BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
July 26, 2004
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman Jay H. Ball at 6:00 p.m. The Chairman John Ciccariello arrived at 7:25 p.m. and chaired the remainder of the meeting
PRESENT: John Ciccariello (arrived at 7:25 p.m.), Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, John Connolly. Absent: Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Stephen Lisauskas, Deputy Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on July 26, 2004 in the amount of $464,362.75. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,107,744.38.
REQUEST PERMISSION TO CLOSE RICHARD ROAD: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve Brigitte Imperato’s request to close one side of Richard Road on August 1, 2004 from noon to 5:00 p.m. for a block party.
REQUEST PERMISSION TO CLOSE WATER, LINCOLN, CAPE STREETS: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve Jeannine Keith Furrer’s request to close the ends of Water, Lincoln, and Cape Street on September 6, 2004 from noon to 6:00 p.m. for a block party.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. TCAN
Lee Mendenhall noted that he ran a small business in Natick and was active in the Center for Arts. About three months ago he requested the Board’s help to open a dialog between the Tcanites and TCAN. He wasn’t sure if there was any help from the Board behind the scenes but the dialog was opened and there was a meeting with representatives of the Board of Directors of TCAN, but unfortunately he was here to report that no progress was made and the process now seemed dead toward a resolution of the differences. He was hoping the Board could help push this kind of a process along. The Tcanites made three major proposals:
1) They asked for mediation or a facilitated discussion and that was rejected.
2) Moved two proposals for governance changes and were told that as non-active volunteers they couldn’t have any authoritative input
3) Moved consideration for a governance change in the election of the Board of Directors and the response was to announce a limited process. That was a continuation of the kind of self-selection they have had to put themselves in place.
Mr. Mendenhall continued that the concern was for the organization. What was once a respected organization and a plus for the area and a
source of pride was now facing some serious challenges. Many volunteers have left the organization and he has spoken to many people who will no longer donate. There was now another arts center competing for the resources and volunteers. It was not a good situation. The one potential for bringing things to a resolution was a full free democratic election process. Mr. Mendenhall presented a petition of almost 400 signatures and requested the Board’s help noting that he was always available for discussion and questions.
b. Nstar – Tree Removal
Knowing that issues with Nstar were a topic of discussion, Ernie D’Agnelli of 2 Tournament Road relayed an incident that occurred. Between his house and the house behind him was an easement and high-tension wire cables. In keeping with the tradition of his wife’s family, a tree was planted when a child was born and in 1984 a willow tree was planted under the cables for his daughter. This past Thursday morning a tree company came in and without notification and warning chopped the tree down. His daughter asked them to stop working and they refused. His wife came home and tried to talk to them and they told her it was a security issue with the DNC. It was very troubling
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
to hear that they were in their legal rights to chop the tree down without notification, but it was one thing to be in legal standing and another to be civil, respectful and courteous. In his opinion there were much better ways to handle the situation.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to what Mr. D’Agnelli would like to see the Board do, and Mr. D’Agnelli responded that he would like the tree put back although that was impossible. He noted that the tree company left a stump 5” high and he would like to have the stump removed and a new willow tree planted.
In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked if it was Nstar that cut the tree, and Mr. D’Agnelli advised that it was a tree service that they (Nstar) had subcontracted. His wife had demanded an Nstar representative and he believed it was Charles Pease who responded. Mr. D’Agnelli reiterated that there was no warning. They just attacked.
Mr. Connolly questioned if that was common practice and there didn’t have to be any marking. Mr. Lisauskas explained that there was a general law in Massachusetts that stipulates the appointment of a tree warden to handle all public trees in the public way. There was a public notification and public hearing process. Mr. Connolly asked about a private situation where there was an easement, and Mr. Lisauskas responded that whoever granted the easement provided certain rights to Nstar to use and maintain the property. He would have to look at the easement. It may have been something that was granted 90 years ago.
Mr. Connolly inquired if the D’Agnelli’s had granted an easement, and Ms. D’Agnelli responded that the easement was there when they purchased the home 26 years ago. She added that it was not so much that but the sentimentality. She felt there could have been some alternative reached, but to be told that they were a risk and could risk the DNC she found to be ridiculous. Even if the tree had posed such a risk maybe it could have been topped off to Nstar’s liking as opposed to chopping it down to the ground. The incident on Route 135 (with a
manhole blowing open and injuring a passenger in a passing car) should have been a major priority instead of a willow tree that she was told could affect the DNC if the wires dropped. She had lived there for 26 years and the wires never dropped. She could understand Nstar saying they wanted to avoid outages, but this wasn’t going to cause it.
Mr. Connolly assured the D’Agnelli’s that the Board would do their best to follow up and Ms. D’Agnelli thanked the Board for their efforts.
APPOINTMENT OF NATICK POLICE OFFICERS
Police Chief Dennis Mannix advised that the Natick Police Department’s authorized complement of sworn personnel presently comprised the chief, 4 lieutenants, 11 sergeants, and 37 patrol officers. Officer Scott Smith left the department on May 4, 2004 in pursuit a career with the DEA. Officer Amy Coughlin submitted her letter of resignation effective August 12, 2004 to pursue a Ph.D in forensic psychology and Lieutenant Alfred Grassey announced his plans to retire in September of this year and Sergeant Jeffrey Longtine will retire in November. Anticipating that he would need to hire four additional officers to fill those vacancies, Chief Mannix requested that the appointments be made now in order to get the candidates into the fall academy. He recommended making the appointments conditional
subject to acceptable physical and psychological examinations and successful completion of the municipal training academy.
Chief Mannix recommended the appointment of the following four individuals:
Keven Kelley who graduated from Natick High School in 1997 and attended the Holderness School for one year thereafter. Mr. Kelley has been attending classes at Westfield State College majoring in criminal justice. Since October 2002 Mr. Kelley has held a position with F.W. Olin College of Engineering in their buildings and supplies division.
Greg Lanoue who graduated from Wellesley High School in 1996. Mr. Lanoue received a B.S. degree in criminal justice from Northeastern University in 2001. He was an EMT in basic trauma life support, first responder instructor as well as a basic life support instructor. The beginning of 2004 Mr. Lanoue accepted a security position in Orlando,
APPOINTMENT OF NATICK POLICE OFFICERS (contd)
Florida to further his law enforcement aspirations, but was eager to return to Natick to pursue a career as a police officer.
Jason Sutherland graduated from Natick High School in 1994 and has attended several training classes and has completed two academies; the Massachusetts Special State Police Academy where he was given the honor graduate award and the basic reserve/intermittent Police academy. Mr. Sutherland was currently employed as an Amherst College police officer as well as being a reserve officer for the Town of Hampden.
Kenneth Fitzgerald who was a 1998 graduate of Holliston High School and had completed an Associates Degree in criminal justice from Mass Bay Community College. Mr. Fitzgerald was currently serving on the LaSalle College Police department. He was also employed as a part-time dispatcher and reserve police officer for the Southborough Police Department. During his employment at the Southborough Police Department, Mr. Fitzgerald successfully completed the full-time MCJTC
Police Academy. He was previously employed as a public safety dispatcher for the Town of Natick and with the Holland, MA Police Department as a reserve patrolman.
In conclusion Chief Mannix advised that the backgrounds of the individuals had been reviewed and each candidate was interviewed at least twice.
Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Fitzgerald had to go back through the academy, and Chief Mannix replied that he did not.
Mr. Hughes then asked if there were a current list to appoint a sergeant and lieutenant, but Chief Mannix advised that those lists had not been requested as of yet.
Noting that Mr. Kelley was attending classes at Westfield State College, Mr. Ball inquired if Mr. Kelley planned to continue to study toward his Associates and Bachelor’s degrees. Mr. Kelley replied that he was continuing to work on his Bachelor’s and believed he had about a year left.
Mr. Ball asked the same question of Mr. Sutherland – if he intended to pursue a degree. Mr. Sutherland indicated that he did and noted that he had been taking classes and would continue if appointed.
Mr. Hughes moved the appointment of Keven Kelley, Greg Lanoue, Jason Sutherland, Kenneth Fitzgerald as patrol officers in the Natick Police Department conditioned upon successful completion of the physical and psychological examinations and successful completion of the municipal training academy where necessary and the physical abilities test. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
POLICE CHIEF DENNIS MANNIX
a. Safety Committee Minutes
As Chairman of the Safety Committee, Police Chief Dennis Mannix reported on the Safety Committee’s recommendations from their meeting of March 30, 2004.
1. Montessori School Day Care Plan
Representatives from the Montessori Day Care School presented their plans for construction of their new facility on Eliot Street to the Safety Committee. The group discussed capacity and safe access and egress to and from the site. Building Inspector Michael Melchiorri will continue to be the committee liaison to the project proponents and will keep the committee advised of changes in the plan.
2. Traffic Concerns – Pond Street and Point Street
The committee discussed the traffic flow on Pond Street and its effect on residents of Point Street. The committee voted to recommend the installation of an “intersection warning sign” with an attached 30 mph advisory placard on the north side of Pond Street across from Lakeview Avenue.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the “intersection warning sign” as recommended. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
POLICE CHIEF DENNIS MANNIX (contd)
3. Noise and safety concerns – Travis Road
The committee discussed the matter of installation of a “buffer” at the end of Travis Road where it abuts Speen Street. Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian suggested that with the Natick Mall expansion, the developers may be willing to incorporate improvements in this area as part of the overall Speen Street/Hartford Street intersection improvements.
4. Speeding Complaints – Sherman Street
The committee voted to request that the Police Department conduct a speed survey on this street to validate the complaint prior to any concerted speed enforcement efforts.
5. Signage – West Street and Campus Drive
The committee discussed and reiterated its concern for pedestrian safety crossing West Street in front of Natick High School. The committee previously voted to repaint the crosswalk and install the appropriate pedestrian crossing signage on both sides of West Street. Sergeant Davis will report the committee recommendations to the Natick High School principal.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of repainting the crosswalk and installing the appropriate pedestrian crossing signage on both sides of West Street. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
6. Cemetery Street Address Change
Mr. Melchiorri explained to the committee that the property on Cemetery Street thought to be 16 Cemetery Street was actually 2 Cemetery Street. Mr. Melchiorri further explained that the property was located on “lot 16” but numbered as 2 Cemetery Street. No further action was necessary.
7. Natick Mall Expansion Plans
Mr. Sarkisian and representatives from the Natick Mall and its development company discussed preliminary traffic mitigation plans for the mall expansion. The committee will continue to be kept informed throughout the development process.
Mr. Ball recalled that several years before the Board requested that a map be provided so the Board could get a better feel for the areas being discussed. He inquired as to the possibility of having a large street map present at the meetings or area maps of the affected areas. Chief Mannix advised that he had the mapping capacity to put in with the Safety Committee minutes and he would do that in the future.
Chief Mannix then reviewed the Safety Committee’s recommendations from the May 27, 2004 meeting:
1. Walnut-Bacon Street Intersection
Members of the Walnut Hill Association presented an amended plan for what they believe to be a safer configuration of the Walnut/Bacon/Chestnut Street intersection. In addition to constructing a lane reducing delineating island on Bacon at Walnut, the plan calls for closing Chestnut Street at Walnut Street and reversing the traffic flow on Belvedere Road. The committee referred the plan to Town Engineer Mark Coviello for his comments.
2. Forest Street Two Way Traffic During Construction
The committee recommended removing the one-way restriction on Forest Street during the period of reconstruction of route 135. The Police Department will inform residents in the area of this change.
In accordance with the Safety Committee’s recommendation, Mr. Hughes moved approval of removing the one-way restriction on Forest Street during the period of reconstruction of Route 135. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball noted that those who were accustomed to it being one way would be surprised and was it part of Chief Mannix’s plans to put signage up indicating that it was a two-way street or just remove the one-way arrow. Chief Mannix responded that he hadn’t thought about it but it would probably be advisable to put a sign up.
POLICE CHIEF DENNIS MANNIX (contd)
Mr. Connolly asked about informing the residents of the street that this was going to happen, and Chief Mannix advised that he would send a letter or the Police would go door-to-door.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello how long this would be in effect, Chief Mannix advised that it would just be for the construction and then it would be re-evaluated. No one could understand why it was one way to start with.
3. Hartford & Bishop Street Intersection
The committee recommends studying the current signage at the Hartford and Bishop Street intersection. It was agreed that this area needs to be looked at due to the number of crashes. One theory was that motorists unfamiliar with the area do not see the stop sign and don’t anticipate having to stop on a thru street. It was also considered that the problem may be due to unfamiliar motorists who stop, see vehicles coming toward them, and incorrectly assume they are also going to stop. One potential solution was making all three points stop, but that would cause serious rush hour traffic. Sergeant Davis will do a traffic survey to determine if a three way stop is justified. This will be followed up in the August meeting.
4. Pedestrian Safety Issue on Marion Street
The committee discussed a recommendation to place a crosswalk across Bacon Street at Marion Street leading to the entrance to the town forest to accommodate the walking paths. The committee believes that such placement would be unsafe due to the minimum perception/stop restrictions in the immediate area.
5. Sidewalk Hazard in front of 5 Virginia Road
The committee considered a request to have the town cut down two maple trees in front of the property at 5 Virginia Road. The trees were planted on town property over 30 years ago by the previous homeowner. The sidewalk has been previously replaced and was once again starting to bulge causing hazards to pedestrians and damage to underground water lines. Sergeant Davis recommended that if deemed appropriate by the tree warden that the required public hearing be held and the trees removed.
Mr. Ball noted that he had received a call from a resident of Cheryl Road to remind him that two large semi-trailers had gone down Cheryl Road and caused damage. There was signage on Speen Street that said it was a dead end but apparently it wasn’t large enough for trucks to see and they get stuck. He asked the resident to contact the Safety Committee. Chief Mannix advised that he hadn’t seen anything as of yet.
b. Update LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee)
In updating the Board on the Local Emergency Planning Committee, Chief Mannix noted that a little over a year before he had been named as the emergency management director. It was required for every community to have a LEPC of its own or be part of a region and Lieutenant Al Grassey has been very instrumental in getting it done. The Town has received start up certification. The emergency management plan has been completely redone and the Town received an $8,000 grant for Lieutenant Grassey’s time in doing the legwork to get it done. A tabletop disaster drill was done in 2003 in which the Town participated in a regional drill with the Army Labs.
Chief Mannix continued that every person in the Police and Fire Departments were certified as hazardous materials first responders and personal protection kits were issued to each Police officer. The Fire Department has a higher level of certification. In addition all Town shelters had been inspected by the American Red Cross and 9 of 10 have been approved. Johnson School hasn’t been approved because of accessibility issues. The auxiliary police force has also been reconstituted. Currently they were in the process of applying for a higher level of certification from MEMA and putting the plan on the LEPC web site. There will be photographs of all the hazardous materials sites and they would be loaded into the cruiser laptops.
Chief Mannix noted that Boston Scientific had donated the printing of the notebooks and provided 30 members of the LEPC a copy of the plan as well as department heads and Board of Selectmen. A disaster drill was
POLICE CHIEF DENNIS MANNIX (contd)
being planned for the fall – probably a laptop one. A laptop drill was a lot cheaper and effective.
Mr. Ball inquired if the emergency kits were carried with the officers in the cruiser. Chief Mannix advised that the officers were supposed to carry them in the cruisers, but they were fairly cumbersome.
Mr. Ball then asked that Chief Mannix describe the transaction with the Natick Labs and how in an emergency the Labs would be involved. Chief Mannix noted that the Labs had been very cooperative and continued to offer the facility for drills and he expected the relationship to continue. Washington had supplied them some funding for disaster drills in which the Town took part in at least two. Last year they got a favorable response in the after action report, particularly in regard to the fire response and hazardous materials response.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how much the Fire Department had been involved in this. Chief Mannix noted that they were involved in the hazardous materials drills and the exercise conducted so far was exclusively with hazardous materials. They have been involved in the LEPC and the exercise.
Mr. Connolly noted that he had previously mentioned the walk sign at the Route 135 and 27 light. A couple of times since then he had seen people take the right turn on red and the walk sign was blinking. He asked Chief Mannix to take a look. Chief Mannix advised that that intersection was designed in accordance with state requirements. There were no longer any red and yellow lights. If you are allowed to take a right on red it was now incumbent on the driver to stop and if there was a pedestrian in the crosswalk, the driver would have to stop. Mr. Connolly asked if Chief Mannix would check to be sure that drivers can take a right on red if it says walk. Mr. Ciccariello asked that Chief Mannix get back to Mr. Connolly.
MINUTES
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved approval of the minutes of March 22, 2004. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved approval of the minutes of March 31, 2004. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC AND VERIZON: BACON STREET; ONE (1) POLE; REMOVAL OF ONE (1) POLE
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
John Crowther of 2 Rolling Road stated that his concern was that he wanted to be sure the lines don’t end up running across his property impacting his residence. Mr. Crowther had been given a copy of the diagram and he noted that he had seen some surveyors and some stakes and if it was sighted where it looked like it was going to be sighted, it was going across his yard.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that on the map the pole will be slightly left to 6 Bacon Street and Mr. Crowther was across the street. It didn’t appear as though the pole was going across the street and all of the lines were on the opposite side of Mr. Crowther’s house. Mr. Crowther responded that he had seen it staked out and it would impact the lawn area. It may technically be Town property but there was a lawn. Mr. Hughes noted that the map the Board had showed the existing pole location was almost in front of 6 Bacon Street and Nstar was proposing to move the pole 35-l/2 feet west on the same side with an anchor guy. Mr. Crowther responded that the wire would run down to pole 366-1. Instead of running down the middle it would run down the other side.
Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Crowther was talking about the wires going over the top of the street from the new pole. Mr. Crowther noted that this was an Nstar drawing and he didn’t know about its accuracy. He was willing to have the wires go down the street in the travel way, but he didn’t think his property should be impacted for the convenience of
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC AND VERIZON: BACON STREET; ONE (1) POLE; REMOVAL OF ONE (1) POLE (contd)
someone else. Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Crowther was concerned that moving the pole would mean that the wires would be somewhat close to the edge of the sidewalk at the corner of his house. Mr. Crowther
noted that right now there was a grassy lawn area and a significant tree.
Mr. Lisauskas advised the pole sat on the gate vale and the Water & Sewer Department was curious as to how that happened. According to the DPW something must happen with the pole because of where it was now sitting.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to how Mr. Crowther knew about tonight’s meeting, and Mr. Crowther stated that he received a notice from the Town.
Richard Guiliani identified himself as l/2 owner of 6 Bacon Street and noted that he and the other owner purchased the property in February. He passed around photographs showing the tree and the area over which the wire would be going and where the wire was now. He too pointed out that the existing pole had to be moved because it was on top of the water & sewer line.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the guy wires were on Mr. Guiliani’s property, and Mr. Guiliani replied that everything would be on his property. Mr. Hughes, however, noted that the diagram showed it in the Town’s right-of-way.
Mr. Guiliani expressed his frustration that this started in February when he purchased the property. There was no record of this (pole) with the Town. Nstar stuck a pole in there and stuck it over the existing water & sewer main. When he began renovating the house he found that under the pole was a crushed water main and a broken sewer T. He called Nstar and they said they would handle it. He has been paying a mortgage but was now waiting for water & sewer and electrical service and cannot connect until the pole is removed. Natick marked it three times and the water main was directly under the pole. He was looking to move the pole to the other side of the driveway. There will be less guy wires and they will be hidden. Right now everything was at a standstill and they
were wasting their money.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there had been any discussions with Nstar on where the pole should be moved to, and Mr. Guiliani advised that Ntsar came out and said there was no where else to move it (than where they were petitioning) without elongating the wires and making it an immense project. The wires were above the tree, and while he could understand that nobody wants to look at them (wires), they would be more hidden (when the pole was moved). He added that every day that went by was more money out of his pocket.
If the map provided by Nstar was correct, Mr. Ball noted that the newly strung wires would cross the corner of Mr. Crowther’s property across the sidewalk. Mr. Crowther noted that there was no sidewalk, but Mr. Guiliani pointed out that there was existing road space.
Mr. Ball asked about the height of the tree and was told by Mr. Crowther that it was approximately 30 feet. When asked if he understood that the newly strung wires would cross over or through the tree, Mr. Crowther responded that Mr. Guiliani indicated that the wires
would be running over. Mr. Guiliani conceded that it might not be over the tree, but you were only talking about 2-3 feet of the farthest branch.
Mr. Ball moved to table the matter for two weeks and have a representative from Nstar attend the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. After further discussion, Mr. Ball withdrew the motion. As the seconder Mr. Connolly agreed to withdraw.
Mr. Crowther stated that he was looking for a reasonable compromise where the lines would be in the right-of-way and not over the landscape part of his property. He thought there was ample land. As to when the pole went in, most poles were 7 feet deep and most water lines were 4 feet deep.
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC AND VERIZON: BACON STREET; ONE (1) POLE; REMOVAL OF ONE (1) POLE (contd)
Mr. Guiliani stated that his main concern was to get the pole off the water line so he could hook up his service and get the house inhabitable.
Mr. Ciccariello thought it looked as though the telephone pole would be in the middle of the sidewalk, but Mr. Guiliani advised that it was almost five feet off the sidewalk. It would be further onto his property than it was now. Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the concern with moving it closer to his driveway was that the second guy wire wouldn’t go in, and Mr. Guiliani explained that he was planning on a two-car garage and putting it closer would run into the same problem. When asked about the possibility of moving the pole to the opposite side, Mr. Guiliani noted that the guy wire would be in his driveway. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that that wouldn’t happen if it ran in the opposite direction. The only problem would be if Mr. Guiliani wanted to expand his driveway. Mr. Guiliani
believed that the way the wires were pulling, they had to go there.
Mr. Ball wasn’t sure that he was happy with his tabling motion and frankly didn’t know what to do. The line ran through the Town right-of-way and not Mr. Crowther’s property and while the tree hung over the public way, that was not a consideration that would keep him from voting against this grant.
Mr. Ball moved approval of the petition subject to the simultaneous removal of the old pole. Mr. Hughes seconded for discussion. The motion failed on a 2-2-0 vote. Mr. Ball and Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Hughes questioned how approval could be made conditioned upon removal of the old pole when four out of five of the wires don’t belong to Nstar. They would all have to be out there the same day. Mr. Ball felt that it was Nstar’s responsibility to have Verizon, RCN, Comcast, and the Fire Department out there because the pole was on top of the water & sewer line and needed to be removed. He would put the burden on Nstar.
Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Guiliani knew there was no water & sewer when he bought the house. Mr. Guiliani responded that it was bought contingent upon being able to hook up to Town water and sewer. He
checked and there was a T, but he didn’t know it was under the pole. He thought there was a lack of water because of a water leak. They weren’t moving into the house until it was renovated and it wasn’t until the ground thawed that he found this out.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Town intended to stack them again when they brought in a new water line. Mr. Guiliani advised that the line would be left where it was. Nstar would pay for the damage they had done, but they couldn’t look at the area until the pole was removed. If a pipe burst he (Mr. Guiliani) couldn’t turn the water off.
Asked if he had water service, Mr. Guiliani said there was a trickle. Asked if he had sewer service, Mr. Guiliani said, “no”. The sewer T that he was going to connect to was under the pole and the Town won’t touch the T until the pole was removed. There was more than one company connected to this pole. Nstar would put in the new pole and remove their wires in 1-2 weeks and he (Mr. Guiliani) would still have to wait until the other wires were moved to the new pole for him to start work. He would own the house for a year paying taxes and not be able to live in it.
Mr. Crowther pointed out that Mr. Guiliani’s house was on septic and there had been no previous sewer connection. He (Mr. Crowther) would like to see some reasonable verification on what was just said. It was highly unusual to crush the water & sewer lines. He also felt that Mr. Guiliani could hook up to water & sewer from any other location without getting near the pole. He didn’t see any verification from the Town. The diagram provided was not an engineering drawing and he would like to see the verification that this was not running over his property. In his opinion more due diligence was required by the Board.
Mr. Connolly wanted to hear from Nstar and Mr. Ciccariello wanted information from the DPW on the water line. The Board agreed to
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC AND VERIZON: BACON STREET; ONE (1) POLE; REMOVAL OF ONE (1) POLE (contd)
continue the hearing and have an Nstar representative at the August 9 meeting.
NAMING OF PRIVATE WAY: BARBER WAY
The Chairman announced that the applicant had informed the office that he was seeking no action on this matter.
GRANTS PLACE 40B APPLICATION
Representing the Grants Place 40B application were the owner of the property Michael O’Brien, Attorney Steven Ross, Engineer David Johnson and Architect Henry Arnodt.
Mr. Ross distributed a plot plan and noted that 8-10 Grant Street consisted of three separately assessed lots. He prefaced the presentation by noting that they were before the Board to give as much information as they could regarding the project. The site was about 1.3 acres currently housing two three family houses and the plan was to renovate the two existing houses into six rental units and add 18 new units. The proposal was to have 24 rentals with six designated for affordable housing.
Mr. Johnson explained that there was 152 feet of frontage and what’s being proposed was a center driveway that would provide access to the three buildings with each building containing six units. The unit to the rear had an attached garage under it and it was being built into the embankment of the hill. The design kept the two existing buildings up front. Thought had been given to tearing them down, but in discussions with the developer it was felt that keeping the look of the street was important for the project so it didn’t look like a missing tooth. It also provides some shielding from the views of the parking and the project was somewhat blocked. It was felt that it (keeping the two existing homes) would blend better into the existing neighborhood. All utilities will be
underground.
Mr. Arnodt of HPA Design told the Board that he took the concept of two buildings running parallel and the third running parallel to the street. The two parallel buildings do not have parking within the units. It was off site. The back building does have parking. Mr. Arnodt referred to a rendering of the rear building and pointed out the garages and two stories of living space. They were proposing five room units and they tried to modulate the units so it did not look like row housing. The layout provided a nice look to the buildings and gave a sense of identify.
Mr. Arnodt identified the building types noting that the buildings would be wooden frame. He then indicated the topography changes.
Referring to the comment that the back building had a drive-in one-car garage and the two middle buildings had off site parking, Mr. Ciccariello asked if he meant on grade. Mr. Arnodt advised that that was correct – not off the property.
With respect to the utilities, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there had been any meetings with the DPW. Mr. Johnson advised that there had not been.
When asked if this was the same project that came before the board in the past, Mr. Ross responded that it was not. They started in early January and met a couple of times with Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian, received some input and then had three meetings with the Planning Board and had input from them. Asked if there was a reason for meeting with the Planning Board and not the ZBA, Mr. Ross replied that they were trying to get as much feedback as possible.
Noting that the letter from Mass Housing said there would be 24 units consisting of 1 studio, 22 two bedroom and 1 four bedroom, Mr. Hughes inquired if the four bedroom and studio were in the old houses. Mr. Ross’ response was, “yes”. Mr. Hughes then noted that the Mass Housing letter said 40 parking spaces were included. Mr. Johnson advised that some units in the existing building park on Grants Street. Mr. Ciccariello point out that they wouldn’t count so there were really only 36 spaces. Mr. Ross corrected that to be 34. Mr. O’Brien explained that the Planning Board wanted the buildings cut down. They
GRANTS PLACE 40B APPLICATION (contd)
were cut down and that was where spots were lost. They were two car garages and now one.
Mr. Hughes asked about the affordable units and Mr. Ross responded that the six affordable would be the 1 studio, one two-bedroom unit in one of the front houses, and 4 two-bedroom units in the new construction. They would all be rentals.
Mr. Hughes then asked about the square footage of the new units, and Mr. Arnodt advised that it was about 1,600 square feet and in the back building maybe 1,800 square feet. The back building had some additional living space in the basement where the garage was located.
In terms of topography if someone was standing on Grants Street, Mr. Hughes inquired as to the variation in height from Grants Street to the back. Mr. Johnson replied that it was about 15 feet.
The question was asked as to what abuts to the right of the back building, and Mr. O’Brien responded that there was a house – three duplexes. To the left side was just land that he tried to acquire but the owner wasn’t willing to sell.
Mr. Sarkisian was in the audience and he was asked if he had had an opportunity to look at this. Mr. Sarkisian stated that the applicant came before the Planning Board informally at two meetings. There were some concerns in the units being made to look like row houses and there were issues with the storm water and water coming off the hill and causing problems. All the drainage just comes down and the housing structure may require a retaining wall and was something that would be discussed. This was not walking distance to the train station, but it was close to the HOOP. There were some issues with the design element and landscaping. The applicant had been asked to hire a landscape architect so it didn’t look like a bowling alley. Some of the issues have been addressed. The
Planning Board hadn’t done a formal review. DHCD wants to see applicants come before the Planning Board before making their formal presentation to the various boards. He would look at this plan again, but reminded the Board that this was a rental so all the affordable units count.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if this was in the Aquifer Protection District, but Mr. Sarkisian said he would have to check. Mr. Ciccariello was concerned that if it was in the APD district they didn’t have a recharge. Mr. Sarkisian noted that if it were in the APD, they would have to have a recharge. 40B didn’t exempt the developer from environmental compliance.
Mr. Ciccariello mentioned utilities, and Mr. Sarkisian said he would be looking for the applicant to make some improvements. The sidewalks were in tough condition and there would be a condition for streetscape.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the normal side yard setbacks and Mr. Sarkisian advised that it was 12 feet. Mr. Ciccariello noted that he saw 10 feet on these plans and the rear at 15 feet. Mr. Johnson showed Mr. Ciccariello the density plans.
The letter from Mass Housing said that the Board should reply within 30 days from July 2 and Mr. Hughes asked the applicant if he had any objection to the Board getting an extension to August 16. Mr. Ross’ response was, “no”.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that giving six units to affordable housing out of 24 seemed generous, but Mr. Ross advised that that was the rule.
Mr. Ross was asked about the rental fees and he responded that Mass Housing had given him a chart. The studio affordable was $1,013, the 2 bedroom affordable was $1,300 and the market rate was $2,200 and the 4 bedroom was $2,500. The affordable was based on the Mass Housing table. Mr. Sarkisian noted that it was based on 80% of median income.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the project met the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Sarkisian noted that the plan had changed since they came informally before the Planning Board, but he would go through the site plan review and make sure they met the parking demands. Mr. Sarkisian didn’t think the project would go back to the Planning Board. It would go to the ZBA.
GRANTS PLACE 40B APPLICATION (contd)
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s query as to how this project’s density compared to the most dense HOOP, Mr. Sarkisian advised that this was less dense.
Mr. Ball questioned if a 40B exempted the developer from parking regulations and was told by Mr. Sarkisian that the developer was exempt from all local zoning by-laws and he was sure that the Appeals Court would give deference because they were close to the train. The ZBA could put in conditions of parking and it was up to the applicant to meet them. Asked if Mr. Sarkisian’s answer was a yes or no, Mr. Sarkisian responded that they should meet the parking. Asked about the law, Mr. Sarkisian responded that the law exempted them, but reasonable conditions could be put on the project.
If he had read the plan correctly, Mr. Ball expressed concern that virtually every square foot was covered with concrete or building footprint. Mr. Johnson indicated that that was not correct. The impervious surface was 60.6%. 39.4% was open space all the way around the perimeter. There was an existing driveway now that could fit six cars. They brought the driveway back and proposed to landscape that area.
Looking at the rental costs per unit, Mr. Lisauskas pointed out that there was only a $300 difference between the two bedroom units and the four-bedroom unit. Mr. Ross explained that they weren’t sure of the market rate. They did an informal market study, but didn’t find that many four-bedroom units. Mr. Lisauskas asked about making any of the market rate units into condos or selling them, and Mr. Ross’ reply was, “no”.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the affordable units would stay affordable in perpetuity. Mr. Ross advised that they were looking for 15 years and when asked why only 15 years, he replied that it seemed like a good number. Mr. Sarkisian noted that that could be negotiated with the ZBA.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how the Board would like to proceed. It was decided that Mr. Ciccariello would work with Mr. Lisauskas and Mr. Sarkisian to draft a letter for the Board to review.
EASTERN BANK: REQUEST FOR PARKING WAIVER
Representing Eastern Bank were Attorney Richard Glaser, Architects Mark Sereda and Doug Watts, Eastern Bank Vice-President Warren Bowes, and Bruce Ey of Schofield Brothers.
Mr. Glaser noted that the South Avenue site on which Eastern Bank was considering putting a bank was known as Abe Kaloustian’s gas station. The concern was with parking. It was within the downtown mixed use and immediately adjoining the MBTA. Eastern Bank has obtained some number of feet to expand the site in the rear for the nose of cars to get six parking spaces in the rear. They (Eastern Bank) have been assigned an air rights easement for the parking. In consideration of the air rights, they were required to do a good deal of work on the Natick station including a new stairway and canopy. The particular plan had a drive though and six spaces at the rear and adjoined Moran Park. They worked diligently with the trustees of Moran Park to try to make sure that the site, if permitted,
would be commensurate with the park and he believed the Veterans’ organization had submitted a letter in favor of the plan. Mr. Glaser asked that the letter from the Veterans’ Council be read into the record:
“Please be advised that we have reviewed the plans submitted by Eastern Bank in respect to the upgrading of the Kaloustian Filling Station site and wish your Board to note we support this application and design.
We would also indicate that once construction begins, the Town of Natick should consider the installation of water service to Moran Park directly (it is our understanding that water service is available on South Avenue) so that in the future water can be provided to this site without the requirement of stretching a hose across North Main Street.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
John Crisafulli
Natick Veterans Council”
EASTERN BANK: REQUEST FOR PARKING WAIVER (contd)
Mr. Glaser continued that he understood there was a 1” pipe going across on an east/west direction and they were working with the Town to determine if that was sufficient for the park. Eastern Bank would be willing to install an all weather spigot to accomplish that task.
Mr. Glaser noted that the architect took a look at the design plan for the downtown and made an effort to develop a design that would fit into the master plan. He believed that many people consider the rendering to have accomplished that purpose. There were a number of issues that they expect to come up before the ZBA and Design Review Board. They were before the Selectmen primarily to ask for the Board’s concurrence of waiver of the parking requirements in the downtown mixed used. Normally 10 spaces would be required and Eastern Bank will have six on site. Mr. Glaser pointed out that there were some businesses in the downtown that have none available.
Mr. Ball asked if the six spaces were for employees, customers, or a mixture and Mr. Glaser’s response was “mixture”.
Mr. Ball then noted that Eastern Bank would be an abutter of Moran Park. The park was very small but meaningful and he wondered if the bank would consider accepting responsibility for the maintenance of the park on an ongoing basis. Mr. Glaser responded that he had talked to the people who were dealing with Moran Park on a daily basis and he didn’t think the bank had been requested to consider that at this state. They would probably be working with the park down the road with respect to the ZBA. At this stage he didn’t think they were willing to determine the extent to which they would be responsible.
Mr. Ball told Mr. Glaser that it was an issue that he would appreciate the bank considering. It seemed to be a relatively small financial burden but one, which the town and many people would appreciate.
Mr. Sarkisian noted that this would be the first project going through the Design Review Board and they would be looking at some of the issues. He noted that when Moran Park was put in a curb break was put in. The owner of the gas station was contemplating maybe putting the property back into a gas station and, therefore, the curbing was left out. He would propose to the ZBA putting the curbing back in and blocking off the access.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what would happen to the large mural on the current building. Mr. Glaser explained the history of the mural and noted that when the mural went in and Mr. Kaloustian was asked to permit it, there was a good deal of concern on his part. Mr. Kaloustian indicated that he would only permit it if it was temporary and was never intended to interfere with any future plans he had. Mr. Glaser believed there was a confirmation of that within the Town. He (Mr. Glaser) also noted that only 18% of the mural would be lost. Mr. Sarkisian confirmed Mr. Glaser’s assertions of Mr. Kaloustian’s permission being temporary and not being tied to the building forever.
Noting that this was a gas station, Mr. Hughes inquired if there was any sense of cleanup. It was Mr. Glaser’s understanding that the issues connected to the site were below reportable amounts. He didn’t think the Town had come to any conclusion on waiving the aquifer protection district by-laws. That was part of the ZBA and subject to the Board of Health.
Doug Watts stated that he and Mr. Sereda had interfaced with Mr. Sarkisian to work carefully in developing the site plan and the building design. The MBTA air rights easement was quite a challenge, but the MBTA has endorsed this project and part of the improvements requires the replacement of the wooden stairs and a canopy. The deck was a parking deck structure and it was cantilevered. This was a substantial investment.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to how many employees, Mr. Watts responded that it would vary in terms of tellers, but 4-6 full-time. Mr. Glaser added that like other businesses the bank would have access to the MBTA. That was a benefit to this site and the downtown. Mr. Ciccariello asked if the 6 employees would park on site and any visitors would be parking off site. Mr. Glaser said that the expectation was that some employees would use the MBTA and there was some access to off site parking. An agreement had been reached with
EASTERN BANK: REQUEST FOR PARKING WAIVER (contd)
the Outdoor Store for two spaces but that wasn’t being made part of this petition. He (Mr. Glaser) thought the Building Inspector’s waiver was warranted.
Seeing that there was a drive through, Mr. Ciccariello asked if Eastern Bank anticipated that being the major part of its business. Mr. Glaser didn’t know how to quantify it, but it was an important part of the business just like the Middlesex Savings or Natick Federal. He pointed out that the parking and the access now was uncontrolled and in this situation there was a plan with controlled parking and access, which could only benefit that section of Town.
Mr. Glaser confirmed for Mr. Ball that the improvements to the train station were at the suggestion of the MBTA. In follow-up Mr. Ball inquired if there had been any discussion about the installation of an elevator as an alternative. Mr. Glaser didn’t know if that had come up, but Mr. Watts advised that the MBTA had not asked them to look at an elevator and the costs that were defined for the project were probably at the project limit. This was not an inconsequential installation.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about Eastern Bank closing the driveway and putting in the sidewalk, but Mr. Glaser replied that he hadn’t been able to discuss that with his client. Mr. Watts added that that was one of the aspects that would be discussed with the Design Review Board. He noted that Eastern Bank had retained a landscape architect and used the same concept to expand the park. They (Eastern Bank) didn’t feel they had any right to recommend changes to the park. The bank was leasing the property. Under the provisions of the lease the bank was willing during the lease of the space to provide for the close of that curb cut.
Mr. Ciccariello stated his understanding that as long as the lease was in effect the bank would be willing to close off that exit and put the pavers down. Mr. Watts assured the Board that the bank would like to work with the Town to meet the requirements, but they didn’t have a blank check and he wasn’t sure of the costs. Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would like some sort of commitment. The bank was asking for a waiver and there was no question that this would be an improvement on the site. The bank had reached out to the MBTA and he (Mr. Ciccariello) didn’t see why, at least during the course of the lease, the bank couldn’t block that curb cut and install 4-6 feet of pavers. Mr. Glaser responded that his client would block it off and provide for the pavers.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of granting the waiver. Seconded by Mr. Ball. There was no vote taken on the motion. After further discussion the Board voted to table the matter.
Mr. Sarkisian advised that there were some other issues. One was underground utilities. There had been discussion about putting utilities underground, but it was very expensive. The underground conduit had been put in for the utilities to the east and there was a need to run the wiring in for the remaining South Avenue utility pole. Nstar said it would cost $3,000 and during the ZBA process the applicant will be asked to get those lines in. Mr. Sarkisian cited
other important issues: the mural, what the cantilever would look like from the other side of the street, drainage on the site. He would also have Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois take a look at the drainage issues and this may be one case where the Town wouldn’t want a recharge. The stairs have been on the design master plan to get a new set of stairs at the train station.
Chairman of the Natick Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee A. Richard Miller attempted to comment, but Mr. Ciccariello reminded him that this was not a public hearing and suggested that Mr. Miller raise his issues at the ZBA hearing or at the Design Review Board hearing. He (Mr. Ciccariello) further noted that the Board was not involved with the design of the site. The ZBA would make all the decisions relative to site plan. The ZBA hearing was scheduled for August 9.
Mr. Lisauskas inquired as to the length of concrete surface that would be extended over air, and was told by Mr. Watts that it was approximately 12 feet. Noting that the vast majority of the weight of
EASTERN BANK: REQUEST FOR PARKING WAIVER (contd)
the vehicles would be on the suspended area, Mr. Lisauskas asked about the location of the canopy to that. Where were people standing relative to where cars were parked overhead? Mr. Sedera advised that people would stand just to the edge. Mr. Lisauskas pointed out that if parking was directly over (the waiting area) and if a car were to be driven over or the concrete broke, people would be standing below. Mr. Sedera responded that the wall was re-enforced and that should not happen technically.
Planning Board member Julian Munnich raised a point of order. He noted that the Zoning By-Law read that the Board does not issue a waiver. The Board issued a concurrence of the Building Inspector and he would suggest that the Board issue a vote to concur with the Building Inspector’s determination and read into the record the Building Inspector’s recommendation.
Mr. Melchiorri’s letter addressed to Richard A. Glaser, Esquire dated July 6, 2004 was read:
“RE: Eastern Bank, 2 South Avenue, Natick. This is in response to your letter dated June 21, 2004 regarding the above- referenced site. I have reviewed your request and the parking requirement will be waived.
If you have any questions, please call me at 508 647-6450.
Michael J. Melchiorri
Building Commissioner”
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board concur with the Building Inspector’s waiver. Seconded by Mr. Ball.
Prior to a vote being taken. Mr. Munnich again raised a point of order. He noted that in accordance with the Zoning By-Laws there was no determination (made by the Building Inspector). There were only two possible findings that the Building Inspector could make. One was that the number of spaces may be reduced not more than 25% and the second
was that there was sufficient off street parking available, but the Building Inspector’s letter was absent either of those two determinations.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that there were 10 spaces required, but Mr. Glaser clarified that there were 10 spaces when you rounded up. Mr. Glaser agreed that Mr. Munnich was correct and the Board’s vote was a concurrence. Mr. Ciccariello advised that the Board would get in touch with Mr. Melchiorri and have him square aware his letter.
Mr. Hughes moved to table. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the tabling motion, Mr. Glaser argued that Mr. Melchiorri’s letter without the plans was unclear but Mr. Melchiorri had the plans and the request was to reduce the parking requirement to the spaces provided. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that Mr. Melchiorri didn’t refer to the plans in his letter. If a question came up at a later date and Mr. Melchiorri were not around, it could be an issue. He preferred to table it until August 9 and take it up first on the agenda.
Mr. Hughes added that the sense of the Board was to grant the waiver, but the Board just wanted to make sure it was done correctly. Mr. Melchiorri could rewrite the letter and then there could be no problem. All the ‘I’s’ would be dotted and the ‘t’s’ crossed.
Following a five-minute recess the meeting was again called order at 9:50 p.m.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: ROUTE 27 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT LIST
Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian referenced a draft letter to Thomas Waruzila, P.E. District Highway Engineer submitting the project initiation forms detailing the traffic operations and safety improvements for North Main Street (Route 27).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: ROUTE 27 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT LIST (contd)
Mr. Sarkisian explained that the letter would request the placement of improvements for North Main Street on the TIP list with a target date of 2007. It was a $2.9 million project extending from Middlesex Avenue to Bacon Street. He did not extend the improvements to Rutledge Road because there were some design issues and that intersection could be paid for with the funds received from Apple Hill. There were only five years remaining for those funds. This (Route 27 improvements) will be a long process.
Mr. Sarkisian continued that Route 27 was a state numbered route that took 19,000 vehicle trips per day. He thought it would qualify to be placed on the TIP but there were design issues such as roadway width. Some residents would like to keep the width narrow and put in granite curbing. There were some places with no sidewalks. He was asking the Board to authorize that the letter be sent to get something in place. Phase II would be from Rutledge Road to the Route 30 intersection. The
Town needed a project to push forward and he was looking to get the design work started for Phase I, go through the formal RFP, and hold a series of charette neighborhood meetings. Some waivers would be needed and one would be road widths. It was 34 feet wide and in some sections 30 feet. That would be an issue with Mass Highway as they would like to see the road become wider, but if that was done it would be on private property.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello where the engineering money would come from, Mr. Sarkisian replied that the Natick Mall would pay for the design. Mr. Ciccariello then asked where it would come from if the Mall didn’t provide the money, and Mr. Sarkisian responded that there would be a placeholder. This was a project that was warranted. If necessary it could go to Town Meeting. Other communities were using Chapter 90 funds for design.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned why the Apple Hill funds couldn’t be used, and Mr. Sarkisian advised that those funds were limited to Route 9/Oak Street, Bacon Street, Rutledge Road, Walnut Street. $46,000 was used to reconstruct the sidewalks going up Rutledge Road. Mr. Ciccariello asked about the cost for design and was told by Mr. Sarkisian that it would be $200,000-250,000.
Mr. Hughes asked if the road width waiver was so there would be no involvement in eminent domain. Mr. Sarkisian advised that that was correct and added that he didn’t see any taking at all.
Referring to the draft letter, Mr. Ball noted that there was no mention of resurfacing but it was obviously a major component and he would add that. He also inquired as to whose specifications were being presented and was the Town wedded to it. Mr. Sarkisian’s response was, “no”. He noted that when they were going through the Natick Mall there was a recommendation to use a rubberized surface and if that was successful may it could be used on Route 27.
Mr. Sarkisian was asked if the Town Administrator had seen this letter and Mr. Sarkisian advised that he had.
Mr. Ciccariello clarified that this letter was just to get the project on the list and Mr. Sarkisian concurred, noting that it was just to get a project in there now. Right now the Town didn’t have a project on the state list.
Mr. Hughes moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the draft letter. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
THE CENTER FOR ARTS IN NATICK: WARRANT ARTICLE; ACTIVITIES UPDATE
TCAN Treasurer Joseph Cleary appeared before the Board to present some information about a citizens warrant article for Fall Town Meeting relating to the P&S for the sale of the firehouse. One provision of the P&S was Article 22, which was a payment in lieu of taxes whereby
TCAN would pay 80% of the commercial assessment. That starts when exterior renovations were nearly done and they just need to complete
THE CENTER FOR ARTS IN NATICK: WARRANT ARTICLE; ACTIVITIES UPDATE (contd)
the cupola. They were now focusing on fund raising and trying to work on the second floor and wanted to request Town Meeting to authorize the Board of Selectmen to delete Article 22 and give TCAN the same treatment as other non-profits. Attached to the information presented by Mr. Cleary was a list of entities that don’t pay taxes in town. Tan’s assessment was about $870,000 and that would mean about $7,000 in PILOT.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had extended the deadline for the cupola and the tax assessment would not start until the cupola was completed. Mr. Cleary responded that that was his interpretation and Mr. Hughes added that he thought that was the intent. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that TCAN wouldn’t start paying taxes until after March 2005, but Mr. Cleary advised that they were looking at this now because of the Town Meeting process and putting their budget together.
Mr. Hughes commented that this would make it so that TCAN would never pay the PILOT and Mr. Cleary confirmed that as being correct.
Referring to the list of properties given to the Board, Mr. Hughes noted that at most there was one that may have been a Town piece of property that was given to a group at a discount. The rest of the properties people bought and paid market rate. Mr. Cleary responded that he didn’t know the history of the properties.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that most of the properties on the list were schools and churches and by state statute they couldn’t be taxed and he would assume that the Town of Natick had probably not granted any waivers of any contractual agreements. He inquired if it was TCAN’s intent to put a citizens article on the warrant in hopes that the Board of Selectmen would support it or Town Meeting would vote in favor and direct the Board of Selectmen to negotiate again. Mr. Cleary advised that the request was to delete that clause, but Mr. Ciccariello wasn’t sure Town Meeting could delete the clause. Town Meeting could ask the Board to consider renegotiating.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Cleary could give a reason why TCAN felt they shouldn’t pay 80% after having made that agreement. Mr. Cleary explained that the Town sold the building to TCAN and at that time there was a lot of speculation of where it (TCAN) would end up and people were not sure how it would work out. It has worked out well and was succeeding. The building incurred more cost than originally thought. This was a clause that TCAN wasn’t as focused on as they should have been, but now the bill was coming due and TCAN was looking at its financial situation and the need for more space.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if Mr. Cleary was suggesting that TCAN couldn’t financially support paying the tax. Mr. Cleary’s response was, “no”, but added that to raise $8,000 to pay the taxes was either
a 3% ticket increase or an 8% increase in tuition for kids programs. The operation was funded by donations, ticket sales, memberships, tuitions and they were trying to raise funds for a second floor.
A member of the audience Gary Sutherland asked to speak, but Mr. Ciccariello declined to allow Mr. Sutherland to address the Board. Mr. Sutherland questioned the purpose of having the TCAN member speak, and Mr. Ciccariello explained that TCAN had a contract with the Town and they were asking the Board to waive the contract. Having sat through the meeting for three hours, Mr. Sutherland felt that allowing him to say a few words seemed reasonable. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that it was 10:15 p.m. and there were eight other things on the agenda and the Board was not voting on this tonight. Mr. Sutherland requested 30 seconds and was granted 30 seconds.
Mr. Sutherland expressed the opinion that TCAN had negotiated a contract in good faith and they should honor it. He urged the Board, at a later date, to take a lot of debate on this.
THE CENTER FOR ARTS IN NATICK: WARRANT ARTICLE; ACTIVITIES UPDATE (contd)
With regard to the activities update David Lavalley, TCAN Executive Director, told the Board that he had intended to give some information about the nature of the program but given the hour he would be very brief. He noted that he was a volunteer up until a few months ago when he was asked to step in as Executive Director. He had spoken to hundreds of people who have come into TCAN and many people don’t understand what goes on. Hundreds of kids take theatre and dance at TCAN and TCAN hosted one of the strongest community theatres. There was a thriving arts gallery with three satellites and arts classes. There was a community stage that features an open mike. There were 150 volunteers who run the IT, marketing, work the concession stands, stage crew, maintain the facilities consisting largely of
seniors, high school interns and everyone in between. Members and sponsors come from approximately 22 towns and it (TCAN) survives because it exists in a town that was clean and safe and lucky to have good neighbors. The organization was moving from a start up phase to the adolescent stage and they were learning to organize and make the best use of all of their resources.
REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT: MARGARET FORTE
At the prior meeting Mr. Connolly had asked the Board to hold on making a decision so that he could do a little more investigation.
Mr. Connolly reported that he had talked to Ms. Forte. Ms. Forte had an abnormally high water use, but no one came up with a reason why. He talked to Ms. Forte’s plumber and he (plumber) said he did a blue dye test the same as had been done by the Town. The meter was relatively new and there was no logical reason for a spike. He didn’t come up with any new information.
Mr. Ball noted that it was frequently a mystery but the water was used. Sometimes the problem was a toilet in a part of the house that wasn’t normally used and if it was running, it may not be detected.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that in a memo to the Board, Finance Director Robert Palmer had recommended no action. The Board agreed to take no action and to so inform Ms. Forte.
ELDER TAX RELIEF
The Board was in receipt of an opinion from Town Counsel regarding Mr. Connolly’s interest in being appointed as a member of the Elderly and Disabled Taxation Fund Committee. Mr. Flynn opined that a member of the Board of Selectmen may not be appointed to the Elderly and Disabled Taxation Fund Committee. Although the statute did not specifically address the issue, Mr. Flynn believed the intent of the statute was that a majority of the members of the committee should be residents who were not town officials.
Mr. Connolly suggested the possibility of him sitting on the committee as a citizen and not being a Selectman for a day, but Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think that was possible and pointed out that it didn’t prevent Mr. Connolly from attending the meeting.
Mr. Connolly read a letter addressed to his fellow Board members in which he proposed creating a forum in which Natick senior citizens and local advocates for the senior citizens could discuss the various federal, state and local programs and services available to senior citizens and to examine the programs and services implemented in communities surrounding Natick in the hope of better serving the senior citizen community of Natick.
Mr. Connolly suggested an all day forum from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. held at some place like the Elks. As possible participants for such a forum he recommended inviting Congressman Markey, both Senators Kennedy and Kerry, Representative Linsky, Representative Peisch, Senator Brown and Senator Magnani, as well as officials of the various town boards, departments and offices as well as the veteran’s services representative, and someone from the Natick Council on Aging. He also recommended including groups and organizations involved in the
ELDER TAX RELIEF (contd)
healthcare industry, representatives from the various utility companies, local business people particularly representatives from the various banking institutions, the Morse Institute Library, representatives from the different places of worship and service organizations such as the Natick Service Council, A Place to Turn and Natick’s food pantry, the Open Door.
Mr. Ball felt that Mr. Connolly’s motives were laudable but thought the idea of inviting a large cross section of people to be present from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. was unrealistic and to hold the forum at some place other than the Senior Center needed justification that was absent in the proposal. It would be wonderful to get all the people mentioned into the same room with a group of senior citizens who have questions,
but he didn’t think it would be realistic that it could be set up in this fashion. He wasn’t sure what he would suggest in the alternative but if the objective was to get questions asked and answered, he would suggest that the way to start would be to ask the senior population what questions they had relative to state tax relief, affordable medicine, etc and take those questions and forward them to the appropriate individuals – be a conduit for those questions and getting the answers. The idea of a Q&A day was unrealistic and he (Mr. Ball) felt Mr. Connolly would end up very disappointed.
Like Mr. Ball, Mr. Ciccariello thought 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. was probably too extensive. Even two hours was a long time and if Mr. Connolly tried to do it over that, he could be disappointed. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that Mr. Connolly try to set up something at the Senior Center, make it as publicly visible as possible and probably hold it to a two-hour event. A presentation could be made to those in attendance of what was trying to be achieved – that we were trying to make the seniors aware of the various opportunities that exist whether it be through the Town, the State or federal. He also suggested trying to get some input from the seniors and some types of questions they would like to have answers to and hold a second event to disperse as much information as possible.
Mr. Ciccariello felt that it would be better to hold the meeting at the senior center because of the access and the access to the bus service. The biggest issue was how to advertise to get participation. Even during elections there weren’t a lot of seniors in attendance, but maybe more of them would want to know what’s available in terms of tax relief. He was sure that Diana Ryder, Senior Center Director, would be accommodating and maybe even some of the seniors would be willing to help. Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would be willing to help.
Mr. Hughes thought the goal was laudable but suggested that Mr. Connolly, Mr. Lisauskas, and Mr. Lemnios get together to determine a way to get the information in a concise manner and get it to the people. He (Mr. Hughes) would be happy to help.
Mr. Ball noted that several years ago he spent four months at the Senior Center and spent regular hours answering questions on tax relief and was astonished at the people who did not show up and found out that people were embarrassed. They don’t want to stand up in a public forum or even one on one. This might be much better done by mail or anonymously.
Mr. Connolly thanked his colleagues for the information. He believed the seniors to be proud and they don’t want anything that looks like charity, but his goal was to make them understand that they were entitled. He would see Mr. Lemnios when he (Mr. Lemnios) returned.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Mr. Ciccariello updated the Board on the Armory and advised that there had been a meeting with the state last week and there may be a warrant
article submitted to see if there was an interest in purchasing or securing the Armory through the bid system. It was a pretty good meeting with DHCD and DCAM and a commitment was made to delay the auction to November 29th but no further. The Town was being considered for a planning assistance grant.
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT: CONSTABLES
An application for reappointment as a Special Municipal Employee had been received from David Webb who served as an auxiliary police officer and a constable. In an opinion from Town Counsel, Mr. Flynn opined that the duties of an elected constable and the duties of an auxiliary police officer have sufficient potential involvement with the same persons or related persons to present a reasonable basis for the Board of Selectmen in its discretion to grant the request for classification as a special municipal employee.
Mr. Ball stated that he was reluctant to grant Special Municipal Employee status unless someone could show him that there was a forthcoming conflict, but he didn’t think it was appropriate to do it in a blind fashion in the absence of an example.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that one of the constables was a Town employee and he (Mr. Hughes) saw that as being more than a potential. That employee could be dealing with the same people who came before him. For that reason Mr. Hughes said he would move to grant the position of constable as Special Municipal Employees. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
OBSOLETE SIGN REMOVAL
Noting the sections of the Zoning By-Laws that deal with temporary signs, Mr. Ball passed around photographs taken last year to show that there were yard sale signs, wrestling signs, etc. People put up signs and don’t take them down. The sign code said after 30 days it should be taken down and there was a penalty for a violation. He wasn’t looking to make money but thought the Town needed to start taking the code a little more seriously. The signs weren’t enhancing the appearance of Natick. His request was to attempt to enforce those sections of the Zoning By-Laws.
Mr. Ciccariello agreed with Mr. Ball. The signs on posts were more difficult to enforce, but the business signs were illegal and required a permit. He thought those could be enforced more readily.
Mr. Ball asked if it was the pleasure of the Board to request through the Town Administrator that the Building Inspector take notice of the signs and apprise people that they were illegal and that the DPW be asked to tear them off the posts.
A member of the audience Deb Sayre wondered if the Board could put a notice in the newspaper and put something on Pegasus saying that signs must come down or there could be fines. Let people know there may be consequences and let people know the signs need to have a date. Making
the public aware may take care of the bulk of the problem. Then if there is a sign left up, take it down and send it back with a bill.
Mr. Hughes liked the suggestion of advertising in the newspaper and getting Pegasus to air a notice. He asked Ms. Sayre to draft a notice and get it to Mr. Lisauskas.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Cities for Climate Protection Liaison
A presentation had been previously made to the Board concerning Cities for Climate Protection and Mr. Lisauskas advised that an elected official needs to be appointed as a liaison.
Mr. Ball nominated Mr. Connolly to serve as liaison. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted. Mr. Connolly accepted the appointment.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
___________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
