Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes
July 28, 2003
The Board of Selectmen met this evening at the Easton Town Offices, Selectmen’s Office with Chairman Gerard Marsan presiding. Also in attendance were Carla Goodwin, Jeffrey Tufts, John Haederle and Town Administrator Martha White. (7:00pm) . Patricia Webster was not present.
Minutes
On Haederle’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted
3-0-1 to approve General Minutes dated
5/19/03. Tufts abstained.
On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Haederle, the Board voted unanimously to approve General Minutes Dated 6/2/03.
On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to approve and release Executive Session Dated 5/17/03.
Acting Police Chief Tom Kominsky and Officer Leonard Coe were present. Marsan read and presented the MADD proclamation for Officer Leonard Coe. Coe was commended for his recent award and for his efforts.
White spoke of the recent Police Department certification from the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission. Easton is only the eighth community to be a recipient of this certification. White read the memo from Acting Chief Kominsky and indicated that she is checking to see if there are insurance benefits relating to this accreditation. The Board congratulated the department on the accreditation.
Water Superintendent Jack Marsh and DPW Director Wayne Southworth were present. White explained that the original contract did not provide overseeing construction services. Marsh did check and the price is in line with the appropriate service. Marsh noted that this was approved at town meeting and this amendment just approves the overseeing of construction.
On Tufts’ motion, seconded by Haederle, the Board voted unanimously to approve the amendment to the contract (not to exceed $44,900), as requested by the Water Department.
White requested that the award be given to the second lowest bidder, but the only qualified bidder. White explained and noted that this item will continue to be bid annually.
On Tufts’motion, seconded by Haederle, the Board voted unanimously to award the contract to Badger Meter in the amount of $79,585, as requested by the Water Department.
Owners Mario and Joel Sanfilippo were present. Marsan read the notice of hearing as appeared in the paper. Marsan referred to the department comments which noted that the two pending issues, the plumbing inspection and the business certificate were resolved. Sanfilippo acknowledged that the renovation work was completed prior to the proper permits, approvals, etc. Marsan noted for the record that they should be sure to get prior approval in the future for any further alterations, especially relating to any alteration of the liquor license. Goodwin reiterated the importance of the approvals from the town and asked the applicant to clarify their home address on the application.
On Tufts’ motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted unanimously to approve the alteration of premises, as submitted to the Board.
To The Deli – Common Victualler License
Owner Eric Shute was present. It was noted that the additional location is 530 Turnpike Street. Shute explained the new proposal. Tufts recommended a change to the zoning bylaw to allow outside dining without approval of a special permit. The need for a special permit to allow the outside dining was discussed. White agreed to look into this matter for amendment at a future town meeting.
On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Haederle, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Common Victualler license as submitted, with the exception of outside dining area.
Massachusetts Electric Engineer, Shaw Shanie, was present. Marsan read the notice of hearing for the new pole petition to service the Easton Mobile Home Park. It was noted that the DPW has reviewed the location and has no objection.
On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to allow the pole location 17-
Marsan recused himself and did not participate in discussion or vote. Tufts conducted the interviews on behalf of the Board. White noted the two applicants, both interested in the full position.
August Gangi was present and gave background of his intent to contribute to the Board of Appeals. Gangi feels that he can contribute to the Board and accomplish what needs to be done. Tufts noted that this particular board requires a lot of work. Gangi stated that he understands the time consumption and is willing to work hard at that. He spoke of the alternate role and feels that to do the job with dedication, it would be difficult to invest and act in the capacity as an alternate. Goodwin spoke of the conflict of interest law. Gangi does not foresee any conflict of interest and if a conflict would arise, he would recognize that. As an attorney, he does not and will not appear before the board with petitions. His business consists mainly of corporate business and some real estate. He does not represent developers and realtors in Easton. Haederle asked about his practice and the risk management/environmental issues part of it. Gangi explained that he has some knowledge of 40B applications and is gaining more knowledge as time goes on. He understands it is becoming quite an issue. Goodwin spoke of the learning curve involved with the Board of Appeals. She asked if he has a particular goal or mission. He noted that he has no particular goal but acknowledged that as a father, resident and husband, he would like to become involved within the community. He feels that people have diverse talents and these resources result in contribution. He reiterated that he possesses the skills to compliment the Board of Appeals.
ZBA Member Chuck King was present and explained the role of the alternate.
Pike noted that he has been a resident since 1995 and a real estate appraiser since 1986. He understands the different zoning and the bylaws. Tufts asked if he would be interested in the alternate role. Pike noted that he would prefer the full but would consider the alternate. Goodwin asked about the conflict of interest law and how familiar he was with it. Pike explained that he cannot be an advocate for anybody and does not see a conflict at all with reference to his current work. Goodwin noted that the conflict of interest is very complicated and suggested that in the future, the applicants receive a conflict of interest statement prior to coming to the Selectmen for an interview. Haederle asked if he was familiar with 40B. Pike noted he is somewhat familiar with it.
Goodwin’s motioned to appoint Pike to the fuller member position. Tufts seconded the motion to vote by
roll-call the full member position.
The Board voted by roll-call 2-1 to appoint Pike to the term expiring 6/30/07.
On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Haederle, the Board voted unanimously by roll-call to appoint Pike as the alternate with a term expiring 6/30/05.
Goodwin-Pike, Haederle- Pike, Tufts- Pike.
White asked that both members be sworn in prior to the next ZBA meeting.
Marsan returned at this point.
Discussion re:
Proposed 2nd Amendment to Regulatory Agreement - Easton Country Estates
Attorney Joe
Hamilton was present. Hamilton
explained the need for 7 affordable units still needing to be built in the Easton
Country Estates comprehensive permit development. He further noted the infrastructure deficiencies. He noted the ongoing litigation to have the
developer complete the project. That litigation ended in April of this year and
developer agreed to completion and a time line for the completion. Hamilton noted that May Institute approached
the developer about a group home. DHCD
was involved and they are considering it.
The Board needs to consider four changes to the project. The Board of Selectmen needs to approve the
changes. DHCD and the ZBA would also
review the changes and modify if agreed.
A summary of the
changes are as follows:
Haederle asked about
the duplex on lot #3. He would like to
hear from the neighbors about this and suggested that this should be considered
a substantial change. He feels it may
be unfair to the neighbors to get something different that what was
proposed. Hamilton noted that the Selectmen
do have the ability to comment to the ZBA.
He feels if any of the lots were to be changed, lot 3 would be the best
of all the options. Other duplexes are
located near lot 3. Goodwin expressed
concern that the ZBA is meeting Wednesday evening and is not sure how the
Selectmen’s comments can be considered without the proper information. White noted that the Board could weigh in on
the substantial/insubstantial issues. A
hearing would need to be held and the Board would weigh in at that time. Hamilton agreed that this would be the
process. He noted that the Selectmen
are the regulatory authority and therefore would need to approve. The Board of Selectmen are technically the
applicant on this issue as they are the regulatory board. Goodwin noted that the abutters are not
present for this meeting with the Selectmen.
Marsan summarized that ZBA action must come back to the Board of
Selectmen for approval. Marsan
explained that LIP manages a lot of things and this can be used as an
opportunity to correct deficiencies and also help the need of the May
Institute. Marsan suggested that the
Board would want to be sensitive to these things. Marsan clarified that the standards for a special permit is much
easier than for a variance. Marsan feels it is appropriate to have the
discussion and bring it back to the Board of Appeals to see if it is
substantial first. At that point, the
neighborhood will be noticed of their hearing if in fact the ZBA finds the
changes substantial. Marsan feels that
the Selectmen’s action would be premature and would like to hear what the
neighbors think at this point in time.
He acknowledged that the ZBA will be discussing this on Wednesday,
7/30. Haederle indicated that he would
like to see more information on proposed change #4. Tufts noted that lot 59 was an issue from the beginning. He noted that originally that lot was not
owned by the developer. The Board has
taken a position all along that building a home on that lot may not be the best
interested of the person buying the home because of the proximity. Tufts noted that originally the duplexes
were supposed to be disbursed throughout the development. A revision was made because they claimed
that the homes could not sell and then the duplexes were built on Kristen’s
Way. Tufts generally felt that the town
has not got what it bargained for. The
Town did agree to go along with the project if the affordable units were built.
Tufts acknowledged that the roads are in awful shape within that development.
The neighbors have been told by the developer that if the road is fixed, they
may lose some of their land for sidewalks, etc. Tufts defined and separated the issue of the May Institute need
and the other proposed changes and infrastructure issues. He specifically noted May Institute’s need
to break ground on the proposed lot. He
suggested that the proposal is not going to make the neighbors happy. Tufts suggested the need to explain the roadway repairs and to
further clarify their fear of a road they believe may be coming in the back area
of the development. Tufts felt that lots
3 and 42 are the key differences (the type of houses on those two lots) and
almost everything else was discussed in the past. Marsan asked about the zoning.
Tufts noted we signed onto an agreement with the state to have the
development built and the zoning isn’t an issue now. Hamilton noted that the remaining lots are designated for the
affordable units. Tufts felt that we
need to calm down the worry of the residents.
Goodwin agreed and felt that we need to have the abutters present when
the issue is discussed further.
Haederle asked for clarification of the affordable unit price from $140,
000 to $130,000. Tufts asked for
clarification of the change of the road layout plan. Hamilton noted that some things appear to be out of place. Tufts noted the fear of the residents if the
town is pushing to have a sidewalk in and if done quickly, it causes fear and
this should be settled before we go ahead.
Marsan noted that the ZBA meeting is an administrative meeting and did
not require notice to abutters. The
community meeting to discuss the May Institute proposal is also this Wednesday
for the abutters. Marsan suggested that
the Board have its own hearing two weeks from this evening. Mr. & Mrs. Barry Pedell of 100 Kilsyth
Road were present and expressed the need for the group home to be built by the
May Institute to accommodate his autistic son and others with autism. Specifically to move forward in a timely
manner. He explained that the property
needs to be deeded as soon as possible as the time frame is difficult. Mr. Joe O’Brien from the May Institute was
also present. Mr. Pedell asked if the
Board could discuss the group home separate from the other proposed changes. Marsan noted that all the changes need to be
discussed anyway. White noted if the
ZBA finds the changes substantial, the ZBA hearing will be held on August 27th. Mrs. Pedell noted that the time frame is
crucial. The conveyance allows them to
begin the process of fundraising. Mr. Pedell
explained that ground breaking shows commitment to the lot and will help the
possibility of keeping the two children in need of the group home together. Haederle asked that we make room to have
this item on the agenda on 8/11.
Goodwin suggested the board submit a letter on behalf of the May Institute
to help secure their efforts. Marsan
suggested that we discuss the issue in two weeks and make the decision at that
point. The Board discussed at great
length the ZBA and the Selectmen’s actions.
Tufts suggested that we go forward at the next meeting to help the ZBA
and the state make their decision.
Hamilton explained that a deed could be prepared for the conveyance of
the land to the May Institute but the Easton Country Estates issue will still
be hanging on that parcel as a cloud until resolved. Pedell explained the problem that if the May Institute moves
forward, they will have put out money without clear title. Hamilton noted that the May Institute can
build tomorrow, but it would be at their own risk. Goodwin noted that we want this to move forward but we need to do
this correctly as the development has been a problem from the beginning. Tufts
noted that we have committed to moving forward on this project and feels that
we should let the ZBA know of the Board’s thoughts at this time. Marsan suggested that we could communicate
to the ZBA the Board’s thoughts on this issue.
If the ZBA finds the changes are not substantial, the Selectmen would
not need to have a hearing. Goodwin
expressed concern. Marsan further
explained that communication to the ZBA and having a hearing and having the
neighbors in to decide if it is determined to be a substantial change. Hamilton
explained that one of the guidelines in deciding substantial or not is an
increase or decrease of approximately 10%.
ZBA Member Chuck
King asked White if it is reasonable to put this issue on the ZBA agenda for
the 8/27 meeting along with the other 40B pending application. King noted that the ZBA works independently
and is not influenced by other boards.
Marsan summarized that the Board needs to approve/recommend of the
amendment, deciding if it is a substantial change. The ZBA looks at this independently and decides their
jurisdiction. The Selectmen then will re-group
and notify all interested parties on 8/11 and review and consider the granting
and conveyance of the lot for the May Institute, only if the ZBA denies
jurisdiction. Marsan feels that this
would be the process to follow and would address the concerns of the May Institute. If the ZBA takes jurisdiction, the process will
take another couple of months with the potential of an appeal, holding it up
much longer. Goodwin suggested a change
to the process. She suggested waiting until
Wednesday evening to give them an opportunity before we decide if this is
substantial or non substantial. Goodwin
suggested the board could draft a letter or deed rider of our intent to grant
to the May Institute. White clarified
the community meeting on Wednesday night is only for the conveyance of the May
Institute lot, not the other issues relating to Easton Country Estates. White felt that this board should hold of in
deciding if the changes are substantial or not, and after hearing from the
neighbors, decide from there. If the
ZBA finds the changes substantial, then we could hold a hearing with the
neighbors. White would not suggest
moving forward to say substantial or not, just outline the process for now. Haederle noted that he will not be present
for the next Selectmen’s meeting to be held on 8/11. At this point Marsan suggested that the Board not take a position
on the conveyance and decide at the 8/11 meeting. White will draft a letter to the ZBA. Goodwin asked to go forward with a letter of intent. Joe O’Brien noted that action will need to
be taken (clear the land) to show the true intention to build. May Institute cannot start building on the
property yet. Tufts feels that we
should not take any action until after the ZBA meeting Wednesday night. White expressed concern that they may deem
it substantial without knowing the Selectmen’s position. White feels that the Selectmen’s role is
unique in this case and we should weigh in on the process. At this point, Hamilton noted that if the
ZBA finds the changes not to be substantial, it automatically modifies the
plan. If the Selectmen then do not
agree with the changes, the Selectmen would find themselves with an already
modified comprehensive permit. Hamilton
suggested that the Selectmen should relay to the ZBA if they are in favor of
the changes. The ZBA will decide if it
is substantial or not. Hamilton feels
that even if the ZBA finds the changes substantial, they could open and close
the hearing the same evening on 8/27 and a decision would then be filed shortly
thereafter. Hamilton feels that if the
Board of Selectmen does not approve changes, the state will not approve them
either. He suggested that it should
take all of the entities to approve. He
further noted it is not an all or nothing process and not all of the proposed
changes need to be agreed to. White
feels that the Board should hear from the neighborhood prior to deciding on the
changes. Goodwin still expressed
concern with the neighborhood but wants the project to move forward. Tufts summarized the neighborhood concerns
relating to the roads and the group home, etc.
Tufts suggested answers to the past problems. White noted that the Board could do nothing at this time or weigh
in on the substantial/non substantial issue based on the merits.
Tufts motioned
to notify the ZBA of the Selectmen’s position that since this doesn’t affect
over 10% of the housing stock, that this proposal doesn’t represent a
substantial change. Haederle
seconded the motion but suggested the Board have the right to amend based on
intergrading public feedback after hearing from the abutters. The Board voted unanimously. A public meeting will be held before
forwarding the agreement to the DHCD. (760
CMR 31.03).
The Board took a brief recess at 9:10pm and reconvened at 9:15pm.
Collector/Treasurer John Nunes was present.
White referred to Town Counsel’s letter regarding this matter.
On Haederle’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to endorse the contract as recommended.
DPW Director Wayne Southworth was present.
White referred to the weekly report and spreadsheets. White noted the need to provide additional electrical service at the site for the flare. An easement for Verizon was recently signed by the Board. Southworth noted the need for Verizon to set the pole on town property. Tufts asked about more information on sulfur treatment. White will look into this. Southworth suggested that CDM has indicated that the sulfur will work five times as effective as the carbon currently used.
White referred to the letter submitted to us by MIIA. The Town of Easton will receive a credit for FY’04 on the insurance premium in an amount of over $25,000. White commended Paicos on his efforts and receiving the credit.
Gilbane Building Company Contract Award (school projects)
White explained that contracts were previously approved just for the high school. The new contracts for design and construction now include both the junior high and the high school. Both contracts require the need for the new vote and endorsement. She explained the procurement process. Town Counsel has approved both contracts. Tufts questioned the site issue and the loss of tennis courts, basketball courts and fields. Tufts feels that the fields should be re-created. He noted that we just spent money to building the tennis and basketball courts. This loss is a direct result of the project itself. Haederle noted that in talking to the Municipal Building Committee, the net loss will be 1 ½ fields. The basketball and tennis courts should be rebuilt. White also shared this concern and has had discussion with Recreation Commission Chairman Steve Torrey. White also expressed some confusion with whom to voice the concerns. White will be working with a member of the school department about this issue and note the concerns and respond in some way. Goodwin feels that part of a new school project should include replacement of fields, courts, etc. The state usually reimburses for the reimbursement of a field. Goodwin feels that this needs to be addressed right now. White agreed but noted that we need to have the concerns voiced with the right people. White referred to the construction contract and noted that there are no funds available for the construction. The Town Accountant will not be signing this portion until funds are available. White expects that money will be requested prior to construction commencing.
On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Haederle, the Board voted 3-1 to accept the contract for the redrafted design phase in the amount of $205,564. Tufts opposed. Tufts expressed concern with voting at this time before we have the concern answered. White noted we are trying hard to expedite the project to follow under SBAD deadlines and further reiterated that she is aware of the issue. Tufts noted that all too often he has to tell people that it is too late and can’t be changed. Goodwin stressed the importance of not holding this up. Marsan suggested that we follow up as an agenda item to see the progress.
On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Haederle, the Board voted 3-1 to accept contract for construction in the amount of $1,858,107. Tufts opposed.
White noted for the record that these contracts supersede the prior contracts.
Marsan referred to the application for renewal.
On Haederle’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously by roll-call to reappoint Mr. Scharnick for a three year term.
Goodwin yes, Tufts yes, Haederle yes, Marsan yes.
none
White noted that the Recreation Program Director has resigned and White intends to move forward in advertising the position. It was noted that the position is funded through the money brought in by activities.
White noted the construction on Elm Street and traffic delays can be expected.
None
Goodwin asked if any members are going to attend the public meeting on 7/30 at the Fellowship Church involving Easton Country Estates. Tufts agreed to attend the meeting.
On Haederle’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously by roll-call to go into Executive Session, not to return to Open session, for contract negotiations with non union personnel and ongoing litigation. (9:50pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Mary McCarthy
____________________________________
APPROVED
____________________________________
DATE