BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
August 23, 2004
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on August 23, 2004 in the amount of $465,710.46. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $993,082.88.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Connolly, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:00 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Connolly, moved approval of the minutes of the May 10, 2004 meeting. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball abstained.
REQUEST TO CLOSE FERN STREET: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve Jeannette Christensen’s request to close Fern Street from Moore Street to Windsor Street on September 18, 2004 from 2:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. for a block party.
REQUEST TO CLOSE LEIGHTON STREET: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve Janice Ockerby’s request to close Leighton Street on September 18, 2004 (rain date September 19) from 3:00-7:00 p.m. for a block party.
REQUEST TO CLOSE TUCKER STREET: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve Robert Raisch’s request to close Tucker Street on August 29, 2004 from 2:00-7:00 p.m. for a block party contingent upon Safety Officer Sergeant Davis’ review.
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION: CAMP ARROWHEAD
Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini requested the Board’s acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the William J.J. Gordon Charitable Gift Trust Fund Foundation on behalf of Camp Arrowhead. He noted that the donation was received in late July from an article written in the Boston Globe. He was asking that the Board accept the donation and authorize the establishment of an account for Camp Arrowhead to offset the Camp’s expenses and in the future to keep the camp’s fees at present.
It was Mr. Ball’s recollection that the auditors had some concerns about accounts of this sort. He didn’t remember the details but wondered if this would violate the auditor’s recommendation. Mr. Cugini responded that to the best of his knowledge the auditors had asked him to do this if a donation was received.
As the money wasn’t going to be used for this camp’s session, Mr. Hughes moved to accept the gift and put it in the appropriate account
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION: CAMP ARROWHEAD (contd)
after discussions with the auditors. The motion was not seconded and a subsequent motion was passed.
Mr. McKinley moved to accept the gift as requested by Mr. Cugini. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly proposed sending a heartfelt letter to the donor and maybe including some photographs. Mr. Ciccariello asked that Mr. Cugini draft a letter of appreciation to be sent by both the Board of Selectmen and the Recreation Commission.
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION: NATICK BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Cugini requested the Board’s acceptance of a $6,000 donation from the Natick Basketball Association for the installation of a new gym floor at the Cole Center. Mr. Cugini noted that the Natick Basketball Association was a 501.c3 whose main function was to enhance youth basketball and they wished to donate $6,000 to install a Linopol gym floor at Cole Center to help the basketball program and any other activities there.
Mr. Ball noted that Cole was an old school and at some point the Town would either have to put money into it or close it and was it prudent to do this (new floor) at this point. Mr. Cugini noted that there had been some discussion about it and with the forecast now he would say yes.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept the $6,000 donation from the Natick Basketball Association for the installation of a new gym floor at Cole Center. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
SCHOOL COMMITTEE: ANNOUNCE VACANCY
The Board announced a vacancy on the School Committee left by the resignation of Kristine VanAmsterdam.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the School Committee was looking to conduct joint interviews at the Board’s September 20 meeting.
Mr. Connolly moved to post the vacancy with the deadline for filing applications September 16, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley inquired if the School Committee specifically said they wanted to fill this vacancy given the election coming up. Mr. Lemnios didn’t believe the Charter gave the option.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the drainage issues on South Main Street, North Main Street, Bennett-Hemenway were on the agenda and anyone wishing to speak to those issues could do so later on the agenda.
INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ARMORY PLANNING TASK FORCE
a. Guido Jacques
Guido Jacques told the Board that he was an abutter to the courthouse and was interested in being on this committee. He was working for a commercial contractor and had six years experience in construction and planning. He believed there would be a benefit in having someone with that experience. He has lived in Natick for 2-l/2 years.
b. Joel Barrera
Church Street resident Joel Barrera had sent a letter of interest but was unable to attend the meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello thought that the committee was pretty much ready to go and the hope was to get something scheduled for September 13 or sooner.
With all due respect to Mr. Barrera, Mr. Ball pointed out that he (Mr. Barrera) was not an abutting resident. The composition of the committee was supposed to include an abutting resident. Mr. Jacques was an abutting resident and Mr. Ball moved to appoint Guido Jacques to the Armory Planning Task Force. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ARMORY PLANNING TASK FORCE (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted receipt of a letter from the Armory Reuse Committee changing the appointment of their representatives to the Task Force. The Reuse Committee will be represented by Debra Sayre, Jeffrey Phillips and Karen Oakley. Susan Shea had stepped aside to allow Mr. Phillips to serve. He further noted that the representative from the Design Review Board was Jon Traficonte and from the Planning Board Robert Foster.
APPLICATION FOR JUNK DEALER’S LICENSE: MACY’S EAST, INC. d/b/a MACY’S #40
Representing Macy’s was the manager Alice Bellemy.
The Board was in receipt of an application from Macy’s for a junk dealer’s license for their premises at 1245 Worcester Road. Ms.
Bellemy explained that Macy’s had a line of vintage clothing under the trade name American Rag. The line was unique to them and just for Federated Department Stores.
Asked if there would be a department in the store, Ms. Bellemy advised that there would be. They got the clothing from San Francisco and sold things that looked like vintage.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant Macy’s East, Inc. d/b/a Macy’s #40 a junk dealer’s license to sell a line of vintage clothing at their 1245 Worcester Road premises. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSIENT VENDOR LICENSE (2): DINO QUAGLIETTA FOR WILLIAM H. HARRIS COMPANY
Before the Board was an application by Dino Quaglietta on behalf of the William H. Harris Company for two transient vendor licenses – one to hold a fur sale at the Crowne Plaza on November 20-21, 2004 and the second to hold a fur sale at the Crowne Plaza on January 15-16, 2005.
Dino Quaglietta told the Board that the William H. Harris Company was New England’s largest furrier and was entering their 76th year of business. They were trying to see if it was worthwhile to expand their business into this area.
Mr. Ball recalled there being a problem last year because the Board thought it might interfere with local businesses selling furs. It was determined that there were no local businesses selling furs and to the best of his knowledge that was still true.
Mr. Ball moved approval of granting Dino Quaglietta on behalf of the William H. Harris Company transient vendor licenses for November 20-21, 2004 and January 15-16, 2005 for a fur sale at the Crowne Plaza. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. Following discussion Mr. Ball amended his motion to grant the two licenses contingent upon telephone calls being made to the three department stores (Lord & Taylor, Filene’s, Macy’s) to see if they sell furs and if they said no, the licenses would be issued. The amendment was accepted by the seconder and unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. McKinley inquired if it was known for a fact that Lord & Taylor, Macy’s, and Filene’s did not sell furs. Mr. Guaglietta didn’t know that for a fact, but Mr. Ball believed they did not. Mr. McKinley pointed out that the issue was and continued to be not undertaking actions that put Natick’s established vendors at a disadvantage. He would vote against the license this evening until there was a definitive answer that none of Natick’s stores sell furs. If they did not, he had no problem voting for the license.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how often the William H. Harris Co. had done this and Mr. Quaglietta responded that in Natick they did it one
time last year and added that it would take numerous times to establish a customer base.
Nancy Montaldo from the Crowne Plaza told the Board that she was a big shopper of the Natick Mall and didn’t know of any store that sold furs. For this type of fur the closest was downtown Boston.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSIENT VENDOR LICENSE (2): DINO QUAGLIETTA FOR WILLIAM H. HARRIS COMPANY (contd)
Mr. Quaglietta noted that William H. Harris was an exclusive furrier and didn’t sell any clothing. There were department stores that carried fur trimmed coats and a small selection of novelty products.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC AND VERIZON: BACON STREET; ONE (1) POLE; REMOVAL OF ONE (1) POLE; ANCHOR GUY
Representing Nstar was Christine Cosby.
Mr. Lemnios advised that Deputy Town Administrator Stephen Lisauskas had been dealing with this and came up with a solution for the placement of this pole and guy wire. It was Mr. Lemnios’ understanding that all parties involved were in agreement with this placement.
Ms. Cosby submitted a revised plan showing the location.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
DRAINAGE ISSUES
In attendance for discussion of this item were DPW Director Charles Sisitsky, Director of Public Health Roger Wade, Conservation Commission Chairman George Bain, Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian, Town Engineer Mark Coviello, Highway Supervisor Thomas Hladick.
a. South Main Street
Reading from a prepared statement, E. Robert Santospago of 144 South Main Street told the Board that he spoke with Mr. Coviello on August 18, 2004 in an attempt to better understand the proposed method of handling the drainage problem in regard to the Hunter Hill Definitive Subdivision plan. The current plans indicated a holding reservoir for drainage water flowing down the hill, which was approximately 400 feet long by 40 feet wide by 3 feet tall. It would have an open bottom but otherwise be totally enclosed. It would have an inlet and an outlet. The outlet would be designed to allow the water to exit at a controlled rate such that the rate of flow would not exceed what would currently flow into the drainage ditch. The holding reservoir would be about 48,000 cubic feet and should be capable of holding
up to 359,000 gallons of water. Assuming there was always up to 6 inches of water in it at all times because of the water table, it would still take about 300,000 gallons to fill it up.
Mr. Santospago believed the approach may be adequate to prevent a poor overall drainage situation from getting worse and perhaps improve it providing the following occurred:
1. The holding reservoir was properly constructed and that the rate of flow exiting it during and after a storm was properly calculated and controlled.
2. The drainage ditch was properly maintained at scheduled periodic intervals to assure that the water can flow unobstructed to its final destination.
3. Another consulting engineering group be brought in to review the plan in order to assure that calculations made relative to sizing the holding reservoir rate of exit flow and so forth were correct providing reasonable safety factors.
4. The added consulting engineering group or the Town engineers should review the capacity of the existing storm drainage ditch along its entire path to its destination and determine whether or not changes should be incorporated such as under street pipe size, width, depth, and perhaps path.
5. Consideration of the development of the Castelli properties in the future. Mark Coviello had recommended that the Town Engineering Office and the applicant’s engineer meet to discuss the future extension of gravity sewer into the abutting properties. Assuming that a number of new houses were built on the Castelli properties in the future it was strongly suggested that this very likely possibility be taken into consideration relative to the impact to the drainage calculations that were made. Now was the time to determine if
DRAINAGE ISSUES (contd)
6. the capacity of the drainage system could withstand yet another development.
In conclusion Mr. Santospago stated he believed addressing those five comments prior to issuing permits was essential.
Christine Tessier of 138 South Main Street reminded the Board that this problem was discussed in 1991 and they still had this problem and it had gotten worse and needed a resolution. She showed pictures of what she termed the lake in her backyard. Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to when the pictures were taken and was told by Ms. Tessier that it was two years ago, but she added that there was water in the brook even today and this was the dry season.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had attended a meeting late Thursday with the Town Administrator, DPW and Board of Health to discuss the South Main Street issues. It was their understanding that in 1991 there was a discussion with the Board of Selectmen regarding the matter and some agreements were made although nothing was done in writing. Work was done by the DPW. The original ditch was moved out, piping installed and it was cleaned. In August 1994 an easement plan was prepared but no agreements were signed by any abutters. Somewhere along the line the issue of the easement got dropped. It was his understanding that neither the DPW nor the Board of Selectmen has received any complaints about any flooding over the last 3-4 years.
Mr. Ciccariello then noted that the Town had two ways to go for the clean up. The Town could go through Mosquito Control, which would not
require Conservation Commission approval, but if the Town went and did its own remediation work, the Town would have to go to the Conservation
Commission. The Conservation Commission was willing to work with the DPW to expeditiously make a determination.
Ms. Tessier noted that one of her neighbors, Ted & Mary Garland, spoke with Mr. Sarkisian about having water problems.
Mr. Sisitsky confirmed that everything Mr. Ciccariello had said was accurate. The Town did some major clean up in the early 1990’s including new culverts under Hunter & Ambler Court and took down some trees. Once that work was done there was talk about a permanent easement, but he didn’t recall what happened to the easement process and there were no records of getting the easements. In order to go back in there and do additional work, the DPW would need to get an order of conditions.
Mr. Hladick reported that the DPW went out on Friday and checked Ambler & Hunter. There was not much debris.
Mr. Lemnios added that there was a review of the Board of Selectmen’s minutes. Two culverts were improved for which they needed permission slips and in lieu of having to get permission slips every time, an easement plan was prepared. It may have to be verified but one way, if the Town were to go forward, to ensure that it was cleaned more regularly was for the neighbors to give the Town an easement.
Mr. Lemnios continued that right now there was a subdivision before the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board and it was his understanding that the Planning Board was requesting that the applicant provide funds for a consultant and it may improve the drainage because the water sheeting off that hill would have a place to be held. That was
a process that was currently ongoing. He also understood that the
Conservation Commission was concerned with the concerns of the neighborhood.
Mr. Sarkisian advised that the Planning Board had been reviewing the Hunter’s Hill Subdivision for almost a year and a half. When it was first filed, there were access issues. Since then the developer has made modifications to the plans, but it was still in the review process and the Planning Board wasn’t ready to approve anything. The developer was willing to pay for an outside consultant to review the plan. Mr. Sarkisian stated that he had confidence in the Town’s engineer, but the
DRAINAGE ISSUES (contd)
outside consultant review would be parallel to the Town’s. There were some issues with the grade of the road but when it was lowered it got involved with a retaining wall. The next public hearing was scheduled for September 8.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that there had been correspondence from some departments to the Planning Board. The Board of Health has issued letters. As it stood right now, the Town was trying to take steps to get everything cleaned up and needed to get together with the
neighborhood regarding the easement plan. He assured the neighbors that all of the concerns addressed here would be relayed to the
Planning Board. It was the Planning Board that had authority over the subdivision.
Conservation Commission Chair George Bain advised that the Conservation Commission would be meeting September 2, but there would be nothing decided at that time. The Commission was waiting to hear from a third party consultant. With regard to the issue of the ditch, Mr. Bain noted that as far as he could read the Conservation Commission had no problem if the Town could get the easements and set it up like a maintenance project and have the order of conditions based on that. That would give more flexibility in improving what’s going on there. Mosquito Control wouldn’t be digging it out or changing courses.
Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Bain was familiar with the subdivision being proposed and when Mr. Bain indicated that he was, Mr. McKinley inquired if any thought had been given to a recharge system. Mr. Bain responded that to his knowledge there had not been. Initially the applicant was talking about a retention pond but that didn’t work. What they came up with would handle a 100-200 year storm and would have quite a bit of flexibility. Mr. McKinley noted that the neighbors were concerned that the subdivision would add significant impervious surface and this wasn’t going to deal with a 100-year storm. Mr. Bain noted that that was the claim.
Bruno Castelli told the Board that the backup wasn’t the fault of the brook, but the capacity at South Main Street. He inquired as to what had to be done to increase the capacity.
Mr. Bain deferred the question to Town Engineer Mark Coviello and Mr. Coviello advised that the drainage infrastructure could be increased by increasing the size of the pipe. It (pipe) would be significant in size and costs and he pointed out that there was a wetlands system and if it (increase pipe) was done throughout the Town, it would eliminate the wetlands, which in a flood event provides a necessary service. It (increasing pipe size on South Main) would just be carrying the water from one section at a faster rate and pushing it down to a lower spot. He felt the Town had to live with this infrastructure and mitigate the problems and in part that was what they were trying to do with the Hunter Hill subdivision and not make the run off any worse. The size of the ditch could be increased and the size of the piping
could be increased, but it would be drying up a wetland.
Mr. Connolly noted that recently there was an issue about drainage on a Grants Street project and he wondered who made that concern. Mr. Ciccariello acknowledged that drainage was one of the issues and it had been raised by members on the Board, the Planning Board, Mr. Sarkisian and himself. Mr. Connolly expressed the opinion that there were paid Town employees who should make these findings and police it so citizens shouldn’t have to do their own perk tests. It seemed to him that that
wasn’t being done. He also noted that Trask (the developer) had already ripped up trees.
Mr. Sarkisian responded that Hunter Hill had not been approved by the Planning Board and the property owner could cut down trees in his backyard if he was not working in a wetland.
Mr. Connolly commented that the drainage issues brought before the Conservation Commission were well founded and the Conservation
DRAINAGE ISSUES (contd)
Commission hadn’t signed off. Mr. Bain responded that the Conservation Commission was waiting for whoever would be hired to consult.
Mr. Connolly questioned if there was someone in charge who made that call, and Mr. Lemnios explained that typically a developer came before the Town, filed an application, and within the application there would be a variety of things. Mr. Connolly indicated that all he wanted to know was who dealt with the drain off, and Mr. Lemnios explained that in the application was a drainage plan. The plan was circulated to the DPW, Board of Health and Community Development and they looked at what the engineer submits relative to the drainage plan and it was common for the departments to comment back. In this instance because the neighbors have come forward and said they were really concerned both the Conservation Commission and Planning Board were saying they want a sum of money provided to hire an independent engineer that will
work for the Town to review the drainage plans and determine if the calculations were accurate.
Mr. Connolly noted that these citizens were before the Conservation Commission. He knew that during the election Mr. Martin told him (Mr. Connolly) he had problems. Mr. Connolly believed the ditch was a problem and the Board should address it. Salich (a hydrologist who had reviewed the problem in the early 1990’s) didn’t think the retention pond was a good idea and that was what was now being recommended. Mr. Connolly wondered if all of the boards were working together. The citizens were being asked to come down here to Conservation Commission, Planning Board and Board of Selectmen meetings. These citizens paid their taxes and he was questioning if the citizens were getting a fair shake. Mr. Connolly wanted to ask Ms. Tessier for her opinion, but Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think it
was appropriate to ask someone if they felt they were getting a fair shake.
Mr. Lemnios noted that as a result of last Thursday’s meeting, another meeting was scheduled to talk about improving the internal process and Mr. Connolly was welcome to attend. Mr. Connolly asked if he were welcome to attend last Thursday’s meeting and noted that the only Selectman to have attended that meeting was Mr. Ciccariello. Mr. Lemnios advised that Mr. Ciccariello had attended as chairman. Mr. Ciccariello added that as the chairman it was implied that he would attend because a commitment was made to find out the issues, but any member of the Board could attend.
Mr. Lemnios noted that there was a whole process in place not only in Natick but the Commonwealth. When a proposal was put forward neighbors were notified that maybe something was happening relative to their immediate area. Ms. Tessier interjected that they were not. Mr.
Lemnios pointed out that an abutter’s list was a certain number of feet and that process gave notice to residents that there may be something of interest. At times it was incumbent on the residents to come and listen to what’s going on. There was a publication in the paper. There were Town employees who review the plans and do the best they can relative to these designs. There were instances where no matter how well a drainage system was designed it could get overwhelmed and he didn’t think a drainage system could be designed that would handle everything.
Mr. Connolly responded that he understood that, but this particular brook was already maxed out. He had asked Mr. Bois (Conservation Agent) and Mr. Bois said letters were sent to the abutters of the property. He (Mr. Connolly) asked Mr. Bois to draft a letter for the abutters to the brook. These people paid a lot of taxes and should be able to enjoy their home.
Mr. Lemnios responded that the residents were not ignored and reminded Mr. Connolly that he had heard from the Community Development Director and Conservation Commission that the Hunter Hill subdivision had been before them for well over a year. That was because they (Planning Board and Conservation) were worried about how it would work. It was a lengthy process but the owner of the property had a certain set of rights. Town employees were constantly looking at the collective
DRAINAGE ISSUES (contd)
rights. It couldn’t just be done for people sitting at home. Everybody had an obligation to attend the meeting.
Mr. Connolly felt that the Town had an obligation to protect their (citizens) rights and Mr. Lemnios countered that we were. Mr. Connolly questioned how hard the Town was working at this, and Mr. Lemnios noted that there were multiple member bodies working for over a year.
Mr. McKinley was of the opinion that this debate wasn’t adding any value to the solution. It was an existing problem that has been going on for quite some time in various degrees. Maintenance of a drainage ditch may be exacerbated and there was a potential exacerbation by a subdivision, but that couldn’t be answered tonight. The recommendation for an independent hydrologist was a good one and he would recommend that the Town Administrator come back with a plan and budget strategy for doing just that.
Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. McKinley was talking about a second engineer in addition to the engineer of the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board. Mr. McKinley’s response was, “no”, adding that he just wanted to be sure the engineer got hired and examined the issues in their entirety. A cohesive understanding of the problem was needed with all its components and a well-engineered solution. If the
developer would pay for it as part of the subdivision application, that was fine.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the easement plan needed to be expanded to do whatever was planned for the new subdivision. Mr. Coviello advised it
was not. They would have to make sure that the easement plan prepared over 10 years ago was the correct size but he didn’t believe it would have to be adjusted for what the applicant has proposed thus far.
If the plan got approved, Mr. Hughes inquired as to who would maintain the underground retention center. Mr. Coviello noted that originally the applicant proposed an open detention basis. Through the public hearing process the residents were concerned and the applicant agreed to have the engineer look at the possibility of having it underground. It would be loamed and seeded as a side yard for one of the lots. It was still being reviewed and he had several issues that hadn’t been answered to his satisfaction. Because it was being moved underground he had a concern with it being out of sight out of mind and the cost to repair or replace a system that was underground was a concern. His recommendation was for a covenant with the Town through a homeowners association or some entity where the owners of
the properties would be required to maintain.
Mr. McKinley recalled that when he was on the Conservation Commission that a covenant was the method for quite a while and not a single one worked. Allowing a developer to create a structure that would require maintenance and assuming a neighborhood covenant would take care of it was doomed for failure.
Mr. Coviello felt that the other thing to consider was where the storm water regulations were going and Mr. McKinley noted that that was more reason for the Town to have control over it.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the Planning Board and Conservation Commission would hold public hearings at which that would be discussed. The other thing was how to get the abutters to the present ditch to meet with the DPW to talk about an easement plan. Mr. Lemnios could get together with Mr. Coviello and talk about some dates and get in touch with the neighbors and set up another meeting to resolve.
Ms. Tessier told the Board that the neighbors appreciated the Board listening and appreciated any help they could be given. She had been in Natick since she was born. Mr. Ciccariello wanted a sign (in front of her house) when he was looking for votes and now she wanted him to vote for her.
DRAINAGE ISSUES (contd)
b. North Main Street
Mr. Ciccariello reported that there had been a meeting last Thursday involving the DPW, Board of Health, Building Inspector and Mr. Connolly. He wasn’t sure there was a solution yet. He believed there were some onsite issues that need to be addressed but hadn’t been able to confirm that with the development. It had to be understood that in
addition to Town property there were numerous other properties and the problem with the existing drainage couldn’t be addressed overnight. There were a lot of other factors.
Marilyn Rando of 34 North Main Street commented that that was why she had asked the Board to do this under eminent domain. Mr. Ciccariello wasn’t sure the Board was ready to go that far and felt it should be done step-by-step.
Mr. Coviello noted that the site in question was 34 North Main Street, which was a nine-unit condo. At this time he was unwilling to comment on the specifics of the site and was unsure at this time that the developer built the onsite drainage system according to the approved site plan. What impact that had on the flooding that occurred last week was still to be determined. There was a meeting today with the applicant’s engineer on what was constructed and he was going back and doing an as built. Mr. Coviello didn’t know if it was constructed right, but he didn’t think it was. There were some issues with the elevation of the units.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that it had been mentioned that there was a lot of debris in the outfall pipes and asked if somebody had looked at it.
Mr. Coviello responded that the area in question was on Willow, Mechanic, Bigelow and it all flows down on the west side of Walnut under the railroad tracks by the Italian American club and ultimately to the lake. At one time this area was a series of streams that go through private property and have been built on. The drainage that goes down Willow ultimately goes under a building and opens into an open ditch under the railroad tracks. After the rain event that occurred a week ago last Thursday, he found a 55 gallon plastic barrel that may or may not have had an impact on the flooding. There was some debris that gets caught on a headwall as it goes down through the Navy Yard.
Mr. Hladick reported that he went down there Friday and there was quite a bit of debris that washes down there. All of that was removed. A lot of silt builds up and that was all dug out.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the drainage ditch that ran from the railroad tracks between the fields was private property or Town property and was told by Mr. Hladick that it was Town land. As to the maintenance, Mr. Hladick advised that part could be done with the machines and the rest by hand.
Mr. Hughes commented that this condo development had been approved by ZBA variance, and Mr. Coviello responded, “yes”.
With regard to the specific issue of complaint, Mr. Lemnios noted that there were about six areas of Town that could use additional funding for engineering to try to resolve some long-term drainage problems. He
would be looking to put forward some funds for engineering at this Fall Town Meeting and if not, they would have them in place for the Annual Town Meeting.
A while back a drainage study was funded along North Avenue and Mr. McKinley asked if that had been completed. Mr. Coviello advised that a conceptual cost estimate was done for five areas almost two years ago and this was one of the five.
Ms. Rando thanked Mr. Connolly, but noted that he hadn’t received a telephone call from anyone. She e-mailed her concerns and e-mailed pictures and received not one response.
DRAINAGE ISSUES (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello told Ms. Rando that he didn’t have an answer and didn’t think the DPW had an answer. The Building Department and Mr. Coviello were researching to find out if the development was built according to the plans submitted. Some investigation work was needed and he didn’t have an answer. Until the research was done he couldn’t give Ms. Rando a definitive answer. If the complex wasn’t built properly and the drainage not built properly that may be the cause of the problem.
Ms. Rando asked if she would have a definitive answer next week, but Mr. Ciccariello didn’t know. He suggested that Ms. Rando may want to go to the developer and ask if the units were built according to the documents submitted. The Town was trying to find out why this occurred.
Ms. Rando suggested that looking at the culvert may provide the answer, but Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that it may not only be the culvert. Ms. Rando indicated that she understood that and then questioned if drainage wasn’t part of her real estate taxes. Mr. Ciccariello explained that when a developer submitted plans to build their drainage plans the assumption was that the developer’s engineer certified that the drainage on site would work and some of the drainage would be contained on site so all of a sudden it didn’t just flow into the Town system which causes problems. It wasn’t known at this time how that system was built.
Ms. Rando responded that it appeared that the system that was there was outdated and had anyone looked at the culvert at Willow. The trees were wrapped around the culvert and she questioned if anyone had gone to repair the collapsed culvert. Mr. Ciccariello noted that it wasn’t that simple and Ms. Rando countered that it needed to be dredged and maintained.
Mr. McKinley told Ms. Rando that the Board didn’t have enough facts. He felt that her proposed solutions were unqualified and her attack of Town employees was at best inappropriate. Ms. Rando had a bad experience and all of a sudden her problem was the entire fault of the Town and everybody should stop what they were doing to solve her problem. Noting that that was correct because she paid taxes here, Ms. Rando warned Mr. McKinley that his remark would come back and bite him.
She understood that it was a costly expense to fix the drainage but it needs to be done.
Mr. Ciccariello shut off the discussion and reiterated that the Board and the Town employees were investigating it and if it took two weeks
that was what it would take. The Town didn’t build Ms. Rando’s development. She bought it and there was an incident and the Town was trying to resolve it. Unfortunately this event happened and Ms. Rando had to give the Town time to find a proper solution. It was not just a matter of cutting down a couple of trees, and he didn’t even know if some of the trees were on Town property.
Ms. Rando’s final comment was eminent domain and she asked that Mr. Connolly call her.
Jim Geheran of 34 North Main Street stated that he was disturbed by the dialog that has happened and asked that the Board take what Ms. Rando said as her own expression and not as a spokesperson for the condo. He understood it was a complex process. His concern was coming to grips with what that process was and listening tonight his level of confidence wasn’t very high. The first thing was to understand what the problem was and what he heard tonight was that the Town didn’t understand. Mr. Coviello suspects it was that the developer didn’t build according to plan, and he (Mr. Geheran) questioned the oversight put on the builder without making sure he (builder) delivered as the plans progressed. He was concerned how the Board was going to get the facts so it could make the appropriate
decision.
Mr. Lemnios explained that the area was being looked at as a two-part issue – specifically 34 North Main Street and the larger issue of what to do with the drainage in that area. Five-six areas have been identified in the Town and he would be looking to put money in place to
DRAINAGE ISSUES (contd)
resolve the drainage in those areas. Following that step funds would be sought at Town Meeting to construct the solution. He understood that the developer met with the Building Department today and the Building Department has requested certain information from the developer. With regard to the larger issue, he would be bringing forth a request for funds for engineering and with that complete there will be a good idea of what needs to be done.
Mr. Geheran requested a timeline or plan for when it would be resolved so no one would be looking at a decade long process. Mr. Lemnios thought it would be reasonable that within two weeks there would be a schematic laid out. It would be contingent on Town Meeting approval, but he thought Mr. Coviello and Mr. Sisitsky would have something laid out if engineering funds were in place.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was any sense for when the developer would get back with all the engineering information. Mr. Coviello didn’t know and added that the developer had to do some physical survey. Mr. Ciccariello requested Mr. Lemnios to talk to the Building
Department and have them give a specific date for when the Town wanted a response.
Once a construction project was done, Mr. Connolly questioned if somebody went out and reviewed it to see what had been done and if done up to code. Mr. Ciccariello advised that during construction the
building, wiring, and plumbing inspectors went out. To what extent they confirmed the site work, he didn’t know and that was something the Board had to find out. Mr. Ciccariello noted that this was a ZBA approval and didn’t go through the Planning Board process with a lot of public hearings and design issues.
Ms. Rando asked about the funds and Mr. Ciccariello responded that Mr. Lemnios would seek to get the funds through the budget process. It would go to the Finance Committee hearings and the Finance Committee would make a recommendation to Town Meeting and Town Meeting votes on whether or not to fund the project. The Board of Selectmen makes a recommendation on whether or not to support it and obviously more than likely all the Board members would support rectifying the drainage issues they had heard about but ultimately Town Meeting makes the decision.
Mr. Lemnios noted that this could be a multi year process. The engineering design might take upwards of a year and easements may have to be acquired and that could take time. Even the power of eminent domain takes time and it was fraught with a wide variety of difficulty.
To Ms. Rando it sounded long and drawn out. As to timing Mr. Lemnios advised that it could take upwards of a couple of years. Multi phases were involved and the only way to start was to get the engineering funds in place.
In response to Mr. Lemnios’ comment that there may be some instances where it (drainage) couldn’t be rectified, Ms. Rando questioned what people would do – just live with the water. She noted that she was not in a flood zone. Mr. Lemnios replied that there may be other reasons, but the best way was to develop a solution and go about doing the solution. If Ms. Rando knew of a better way to do it in a more expeditious manner, Mr. Lemnios asked for Ms. Rando’s help.
Mr. Ciccariello assured Ms. Rando that the Town would get back to her as soon as possible.
c. Bennett-Hemenway School Area – Westlake Road
Town Meeting member and an abutter to the flood area, Janet Nolan of 21 Waring Road told the Board that her area had recurring floods. It was an ongoing issue but appears there had been an exacerbation with the building and change in the fields of the Bennett-Hemenway School. It (flooding) was a neighborhood and community safety hazard. Cars stall in the middle of the intersection, manhole covers come off. The
DRAINAGE ISSUES (contd)
intersection of Waring and Westlake was heavily traveled as a cut through. As a representative of precinct 5 she asked the Board to give
the neighbors some direction and a timeline for how to get this problem resolved.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled this being brought to the Board the first year he was on the Board and there were some issues with Bennett-Hemenway
with some drains set too high or too low. The Board of Selectmen referred it back to the School Committee to come up with a solution.
Mr. Coviello advised that this was one of the five areas looked at, and Mr. Lemnios noted that some funding for engineering design for several of these areas was being sought at Fall Town Meeting. Asked if he (Mr. Lemnios) was prepared to go forward either under Article 14 or through the budget, Mr. Lemnios responded that it would be talked about over the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Hughes inquired if this was a potential sewer issue, but Mr. Coviello advised that it was storm drainage.
Mr. Hughes remembered there being a drain at Ben-Hem that was set wrong and was that fixed. Mr. Coviello advised that after the completion of the School it was brought to the Town’s attention that the neighbors experienced an increase (in water drainage). There was a catch basin that was set at a high elevation during construction and the outlet has been adjusted so the water ponds in the fields.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to when Mr. Coviello first heard about this problem and Mr. Coviello responded that it was about six years ago. Mr. Connolly questioned if the problem that has been in existence since 1998 was an oversight or poor planning. Manhole covers coming off was a huge danger and in six years the Town hadn’t done anything. In October 2001 Town Meeting approved funding the drainage studies and what’s the delay. Ms. Rando was told two years, but this was six years.
Mr. Lemnios stated that he couldn’t speak to the issue in the past, but going forward funds were going to be put in place for engineering to look at a series of drainage issues that were longstanding and a significant cost. It was probably $4-5 million to resolve. He suspected that (in the past) looking at the priority the priority was replacing schools. There was a decline in the economy and this was an item where choices were made.
In response to Mr. Connolly’s comment that new construction drainage issues were being seen and why the Town wasn’t catching this, Mr. Lemnios acknowledged that it had gotten worse but some of the flooding pre-dated (the new construction). It was correct that whenever new construction was brought into an area it was disrupting what was in place. Engineers were hired to put in solutions and in most cases the solutions work but not in all. Mr. Lemnios agreed with Mr. Connolly’s remark that this (Westlake) would be chalked up as one that didn’t work. Mr. Lemnios also indicated that he would be intrigued to find
out to what extent the reconstruction of Ben-Hem had to do with this problem.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that someone had brought pictures in before showing that the basin was too high and someone did some remedial work, but the problem still exists. The School Committee would have to be asked about what steps were or would be taken. Mr. Connolly made a
motion to have the Town Administrator ask the School Committee, but Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think a motion was needed as it was obvious.
Mr. Lemnios pointed out that the Town had gone through a period where there was no capital in place. This issue was a multi-million dollar solution when all the areas were taken together and required bonding. The other thing was the general condition of the roadways and that too would be a multi-million dollar cost. Competing for those dollars were the high school and several large capital projects confronting the Town. Drainage in most cities and towns was always lagging until something happened. If he had his druthers he would have a healthy
DRAINAGE ISSUES (contd)
budget set aside every year for drainage and roadways. The drainage wouldn’t get better unless something was done.
Mark Brambilla of 43 Westlake told the Board that his house was at the intersection of Westlake and Waring. He had lived there for two years and witnessed this flooding at every storm. It was his understanding that there was a solution to the problem for about $130,000 and although he wasn’t saying that this problem was more important than the others, there was an aspect of safety for the children. He asked if it was possible to find the funding outside the bonding.
Mr. Lemnios responded that he would look into it.
Were the Town to appropriate the money under the budget article, Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Brambilla would be willing to not seek action on the citizen petition article. Mr. Brambilla advised that he would be.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Before the Board was a list of the 28 articles for Fall Town Meeting. The Board was also in receipt of correspondence from the Town Moderator concerning the Moderator’s article.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Natick Labs – Thermal Test Facility
It was Mr. Ball’s understanding that the RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) was unaware of the application by the Labs to create a thermal test facility until late into the process. Given the state of the federal legislation, which would eliminate the RAB when cleanup was privatized, he wanted to express concern to the Labs that the RAB was an arm of Town government and the Board didn’t appreciate them from being excluded or kept from doing the job they were established to do. He wanted the Board to be aware that the RAB was to be an oversight group and they were not afforded to any oversight.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Ball was suggesting that a letter be sent, but Mr. Ball wasn’t sure. He (Mr. Ball) felt that the Board depended on the RAB to keep in check a facility that dealt with a lot of toxic materials and he thought they (RAB) should be empowered to do their job and in this case the Labs rescheduled the RAB’s meeting until after the application was filed.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that if Mr. Ball felt that the RAB was not given the opportunity to participate then a letter should be sent stating how the Board felt. Mr. Ball agreed that that was good for starters. Mr. Hughes had no objection. Mr. McKinley agreed philosophically but he was not ready to sign off on a letter until the Board knew what this chamber was for and what procedures the RAB felt should have fallen under their purview. He felt the Board was lacking facts for making a judgment that someone did or did not do something wrong. Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board get something from Marco Kaltofan, the RAB Chairman. Mr. Lemnios indicated that he would ask Robert Bois, the Town’s Environmental Compliance Officer to look into it.
b. Financial Reports
Mr. Hughes requested an update on the financial reports for the next meeting. He noted that the Board had received the monthly reports for April and May but hadn’t seen the June report, a year-end report or a July report nor had the Board received a July report for the golf course.
Mr. Hughes also noted that the Board was supposed to be getting reports on Town projects – where the projects were, were they on time, were they spending correctly against the bond authorization. Mr. McKinley advised that that had been the topic of discussion at the last Financial Operations Committee meeting. The June reports were not as yet given to the Board because the offices were closing the books and the report would be available for the next Fin Ops meeting. As for the project reports, it was decided that that was the number 1 priority to get those up and running as well.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
c. Church Street – Speeding Traffic
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Ron Reebe of 6 Church Street concerning cars going down Church Street at a rapid rate of speed. There was also the issue of a very dim streetlight.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Lemnios to have the Police Department look into this concern.
d. School Street Extension – Street Acceptance
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to a letter from David Soens regarding his attempt to bring School Street Extension up to where it would need to be for the Town to accept the street. In his letter Mr. Soens voiced concerned about the number of residents who had to agree in order to go forward. Mr. Ciccariello thought Mr. Soens raised an interesting point and asked that Mr. Lemnios look into it and respond.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
