October 13, 1992 Present: James Haggerty, Chairman
Judith Murdoch - 8:00 p.m.
Robert Crowley
Robert Andrews
Joseph Frisoli
Mr. Haggerty read a letter from the Cranberry Area Hospice designating the week of November 8 through the 14th as Massachusetts Hospice Week. Motion by Crowley, 2nd Andrews, 4-0 vote to so designate November 8 through the 14th as Mass. Hospice Week.
Board discussed petition submitted last week for four way stop on Pleasant and Reed St. After recommendation from both the Highway Surveyor and Police Chief, motion by Andrews, 2nd Crowley to make the intersection of Reed and Pleasant Streets a four way stop. 4-0 vote.
Board entertained change of corporate officers and change of name for Pina Inc., dba Alfred's Place to dba Alfred and Paul's, manager Alfred D. Pina, 60 Monponsett Street. After some brief discussion, and a review of corporate papers presented by Paul Pina, Board voted on motion by Andrews, 2nd Crowley, to grant change in corporate officers and change of name pending submittal of final abutter's signature. 4-0.
Representatives for Michael Comeau and Pat Garner answered some questions from Board members concerning issues raised surrounding the object free zone at the airport and its relation to the existing gravel permit. Mr. Garner explained to the Board that he had sent a letter, a copy of which he had given to Mr. Annis, to the Federal Civil Aeronautics Commission outlining a plan he stated that they exceeded the limits required with their work and there should be no problem. He agreed to meet with Mr. Annis and discuss the issues, privately. Mr. Haggerty also mentioned there were some concerns with regard to starting time of 7:00 a.m. Mr. Garner asked if it would be possible to have the diesel powered vehicles at least started around 6:45 in order to have them warm up. However, no work would commence
until 7:00 o'clock. Board agreed.
Chairman read the bid results for the piece of discontinued property off Franklin Street. After brief discussion, and explanation of procedures followed by the Exec. Sec. in bidding the property, there was a motion made by Crowley, 2nd Frisoli, to award the bid to Robert and Arla Sullivan, SBD Realty Trust, subject to approval of Town Meeting. 5-0.
Mr. Annis asked to address the Board briefly. He was not aware that the Board had dealt with the airport issues a few minutes earlier. The Board listened to his concerns and at that point Mr. Garner returned to the meeting. There was some clarification regarding the construction and use of a bog road which would surround the bog itself. Mr. Haggerty urged both parties to get together and work out their concerns since he felt this was not an issue for the Board of Selectmen. The Town's concern simply surrounds the issue of a gravel removal permit.
Chairman reviewed each article of the upcoming special town meeting and assigned various articles to each of the Selectmen for presentation. Chairman noted that Mr. Frisoli would be out of Town the next two weeks and unable to attend the Special Town Meeting. Therefore other members handled his articles.
Mr. Frisoli presented to the Board the budget tracking sheets and the monthly forecasts. He commented on each department or area that he is reviewing. He explained that since he was going to be out of Town he asked to address the Board at this point even though the Highway Dept. has not had the opportunity to present all the figures for September. After review of the monthly forecasts and accumulation sheets and some discussions regarding certain areas, Mr. Haggerty asked the Exec. Sec. to have the Town Accountant prepare weekly summary sheets on the Police and Fire as we have done in the past. Mr. Haggerty thanked Mr. Frisoli for the information and Mr. Frisoli asked the Exec. Sec. to give copies of the information to the Finance Committee.
Board of Selectmen entertained request for use of counsel submitted by the Water Dept. Mr. Haggerty outlined the request from the Water Dept. Present were Board of Appeals members, Lila Coyle, Donna Lund and Jay Walter, Rep. them was Judy Cutler, Attorney from Kopelman & Paige. Ms. Cutler gave an overview of what qualified for a comprehensive permit, the two thresholds that have to be met concerning affordable housing issues. One is a regional need and the second is nonprofit status of the group or agency. If these are met, zoning board of appeals at a public hearing reviews the applications and acts as a single granting authority over local permits except for conservation. Generally if a plan complies with the Board of Appeals specifications, it is very difficult for the Board to deny a
permit. Once the permit is issued, there is a twenty day appeal period, however an appeal can generally only be filed by an aggrieved party such as an abutter or a person that can show a direct relationship with regard to a negative impact by the project. Appeals of that nature are generally settled through the housing appeals committee which is appointed by the Governor. The second route for appeals process would be through superior court. And that would be the process followed by an aggrieved party. In this case a comprehensive permit had already been issued to the developer. The developer applied for a revision change called a nonsubstantial change which can be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals without a public hearing. The change concerned hookup of existing Town Water which was not addressed in the original Board of Appeals decision since the Town was under a moratorium and at that time there was not a Water bank in effect.
Zoning Board of Appeals decided that the request for a hookup to Town Water which would come out of the existing water bank constituted a substantial change to the original permit and as such required a public hearing. At that point with an overview given, Attorney Cutler advised the Board of Selectmen that continued conversation should take place in exec. session due to potential litigation, under #3. Mr. Crowley moved to enter executive session, 2nd Mrs. Murdoch. Prior to the vote taking place, Mrs. Murdoch still asked for clarification on what the pending litigation would be since it was her understanding that we were trying to decide whether or not to allow use of counsel for the Water Dept. Mr. Haggerty explained that in determining whether or not the Water Dept. could use Town Counsel, we should know the background for the Board of Appeals decision and since the permission for use of counsel for the Water Dept. could very well result in the Water
Dept. suing the Board of Appeals, that the information the Board of Appeals is going to share with us should be in exec. session, so as not to jeopardize their legal position. He suggested that we would go into exec. session, first with Board of Appeals with their issues and then invite the Water Dept. into session and listen to their side of it before making a decision. Roll Call vote, 5-0.
In open session the Chairman explained that the Board listened to both sides of the issue and asked if the Board members were ready to make a decision on the Water Dept. request for use of counsel. Motion made by Murdoch, that the request for legal counsel be denied, 2nd Crowley. Prior to the vote, Mr. Frisoli stated that he was voting to give back the authority to the Board of Water Commissioners in a sense that they would be able to take whatever appropriate action they would deem fit without the use of counsel. Vote was 4-1, Mr. Andrews negative.
Motion to adjourn by Crowley, 2nd Murdoch, 5-0 vote. 10:24 p.m.
_______________________
Joseph Frisoli, Clerk
| 
