Finance
Committee Meeting
Minutes
–
Town Hall –
Members
Present: Michael Feldman, Brian
Fitzgerald, David Fixler
(late), Charles
Goodman, David Hearne, Jonathan Hitter,
Paul Pietal, Gloria Rose
(
1. Peter O’Cain,
Asst. Town Engineer, clarifying Articles 10 & 11, two Storm Water By-laws
to be heard at the Fall Town Meeting, in response to an EPA mandated
responsibility.
2. ARTICLE 10: requires homeowners to fill
out an application if a sump pump is owned whether or not it is connected
directly to storm water drains. This is
a way to help DPW map out Storm Water System. If a pollution problem arises, the DPW would
have a way to find where the problem is located. There is no fee for filing an
application. There is a penalty for
dumping pollutants into storm water drains.
There is a $100 fee for initial dumping.
DPW copied fees adopted by
3. Some of the wording—substantial
and continued increase—may be a problem.
This was written by SERTS and reviewed by Town Counsel. If there is a pollution problem, DEP would
come into town and make an investigation.
There is a $100 fine plus cost of cleaning. The money to put this into action would come
from a Storm Water Management Fund which has a $200 application fee from
contractors.
4. ARTICLE 11: Storm Water Discharges – Construction Activity. There is no Planning Board erosion plan. There is no mandate for soil erosion. To deal with erosion run off, garbage, etc.
and any waste onsite, a $200 application fee earmarked to go to a Storm Water
Fund. This number could be adjusted. Contractor would apply for a permit meeting
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Building Inspector and Storm Water Manager would control site. Disturbance includes anything that exposes
soil, rock. Contractor could create a
separate account or post a bond and get money returned. Conservation Commission checks sites
regarding erosion. Usually only involved
with wetlands. Should there be a money
deposited into an account, or a bond posted?
5. Hearne: What if builder went
bankrupt?
6. O’Cain: If there were a bond, it would be easier to
control. Post bond at beginning of
project.
7. Fitzgerald: Regarding $200 fee. Cost should be set by how much would be to
cover cost. Fee structure by hours spent
working on. If contractor doesn’t like
fee, can complain. The fee structure
might be more appropriate based on square footage.
8. Goodman: A lot of construction within the last 3
years. Multi-million dollars with school
construction projects.
9. O’Cain: Fees would be waived for town construction.
10. Subsidize some of Article 10
by fees from Article 11. No
budget—mandated by EPA. Building
Inspector’s salary not covered by fees.
DPW to do cost estimate to see if fees are correct—a cost analysis. Article 10 is a learning infrastructure. It would cost too much to send someone out to
check each person. Whole program cost to
town. Storm Water Management Plan says
it should be done this year.
11. ARTICLE 8: Demolition Delay By-laws. Robert Young and Gordon Hughes of the
Historical Commission presented this Article.
The delay is going from six to twelve months. The Mass. Historical Commission is encouraging
towns to adopt demolition plans for12 months instead of 6 months. In last year, a half
dozen homeowners have come before Historical Comm. If on list with plaques, may not be
demolished. The present owner makes a
request to demolish building. If they
only have to wait 6 months, we are looking at June 2004; request came in
September 2003. This doesn’t prevent
anybody from demolishing. Gives
Historical Commission time to do something else with property. Builder might donate building, which could be
moved to another location.
12. Historically
significant: Determination made by the
Historical Comm. On any building 100 or more years old. Majority use 50 years. Henry Katz recommended and changed to 100
years.
13. Young: No requests for Historical building. Historical Comm. only deemed two buildings
historically significant. This past year
every building requesting demolition is planning to be demolished. Six months doesn’t faze developer.
14. Hearne: Regarding paragraph 6. Right of review of any building over 100
years. Building Inspector lets Comm.
know before building is demolished—Historical Commission will try to do
inventory on properties in town that meet the 100 year threshold.
15. Six months after Historical
Comm. makes determination of historical significance. Inventory up to date over last year and a
half. Limited by small budget. Have been photographing now that we have
budget.
16. A goal could be to notify
homeowner that home is on Historical List.
Entire research: Who lived in
home? What happened in home? Not just architecture.
17. Hearne:If this is only change in By-law, this could potentially cause developer
to be delayed unnecessarily. Other
changes need to be implemented to compel the Historical Commision
to act in a timely manner.
18. Young: Generally done in less than 30 days. Would hold emergency meeting to give
answer. Six months should be long enough
to hold up on building something.
19. Goodman: Town could be getting tax money. Could lose out on revenue.
20. Young: Two houses were not historically significant,
issued demolition permit. Four were
historically significant—imposed six month delay—now on schedule to be
demolished.
21. Fixler: Does the Town provide any incentive to anyone
to renovate and not demolish historically significant buildings?
22. Young: An owner could put an historical
easement—would get tax break.
23. ARTICLE 12: Amendment to Zoning By-law on
Storm Water. Gina Maniscalco
presented for Planning Board. Dictated
by General Laws of Mass. Complying with new State regulations. Stricter than before.
24. Pietal: Most zoning by-laws are confusing. Encourage to provide current bylaw and
changes to voters at Town Meeting..
25. ARTICLE 13: Mixed Use Overlay. Maniscalco: This is a result of all of work done on
EO418. Has to do with mixed use in town
center. In 2000 we went for long term
community development for town. What are
we looking at for next 20 years? In the
downtown center, economic development, opportunity for retail commerce, and
apartments. Affordable housing for
parents and young adults to live. Does
not override the basic zoning given Planning Board under this Special Permit. Law gives an opportunity to develop. Similar to
26. Fixler: Why can’t you accomplish your objective
without changing the By-law?
27. Maniscalco: Doesn’t allow for density. No vote by Planning Board yet. Will happen within next month and a half.
28. Fixler: Any opposition to the Planning Board’s proposal ?
29. Maniscalco: Very proactive. Sent out letters to everybody that registered
with Assessor, advertised in papers, up dates in Advocate. Public hearing on September 15. Vote after public hearing, may need
another. Area includes from other side
of library down to
30. Fixler: If you change density, you change character.
31. Hearne: By Law seems intent on crating an idyllic
town center with affordable housing?
There are no parcels of land that are going to allow for this type of development This
by-law targets the renovation of existing buildings. What are we giving the owners of this
property? Questioned why we are setting a minimum density of20 units per acre. Why not lower?
32. Maniscalco: Current density doesn’t allow for more
density. An incentive for
developers: if they give us more space,
we'll give them more density.
33. Hearne: If goal is more affordable housing, why are
we restricted to large parcels with high density. Why not more, smaller parcels?
34. Maniscalco: Planning Board as a body sits and listens to
developers with preliminary plans for downtown every two weeks. We come up with ideas and logistics by what
they are telling us and what the Town of
35. Goodman: If you have increased density, how much money
is going to be raised for town?
36. Maniscalco: No projection.
37. Goodman: Is another projection to be done?
38. Maniscalco: Another grant to allow Planning Board to look
at septic system problems.
39. Goodman: Taking approval away from ZBA?
40. Maniscalco: Have no authority to take away from ZBA.
41. Goodman: What is being
changed with Zoning By-law?
42. Maniscalco: Planning Board always gets to approve or
disapprove any permit.
43. Fixler: It appears that currently the ZBA is the
permit granting authority.
44. Planning Board to come back
when projection is finalized—before Fall Town Meeting.
45. ARTICLE 14: Flood Hazard. Complying with General Laws. Show existing and proposed projection at town
meeting. Same type projection as with
Article 13.
46. ARTICLE 18: Bramble Lane – not ready yet
for acceptance.
47. ARTICLE 9: Amendment of By-law by
amending Article 2. Presentation by
Gordon Gladstone. Effort to formalize
what was good in the past and should be continued in the future. In 1973 traced forward to 1987, then
information disappeared. Town Meeting
should see what a proposed item is on impending tax rate. If all articles were approved as recommended,
what the effect on the
tax rate would be.
48. Pietal: Developed through priorities process.
49.
50. Fixler: Agree substantively with what you are trying
to do. Indeed, the current by-law allows
us to prepare such information. We have
tried as best we can to put tax rate in the Advocate. However, I am concerned as to whether a
by-law is the appropriate vehicle to effectuate the change you desire. It could set a bad precedent that could
result in an unnecessary expansion of the Town by-laws.
51. Hearne: Citizens have right to a consistent
presentation of basic information to function.
Structure information on spreadsheet in the budget.
52. Goodman: Going down item by item: (1) Compare May ’05 estimated tax rate,
which is for the following year. This
has already been estimated by Priorities Committee. Prior year rate for this year ‘04-‘05 will be
known in November. (2) Committee schedule of receipts for same
period as above.
53.
54. Fixler: Consider removing point (3). As to point (4), Finance Committee controls how much has
been spent to date. Note that most
Reserve Fund Transfers come after Town Meeting.
55.
56. OTHER BUSINESS: The next meeting will be
August 30.
57. MOVED
and SECONDED to approve the Minutes
of
58. VOTED: 7-0-1.
59. MOVED
and SECONDED to adjourn.
60. VOTED: 8-0-0.
61. Meeting adjourned at
ACTION: Planning Board to come back sometime after
September 25 and before October 18.