The Board of Selectmen met this evening with Chairman Jeffrey Tufts presiding. In attendance were William Hardin, Frederick Clark, Patricia Webster, Carla Goodwin, and Town Adm. Kevin Paicos.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted 3-0-2 to approve General Minutes dated 7/26/99. Goodwin, Webster abstained.

On Webster’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to approve the list of sign requests, (see attached) with the exception of the Rockery.

At this point Selectman Tufts left the meeting during discussion and voting.

On Webster’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to act as Water Commissioners.

Webster noted that approving this abatement would set a precedent because there were two other cemeteries that had similar problems, and they had to pay the entire bill.

Webster’s motion, seconded by Hardin, to not approve the abatement, was not voted at this time.

Clark noted he was in favor of splitting the bill. Goodwin noted that due to the timing of the repair, she would be more inclined to split the bill also. Hardin noted that another cemetery that is attached to a Church had a bill, twice as much as this one, with similar circumstances and they paid it. Hardin noted he couldn’t justify changing the rules for one group when two other groups were required to pay.

Paicos noted there isn’t any legal way to abate water bills, and that this would set a precedent. Paicos noted that he had a follow-up meeting with Hill and Southworth and they agree this would set a precedent and they are not sure that this can be done legally. Clark questioned if Paicos had received a legal opinion. Paicos stated no. Clark stated he wants a legal opinion as to whether this bill can legally be abated. Goodwin noted she doesn’t know how much notice the cemetery was given to fix this break. Paicos noted the Water Dept., and the Cemetery personnel differ on when the cemetery was notified and how long before the water break was resolved. Clark asked again for the Town to seek a legal opinion as to whether the Board of Selectmen, acting as Water Commissioners, could issue water bill abatements.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to request a legal opinion this type of issue.

At this point in the meeting Selectman Tufts returned.

Paicos noted there is no formal policy and the DPW does spot checks on compliance. He noted that when people are found not in compliance with the restrictions, they are informed of this and have been very cooperative. Paicos noted that the restrictions have been successful in lessening the use of water since the ban was imposed.

There was much discussion RE: amending section 223-71 with a subset A on enforcement implications. Paicos noted this would be on the next Town Meeting Warrant to amend the by-law accordingly.

Attorney A. Pearlman in attendance.

Pearlman reviewed the amended plan, (see attached) noting the locked area for alcohol, as well as the restrictions planned for times when alcohol can’t be sold. Pearlman noted he has been in touch with the Board of Health and the Planning Board. Hardin asked if there would be a wall in cooler between dairy items and the alcohol. Pearlman stated yes. Pearlman noted that Mr. Gallagher is the engineer working on the issues, and they are so busy at this time and it may take another 4 weeks before they can work on the plans for his client. Pearlman noted they want to stay with this firm because they did the original design on this project. Pearlman noted they will apply for and pay for site plan review, but the owner has agreed to reimburse the applicant.

Webster’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, to approve the Beer & Wine Package Store License subject to site plan approval, septic system repairs being completed and division of the locked cooler, alcohol from dairy items, was not voted at this time.

Tufts expressed concern with too many restrictions on alcohol locking and access. Pearlman noted there is a locked door already on the cooler. He noted that where the cooler is filled from is always locked, and already part of the plan. Hardin noted that any change in the storage or display of the alcohol would need to come back to the Board for approval.

Tufts expressed concern that there be no consumption of alcohol on site, i.e., someone buying a sandwich and a beer and eating and drinking outside on the premises. Pearlman noted this would not be allowed.

Paicos gave a brief explanation of the history of this discussion. Paicos noted that the hope was to have the Planning Board, Chamber and Selectmen discuss this, but the Chamber couldn’t attend tonight. Tufts noted the Chamber is glad they were consulted and they want new businesses to be required to have site plan approval, but don’t want to complicate this to cause more hardship to existing businesses. Clark questioned Rousseau on the percentage of business premises that are owned and operated by landowner vs those that are operated by renters. Rousseau noted he is not sure and is working on this because the Chamber already expressed concern with this issue also. Rousseau noted the problem is if renters are to be held accountable when the property owner doesn’t apply for site plan. Clark questioned if we have a legal opinion on this. Rousseau noted the problem is with language being too general, but now he is trying to word the zoning regs to include a case-by-case basis language instead.

Rousseau noted the criteria are based on size of buildings and the number of parking spaces.

Tufts questioned if the Board of Selectmen will have the flexibility with the time frames around the time needed for site plan review and approval by the Planning Board, in light of the time frames required for license approval. Paicos noted the Board could issue licenses subject to site plan approval in a specific time frame and if someone doesn’t follow up, the Board could hold a Show Cause Hearing after the time frame elapses RE: the site plan issues. Paicos noted that he and Rousseau would follow up on the new language with the Chamber and report back to the Board of Selectmen. Goodwin questioned if the change of use on a grandfathered property involves handicap access compliance. Rousseau stated yes, they would then have to comply with all the ADA laws. Paicos noted this would come back to the Board with further information and for continued discussion.

Clark noted he needs a legal opinion on the issue of insisting on site plan approval for existing businesses. Tufts suggested this be discussed with the new Town Counsel. Goodwin asked Rousseau to look into this legal issue.

Hardin noted that the Legislature voted the full $90M but since then the Governor has cut $50M out of that. He noted that both the house and Senate have to vote to override this cut and he urged the Board collectively and as individuals to send letters to the Senate and House to override the Governor’s veto. Hardin also encouraged the public to write to any and all of our Legislators. Paicos gave a brief explanation of the projects that will be negatively affected if we don’t get the extra Ch. 90 funding.

Hardin RE: Main St. condition noted that the DPW Director has assured him that this week something will begin to take place to correct the situation. Paicos noted that if the project doesn’t go forward this week he urged the citizens to call their State Reps and Senators to complain.

RE: hurricane season public information, Paicos gave an explanation stating that a notice is going out in the water bills or some other form and that the Building Inspector is working on this.

RE: Sen. Sprague, Paicos noted she was successful in getting a $75,000 grant for the Town’s dam repairs in the State’s Capital Budget.

RE: Home Page, Paicos gave an update of the steps taken to solicit what users want to have on the Home Page and what Department Heads think should be on the page as well. Paicos noted we are beginning to train departments to handle requests for information.

At 8:40PM, on Hardin’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously by roll-call, to go into Executive Session for the purpose of Pending Litigation, and Labor Negotiations, not to return to Open Session.

APPROVED_________________________________

DATED__________________________________