BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
August 4, 2003
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Paul R. McKinley, Charles M. Hughes. Absent: Jeffrey A. Stern
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on August 4, 2003 in the amount of $470,965.555. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $8,429,948.47.
MINUTES
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2003 meeting. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley abstained, as he had not attended the meeting.
REQUEST PERMISSION TO CLOSE WATER, LINCOLN, CAPE STREETS: BLOCK PARTY
Before the Board was a request from Jeannine Keith Furrer to close the ends of Water, Lincoln, Cape Street on September 1, 2003 from 1:00-6:00 p.m. for a block party.
Included in the request was an invitation that referenced BYOB beverages, and Mr. McKinley questioned the legality of allowing people to drink in the public way. Mr. Lemnios concurred that people were not allowed to drink in public roads. Police Chief Mannix also concurred, but explained that the practice had been not to enforce the public drinking statutes when the road was closed. In effect the Board’s permission to close made it private property for that time period.
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved approval. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes abstained.
REQUEST PERMISSION TO CLOSE WABAN STREET: BLOCK PARTY
In a letter to the Board, Dagmar Klinger requested permission to close Waban Street on August 16, 2003 (alternate date of August 23) from 6:00-10:00 p.m. for a block party.
Mr. Ball expressed concern by the idea of the party running until after dark. Mr. McKinley noted that he hadn’t paid attention to the specific hours people have been requesting, but the few block parties he had
attended regularly went to 9-10:00 p.m. and wind themselves down. He was not concerned.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Curve Street
Michael Donahue of 34 Curve Street referenced a letter he had sent to the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, Mr. Lemnios, Town Engineer Mark Coviello, and DPW Director Charles Sisitsky. On July 28, 2003 construction work was started on Curve Street and construction workers from Murray Construction pulled up some granite blocks that acted like a retainer wall for his property. Mr. Coviello said putting in a Cape Cod berm would beautify the neighborhood. He (Mr. Donahue) got no satisfaction from Mr. Coviello, and the next day Mr. Coviello was on vacation. Mr. Donahue stated that he called Mr. Sisitsky who said that he was not aware of anything and would have to talk to Mr. Coviello when he came back from vacation today. At his (Mr. Donahue’s) request
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
a meeting with Mr. Sisitsky and Mr. Coviello has been set up for tomorrow morning.
Mr. Donahue stressed that he didn’t want this issue to be pushed aside and work go on before this was resolved. He hoped the Board could do something.
Having read Mr. Donahue’s letter and because he lived in the neighborhood, Mr. McKinley noted that he drove down Curve Street to see what it was about. He confirmed that the granite blocks had been removed and added that he (Mr. McKinley) reviewed it with Mr. Coviello and Mr. Coviello gave assurance that he would be in touch with Mr. Donahue. The issue was primarily driven by an engineering decision. Curve Street was being rebuilt and sidewalks installed on the north side, which were desperately needed. Mr. Coviello suspects that the granite blocks might have been placed in the Town’s right-of-way, which was why they got removed by the contractor. Mr. Coviello has agreed to meet with Mr. Donahue and confirm where the property line ends and discuss what options might be possible. He (Mr.
McKinley) thought the Board should allow Mr. Coviello and Mr. Donahue to have their meeting, and with the Board’s permission he (Mr. McKinley) would stay in touch with Mr. Coviello.
Mr. Donahue noted that the granite blocks had been there for approximately 51 years and after one good snowstorm the Cape Cod berm would be damaged. He didn’t call that beautification.
Mr. McKinley advised that there were drainage issues and legal requirements for street width. He didn’t know if that was the conclusion reached, but Mr. Donahue needed to talk to Mr. Coviello. Mr. McKinley assured Mr. Donahue that the Board would stay on top of it, but he couldn’t guarantee that the outcome would be the restoration of the granite blocks.
Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Donahue believed the blocks to be on his property or the Town’s. Mr. Donahue responded that it was his contention that it was part of his property because the blocks were being used to retain the wall on his property. He thought it was right on the line.
b. School Street Extension
School Street Extension resident David Soens reminded the Board that he came before the Board in December about the condition of School Street Extension. At that time the Board voted to allow Mr. Coviello to come up with a cost to allow the residents to accept a betterment to have the road fixed. Mr. Coviello came up with a cost breakdown for each resident, and he (Mr. Soens) worked with Mr. Coviello to come up with a petition to hand out to the residents. That was done and he had a majority of the residents in favor of having the road fixed. The petition was presented to the Board.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what a majority meant and was told by Mr. Soens that there were 17 residents involved and he had ten signatures.
Mr. Lemnios asked if Mr. Soens had tried to obtain the signatures of the other seven and they refused or were they not available. Mr. Soens noted that these were the first ten people he talked to and he didn’t speak to the other seven. Mr. Lemnios suggested that it would be helpful to get the signatures of the remaining seven or as many as possible.
Mr. Lemnios explained that the betterment process would bring the road up to standard. Mr. Hughes suggested that an article should be put on the warrant to save a place to go forward.
AUXILIARY POLICE PROMOTION: SERGEANT & LIEUTENANT
Police Chief Dennis Mannix recalled that some months ago the Board made appointments to the auxiliary policy. At that time he made no recommendation for leadership. He would now like to recommend two officer positions – a lieutenant who would be the person in charge under the operational commander of the Natick Police Department and one
AUXILIARY POLICE PROMOTION: SERGEANT & LIEUTENANT (contd)
sergeant. Chief Mannix recommended the promotion of Patrick Irr as to lieutenant and Chad Howard to sergeant.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to how many auxiliary officers there were, and Chief Mannix advised that at the moment there were ten. He had some additional recruits and was doing background investigations. He added that Mr. Irr had been an auxiliary officer for 23 years and Mr. Howard for about four years.
When asked how many auxiliary officers he would like to see, Chief Mannix responded that the optimum would be 20, but he had to find the right people.
Mr. Hughes moved the appointment of Patrick Irr as lieutenant in the auxiliary police and Chad Howard as sergeant. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE RECYCLING COMMITTEE: FRANK MCDONOUGH
Frank McDonough stated that he had lived in Natick since 1976. He had been a special education teacher for 23 years and was working as a consultant that sold National Geographic educational materials. The idea of recycling in general and especially in Natick interested him.
In his letter of interest Mr. McDonough had listed several committees in which he was interested with the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee at the top. Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to his preference and Mr. McDonough responded that the Bicycle Committee had probably been his first choice, but on consideration, recycling was probably of equal interest.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Frank McDonough to the Recycling Committee. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT AS ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION: WILLIAM PROIA
The interview was tabled to later in the meeting pending Mr. Proia’s arrival.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC & VERIZON N.E. BODEN LANE: ONE(1) HIP GUY
The hearing had been continued in order to receive verification from Nstar that the guy wire would be installed only on public property.
In a letter to the Board, Nstar Right of Way Agent Christine Cosby stated that the supporting fixture would be placed within the public way and by no means placed on private property. The temporary support pole would be removed upon the installation of the hip guy.
Mr. Hughes asked if a copy of the letter had gone to Mr. Salvoni, the abutter who raised the concern with the petition at the last hearing. Ms. Challis advised that a copy of the letter had been faxed to Mrs. Salvoni and she indicated her satisfaction.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes then moved approval of the petition subject to the conditions of Ms. Cosby’s letter. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
JFK TRANSPORTATION: APPLICATION FOR ONE ADDITIONAL TAXI LICENSE
Representing JFK Transportation was the owner Timothy Kelly.
Mr. Kelly stated that he was seeking permission to add one additional taxi to his fleet. He believed there were eight licenses in existence. Currently he was operating two under Natick taxi regulations and would like to add the third.
Mr. Hughes asked if the cab was metered, and Mr. Kelly responded that Sergeant Davis was aware that he had the cab and said if the license
JFK TRANSPORTATION: APPLICATION FOR ONE ADDITIONAL TAXI LICENSE (contd)
were granted tonight to get in touch with him. Mr. Ciccariello noted that if the Board were to approve the cab, it would require inspection and approval by the Police Department.
In addition to inspecting for vehicle safety, Mr. McKinley asked if it included a review of their safety record. Chief Mannix advised that it was not something that was looked at on a yearly basis. It was not specifically part of the application process.
Mr. Ball moved to grant the additional license, but not issue until the vehicle was inspected and approved by the Police Department. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER
a. Bennett-Hemenway School Activity Use Limitation
Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois recommended the Board’s approval of the amended AUL for the Bennett-Hemenway School. He explained that it was a 21E cleanup site. In the 1990’s the Town removed a 5,000-gallon underground storage tank and found contaminated soil. The soil was removed and studies completed. In 2002 a plan was submitted to DEP for approval and the Board signed an AUL in 2002. The AUL was part of the activity use clean up plan. The state allows a restriction preventing certain activities on that site.
Mr. Bois continued that in late winter the Town was notified that the defined area of the site was too small and DEP recommended submitting an amended AUL. The Town was told that it could drop the monitoring requirements of the decision for ground water because there was a full year of results. That saved $15,000 in analytical work. What was before the Board was a revision of the earlier AUL. It restricts the area from being used for residences, the disturbance of soil below 13 feet deep, and precludes the presence of an occupied structure or the expansion of the school.
Mr. Bois told the Board that the School Committee fully supported the AUL and had no plans to expand the School in that area.
If the monitoring was being dropped, Mr. Hughes questioned why the area was being expanded. Mr. Bois responded that it was the monitoring of the groundwater that was being dropped. The groundwater was below standards so it didn’t have to be monitored.
Mr. Ball inquired if the AUL was a restriction for all time, and Mr. Bois advised that it was. In follow-up Mr. Ball asked if fifty years from now the School Committee wanted to build a new Bennett-Hemenway, if it could be revisited. Mr. Bois noted that contaminated oil was biodegradable and eventually would disappear. It could be revisited.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that one place in the document made reference to Mr. McKinley and Mr. Stern and one place said Mr. Stern and Mr. Ciccariello. Mr. McKinley thought the reference to his name
was for the first AUL. Mr. Bois stated that he would get it straightened out.
Mr. Hughes moved to direct Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, and Mr. Lemnios to sign the AUL for the Bennett-Hemenway School with the condition that the language in the fourth paragraph on the first page was correct. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
b. Update EPA Order of Compliance
Mr. Bois reported that the Town was complying with the EPA order and making significant progress in a lot of projects initiated. Completion of eight pollution prevention projects annually was required and at the end of the first year 9 of the 16 initiated were completed. Some of the projects had value to continue in the future. Four new projects have been identified.
Mr. Bois highlighted some of the accomplishments resulting from the projects. They included the reuse of 45 tons of street sweepings,
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER (contd)
saving $500 in disposal costs; a reduction by 90% of the amount of junk mail received by the Clerks Office and recycling the remaining 10%; reusing or recycling 5,500 old books and magazines discarded by the library; reduction in the amount of chemicals purchased by the High School, saving $1,000 in new purchases; reduction in the number of different janitorial products with toxic constituents used by the Town; reduction in the amount of virgin paper used by the Copy center, saving $1,700 for the quarter; increase in recycling rates of paper at the library by 200%, saving over $1,000 in disposal costs; and a reduction in the amount of paint used by the School Department, saving over $8,000 in paint costs.
In conclusion Mr. Bois stated that this was not the end of the story. He was looking at other departments to spread the wealth.
Mr. McKinley complimented Mr. Bois on a good job, but Mr. Bois noted that a lot of people were involved in getting this done. Mr. McKinley commented that when the Town first got involved with the EPA, everyone viewed this position (Environmental Compliance Officer) as opportunity, but he didn’t realize how good it would be. He then asked if Mr. Bois was dealing with recycling and ways to improve it. Mr. Bois responded that he hadn’t focused a lot on the recycling. Mr. Russell (Sanitation & Landfill Supervisor) had done a good job, but it was something he could look into.
Mr. Hughes recalled some discussion about testing the drainage at Pegan Cove as part of the EPA order. Mr. Bois advised that the Town was supposed to do a Phase I study at Pegan Cove and it was done and put to bed last year. Mr. Hughes then asked if that had anything to do with the study being done by Town Engineer Mark Coviello on the drainage that ran into Pegan Cove. Mr. Bois advised that it did not. Mr. Coviello was dealing with storm water discharge.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what happened to the savings being accumulated, and Mr. Lemnios responded that it didn’t get spent. Over time certain line items in the DPW and library budget would not be expended. When asked if the Board would see a reduction in their budget, Mr. Lemnios replied that that remained to be seen.
Mr. Lemnios commented that Mr. Bois had become a triple threat for the Town. He came to the organization as a compliance officer under the EPA order. That was a difficult role initially as he had to play environmental police officer as well as be somebody trying to change attitudes in the manner in which products were purchased and disposed of. He has given a great deal of assistance on the underground storage tanks and environmental compliance issues and recently accepted to become the part-time conservation commission agent. Mr. Lemnios credited Mr. Bois as a professional who sucks it up and gets the job done and most of the department heads hold him in admiration.
CHIEF OF POLICE:
a. Skateboard Ordinance
Police Chief Dennis Mannix reported that he met with the skateboard committee of the Youth Advisory Board and would put in an article for this year’s Fall Town Meeting that would ban skateboarding from public property unless the area was specifically designated for skateboarding. The article would ban the use of skateboards on sidewalks and parking areas of the Town and spoke to the ability of private businesses to post their property. He noted that he received complaints from Town employees particularly the library and merchants about the dangerous use of skateboards.
Mr. Hughes asked if Chief Mannix was suggesting that a private property owner could keep people off the sidewalk. Chief Mannix advised that he wasn’t but the property owner could post NO SKATEBOARDING on their property.
Not having seen the language of the article, Mr. McKinley requested Chief Mannix to outline how it would differ from the article previously submitted. Chief Mannix explained that the previous article banned
CHIEF OF POLICE: (contd)
skateboarding from public sidewalks. It stopped someone from rollerblading on Wilson Street and that was not the intent. The new version protects the people that use local business and Town property from being interfered with by reckless use of a skateboard.
Mr. Ball noted that the Youth Advisory Board had made a recommendation that included some penalties for a violation of the ordinance. Chief Mannix advised that there would be a penalty in the new article. What was being proposed was a $50 fine and confiscation of the conveyance. Asked about the first offense, Chief Mannix responded that it gave the officer discretion. He was working with the committee on the penalty version and one version had a warning for the first offense.
Mr. McKinley commended Zach Garafalo of the Youth Advisory Board for all of his work and the fairness he applied in doing the survey.
Zach Garafalo informed the Board that the committee concurred with the Chief. Instead of banning skateboarding it was felt that it would be more diplomatic to limit hazardous skateboarding and the Police would have the ability to limit the hazards.
Mr. McKinley questioned if the Youth Advisory Board had taken a vote on this recommendation, and Mr. Garafalo responded that not everyone on the YAB had been around this summer. The people who were around voted on it and approved it. When asked for specifics, Mr. Garafalo replied that five or six out of the eight on the Board were in favor. Mr. McKinley then asked if Mr. Garafalo or a representative of the YAB would present the recommendation to Town Meeting. Mr. Garafalo agreed to do it if necessary. Mr. McKinley suggested that it would be a good idea.
b. Safety Committee Minutes
As chairman of the Safety Committee, Chief Mannix reviewed the Safety Committee minutes of the July 22, 2003 meeting.
1. Winter Street/Frost Street Bus Stop
The committee discussed a request to relocate the bus stop on the corner of Winter and Frost Streets. The committee voted to table the issue until Sergeant Davis could discuss the issue with Ms. Constantine and Ms. Dunn in the School Department.
2. Wilson Middle School Bus Transportation Safety Issues
School Committee member Peg Broekel informed the committee that the School Committee was handling the situation and no action was needed.
3. North Street/Washington Street Stop Sign
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky informed the committee that the stop sign had been replaced and no further action needed. Chief Mannix explained that a stop sign had been there, but had faded and needed to be replaced. That had now been done.
4. 43 Fiske Street/Unregistered Vehicles
The committee discussed a request from Fiske Street residents to look into parking of unregistered vehicles being stored at 43 Fiske Street. The committee voted to table the pending Sergeant Davis’ investigation.
5. Cottage Street/Roadway Improvements
In response to a request to evaluate safety issues in the area, the committee recommended repainting the crosswalks in the area and placing green double-back high visibility pedestrian signs at the crosswalk between Cottage and Webster Street. The residents informed the committee of safety concerns on the south end of Cottage Street regarding vehicles blocking the sidewalks, and pedestrians having to walk into the street to get by. The residents were advised by Chief Mannix to report when cars were blocking sidewalks to the Police Department. Chief Mannix and Sergeant Davis will evaluate parking in the area. Sergeant Davis informed the residents that the street was part of the reasonable and rationale speed study and advised them that
CHIEF OF POLICE: (contd)
they will meet at the end of the study to discuss findings. Chief Mannix to speak with Community Development Director regarding promises that were made to the residents regarding re-engineering issues.
Chief Mannix added that much of the concern had to do with the engineering around Farwell and Woodland Streets.
6. Taxi Stand Request at North Avenue MBTA Station
The committee recommended the installation of a taxi stand at the North Avenue MBTA station – specifically the south side of North Avenue from the crosswalk 22 feet west place signs designating TAXI STAND NO PARKING ANYTIME. The signs to be affixed to the existing pole.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the number of parking spaces being lost and Chief Mannix said he believed one space would be lost.
Mr. McKinley moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
7. Dewey Street/South Avenue Sign
The committee discussed and voted to recommend the installation of a larger sign on South Avenue. The DPW had the specifications and was in the process of making the new sign.
Chief Mannix noted that there was an ongoing concern of misuse of South Avenue as an egress onto Route 135. A larger sign was placed by Casey’s, but it has not handled the problem to the satisfaction of Mr. Stone. The Town was not able to put a larger sign on the outside of the curbing because it would cause a hazard for trucks. The DPW has been asked to recreate the sign larger than it was but within reasonable limits in approximately the same location. Short of putting a huge sign over the roadway, he didn’t know much else to do. He didn’t know the extent of the problem resulting from people frequenting the businesses or people using the street to get to Route 135.
Mr. Hughes noted that there was a proposal to do a 40B project at the end of Dewey Street and the possibility of mitigation. He suggested that Chief Mannix speak with Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian.
Chief Mannix added that he wasn’t sure if people were leaving directly from Main Street and using it as a shortcut or people at the businesses were going up the wrong way. Apparently the problem continues. He didn’t think a sign the size being recommended (by Mr. Stone) could be put outside of the curbing because it would impact traffic.
Mr. McKinley found it hard to imagine that most of the wrong way traffic was from people leaving the businesses and going the wrong way. He suspected people going up the street because they lived there or to the doctor. He couldn’t imagine there were too many people going to exit Dewey.
Chief Mannix noted that the petitioner says people come up and make u-turns in his driveway. Mr. McKinley asked if there was a count, but Chief Mannix didn’t know. He offered to try to find out, but the only way would be to place an officer there for one week.
Mr. McKinley suggested the possibility of putting orange tubes across the south side after Hayes Street, but Chief Mannix noted that there were businesses there that people were driving to access. The street becomes one way at Dewey Street and he didn’t want to adversely affect the businesses. Chief Mannix reiterated that he didn’t know how large a sign could be put there and Sergeant Davis agreed that a large sign couldn’t be put there. A high visibility green sign couldn’t be put there because it would conflict with the traffic laws and he wouldn’t want to distract people so they were not looking at the road.
Mr. Ciccariello liked Mr. Hughes’ idea of speaking with Mr. Sarkisian to find out what’s going on with the 40B. He also suggested trying another sign.
CHIEF OF POLICE: (contd)
Dewey Street resident Ernest Stone noted that the neighborhood had submitted a petition. His house was the last house on the left and the signage that was there now was of no value whatsoever. It was either obstructed by the telephone pole or way down beyond any street where someone could turn down. In the petition his recommendation was to put the sign over the sidewalk 20 feet from the intersection of Hayes Street and South Avenue, and he didn’t know how that would interfere with anybody if it were seven feet up. It could be a visible sign of an orange color or whatever. A detail officer who was working there when the MWRA was doing the sewer concurred with him. Mr. Stone didn’t see how the DPW had any say in what was put there if the Safety Committee and Board of Selectmen said to do it. He pointed out that the sign wouldn’t have to be put over the street. It could be put over the sidewalk.
Chief Mannix stated that he would speak with Mr. Quilty in the DPW and ask if the sign could be placed in the way Mr. Stone suggested. Mr. Stone had suggested that the wording of the sign be ‘South Avenue Dead End with an arrow Last Exit to Route 135’, but Chief Mannix felt that the language should be limited to ‘Route 135 with an arrow’.
Mr. Ball wondered if assigning an officer at Dewey Street to stop people coming down and asking them why they were doing it would help solve the puzzle. Mr. Stone stated that he saw the people and with a lot of them it was complete bewilderment. There were people from out-of-state, trucks, etc. Everybody was cognizant that they can’t go to the right and then turnaround.
Mr. Ciccariello proposed putting it in Chief Mannix’s hands and let him see if it can get straightened out.
8. Address Change Request/28 Pitts Road to 9 Atherton Street
The committee was advised by the Selectmen’s Office that the contractor requesting the change had asked for this request to be put on hold. No action needed at this time.
9. Concord Place
The committee recommended restricting parking on both sides of Concord Place.
Being in his neighborhood, Mr. McKinley knew that some of the streets were very narrow and moved approval of the parking restriction. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Hughes questioned if this was a street that the Board could restrict. Chief Mannix believed the Board could, adding that he knew Town Counsel had said that Randall Court could be posted. Mr. Hughes, however, pointed out that the Board had a request to restrict Wheeler Lane and was told by Town Counsel that it was not a Town way and was owned by the abutters and without their agreement, there was no authority to restrict parking or make it one way.
Mr. Lemnios was asked to seek an opinion from Town Counsel.
10. Middlesex Avenue/Abandoned Van
Sergeant Davis informed the committee that the abandoned van had been removed.
11. Ferrin Court Parking
The committee voted to recommend restricting parking on the south side of Concord Street 20 feet from either side of the intersection according to the Town statute, and to restrict parking on the north side of Concord Street directly in front of #10 Ferrin Court. The recommendation was to post NO PARKING FROM HERE TO CORNER sign to be installed 20 feet east of the Ferrin Court intersection on the south side of the roadway, and two NO PARKING BETWEEN SIGNS to be installed on the north side of the roadway directly across from the driveway at 10 Ferrin Court.
CHIEF OF POLICE: (contd)
Mr. Hughes moved approval with the same request to Town Counsel. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
12. School Crosswalks
School Committee member Peg Broekel asked if all school crosswalks were uniformly repainted with high visibility pedestrian signage. Mr. Sisitsky said he would investigate and report back to the committee.
13. Pleasant Street
In response to request from Pleasant Street residents to increase police presence in the area due to safety issues and speeding cars, Sergeant Davis recommended conducting an evaluation of speed in the area and to increase police presence.
c. Local emergency Planning Committee
Chief Mannix prefaced the discussion by noting that Natick’s lack of a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) came to the forefront with the report on the TV news. The Town has now started the certification process for a LEPC. Two meetings have been held and a third was scheduled for September 4.
Lieutenant Grassey has worked diligently in gathering information and putting together the comprehensive emergency management plan – updating the existing and adding a new hazmat section. It was going to printing and would be distributed to the committee. Chief Mannix advised that approval for a grant had been received for up to $8,000 to pay for Lieutenant Grassey’s time in doing this planning. By having this in place, Natick won’t be impeded from getting grants for emergency management.
Chief Mannix explained that the LEPC certification was a three-stage process – startup, interim, and then full certification. A table top exercise was held in conjunction with the Army Labs that came out favorable for both the Fire and Police Departments for responding to hazardous material and police regional network. An exercise was now being scheduled with the Executive Office of Public Safety of not only local police and fire, but regional and state to do a full exercise.
Mr. Lemnios commended Chief Mannix, Lieutenant Grassey, and Captain Sheridan for their work in putting the LEPC together. He noted that Captain Sheridan had recently been named as chairman.
d. Foreign Motors Noise Complaint
Mr. Hughes noted that the Board had received a copy of the noise complaint filed against Foreign Motors West. Chief Mannix advised that he would look at the calls that came in with alarms and talk to Foreign Motors.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT AS ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION:
a. William Proia
William Proia stated that he was a lawyer in a firm that represented about eight cities and towns and several counties in real estate matters. His specialty was permitting. He has appeared before permit granting authorities of all kinds, and he thought he was well suited for the post and wanted to volunteer time where he could contribute the most.
Mr. Ball moved to appoint William Proia as an alternate member of the Historic District Commission. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: MIDDLESEX LIQUORS, INC. D/B/A KENTUCKY SPIRITS: ALTERATION OF PREMISES
Representing Kentucky Spirits were the owner Ercole Ubaldino and his attorney Laurence Faiman.
Mr. Hughes moved to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: MIDDLESEX LIQUORS, INC. D/B/A KENTUCKY SPIRITS: ALTERATION OF PREMISES (contd)
Mr. Faiman submitted documents such as the legal notice, affidavit of mailing, etc. pertaining to the application for an alteration of premises at the Kentucky Spirits, 17 Washington Street.
Mr. Ball questioned why the documents hadn’t been submitted in time for the briefing books and Mr. Faiman responded that he thought the documents were fairly straightforward and didn’t require any advanced review. Mr. Ball countered that he couldn’t review the documents and listen to Mr. Faiman make a presentation at the same time. He would appreciate people supplying documents in time for the briefing books to give time to scrutinize them.
Mr. Faiman introduced Ercole Ubaldino who was the manager and owner of Middlesex Liquors. He noted that Mr. Ubaldino was a Natick resident and the owner of the business that held an all-alcoholic beverage package store license. Mr. Ubaldino was requesting the Board’s approval of the expansion of the licensed premises to include premises at 13 Washington Street. The business has been conducted at 15-17 Washington Street since August 1990 and the prior owners conducted the same type of business at that location since 1939. The building was owned by the DeMasi family. Mr. Ubaldino had been advised that the storefront at 13 Washington which was the storefront adjacent to his store was being vacated and Mr. Ubaldino was asked if he were interested in leasing it. The terms of the lease were negotiated
but not as yet executed, but he didn’t anticipate any problems. At the moment the proposed lease called for an initial term of seven years with two possible extensions of five years.
Mr. Faiman told the Board that the expansion of the store was important to Mr. Ubaldino. It was his livelihood. He was a working person in the store every day and devoted full-time efforts to this business. The store was utilized to its limit. It was a small space now that included 1,856 square feet with a storage room of 150 square feet with a basement. Mr. Ubaldino has successfully conducted his business in this space for many years but with the need to update equipment, additional space was needed. Mr. Faiman provided the Board with a copy of the Assessors’ Map that showed the store located between Agostino’s restaurant and the Barber Shop. Parking was available in the street plus a parking area to the rear of the building.
Mr. Faiman referred to the sketch of the current floor plan and the proposed plan. He pointed out that the sales area would increase to approximately 1,600 square feet, which would include the vacant storefront at 13 Washington Street into the business. The 13 Washington street entry would be closed and access and egress would only be through 15 & 17 Washington Street. By increasing the floor space, Mr. Ubaldino would be able to conduct his business more efficiently and offer customers a more diversified product line and
enable him to purchase at bulk prices. Mr. Ubaldino would be able to purchase a new cooler and modernize the store and do improvements for his customers. The present configuration made it almost impossible to modernize.
In conclusion Mr. Faiman stated that Mr. Ubaldino had been an exemplary business owner and the goal was to maintain the business in a manner in which the Town could be proud. The expansion would have a significant positive effect on the business and appearance of the store and a negligent impact on the area.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what kind of exterior changes might be made other than closing of an egress. Mr. Ubaldino responded that he didn’t think it was necessary to do anything. He may spruce up the back, but nothing to alter the building itself. Asked if the doors would be left just inoperative, Mr. Ubaldino’s response was, “yes” adding that it wouldn’t take anything away from the design when it was remodeled. He thought of enclosing the area of 13 Washington Street and making it look like another big window, but not have access.
PUBLIC HEARING: MIDDLESEX LIQUORS, INC. D/B/A KENTUCKY SPIRITS: ALTERATION OF PREMISES (contd)
Noting that there would be additional window space from 13 Washington Street, Mr. Ball questioned if Mr. Ubaldino intended to fill that window space with advertising. Mr. Ubaldino advised that he did, noting that if he didn’t do something it would just look like an empty store. Mr. Ubaldino stated that he sensed a concern, but when the previous owners expanded they took two stores and took down the wall and took care of the windows on both sides. Mr. Ball responded that a substantial amount of money and effort went into sprucing up Washington Street and making it attractive. The comment he (Mr. Ball) heard was that the one jarring element was the signage at Kentucky Spirits. His question was would the additional space be filled with what he heard people say were unsightly signs. Mr. Ubaldino
replied that he didn’t know of any other liquor stores that don’t have signage and that kind of advertising. To not have it, he thought would put him at a disadvantage with the other competitors.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired about any renovations and was told by Mr. Ubaldino that he planned to put in an update cooler. He noted that he had not as yet filed any plans with the Building Department for a building permit. He was talking with a contractor, but didn’t know exactly what he would do although he would use some of the space for a cooler and the revised configuration.
Mr. Hughes had some concern that this was putting the cart before the horse if Mr. Ubaldino didn’t have a plan for the renovation. Mr. Ciccariello agreed noting that there were a couple of free hand sketches and a letter from the Building Inspector saying there was no problem with the application, but the applicant hadn’t obtained any necessary permits. It was Mr. Hughes’ recollection that usually an applicant provided the Board with a detailed plan of what the premises
would look like. With this application the Board was discussing the licensing of the premises without knowing what it’s going to look like.
Mr. Ball pointed out that unlike a restaurant, Mr. Ubaldino was seeking to expand the store for the sale of liquor, wine and the premise details of the layout had no impact on whether to approve the application or not. Why should the Board be concerned if there was a cooler here or a display rack there.
Mr. Ubaldino added that he wouldn’t want to get the architects, engineers, and workers ready to go and then the answer was no. If the Board needed a more detailed diagram, that could be done. The sketch he submitted was the best use of the space as he saw it.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t believe there was anything in the Board’s policy that required Mr. Ubaldino to submit a registered plan at this time. He suggested that the Board could approve the application conditioned upon Mr. Ubaldino being required to pull a permit and be approved by the Building Inspector for any expansion requiring a permit.
There were no comments from the public.
Mr. McKinley moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley then moved to grant the petition from Middlesex Liquors, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Spirits for an alteration of premises. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Speaking to his motion Mr. McKinley stated that he viewed this as a fairly simple request. This was an established business, which had been there for some time, and to his knowledge there were no complaints or legal actions brought against the owner. Mr. Ubaldino was simply taking advantage of the opportunity to make a modification and enlargement of his space and he (Mr. McKinley) found it to be a reasonable request. This was a license holder who appeared to have been operating under the Town’s guidelines and standards and he saw no reason to deny the request. He encouraged the owner to reconsider the position on the appearance of the store and particularly the windows.
PUBLIC HEARING: MIDDLESEX LIQUORS, INC. D/B/A KENTUCKY SPIRITS: ALTERATION OF PREMISES (contd)
Mr. McKinley didn’t buy having to be slinging in the mud to be competitive. Mr. Ubaldino had a fantastic location and the Town would appreciate a demonstration of some respect for where he was and look a little more formal.
Mr. Ubaldino told the Board that he would try to tone it down and not add anything and if construction took place, he would try to spruce it up.
JEAN & MICHAEL MORRISEY: BABY SAFE HAVEN LAW
Jean and Michael Morrisey of Lexington noted that he and his wife had been to 22 or 23 towns since May. The Baby Safe Haven laws started
four years ago in Texas, which was the first state to sign the law, and simultaneously it was passed in Mobile, Alabama. There were too many disastrous outcomes of babies being left and thrown into rivers and thrown into garage bags on campuses and left in cemeteries.
Mr. Morrisey advised that forty-five states have passed baby safe legislation and Massachusetts was the largest state not to have passed one of these laws. It has been held up in the Legislature for three years will probably be held up for seven or more.
Mr. Morrisey cited the efforts of Boston City Councilor John Tobin whose adopted brother was abandoned at birth and found by somebody walking back into the hallway. Councilor Tobin forwarded a home rule petition for Boston that was passed in March of this year. Mr. Morrisey noted that the concept he was bringing was to take that home rule petition and bring it word by word to every city and town particularly those with hospitals because babies can be brought to the police station, fire station, or hospital.
Mr. Morrisey continued that Belmont had the home rule petition on the warrant for their next Town Meeting and Westfield just passed their home rule petition on July 6. This was a local issue. Nine hours ago a newborn was found in Broward County sitting on a doorstep. When they met with the Lexington fire chief he got teary eyed and recalled his first week on the job when he found a newborn baby in a cooler. It can happen any place, and going inch by inch across the state was something they could do. They were currently working with 24 cities and soon to be 10 towns.
Mr. McKinley noted that he read the material submitted by the Morriseys and although Mr. Morrisey’s opening remarks suggested otherwise, he questioned why they (Morrisey) weren’t doing this at the state level. To go to 351 cities and towns was a monumental task. He pointed out that were the Board to put this before Town Meeting, Town Meeting approved and it was sent to the Legislature and approved there, assuming that happened it became law in Natick only. Why not put the emphasis on the Legislature and why the hang up in the Senate. To Mr. McKinley it seemed intuitively a good thing to do.
Ms. Morrissey responded that they had spent a lot of time working with the Legislature and not getting anything accomplished so they decided to do it themselves.
Ms. Morrisey confirmed as being correct Mr. McKinley’s understanding that a statewide version previously passed the House but not the Senate. She noted that currently it was on a track that was 2-3 months slower than last year. The New Hampshire Legislature passed their law on June 4, but there was no will in our Legislature to get this done and it was hard to understand why.
Mr. Lemnios inquired as to what objections the Morrisey’s had heard. On the surface this appeared to be something beneficial to society in
general. Mr. Morrisey responded that one small social work contingent working with childcare agencies was against it. They were not state agencies but state funded and worked through the legislative children’s caucus. If it doesn’t get 100% approval from the caucus, that stops it. When asked why, Mr. Morrisey responded that the Adoptee Rights
JEAN & MICHAEL MORRISEY: BABY SAFE HAVEN LAW (contd)
Association’s open records was one issue. They want to be able to get medical background and family history. The American Medical Association did a study and determined that 150 mothers won’t come back and give a medical history and that was an affront for people going for open adoption records. They don’t want to see that happen.
Ms. Morrisey commented that a newborn in crisis was a life and death situation. If the mother was immune from prosecution, it was more likely that they would come back.
Mr. Hughes proposed sending the draft by-law to Town Counsel for review. If the Board was considering putting it on the warrant, there was one more meeting before the close of the warrant.
Mr. Morrisey noted that it had gone to legal counsel in every city and town and he believed it should.
Mr. Ball stated that he was very moved by this and proposed that the Board submit an article to Town Meeting to be reviewed by Town Counsel. His first reaction was that this kind of legislation would somehow facilitate the disposition of unwanted children but looking at alternatives to him this was a no brainer. He appreciated the efforts put in by the Morriseys.
Mr. Ball moved to sponsor an article for Town Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
In speaking to the motion, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if Mr. Ball was suggesting that the Board draft the article. Mr. Ball pointed out that the Board would sponsor the article with the suggested language presented by the Morrisey’s after Town Counsel’s review. Mr. Morrisey noted that the Board could check with Westfield and Boston and Belmont may be putting it on their warrant. He would like to have all of the cities and towns be the same home rule petition with perhaps the only change being the location of the hospital, fire station, and police station.
Mr. Lemnios questioned how a local community could bind a private hospital to this. It would be just like the Board of Selectmen voting that a hospital treat everybody with the flu free of charge. If the Board was considering forwarding an article, he felt that legal review was needed.
It was noted that the Board would have until the meeting of August 18th to decide, but that Town Counsel would not be back from vacation until the 18th.
Mr. McKinley stated that he had a lot of questions about this. One was the legal ability to bind the hospital to do anything. Another was the impact on collective bargaining. The petition made reference to designating employees at Police and Fire. He had no problem putting it on the warrant and agreed that it was a very admirable thing to do. He found it frustrating that the Legislature hadn’t done their thing and he thought the Board should talk to the Town’s legislators and see why.
ELIOT SCHOOL RFP
Mr. Lemnios noted that two public hearings had been held on a proposal to sell the Eliot School that centered around a planning concept that had been discussed for close to one year. It was now up to the Board to decide whether to go forward with the RFP.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he had received a call from Richard Langevin of the Eliot Montessori School requesting permission to address the Board.
Mr. Langevin identified himself as the past president of the Board of Trustees of the Eliot Montessori School and currently a Trustee. He told the Board that he was here today on behalf of the School to ask the Board to proceed with the RFP to cover all or a portion of the Eliot School property. The School has been working with the Town to
ELIOT SCHOOL RFP (contd)
try and find a beneficial solution for the School and the community. Two public hearings were held and he thought minimal issues were raised at the first year and at the second there was very little.
Mr. Langevin continued that the Eliot Montessori School had acquired property across from the Eliot School with the intention of building a school there. A study was done and it was determined to be very costly to build a school on that property and the Montessori School got into discussions with the Town. The School and the Town has spent some money over the past year in studying this in the appraisal and fees. The School has worked very hard with the Town in these discussions to satisfy the needs and requirements of the Town and the abutters of South Natick and for the security and the future of the School. At the end of the lease it was difficult to know the future of the school and as trustees they had a responsibility to the School and the parents. The discussions over the past year were to satisfy the
requirements of the neighbors and the Town.
Mr. Langevin noted that there was a perception that this deal started very simple and got very complex, but meetings were held with the abutting neighbors to make sure they understood all the ramifications and reasons, the issues and why they came about. No building in the front, 50 feet of property along the river, the Jenkins property all came forward from the Town asking the Montessori School to consider and as a result the deal has become somewhat complex, but the basis was rational. He asked that the Board consider going forward. To him it was good for the School and certainly good for the community. He hadn’t heard strong opposition on going forward. Two years ago the abutting neighbors were upset with the School and those neighbors were
at the hearing last Thursday and asking if there was anything they could do to help get this approved. Mr. Langevin repeated his request that the Board go forward with the RFP, noting that at this point he didn’t think there was a lot of risk to the Town. He also pointed out that for the Montessori School to go forward would take a substantial investment. To go before the Planning Board the School would spend $20,000 to make an application to rezone and they had resisted doing that until they knew if the RFP was going forward.
Mr. Hughes moved to issue the RFP. Seconded by Mr. McKinley for discussion. The motion was withdrawn prior to a vote being taken.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. McKinley stated that he would vote against it. Mr. Stern was not here and Mr. McKinley thought that he (Mr. Stern) should participate in the decision. Mr. McKinley noted that he wasn’t sure how he (Mr. McKinley) felt about the RFP, but if the Board was going to direct Mr. Lemnios to draft an RFP, it should be done with Mr. Stern present and the Board should be prepared to give Mr. Lemnios some specific answers to questions he would have. The last time there were questions and nobody seemed to know how they as a Board felt about this.
Mr. Hughes proposed putting this item on the August 18 agenda and the other members of the Board concurred.
Mr. Lemnios cautioned that if the Board decided to issue the RFP on August 18, it might be running up against time consideration relative to bidding and Town Meeting.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to the possibility of an outline being drafted for August 18.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would like to have some sense as to the cost ramifications if the Board decided to go with an RFP – would it cost $5,000-10,000 to put it out.
Mr. Lemnios noted that at the public hearings one item he heard from Town Meeting members and others was a clear indication that they hoped the Board of Selectmen would issue an RFP as broad as possible that was not tailored for a specific outcome but to get the best outcome in value. He would like to have a discussion with the Board of Selectmen
ELIOT SCHOOL RFP (contd)
on what value to put in. The Board could put any value on it as long as it was not below the minimum appraised value. The RFP had to be advertised for a minimum of 30 days, but typically these kinds of RFPs realistically looked at a 45-60 day cycle and that was pushing the envelope. If the Board made a decision on the 18th,that brought it to the cusp of Town Meeting. As to the cost, Mr. Lemnios advised that there would be some advertising cost depending on where it was advertised. He would advertise it not just locally but in several regional publications because of the dollar value plus he imagined there would be some legal fees. Deciding to issue an RFP on August 18 and getting it out the door the end of August, beginning of September
ran a very tight timeframe. Mr. Hughes didn’t see that there was any choice.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Referring to a citizens’ article submitted regarding the elimination of the pay-as-you-throw program, Mr. McKinley questioned if Town Counsel had reviewed the article to determine its legality. He was concerned about the language of the article requiring the Town to collect trash from everyone for free.
Mr. Hughes asked about progress on the housing overlay option article and was told by Mr. Lemnios that Mr. Sarkisian was working on it. Mr. Hughes stressed that he wanted to be sure that something got on the warrant to start the education process.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Insurance
Mr. Hughes noted that some questions were raised about going with an unlicensed insurer for property insurance and asked if an assessment had been made in light of the insolvency of Legion. If the company was not licensed, there were no rights to the insolvency fund and he asked if the company had been investigated to be sure that it wasn’t in the same kind of position as Legion.
Mr. Lemnios agreed that it was a significant issue and the administration was looking at alternatives. He would like to do business with a licensed company in the state, but the problem was finding a provider.
Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Lemnios was aware of any claimants whose claims were lost in the shuffle as the result of Legion’s insolvency. Mr. Lemnios reminded the Board of a sewer backup claim in March 2002 that the Board voted to pay. It was about a $15,000 claim and a claim was filed with the guarantee fund.
Mr. Hughes asked about MIAA and Mr. Lemnios advised that he would be talking to them, but one issue was the cost factor.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
___________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
