BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
September 24, 2009
7:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Donna Challis, Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Ostroff announced that on September 26 & 27, the Natick Praying Indians would be having a pow wow at Cochituate State Park. The public was invited.
Mr. Ostroff also announced that the Natick Board of Selectmen took home the Silver Medal in the chair volleyball game at the Senior Center. He commended Ms. Gloff and Mr. Connolly for playing.
Mr. Connolly noted that in the last week he had someone say they thought the Selectmen got paid $500 for perambulation of the bounds. He thought it was important for people to know that the Selectmen were volunteers and didn’t get paid for this position.
BLOCK PARTY – LODGE ROAD
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the request to close Lodge Road on October 4, 2009 from 1:00-6:00 p.m. for a block party. The Board’s permission was conditioned upon compliance with the conditions recommended by Safety Officer Lieutenant Brian Lauzon.
ARTICLE 17: GLENWOOD CEMETERY
Representing the Glenwood Cemetery Association was Attorney Eliot Goodman. Mr. Goodman advised that the Glenwood Cemetery Association was a non-profit created by the legislature and had a long history back to the time the Town purchased the land from Hanna Glenwood in 1862 for $600. Permission was given to use the roadway Glenwood Street to access the cemetery.
Mr. Goodman referred to a plan of the cemetery and noted that it was non-denominational and was run by a committee not the Town. According to his (Mr. Goodman’s) research it was dedicated in 1863 and in 1881 the Association of Town residents was incorporated by the State legislature and it has been in existence as a corporation since that time. In 1903 the Town improved Glenwood Street and put in water pipes. In 1916 Town Meeting by Article 20 authorized the Board of Selectmen to convey the cemetery to the Glenwood Cemetery Association and it became their property except that for 30 years the Board of Selectmen forgot to write the deed. The deed was written in 1935 and recorded giving the Association title to the cemetery.
On the plan presented by Mr. Goodman was an area showing the present cemetery. There was one area almost totally without stones and another partially without stones. In 1980 the people running the Association bought a 10 acre parcel. It was all wooded except for one corner. The primary abutter of that section is the Hunnewells except for the house at the corner of Glenwood Street. The state required the Board of Health to hold a public hearing and to make sure the land was suitable for cemetery use before it could be added. That hearing will be held before Town Meeting. When the form of the motion to be utilized was created, language pertaining to the decision of the Board of Health was included and the Finance Committee voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Goodman advised that the intent was not to develop the whole 10 acres at once. To develop a cemetery you had to remove all the trees and to make it saleable new trees had to be planted along the roadway. It was about a 6-7 year period to accomplish that. Assuming nothing unusual occurred, there were a few years of grave sites left.
Mr. Goodman noted that Alan Bush has worked tirelessly for the cemetery and the job he has done should be commended. The Association have been good businessmen and provided Natick with a non-denominational source of burial. If the addition of the added acres was approved at Town Meeting, by by-laws it would have to go to the ZBA for them to impose any conditions they think may be necessary to protect the public. There was no need for offsite parking. There was adequate turnaround space and the activity level was very low and hopefully it stayed that way. The Association was looking down the road 30-50 years and hopefully a lot longer.
Mr. Ostroff commended Mr. Goodman and the Associate for the care and foresight shown in approaching this matter. It was reassuring knowing people were thinking ahead.
Mr. Ostroff asked if Glenwood was available to the public and Mr. Goodman responded that the easiest way to see Mr. Bush. All funeral directors know him and lots were available for purchase.
Mr. Ostroff then inquired as to who would bear the expense of the lot construction and removal of trees. Mr. Goodman advised that as a result of the Directors not taking money for themselves, it could be funded without asking the public for any money.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 17.
Article 24 – Amend Charter Article 2: Legislative Branch
Mr. Ciccariello asked Ms. Gloff as Chair of the Charter & By-Law Review Committee to take the lead on reviewing the charter & by-law amendment articles.
Ms. Gloff advised there were a small number of proposed changes in Article 24; i.e. adding with or a period.
In the publication section it was interpreted to mean the warrant should be signed within five days and the Board of Selectmen should be voting to approve when they sign. That was not realistic. The warrant closes Friday and that would require the Board to have a meeting the Tuesday or Wednesday after the close of the warrant. The Board didn’t typically do that. Barbara Chinetti, a member of the CBRC and also a member of the original Charter Commission pointed out the wording in the final report from the Commission used the term “preliminary”. The CBRC was proposing to go back to the original wording there wasn’t a situation where the Board was not complying with what they needed to do.
2-13(c) currently said 14 days. When there was a referendum on Pay-as-you-throw the Board spent a fair amount of time saying they couldn’t call that special election. There were requirements for how far in advance the ballot needs to take place. The CBRC felt it should be fixed and proposed 30 with not more than 60. The timeframes were discussed at length with the Town Clerk.
To Mr. Connolly’s remarks about even something as simple as a period having to go through the process, Ms. Gloff responded that the issue was discussed with Town Counsel and if that was how Town Meeting voted, Town Meeting had to change. There were some that were voted and a typo was made subsequently and those didn’t require a change.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 24.
Article 26 – Amend Charter Article 4: Town Administrator
Ms. Gloff reviewed the proposed changes and pointed out that a new paragraph was proposed for Section 4-2(17) that came out of the Charter Article 6. Currently there was a similar paragraph in Article 6 that says it was the responsibility of the Comptroller. In discussion with the Comptroller and Finance Committee, it didn’t make sense for the Comptroller to be responsible for that.
In Section 4-3(b) the words “or other qualified individual” was added. Ms. Gloff noted this came to the CBRC’s attention because of the situation a few years ago. There wasn’t anybody on staff to do the job. At that time the Board did the right thing but not quite the right thing in the Charter.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action with the correction of a typo on Article 26.
Article 27 – Amend Charter Article 5: Fiscal Procedures
Ms. Gloff reminded the Board that a discussion occurred earlier this year and previously for the need to be a balanced budget as of January 1. As currently written Section 5.2 would require the School Committee to provide their adopted budget prior to the Town Administrator providing a budget in January. That doesn’t happen and was unrealistic. Attempts were made working with various individuals including the Town Administrator to modify this to keep the spirit of what was intended.
The Board had been a red line version of the proposed changes which Ms. Gloff reviewed, noting that the Town Administrator had a lot of input into these.
Mr. Ostroff noted that this was something that Town Counsel had gone over and he (Mr. Ostroff) was glad it was being done. It was a big issue last year with a lot of discussion over the process.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 27.
Article 28 – Amend Charter Article 6: Administrative Organization
Ms. Gloff reviewed the proposed changes as shown in the red line version.
She noted that under the Office of Comptroller, (b)5 (in charge of the accounting and business machines owned by the Town) was deleted and moved to the Town Administrator.
Under the Collector #4 was added requiring a new Collector to furnish a fidelity bond with a surety. This was standard and the Town was required to pay for it.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 28.
Article 29 – Amend By-Laws Article 1: Town Meeting
Ms. Gloff advised that the proposed changes would allow for the Superintendent of Schools to place articles on the warrant.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 29.
Article 30 – Amend by-Laws Article 3: Procedure at Town Meeting
Ms. Gloff referred to the changes under Section 4 noting that the day may come when people can vote electronically and the Moderator thought it would be appropriate to modify the section so the option would be available under the by-laws. “Take no action” was added because last Town Meeting many articles were referred.
Mr. Ostroff noted that traditionally Town Meeting has taken no action by no motion being offered and he wondered how that would be squared with people taking no action on an article. It was technically not a motion. It was a failure to act.
Ms. Gloff didn’t have an answer.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 30.
Article 31 – Amend By-Laws Article 10: Board of Selectmen
Ms. Gloff noted that the Finance Committee proposed a change under Section 3. There were more than one reserve fund. There was a water & sewer reserve and a general fund and the proposed change would insert the words “the general fund reserve fund”.
In the list of appointments made by the Board, Ms. Gloff noted that if Town Meeting transferred the care and control of the Town Forest to the Conservation Commission, the Conservation Commission would be authorized to set up the Town Forest Committee and there may be a motion to make that change.
Mr. Ostroff was of the opinion that the list of committees was fluid and would be quickly out-of-date. Ms. Gloff responded that Mr. Ostroff’s point was brought up to the CBRC and one or several members thought strongly that the appointments should stay in the by-laws.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 31.
Article 32 – Amend By-Laws Article 12: Collector of Taxes
Ms. Gloff reviewed the changes in the red line version and advised that the article number was proposed to be changed from Article 12 to Article 21A. It was currently in the section of elected officials, but the position was no longer elected.
She referenced the rewording of Section 7 and explained that it didn’t change the meaning but it was felt that the paragraph as written was difficult to understand so an attempt was made to rewrite it.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 32.
Article 33 – Amend By-Laws Article 20: Town Administrator
Ms. Gloff pointed out that the proposal was to only list the multiple member body committee appointment made by the Town Administrator.
Other changes were inserting “preliminary” in reference to the budget submission in Section 2 and the deletion of (c)-Charter and C.S. – Civil Service from the key.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 33.
Article 34 – Amend By-Laws Article 21: Planning Director
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 34.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Planning Board had taken any action on the proposed changes and Ms. Gloff responded that no one had asked her or any other member of the CBRC to discuss this.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the Planning board heard articles last night and he didn’t think they (Planning Board) knew this article was on the warrant. Their next meeting was October 7 and he would bring it to their attention.
Mr. Ciccariello felt that the Community Development Director was extremely involved in the Planning Board and ZBA and he wanted to make sure these changes didn’t restrict the Director from performing his duties without having to go to the Town Administrator.
Ms. Gloff didn’t believe that was the intent of the Town Administrator or the Community Development who provided the CBRC with this wording. It was a good point to make certain it was reviewed by the Planning Board. They were given an opportunity to review the current wording, but the proposed changes weren’t sent.
Mr. Ciccariello reiterated that he would like to hear the Planning Board’s thoughts and if the Planning Board had any concerns, the Board could reconsider its vote.
Article 35 - Amend By-Laws Article 22: Town Counsel
Ms. Gloff highlighted the proposed changes and Mr. Ostroff pointed out the reference to Recreation Commission when it should be Recreation and Parks Commission. Ms. Gloff agreed it should be changed. The Finance Committee has not as yet voted and she would bring it to their attention.
Ms. Van Amsterdam felt that who had the authority to request Town Counsel’s services was delineated clearly but in tight budget times, how could it be restricted so that it was the Town Administrator’s decision and authority to control usage of Town Counsel. Ms. Gloff responded that there had been a limited discussion at the CBRC. They didn’t have any feedback and didn’t feel it was their place to make a change.
Mr. Ciccariello thought that most times members of the Board of Selectmen were seeking legal counsel they would usually go through the Town Administrator. Ms. Gloff agreed but felt it was her right to call Town Counsel if she felt she needed to.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if any of the individuals listed were required to notify the Town Administrator of their seeking Town Counsel’s services given that they were responsible to the Town Administrator. Ms. Gloff advised that they were not. She added that for parody the Town Administrator thought the Police and Fire Chiefs should be added to the list.
Mr. Ostroff asked about Section 4 and if the Board of Selectmen sought to consider an alternative if there was an anticipated vacancy. Ms. Gloff advised that that would be beyond the scope of the CBRC. Mr. Ostroff didn’t believe any of the changes prohibited the Board from taking any action they deemed appropriate.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 35.
Article 36 – Amend By-Laws Article 23: Finance Committee
Ms. Gloff advised that the change from ten to seven day mailing requirement to Town Meeting was to match the Charter.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action for Article 36.
Article 40 – Amend by-Laws Article 32: Open Space Advisory Committee
Ms. Gloff explained that this was to correct a typo. When the article was drafted it said “lease” rather than “least”.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action for Article 40.
Article 41 – Amend By-Laws Articl0e 40: Town Reports and Records
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there had been any discussion about committees that fail to file a report for the Town Report. As a member of the Town Report Committee he would haunt committees that fail to do so.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 41.
Article 42 – Amend By-Laws Article 42: Licenses
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 42.
Article 43 – Amend By-Laws Article 43: Licenses/Permits of Delinquent Taxpayers
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 43.
Article 44 – Amend By-Laws Article 50: Police Regulations
Ms. Gloff highlighted the proposed changes noting that the section on Marijuana was consistent with other communities.
Mr. Ostroff asked about the dog fees, and Ms. Gloff responded that the fees had been in the Police regulations section and the proposal was to take them out.
In response to the proposal to eliminate motorized vehicles from Dug Pond, Mr. Ciccariello noted that a lot of fishermen have small motors and he was concerned about changing the by-laws from Morse Pond to all ponds. It would mean no ice fishing. He would prefer to have it written no combustion engines on boats.
Ms. Gloff advised that the CBRC never found any reason why it was restricted to Morse Pond and if she lived by a pond she wouldn’t want somebody out there in the winter racing around in a snow mobile.
Mr. Ciccariello still believed this section needed more thought.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to support favorable action on Article 44. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. After further discussion no vote was taken and the matter was tabled.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he would be interested in consideration being given for imposing specific signs for public consumption of alcoholic beverages.
In fairness to the people who may violate these changes and say they didn’t know there was a new by-law, Mr. Connolly inquired if there was an obligation to notify people. Ms. Gloff felt that was a good point, but she didn’t know how to logistically do it. Asked if the Town was obligated to put something in the paper, Ms. Gloff advised there was no legal obligation but it could be done. Ideally it would be good to get the newspaper to report it – saying these were the new Police regulations.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would like to see signs posted. He wouldn’t support this and had some concerns with Section 19 which he would take to the Finance Committee. Ms. Gloff suggested that he speak with the Police Chief rather than the Finance Committee.
At Mr. Ciccariello’s request the Board agreed to table Article 44.
Article 45 – Amend By-Laws Article 51: Alarm Systems
Ms. Gloff highlighted the proposed changes and noted that the Finance Committee proposed an additional change replacing “plugs” with “connects”. The Finance Committee also voted to delete Section 3(a).
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support
Mr. Connolly found the work by the CBRC to be impressive and complimented the members.
Article 47 – Amend By-Laws Article 70: Public Works Regulations
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action of Article 47.
Article 50 – Amend by-Laws Article 72A: Newsracks on Public Property and Public Ways
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action of Article 50.
Article 51 – Amend by-Laws Article 75: Remedy of Public Nuisance
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action of Article 51.
Article 59 – Amend Zoning By-Laws: Natick Center Parking Requirements for Restaurants
Mr. Ostroff reported that one member of the Planning Board had some concern and the Planning Board continued discussion to October 7. The Board of Selectmen previously voted to support and he just wanted to make the members aware there may be further discussion.
Article 53 – Amend By-Laws Article 79A: Stormwater Management and Erosion Control
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action of Article 53.
BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve Bill Marston’s request to close Lodge Road on October 4, 2009 from 1:00-6:00 P.M.
Safety Officer Lt. Brian Lauzon recommended approval subject to the standard conditions.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- Home Rule Petition – Eliot School
Mr. Ostroff informed the Board that the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Eliot School lease/sale home petition and the Board was now authorized to proceed.
Mr. Ostroff distributed a memo on the Albanian Church’s observance of their 90th anniversary to be held October 4. Board members were invited to attend.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
______________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
