Date of Meeting: Friday, April 10, 2009
Location: Town Hall, 221 Main Street
Time: 1:30PM – 3:15PM
Members Present: Chairman James Stanton; Roger Deal; Ken Sydow
Others Present: Nancy Colbert, Town Administrator; Lori Esposito, Administrative Assistant
Tahanto Regional tent permit fee – motion made to waive the building permit fee. Motion seconded, voted All in Favor.
Annual Town Meeting Warrant signed.
Front-end loader: A question was raised regarding the front-end loader cost of new versus used. Warrant Article cost is set at $155K. Nancy is looking into bid for used price. Nancy referred to Page 8 Comprehensive Plan from 2000 – need is for a new front loader – estimated cost $160K. Ken asked why we need two loaders. Nancy will look into it.
Business Development Plan discussion regarding Route 140.
· Nancy referred to “Boylston Comp. Plan” dated March 2000; Route 140 Corridor assessment, pp. 10-13.
· Roger asked why spend more money if we already have a report? We don’t need another consultant.
· Ken Sydow said we all voted to hire Nancy with her tremendous experience in this area. I would like to listen to her map out where we need to go and how to do it.
· Nancy said the prior study was weak in identifying where we need to go to be successful. Currently, it is mostly a residential corridor.
o Of 60 frontage properties on Rte. 140, there is only a 42% return – an above average residential tax bill.
o Of the top 15 taxpayers in Boylston, only six are on 140; an additional five of the 15 are residences.
· Two very different visions could result in 140 corridor development; sewer versus septic; topography factors.
· Nancy feels the background analysis needs to get done as the first step to continue with future planning for the corridor development.
Re: Agreement for Services with Blatman, Bobrowski/Mead (43D):
· Page 6 of the contract: Route 140 Corridor Study: Land Use/Fiscal Component
o 15 mile radius of Route 140 Boylston area is defined as marketing range. Nancy asked if that is an appropriate range. The Board of Selectmen feels it is; it should be at least the distance that people commute to and from Boylston.
· Jim asked, regarding sewers, is an on-site treatment plan an option for an office-type development? Nancy said it is usually cost-effective when you can support a minimum 140 units of space.
· Ken inquired into the cost of potentially buying into Worcester or Shrewsbury sewer lines. “Highest and best use” will change dramatically what we can do with the corridor.
· Roger said we don’t need to pay a consultant to tell us we need sewers. Why not have them define if it’s a potential to hook up to Shrewsbury or Worcester. Then plan marketing once that issue is resolved.
· Nancy: This might not be a yes or no question, rather “how much.” The question then, is it a cost-effective answer? We need to analyze the value you might gain with sewers and would it be worth it/exceed cost of that sewer system.
· If we can’t, we’d then need to know our options without sewer hookup. Study should
· Nancy: a study like this could uncover surprises, e.g., you might find that the strength for the development could be something different from what is thought (not manufacturing, but office space, for example).
Further discussion regarding real estate options.
Various open issues were discussed.
Upon motion made and seconded, and voted All in Favor, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lori Esposito
Administrative Assistant
| 
