BOARD OF SELECTMEN 

MEETING MINUTES

JUNE 7, 2005

MCAULIFFE HEARING ROOM

 

Present:  William Christensen, Chair; Roger Challen, Bonnie Phanuef, Janice Conlin, Town Administrator.

 

Common Victualler license

Ray’s Exxon, 365 Turnpike Road:    The Board considered a common victualler license for Ray’s Exxon to operate a convenience store under the following hours:  6 a.m. – 11 p.m. Monday through Friday; 6 am to 9 p.m. Saturday & Sunday.   

Dunkin Donuts, 365 Turnpike Road:  To be located in the same building, same hours of operation.  Donuts will arrive between 4 - 4:30 a.m.

 

Both licenses were approved unanimously.

 

Discussion of the Chestnut Hill Farm (Beals Property):  The Board met with various boards and committees regarding the possibility of purchasing the development rights of the Chestnut Hill Farm owned by the Beal’s family.  These would include certain perpetual rights as to the conservation value of the land.  The Selectmen have engaged a consultant to perform an appraisal on the Town’s behalf.   The property is zoned Research & Development at this time, under Chapter 61A.  A restriction would be under the jurisdiction of whomever the Selectmen designated.  It enforcement were needed, they would seek funding/authorization from the Selectmen.

 

The Recreation Commission cited their interest in “passive recreation.”  Ms. Garcia stated this as non-motorized, cross-country skiing, walking, etc.  Mr. Whitney Beals suggested a trail network as part of the restriction with a small parking area, exclusive of crop areas.   

 

The Conservation Commission noted their interest in preserving the Town’s rural character.  On this property it is open field, with its conjunction to the Johnson land and the commission strongly endorses this opportunity to pursue purchase of these rights.  It should continue in agricultural use with public access, as defined earlier by the Recreation Commission.  Mrs. Leavitt supported the following uses of passive recreation:  hiking, walking, horseback riding, etc.  

 

Mr. Butler, from the Advisory Committee, was more concerned about the Town’s position being protected down the line if the property is sold by the Beal’s family.  It was noted all current data is based on a draft conservation restriction which is a document not yet in final form.  Question of liability falls under the realm of the town or the property owner?  This is being analyzed now by town counsel.  A restriction would preclude any development, including by a municipality.  The development rights would be extinguished permanently.  To lift a restriction the Legislature must approve by a 2/3 vote.  It can be requested by the owner or the municipality.  Can the town take it by eminent domain?  This may be based on whether there is an overriding public purpose.        

Mr. Beals clearly stated his family did not ever wish to see the property developed, and want to preserve this as farmland.  Mr. Christensen also noted that this has been a directive from past town meeting audiences.   The Town would be interested in securing the right of first refusal as part of the restriction, in the event it is later sold by the family.

 

Ms. Gillespie of the Open Space Commission noted their support of the purchase of the restriction.  Under funding, they want to utilize private fundraising, grants and CPA funds.  Once established, they would like Sudbury Valley Trustees [SVT] to monitor the restriction. Mr. Christensen noted that town officials or town boards or committees could not fundraise.  They stressed there should be a management of forestry plan as part of the restriction [to thin out for lumbering purposes].      

 

Ms. Gillespie also read a letter from the Community Preservation Committee.  It reflects the opinion of the OSPC’s preferred use of CPA funding.  It explained the process to use CPA funds.   

The Town could only bond against what would be collected by taxpayers.  You cannot change the funding mechanism after the fact.  CPA funds may not be readily available until the Spring of 2006.  There will be a five acre area to be determined where new structures could be built for farming purposes.

 

Regular Business

Appointments

Both appointments were approved unanimously.

 

Mail Received

 

 

Other Business

 

WARRANTS

337

$151,253.43

6/3/05

SCHOOL PAYABLES

338

$13,559.06

6/3/05

SCHOOL CAFETERIA

339

$83,006.47

6/3/05

TOWN PAYABLES

340

$379,172.38

6/3/05

SCHOOL PAYROLL

341

$50,496.55

6/1/05

FIRE PAYROLL

342

$102,336.80

6/1/05

TOWN PAYROLL

343

$103,148.39

6/1/05

DEDUCTION REPORT

TOTAL

$882,973.08

 

 

344

$197,814.97

6/10/05

SCHOOL PAYABLES

345

$609,874.51

6/10/05

TOWN PAYABLES

346

$32,898.98

6/08/05

DEDUCTION REPORT

347

$26,372.49

6/08/05

FIRE DEPT. PAYROLL

348

$116,527.57

6/08/05

TOWN PAYROLL

TOTAL

$983,488.52

 

 

 

 

 

Move to enter Executive Session at 8:55 p.m., with no intention of returning to open session.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Vanessa D. Hale, Assistant Town Administrator

 

Main Street reconstruction plan involves the reconfiguration of the RT 30 and 85 intersection.  Since the house on the corner is for sale, the town would like to take a portion on 1 Cordaville Road to improve the radius of this intersection.  Listed for $379,000, assessed at $____.  The Board would like to approach the power and discuss purchase of the home for an affordable unit and gaining access for the intersection.  He would allow the town to get an appraisal of the property.  The Board of Health noted there is a Title V approval for a 3-bedroom system.  It is unclear how it could be expanded to house additional bedrooms.

 

The property could be listed as affordable in perpetuity.  $175,000 is available in the affordable housing trust which does not require town meeting approval.  CPA funds could also be utilized.  If there is a re-sale of the property, can it go back to the CPA fund or must it go to the general fund?  Can Ch. 90 monies be used for land purchases in this case?

 

The Board voted unanimously to proceed with getting an appraisal of the property, for an amount not to exceed $1,000.  Voted 3-0 by roll call.

 

Beals Property:

 

Bill had some concern on future agricultural uses and suggested a meadow type area of a significant portion. Mr. Beals has asked that Mr. Butler be able to participate in the negotiation sessions.  Atty. Cipriano recommended beginning to analyze the restriction as a means to move this process forward.  Mrs. Phaneuf wants to ask if a portion could be set aside for municipal use.  [25 acres of useable land]  Mr. Christensen thinks if it were posed for cemetery use that would be more palatable.

 

Capen Property:   A local attorney is trying to close a portion of the estate and determine who the administratix is.   Goal being Charles & Melody Scott having control of the property.  There has been massive cutting of timber in a wetland area.  This lawyer gave authority to test the property.  Can wait to collect back taxes, assess conservation commission fines or consider a purchase of the property, go to probate court.  Unclear what she accepted for an offer or who she is representing.   They are listed on the bond of a local lawyer representing the estate.  Conservation Commission should be issuing fines by this point.  Roger voted for the town getting involved in straightening out the situation in a court action?  Bonnie does not want to assist in someone developing the property.  The consensus is to sit tight and collect the back taxes at the earliest possible time.  Motion to pursue all monies due to the Town and ask Conservation to do the same, the motion was seconded.   Support the neighborhood lawyer?

 

The Board adjourned at 10:05 p.m.