BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
June 5, 2003
7:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes. Absent: Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL
Mr. Stern explained the format for the hearing and stressed that the Board would not enter into any debate. The intent of tonight’s hearing was to listen to comments, record them and begin the public input process.
A letter from Eliot Street resident Jerry Pierce in support of the so-called land swap between the Town of Natick and the Eliot Montessori School was read.
Mr. Lemnios explained that what would be seen this evening was a plan concept for the Eliot School and its surrounding environment. It has been discussed with the neighbors as well as the Open Space Advisory Committee and the Planning Board for over a year. The most recent action was at the Spring Town Meeting that gave permission to the Board of Selectmen to continue the conversation and if an RFP was issued and acceptable to put the terms and conditions of the RFP back to Town Meeting. No action on this concept plan or anything else that comes out of the hearing process could be effectuated without approval of Town Meeting. This was the first of two public hearings with another scheduled for June 19 at the Eliot School.
Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian was introduced to walk through the concept plan. Mr. Sarkisian noted that a third public hearing was being contemplated, but was not as yet scheduled.
Mr. Sarkisian began by reviewing the existing conditions. Using a chart, Mr. Sarkisian located the Charles River, the Wellesley town line and the area of the school, which was in the Eliot Historic District. The school was built in 1938 and was approximately 14,000 square feet. It was leased by the Eliot Montessori School with approximately seven years remaining on the lease. It was brought to the Town’s attention that the Montessori School had purchased 4.85 acres of land across the street that included the tavern. The tavern was the original site of the John Eliot land grant. To the north of the 4.85 acres was the Sherman Nature Preserve, which was 13 acres of land gifted to the Town l-l/2 years ago from the Castle family. It contains walking trails that connect to Algonquian Hill
subdivision. That was connected through the Hunnewell property and the goal was to enable
someone to walk from downtown through Algonquian Hill through the Castle property and eventually onto Route 16 and then into Elm Bank. The Planning Board has been putting all of the pieces of this puzzle together and this (4.85 acres) was the only remaining piece. There was not a connection to Route 16. The only access was Front Street or Algonquian/Hunnewell to the Castle property, and the Planning Board would like to complete this piece. Mr. Sarkisian noted that the Town had applied to EOEA for a master plan of the John Eliot Historic District, which involves restoration of the dam park, ballpark realignment and the creation of more green space at a cost of $1 million to implement.
Mr. Sarkisian stressed that this (Eliot School) was not a done deal. It was still in the planning phase. Negotiations have been ongoing for l-l/2 years. He added that it was important for the public to retain some public access to the Charles River and under the proposed plan, the Town would control 30-50 feet along the Charles River. The Montessori School owns property across the street and there had been some issues regarding the Auburn Street house and having vehicles cross the street for drive through
pickup. Under this plan the Town would put some conservation restrictions on that parcel and it would only be used for green space. The Eliot School would be sold at market or the equivalent of land and it was being proposed
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL (contd)
that the courtyard which was 18,000 square feet be retained as green space. The Montessori School would like to retain the tavern. Mr. Sarkisian noted that he had received telephone calls from people who would love to restore the tavern. Steve Evers and the Historical Commission would love to see it restored, but it needs a lot of work and it would be retained by the Montessori School.
Continuing, Mr. Sarkisian pointed out that there were approximately four lots that could be carved out of the land across the street off Broads Avenue that met the required zoning and required area. Those lots were selling between $300,000-400,000 and their value was the equivalent of the appraisal done for the school. The appraisal was done by Jonathan Avery who was a certified appraiser and he appraised the school for $1.2 million. That was why everyone was calling it a land swap. Mr. Sarkisian noted that there were a number of options that could be done with the land involving soccer fields, open space, parking, access to the Castle land.
Mr. Sarkisian explained that there was also a proposal that involved the Jenkins property to the east. The Jenkins property was zoned commercial II and in the back it was zoned RSC. Mr. Jenkins came before the ZBA and obtained permission from the ZBA to convert some old historic structures into commercial use. A piece of the back of the building was in a residential zone. Because he also owned two acres in the back including a pond, Mr. Jenkins requested permission to build a house back there although he (Mr. Jenkins) didn’t file a formal petition. It was felt that since the Town was discussing this proposal with the school and Mr. Jenkins was doing some redevelopment, why not look at one comprehensive plan. One option involved the Jenkins property where the Town, through the Montessori School,
would end up obtaining the pond with a direct link to the property owned by the school and Mr. Jenkins could put a house.
Mr. Sarkisian recognized that the whole proposal was complicated, but if the Town wants to obtain more open space, it will take creative proposals. He stressed that the Town did not have a deal with Mr. Jenkins nor did the Montessori School have a deal with Mr. Jenkins. He also noted that this was why it was taking so long. It was complicated and there were a lot of parties involved. Negotiations will continue. Tonight’s meeting was to get input on what residents want to see in South Natick and what residents want to see happen with this land. A formal RFP will take time and the Town officials want to get input from the residents. He offered to meet with anyone who wished.
Marco Kaltofen of 5 Water Street felt that the proposed land that would become part of the open space plan was extremely sensitive environmentally and played an important part in preserving the watershed for the Charles River. The water treatment plant has cost in excess of $4 million and he would like to avoid that expense in this area. Ensuring access to the open space was important and he was pleased that this proposal would do that. He did have a few concerns the first of which was that Eliot Street was a state highway – Route 16. During rush hour the road was well above its design capacity and to prevent another curb cut onto Route 16 from a proposed commercial institutional use was a good step toward maintaining the quality of life in this area. He also noted that once this was done (proposed land
swap), the lands were part of the Eliot Historic District and that should always be kept in mind.
Water Street resident and a member of the Open Space Advisory Committee, Martin Kessel told the Board that one thing that attracted him to South Natick was the open space and character but over the last 10 years the open space has been disappearing. Environmental Affairs has a build out area and shows the area built out in the 1990’s. The largest three parcels were 290 acres. Some of that has been preserved, but basically the character of the area has changed. A lot of people think of large homes rather than the village. The Castle land was threatened with development in 1999 and 13 acres were transferred to the Sherman Nature Preserve. So far four houses have been built. Right now under consideration was the most valuable piece, which was the frontage on Eliot Street. Originally it
was approved by the
Planning Board for two homes and now he was hearing four. It was a critical area and defined the area. It was part of the Historic District.
Mr. Kessel noted that this area provided access to the trails. Some people have said that South Natick had too much, but what this was trying to do was
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL (contd)
to preserve a critical part that was left. To him it was not responsible to trade something that was a permanent resource that was land even for the extra cash that was needed. It might be money for the high school or other things, but the loss of land was permanent and those things were temporary. He heard that the Town might consider testing the waters and may be get more than $1.2 million. That was interesting but he was concerned that the Town would lose what was now before it. This proposal has been in negotiations for over a year and he didn’t want to lose it. The deal made sense – something permanent for something permanent and made sense for the neighborhood that has faced disruption over the past year. It also limited the use of the land across the street where people were
afraid the
Montessori School was looking to expand. In his opinion it would be a great mistake to use it as parking because that would be counter to the idea of open space. There were places where Natick needed parking, but this was not one of them. The need for open space was greater than the need for parking.
Front Street resident Meg Gardner noted that her home and backyard abut the pond (owned by Doug Jenkins). She lived directly behind the Jenkins’ and she knew that she was open to the NIMBY charge. Because of her proximity to the Castle property, she was involved in the grass roots efforts to preserve the Castle property and to highlight the environmental impact of the proposed 22-house development. She felt it was important to certify vernal pools for some protection and was concerned with the environmental impact. They (Ms. Gardner and her husband) considered themselves stewards of the land and take that responsibility seriously.
Ms. Gardner stated that she had met with Mr. Sarkisian and tried to follow this and was told that she couldn’t know the details between private parties. She talked to Mr. Jenkins and knew about the possible plans. She knew that Mr. Jenkins had made changes to the property out of financial necessity, but with Carlson Realty there, there were a lot more people coming in than before and the pond was now an insurance liability. Ms. Gardner spoke of a pair of a nestling pair of geese that left after kids threw rocks at them. The concern for open space was good and what happened with the Castle property was the best possible outcome. One concern she had with acquiring the new piece being talked about was access. They have had people drive down Front Street and park in front of their house. That
was advantageous because it brought people off Route 16. What concerned her was Mr. Cugini (Superintendent of Recreation & Parks) mentioning again and again that the Town was financially strapped and didn’t have the wherewithal to maintain trails. That made her wonder how well it would be maintained and made her think about having four houses there or random strangers in her back yard. Mr. Sarkisian mentioned that people use the pond and people skate on it, but the only people skating there were the Jenkins children. There used to be a big skating pond that the neighborhood used, but that was where the house at the end of Front Street now sits after the Town allowed the backfill. This was not a skating pond. If this were a situation where the kids came in groups and got samples, she would be open to that, but she was worried about the practical aspects because everyone was talking about open space at large. Tonight she heard about
a soccer field and reminded the Board that a soccer field would mean maintenance and putting chemicals on it.
School Committee and Town Meeting Member Kristine Van Amsterdam noted that she didn’t want to debate the merits of open space, but questioned once the Town was given the Sherman Nature Preserve what discussions had taken place for access. What creative solutions had been bantered about by the conservation plan? Mr. Sarkisian mentioned that by acquiring these four acres, the Town would now have a place to park cars for people to walk into the 17+ acres. If that didn’t happen, what creative solutions exist today for her to get access to those acres?
Mr. Sarkisian responded that right now access to the Castle property was through Front Street. There was not enough room to construct an 8-10 car lot – maybe enough parking for 1 or 2. He noted that he was in this
building to 11:45 last night with the Planning Board who spent three hours talking about trails. People can get access through Broads Avenue but it was illegal. The Planning Board could negotiate access without acquiring this land, but it would have to be through negotiation. They also talked about parking on Route 16 and maybe it could be reconfigured into some jug.
Planning Board and Open Space Advisory Committee member Robert Eisenmenger noted that trails took a long. He pointed out that even if an easement was
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL (contd)
acquired on Broads Avenue, there was no place to park. The Hunnewell family owns a lot of land just north of there, and Mr. Eisenmenger thought they (Hunnewell) were willing to give up that access. Mr. Eisenmenger told the Board that he didn’t know of many other towns that had the potential of a four-mile walking trail from one end to the other. To Ms. VanAmsterdam’s query as to maintenance, Mr. Eisenmenger noted that Tim Collins was getting volunteers together to do the trails. Other towns have trails committees that harness the energy of neighbors and have been successful. Mr. Collins was getting businesses to pay for the signs. The Town hasn’t put up a penny for any sign. The slight disagreement he had with Mr. Collins was over the need for a small parking lot associated with
this. When the Montessori School had functions they tend to park on the green space and that green space was getting worn. It would be helpful for the church and the school to have a small parking area.
In conclusion Mr. Eisenmenger stated that he had a lot of detail questions, but he didn’t see how anybody could oppose the broad concept.
Ms. VanAmsterdam recalled that the article was presented to Town Meeting, and she had polled some other Town Meeting members who had the same recollection, in such a way that the only true restriction would be minimum consideration to convey the land of $1.2 million in cash, land with an equivalent value, or a combination. As a Town Meeting member Ms. VanAmsterdam stated that she was standing before the Board to make certain that the RFP went out to be as inclusive as possible as opposed to exclusive. She heard a rumor that one potential bidder was proposing a land swap and the RFP may be more restrictive and limited than Town Meeting thought. As a Town Meeting member, if this was the best proposal, she wanted to see that come via the public bidding process and any developer be allowed to submit a bid as well. When
all the bids were in, then the Board of Selectmen and Community Development would come back to Town Meeting and discuss what’s in the best interest of Natick.
Dick Coburn had the same recollection of Town Meeting’s vote as Ms. VanAmsterdam. He noted that Mr. Sarkisian’s presentation indicated that extensive discussions with the one party would not result in the Town having the tavern to lease or sell. Mr. Lemnios confirmed that at this point the tavern would not become property of the Town. Mr. Coburn continued that his comments complemented Ms.VanAmsterdam’s. He noted that one side of the public policy issue was the disposition of the Eliot School and the other was open space. The space in question that might be proposed for a swap was
an attractive and desirable space and all things being equal he appreciated as much as anybody open space and Natick needed more of it. The only better time to get it than now was in the past. However, looking at the map if he were to come up with an open space needs assessment for Natick, he could see several places where open space was more needed than in South Natick. Look at West Natick, the downtown area, or North Natick near Route 9 where there was precious little space available where a small space preserved could mean a lot. For people in those areas to be served by the proposed land swap, would require a parking facility.
With regard to the completion of the trail, it seemed to Mr. Coburn that Front Street may be the preferred way to route people rather than having people hike a lot of the state highway. He hoped all of these considerations would be taken into account before committing to an open space policy that would be irreversible. There were good ways to consider all these things and make a wide variety of accommodations and those have to do with cash and cash equivalent and fungibility of assets. There were a variety of ways in which the assessments could be applied toward the swap. In order to maintain optimum value to use in that kind of fungible situation, an RFP that was as open as possible was desirable. It was the
fiduciary responsible thing and he hoped as few restrictions as possible were placed on the RFP.
Rose McDermott did not understand how this swap would give access to the Sherman Nature Preserve if there were four homes there. When Mr. Stern responded that there would be no homes on those four lots, Ms. McDermott didn’t understand why four lots were being represented on the plan. Mr. Lemnios explained that four home lots were under the ownership of the Montessori School and under their financial agreement relative to those lots, they (School) need to have an understanding of a potential disposition on that property. If an arrangement such as this (potential swap) did not
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL (contd)
occur, the Montessori School may be compelled to sell those four lots. This concept envisions keeping those four lots open to the public.
A member of the audience noted that there were a number of potential plans for the land, but Mr. Lemnios advised that when talking about potential possibilities that the Town and the residents could realize with the acquisition of the lots, all possibilities were relative to passive recreation use or a passive/active recreation use. There were a shortage of playing fields and a relatively small soccer field could be squeezed in - not multiple fields. One potential heard from the Open Space Advisory Committee and the Planning Board was that it was a wonderful connection to the trail concept and connecting the Natick emerald necklace. People involved with historic preservation saw a potential to play a role in seeing the tavern restored to its historic significance. The Town has been working with the church folks to
make sure the interest was protected and working with the neighbors to see that the pass through didn’t come to fruition and there was access to the river.
Mr. Lemnios pointed out that this was a broad plan for the entire area and planning takes quite a bit of time. You could take the building, surplus it and turn it into operating capital, but he (Mr. Lemnios) thought that would
be a mistake. To the question of making sure the bid was open and competitive, Mr. Lemnios explained that the law required that it be open and competitive. Right now the Board was trying to gather a sense of what the public thought of this planning and guidance for fine-tuning the RFP so that when it was presented to Town Meeting, there was a constituency to support it.
Mr. Stern limited the next portion of the meeting to questions.
David Dimmick inquired as to what use could be made of the school under the current zoning and Historic District constraints. Mr. Sarkisian advised that the school was zoned residential general and would be allowed to have a two family structure. The school has a historic presence and anything that happened had to go before the Historic District Commission. The property could be subdivided into three lots without having to go before the Planning Board. The other factor was the river no build zone of 200 feet from the river; however, if impervious surface was removed, then you can build within the 200 feet. He wanted to put the restriction on the courtyard as conservation to prevent the school from ever being able to sell it and build.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if 6 units could be put there, and Mr. Sarkisian confirmed that as being correct.
Realtor Tim O’Neil noted that all of the existing land to be swapped was offered as open space, but Community Development didn’t want the tavern. The land was purchased a year ago for $940,000 and now it was being said that it was worth $350,000 per lot and there were four lots. Mr. O’Neil could only see three lots and felt that any developer would be really tested to get the two back lots. The school was 2.4 acres with RSG zoning on which 10 units could be put. That may be the highest and best use and if an RFP wasn’t written that includes that, the Town was missing out on a good deal of money. If an RFP wasn’t written that would include a variance to convert the school, the Town was selling itself short.
Mr. Lemnios responded that the RFP would be written to seek the maximum value and pointed out that at this point the Town was not accepting the
assertion that the land was worth $1.2 million. That was why the motion included cash and/or land.
In response to Mr. O’Neil’s recommendation that the value of the school property be increased through a variance, Mr. Stern noted that the question asked by Mr. Dimmick was what was the school zoned for and the answer to that was six units. Everything else was speculation.
Connie Spillhouse inquired as to the Montessori School’s plans for the property if they were successful in obtaining it. Mr. Lemnios replied that it was known that the Montessori School would continue operating as a school and he believed they (Montessori) contemplated some small addition.
Richard Langevin, a trustee of the Montessori School, explained that the School and the Town had been involved with negotiations for the last 12-18
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL (contd)
months. With respect to rumors and speculations, there continued to be an amount of misinformation. It was important to understand that the school purchased the property (across the street from the Eliot School) for fair market value at the time, and the school had to borrow money to pay for it. The school did not have $940,000 sitting in its bank account. The school had set out to build a new school across the street and was proceeding down that path. As they were doing that study, the Town approached them and asked if the Montessori School would consider acquiring the Eliot School property in exchange. They (Montessori) heard about the traffic congestion, parking, access to the river, conservation issues all of which were valid. The Montessori School was interested in accommodating the Town to
find a solution. At this point they (school and the Town) have been at this for 18 months and the school has to make a decision on what it needs to do since they (Montessori) had a loan to pay off. They (Montessori School) can’t negotiate this for the next seven years. They had a fiduciary responsibility to protect the school. Mr. Langevin reiterated that the Town approached the Montessori School and asked if the School could help them (town) out with preserving green space. There have been endless meetings in trying to address all the issues.
Mr. Langevin continued that the issue came up in terms of the valuation. That was done by the Town. The Town did the valuation on both the properties and the School took back the tavern. If the value of the tavern were included, it would significantly exceed the value of the Eliot School at $1.2 million. The School said it would keep the tavern because it would require significant improvements. That was why the School retained the tavern.
With respect to the lease, Mr. Langevin noted that the Montessori School had been leasing the property for 10 years. Before his time the School negotiated a long-term lease, hence the 10-year lease. The value of the lease had nothing to do with the School at this point. It was a deal put together and he assumed the people who negotiated it felt that it was mutually agreeable. There were still seven years to go and the School was legally bound to it and so was the Town. The School had to make a decision in the near future. The School would like to find an arrangement to stay in the facility. From their standpoint it was a wonderful place to be. The alternative, and he emphasized that the Montessori School, wasn’t predisposed to one decision or another, would be to proceed to develop a
school across the street. He noted that the Montessori School was sensitive to the congestion of the traffic and it was a precarious situation. If a development was in the Eliot School and the Montessori School had a 150-student school across the street, just think what the traffic problem would be then.
As to the open RFP, Mr. Langevin assured everyone that nothing had been decided in negotiations. He noted that the Montessori School had tried to respond consistently with respect to issues people brought to the Town on walking trails, traffic, access to the river. Most of the meetings had been in response to how that could be worked out to everyone’s benefit.
Regarding the tavern, Mr. Langevin stated that the School didn’t have plans for the tavern. They would like to sell it and would use the profits to help pay down the loan. It was historic and whoever purchased it would have to restore it. It was a beautiful asset and one consideration was to
incorporate it into the school structure. Many different ideas have been discussed. The School thought of restoring it for an administrative office, but until a decision was made on what was happening, there was not a lot of benefit to do more in that regard.
Mr. Langevin continued that on the issue of cash and equivalent, it was the Town who approached the School. The School told the Town that it didn’t have $1.2 million in cash and the Town came up with the property across the street in terms of rezoning and applying for four building lots. If someone comes in and bids $1.2 million, the Montessori School was not in a position to do that and would revert back to their plan.
Noting that Mr. Langevin had said that the School was under the gun to make a decision and yet there were seven years on the lease, Mr. Ball inquired as to the impetus for a decision in the near future. Mr. Langevin replied that seven years was not a long time to find an equivalent property for a new school. They would have to locate the property and when a school was relocated, there was the difficulty of bringing all of the students with
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL (contd)
them. It would require a lot of planning and seven years was not long to conduct that search. A major priority was that they had a loan on that property and had to make payments and the obligation was coming up quickly to pay off the $940,000. The School had been in discussions with the Town for 18 months and was running out of financial time to get that obligation taken care of.
Don Allard, an abutter of the residential property bought by the Montessori School, inquired as to the future plans for 6 Auburn Street and whether that easement would be part of the agreement.
Mr. Langevin responded that there had been many discussions on it. The Montessori School acquired the residential building at 6 Auburn Street and put in administrative offices. It goes through to Water Street and the concern was that the School would put a roadway in to relieve safety concerns with access to Route 16. The neighbors and the Town asked the School not to do that and the School doesn’t plan to do it. The other consideration was to subdivide the back lot into a 40B lot and the School decided not to do that as well. If the swap was done, ideally the School would like to put an addition that met the historic requirements on the back of the brick building and sell 6 Auburn Street back into residential and use the proceeds for the addition. The intention was to use it for residential
purposes and sell it, which would put it back into the neighborhood.
Mr. Allard then asked about an easement, and Mr. Langevin responded that the School had to look at the whole deal in its entirety. If the School was turning it back to a residential lot, they would have to look at how that easement would restrict them in terms of getting the value back. There was no restriction on the property now.
Dover Road resident Seth Levine inquired if the School would look at renegotiating a long-term lease for the building. Mr. Lemnios advised that the Town was prohibited from entering into a lease greater than 10 years unless there was a home rule petition and the Legislature has not voted to allow that kind of a lease to go to a specific entity. Mr. Levine questioned how long it would take, and Mr. Lemnios noted that the Town Meeting process could occur as early as the Fall. The legislative process could take 6-12 months and then there was the situation whether the current tenant would release the current lease and be interested.
Mr. Levine stated that he was concerned with the Town negotiating on a parcel of land before it went to Town Meeting. Mr. Lemnios felt that negotiating was too strong a term as it implied that both parties could conclude and effectuate a contractual obligation. What have taken place have been extensive discussions with a variety of parties as to an overall planning concept for the area. He (Mr. Lemnios) added that nothing could occur without a public bid process and no disposition could occur without Town Meeting. There were ample opportunities for public participation.
If a long-term lease were possible, Mr. Levine asked if there was a potential to purchase the open space and maintain the asset. Mr. Lemnios advised that it would depend on the lease stream. An RFP for a long-term
lease would be an open competitive RFP, which meant that any other entity looking for a school site could bid. The RFP could be structured for a school use only, but it was not known if the Town could get a lease in place to cover the cost (of buying the land) and if the Montessori School would sell. Purchase of the land would have to be bonded and that would require a
2/3 vote of Town Meeting. The Town would need a lease stream to cover bond payments and the Montessori School would have to be willing to sell the property.
Ted VanTassel noted that when the Montessori School bought the land about a year ago, they paid $940,000. He inquired if at that time the School approached the Town about buying the Eliot School and if they did what was the response. If they did not, why not? Mr. Langevin responded that the answer was that they had an opportunity to acquire property for $940,000 and the plan was to build a new school. The Eliot School was a 1939 building and the Town has done a wonderful job of repairing and maintaining it, but it was an older building and things happen. There were flooding problems to be addressed, heating problems, and the boiler seems to have failed. One consideration the School had was if they built a new school, perhaps they wouldn’t have those issues and liability. The slate roof cost
$100,000, and
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL (contd)
the School had to build that into the equation. The School had seven years on the lease to acquire the funding. They (Montessori School) did not approach the Town on buying (the Eliot School). It was not in their plan. They were into the detail planning when the Town approached them and asked if they would consider staying where they were. Discussions have been how this could be worked out for the Town and the School.
River Street resident Bill King inquired as to what the Town was swapping for and who would pay of the note taken out by the Montessori School for the property across the street. Was the Town taking on debt?
Mr. Lemnios explained that if this concept came to fruition the Town would acquire clean title. If a developer offered $600,000 cash and a piece of land, it would require clean title. The bidder would have to arrange to clear whatever debts were owed. How ever the School effectuates that transaction was between the School and the holder of the note.
Mr. King inquired if the School would be willing to comment on how that would happen, and Mr. Langevin confirmed that part of the School’s responsibility would be to turn over the land free and clear. The School would probably take a loan against the asset.
Rose McDermott inquired if the Montessori School would consider allowing public access to the Nature Preserve through their property should the School decide to build on it. Mr. Langevin wasn’t sure how to answer. It was School property and would be private and there were liability concerns. Additional consideration would have to be given before he could answer.
Auburn Street resident Chris Burgeon noted that Mr. Langevin had indicated that if the Montessori School were to build across the street, it would take seven years and they would build a school large enough for 150-200 students. She couldn’t picture a school across the street with 100 students and the School having a building on Auburn Street for seven years. What would then become of Auburn Street. It could be rezoned and then how many cars would there be.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the term of the lease was through June 30, 2010. If the Montessori School built a new building, they could petition for a release from the lease. The Board of Selectmen could say no and the Montessori School would pay $60,000 for the balance of the lease. At the conclusion of the term, the Town would be confronted with what to do with that building.
A member of the audience commented that what was being talked about was quality of life and density and that had to be thought about.
Ms. VanAmsterdam requested a description of the RFP process and timeline and asked if it was available for the public.
Mr. Lemnios advised that it was a public document and it would be posted on the web site. Community Development Director and he would be playing a role in developing the RFP. It would be reviewed by Town Counsel and the Board of Selectmen would have the final say. The RFP had to be issued for a 30-day period although typically it may be for 45 days. Based on input from the hearings over the next two weeks, the RFP would be issued mid-July with
a return date the end of August. He would be prepared to make a recommendation to Fall Town Meeting.
Tracy Schaller asked if Mr. Lemnios was in agreement that the RFP would go out without the restrictions. Mr. Lemnios responded that it was never stated that it would, but Ms. Schaller countered that Mr. Lemnios had suggested that it was being considered. Mr. Lemnios agreed that it was considered but he never indicated that it would be done. He added that part
of this meeting was to gauge people’s reactions and the public hearing process should be completed before a determination was made. He was hearing that people would like the Town to get the maximum value.
Ms. Schaller then asked if Mr. Lemnios would consider putting it out for $1.2 million and only currently zoned uses. It was her feeling that this deal was being constructed behind closed doors. Mr. Lemnios pointed out that Ms. Schaller was talking about a change in the plans – that the Town declare the property surplus and get the highest bid. Ms. Schaller stated
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL (contd)
that the Town should want to know the best value. This may be the best, but to serve the entire 30,000 population, she felt the RFP should be wide open. Mr. Lemnios noted that part of that would go into the consideration of the RFP, but if Ms. Schaller was saying sell the school and was not interested in achieving any planning goals, that was a different type of RFP than presented to Town Meeting.
Ms. Schaller noted that when it went before Town Meeting she didn’t realize there was an open space component, but Mr. Lemnios reminded her that he had made a presentation and Mr. Sarkisian had a hand out that described the plan. Ms. Schaller then inquired as to who crafted the Town Meeting article and was told by Mr. Lemnios that it was presented by the Board of Selectmen and reviewed by Town Counsel.
Ms. Schaller commented that the Town Meeting members she had spoken to never understood it to be ear marked for a specific user. Mr. Lemnios, however, believed that the presentation to Town Meeting was clear that this was the plan. It was not presented that the Town was going to sell the property and take the funds and acquire open space elsewhere.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding of the Town Meeting presentation that an RFP would not preclude somebody else from bidding on the project and offering 12 acres of land in East Natick, etc. as long as it was comparable in value. Another developer could say I want the Eliot School and have 10 acres in East Natick that I am willing to trade.
As a Town Meeting member, Ellen MacElvey recalled that Town Meeting only agreed to continue negotiations.
Susan Salamoff questioned how the Town could be selling a building that had a seven-year lease. Mr. Ciccariello noted that it was no different than someone owning an apartment building. You could put it on the market and see if someone wanted to buy it.
Reminding everyone that the meeting would be adjoined shortly, Mr. Stern opened the floor up to comments on what had been heard.
Mr. VanTassel told the Board that this was not a no brainer. What was being looked at was a parcel of land you couldn’t get to and there was no way to maintain it. It won’t help 90% of the people in Natick. He was not against open space, but there was plenty of open space there. Unless there was a way for people to use it and maintain it, it won’t do anybody any good.
Water Street resident Christine Schell was of the opinion that this plan solved so many problems. She suspected that Natick had much more commercial and less residential than other communities in the area. There was significant traffic on that road with 8,000 cars in the morning and 8,000 in
the evening. It frightened her to think that the current Montessori School would become an apartment or condo and then have a school across the street. It was a very dense area. People may think that more open space was not needed in South Natick, but she would welcome people to come to her neighborhood. To her it was shortsighted to look at South Natick vs other parts of Town when people should be looking how open space benefits people
and improves the quality of life. Along with the schools, she thought open space was in the top five for why people come and stay. She noted that she was not in favor of a large parking lot. There was only a little parking lot at the Town forest. She lived next to Sacred Heart and people park in front of her house every Sunday and for weddings. She would rather look at people parking sporadically than a permanent lot.
Susan Shagory told the Board that she lived on Auburn Street next to the Montessori School and she hoped the RFP would be kept open and competitive. If all this went through and assuming the green space in the front would not be used for parking, she questioned where everyone would park. The Montessori School parks 50-60 cars there during a function, and where would they go if they can’t park in that open space. She didn’t think a fire truck could get through to her house when people park there for functions at the Montessori School. She also asked consideration for putting in the deal that 6 Auburn Street would be made into residential use.
Pleasant Street resident Marie Forbes stated that she was concerned with the value of her home. Across from her house was a tennis and basketball court
PUBLIC HEARING: ELIOT SCHOOL (contd)
that was full of garbage and overgrown. The Hunnewell ball fields were loaded with garbage and glass. Going with quantity vs quality said something about the Town and she asked that the Town not forget about the other areas that have gone to the dogs.
A member of the Open Space Advisory Committee, David Dimmick, agreed that open space contributes to the value of life and adds to the long-term value of life for future generations. Development costs for property cost more public money than the purchase of land, and this was not a subject that was ignored by the Open Space Advisory Committee or the leaders. To the comment that there was not much open space in West Natick, Mr. Dimmick pointed out that a new area was just created from Morency Street. As to the comment about glass on the Hunnewell fields, Mr. Dimmick noted that we were the citizens and it was up to us. The residents were responsible. He encouraged people to join the subcommittee for trails and not just ignore it. Mr. Dimmick also expressed the opinion that the need for open space was not
just for now in this location.
It concerned Town Meeting member Joseph Keefe to hear the trustee of the Montessori School say that the School only had until October to deal with their fiscal problem. That almost sounded like a gun being placed against his (Dr. Keefe’s) head. Dr. Keefe noted that the trustee kept referring to the Town having approached the School, but who were the agents or who
approached the School regarding this particular matter. He was certain it was the type of question that would be pursued with great vigor at the Fall Town Meeting.
Mr. Lemnios responded that he understood the initial contacts occurred 12-18 months ago by representatives of the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board. Mr. Stern thought it was fair to say that the Board initiated the contact.
A member of the audience stated that he would like to see the matter of the easement on Water Street being addressed – how the goal can be achieved of not having road access through, but leaving optimal taxable value for the tax base.
Mr. Stern thanked everyone for coming and reminded everyone that a second hearing would be held in two weeks at the Eliot School.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing the release of executive session minutes and litigation. The Board retired to executive session at 9:45 p.m. after announcing that the Board would reconvene the in open session.
RELEASE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES
The meeting was reconvened in open session at 10:21 p.m.
Mr. Hughes moved to release the executive session minutes of December 3, 2001. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m.
___________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
