Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-26 Board of Selectmen Minutes Minutes of the Board of Selectmen Meeting March 26, 1991 The meeting was convened at 7: 30 p.m. in the Selectmens Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA. Present were ,Chairman Eugene Nigro, Vice Chairman Dan Ensminger, Secretary Sally Hoyt and Selectmen Russ Graham and George Hines, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner and the following list of interested parties: Leslie York, Irene York, Bill Burditt, Steve Thomases , Sally Sabo, Anne Mark, John Puzine, Greg Rasetta, John L. Drinkwater, Dorothy M. Drinkwater, Michael F. Grensor, Natale Bellantone, Irene Bellantone, Lauren A. Liss, Ted McIntire, Ann Nelson. On motion by Hoyt seconded by Hines, the Minutes of March 12, 1991 were approved by a vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Hines seconded by Hoyt, the Minutes of March 19, 1991 were approved as amended by a vote of 5-0-0. Liaison Reports George Hines indicated that he had attended the School Committee meeting in Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations last evening. He has also reviewed the Drinkwater concerns onsite. Sally Hoyt indicated that she had also attended the School Com- mittee Executive Session, and had attended the retirement party --� for Herb Perry. Russ Graham indicated that he had attended the School Committee � Executive Session. Dan Ensminger indicated that he had attended the School Committee Executive Session, and has met several times with the Solid Waste Committee regarding the trash fee. Eugene Nigro indicated that he had attended the School Committee Executive Session. He had also attended a regional meeting of the YMCA at the Parker House. The topic was "Healthy Families/Healthy Communities. " He suggested improved coordina- tion to the Department of Human Services and with the Y. He also had a call from Sheila Chiemets of Mass Municipal Association making sure that we were in touch with our local representatives with regard to House 1 - the Budget Bill. Final figures have been promised in mid-April. We should convey to our local rep the impact on the local budget of the proposed cuts in state aid, and get a commitment from the local rep to oppose those cuts. Personnel and Appointments The Town Manager indicated that he was appointing a Public Safety Dispatcher and was in the process of appointing a police officer to fill the vacancy left by Herb Perry's retirement. Tony Fletcher reviewed with the Board of Selectmen the proposed - Infill and Infiltration policy. It was uncertain that we would be able to collect from the people who already had developments. The monies to be received would go into a special fund to be used Selectmens Minutes - 3/26/91 - page 2 for sewer or drainage work. That would have to be set up with the approval of Town Counsel. The Board of Selectmen directed the Town Manager to go ahead with a policy development and adver- tising for late April. Tony Fletcher reviewed the filed sub-bid law. On motion by Graham seconded by Ensminger, the Board of Selectmen voted to support repeal of the filed sub-bid law as outlined in the Mass Water Resource Association material, by a vote of 5-0-0. The Board discussed the Oak and Summer Avenue intersection. We are still having trouble getting a telephone pole moved by New England Telephone. The Board discussed the issue of Charles and Main Street. The Town Manager reported that the State would not allow us to put up temporary barrels to see how this process worked. It was moved by Ensminger seconded by Hoyt to institute a two-month delay in the construction pending recent accident data and other input from our traffic and planning consultants. Russ Graham indicated that we had had a lot of discussion on this topic and that the Board had approved the reconstruction as a safety issue. If something happens during that delay the Town could be liable. George Hines had concerns about the timelines. He would support a change in geometrics, but if we are just going to delay it he would not recommend that. Eugene Nigro indicated that just be- cause we may have been lucky last winter and not had accidents, we shouldn't delay the project - we should go ahead with it. Selectmen Ensminger and Hoyt withdrew the motion and the Depart- ment of Public Works will proceed with the bidding and construc- tion on this project. Eugene Nigro was concerned about the elimination of a street light at St. Agnes, and Sally Hoyt was concerned about the elimination of a street light at Woburn and West Street. The Board talked about the trash fee, and Anne Mark and Steve Thomases from the Solid Waste Committee joined the discussion. The cost of a private contractor picking up trash would be $7.00 to $10.00 per week. We would have to figure out what to do about recycling. Anne Mark reviewed some of the pros and cons to a flat rate as opposed to a sticker. For a flat rate, there is no incentive to recycling. The fee is not based on actual use, and there is no control over actual use of the trash system. On the plus side, the flat rate is easy to explain, it can easily be discounted, it is easy to implement, it can easily be integrated into other billing systems, there is no enforcement cost, and there is no incentive to illegal dumping, it is a stable source of income, and it can be implemented at the lowest cost. The advantage to the sticker system is that it is based on use, would increase recycling incentives, provide some immediate price incentive to reduce trash, is equitable, and people have control ' over their bill. It is simple to enforce, but may encourage il- legal dumping although this has not been borne out. The income stream is not guaranteed and therefore the level of revenues Selectmens Minutes - 3/26/91 - page 3 would fluctuate a lot. The Solid Waste Committee went on record preferring a program encouraging recycling and reduction of waste. Dan Ensminger indicated that he felt the requirements of his initial program had been met as follows - the school/municipal cooperation has taken place, we want to develop a program that has equity, we want to recover our costs, we want to have a sunset provision. He believes that a sticker plan may be implemented in part but not now because of the unpredict- ability of revenues and the administrative burden. He therefore will support a flat rate which requires no additional administra- tion, is easier to understand, and the revenues can be guaranteed. He suggests revisiting the program annually, and providing for a sunset on the program at the first of the follow- ing occurrences - 1) a settlement with RESCO which would wind up reducing our trash expenses; or expiration of the contract with RESCO which is scheduled for June 30, 1995, whichever is earlier. The motion should include the details of how the program will work. Graham indicated that he had agreed with Ensminger - that the program should be simple. He feels that recycling will con- tinue since the community has embraced the program wholeheartedly. Going with a sticker program will cost more per week than the flat fee. Sally Hoyt agreed. She felt that we would not have to worry about midnight dumping, and that we would have a provision for abatements for those in need. George Hines indicated that he would consider a trash fee, and feels that we have made progress in many of the areas leading up to the trash fee. He felt however that this is a revenue raiser only, and runs counter to the community desires. He would be opposed to the trash fee in any form at this time. Eugene Nigro indicated that he was am- bivalent, but that the schools were in trouble and that municipal services including public safety services are being seriously jeopardized. He had hoped to have a sticker program, but feels that we have to insure that we can get the revenues that we are trying to receive. He felt that the community would continue to recycle. On motion by Ensminger seconded by Graham the Board voted to accept for presentation at Town Meeting a flat fee program for a trash fee that would raise $486,000 in revenue, and that would have a provision for abatement and of sunset as out- lined by Ensminger. An instructional motion will be drafted in detail and if possible given to Town Meeting members in advance. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-1-0 with Hines against. The Board -of Selectmen opened the hearing on the Crestview Exxon tank removal and replacement project at 85 Main Street in Read- ing. Bob Fishman was present as counsel for the applicant, and Mike Grendal was present for Storch Engineering for the ap- plicant. The Board reviewed the procedure because there was a defect in the notice in the newspaper. They agreed that at the conclusion of this discussion tonight they would take a straw poll on the application and let the applicant proceed at his own risk. They also agreed that the meeting would be continued until their next meeting on April 9 at which time proper notice in the newspaper would have been given and the Board can close the hear- ing and make a decision at that time. Mr. Fishman indicated that Selectmens Minutes - 3/26/91 - page 4 they are required to start on April 1 with the Stage 2 Vapor Recovery process. The station needs to be closed for 50 days. He reviewed issues of the site plan approval by CPDC which fol- lowed a number of hearings. Among the issues were that the building is moved 30 feet forward, a variance was received for the canopy which was required to be moved 20 feet from Main Street, there is no car wash proposed, and various other issues were dealt with by CPDC involving traffic. They want to increase the storage capacity for gasoline from 21,000 gallons to 35,000 gallons, and provide for a 110 gallon above ground waste oil facility and 210 gallon sale of motor oil. The 1000 gallon un- derground tank for heating oil that was previously on this site is to be removed and the building will be heated electrically. The venting of the tanks will be on the Main Street frontage near the Exxon sign. Issues addressed by CPDC were screening of the abutters, planting and regrading adjacent to the abutters, a fence on the Exxon property next to the Drinkwater property 10 feet high (which would be the equivalent to an eight foot high fence on Drinkwater's property) . The contracts are out to bid and awarded. They will review the fence in the field with Mr. Drinkwater. They want to start work April 1 and the tank removal is the first part. They would start at their own risk. George Hines indicated that he felt that the contracts having been awarded is not an issue. He indicated that Exxon has not talked with Mr. Drinkwater since the CPDC hearing. Mr. Fishman dis- agreed. Mr. Fishman indicated that the CPDC said that they could work with Mr. Drinkwater regarding a fence but were not required to. Changes can be made by the field engineer. Mr. Fishman in- _ dicated that he had talked with Mr. Drinkwater and the Bellan- tones the next day and with Mr. Drinkwater this afternoon. Dan Ensminger raised the question about contaminated soil under the tanks. He asked if there was contaminated soil what would happen with it - where would it be piled and would it be covered. Mr. Fishman indicated that the environmental consultants would be on the site during the construction and if there is contamination then the soil will be stockpiled and covered until such time as the soil can be removed. Mr. Fishman indicated that the air stripper for the previous contamination problem is shut down now and they are waiting for a phase 1 report to DEP. Mr. Nigro indicated that the subject is the tanks and not the site plan. George Hines indicated that if the tank hearing is the last place the Town has clout to ensure that the CPDC process is upheld, then the Town should use it. Sally Hoyt asked about soil contamination, and Mr. Fishman indicated that there is minimal/non-detectable levels in the current remediation process. They are trying to get that process completed by summer. Mr. Drinkwater spoke. He indicated that the building for the air stripper has been taken down and all that remains is the stack. He was concerned about the fence. The minutes from. CPDC indi- cated that the fence will be along the property line. He is con- cerned that Exxon only has shown 60 feet of fence and that it is - ' not along the whole property line. He has asked Exxon to put the fence on Drinkwater's property (Exxon declines to do improve- ments to other than their own property) . Mr. Drinkwater asked Selectmens Minutes - 3/26/91 - page 5 the Board of Selectmen to review his property. Mr. Drinkwater indicated that CPDC had only two meetings, and some items could not be taken up. He said that many issues were not discussed and he was told that these were part of the Board of Selectmen permit process. He has concerns about the number of pumping outlets - 36 compared to the existing 12. Each dispenser will give certain fuel. Now there are eight vehicles that can fuel at the station at one time, and this will change to serving up to 12 at a time. He had concerns about the amount of congestion. CPDC indicated that the trip generation will decrease because of the loss of service bays and therefore that the traffic impact should be less. Mr. Drinkwater was concerned that there are larger tanks, and Mr. Fishman indicated that the larger tanks mean decreased delivery trips. Larger trucks will be delivering and filling the tanks completely. Mr. Drinkwater was concerned about tank loca- tions and covers on the tanks. He was concerned that there would be noise when the cars and trucks drive over the tank covers. He wants posts to block access to the tank areas. Mr. Fishman indi- cated that the tank covers were not located where Mr. Drinkwater thought they were in the plan and they are out of the traffic pattern. Mrs. Bellantone asked where cars could park - there are four designated spaces. She also expressed concern about drainage and that will be reviewed with the Engineering Division. On motion by Ensminger seconded by Hoyt the Board voted to continue the hearing to 8:30 p.m. on April 5, 1991 and a notice to that effect will be advertised in the paper and sent to the abutters. George Hines asked that a CPDC rep be here to clarify their hearing process. Mr. Drinkwater made three demands: 1) if traffic is to be able to drive over the tank area that there be three posts providing a barrier so that cars cannot drive over the fill covers; 2) that there be no blasting on the property; 3) that the use of the dumpster be limited to the same hours as Addison Wes- ley has done. It was agreed that George Hines would talk with Jonathan Edwards to address Mr. Drinkwater's concerns. The Board was polled to ask whether they would support the grant of a license so that Ex- xon might, considering that straw poll proceed with construction at their own risk. Russ Graham, Dan Ensminger, Gene Nigro and Sally Hoyt felt that they would support the grant of a license, and would ask Exxon to work with Mr. Drinkwater. However this is an application for a fire protection license and not a site plan. George Hines indicated that he had no problem with the proposed license, but would use this license as the last clout of the com- munity and would not vote for the license until all issues were resolved. Mr. Fishman will take back to Exxon the sense that they should open more discussions with Mr. Drinkwater. On motion by Graham seconded by Hoyt the Board voted the deferral of water and sewer charges for Ruth B. Decatur at 24 Oak Street, a tax deferral had already been Reading. The Board noted that e Board of Assessors. The vote was 5 granted and filed with th -0- 0 in favor of this motion. Selectmens Minutes - 3/26/91 - page 6 On motion by Graham seconded by Ensminger the Board voted to ap- prove the use of the Common on June 8, 1991 by the Reading Art Association by vote of 5-0-0. The Board reviewed the Warrant for the Special and Annual Town Meetings. On the Special Town Meeting Warrant the Board took the following vote: On motion by Graham seconded by Ensminger the Board voted to recommend the amendment of the Capital Improvement Program - Article 3 by vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Hines seconded by Hoyt the Board voted, to support the subject matter of Article 4 by vote of 5-0-0 —this is the budget amendments for FY91. On motion by Ensminger seconded by Hoyt the Board voted to sup- port Article 5, the Water Surplus Bond Recision, by vote of 5-0- 0. On motion by Graham seconded by Hoyt the Board voted to support Article 6 - DPW site cleanup - by vote of 4-0-1 with Ensminger abstaining. With regard to the Annual Town Meeting Warrant the Board voted to support an Instructional Motion on the North Reading sewer project in the Concord Street area on motion by Ensminger seconded by Hines by vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Graham seconded by Hoyt the Board voted to approve the Capital Improvement Program - Article 5 - by vote of 5-0-0. The Board directed that the Town Manager work to improve the Capital Improvement process and the Board of Selectmen will talk to the Finance Committee about the possibility of setting up a Capital Improvements sub-committee. On Article 8, on motion by Ensminger seconded by Graham the Board voted to approve the subject matter of Article 8 by a vote of 5- 0-0. On motion by Ensminger seconded by Graham the Board voted to recommend Article 10 - Bond Recisions - by vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Hines seconded by Hoyt the Board voted to support Article 11 - Zoning Officer - by vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Hines seconded by Graham the Board voted to support Article 12 - Surplus Property Bylaw - by vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Graham seconded by Ensminger the Board voted to sup- port Article 12 - E911 - by vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Hoyt seconded by Graham the Board voted to support Article 13 - RMLD Easements - by vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Ensminger seconded by Graham the Board voted to sup- port Article 15 - Chapter 90 Funds - by vote of 5-0-0. Selectmens Minutes - 3/26/91 - page 7 On motion by Hines seconded by Ensminger the Board voted to sup- port Article 16 - Town Meeting Days - by vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Ensminger seconded by Graham the Board voted to sup- port Article 19 - Water Supply - by vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Ensminger seconded by Hoyt the Board voted to recon- sider its previous vote on Article 30 by vote of 5-0-0. This ar- ticle is the acceptance of Grey Coach Road, and the abutter drainage issues have been resolved. Nigro indicated that he would now vote for the project. On motion by Ensminger seconded by Graham the Board voted to recommend the acceptance of Grey Coach Road by vote of 5-0-0. The Board asked for a history of the Capital Improvement Program, a debt history, and to develop a Capital Improvement Program. On motion by Hines seconded by Hoyt the Board voted to adjourn the meeting at 12: 12 a.m. by vote of 5-0-0. Resp ctfully submitted, Secret