on the table and nothing from the committee, the Planning Board felt the residential development of this property was really the focus and how it could be done to provide amenities to the AQV.

If taking out the commercial, Mr. Hughes questioned why do it at all. There was already a cluster development by-law. If the object was to encourage over 55 or affordable housing, couldn’t that be done in the site plan. Mr. Richards advised that affordable housing couldn’t be done currently. This (proposed by-law) was doubling the density of what the current by-laws allow, significantly increasing the value of the land without a commercial component.

Again Mr. Hughes questioned why not just amend the current cluster development by-law. Mr. Richards explained that it was another option to residential development that was not provided in the Town now and provided the density and open space. It was a similar concept (to cluster), but given the doubling of the density and the AQV it seemed there should be a separate by-law.

Since he had appeared before the Planning Board personally and suggested coming up with something like this, Mr. Stern applauded the effort. He felt this went a long way from the original discussion, but his concern was with the elimination of the commercial aspect. He felt the article went a long way to providing a new type of housing that was in high demand, but he would ask the Planning Board to revisit the commercial aspect and find a way to either encourage or decide that that was not what was wanted in Town. He felt a lot more input was needed.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that he liked the proposal, but he had some concerns in doing AQV if the commercial aspect and recreation facilities were eliminated. Most retirement communities have some type of community facility within the development for the residents. By eliminating this portion, was the construction of a community facility being eliminated? He didn’t think there could be an over 55 development without a community space.

Mr. Richards advised that outdoor swimming, tennis and a facility intended for use by residents had been retained. Mr. Ciccariello responded that he was talking about a community structure with a large meeting room, a kitchen, a library that serves the over 55 group. All developments he has been involved with have community space and without it, it doesn’t work. Mr. Richards concurred and added that one of the suggestions was to have the AQV and then the commercial as an overlay.

Town Meeting then could have the choice of what they would want to adopt. That was something he would advocate, but several members of the Planning Board felt the two were not compatible and shouldn’t be mixed. Based on tonight’s input as well as other input, the Planning Board may ask that the article be referred back to them.

Mr. McKinley felt if the Town was serious about affordable housing, he would propose that the whole thing be affordable housing. He thought it could be done tastefully and done well. He knew that some of the abutters could be touchy, but they should go and see him and see what can be done. He suggested keeping the affordable housing piece in.

Mr. Richards responded that he heard rumors that they (Five Seasons) decided to look elsewhere. He added that he and Mr. Soderholm were probably the most open-minded about the commercial and recreation aspect, but from the beginning they (Five Seasons) didn't seem to want to give at all. The give and take wasn't there this time and that was unfortunate because with some give and take, he (Mr. Richards) thought it could have been a pretty nice project.

Mr. McKinley reported that Mr. Lemnios and he met with Mr. Sarkisian and representatives of the Transportation Management Association on what could be done about the bus task force report. Even more options were raised at that meeting. He (Mr. McKinley) felt the Board owed a response, and at the next Board meeting Mr. Lemnios will come back with a proposal. Mr. McKinley requested that it be on the October 7 agenda.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled that some strong letters were to be going out to the owner of Auto Max, but he hadn’t seen any. It was Mr. Stern’s recollection, that the Building Inspector was going to take legal action. Mr. Ciccariello concurred, but noted that he hadn’t seen anything and there was a need to pursue it.

Mr. Ball noted that several years ago Elizabeth Bransfield began to respond to letters from constituents received by the Board. The Board gets a lot of mail and it frequently goes unanswered. If someone writes to the Board and doesn’t get a response, there was a feeling of disenfranchisement. When he was the Chairman, Mr. Ball said he had asked Ms. Bransfield to respond and investigate the complaints, but that seems to have slid away. With the Board’s concurrence, he would like to ask Mr. Lemnios to put her back on that task.