BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
August 16, 2004
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Paul R. McKinley, John Connolly. Absent: Charles M. Hughes
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on August 16, 2004 in the amount of $487,248.53. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,1749,756.73.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2004 meeting.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. South Main Street - Drainage
Christine Tessier of 138 South Main Street addressed the Board regarding a drainage problem on South Main Street, which could not handle the current water flow without adding another subdivision to the situation. She distributed pictures.
Ms. Tessier noted that in November 1991 the South Main Street and Ambler Court residents brought this drainage issue to the Town. They went before the Board of Selectmen with the complaint that the brook/drainage ditch could not handle the water flow. At that time George Wallace of the Conservation Commission stated that this current drainage system had not been inspected for at least 12 years. As a resolution the Board deemed it appropriate that since the Town had an easement to this man-made ditch running through the residents’ backyard that it was to be maintained by the Town and that the DPW would clean and dredge the ditch. To date that has happened only once. Also if any additional houses were proposed that the drainage ditch would be re-evaluated and upgraded.
Existing problems now consist of water retention due to slow drainage because the 12” clay pipe going under South Main and exiting into Dug Pond. This leads to flooding. Currently there was a mosquito infested retention pool that was constructed behind the Martin’s property while building Elmwood Heights. A lot of young children play there and this was a health concern. This will be the third, possibly fourth, retention pool built in the last 10 years and it was only a mosquito attraction. There were current septic systems that will eventually be
tied into Town sewer but that could be a concern depending on the timing.
Ms. Tessier continued that last Thursday, August 12 the residents of South Main Street and other area abutters attended the Conservation Commission meeting to hear of the proposed drainage plan at the new Hunter’s Lane subdivision. Residents were told that the drainage plan at this subdivision would in theory be effective and may possibly improve the drainage area but no guarantees could be promised and the Chair of the Conservation Commission, George Bain, otherwise informed the residents that if on the slightest chance it got worse, the Town had a $52,000 bond. The bond does not in any way protect the homeowners from flooding or damage.
Ms. Tessier advised that a motion was rendered by Conservation Commission member Matthew Gardner to hire another consultant to look at the drainage but no closure was given. The residents were told to speak with the Town Engineer. They also said it wouldn’t be cost
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
effective for the Town to fix the current drainage problem which caused her to question why adding to it was OK.
The area was already deemed a high water table and residents were concerned that the proposed retention area that was being placed in ledge and clay would not drain appropriately during seasonal high water conditions and only worsen their existing problems. Residents were told by Ben Stevens, representative for Trask, that the proposed development was perk tested for drainage in the month of June, which was the dry season. The residents asked why existing town drains could not be used and were told that Town drains would not handle the water along with the earlier comment that it was cost effective. She questioned if that made it OK to send it into existing residents’ yards and basements. Before building new problems she felt that the Town residents who have been paying taxes and living in this town should be
on the top of the list not the bottom.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the development was before the Planning Board, and Ms. Tessier advised that it was but it hadn’t received approval.
Mr. Ball inquired as to when the photographs were taken and was told by Ms. Tessier that it was in the spring.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to whether this was a recurring problem, Ms. Tessier responded that she came before the Board in November 1991 and it was determined that they would make sure this manmade ditch for which the Town had an easement would be maintained by the Town. Mr. Ciccariello then asked if since 1991 if any of these problems arose again and if Ms. Tessier had contacted anybody about them. Ms. Tessier noted that recently she had contacted Mr. Connolly. Asked if prior to that there had been any flooding, and Ms. Tessier responded that there had been flooding. When asked if she had contacted anybody, Ms. Tessier’s response was that the Town was now deciding on putting in a subdivision. Again Mr. Ciccariello asked if
there was a recurring problem, and Ms. Tessier replied that there had been. Asked if there had been any attempt to fix it before the new development, Ms. Tessier’s response was, “no”.
Mr. Connolly felt that the neighbors had accepted the fact that this was a high water table and the neighbors’ concern was with the introduction of more water in a retention pond. He knew the area and when the rain came, it filled up in a hurry. The Town had an easement and he only knew of it being dredged once. Ms. Tessier added that the neighbors had been taking care of the brook.
Mr. McKinley remembered discussing this when he was on the Conservation Commission and this has been an ongoing problem. Mr. McKinley proposed that the Board request the Town Engineer, Community Development Director, and a representative from the Conservation Commission to come before the Board and give an assessment of what’s going on, the impact of this new subdivision, and what mitigation measures they propose to offset it.
Mr. Ciccariello requested that everyone be contacted and asked to be here next Monday.
Ms. Tessier noted that Mr. Gardner at the Conservation Commission had stated that he would like to talk to the Town Engineer and get an outside engineer.
Mr. Martin from 132 South Main Street told the Board that he had lived in the area since 1978 in two different houses. The last heavy flood was two years ago on Father’s Day. He had a 150-foot driveway along the ditch and the water was up to his knees. This was about the third time something like that had happened. In the winter the ice was across the driveway. He has had nothing but erosion on his property since the scratching of the ditch. He used to remove dirt from the headwall until his back was too old and had been dealing with it right along.
Francis Simeone of 140 South Main Street noted that he had maintained the brook in the last 10 years. He walked the brook at least 2-3 times
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
and cleaned out all of the rubbish from his land to the drain. There were times when the brush backs up before it goes under the road and it would flood. He cut the woman’s lawn by the drain which abuts the Martin’s but the kids have thrown back the stones and it (drain) needed a good cleaning out at this point.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that individuals from the Town would be here next Monday to discuss this.
b. North Main Street Drainage Complaint
Marilyn Rando of 34 North Main Street stated that on August 12, 2004 she experienced a flood in her cellar and basement of between 10-12” and a long-term solution was needed for the whole area not just her side but on the South Main Street side as well. It must be from
something that runs back behind those streets. She was made aware of the situation on Washington Street called the Lake Street run off. There was a culvert over by the Italian American club that needs to be fixed. She actually physically went down there with builders and engineers. The culvert has collapsed and the drainage needs to be replaced. There was about 1,000 plus yards of drainage that needs to be replaced. Dirt and debris needs to be removed from the culvert and near Washington Avenue needs to be removed and trees and brush need to be cleared out – gone completely. That was just stopping that up so what happens was that that particular ditch that was supposed to be taking that water out does not. She found a 55-gallon drum that was stopping up the culvert. There should be
nothing around the culvert or the drainage ditch, which would impede its intended purpose.
Ms. Rando continued that she sent a letter to Thomas Hladick, Highway Supervisor, on August 13, and she hadn’t received a response. She talked to Town Engineer Mark Coviello and was told that there was a chronic flooding problem. If the Town knew about this, Ms. Rando didn’t know why it hadn’t been fixed and it was obviously not just in her area but South Main Street. No one had bothered to maintain the area down by the Italian club.
Ms. Rando distributed copies of her letter. She wondered if the solution for her area was to put in a brand new ditch that would lead right to the lake. She understood there was some drainage system at LaGrange and possibly the Town could slice into that, but she would only want that done if a long-term solution was going to come. If there was a problem with the pipes not fully functioning, then an actual new drainage system would be needed down to the lake. It was not just 34 North Main that was flooded but all the buildings that went down past Grandmother’s Mincemeat.
Ms. Rando understood that her solution for fixing her problem would cost a lot of money to put in new pipes and drains, but it must be done. She didn’t spend $1/2 million to have it destroyed.
Mr. McKinley didn’t think the Board should be entertaining any discussion of the appropriate or required solution until the problem was understood. He suggested that it be added to next week’s discussion. He then asked about the driveway and Ms. Rando advised that it was off Willow. To Mr. McKinley’s inquiry as to the pitch of the driveway, Ms. Rando responded that water runs toward the garage but it (flooding) never happened before. What happened was that a 55-gallon drum got caught inside the broken culvert, which was why there was such a large backup.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that this was a new development, and Ms. Rando advised that that was correct. She reiterated that she never had any water. She had watched the condo being built and could see a definite line that goes up the wall now.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that the Board was going to do the same as with the other one (South Main). The involved parties would be asked to attend the meeting next Monday and hopefully start going through the
problems and the solutions. He added that the Board would move cautiously and try to get a resolution.
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
Mr. Connolly inquired as to how long Ms. Rando had lived there and she responded that she bought the condo on August 3, 2004 and this happened 10 days later, but she had lived in South Natick before.
b. Tax Bill Problem
Sharon Wynn of 4 Samuel Path appeared before the Board to address a supplemental tax bill issue. She lived in a new home. Supplemental tax bills were issued in the names of the people who had previously owned the property or land, and she was there about a defiant and deliberate act. A supplement tax bill was issued for her property to the prior owner of the property who chose to discard the bill for over a year knowing it wasn’t their own. She was angry at this unproductive system and hoped it could be remediated. She was disheartened that no one could differentiate between a good and bad citizen.
Ms. Wynn continued that she had just been advised that she had been issued a late fee and she would like the late fee returned to her or made to be paid by the irresponsible parties. She was not sure why the Town was not supporting a law-abiding citizen and she was asking for the Board’s help. Because she was a new homeowner the supplemental bill was not sent to her for over a year. On three occasions she had to come to the Town to say that she would like to pay the money owed on the property in which she dwelled and there were many other citizens who had this problem.
Mr. Ball inquired if the supplemental tax bill was for a period of time that Ms. Wynn did or did not own the property, and Ms. Wynn responded that she was happy to pay her taxes and the supplemental tax bill, but she didn’t want to be penalized a late fee. Asked if this was the prior owner, Ms. Wynn noted that the original owner of the land and then the builder of the property were called about the matter.
Mr. Ball pointed out that there was a state law, not a quirk of Natick, that you were responsible for paying your taxes and the taxing authorities were not responsible for you receiving the tax bills and he understood that it seemed unfair. Ms. Wynn replied that she knew it wasn’t unfair.
After establishing that Ms. Wynn was registered as the property owner, Mr. Ball asked if she did not get her tax bills. Ms. Wynn explained that she was not receiving them because she was told that the Town of Natick didn’t list money owed from year-to-year. The supplemental tax bill was going to the original owner of the land. She bought the house and the tax season ends in June, which didn’t carry over.
Mr. McKinley felt that this was something that should have been taken care of at the closing and this was a tax collector issue.
Mr. Ball noted that the Board would direct Mr. Palmer (tax collector) to look into this. It sounded to him (Mr. Ball) that the late fee may have been improperly assessed. He (Mr. Ball) didn’t know that for sure and couldn’t make any promises but it would be looked into.
Ms. Wynn noted that she had been told that the State could be petitioned to take away the late fee but as of yet nobody from the Town had helped her with that.
Mr. McKinley requested that Mr. Palmer be directed to contact Ms. Wynn at his earliest convenience to assess the facts and make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Lemnios was asked to take care of that and he advised that Mr. Palmer was away until early September.
CONTINUE HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC & VERIZON: BACON STREET: ONE (1) POLE; REMOVAL OF ONE (1) POLE
The hearing was continued to August 23, 2004.
DPW: AWARD CONTRACT EAST SCHOOL BOILER
Director of Building Maintenance Corey Lovett appeared before the Board to discuss the removal and replacement of the boiler at East School. East School was leased to the Westgate Christian Academy. It was
DPW: AWARD CONTRACT EAST SCHOOL BOILER (contd)
beyond repair and he doubted that it could function without sinking some serious money into it. The funding was approved by the Finance Committee and he was requesting the Board’s approval on awarding the contract.
Mr. Ball recalled that the lease with the Montessori School said if a repair was in excess of $10,000 the school was responsible for anything over $10,000 and he wondered if that provision existed in this lease. Mr. Lemnios advised that it did not. He thought that in part that was included in the Montessori School lease because the Town assumed utility costs and there was no escalator cost.
Mr. Lemnios advised that there were two bids received – Millis Plumbing Company, Inc. and Frazier Engineering, Inc. Both were qualified bids but Millis came out with the lowest bid for this project with a bid of $58,000. Frazier had a bid of $77,311. This was well within the budget appropriation of $80,000 and the DPW would like to get the project done before the cold weather.
Mr. McKinley inquired if either of these firms was the one that replaced the boiler at the Eliot School. Mr. Lemnios’ response was, “no”, but Frazier was putting in central air conditioning at Cole School. In response to Mr. McKinley’s follow-up question as to experience working with these firms, Mr. Lemnios indicated that the Town had experience with them, and added that the specifications for the East School and the Eliot School were the same with some tightening up.
Mr. McKinley pointed out that the low bidder’s alternate was twice the alternate value of the high bidder. Mr. Lemnios had no explanation for it.
Mr. Ciccariello asked several questions and Mr. Lemnios responding to those questions advised that it was put out under a public bid, and payment performance bonds were required. As to why alternate 1 was bid as an alternate when it was an important part of the project, Mr. Lemnios noted that it had been an alternate because the Town didn’t know the base price. If push came to shove, it could wait for 3-4 years but the preference was to get it done right away. Mr. Lemnios also advised that there were no asbestos issues. It was included in the cost.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to when the lease with Westgate Christian Academy would renew. Mr. Lemnios didn’t know, but knew it had awhile. Mr. Connolly then asked if it was worthwhile to approach Westgate and tell them that there was a big nut. Mr. Lemnios noted that Westgate paid a substantial amount in the lease, but Mr. Connolly asked if it were worth a shot. Mr. Lemnios felt that nothing was a waste of time, but he would expect that Westgate would say that they would participate if they were given relief on their lease and it would be a wash. This was a requirement of the landlord.
Mr. McKinley noted that this lease gave the Town more control over the long-term maintenance issues. The lease was structured to ensure there was the right level of investment.
Mr. McKinley moved to award the contract to the low bidder, Millis Plumbing Company, Inc. in the amount of $58,000. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Lemnios hoped that the Board would recognize Mr. Lovett’s work in maintaining the Town’s buildings. Often times he was doing it under very stressful situations and he did a great job.
GRANTS PLACE: 40B SITE APPROPRIATENESS DETERMINATION
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian had been asked to comment on the proposed Grants Place 40B
application and he (Mr. Ciccariello) had received those comments this morning.
GRANTS PLACE: 40B SITE APPROPRIATENESS DETERMINATION (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted that presently this was an allowed non-conforming use that continues unless there were significant changes to the property. Under Chapter 40B a developer was allowed to circumvent the Zoning By-laws but that didn’t mean the Town couldn’t make comments. According to the plans there were 36 parking spaces, but the applicant suggests that the 40 required could be met by using 4 on street. In addition the height exceeds the required zoning, there were some setback issues, and some drainage issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Sarkisian would get a letter to the Board and he (Mr. Ciccariello)
would fax it to the members. The comment letter had to be in (to Mass Housing Financing Agency) by August 20, 2004.
Mr. McKinley was familiar with the site but not the project and thought there needed to be caution about the surrounding structures in the area. They were old and established homes and consideration of the neighborhood was deserved. He understood that the developer wanted to maximize the site, but Mr. McKinley didn’t think it should be accommodated if it disrupted the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. McKinley also expressed concern about the on-street parking and pointed out that technically on-street overnight parking wasn’t allowed. It (enforcement) had just been ignored, but there needed to be a push in the opposite direction and not only insist the number of required spaces were adhered to, but the rules should be reviewed to see if they (required number of spaces) were adequate for today’s society. Getting cars off the street was a safety issue, and it was difficult to plow.
He wanted to tow the line and hoped the Board would support him.
Mr. Ball agreed with Mr. McKinley’s comments, but noted that the Board was being asked to comment on the appropriateness of the site and not act like the ZBA although he wasn’t sure what appropriateness meant. It might bring up issues of neighboring housing and showing some respect for them, but he wasn’t sure what appropriateness meant.
Mr. Ciccariello felt that housing was an issue under appropriateness – if it was consistent with the Town’s housing needs and strategies for affordable housing. The letter (from the State) suggests that comments could be made relative to the development.
Mr. Lemnios read from MassHousing’s letter dated July 2, 2004 in which it was stated, “please inform us of any issues that have been raised or are anticipated in the Town’s review of this application.” The Board had latitude to identify any issues that the Board of Selectmen perceived or heard about from other boards or residents.
Mr. Ball explained that his concern was that an applicant not have to negotiate with two boards with the same concerns. If the developer could satisfy the requirements of the ZBA, it seemed outside the Board of Selectmen’s scope of responsibility and authority to be making the same comments as the ZBA.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the ZBA would get a copy of the letter being sent and hopefully they would respond to the comments addressed by the Board.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to why the developer was in front of the Board as opposed to the ZBA or Planning Board. Mr. Ciccariello explained that under the Mass Law any 40B application went to the Board of Selectmen for initial comment and then to the ZBA for hearing. Mr. McKinley added that this project was not here for the Board’s approval.
It was for the Board’s comment. One message being conveyed to the ZBA was that the Board wanted affordable housing, but there was a need to apply the hardship test very firmly and not unduly test the neighborhood.
AWARD CONTRACT: CONSULTING SERVICES ARMORY MASTER PLAN STUDY
Before the Board was a request to award the contract for the Armory Planning grant to Goody Clancy.
AWARD CONTRACT: CONSULTING SERVICES ARMORY MASTER PLAN STUDY (contd)
Mr. Lisauskas explained that the Town was at the end of a detailed and rigorous selection process in which a detailed request for proposal was developed, a pre-bid meeting conducted, an RFP issued, and a selection committee appointed. The selection committee was joined by the Town Administrator and interviews were conducted, the written criteria evaluated, and a unanimous recommendation was made to select Goody Clancy for an amount not to exceed $55,000. That was the amount for which the Commonwealth agreed to fund the project. The Town submitted an application for $35,000 to look at the South Avenue site. A positive response was received from the State but the Town had not as yet been awarded any money so they (selection committee) wouldn’t be looking to award a contract for that. The Board had
received a list of the criteria and evaluation criteria and from that Mr. Lisauskas felt that the Board could see that Goody Clancy was quantitatively and qualitatively the best.
If the State came across with the $35,000, Mr. Ball asked if it would be a separate RFP or if it would be appropriate to tack it onto this one. Ms. Lisauskas advised that it (South Avenue) was included as an ad alt. All potential bidders were notified and they were informed that it would only be awarded if the $35,000 were received and with the Board of Selectmen’s approval. It could be done without going back to bid again. He noted that the Town would probably receive a better produce if there was one company rather than two companies looking at the sites.
Mr. Ball moved to award the contract for consulting work to develop a design master plan for the 13-acre site that includes the National Guard Armory, Senior Center, and Courthouse in an amount not to exceed $55,000. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: HOOP 3
Referring to a diagram, Planning Board Chairman Robert Foster informed the Board that the Planning Board wanted to submit an article to Town Meeting to create some new HOOP districts. The Spring Town Meeting created the HOOP that was intended to identify areas in the downtown currently zoned for industrial that might be under pressure for development of residential and provide an option that would be good for the Town with affordable housing. District 1 and 2 were created and defined what could be done in 1&2 and in a separate section of the by-law set forth the geographic district that permitted them to come back.
Mr. Foster advised that the Planning Board was proposing three new HOOP areas:
1) Along West Central – Mansfield along the industrial
2) Armory, Senior Center, District Court parcels
3) North Main between Mechanic and Cochituate, Willow and the railroad – the rectangle
This entire area they had their eye on, but the entire area was a large area and different size parcels and it was difficult to determine what to do with the whole parcel. They wanted to get the HOOP 2 in place in this particular area and then look at it much more closely. That was the same thought to place the Armory in HOOP 2. It was an overlay plan so it didn’t change any existing zoning. It just added another possibility.
Mr. Ball noted that a study had just been approved for the Senior Center/Armory District. He asked Mr. Foster to elaborate on his comments that it was being made a HOOP because it provided an option. Mr. Foster responded that the HOOP didn’t change any of the existing zoning and someone could still do the use they could always do. The HOOP added a new option to provide housing under the criteria set forth in the HOOP district.
To Mr. Lemnios’ comment that the HOOP put in place a site plan review process, Mr. Foster’s response was, “absolutely” Mr. Lemnios then
noted that anybody who wanted to do a development would have to go through a site plan review process. Mr. Foster noted that a standard site plan review process included looking at parking, the location of the building on the site, and landscaping. The HOOP also went before the Design Review Board, which takes a much closer look at the design.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: HOOP 3 (contd)
The Design Review Board recommendations were not mandatory but provided an incentive to follow the recommendation with an increased density and putting in more units. That was a key element of the HOOP. They wanted it to look like part of the downtown and function as the downtown and not just be part of a design that sticks out.
Mr. McKinley felt that the Planning Board was being aggressive about defining several large areas as HOOP 2 when only last year the two areas were first created. No experience had been gained and he wondered about the wisdom of forging ahead until there was some experience under the belt.
Mr. Foster responded that the Planning Board was looking at areas that were going to be developed whether something was done or not. Their (Planning Board) feeling was to get some areas under the HOOP plan so there was less pressure on the ZBA to create variances. The Planning Board didn’t want development by variance in these areas as there was very little control and design oversight and decided that in the areas that were under the HOOP it was less likely to be developed by variance. The Planning Board could look at it closer and define and maybe change the borders or create HOOP 3 with different requirements, but if the area got developed by variance before that was done, the Town was stuck.
Mr. McKinley inquired if there were technical differences between 1 and 2 and was told by Mr. Foster that 1 was denser and allowed one unit for every 2,500 square feet and with a Design Review Board recommendation it was one unit for every 1,500. It was the area right in the downtown and more appropriate for denser development.
Mr. McKinley then inquired if the specifications included parking spaces and a percentage of landscaping. Mr. Foster advised that it was included. The parking spec was two spaces for every unit regardless of the size of the unit.
With regard to West Central Street, Mr. Ciccariello questioned why both commercial areas weren’t being considered for the HOOP. Mr. Foster explained that one commercial area functioned well as a commercial area. Mr. Ciccariello noted that if it were only zoned commercial, then there would be no reason to grant a variance for housing and no hardship for any applicant to come before the ZBA and get a variance. Mr. McKinley pointed out that that was a separate issue and Mr. Foster agreed.
To Mr. Ciccariello the nice thing about the downtown and the outskirts was getting a mixed development of housing and commercial. He questioned if all commercial was being pushed away. Mr. Foster noted that the Planning Board wanted to keep the HOOP within walking distance of the train station. When discussions of putting HOOP 1 together were started, a lot of businesses were finding that the land may be more valuable for residential and wanted the opportunity for that use. The Planning Board’s opinion was that it was good to have denser housing downtown and affordable housing. He agreed that some judgments had to be made on whether the Town was providing too much incentive to keep viable commercial space and they could continue to have that discussion.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had just brought on some professionals to study the appropriate use for that site and his concern was passing a HOOP 2 and then the planning study would come back and say the site wasn’t appropriate for dense housing. It didn’t impact the Armory. Right now 10 units were allowed and if the HOOP were passed bringing it up to 11.5 didn’t increase the value because two would have to be affordable.
With respect to North Main Street, Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Foster knew how many parcels and how many units could potentially be developed. Mr. Foster replied that the new condo’s were much denser than could be developed under the HOOP. Mr. Ciccariello expressed concern that without knowing the density he wasn’t prepared to vote anything. He recalled that when the other HOOP was done there was a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: HOOP 3 (contd)
lot of discussion between different boards and public hearings. Mr. Foster noted that this was the beginning of that discussion – putting it on the table and it would come up in the charettes that were planned. The Planning Board was prepared to discuss, modify, and put it on the table to see if it made sense.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that it was August and if the Planning Board wanted it to go to Town Meeting in October, there was a small window to get public participation. He questioned if it was realistic to get enough public input in that time. Mr. Foster thought so, noting that it wasn’t a large area. For some areas it may function as a placeholder for further discussion.
Mr. McKinley shared the concern for how fast this was going and if there was enough experience, but felt that Mr. Foster had pointed out something that was critical. There was no inherent risk for having an overlay for something that was commercial, but there was some risk for what happens when planning got done by variance. He (Mr. McKinley) was more comfortable having a HOOP in place than leaving it subject to variance.
Mr. Ciccariello had no problem with it going on the warrant for discussion. He would like to get some input.
Although the Natick Center Associates hadn’t looked at this proposal, Steven Greenberg, Executive Director of the Natick Center Associates, reminded the Board that the Center Associates was very much involved in the initial HOOP by-law and supported it at Town Meeting. The market had decided that Natick center was a great place for housing and the Town was fortunate that there was a lot of wonderful development. There were some private issues that needed to be addressed because of this development. With the market force moving and with the fact that people were coming in under variance, it seemed wise to come up with a plan everyone understood. The Center Associates along with Community Development was holding a two-day charette. These were the topics that would be discussed and he reminded the
Board and the citizens to participate. It was impressive to see that the Town was not waiting to see what happened and impressive that in the last two years the Town had gone from watching what happened to planning. He applauded the initiative and the willingness to work with the Center Associates.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Mr. Lemnios distributed a list of the articles that had been filed for the Fall Town Meeting that included the standard articles.
He highlighted the articles noting that under collective bargaining there would be at least one settlement. There was an article for additional staffing at the Morse Institute Library, which was a carry over from Spring Town Meeting. The Recreation Commission had filed an article for the boat landing at Dug Pond and that was about an $8,000 item. The Commission on Disability would be asking to increase the fines for handicapped parking violations and would be seeking to allocate a greater portion of the fines to disability projects. Mr. Lemnios called attention to a citizen petition article regarding the Town Meeting handbook. The article would have the handbook adopted by Town Meeting and have a review process for the handbook.
Mr. Lemnios advised that the DPW planned to submit four articles: street acceptance, Clubhouse/Saddlebrook sewer – the Board had asked the DPW to examine the feasibility of the gravity vs pump, relining of a section of water mains, and I&I removal.
Mr. Lemnios further advised that it was his understanding that the School Department would have an article relative to the skateboard park. At this point that was the only article coming from the Schools.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled a discussion at the last meeting about an article for the Armory and Mr. Lemnios distributed a draft prepared by Town Counsel to acquire the Armory. Mr. Ciccariello asked about Mr. Hughes’ suggestion of a home rule petition, and Mr. Lemnios referred to
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)
the examples of how a couple of communities handled it, but those communities did it before DCAM received the charge from the state to do it in a quick timeframe. He thought that in the meeting DCAM had made it clear to the Town that because they were under a mandate from the Legislature, they would not be gifting to the Town.
Mr. Lemnios noted that Mr. Hughes had raised the issue of filing a home rule petition for the right of first refusal for the Armory purchase. Mr. Ciccariello remembered Mr. Hughes raising that issue, but Mr. Ball felt that by the time such a home rule petition would wind its way through the Legislature this would be moot. He didn’t understand the point.
Mr. McKinley agreed with Mr. Ball. He too understood the concept of right of first refusal, but he had a feeling that the whole issue will have long since come and gone by then. Mr. Ciccariello agreed with Mr. Ball and Mr. McKinley. Even if the article passed in October he wasn’t sure how much the Town’s legislators could do with it by November.
Mr. Lemnios suggested that he could see if Town Counsel could add a paragraph to petition the General Court and if that couldn’t be done within this article, it may be a separate article.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that it was his preference to put in a separate article.
Mr. McKinley moved to direct Mr. Lemnios to work with Town Counsel to draft and submit an article requesting authorization for the Board of Selectmen to submit a home rule petition to the Legislature for the right of first refusal on any transaction for the Armory. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Natick Days
Mr. Ball reminded everyone that Natick Days would be held on September 11.
b. Nstar Tree Removal Tournament
Mr. Connolly asked about an update from Nstar on the tree removal situation on Tournament Road. Mr. Lemnios didn’t have an update and indicated that he would check with Deputy Town Administrator Stephen Lisauskas.
c. Auto Max Complaint
Mr. Connolly inquired as to follow-up information on Robert Raisch’s complaint about the auto repair business on Route 135.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had received correspondence from the Board of Health, but hadn’t as yet received correspondence from the Building Department on the questions asked. When all of those were in hand he would meet with Mr. Raisch.
d. Kansas Street Plowing
Mr. Connolly noted that the Labs plowed from their gate to Route 27 but there was a part of Kansas Street that didn’t get done and he wondered if it was the Town’s responsibility or that of the neighbors.
Mr. Lemnios pointed out that it was an unaccepted way and Mr. Connolly questioned if citizens living on an unaccepted way paid any less taxes. Mr. Lemnios’s response was, “no”, but noted that people purchased their homes on an unaccepted way.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
___________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
