BOARD OF SELECTMEN

MINUTES

DECEMBER 3, 2007

Present:          Hal White, Chairman

Steven Halterman

Ted Goodwin

Arnold Wilson

William Emrich

James Malloy, Town Administrator

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. following the Pledge of Allegiance.

Appointments

Police Chief Thomas Ford introduced Earl Dessert to the Board, who has had approximately eight years of experience working for police departments in Warren and Brimfield and for the Vermont State Police.

MOTION:       To confirm the Town Administrator’s appointment of Earl Dessert as a patrolman in the Sturbridge Police Department with an effective date of December 3, 2007, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     A.Wilson

Vote:  All in favor.

MOTION:       To confirm the Town Administrator’s appointment of Andrew Tsantinis as a Driver/Laborer in the Sturbridge DPW with an effective date of December 3, 2007, by W. Emrich.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

MOTION:       To confirm the Town Administrator’s appointment of Richard Messier as a Driver/Laborer in the Sturbridge DPW with an effective date of December 3, 2007, by W. Emrich.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

Resignation

MOTION:       To accept the letter of resignation from Police Officer Robert Campbell, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

Public Hearing regarding removal of trees on McGilpin Road

T. Goodwin recused himself from the Board.

J. Malloy read the legal ad into the record.  He had submitted to the Board sections of MGH Ch. 87, §§3 and 4.  The Board cannot hear an appeal of the Planning Board’s hearing under the Scenic Road Bylaw or Statute; however, the Board can hear an appeal of the Tree Warden’s determination to remove trees under MGL Ch. 87, §4, and the appeal must be filed before the joint hearing with the Planning Board (MGL Ch. 40C, §15 & MGL Ch. 87, §4).  Town Counsel indicated that the Board has the right to hear an appeal in the form it has been presented from residents, as the Board has the authority to determine the level of work to be undertaken by Town departments.  Town Counsel also stated that if the Tree Warden has determined that there are trees that are hazardous shade trees and the Town does not remove them, there is a potential liability for negligence.  J. Malloy submitted to the Board a listing of each tree to be discussed.

MOTION:       To open the public hearing, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  Four in favor.

Kirstie Pecci, 122 McGilpin Road, and Tom Chamberland, Tree Warden appeared before the Board.  K. Pecci said that earlier this year, T. Chamberland had done an inspection of the tree across from 117 McGilpin Road, and two other arborists (including Dennis Panu) also conducted an investigation and did a report on their findings.  Both arborists found that despite some problems, the tree is in good health, so removal of it is not warranted.  She said that the non-hazardous trees are a separate issue.

Tom Chamberland has applied for a DCR Heritage Tree Grant.  He expressed interest in forming a Tree Advisory Committee.  K. Pecci submitted to the Board a list of possible committee members, enough for a five-member board.  She also gave the Board a draft of a Tree By-law, including the Creation and Establishment of a Tree Committee, the Purpose and Mission, Term of Office, Compensation, Duties and Responsibilities, Operation, Interference with the Tree Committee and Review by Selectmen.

T. Chamberland is committed to updating his tree inventory, caring for endangered trees at Burgess, increasing town plantings and preservation of heritage trees.  He said that the Board must make a decision to save or allow the removal of the tree as part of the construction on McGilpin Road.  He noted that one of the arborists examined the tree with a resistograph, and found that it went into the tree as far as 22” of the 51” diameter.  He said that significant pruning and cabling of the tree needs to be done, using three cables at $150/cable.  He said that there are other heritage trees in Town that will need to be addressed which are similar to that one, and he suggested that the Board give the other trees the same due consideration.

Tom Creamer, 359 Leadmine Road, asked about the definition of a hazard tree.  T. Chamberland said that a hazard tree is a tree that is likely to fail under minor environmental conditions.  He noted that it is not possible to predict with any certainty when or if a tree may fail.  T. Creamer asked whether a hazard tree could potentially endanger a human being.  T. Chamberland said that it could, and noted that public safety is always a significant concern to him.  T. Creamer said that the role of the Tree Warden is to protect and preserve as many trees as possible; T. Chamberland agreed.  T. Creamer read from the Town Bylaw regarding the removal of non hazardous trees for the purpose of widening the highway.  T. Creamer said that it was determined that a hazardous tree left in place that ended up harming an individual would leave the Town open to litigation.  He said that the Town should not have to shoulder the burden of legal costs in the event that someone or something is injured by one of those trees.

Joe Kowalski, Deputy Tree Warden, said that T. Chamberland had asked him to look at the tree in question.  He gave the definition of a hazard tree as a tree that has a structural defect and a target, and said that risk assessment is more inclusive.  He agreed with T. Chamberland’s assessment of the structural integrity of the tree.  He noted that it is a roadside tree, and that when road construction occurs, he predicted that 40% of the tree roots will be removed.  He said that the tree’s ability to maintain itself as a healthy tree will be reduced as a result of that.  He said that it is an older tree that is in a state of decline, and suggested that the Board take that into consideration.  He did not recommend cabling a tree like that.

Russell Chamberland noted that a tree on Wallace Road had come down on a car and a person was severely injured on the night of the Ham and Beans Supper.  He noted that there are 900 school bus trips on that road every year.

Linda Cocalis, 110 McGilpin Road, thanked Tom Chamberland for meeting with the residents of McGilpin Road to work through some of the issues.  She informed the Board that they have applied for the Heritage Tree grant.  She said that T. Chamberland had looked at the tree and suggested putting a berm there to protect the tree from damage from the road.  She noted that McGilpin Road is a scenic road, and the trees have a calming effect on those who drive down it.

Christopher Derose, 117 McGilpin Road, said that he thought that paving the road would have an impact on the tree, and if it starts to fail then it should be taken down.

Kirstie Pecci said that it would cost more to cut the tree down than it would to put work into the tree.  T. Chamberland said that there are many different ways to look at a hazard tree.  He said that he could only recall one incident where there was this level of interest from the community, and it was before he was the Tree Warden.  He said that the heritage tree that was saved by the Board of Selectmen at that time is not still standing.  He said that it is anybody’s guess how long the tree will live, and future weather events can’t be predicted.  He noted that if the Board decided to save the tree, the Town would take on a liability, but if the recommended work is done, then due diligence would be done on the tree.  He said that if the Board was uncomfortable in taking that direction, then the tree should be removed.

MOTION:       To authorize the removal of all the hazard trees except #25 and none of the heritage trees, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  Four in favor; T. Goodwin abstained.

Edward Goodwin asked about the status of the trees on the trails that are being developed.  T. Chamberland said that he has permission from the Conservation Commission to do trimming and pruning of the trees on the trails.  J. Malloy said that the Town has liability for all of its properties; the difference is whether or not the Town has been put on notice regarding an issue and did not take corrective action.  He said that the Town has limited liability under the statutes.

Linda Cocalis said that the residents of McGilpin Road have offered to pay for the cabling of the trees.

A.Wilson said that with the exception of tree #25, the Board had agreed at a previous meeting that the minimum width of the road should be 18 feet, drainage would be 21 feet, and as many trees as possible would be maintained.  G. Morse said that the tightest point in McGilpin Road is around 107 – 109, and they shifted the road to the left to save as many trees on the right side of the road.  He said that they are trying to make the road safe, and noted that they don’t have to pave it at all.  T. Chamberland said that if the road is widened without protecting the heritage trees and without a berm, the roots of the trees will be compromised.  He said that the Board needed to come to a decision about what is a safe travel width on a residential street.

Tom Creamer said that there are thousands of trees on McGilpin Road, and residents are banking on grant money that may or may not be there.  He asked whether McGilpin Road is a public or private road.  H. White said that it is a public road.  T. Creamer suggested that the Board consider abandoning McGilpin Road and turning it into a private road so that that Town would have no further obligation, giving the residents full control over the road.

Brian Galonek said that he was in favor of having the trees removed, and he did not care if the road is widened or not, but was in favor of its being paved.

T. Chamberland said that he and G. Morse had examined all of the trees carefully, and looked at all of the drainage structures.  He noted that only the trees right on the edge of the pavement were marked as heritage trees.  K. Pecci said that that is why the residents have asked that the road be left as it is.

S. Halterman said that he was not comfortable widening a scenic road in Town, and he felt it was nice having roads that are not standard.  G. Morse said that in ideal conditions, 20 feet is a reasonable width for a road, but when a snowstorm comes, width is lost when snow plowing is undertaken.  He said that when that happens, traffic is pushed together, making an unsafe condition.

Ted Goodwin, 58 McGilpin Road, asked about going from a public to a private road.  J. Malloy said that it would require a Town Meeting vote, it would need to be surveyed and deeds would have to be changed.  A.Wilson said that the Town bylaws require a parking space to be 10 feet wide, and he felt that 18 feet is reasonable for passage.  G. Morse pointed out that in a parking lot, there is a travel way; encroachment comes from the shoulder of the road inward, forcing cars to the center of the road.

MOTION:       That the Board authorize the removal of trees as necessary to have a minimum of 18 feet of pavement, by A.Wilson

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  One in favor; H. White, W. Emrich and S. Halterman opposed; T. Goodwin abstained.

A.Wilson suggested that the Board hold its decision on tree #25 until it receives a report back regarding the grant, and a definitive layout from the DPW Director as to what he can do to the road width, etc.  T. Chamberland said that the grant he had applied for did not include tree #25.  He said that he could not ask the state as part of a grant without knowing the outcome of the tree.  He said that the grant applies to the other heritage trees, not under discussion tonight.

J. Malloy suggested a discussion about planting 4”-6” trees along the road after it has been widened, along the Town right of way.  K. Pecci said that the character of the road will be changed if the larger trees are taken down, and suggested that the road be paved as it is.

T. Chamberland noted that there are trees behind the trees in question that will continue to grow, and will benefit from the removal of the trees in front of them.  S. Halterman suggested a compromise of paving the existing width of McGilpin Road, except in the area where it is only 15 feet wide, where trees would be removed in that area to widen the road to take care of safety issues.

MOTION:       To remove trees #8, #9 and #10 to widen the 15’ section of McGilpin Road for safety purposes, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     W. Emrich

H. White noted that the motion did not include a minimum width for the road.  J. Malloy suggested that the Board consider a motion to authorize the removal of the trees as necessary to maintain an 18’ wide road bed.  K. Pecci suggested paving the road bed except for the 15’ strip, where G. Morse could take down trees based on what is necessary for widening the road.  T. Creamer suggested that the DPW Director and Tree Warden be allowed to do their jobs.  He said that they have demonstrated their willingness to compromise.  He said that there should be a bylaw to address altering the standards for scenic roads.

MOTION:       To allow the cutting of trees and widening the 15’ wide section to 18’; and any trees within the transition zone would be removed, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  Four in favor; T. Goodwin abstained.

MOTION:       To close the public hearing, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  Four in favor; T. Goodwin abstained.

Ann Marie Argitis re. Flags on Rt. 20

Ann Marie Argitis appeared before the Board.  She said that business owners along Rt. 20 have expressed concern about the appearance of the road.  She proposed the placing of “Welcome to Sturbridge” flags on Rt. 20 and Rt. 131 that would enhance the major roads and make them more welcoming.  She said that she plans to approach the utility companies for placement of the flags, and Old Sturbridge Village will cover the cost of the flags.  She had a statement from Jim Donohue, President of OSV, indicating his support of the proposal to place the flags and offering to share the cost of flag installation in the Town.

J. Malloy said that it would cost approximately $17,000-$20,000 to place 100 poles in town.  He said that if OSV were to split the cost, it would then go before the Betterment Committee in January, then DPW would put them up.

Alex McNitt, Chamber of Commerce, said that there is no welcoming gateway into the Town, and placing flags is something that the Chamber and a lot of businesses would like to do.  She requested support from the Town.  H. White said that there has been a declining attendance at OSV since the 1980s.  He felt that the flags would be one small step in the right direction.

Tom Creamer said that the Town has an obligation to market itself, and thanked Ann Marie Argitis for bringing the suggestion to the Board of Selectmen.

H. White noted that the retail environment in Sturbridge changed since the early 1980s, partially due to the decline in attendance at Old Sturbridge Village and also the development of the Center at Hobbs Brook.  He said that the impact on Sturbridge is not unique to Sturbridge, and is reflected across the country, in that whenever a Wal-Mart is built, Main Street businesses go into a decline.  He suggested that local businesses be supported.

It was the consensus of the Board that the “Welcome to Sturbridge” flags are a good idea.

Wastewater Treatment Facility

J. Malloy referenced his November 19, 2007 statement to the Board, and said that it was reported that he would have a difficult time supporting the Board with a 1.1 MGD plant.  He wanted to clarify that at this point, his job is to try to convince the Board of what the right thing is to do for the Town, for a number of reasons.  He said that once the Board makes a decision on this, on what size plant to move forward with, he wanted the Board to be assured that both he and Greg Morse, DPW Director, will do everything in their power to build the best plant, at whatever size, and they will keep on top of contractors to make sure that it is a quality plant, and will do everything they can to obtain grants and the best financing for that plant.

Regarding the WWTF Debt, Impact and Value Analysis, J. Malloy updated the previous spreadsheet to include 1.1 MGD and 1.2 MGD.  He pointed out that the additional value of each 100,000 GPD would not necessarily result in increased revenues, but would result in reduced rates, so these figures are probably overstated, as the rates would be reduced correspondingly as flows increased.  Regardless, the cost/benefit ratio is significant, ranging from 1:3 (1.2 MGD at the high debt scenario) to 1:7 (1.5 MGD at the low debt scenario), depending on the size of the plant and debt scenario.

Commercial/Industrial (C/I) Flow at Different Reserves – J. Malloy said that this spreadsheet shows a comparison of the C/I flows that were presented last week at 41,000 GPD (or 10% of the current C/I flow); 63,000 GPD (or 15%) and 84,000 GPD (or 20%) and the 200,000 GPD that J. Malloy had originally recommended with potential C/I flows.  The figures for the Galileo and OFS potential flows are from their billing histories of the past 10 years between their high flow years when they were at full production compared with the current year.  The OSV Lodges Restaurant is the additional flow that was discussed a few weeks ago.  Based on news stories of Rom’s Restaurant selling their business, and the Roscioli family considering building another restaurant in Sturbridge, this flow is based on the past 4 quarters for the existing restaurant.

This spreadsheet shows:

At 41,000 GPD in C/I reserves, the first three would consume 78.7% of the available flow and the addition of Rom’s would consume 98.2% of the available flow for C/I.

At 63,000 GPD in C/I reserves, the first three would consumer 51.2% of the available flow and the addition of Rom’s would consume 63.9% of the available flow for C/I

At 84,000 GPD in C/I reserves, the first three would consume 38.4% of the available flow and the addition of Rom’s would consume 47.9% of the available flow for C/I.

At 200,000 GPD in C/I reserves, the first three would consume 16.1% of the available flow and the addition of Rom’s would consume 20.1% of the available flow for C/I.

J. Malloy said that considering the WWTF is anticipated to provide sufficient flow for the next 20-30 years, the Board should consider the effect that existing businesses and redevelopment of existing businesses may have on the future flows to the WWTF.

WWTF Size Based on High/Moderate Need Areas – J. Malloy said that this spreadsheet simply illustrates the point that he had made at the last Selectmen’s meeting of how he would have looked at the CWMP and the areas identified by TIghe & Bond as “High” and “Moderate” areas that may potentially need sewer in the future (using 84,000 GPD for C/I reserves and comparing both a 10% and 20% buffer between estimated flow and plant size).

J. Malloy said that given all of the information presented to date by Tighe & Bond and the discussions that the Board has had, he continued to recommend a 1.4 MGD plant size as a minimum and 1.5 MGD plant size as the preferred plant size.  He said that he and Greg Morse, DPW Director, will do their best to build the best plant with the best financing for the plant.  He said that Dave Healey of Tighe & Bond had noted that the flows fluctuate greatly, and J. Malloy provided a spreadsheet showing the monthly flows for the past several years.  This showed that there are times, due to the type of community, that the flow at the plant exceeds the permit.  He said that there will be times in the future when there will be operational problems if the plant is not sufficiently sized.

A.Wilson said that 1.1 MGD is too low for him to support, and noted that the Town is going to grow.  He said that there is flow going into Southbridge that is costing more money than to treat it in Sturbridge.  He said that if the 1.1 MGD passes, 10-20 years from now the Board of Selectmen will be talking about the next plant expansion to handle additional flow.  H. White said that the Board had reached a consensus that the gravity flow to Southbridge would not be factored into the plant capacity.

Scott Garieri, 28 Wallace Road, said that it would be fiscally irresponsible to allocate anything less than 1.4 MGD, and noted that the Town had spent money to have professionals come in to evaluate the Town’s needs.  He suggested that the Board trust the calculations of trained engineers, who recommended 1.4 – 1.5 MGD.

Greg Morse, DPW Director, said that 1.1 MGD is too low, and 20% is the standard.  Mary Blanchard reiterated Scott Garieri’s comments, and said that the Board should not ignore the recommendations of paid experts.  Tom Creamer said that the Board has an obligation to address challenges that the Town will face 20 years from now.  He noted that the experts estimate that the flow in 2027 will be 924,000, and the WWTF will not be able to handle that with 1.1 MGD.  He said that Dr. Mullin had indicated that without having adequate water and sewer, businesses would be unlikely to come into Town.

Jennifer Morrison asked the Board to articulate where Tighe & Bond erred in their conclusion and recommendations.  S. Halterman said that when they looked at the number of acres attached to a stub, their approach was that the flow that was reserved was 105,000 GPD for residential, based on one house built on each one of those parcels.  Their build out was based on zoning, not on one house per parcel.  G. Morse said that it was not an error, and he cautioned the Board to be careful how they balance growth and future needs and expansion.  J. Malloy asked for clarification of whether the Board was taking the position that all properties within the sewered area would only have one house allowed regardless of property size and that no subdivisions would be allowed.  H. White confirmed that was the Board’s position.

Edward Goodwin said that 1.1 MGD is the largest increase that the Town has ever had.  He expressed concern about this large an increase from a residential point of view, and said that sewer expansion means residential and commercial growth.  He stressed the need to be fiscally conservative at this time, and said that any new subdivision should require a 2/3 vote within the sewer bylaw.

Russell Chamberland said that the Town is under an EPA mandate to do something, and noted that the Board’s vote is just a recommendation for Town Meeting.  He did not think that 1.1 MGD would get a 2/3 vote at Town Meeting.

Matthew Sosik said that it is disappointing to come to meetings because the vote is 4-1, and that the issue has been politicized, with the members of the Board voting on their own personal preferences and beliefs.  He said that the Board should be looking out for the best interests of the Town, not their personal preferences.  He asked why the Board has chosen to ignore the recommendations of the experts.

Alex McNitt, Chamber of Commerce, said that 1.4 MGD is the minimum that should be considered, and 1.1 MGD would perpetuate the notion that Sturbridge is a hostile environment for growth.  S. Halterman said that the Board is planning for growth and has allocated flows for plenty of growth.  He said that the Board has allocated 92,000 GPD for commercial and industrial (a 20% increase from current flows as recommended by Arnold Wilson), 105,000 GPD reserved for residential on the existing sewer service area, and 64,000 GPD reserved for future expansion of the sewer service area for neighborhoods where large percentages of the septic systems fail.

MOTION:       That the Board of Selectmen authorize a WWTP up to 1.1 MGD, which represents a flow of 965,000 GPD and a 15% buffer, by W. Emrich.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  Four in favor; A.Wilson opposed.

Special Use Permit

MOTION:       To approve the special use permit application of the Tri-County BassMasters for a bass fishing tournament of June 29, 2008, by W. Emrich.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

Ice Racing

MOTION:       To approve the Sunday ice races at the Hamilton Rod & Gun Club starting January 6, 2008 through March 9, 2008, weather permitting, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  All in favor.

Special Town Meeting

MOTION:       To set a Special Town Meeting date on January 28, 2008, to be held at 7:00 p.m. at the auditorium of Tantasqua Senior High School, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  All in favor.

Miscellaneous

Paramedic Service – J. Malloy said that there was some concern about a call that went out on Thursday, November 22, 2007 in which paramedics were called in from another town.  He noted that for the first year, Sturbridge is required to meet the paramedic coverage requirement of 8 hours per day, 7 days per week.  He submitted to the Board the schedule submitted as part of the Town’s paramedic application and a listing of shifts each day since the Town went to paramedic service.  Typically there are 16-24 hours per day covered and twice 9 hours were covered (once on Thanksgiving Day, due to an injury to one of the paramedics, who then called out sick).

J. Malloy announced that the Community Service Learning Awards will be held at Tantasqua on May 15th at Tantasqua High School.

J. Malloy informed the Board that there will be a closing on the property along the river and off Route 148 on December 21, 2007.

Old Business

A.Wilson said that the Board had received a letter from the Town of Monson, who asked that the Board name a delegate and an alternate to the Regional Committee on Casinos.  A. Wilson volunteered to be the delegate; S. Halterman volunteered to be the alternate.

W. Emrich said that a year or two ago there had been talk of having a retreat, and he asked about the purpose of it.  J. Malloy said that there had been a retreat for the Board of Selectmen about 6 or 7 years ago, and a facilitator was used at that time.  He said that the facilitator gives the Board some questions and works with the Board to help give a focus on issues.  It was held at the Publick House from 8:00 a.m. till noon.  It gave the Board positive changes in ways of doing things.  H. White commented that it was an off-site work session.

T. Goodwin said that the development on the OSV land on Rt. 20 and Cedar Street should be used as a model; he saw a rough sketch of the proposed development on the OSV land next to Friendly’s, and did not think that the plan warranted sewer.  He suggested that the developer work with Jean Bubon, Town Planner, to come up with an acceptable plan that deserved the expansion of sewer service.  S. Halterman commented that it would be an expanded need because of changing use.  He said that he didn’t know how the flow issue would work.  J. Malloy said the he, G. Morse and J. Bubon had met with the engineering firm, and they made suggestions to make it more acceptable to the Town.

T. Goodwin said that regarding the Lake Evaluation Committee, he would be willing to serve as the Board’s liaison.  The Board agreed.

H. White reminded the Board that early registration for the MMA Annual Meeting in January is December 7th, and noted that there is a surcharge for late registration.  T. Goodwin, S. Halterman and H. White will attend.

New Business

S. Halterman announced that Old Sturbridge Village will dedicate the Senator Brewer Theater on December 5th at 11:00 a.m.  J. Malloy said that he would attend.

T. Goodwin said that there are a lot of people who have had substantial results with water conservation, to reduce sewer flow.  H. White suggested putting it on a work session agenda.  J. Malloy said that he could talk to Roy Wood about retrofitting older houses for water conservation.  A.Wilson said that he read an article in the Boston Globe that stated that Americans use an average of 151 GPD per person; the British use only 31 GPD.

Ask the Selectmen

A.Wilson received one call from a resident who thanked S. Halterman for putting the WWTP capacity numbers in proper perspective.

MOTION:       To adjourn, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  All in favor.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Judy Knowles

______________________________

BOS Clerk                             Date