BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
September 7, 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, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley, John Connolly
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2004 meeting.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION: INFORMATION SYSTEMS ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved to accept the resignation of Mary Kate Applegate from the Information Systems Advisory Board with thanks for her service. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Ball moved to post the opening for interviews on October 4, 2004. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
NATICK CENTER ASSOCIATES: PERMISSION TO HANG BANNER, CLOSE STREET
The Board was in receipt of a request from Steven Greenberg, Executive Director of Natick Center Associates requesting permission to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of November 22, 2004 through December 4, 2004 in advertisement of the First Light Celebration. Mr. Greenberg also requested permission to close Main Street from North Avenue to the intersection of Route 135 from 4:45 p.m.-7:00 p.m. on Saturday, December 4, 2004 to allow First Light participants to stroll from store to store to enjoy a night of shopping, entertainment and food.
Representing Natick Center Associates was Bruce Weisberg who told the Board that this was the third annual First Light celebration.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of both the request to hang a banner and the request to close the Main Street. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: CYCLE FOR HAYLEE BICYCLE RIDE
The Board unanimously voted to approve the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s request to conduct the 2004 Cycle for Haylee fund raising bicycle tour through Natick on October 2, 2004 contingent upon submission of insurance naming the Town as an additional insured. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball.
LODGE ROAD BLOCK PARTY: CHANGE OF DATE
In a letter to the Board, Bill Marston of 1 Lodge Road requested permission to close Lodge Road at both ends on September 26, 2004 from 1:00-6:00 p.m.
for a block party. Permission had previously been given for June 6, 2004, but the party was cancelled because of rain.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Safety Officer Sergeant Robert Davis had approved this request, and Ms. Challis explained that Sergeant Davis had approved the initial request.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
BRAEMORE ROAD: BLOCK PARTY
Mr. Ciccariello advised that a voice mail had been left in the office from Michael Fraser requesting permission to close Braemore Road on September 18, 2004 for a block party. Mr. Fraser had indicated that he had just learned that permission from the Board was required.
Mr. Ball moved approval of the request to close Braemore Road on September 18, 2004 from noon-8:00 p.m. for a block party. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
In making his motion Mr. Ball pointed out that it had been the practice of the Board not to vote on issues that were not part of the published agenda.
BRAEMORE ROAD: BLOCK PARTY (contd)
He suggested making an exception in this case, that had been the practice and he thought it should continue.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. North Main Street Drainage
Marilyn Rando reminded the Board that when she appeared before the Board two weeks before she was told that she would have some answers on the drainage situation at her North Main Street condo. Mr. Lemnios called her today and gave her a little update but she didn’t have anything in-depth that this would happen on this date and this would happen on that date or what was going on with it.
Mr. Lemnios recounted his conversation with Ms. Rando. He stated that he told her that there had been some internal meetings on process and looking to improve those processes relative to Planning Board, Building Department, etc. decisions. They were working on some cost estimates to present to the Finance Committee for Fall Town Meeting. The FinCom’s first meeting was September 21 and he would call her in advance of when this issue would be discussed (at the FinCom). He had also told her that he would be talking to Highway Supervisor Tom Hladick about some additional cleaning. Plus he had sent a letter to CSX relative to the partially collapsed culvert owned by CSX urging them to make repairs.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that it was his understanding that the Building Department had notified the developer of some potential issues and the developer brought his engineer back in and the Town was waiting for the developer and his engineer to submit as built plans.
Ms. Rando questioned if there was a short-term solution that could be done; i.e. clear cutting the culvert back 3,000 feet or so back to the Italian American Club. She expressed concern with winter coming and the hurricane.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Town couldn’t tell her if that was a short-term solution that would work until the Town got the engineering report. He didn’t know what the impact had been if any changes had been
made. The developer hired an engineer to design the system. The engineer stamps it saying it would work. He has resurveyed the property and the pipe system as installed and the Town was waiting for feedback on what occurred there. If it came back and the Town’s engineering department concurred,
some clearing could be done, but the Town couldn’t cut trees on private property.
Ms. Rando noted that it was on public property, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Town would take whatever steps were necessary on Natick’s part to resolve this, but the Town must first get the engineering study. To Ms. Rando’s comment that it was nothing that a chain saw wouldn’t solve, Mr. Ciccariello countered that if it was a matter of cutting a couple of trees, it would have been done, but the Town didn’t know.
Ms. Rando then asked if it were possible for her to get the minutes relating to this issue. There was a meeting on August 16 and August 23 and Mr. Ciccariello referred to another meeting prior to that and she would like to get those minutes as well. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that Ms. Rando had only been here for three meetings (including tonight). Ms. Rando agreed, but noted that Mr. Ciccariello had referenced that there had been a discussion about this before. Mr. Ciccariello noted that there had been internal meetings. Ms. Rando requested those minutes, but Mr. Ciccariello didn’t know if any had been kept. Mr. Lemnios explained that they were internal and not public. They (meetings) were administrative.
Ms. Rando questioned if it was typical to have a meeting and not have it public. Mr. Lemnios advised that every day there were meetings to resolve administrative issues. Those were not public meetings. Ms. Rando repeated her request for the minutes of the meeting that Mr. Ciccariello referred to on August 23, and again Mr. Lemnios explained that there had been administrative meetings, which were not the same as a public meeting. Mr. Ciccariello told Ms. Rando that he would be glad to give her any public minutes.
Mr. Connolly noted that he had been invited to the last two meetings and there was a lot of work done in those meetings and people were working hard on Ms. Rando’s issue and other drainage issues. He inquired if the Town had heard from CSX and Mr. Lemnios responded ‘no’. In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked if that had been the second letter sent and Mr. Lemnios replied that one had been sent (to CSX) a couple of years ago by the DPW and the response was that even though CSX owned it they would not participate. They wouldn’t
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
hamper the Town from doing it. It would involve taking out the tracks and putting in the drainage. The possibility of a sleeve was raised, but it couldn’t be sleeved.
Mr. Connolly said he thought it seemed like the ditch would hold a lot of water and he had asked about the possibility of dredging but Mr. Lemnios thought it would require a lot of environmental permits. Mr. Lemnios confirmed that typically there were a lot of environmental permits involved and it was a fairly lengthy process. Mr. Connolly asked if it was possible for the Finance Committee or the Board to entertain the thought that the developer’s engineer and contractor would aid the taxpayers. Mr. Lemnios was sure that it was possible for anybody to entertain, but he didn’t see what ability the Town had to compel anybody who had completed the process to do anything and the Town would encounter some legal actions. The appeal period for the ZBA decision was long past and it would be akin to
Natick
granting a building permit and two years later saying we don’t think we charged enough and we want you to come back and pay more.
Ms. Rando said she understood what Mr. Lemnios was saying but she thought the Town had the responsibility to the people who were going to be
purchasing a house or condo if it was going to be built that it was going to be built correctly and the Building Inspector was going to go frequently and check that the property was being built correctly. What she had heard through Mr. Wade (Director of Public Health) on August 16 was that the building was about 1-1/2 feet shy of the specifics turned into the Town. She questioned why the Building Inspector had at least 10 months to catch it but he didn’t notice it. She wanted to know that and suggested that the Board should get the Building Inspector down here so she could ask him.
Mr. Ciccariello told Ms. Rando that the matter was being investigated and everyone was trying to find out what happened. It was not that easy to determine whether someone allegedly changed the footing without as built plans. He pointed out that Ms. Rando bought a house and she could put pressure on the developer to get back to the Town as soon as possible. The Town was trying to find a solution. The Town was hoping to already have the as built plans but didn’t.
Ms. Rando inquired if there was a timeline. Mr. Ciccariello advised that the developer had been put on notice and it was in the developer’s best interest to get the information in sooner rather than later. Ms. Rando would be advised of another meeting. Ms. Rando stated that she would like to have the Building Inspector in front of her, but Mr. Ciccariello indicated that the Board would make that decision.
b. Public Hearing – Storage of Flammables – 226 Worcester St.
James DeMaeo of 20 New Hampshire Avenue rose to speak on the application for the storage of flammables at 226 Worcester St., but Mr. Ciccariello noted that that was an agenda item and Mr. DeMaeo would be given an opportunity to speak at that time.
c. North Main Street Drainage
James Gehrean of 34 North Main Street noted that he had addressed the Board two weeks ago and had asked if it was unreasonable to have a game plan in place on how to address with drop dead dates and have that as a working document. Let’s put together a plan and work together. He was told two weeks ago there would be an attempt to have some sort of timeline and process in place for the neighbors to look at. Now he was hearing that the work was behind the scenes and information would dribble out.
After stating for the record that Mr. Gehrean and he had known each other for 25 years or so, Mr. McKinley went on to object to Mr. Gehrean’s remarks and characterization of what was being done. The problem being confronted was that at this point no one knew what the problem was. The structures there before the condo units didn’t have a flooding problem. This was a new structure and the question was why the new units caused a flooding problem and the Town had to find out why. The drawings being alluded to were crucial because it has only been alleged that the structure has been built at a lower level than approved. If that were true it might be concluded that there was adequate drainage capacity to get the water out, but while the water was flowing out it was too low. If the as
built plans conclude that it has overburdened the system, a different tack would be taken. Until
what caused the problem was known it was hard to know what the solution was. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that what needs to happen next was getting the as builts and anything Mr. Gehrean or Ms. Rando could do to help the Town get those would help the Town help them.
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
Mr. Ball agreed with both Mr. Gehrean and Mr. McKinley. The request for a timeline given the history of the problem was not unreasonable. The bureaucratic wheels grind slowly and a schedule tends to make people aware that time was going by and we don’t have the drawings. A timeline was not unreasonable. Was it going to be adhered to and every milestone met, probably not but it was not an unreasonable request and it would help the Building Inspector and the Board respond to legitimate concerns of the homeowner.
Mr. Lemnios advised that the developer had been given a letter by the Building Inspector saying there would be no further occupancy certificates given until those plans were submitted so he (developer) had every motivation to get those plans in. He (developer) had people who bought those units and can’t move in. Relative to the engineering in the general area, the process began at the Finance Committee in terms of seeking funding at the Fall Town Meeting. The Engineering Department has been asked to develop a projected timeline for the five drainage projects in question. In Mr. Guerin’s/Ms. Rando’s area there were easements that would have to be acquired. A draft of the timeline was sent to Engineering today and they were asked to respond and attach a dollar amount for each phase.
Mr. Gehrean stated that his intention was reflected by Mr. Ball and that was all he was looking for. He realized that the Town couldn’t jump to a solution and it was a complex problem, but it would help everyone to work toward a solution if the key factors were put down and there was a game plan to work on and bring to a successful closure rather than getting the neighbors here every week to get a piece of information.
Mr. McKinley felt that Mr. Gehrean and he agreed. He didn’t think anyone doubted the priority but to layout the steps and layout what it would cost you had to know what the problem was and nobody knew what the problem was. The drawings were the single most important thing the Town could get.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Mr. Lemnios had asked the DPW to come back with a timeline pending Town Meeting approval. He could give Mr. Gehrean the dates that the Finance Committee would meet, but couldn’t tell him what day the FinCom would bring it up. Once the Finance Committee made its recommendation, it went to Town Meeting and Town Meeting has to vote to appropriate the funds. If Town Meeting said no to the funds, it was back to square one. Mr. Ciccariello hoped that that would not happen and he recognized that it was frustrating to the residents. He (Mr. Ciccariello) had spent the last three Thursdays here trying to solve this and other drainage problems brought to the Board’s attention. They were trying to get things done, but it was a slow process.
Mr. Gehrean knew that a lot of work had been done and expressed appreciation. He added that he was just asking for something in writing for how this issue was going to be addressed. Mr. Lemnios reiterated that the administration was in the process of putting together those timelines and they wanted to be sure all of the phases were identified and the cost identified so when it was put to the Finance Committee and Town Meeting it was as accurate as
possible. In this area there were two issues – one specific to the North Main Street property and the second an overall solution for the area.
Mr. Gehrean explained that he was a process driven individual. While there were a lot of good intentions, from his experience unless there was a timeline on paper to address the problem, the problem wouldn’t be resolved.
Unless there was something on paper saying this was what was going to be attacked, he didn’t have a lot of confidence that it would be resolved. That was supported by what he heard two weeks ago when people were talking about ongoing drainage issues that hadn’t been resolved.
Mr. Lemnios assured Mr. Gehrean that what he (Mr. Gehrean) was talking about was what the Town was doing. It was exactly what Engineering was developing and that would be put to the Finance Committee. Mr. Hughes requested that the timelines be mailed to Ms. Rando and Mr. Guerin. Mr. Lemnios responded that he would and noted that he had already told Ms. Rando that he would give her a call when it was coming up for discussion at the Finance Committee and if Mr. Guerin would leave his telephone number, he would call him as well.
Mr. McKinley felt that Mr. Gehrean had made a good point about not knowing the process. They (Board and the Town Administrator) had been doing this for so many years that it has become second nature, but these people don’t
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
know, and it would be a valuable piece of information. Mr. McKinley asked if this (North Main Street drainage) would be part of Article 6, but Mr. Lemnios thought most likely it would be under the omnibus budget article.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: WINTER STREET (1) pole; (1) ANCHOR GUY
The hearing had begun on September 2, 2003 and was continued pending a scenic road hearing by the Planning Board and to provide Nstar an opportunity to study the possibility of a different plan to satisfy a concern raised by an abutter. The Office was informed that both issues had been resolved and in a memo dated May 26, 2004, Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian informed the Board that the Planning Board had held a scenic road hearing and did not object to the one pole and one anchor guy on Jennison Circle.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly complimented Town Rights & Permits Engineer William DeRosa on resolving the issue of a pole being placed on Pond Street and getting it immediately removed.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR THE ABOVEGROUND AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF FLAMMABLES: GEORGE PAGOUNIS, 226 WORCESTER ROAD
Mr. Ball moved to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Speaking on behalf of George Pagounis’ application for the installation of two new underground fuel storage tanks with a total capacity of 24,000 gallons and an above-ground storage tank for 250 gallons of heating oil for premises at 226 Worcester Street was engineer Elios Pappadula. Mr. Pappadula noted that there had been a gas station at this location since 1950 and in May they removed the underground tanks that had a 40,000 gallon capacity. The Pagounis’ wanted to put in tanks totaling 24,000 gallons and upgrade the station with double fiberglass tank leak detection system to
comply with Massachusetts regulations. The Pagounis’ were keeping the gas station and just putting in new tanks with less capacity than before.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that the site involved some soil contamination and asked Mr. Pappadula to explain. Mr. Pappadula responded that the Pagounis’ had the Texaco station there for years and when the tanks were removed some contaminated soil was found. Part of the contamination
was removed and now they were removing some additional contamination. Testing would be done to make sure there was no more contamination. There was a DEP plan for abatement measures and they were required to have an engineer on site – an LSP, to do the testing. The plan has been given to the state and the Town to look at.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if all of the proper authorities had been notified, and Mr. Pappadula advised that they had been – the Conservation Agent, DEP, Board of Health, and Fire Department were notified when the tanks were removed, and they (Pagounis) got the approvals to remove the rest of the soils from DEP. Groundwater was not an issue because it was 30 feet down.
Asked by Mr. Ciccariello if there had been monitoring wells, Mr. Pappadula advised that there were and still were monitoring wells. A whole study was done and sent to DEP. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the determination was made by a professional that the groundwater was not contaminated. Mr. Pappadula’s reply was, “yes”, adding that the tank replacement had nothing to do with the environmental issues. At the same time as the tank installation the consultant will be there with his own crew to do the additional removal of the contaminated soil. They pretty much knew what was there.
Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois felt that Mr. Pappadula had given a good summary of what work was involved. He (Mr. Bois) had read the study the consultant did and there was groundwater contamination but it was not from this site. Mr. Bois noted that in his memo to the Board he raised a policy issue. There was an installation going on at the same time as a remediation and he thought it was in the best interest of the community to do certain mitigation steps. He didn’t think the Pagounis’ had that much (contaminated) material. The common practice was for the Licensed Site Professional (LSP) to over estimate what was there. Because there was a lot of soil being moved around during the clean-up and redevelopment of the property, Mr. Bois recommended that the Board consider
a condition on the license that should help prevent contaminated soil from being mistakenly left on site. He recommended that the LSP send a letter to the Board notifying it that confirmatory samples showed that clean-up standards had
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR THE ABOVEGROUND AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF FLAMMABLES: GEORGE PAGOUNIS, 226 WORCESTER ROAD (contd)
been met in the contaminated areas before the installation on new equipment could occur. This condition should also include areas thought to be clean and where equipment would be installed underground and that all soil piles stored on site during clean-up and redevelopment be covered and appropriate steps taken to prevent soil erosion from the piles. He also thought that notices and updates should be sent to abutters during clean-up activities.
Mr. Bois confirmed for Mr. Hughes that this land was not the subject at the land court.
It was Mr. Ball’s recollection that when pulling oil tanks one requirement was that any contaminated soil pulled out got covered. Mr. Bois advised
that it was a requirement of the state, but if the state didn’t follow-up, it usually didn’t get done. This was a local attempt to bring enforcement of this work a little closer to home to be a little more responsive to the community.
Mr. McKinley asked if there were any Planning Board or Building permits needed and Mr. Ciccariello explained that it was an existing use. The Planning Board came up with some rules about existing sites being renovated.
If they were doing renovations to the building, they should have building permits. Mr. Pappadula noted that that was a different application and noted that when the tanks were installed any soil encountered that was contaminated would be tested and the Fire Department, the Town, and the State would be notified. Pulling a building permit was a different issue. Right now they were looking to install new tanks.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Pappadula was telling the Board that the owner was not going to be undertaking any renovations to the building. Paul Pagounis, the owner’s son, stated that at this point they were going to put in the tanks, a new dispenser that would require some electrical work, and open the gas station as it was. They were not looking to change the building. If any changes were to be made, they would present them to the Building Department, but the plans were to re-open as it was. It was painted blue because of Texaco trademarks. They didn’t want it left as it had been.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the 250-gallon above-ground tank and was told by Mr. Pappadula that that was a heating oil tank.
Mr. Ciccariello then inquired if Mr. Pagounis had a permit from the Fire Department. Mr. Pappadula advised that the Fire Department had looked at the plan and had stamped it. Ms. Challis confirmed that the Board had received a copy of the stamped plan.
Mr. McKinley commented that it made him a little uncomfortable granting permission to put in two large tanks when the site wasn’t cleaned up. He understood there was an LSP involved, but there was plumbing and underground wiring and that hadn’t been permitted as of yet. He felt that there were a number of things that hadn’t been discussed or approved by anyone else for the Board to be granting this license as yet.
Mr. Ball didn’t know the timetable but thought that some of Mr. McKinley’s issues might be resolved by having the LSP come before the Board. He wondered if it was possible to table and ask the LSP to come in. The fact was that the Pagounis’ were trying to do an installation at the same time they were doing a remediation.
Mr. Pappadula noted that there weren’t that many holes and the part of the station with some contamination was very limited. The place where the new tanks were going was in the same location as the contamination. Mr. Ball inquired if Mr. Pappadula was suggesting that in the process of excavation to install the tanks, the soil could be removed. Mr. Pappadula responded that they had to be sure there was no more contaminated soil on the site. He (Mr. Pappadula) had been working on 50 stations all over the state and usually when a station increased capacity they went to the Board of Selectmen. The Fire Department would look at the drawings and say no
problem. The drawings would be submitted for electrical work and a permit pulled. The plumber was not involved because the Fire Department was the one who accepts the work done by the engineer. The plumber was not involved. If the station does any work on the building, they had to pull a building permit.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR THE ABOVEGROUND AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF FLAMMABLES: GEORGE PAGOUNIS, 226 WORCESTER ROAD (contd)
Mr. Ball felt that the concern was with the contamination issue. The Town had been subject to some leaky oil and gas tanks over the past decade and was trying to make sure that when the tanks were installed they were
installed in holes that were clean. He would like to talk to the LSP and ask some specific questions.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello if there was a timeframe for construction, Mr. Pagounis responded that they thought they only needed approval from the Fire Department but was told that because there was a change in capacity, approval from the Board of Selectmen was needed. This was an unexpected delay.
Mr. Pappadula advised that the Board of Health had been notified.
James Dumais of 20 New Hampshire Avenue told the Board that when he moved there, there wasn’t a gas station. He had three children and his main issue was about the traffic and the children. There were a lot of children in the neighborhood and with the gas station there, it would be a cut through. He asked if the Board had given any thought to what solutions could be found to prevent a traffic situation. There was a lack of sidewalks.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the gas station was pre-existing and had been there for some time although it had been closed. The Board of Selectmen couldn’t stop the use as a gas station. Mr. Pagounis noted that it had been closed since May.
Mr. Dumais stated that he was concerned that putting a gas station there at the lights (at Oak Street) would back up traffic and the cars would shoot down his street.
Mr. Ciccariello thought that there was some limited hours for those streets and Mr. Dumais confirmed that there was no turning onto the streets from Oak Street during the hours of 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-7:00 p.m. That worked fine but there was a lot of down time where those hours weren’t in effect and a lot of children and this would open up a through way. Mr. Dumais asked if any thought had been given to close the end of the street or making it so that when you got gas you couldn’t turn down.
From when he lived on Jennings Pond Road Mr. McKinley remembered there being some neighborhood discussions about closing the streets off from Route 9 and dead end them all so access wasn’t allowed from Route 9. He knew there were also problems with that as well, but if the neighbors wanted to get together it could be looked at. Restricting traffic signs didn’t work. They worked for those who want to pay attention, but something more proactive than that was necessary.
Mr. Hughes’ memory was that those signs were the result of a lot of discussion with the Safety Committee and the residents. He suggested looking at those minutes and refer it back to Chief Mannix. He was fairly
certain there had been a lengthy discussion about it and he would hate to jump to a solution without knowing what the problem was.
Although he had no disagreement with that, Mr. Dumais noted that he lived on the street and cars still use it as a cut through. He bought the house in May and the gas station wasn’t there. His concern was with the children with cars bombing down the streets and the gas station would only add more traffic.
Carolyn Barbieri of Connecticut Avenue said she had a notice on her door about the hearing and thought this was the property on which there had been an ongoing discussion, but it wasn’t. She knew that the Texaco station had closed and asked if these were new owners. Mr. Ciccariello advised that it was the same owner. Ms. Barbieri then asked if the station would no longer be Texaco. Mr. Pagounis didn’t know. He noted that Mutual Oil (the sign that was there now) was a distributor of Texaco and Shell.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the signage was being changed and Mr. Pagounis responded that the size of the sign and location would stay the same. The name would change and it wouldn’t be Texaco. Mr. Ciccariello noted that even if the name just changed, it would still have to go before the Planning Board. From his (Mr. Ciccariello’s) perspective he would be willing to approve it with all the conditions plus the Mr. Bois inspecting the site as well to see that everything was being followed. He thought the State would probably not act as stringently as they should because of the amount (of contamination).
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR THE ABOVEGROUND AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF FLAMMABLES: GEORGE PAGOUNIS, 226 WORCESTER ROAD (contd)
Ms. Barbieri explained that the reason she was asking about the gas was that she didn’t know who was responsible for cleaning up the oil. She heard that groundwater was contaminated, but it had been determined that it was not from this tank. There was oil contamination on this site that hadn’t been resolved and groundwater contamination that wasn’t from this site that hasn’t been resolved. She asked if the Board was as concerned about the contamination as the neighbors were, and Mr. Ciccariello assured her that the Board was concerned. When asked who oversees this, Mr. Ciccariello advised that there was an LSP who was responsible for overseeing everything and reporting to the State. He (Mr. Ciccariello) added that he was suggesting that the Town’s own environmental
officer should stay heavily involved as well.
Mr. Ball had no problem with Mr. Bois being involved, but Mr. Bois wouldn’t have any authority once the installation was approved.
Mr. Bois stated that he assumed he would be working as an arm of the Board. The Board would approve the installation with these conditions and if the applicant didn’t meet these conditions, they couldn’t install their tanks.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he was suggesting that a condition of approval be that Mr. Bois inspect. Mr. Hughes clarified that Mr. Bois was going to inspect that the Pagounis’ were in compliance with the conditions of the license. The inspection for whether the tanks were installed correctly was the Fire Department and the electrical inspection was the Electrical Inspector. Mr. Bois was not being asked to do that.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly suggested that the abutters should feel free to call Mr. Bois at any time.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant a license for the installation of two new underground fuel storage tanks with a total capacity of 24,000 gallons and an above-ground storage tank for 250 gallons of heating oil for premises at 226 Worcester Street conditioned upon the following: Receipt of a letter from the Licensed Site Professional confirming that samples show that clean-
up standards have been met in the contaminated areas before the installation of new equipment occurs; all soil piles stored on site during clean-up and re-development be covered and appropriate steps taken to prevent soil erosion from the piles; steps be taken to control the dust; the abutters be provided with notices and updates during clean-up activities. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. McKinley stated that he wanted to make sure of what it meant to designate Mr. Bois as the compliance officer. It was Mr. McKinley’s understanding that Mr. Bois was being granted exclusive authority on behalf of the Board of Selectmen to use his best judgment in permitting the work to go forward and at any time Mr. Bois was dissatisfied he (Mr. Bois) could say stop and they had to stop.
Mr. Hughes agreed that that was the intent as long as it was the conditions on the license that Mr. Bois was enforcing.
A five-minute recess was called and the meeting was reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
FRAMINGHAM BOARD OF SELECTMEN – SALE OF METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER
The Board was joined by members of the Framingham Board of Selectmen – Katie Murphy, Charles Sisitsky, the Chairman Chris Ross, and Ginger Esty who arrived a little after the discussion began.
Mr. Ciccariello introduced the members of the Board and thanked the Framingham Board of Selectmen for attending. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the potential sale of the MetroWest Medical Center and the possibility of filing a 10 tax-payer petition to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
As Chairman of the Framingham Board of Selectmen, Mr. Ross called their meeting to order.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that there had been a preliminary discussion of whether to have the discussion in a public meeting or executive session and asked Ross for his view. Mr. Ross responded that the Framingham Board of Selectmen had the possibility of a ten tax-payer petition as an agenda item
FRAMINGHAM BOARD OF SELECTMEN – SALE OF METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER (contd)
at their meeting of August 19. At that meeting one thing discussed was the two-page summary of Community and Medical Staff Expectations of MetroWest Medical Center’s new owner that put together a compilation of many concerns. At that meeting they (Framingham Selectmen) weren’t sure how imminent the sale was and wanted to have at least the beginning of a discussion. It was their feeling that these expectations reflected a good
many of the Board’s concerns and it was a good starting point. Mr. Sisitsky had been involved in this process earlier and there had been a couple of public hearings. All of those discussions in Framingham had been in open session and the Board felt and their Town Counsel advised that most of the concerns were best addressed in open session.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Natick’s Town Counsel indicated that if so desired this could be discussed in executive session, but it could also be done in a public session.
Mr. McKinley favored having it in public session because the Boards wanted the public as involved as possible.
Mr. Sisitsky noted that the Board of Directors of the hospital put together a citizens panel that met once in Framingham and once in Natick to get input on issues they would like to see addressed on the sale of the hospital. Based on the input, they put together 11 expectations and voted to bring that to the Department of Public Health when the DPH considers licensing the new owner. The Framingham Board of Selectmen voted to support the 11 expectations and add a 12th that had to do with trying to keep it as a private owner rather than a not for profit group. One of the main issues was the tax issue. Even though Natick and Framingham received taxes now because the hospital was in private ownership if it were sold to a non-profit group, the non-profit wouldn’t be paying real estate taxes but
because the assessed value was built into the tax base, it would be shared by the taxpayers.
Mr. Sisitsky continued that two options had been discussed. They (Framingham) could join with the governing Board of Directors and go in jointly or meet with the Natick Board of Selectmen to see if there was interest in joining as a ten-taxpayer group.
Mr. Ball noted that within the past three weeks there was a forum in Natick similar to the one in Framingham. Paul Dreyer represented the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Debra Tosti represented the governing board of the MetroWest Medical Center. The issues raised were nothing outside this list (summary). The issues were revisited at the forum but nothing new added. He (Mr. Ball) inquired as to what the Framingham Board of Selectmen saw as the value to the two approaches of joining with the governing board in a 10-tax payer petition and the two Boards of Selectmen joining.
Mr. Ross responded that the two major arguments he heard from their (Framingham) Town Counsel was that this was new territory and there were not many sales where this hearing process has been involved. He was aware of at least four groups considering ten tax payer petitions: Metro West Coalition, the Foundation, Hospital Board, and the MetroWest Chamber of Commerce and the concern was that if there were too many ten tax payer petitions some of this wouldn’t be heard. The other argument for the boards having their own was that the Selectmen would have a seat at the table and could talk about taxes which none of the other groups would have a stake in. The impact in Framingham could be as much as $57 per year. Mr. Ross stated that he thought it was the clarity of the issues if the boards joined
together as one big 10 tax payer group and the opportunity to have a chair at the table talking about things that affect both Framingham and Natick - that being the issue of taxes.
Mr. Ball felt that the weight of certain issues on this list (summary) was not seen equally in the two towns. Framingham’s demographics were different. Clearly Leonard Morse Hospital was the most important to the Natick Board and equally both hospitals need to remain open and have emergency care, but there were other items that he wouldn’t oppose but wouldn’t see as deal breakers and wouldn’t lobby for as strongly as the Framingham Board. He wasn’t sure if hearing from different bodies re-enforcing the same things was better than hearing from one.
Mr. McKinley stated that he was going to argue in favor of the Board joining their colleagues in Framingham. Leonard Morse and Framingham Union were merged together by MetroWest Health and when that took place there was a lot of anxiety and tension between the two communities, but over time that stabilized into what has truly become a true medical campus situation.
FRAMINGHAM BOARD OF SELECTMEN – SALE OF METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER (contd)
There was a cohesiveness and a balance and he had come to appreciate them both for many reasons. Collectively there was a medical capacity that exists within the two communities that serves many communities around us that was very strong and worth preserving. It was a resource that he didn’t see anyone on either board wanting to lose. Whether these were the right priorities and whether the people of Natick would prioritize the list a little differently than Framingham, he didn’t think was relevant. He thought these were things most of the people would put on the list and the two boards were the people that the citizens of the two communities would hold accountable to be certain this list in some form was maintained and preserved. To him it seemed best for the Board to join Framingham. Both boards wanted what was best for the communities collectively which was the preservation of the MetroWest Medical Center and the ten selectmen from the two communities must be a powerful
voice.
Mr. Hughes noted that he kept reading that the hospital would be sold in weeks and wondered if anyone had any idea in terms of a timeframe.
Mr. Ross advised that he heard that negotiations were going on but for all they knew the public announcement could be tomorrow morning. What the Framingham Board wanted was to have a plan in place for when that happened. Once the announcement was made, there was a pretty strict timeframe and they didn’t want to have to scramble.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that once the owner filed for notice of intent there was an ad put in the newspaper and from that date the ten tax payers had 20 days to file. There were nine members from the Department of Public Health who review the request for a license and they would hold a hearing. His understanding was that DPH could place conditions and negotiate with the potential buyer. Primarily the DPH would be reviewing the new owners to see if they had the financial capacity to operate the hospitals and these other issues would be secondary. The feeling he got from DPH was that they would probably listen more to a ten-tax payer group consisting of the Boards of Selectmen from two communities than several. He (Mr. Ciccariello) believed it should be done as one 10-tax
payer group and perhaps have two representatives from each board act as a subcommittee and work out the details as quickly as possible so if something happened quickly, there could be a quick response.
Mr. Hughes inquired if it was the sense of the Board to do it this way as opposed to joining one of the 4-5 other groups or was that still up in the air. Mr. Ross advised that the Framingham Board kept the issue open and it
sounded as though there was some support from Natick. He (Mr. Ross) thought the power of a ten tax payer group that comprised the two boards of selectmen would have standing with DPH rather than another and he would be in favor of the two boards joining to file a ten tax payer petition.
Mr. Sisitsky agreed and noted that both boards were the chief elected officials of their communities and this would give the boards an opportunity to go before the DPH for these causes. He didn’t think the Framingham Board of Selectmen would be any less in favor of keeping Leonard Morse emergency open than the Natick Board of Selectmen would be in favor of keeping the Framingham emergency open. Having the chief elected officials join together in a petition would be a powerful presentation and he would be in favor of joining together.
Ms. Murphy spoke in favor of the two boards filing a ten-tax payer agreement as opposed to joining one of the community groups.
Mr. McKinley asked Mr. Ball to further explain his position, and Mr. Ball noted that he wanted to articulate the question of whether it made sense so he could see what he was voting for or against. For example #7 – maintain teaching programs in Framingham. It had no effect on Natick and he didn’t see the value to his town. That was one example that Framingham may feel strongly about, but he didn’t. He also wasn’t sure about the private ownership issue and would like to give that some thought. That didn’t mean he wouldn’t support the 10-tax payer petition. He thought Mr. McKinley said it reasonably well. It wasn’t a matter of changing his mind. He (Mr. Ball) was undecided and on balance he would vote for it recognizing that if he were the sole
spokesman and had to write an address he would put more emphasis on some items than others.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that if there was going to be a subcommittee the subcommittee may have to prioritize as he wasn’t sure that the DPH would consider all of these conditions (listed on the summary). There would have to be some discussion about what the priorities were and if we can’t get
FRAMINGHAM BOARD OF SELECTMEN – SALE OF METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER (contd)
all, what can we get. The question was where to go from here and did the Board want to appoint two individuals.
Mr. Connolly nominated Mr. Ball and Mr. Hughes as the Board’s representatives to the subcommittee. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. No vote was taken and a subsequent motion passed. Mr. McKinley suggested that before appointing representatives the Board should enter into debate to see if it was the Board’s intent to join Framingham in a ten-tax payer petition.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, to inform the Framingham Board of Selectmen of the Natick Board of Selectmen’s desire to join them in a ten-tax payer petition. Unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Connolly stated that he thought the two groups together would be a powerful entity.
Mr. Ross stated that he would entertain a motion for the Framingham Board of Selectmen to join the Natick Board of Selectmen in filing a ten-tax payer petition. Mr. Sisitsky so moved. Seconded by Ms. Esty and unanimously voted.
Regarding his nomination as one of the Board’s representatives to the subcommittee, Mr. Hughes stated that he was flattered but thought that Mr. Ball had been involved in the forums and Mr. McKinley in MetroWest Health and they were probably more suited to be involved than he (Mr. Hughes). Mr. McKinley had no objection to being one of the representatives but noted that his schedule tended to be difficult although he would do his best. Mr. Ciccariello thought Mr. Ball and Mr. McKinley would be the two appropriate representatives.
Mr. Connolly moved to appoint Mr. Ball and Mr. McKinley to represent the Board on the 10-tax payer subcommittee. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ross noted that his board was meeting this Thursday and the selection of a representative to the subcommittee would be taken up at that time since
one of his members was missing tonight. He would be in contact with the Natick Board with the names of their representatives.
Ms. Esty proposed that because of Mr. McKinley’s schedule it may be smart to have an alternate to fill in if he couldn’t make a meeting, but Mr. McKinley responded that he felt comfortable with Mr. Ball representing both of them if he (Mr. McKinley) couldn’t be there.
Mr. Sisitsky suggested that perhaps the two town counsels could get together to work on the paperwork for filing with the DPH.
In terms of long-range Ms. Esty indicated that she had been thinking about trying to keep abreast of the hospitals and wondered about setting up something where Framingham and Natick would be alternate chairs of something called the health counsel and involve representatives from the 25 cities and towns and at least twice a year hold summits to find out where the hospital was and questions that might be asked or service needs. The chairmanship would be alternated between Natick and Framingham because they were the hometowns of what were the local hospitals. The Senators and representatives would be included as well. She noted that she was going to propose that as a way of tracking and asked if the other board members would be thinking of that as a possibility.
Mr. Ciccariello agreed to take it under consideration.
Mr. Ball noted that tonight’s meeting was generated by a request from the Framingham Board of Selectmen and he would suggest that one of the people chosen by Framingham should be appointed as chairman pro tem to get the subcommittee started. Mr. Ross accepted Mr. Ball’s suggestion.
Mr. McKinley was of the opinion that it had been a productive meeting and thanked his colleagues on the Framingham Board for joining them tonight. Mr. Ciccariello echoed Mr. McKinley’s comments.
On a motion by Mr. Sisitsky, seconded by Ms. Esty, the Framingham Board of Selectmen unanimously voted to adjourn their meeting at 9:10 p.m.
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT
Representing the Open Space Advisory Committee were the Chairman Martin Kessel and member David Dimmick.
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT (contd)
In presenting the annual report of the Open Space Advisory Committee Mr. Kessel noted that this was the committee’s first year as a permanent town committee. He cited the committee’s activity in a number of areas:
The preservation of Morency Woods, advocacy for a land swap which would have preserved land on the north side of Eliot Street adjacent to the Sherman Nature Reserve, their efforts to ensure that the Natick Mall expansion included mitigation payments to fund open space purchases, recommendations to the Planning Board that led to a provision in the Housing Overlay Option Plan encouraging small parks downtown, and many discussions with landowners, the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission regarding public easements for trails and possible town acquisition of various privately owned parcels.
The report noted that the committee continued to learn more about Natick’s open spaces by working with the Assessors’ Office in creating new maps and by exploring several little known Town owned open spaces including: Glen
Park in back of Glen Street on the Charles River, the sunkaway area around Pickerel Pond, land between Oak Street, Winter Street, and the Brandon School.
The report further noted that the Trails Subcommittee under the leadership of Tim Collins had been very active over the past year in making trails a real public resource in Natick. The trails group had secured funding and installed kiosks, signs, and trail markings at Coolidge Woods, the hospital area, Hamlet development, Coolidge Hill, Middlesex Path, and the Town Forest with additional signs soon to be installed at Timothy Coolidge Hill, Anniballi Park at Pegan Cove, and Mumford Forest. In addition the group had distributed trail maps to Natick residents, coordinated trail maintenance and clean-up, initiated communication with trail neighbors to enlist their support and participation, and began planning for new trails, most notably working with the New England Forestry Foundation for development of a new trail
through Mumford Forest scheduled for construction in September.
Mr. Ball asked that Mr. Kessel describe how a new trail got built and if there was an expenditure of tax payer funds. Mr. Kessel responded that it didn’t require taxpayer funds. There were volunteers being recruited and the Appalachian Mountain Club was giving some advice.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to who was maintaining the trails after they were built. Mr. Kessel advised that it was basically volunteers. Tim Collins tried to enlist volunteers. Recruiting hadn’t worked too well with the high school, but there were some neighborhood groups and the DPW has agreed to help. They (trails committee) were doing this with no budget, but they would like some type of budget in the future.
Mr. Hughes recalled there being a lengthy discussion when the Open Space Committee came before the Board about whether there was going to be a budget and the decision was, “no”, but now it seemed to be going down that road. He thought the point of the committee was to advise the Board of Selectmen on open space issues in the Town so that the Board could make informed decisions on acquisition, etc. Now it sounds like the Open Space Committee was becoming a committee negotiating the right to use the trail. He questioned if it (trail negotiation) was in the name of the Town and expressed concern that the committee was going further than the Board thought it was going.
Mr. Kessel noted that the committee was all new so they were trying to define it. In terms of maintenance and management of the trails one thing in the open space plan was to develop a management plan that included trail maintenance. In terms of the DPW, the committee would like them to do it but it was not something implemented and the committee would come back to the Board.
Mr. Hughes noted that one of the charges established was for the Open Space Committee to educate the Town on the CPA (Conservation Preservation Act) and what if anything had the Open Space Committee done with that. Mr. Kessel advised that a forum had been held l-l/2 years ago and the committee was looking for someone to take a lead. It had to include representatives from three factors – affordable housing, historic preservation, and open space and it couldn’t solely be the Open Space Advisory Committee that did the job.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the ownership of Mumford Forest and was told by Mr. Kessel that it was owned by a private foundation. Mr. Dimmick confirmed that there would be no Town funds used. It would be all-volunteer.
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT (contd)
For purposes of their presentation tonight, Mr. Dimmick explained that they didn’t want it to end up looking like the tail wagging the dog. The purpose of the committee was to seek out appropriate open space within the Town and advise the Planning Board or other organizations such as the Conservation Commission and try to work with them. Some things were required to be done in executive session and the committee was careful to follow the regulations as they applied. The committee tried to be sensitive to open space in various parts of Town. Open space was a community asset and something the residents were looking for. There wasn’t that much open space remaining in Town. The committee focused on large areas and sometimes pocket parks. This was new ground for the Committee and
they were trying to figure out what they were doing.
Mr. Dimmick continued that with respect to the trails, everything was donated and it was all-volunteer. A number of groups were working with the Mass Audubon Society to learn what’s an appropriate trail and they were trying to be sensitive to people’s back yards. They appreciated when a subdivision was approved that it included an integral public walk path. The committee was trying to work on the Board’s behalf to make this a more livable community.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that most of the trails built in the developments were conditions of the Planning Board’s approval. It was his understanding that it was the responsibility of the developer to create those trails, build them, and have covenants with the buyers of the property. Those trails will remain in perpetuity. With regard to the addition of kiosks, signs and trail markers at the Town Forest, which was under the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen, Conservation Commission, Recreation Commission, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if approval had been sought from those organizations before doing it. Mr. Dimmick’s response was, “absolutely”. He noted that there was a Town Forest committee and they went to them.
Mr. Ciccariello said he wanted to be sure all the organizations were contacted as he wasn’t sure the Open Space Advisory Committee’s role was to be building trails. The committee had an emphasis on open space and his
concern was that the committee only seemed to be looking at passive and not active space. There didn’t seem to be any concentration on open space parcels that could benefit everyone. He wondered why the committee wasn’t advocating taking some of the money in the Conservation Commission fund and putting some of the open space into active space. When two new members were recently appointed that question was asked and they responded that they had a willingness to see both types and he (Mr. Ciccariello) wondered what the rest of the committee was feeling.
Mr. Kessel expressed his interest in both. In terms of new space that might be used for active recreation, they were taking a lot of lead from the Recreation Commission. No new space has been proposed other than the National Guard and that was being looked at in the longer-term. In terms of developing land like the gravel pit, he (Mr. Kessel) wasn’t sure that was possible from the open space fund. The fund was set up for acquisition and not for development.
When the Open Space Advisory Committee was appointed, Mr. Ciccariello recalled that the group was going to make an effort to begin the process of educating the residents about what the CPA was and how it worked so if the Town wanted to pursue it, folks would be going into it knowing what it was about. He questioned if Mr. Kessel was telling the Board that because no one from affordable housing or Historic Commission had stepped up, it wasn’t being done.
Mr. Kessel felt that Mr. Ciccariello was right – that a forum was done about a year ago and needed to be done again. Mr. Dimmick added that there was a state CPA group. It was his understanding that the Open Space Committee couldn’t do it because this was a lobbying process. There may be representatives on the two groups, but the Open Space Advisory Committee wasn’t supposed to be totally one and the same group as the lobbying group. That kind of stopped them.
Mr. Ball noted that he was the one who added the CPA issue to the charge and he was distressed to hear Mr. Dimmick say that the thing the Board of Selectmen charged the committee to do was something the state said it couldn’t do. Mr. Dimmick explained that as he understood it the committee could be part of it but had to be careful in taking a lead and having the Open Space Advisory become synonymous with the CPA. Mr. Ball pointed out that the Open Space Advisory Committee had been asked to do it because if they didn’t it was a ball doomed to be dropped. If the state felt that it
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT (contd)
was inappropriate for the committee to do that, he would like to know that and would ask Mr. Lemnios to request an opinion from Town Counsel on whether the Open Space Advisory Committee can be the educators.
Mr. Lemnios felt there was some confusion that probably centered around the 2-l/2 override. The Open Space committee could propose that Town Meeting adopt the CPA to get to the next phase, which was a local referendum, but they could not then go out and actively promote passage. The charge was to investigate the merits and advise the Board of Selectmen whether this was something that should get to Town Meeting. The referendum stage was similar to an override in that there were limitations placed on local government initiatives and the actions that could take place. However, there was nothing that precluded the Open Space Advisory Committee from investigating the CPA and convening a meeting of the other two elements, examine whether
they thought it was a good idea, and make a report to the Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting and even sponsor a CPA article.
Mr. Ciccariello expressed concern with all of these trails going in place and relying on volunteers. If at some point the volunteers disappeared how would the trails be maintained? Perhaps the Town Administrator could look into whether the funds given to the Conservation Commission through the Planning Board could be used for preservation of Open Space and if that meant maintenance of space acquired to create active recreation. He would like to see some of those funds set aside by the Conservation Commission be put into an endowment fund to assure there would be money to do this kind of maintenance.
Mr. McKinley agreed that there was money available and it would be good to find some way to ensure that the trails were maintained but he was concerned that the last 10 minutes of the meeting sounded as though the Board was beating up on the Open Space Advisory Committee and instead he would like to thank them. He reminded his colleagues that the purpose of setting up the committee was to be an advocate of open space. The charge wasn’t limited to
the CPA, and he was encouraged that there were trails being developed. Maybe there should be some discussion on how the trails would be maintained, but there was no point having an Open Space Advisory Committee if people weren’t benefiting from it. He (Mr. McKinley) thanked the committee for what it had accomplished and encouraged them to continue to do what they do and perhaps add to their list some of the things they heard tonight. There has been some good work done here, and the Board should thank the committee and reinvigorate them and send them on their way.
Mr. Ciccariello agreed that the committee had done a good job and noted that that was one of the reasons for making them a permanent committee.
Mr. McKinley moved to accept the report of the Open Space Advisory Committee. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Dimmick thanked the DPW for the cleanup help.
MASS MUNICIPAL CONSULTING GROUP: FIRE STUDY
Representing Mass Municipal Consulting Group was Mark Morse.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the Fire Study Committee had been meeting in earnest for several months and at the beginning phase of that process the committee determined to put out an RFP for the fire study. Funds had been put in place l-l/2 years ago. The successful bidder was MMA Consulting Group and Mr. Morse was here to brief the Board on the project. Mr. Morse met on two occasions with the Fire Study Committee and the project was ready to go forward.
Mr. Morse told the Board that he planned to give a quick overview of how his company would do this study, who the consultants were, and the sense of timing. They would be looking at the organization and issues relating to the management, the staffing, the deployment of units and the personnel and by default the location of stations and response time. There was a consulting team that had a multi-disciplinary approach. The primary consulting team was Phil McLaughlin from Philadelphia a former Deputy Commissioner for medical services, John Grenato who was well known for his writing on fire service, Bill Melia a long-time consultant who did data analysis, John Bergeron a Fire Chief known for his training activities and a couple of other fire risk consultants. He (Mr. Morse) was a management consultant who did a
lot of different pieces.
Mr. Morse continued that his team developed recommendations using consensus and discussion because each recommendation had financial and other
MASS MUNICIPAL CONSULTING GROUP: FIRE STUDY (contd)
implications. He envisioned that the report would lay out a good executive summary, clear recommendations, a time frame and specifically what things were priorities. He saw this as a planning study to give a frame of reference.
In conducting the study, one primary source of information was talking to people in the department – not only the Chief, but the Deputy Chiefs, supervisors and rank and file. They would talk to people outside the department – maybe administrative people and others. To do an extensive data analysis they might link with computer maps to evaluate station location and the number of people that could be put on the scene. There was a range of things that his team would do. In this particular study they would be doing a written survey to give people in the department an opportunity to provide feedback. They would measure the department in
relation to established benchmarks and the report would contain a section on emergency medical services, management issues, and an implementation section. There would be 6 or 7 people working on the study with 3-4 people doing the fieldwork. Mr. McLaughlin will expend the next couple of days talking to people beginning with the Chief.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the group would look at equipment, and Mr. Morse advised that they would look at what the department had and was it appropriate. That would be done in the context of a plan for replacement. Part of the study dealt with resource allocation and resource allocation over time.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked if there were sets of standards for Fire Department response times, etc. and Mr. Morse responded that there were a number of benchmark standards for emergency medical and the NFPA had a standard for response to the scene.
Continuing Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the interviews would be done on a one-on-one basis and done privately and how would Mr. Morse make sure the discussion remained confidential or would they not be confidential. Mr. Morse responded that some individuals would be interviewed and there would be some group meetings and sometimes that may lead to some other meetings. Mr. Bergeron would do the cleanup interviews. The people would be told that what they said individually only had value in the context of what they (MMA) were doing. They (MMA) would be very careful in how that was done.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to a completion date, Mr. Hughes responded that that was being worked on.
HOME RULE PETITION: CLUB LICENSES
The Board was in receipt of a copy of the home rule petition signed by the Governor on September 3, 2004 that would allow the Board to issue permits that would enable the clubs to hold functions and fund raising events at which all guests were not necessarily members or guests of members. For the Board’s information Town Counsel had prepared an overview of the legislation and the Board’s role in granting permits and a brief letter to be sent to
the clubs informing them what has gone on and what steps they need to take to apply.
Mr. Ball inquired as to who would monitor that the sponsor was in attendance, and Mr. Hughes responded that it would be the same as monitoring for every other license. The Police Department was the enforcement arm of the Board of Selectmen licensing. Mr. Ball responded that he couldn’t see expecting the Police to go in on a random basis to see if the sponsoring member was there. Plus the Police Department couldn’t ascertain if the proceeds were going to charities and who would do the auditing. Mr. Hughes replied that if the Board of Selectmen had rules and regs with regard to this part of a license perhaps one of the requirements should be that at license renewal they must say this was what we earned and this was what was given to charity. That would be the same as the other licenses.
Mr. Lemnios pointed out that the legislation was enacted by the Governor in substantially the same form as passed by Town Meeting.
Mr. McKinley thought that the Board now had to implement or modify the liquor rules and regulations to accommodate this and he believed the Board
needed to establish what if any fee would be charged for the issuance of such a permit.
Mr. Hughes advised that the Board needed to have a public hearing to amend the rules. Mr. McKinley concurred and noted that the Board couldn’t issue permits until there was a public hearing.
HOME RULE PETITION: CLUB LICENSES (contd)
Mr. Hughes moved to schedule a public hearing for October 4, 2004. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes requested that Town Counsel draft some rules and regs including those that address Mr. Ball’s concern with the use of the funds. He further requested that the clubs be notified.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Mr. Hughes inquired as to when a handle on free cash was expected and was told by Mr. Lemnios that hopefully it would be within two weeks.
Mr. Ciccariello asked at what point the Board would know what all of the appropriations were in terms of dollars. Mr. Lemnios advised that the administration was working on them now and he hoped to have them from the department heads by next Tuesday.
Noting that he had received a couple of telephone calls, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Planning Board intended to hold a public hearing on the HOOP articles. Mr. Lemnios believed that the hearing was scheduled for the last week of September.
When asked which article would address the drainage, Mr. Lemnios advised that it would be under Article 1 as part of the DPW Engineering budget. It was Mr. Hughes’ understanding that no action would be sought on the citizens petition article that addressed drainage on Westlake Road.
With respect to the article for sewer on Clubhouse Lane, Mr. Ciccariello recalled that there was supposed to be a study done by the DPW. Mr. Lemnios responded that there was a meeting tomorrow with the Clubhouse Lane
residents. There were two options – gravity and low pressure and the gravity was 4-5 times more expensive. Since the Board of Selectmen had directed the DPW to do the study, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Board would receive a copy. Mr. Lemnios responded that a copy would be provided.
Mr. Hughes inquired if anyone was looking into the issue regarding betterments as it applies to School Street extension. Mr. Lemnios replied that the issue came up at April Town Meeting, but nothing had been done as of yet. It was part of a larger discussion on how betterments were applied.
Articles 18 & 19 pertained to the MathWorks Tax Increment Finance agreement. Mr. Hughes reported that it was being worked on. There were a few things that had come up that were not within the control of the Town.
Mr. Ciccariello informed the Board that the Armory Task Force had a good kick off meeting and a good first meeting with the consultant. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Hughes, Mr. Lemnios advised he had not as yet spoken with Representative Linsky with regard to the proposed home rule petition.
Mr. McKinley asked about Article 27 and if the Moderator, who was the sponsor of the article, was going to be calling on people to provide status
reports. Mr. Lemnios didn’t know what the Moderator had in mind and Mr. McKinley suggested that it might make sense to clarify if the Moderator had a list of subjects he would like a report on so people could be prepared.
Mr. Connolly remarked that it was embarrassing to him that a citizen would have to submit an article on this.
NATICK DISTRICT COURT HOUSE LEASE
Before the Board was a one-year lease extension for the court house that would expire on September 30, 2004. Mr. Lemnios pointed out that the only change in the terms and conditions of the one-year lease was a 3% increase from $165,996 to $170,950.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve the one-year lease extension for the Natick District Court in the amount of $170,950.
CONFIRMATION OF OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT TO ARMORY PLANNING TASK FORCE
The Board unanimously voted to confirm the appointment of Tim Collins as the Open Space Advisory Committee’s representative on the Armory Planning Task Force. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Cardoos’ Thanksgiving Dinner
Mr. Ball noted that when Robert Cardoos had a restaurant in Apple Hill Mall, at Thanksgiving he would open his doors and feed anyone who wanted to come. His generosity provided dinner for 200-300 people and gave an opportunity for many people to help serve. Mr. Cardoos moved his business to Westborough and the free dinners ceased. Mr. Cardoos indicated a willingness to come back to Natick if he could find a space. The School Committee volunteered the high school cafeteria and voted to waive the fee for the use of the building. The School Committee was asking for the Board of Selectmen’s support and he (Mr. Ball) would ask that the Board give its support and if any member of the Board wanted to spend one of the best hours
on Thanksgiving he could come on down. The dinners have been a wonderful heart-warming thing in Natick.
Mr. Ball moved that the Board support Robert Cardoos holding a Thanksgiving dinner at the high school. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
b. RCN
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to the letter from RCN indicating that they were removing certain channels from their cable lineup. He assumed that RCN could do that under their license, and Mr. Lemnios responded that the license was being reviewed.
c. Emerson Road – Basketball Hoop
Mr. Ciccariello requested that Mr. Lemnios look into the letter of complaint from Roberta Taylor of Emerson Street concerning two basketball hoops sitting on the sidewalk on Wedgewood Road and one on Wethersfield.
d. Magnolia Road Complaint
In a letter to the Board Roxanna Fancourt of Zero Magnolia Road complained that she had been unable to communicate with Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian and the Planning Board as to why she had not been given any
kind of formal denial of a project that she wanted to do in sub-dividing her land of 2.4 acres into two lots.
Mr. Ciccariello asked that Mr. Lemnios follow-up and find out if Ms. Fancourt actually applied or just had informal discussions.
e. Update Springvale Treatment Plant & Golf Course
Although he appreciated receiving the information provided on the Springvale Treatment Plant and on the golf course, Mr. Hughes said he expected it to be an agenda item. In addition he was looking for the monthly statements that the Board was supposed to be getting.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to when the Board would receive the August number for the golf course and Mr. Lemnios responded that he hoped to have that to the Board by September 15th. He (Mr. Lemnios) added that the July numbers for the golf course were running a little above what was projected. There was some concern about August, but he was waiting for the numbers.
f. Department of Telecommunication Notice - Streetlight
Mr. McKinley referenced a notice from the Department of Telecommunications concerning streetlights and the implication that the Town may potentially have some exposure.
g. Double Poles
Mr. Connolly raised an issue with double poles on Glen Street and South Street.
h. Animal Control
Mr. Connolly inquired as to who was responsible for picking up a wild animal that got hit in the street. Mr. Lemnios advised that at times the DPW would pick it up and at times the Animal Control Officer.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
_________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
