Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome to the Wednesday August 6th meeting of the Select Board Meeting Select board. This time I'd like to call the meeting to order at 6:32 PM I would like to ask if any members of the board have announcements. I have one. The MBTA will be, there will be a ribbon cutting at the Natick Center, MBTA commuter rail. On Monday at three o'clock, the governor will be here, the Secretary of Transportation, and a number of other dignitaries and luminaries. This is a long awaited event and the public is invited.
It starts at three and it'll be done about 3 45. At 6 33. We'll move into public speak. Any individual may raise an issue. Do you wanna Speaker 2: Do the pledge? Speaker 1: Lemme do public plea since I started it. Thank you. Though any individual may raise an issue that is not included on tonight's agenda and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. Due to the requirements of open meeting law, this section of the agenda is limited to 10 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to three minutes. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to address the board during public speak? Anyone online at this time?
I'd like to ask all of us in the room who are able to stand and see the pledge of allegiance and observe a moment of silence, Speaker 3: Pledge allegiance Speaker 2: To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic, which the stands, one nation under God in neither his hope, with liberty and justice for all. Speaker 3: Thank you, Speaker 1: Sean and Debbie Potter. The first item on the agenda is water and sewer abatement appeal. If you could come to the, if you're in the room, are you in the room? Just wave. Are Mr. And Mrs. Potter available? Are you in the room or online? Okay, we'll come back to that. The Street Acceptance
Evaluation Report on Alden Street. Mr. McDowell, Speaker 4: Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board for your time and attention on this. Bill McDowell, town engineer, The engineering division, received a properly executed petition for consideration of the street acceptance for Alden Street. Alden Street is off of Winter Street and north side of North end of Natick, near none such pond near the river school. We went out, performed an inspection and prepared the street evaluation acceptance, street acceptance evaluation report You see in front of you.
I do not have a presentation for you. The presentation fundamentally is the pictures that are in the back of the evaluation report. Just wanted to kind of review some of the more salient points. So the original subdivision was approved in June of 1922. There were three streets involved. There was Alden Ray and Charles, which is now called Cabot Street, of which Alden and Cabot were constructed. The Alden layout is a 40 foot wide layout. Cabot Street is actually a 20 foot wide layout. It is also unaccepted that was not part of this evaluation. Alden Street is approximately 850 feet long as, as its right
of way about 710 of which are paved. The road out from Cabot Street to none such pond is, is not improved. It's not paved, but the right of way is that length. It provides frontage for 19 properties and 16 residences. The average width of the paved surface is approximately 17 feet wide, but it does vary from north to south. The most recent PCI or pavement condition index is a zero out of a hundred. So Alden Street itself to Topographically is very nearly level. It has very little pitch on it.
It's drained by a single catch basin at the southern end of the roadway, but there's very little pitch of the roadway in order, you know, to guide the water to that one catch basin. Most of the runoff percolates into the shoulder on either side of the surface. We do get complaints about icing and puddling, particularly during the winter. The street acceptance evaluation rating was 2 59, which puts it in the not advantageous category for street acceptance. And our recommendation is the engineering division is that you do not recommend this street sponsor or warrant article for street acceptance
of Alden Street at this time. There are considerations, mostly encroachment considerations, meaning that there are private improvements such as walls, trees, fences, and things like that. Within the right of way that would need to be moved in order to accept the street, the street would need to have drainage installed because that area, Alden Street is near Nonsuch Pond, which is a wetland. There's a little bit more problem with designing and mitigating runoff or directing it toward that wetland. There are vacant lots associated with the neighborhood
that could possibly use for an easement for drainage. However, that would take, you know, it'd expand the cost of this and it would expand design costs as well. The estimate that you see at the end, that was one thing that was requested the last time we did this, was a cost estimate fundamentally for construction alone. That really does not include negotiating for easement. It certainly doesn't include any kind of land acquisition where we to need easements. It is not clear at this time whether or not the residents in the neighborhood be willing to negotiate regarding easements over the property for drainage purposes, either for underground infiltration
or for aboveground detention basins. However, you know, with that unknown, basically the rating remains at a 2 59 and at this time the engineering division would not recommend this street for acceptance. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. McDowell. I'd like to open it to the board for questions or comments Mr. Sidney. Speaker 5: Yeah, without going into a huge amount of detail, what are the high level things the neighborhood would have to do to make that rating higher or make, make that rating better? Specifically? You know, what would they have to spend money on and
Speaker 4: What they would have to do personally or you know, on their own private properties would be consider moving some of these encroachments such as there's a stack block retaining wall, there's some fences that are within the, the right of way. There are also that trees, you know, just trees that have grown up naturally, but trees that are within the right of way that in order to widen the pavement to a, you know, minimum width of 20 feet, those trees would have to come down. So that'd be something else that, that the neighbors could think about doing or considered doing, you know, in order to get the street accepted, it would make it more attractive to do so. But fundamentally the idea is getting the street
to drain properly would be what would be, you know, desirable for us to accept the street and be able to keep it in an acceptable condition for years to come. If we just paved the road, it's just gonna deteriorate. Again. Speaker 1: Ms. Ocker, Speaker 6: Thanks Bill, and thanks for adding the Cost Testaments. It's, it's a very thorough work. Just gonna say, even if the neighborhood did this, I don't see how this could ever be advantageous based on the framework that we have now. You know, maybe it could reduce the rating a little bit,
but in, in your view, I mean, is there anything that could be done to, to, from a public's works perspective, make this attractive and we, that you would give the thumbs up to? I mean, I know that, you know, what you just discussed was moving the trees and moving some of the things, but some of these other things are not gonna change for the rating system. So I just, I know that the neighbors will probably want to hear what can be done. So Speaker 4: No, and I, I completely understand that there's not an ability
because of the dead end nature of the roadway and that it ends in a pond. There's really no utility connectivity that we could do in that area. We would recommend that we include Cabot Street as well for part of the street acceptance, not to expand this and make it a harder project, but just to make it make more sense. Cabot Street actually is a through and through way, but the street was not constructed that way. So, and there's another, you know, some connectivity in the backs of those roadways up by Rivers school by the pond, that connectivity could be more desirable. But the short answer to your question is, is not a lot, it,
it still is not going to rate very highly as a street Forest Street acceptance. It's not really part of a network. Speaker 6: Alright, thank you Speaker 1: Mr. Evans. Speaker 7: Thank you Madam Chair. Bill, in looking at the more advantageous, less advantageous scale, is there a threshold and, and I apologize, but I just don't remember it. Is there a threshold above or below which know the town just says, all right, that's the absolute cutoff. Speaker 4: No, there, there is not, there isn't a threshold. However, that is something that if, you know, the, the board wished to, that could kind
of be developed as a thought process. There are some reasons why some streets would be more desirable than others. Sure. Again, things like connectivity. If there was a utility easement that we wanted to formalize with a roadway or something like that, I mean, those are things that are strictly advantageous to the town. The other is the board had indicated a desire to get rid of the backlog of the 16 miles of unaccepted ways we have. We came up with a, a evaluation criteria by which to judge them. These, you know, the reports don't change.
The condition does deteriorate over time. However, you will now have objective criteria by which you can judge one road, you know, against another, which was desirable at the time. But, you know, do we have a threshold? The short answer to your question is no. Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Speaker 1: Any other questions or comments from members of the board? Mine have been asked, I'd like to open it. Oh, Ms. Algo, Speaker 6: Just, just one more. Thanks, bill. Is there any plan that you know of to patch some of these holes? I mean, given that it's a pavement condition, index of zero can't get any worse than that, so ha ha, I
I can see it's been patched in the past. Yes. Is there anything that's planned for this year or has Speaker 4: Happened? No, we don't specifically plan patchwork. Patchwork happens when patchwork is needed. Okay. Unfortunately, patching the patch next to the patch that was the patch four years ago, is really what is making the roadway condition as uncomfortable as it is, I mean, to, to, to smooth that out. We're not allowed to expend public funding on this except for, you know, the barest minimum of maintenance. So, no, Speaker 6: I still, I have one more a little concerned about the
public safety implications and you mentioned that the street is and can't support a fire truck turning around on it. Have you had any conversations with the fire department if they feel like that's an issue at all? Speaker 4: No, and I think you may recall when we talked about Point Street, there was an issue regarding how long it took. The, the firetruck to turn around Point Street actually does have a form of a cul-de-sac, however, it's not adequate for the fire truck. So that changes the response time they can get to the house, but then getting back out and getting onto the main road can be a problem.
We have not had any discussions with the fire department regarding what is, what I've heard when I speak to the firefighters, we'll get there, you know, and we will get back. It's sometimes it's a question of the larger life safety vehicles that, you know, the fire trucks and things like that. The ambulance as a general rule can usually make, you know, the turnaround there is the ability to turn into Cabot and back into the rear end, the northerly end of Alden and, and pull out. Speaker 6: Alright, thank you Mr. Sidney. Speaker 5: Yeah, I think, I'm not sure who, who this question is for.
If the neighborhood wanted to do this as a betterment to essentially pay for the improvements that are required, that that would be acceptable to the public works? Yes. Speaker 4: I think that's really more of a question to the board. We would construct a road one way or the other who's paying for it is, you know, that could be the board's discussion. I I do know that that is generally not very popular, Speaker 5: But that would be an option for the neighborhood. Speaker 4: Yes, it is an option Speaker 5: And and presumably if they were paying for it and it was within, it would be acceptable and,
and that the drainage would all be fixed and stuff like that. Speaker 4: That would be something we could consider. There are alternate ways to perform drainage and they're actually preferred in some cases such as infiltration and things like that where I'm not actually discharging water into a water body such as non such pond. So again, there are now, there are components of a drainage system that are being more, you know, commonly manufactured than they were before. So it is much more common to do leaching basins,
leaching systems underneath the roadways, things like that that could accommodate a roadway like Alden that's sort of limited by what it can do, what it can discharge to the islands. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 6: Any other? Speaker 8: Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Mr. McDowell for this report. We touched on some of, and I see some of them in the report about the safety issues. What are some of the, like the biggest, maybe I don't wanna use the word complaints, but concerns that you get from this? The residence of this street Speaker 4: From this particular street is mostly just the ice in the
winter and it's the condition of the pavement, which over time, you know, with the freeze and thaw only gets worse. And so the more the street is patched, the more I'm allowing cracks and things to allow more water in, to kind of grind up the base that makes the roadway softer. That makes it a little bit more dangerous for the more heavy equipment such as fire trucks. I don't hear from the firefighters that a road is unsafe or I won't go down that road with the exception of Evans Drive, which is really tough in the wintertime. There can be a lot of problems with that. Those are concerns, but I don't, I, you know,
as the engineering division don't receive those complaints from the firefighters. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 4: I believe there are some residents here from the neighborhood Speaker 1: Who yes, I'd like to hear from residents and abutters for, from this particular neighborhood. First, if you wish to speak, if you could just raise your hand, I'll call on you and I just need you to come to the podium and yes, miss, you can come to the podium, just introduce yourself and if you could give us your address that'd be helpful.
Speaker 9: Not as tall. Amanda Argentaria. I'm at five Alden Street. We've been there about three years. First of all, I just wanna thank you for having a process for this. 'cause I know when I first moved here it was just in the works, so appreciate that. But I can talk about the condition of the road. From our perspective, it's not just the ice, it actually completely floods now when it rains from one side to the other side. So it is un walkable in front of our house. We have probably two feet of sediment that's coming into the property and to the driveway. Every time it rains, it just pushes up.
And yeah, there's folks that have lived here for a long time that can talk more about the historical context of the road, but I just wanted to say the pictures don't necessarily do the condition justice in terms of how bad it actually is when it rains the drain that's there or the, the, I forgot what it was called, the, the leaching fields. The town's come out to try to clear it, at least when I've been home a couple times, but it doesn't seem to make a difference with the flooding. And I just wanted to also add that in the report. I didn't see a mention that the road that's going down into none such pond is an
entry point for the pond. So there are folks that come down and put their boat into the water there. So it is public access to the pond. It's one of the only public access points, not the other ones are owned by river school or some of the camps or private residences. And then I did wanna add that we've had several knockdown and rebuilds on the street, which the zoning board approves, which causes lots of heavy machinery and construction vehicles that have come on the road, at least in the last couple of years that I've been there that contribute to the damage, but that's not taken into account. So happy to answer any of the questions that you may have.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. All right. Anyone, anyone else in the room? Sir? Same thing. If you could give us your name and address. Speaker 10: Hi, my name is Roger Jarrett. I'm at 17 Alden Street. We've been there now for 30 years. We've slowly watched the street deteriorate and it's, you know, as as described, it has a value. The, the street has a value of zero and there's not a whole lot that could be done short of repaving the street to improve it. And it would also benefit, in addition
to benefiting all the abutters on Alden Street, would also benefit all the people on Cabot Street as well. And look for either ways to, for you to accept the street or find ways that we can repave the street. Speaker 1: Thank you sir. Speaker 11: My name is Leonard Carlin and we live at 12th Alden Street for about 30 years or so. And first of all, thank you for give us chance to speak and look into our case. We spoke about safety before, right?
I don't know how, how safe for children go to school. Bus, like up to waste in, in, in the water. And it happens in March, April even even in May when it's rainy. But definitely April and March, it's awful. They can't get to the bus stop. That's not a jog. And another thing, I mean somebody mentioned before I was the only one access to the non such pond. There is no street goes to non such ponds,
but our, our street. So this public access and non such pond gets treatment from the street people. I mean, I think na does it to put boat on the visa like treatment in a twice a year. I believe a river school does it too. So yeah, that's, that's my in input. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Thank you sir. Is there anyone else in the room who Yes, please. Speaker 12: I'm Linda Jarrett. I live at 17 Alden Street on the dirt boat ramp. And from time to time, Natick will level off the dirt,
but then as soon as it rains, it creates these huge gullies which turn into little mini canyons that can be really, really deep. It's treacherous to walk on. It's difficult to drive on. People have trouble getting their boats in the down the ramp because their tires can get stuck in the ruts. So it would be really great if you could pave the, the boat ramp. It is public and all that dirt washing into the pond is not good for the pond. Speaker 1: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes
to address the board? Yes, please. Speaker 9: Yeah, I, I did wanna add that with the $300,000 estimate, that's probably 19 to $20,000 a family on the road to be able to make those improvements, to bring it to a standard to be accepted, which I think would be extremely difficult for people to pull together. Speaker 5: Madam chair? Yes. Typically a betterment is charged over usually 10 or 20 years as in addition to your property taxes rather than lump sum payment all at once. So it can, there've been examples, there are curb stones in,
I forget what part of town that went in as a betterment and it was pretty inexpensive for the, for the residents. Speaker 1: Yes sir. I need you to go to the podium please. Thank you. Speaker 10: So just on the cost, one of the, one of the porch parts of the betterment was putting in a new water line down Alden Street. And I believe that that would be something the town will need to do anyway. It's more of a timing aspect that if you're going to pave the road, you'd like to replace the infrastructure underneath first. So it, if we were to proceed forward, we'd like to coordinate so that the water main
replacement would not be part of the cost that the street members would pay. Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Mr. McDowell, could you address that last comment please? Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. That's correct. It's recommended right now the houses are doing fine with the six inch water main that they have. Were we to consider improving this road and getting this road completely, you fixed that would be a consideration and we would certainly do it prior to, and that wouldn't necessarily be part of the betterment. Again, that would be a decision by, by the policy makers as far as, you know, whether or not they paid for that improvement. The rate payers can pay for that improvement
as well, the water rate payers. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Miguel. A question I had in, in the engineering department's evaluation, when you're looking at, when you're looking at road quality and various things you do, environmental issues aren't something that come under the purview or within the rubric of examination. Is that correct? Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 1: They, they are. They Speaker 4: Are, yes. Speaker 1: Do you have concerns about the runoff into none such pond? Speaker 4: We would not be allowed to directly discharge into none such pond.
Were there to be some kind of a ramp improvement. They make those in such a way that I'm not basically coming from pavement down into, from the roadway. I would separate the roadway drainage from what was falling directly on the boat ramp. But that being said, yeah, it's always a prime consideration because roadway runoff, you know, through the Nip East permit roadway runoffs considered to be one of the bigger pollutants of just natural water courses throughout the town. Speaker 1: Thank you. That was my understanding as well. Is there anyone online from the neighborhood who would like to comment on the report? If you could raise your hand.
So at this time I'd like to ask members of the board if you have any comments or discussion, debate Mr. Evans? Yeah, Speaker 7: Just a, we know that the betterment is going to be 300,000, but if we could get probably an estimate of what the water main replacement might be, I'm not sure what we can do with that. Speaker 1: You mean to back it out of that 300,000? Speaker 7: It is. I missed it. Yeah, sorry. Okay, got it. So that's included in the 300. Okay.
Sorry, I missed that. Yeah, and that's 135,000. Yeah, that's the big one of the big pieces. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Speaker 1: Approximately how many residences would, would split that $300,000 cost? I'm looking at the, the plan and it looks like there's quite a few, Speaker 4: There are 16 residences that front on, directly front on Alden. There are, and correct me if I'm wrong, somewhere in the neighborhood of seven, I believe on Cabot, which is not under consideration right now. However, I would recommend where we to do this kind
of work on Alden, that we would also do it on Cabot and spread that out. So you're looking somewhere in the neighborhood of, you know, 22 to 23, 24. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 4: I, I can get that number for you. Speaker 1: That's, that's okay. I just wanted to see what that looked like. Speaker 13: If I may, Madam Yes, please. Chair. Bill, do you can like an elevator pitch on the betterment process just for the folks watching wa watching how that might work for Speaker 4: Not an elevator pitch, sir. Speaker 13: Maybe not an elevator pitch, but just like an elevator explanation.
Speaker 4: So the, the town is allowed to perform work, you know, under the auspice of betterment. The town is allowed to choose a percentage of how much of that betterment would be levied on the homeowners. So the town could agree to take a certain portion of that or you know, levy it all upon the homeowners. As Mr. Sidney said. Generally betterments are assessed with property taxes. Generally they are over a 10 or 20 year period that is also up to the select board.
And also there is an interest rate associated with that over time, generally fairly low. However, you also are allowed to pay that lump sum if you choose to. The other homeowner may pay that. But what happens is the work is done, all of the invoices are put together, all of the, any work that was associated with including survey work, whatever work was done for the construction, is it put together and it is basically apportioned equally over all of the properties fronting on the roadway. Speaker 13: And then to just even get to that point of doing that level of work, there's a process, correct?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry? Speaker 13: Meaning there's an approval process. It's, it's not like tomorrow you can just go out there and pave and then do the betterment. Yes. There's a, there's a process involved. Speaker 4: Yes. Fundamentally, you know, from what I've seen in other towns that I've worked in, it is a majority rule. So if there's eight homeowners and five of them want it, the other three do not, it still gets a portioned to either the betterment still goes forward. So it is brought back to the residents of the neighborhood should they choose to do it. And again, it's generally like a a 51% majority can Yeah. Can Speaker 13: Call for a betterment point though is the neighbors need
to sort of initiate this or at least be 100, not 100%, but majority behind it and then it goes through a betterment process. So that, and that alone can take some time. Speaker 4: Yes. And it's certainly not something that would be, you know, just brought to them all at once, like, you know, yes or no Right now it's, it's a process and we recently went through a sewer installation in a neighborhood that was, if I'm not mistaken, a hundred percent betterment associated to the, to the residence. Speaker 13: And that took several years just to even get to the point of doing the construction. Yes. I was just trying to help articulate what
that process is for the residents. I appreciate that for, for people maybe from home watching. Yeah. And Speaker 1: If I'm, if, if I'm not one second Mr. Sidney. So when, when I look at that 300,000 and divided by 23 homes approximately, we're looking at a betterment of about $13,000. What, Speaker 6: So it's not that many though because don't, I think Mr. McDonald said it's based on the houses that have frontage on there and it's, some of those others are not on Alden. Right. Speaker 4: And again, my recommendation for that level of work would be that they, to do the other one, they work
to get the neighbor's work to get that sort of consensus amongst the neighborhood. Fundamentally with the signatures that I've got, you know, just for Alden, you know, that was more than the number needed for the entire neighborhood. However, there's another just aspect of Cabot is that Cabot is only a 20 foot wide right of way. Speaker 6: But the, the, these costs don't include Cabot Street. Speaker 4: These costs do not include cab. So Speaker 8: What Madame Chair, you were including Cabot, because you were saying that in order to do this, we that needs to be considered basically like, it, it doesn't sound like it's advantageous.
One, you've already, it's not advantageous to do Alden, but, but it's going to happen. Cabot needs to be included. Speaker 4: I certainly would recommend it, yeah. For the amount of additional, and it, it is not included in this estimate. So to be clear, you know, the, the estimate I have here is for Alden Street only. That sort of idea of when you're in there for a penny or, and for a pound when construction working there, at that point it would be advantageous to the town to combine those two projects together, were they to do it. That would be my recommendation Speaker 8: And, and we'd be looking at more than the 300,000 because of Yes. What the Cabot costs. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Mr, please go ahead. Just to back, just to back up a little bit, in terms of the betterment, I believe that because the town is paying for this, it still has to go through a town meeting appropriation and I think town meeting also has to approve the betterment, right? They do. There is an approval process there as well, correct? Yeah. So it's not only the board, it's also town meeting involved. It takes a bit of time. I just wanted to get all the facts on the table about that. Speaker 1: So just to read some numbers into the record. Based on the 16 homes with frontage for the $300,000,
the betterment would be $18,750 per household over 20 years. That would be an increase in your taxes of $937. That's not including the, the de minimis interest rate or an additional 2 34, 38 each quarter with your taxes. So I, I just wanted to get some sense of what those numbers look like. Is there any other discussion for the board? Yes sir. Please come to the podium. Thank Speaker 11: You. Yeah, first of all, first of all, I have to remind we,
we pay high taxes already, right? And you don't get much for in return, to be honest with you. Okay, number one, number two, simple simple economics. You pitch Alden Street at least 2, 3, 4 times a year. Okay? Maybe more, maybe more, maybe more. If, if Speaker 1: You count, please no comments from the floor. Speaker 11: If you count this money right and multiply by 20 years, it would be way cheaper, less expensive for you for NAS to, you know,
fix our street normally. So Speaker 1: Just a point of clarification, we can't do it by state law. We cannot use town funds to pave or improve private property. And the street right now is a private property, so whether it would be cheaper or not is irrelevant. Yeah. Speaker 11: Why it's private property because Speaker 1: It was never accepted into the town as a way that's Speaker 11: Why you, you got petition to, to accept us. Speaker 1: I understand that. And we have a report before us that says that this is, this road does not meet the requirements in order to do that. That's why we're talking about a betterment. Speaker 11: Well it's like chicken
and X seems to me, right? I mean we are getting into this, you know, case 22. I dunno what to say. Speaker 1: Yes sir. Speaker 14: Hi. I'm just curious, what's the process, because I know we have this part of the process, but is the road gonna be like this 10, 20, 30 years down the way and it, does it fall on us to try to fix it or does it fall the, oh, sorry. Does it fall on the town to try to fix it because eventually somebody will potentially get hurt, something will happen on this road and then whose liability is that?
Speaker 1: It's the people who own the road, which will be the people who, the people whose owns front that road. We don't own the road. Okay. So your question about what this road is gonna look like in 10 or 20 or 30 years depends on what happens over that period of time. So we have a report before us that says that this property is not, this particular roadway is not remotely advantageous to, to bring into the, make a recommendation to town meeting to put funds into repairing it. So there are a couple of options. The option that Mr. McDowell laid out about or what we were discussing about a, a betterment.
So if the abutters or the people who have frontage on that property were willing to go through a process of accepting a betterment to bring the road up to a place where we could, where the town could in good conscience bring it to town hall, town meeting and say we recommend that town meeting assume responsibility, financial and otherwise to take care to repair the road. And then town meeting would vote yes or no. If they voted yes, then we would proceed. That's a a multi-year effort. We have town meeting twice a year. So the process of the betterment would take a couple of years. Speaker 13: I have to look at Bill about how, what, what's,
what's needed in order for a betterment to be prepared for a town meeting. Is it just a petition from the neighbors? Speaker 15: That's a fair question. And I do, I Speaker 13: We don't do these too often, so we're just trying to, to work Speaker 4: Through that. I, I don't want to give the wrong answer right now. I think we have to look into the exact process and we can certainly look into, Speaker 1: Okay. That's something we can discuss at a future meeting then. Thank you Mr. McDowell. Speaker 13: In all likelihood, the earliest town meeting would be next spring, just given how close we're at a fall town meeting and what would need to be prepared for that. And then the betterment process itself goes through as noted by Mr. McDowell, you know, design work and bidding work and getting, getting out there. So it's a fairly,
and then there's obviously paperwork afterwards as well. So it's a fairly extensive process. The, I mean, it is a challenging situation just given the town does not own this roadway. So really these, the abutters to the road owned to the center line, that's typically how it works under master general law. And so when it comes to liability or upkeep or just maintenance, it, it does rely on the neighbors unfortunately. And so that betterment process is a way to potentially allow for the payment, payment of an unapproved roadway to happen over the long time. And it does pull the town into the process. But that is a process that we are allowed
to do under mg mass general law and local bylaws. But as the, the chair mentioned, us being able to go in there and just improve it, unfortunately Mass general law doesn't provide us with the authority to just spend public dollars on private property that it's just a non allowance under master law to this extent. Speaker 5: Yeah, and just to, just to be clear on the timing, if you were to go through a betterment process, you do the betterment to improve the road, that doesn't mean the road's accepted yet. You then have to go, come back to us and say, well the road's now up to snuff.
Will you please accept it? And then we go through town meeting again for that process. So, but the road has to be improved before the board would probably consider accepting the road. Ms. Speaker 6: Algo. Yeah, just just one more clarification. Although we're not allowed to pave the road, the water main does belong to the town. Correct. So we could replace that if that were something that we decided fit in with all of our other projects that we have and that would be allowable. Speaker 13: I would, I would ask do, do you know if the water main is a town owned asset
or is it privately owned in that section? We might need to get back to you to answer that, that specific question I would Speaker 4: Probably have to get back to you to, to answer that question. We own the water inside the, inside the pipe. Correct. At this point, the status of the pipe itself, Speaker 13: I'm not, we would just have to confirm the status of the pipe. 'cause there are situations whereby I've seen it more with a sewer line that's on a paper street or a private street where we actually don't own that sewer line. So we cannot go in there and actually do that improvement. That I don't know if that's the case with this water line. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Erickson. Thank you Mr. McDowell. I think we have some questions for Mr. McDowell.
If we could send those for each of us who have any questions, send those to Mr. McDowell for discussion at a future public meeting. At public meeting. Thank you Mr. McDowell. Great job. Thank you all for coming out tonight. I know it wasn't a lot of great news, but at least we've got some clarity about what has to happen going forward and thank you for participating in the street acceptance process. Really appreciate it. Speaker 13: Thanks Bill. Speaker 1: Thanks. Bill. Is Mr. And Mrs. Potter here, I suggest we move on to the main street hanging banner policy. Speaker 3: Jen, can you gimme a post? Speaker 13: Oh yeah, of course.
Speaker 16: Hello. Thank you. Jay Port Paddock Town communications director. We're just gonna pull up a quick set of documents. The topic that I'm gonna talk you through tonight is in fact the main street hanging banner. If folks can picture the Deb Sand building, the Arthur Arthur Murray, Arthur Murray Dance studio, the old Fair and Yeager building. It is in fact that hanging banner that's roughly 16 feet up above. So I took a Is the, are the rights on Speaker 13: There? You should, yes. Speaker 16: One brief second. All right. I will be rather
brief, probably less than 10 minutes. There's three documents just to acclimate everyone, there's a new policy document and then there's a distinct procedures document that's kind of follows the recent trend as we town staff have been trying to delineate policy versus procedure. And then I also included the old policy doc just as a reference, brief call outs as far as major changes in this particular set of a policy in procedure document, I mentioned the split of policy and procedure. Additionally, you'll notice that the town administrator is now listed as the primary approval party.
Again, that follows this recent trend of just more efficiency items that might be smaller in nature versus bringing to the board on a regular cadence. We did shift the default or to a one week maximum for all organizations. There was some looser language that allowed up to two weeks, but we lead with a one week maximum with a potential scenario to going back to the town administrator in a rare case for a second week. Additionally, I'll walk you through a PDF of the procedures document. It has a shareable calendar, it's actually a Google document that's easy collaborative document on an ongoing basis.
As well as I actually removed the necessity to talk to the two respective building owners who have the bolts against their buildings. We've been operating like this for over two years and I'd worked with the previous owners. Each of these buildings has gone through new ownership in about the last 12 or 16 months. I did in the last week get a reconfirmation that the two current building owners do not feel it's necessary to require a weekly, you know, approve the Doug Flute Foundation the next week, approve the Natick Organic Farm. They feel comfortable with the current set
of policies and procedures. So on the screen you have the current policy, or sorry, the new policy that is pending a select board discussion and adoption. It's, I'm not gonna read verbatim, but you've got the responsible parties delineate it. The intent of the policy itself, a process, a really high level process distinct from procedures that get a little bit more detailed. The process itself has two primary documents that are included. A, you know, certificate of insurance and indemnification. That kind of comes after a approval, which is current state select board, future state town administrator.
I handle a lot of the approval process as the communications director and then the ultimate installation then moves over to LF and r, our land, land facilities, natural resources, as well as our fire department has a bucket truck that actually does the installation. I have the banner schedule listed to it, just really at a high level runs from the voting election in March through December 1st. That's a total of, I believe, 38 weeks. So we take a break in the winter months. Non-compliant banners. I have a couple items listed. It's mainly around the schedule of drop off and pickup.
That tends to be the biggest friction point for town staff and something we just want residents or organizations who put it out to be very aware. Those are also embedded in the procedures document. That is my high level voiceover of the policy. I'm happy to continue the procedures or take any questions. Speaker 1: Questions from the board on policy. Mr. Sidney? Speaker 5: Yeah, two things. One is, and, and I guess this is, I think these are both questions for administration. One is, should we get some kind of a signed approval from the building owners
and even if it's time limited and, and renewable, just to make sure we have it on file, that the signs are approved, that the banners are approved instead of a verbal, Speaker 13: I think for both buildings. And maybe Jay, if you can, do you have an an answer to that or Speaker 16: Just to clarify the question real briefly. Speaker 5: So we've got approval from the building owners to hang banners. I just wonder if we should get that, even if it's time limited and renewable in writing. Speaker 16: Not the individual banners, but just the Speaker 5: Concept, the the generic, the generic approval to hang banners. Yeah, I Speaker 16: Didn't broach that. I didn't approach that. It's certainly an option. I'm sure that they would be rather open
to it just based on my conversations to date with the two owners. Speaker 13: Yeah, and I'll confirm. I, I thought we had something from years ago that that actually solidified that in writing as well. Like an like an easement type document. But we can confirm in the office. Speaker 5: Yeah, I just think it's, you know, a verbal approval is good as long as, you know, everybody's the same person. Speaker 13: Yeah, I'm, I'm pretty, I I've seen to recall the current policy that we actually had something in writing and perhaps it just hasn't, we, we can, we can see how valid that is. Yeah, Speaker 5: That's just something to follow up on. I agree. Speaker 13: Yep. Speaker 5: 'cause it doesn't actually have an impact on
this policy itself. But the other question for the policy is, I wonder, and, and I think this is for the board to think about, but I wonder if the second week approval should come to the board one week, fine, let the town administrator, perhaps if somebody's asking for a second week, it should come to the board. And I don't know whether it's true or not, but it seems like that would be, we don't wanna be playing a lot of favorites. What's, Speaker 1: What's your reasoning behind it? Speaker 5: Just because I think, I think the, if somebody's getting a second week,
I think it should be a more public process, more out in the open than in the town administrators so that, you know, it's pretty apparent we're not playing favorites. Speaker 1: We just redid our charter and bylaws to make Mr. Erickson the town manager, which has far more, I mean, it hasn't been, it hasn't been adopted yet, but I would like to see the select board out of the business of approving things like this. Speaker 5: Well, I'm just saying the second week, I'm not saying the first week. Speaker 1: I understand. I understand. It's just, I, my comment still stands Mr. Mr. Evans. Yeah, Speaker 7: Here's the hypothetical and why I don't think that's a good idea.
In addition to what the chair just said, we theoretically anyway are scheduled to meet every other week. So suppose somebody has a a, an existing banner and there's nobody who wants to use it next week, it's as far easier for them to shoot a mail to Town Hall and say we'd like to have it for the next week. Also, I don't think we need to get involved in this. Once we set the policy, honestly, Speaker 1: Ms. Ditto Speaker 8: Agreed. If, if they're gonna have a, would they reapply?
Would they have to reapply? Speaker 1: I, I think that Speaker 8: For that second week. Speaker 1: So I, I think that that's part of the approval process. They want it for two weeks from this date to this date, and Mr. Po Paddock will give it to Mr. Erickson. Mr. Erickson will sign off on it. It's not like at the end of the week they say, oh, we want another week. Right. It's gonna be part of the approval process. Is that correct? Speaker 16: Correct. And I could imagine two scenarios. One is a request of two full weeks. Another one is request a single week come back and ask for a second week. I can give the board another data point. I've had this process for two years.
We're yet to have a surplus of request. I'll show you on the next slide. We've never exceeded 70% of the available weeks with banners full. It's about an eight or $900 cost for a nonprofit. It's not immaterial for them to spin up banners. The majority of folks that reach out to me say, what's the cost? I tell 'em free. And then I tell 'em it's about an eight or $900 purchase from a print shop and that about 50% of them at that point say all set. So we've not seen a surplus. So I don't know. It's doesn't, doesn't necessarily shut the door on the necessity to bring it back to the board, but we haven't really seen that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I would agree that it doesn't need to come back to the board. Ms. Algo. Speaker 6: Yeah. Thanks for putting this together Jay. A question about under the responsible parties where it says All ma any matters requiring special attention will be added to a select board meeting. What did you have in mind for that? Or, or did you just wanna have an out in case there was something that came up? Speaker 16: Yeah, I mean, it, it's, it is a broad intentionally reference. So anything outside the norm would be my point. So it could all of the above as far as, I don't think delineating the special matters is gonna be,
it's, it's difficult to be all encompassing. So the broad language is intentional. Speaker 6: Have you ever had anything that you would consider a special matter that anyone can remember? Just to, yeah, Speaker 16: I'll, I mean, hear it out some examples that come to mind. Particular organizations have asked for subsequent approvals or shifts and then trades of organ of different organizations. Partial weeks have been requests that bleed into another organization and I find myself in the middle of two parties, all of these matters. I would say at that point I would want
to take them away from the working staff myself and put them in whatever responsible party to make a decision. Right. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 1: Any other questions for members of the board on the policy part? Speaker 16: And so next up the procedure doc, I'll be rather brief. I know there's a hand raise. I don't know if that's for the policy. I do see, Speaker 1: Let's get through the board first and then we'll, okay, Speaker 16: So the document you're looking at now will actually be a linkable Google document that I share with all organizations at a feature date. I'm happy to just stand up a basic webpage so it's searchable on our website.
But again, this is a collaborative document that auto populates in real time. You're looking at A PDF for the purposes of this meeting. On the left side, you've got a 52 week calendar. I'm showing you the 2025 just as a concept so you can understand. So I will continually keep this up to date and as the select board potentially town administrator approves, I will highlight it in blue and include details around the event and the notes. Additionally, as this will build, you'll notice some of the ones in the future do not have the blue highlighted. Th this really, it was a little bit surprising to find out
how much back and forth the previous process did, where organization a calls staff member, you know, one ask which weeks are available, they go back to their nonprofit board, they come back, they find out those weeks are no longer available. We start the process over. This kind of just kills that back and forth. Additionally, on the right side of the document, which you're now looking at, these are the seven step procedures to secure or reserve the hanging banner and then the banner specs down below that are then dropped off to the DPW up above.
You see the percent reserved in percent town versus NGO that just dynamically populates on the percentage of the weeks that are available that are reserved as well as a town versus NGO split. Neither of those are embedded in the policy, if you will, but I think it just gives us some quick proxies. I mean, I think we probably wanna balance Natick days and the, you know, harvest Festival for the Organic Farm versus the Flutie Foundation and others. But I don't think it necessitates a delineation or allocation between the two parties. That is it. I'm happy to take any questions Speaker 1: Mr. Sidney?
Speaker 5: Yeah, just to comment, if we adopt a policy, you probably want to change the procedures to say town administrator instead of select board. Speaker 16: Agreed. Speaker 1: Any other comments or questions from the board? I'll open it to members of the public. I can't see whose hands raised. Speaker 13: There's one hand raised, it's, hang on one sec so you can see it. Speaker 1: Ms. Vickers, Speaker 13: Gimme one sec to unmute. Speaker 17: Thank you very much for the acknowledgement. Brinley Vickers. I'm actually on the meeting tonight as a representative of the Cross Country Track
and Field Boosters Club for Natick High School. Someone who has gone through this banner process now three times, and I can say over the three years that the adjustments that the communications directors made have really made the process much better. It was really fantastic to just see the calendar up front when he emailed it to me and I speaking for myself and on behalf of the boosters would say that this has been a welcome change in in this process and I appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms. Vickers. Board members, do you
want to take a vote to adopt the policy tonight? Yes. No, no. I have a few Speaker 6: Minor things that aren't worth bringing up that I'll just send to Jay. Speaker 1: Sounds great. So let's move. We'll move discussion and adoption to the 20th. We're also going to move the water and sewer abatement appeal to the 20th. Next item up public hearing. Eversource Gas grant of location on Prospect Street is Michael Conkey. Here, just one moment. We're gonna open the public hearing. So go ahead. Speaker 8: In conformity with the requirements of section 22, chapter 166 of the general laws, you are hereby notified
that a public hearing will be held at Natick Town Hall 13 E Central Street, Natick, Massachusetts, as well as remotely on August 6th, 2025 at 6:30 PM Upon the petition of Eversource Energy to install approximately 258, I believe that's feet no inches and two feet high density plastic gas main on Prospect Street from Home Avenue to the end of the road on par Prospect Street, anyone wishing to hear to be heard in this matter may participate in person or through Zoom. Login instructions are provided
and published on August 6th, 2025 on the select board. Agenda plans are on file in the town clerk's office for your review and I so move to open up the public hearing. Second, Speaker 1: Moved by Madam Clerk, seconded by Mr. Sidney. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Open the public hearing. Mr. Conkey, if you could come to the podium, Speaker 18: Just like to say thank you to the Madam Chair members of the board, we are proposing to install 200 approximately 250 feet of two inch plastic on
Prospect Street from Home Ave to the dead end portion of the road. The existing main currently runs on Eden Lane and travels behind number four dash six Eden Lane to five dash seven Prospect Street. That existing main is running through private property and to better the maintenance and installation, it is beneficial to install on Prospect Street to provide service to five dash seven Speaker 1: Questions for members of the board. Any comments from members of the board? I'll entertain a motion. Speaker 3: You need to ask the public public hearing.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you Mr. Sidney. Is there anyone at the public who would like to ask a question about this grant of location? Seeing none, I'll take a motion. Move approval. Second. Moved by Mr. Sydney, seconded by Ms. W Schlager. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. 5 0 0. Move to close the public hearing. Second move by Mr. Sydney, seconded by Ms. Pope. All in favor or? Yes. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? 5 0 0. The public hearing is closed. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you. Speaker 13: Thanks. Speaker 1: Next item on the agenda is a hearing
relief alternative dispensary, violation of adult use marijuana establishment license policy. To start off the hearing, I would like to ask Mr. Erickson. Thank you Mr. Erickson. Speaker 13: Sure, thank you. And, and Deputy Chief Luon is available tonight. He just, if we need him for speaking, he is on a training, so I'll need to shoot him a note to give him a sec to join. But I do think the record and, and the information in the attached to the agenda provides, provides detail from the police department's
perspective as to the intent of the request or the reason for the request. And there's a bit of an outline also in there and an email, various emails. But there's an email, one of 'em specifically from me on July 16th just to the attorney Silverman, just outlining what occurred and the reasons for the requested hearing in front of the board. Just in brief, back in May, the police department did an unannounced inspection of relief and found that they were out of compliance with the town's policies, the select board policies for reference to select board in 2018, 2019 timeframe,
when the town adopted bylaws, zoning bylaws, as well as general bylaws to regulate and, and cite cannabis or adult use cannabis facilities. That included the licensing authority for the select board in the town bylaws. It's Article 10 of the town bylaws. At that time, after the adoption by town meeting, the board at that time adopted basically policies. It was an authorization under Article 10 that the board cas set policy, those were adopted at that time. Now, to be fair, this was before any licenses were issued.
So the town was still learning exactly how best to regulate cannabis, but those were adopted at that time and they put, among other things, time limits unless otherwise specified through the licensing process on retail establishments, which the subject of this item is the, the, the time limit is the 9:00 PM ending that was set at that time in that policy. The policy is still in place separate from this hearing. It's something that maybe the board could look at again, but it is something that is in place since that time
and has been in place since that time. So the reason for the inspection or, or the reason for the note in the inspection was that, that the Town of Natick policy that's being referenced is that policy that was adopted at that time by the, by the select board and the town policy specifically says 9:00 PM The establishment was open or had regular hours beyond that time. And the note in from May 11th when this inspection occurred, was that the weekend closing time was 11:00 PM On my understanding in talking with the police department was that there are a number of interactions, including the ones outlined in the email in May
with the owner as well as the onsite manager about that policy and ensuring compliance with that policy. I also had emails with Mr. Silverman at that time about that policy and there was a desire at the time expressed anyway of potentially seeking to deviate from that 9:00 PM closure. No official application was submitted, however, there was just an email exchange back and forth, which is also part of the public record and attached to the agenda. There were a number of additional onsite inspections that occurred the Friday, June 20th is the one noted when a sergeant was out
and visit the property. The property was still out of compliance with the 9:00 PM closing and it was noted by, I believe it was the onsite manager that they closed at 11:00 PM tonight and tomorrow night that was noted at that time on a Friday and Saturday, and then basically in early July, it was noted that the hours had been posted to 9:00 PM My understanding is that, that the site is in compliance today, but due to this occurrence or series of occurrences that occurred between early May and early July, it warranted bringing it
to the board's attention at a hearing. I will say that the establishment has been noted as being other than this deviation from the select board policy has been a, a business that has, has been up to date with compliance with the police requirements when it comes to security. We have heard no complaints otherwise from anybody about this business. So from our perspective, it's a good business in this area. This is just the one that rose to the level of out of compliance with the select board policy. The deviation or the, the, the extent to which it took to come into compliance is a concern. This is a, this is a new type of use for the town,
and we wanna make sure that from the beginning we have businesses and property owners that are collaborating with us, working with us. And so we wanted, we felt it appropriate as the licensing authority that you are aware of this and, and held a hearing on this point. I'm, I'm here to answer any questions. I believe Attorney Silverman, I, I've only emailed you, so it's good to see you in person, is here on behalf of the property, and I do, I believe the property owners are also here. Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Tony Silverman, if you would like to address the board. Speaker 19: Sure. Philip Silverman from Relief Alternatives. I, I really don't have any dispute. My, my client was out of compliance
and we're apologetic about that. There's no intent to sort of go against what the town is looking at. And we want to be in con compliance. I will reiterate, the company has a, a spotless record of the Cannabis Control Commission and it fully intends to abide by the rules. I, I will tell you, you know, on a personal note, I had some difficulty at first finding the policy. I couldn't find it online. At some point, Ms. Donovan did send that to me, the regulations, and so we do understand what they are. Nine o'clock, we will probably come back to you at some point.
The policy does allow a request to expand the hours we had explained just the other night we were in front of the planning board and companies having some financial difficulty because it's just, it's a very difficult environment for retail marijuana shops these days. And so, you know, it did have a desire to have later hours because that's a market, it's competitive. You know, you're dealing with competition from Newton, from Framingham. They would like to compete at those hours, but we understand if that's gonna happen, we have to come, we have to request that from you and,
and, you know, we're, we're making a decision as to whether we're gonna do that. But as far as the substance of this, there's no dispute regarding that. And again, we're again apologetic and hopefully we can just move forward from this and be in compliance from here on. Speaker 1: Thank you Attorney Silverman questions or comments from the board? Mr. Sydney? Speaker 5: Yeah. As I was reading through the emails, and this may not be pertinent to what we're talking about, but I, there was a reference to planning board condition G one 16 and a question whether they were relief was in compliance. Do we know the answer to that? Speaker 13: I think that's why they were in front
of the board the other night. Yeah. Speaker 5: So Speaker 19: The board was sympathetic to the relief. They asked me to draft some language for a finding that they could make regarding compliance with those conditions. I've sent that to Ms. Loomis and we're hoping to hear back soon. They are scheduled for another hearing on that issue. I think it's on September 13th. Yeah. Speaker 5: Okay. So you're working cooperatively with Ms. Loomis and the, and the planning board Yes. Regarding those issues. So that's not an issue. I just wanted, since it was in the record, I wanted
to get clarity. Speaker 13: Yeah. Yep. I mean, technically it's bit beyond the authority of the board, although you are the licensing authority and we do confirm compliance with zoning. But having the fact that they are, and I have talked to Ms. Lumis, they're working through that process, the board could be assured that they are working through that process. Speaker 1: Any other comments or questions from members of the board? Tony Silverman? I, my personal opinion on this is of course is to not to levy disciplinary. I think the point of bringing the license holder before the board is to ensure that going forward we have a very clear communication
and that we're working together to ensure safety in the community. I will point out that there was a comment on social media that, you know, why was this store allowed to be out of compliance? And we don't wanna see those kinds of things. We wanna make sure that our business community and our, our license, you know, especially as, as it pertains to licenses, that, that, that we have an open dialogue and that we resolve issues quickly and efficiently. I wanna thank you all for coming out tonight and thank you for investing in Natick. Mr. Evans.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to, I probably should have done this in comments, but I was thinking it through and I, and I think the fact that they've come to us and they said, yep, we don't dispute, it carries a lot of weight with me. Me too. And, and when we do alcohol licensing, it's the same thing. The people who acknowledge that there's an issue and come forward, I'm more willing to be lenient than otherwise I would be if they're denying
it had ever occurred and disputing that. So I, I think given that they corrected it, and there are about a month into that correction. So I think I'm with you. I I don't see a need. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Evans. I concur. Anyone else? Any other comments? Ms. Pope agreed Speaker 8: I to Mr. Evans' point. I think that if it happened again, the, the, the posture and the tone would change. But thank you all for coming before the board and taking accountability. Speaker 1: Have a great night. Thank you for coming in. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you very Speaker 1: Much. And good luck with the planning board process consideration of select board sponsorship of 2025 Fall town meeting Warren articles. Speaker 5: Madam Chair. Yes. I'd like to point out that there was a late edition to peak of a second version, a second potential version of warrant article. Just so the rest of the board is aware that it's there. You may have to, there are two documents there now. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 5: One is the one I originally wrote and another one is one that Mr. Erickson suggested as a possibility. Okay. So I just wanted
to let you guys know that, that they're, they're both there. Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm gonna open to the board to discuss either of the proposed articles more in articles. Speaker 6: Mr. Evans, Speaker 7: I would say, given that we're merging them and it's taking something out of the bylaw, I found that Mr. Erickson's bylaw was simpler. And this is right to the point and why I don't see a need to, and it's not that Mr. Sidney's was complicated,
but I just thought we could just pick one. It really isn't. Speaker 5: Yeah. If, if I may. Yes, Mr. Sydney, the one I wrote was, and, and in my original version, I had left out the possibility of repeal of 27 and I made a later suggestion in the version I sent to Mr. Erickson. I, I generally agree with the repeal idea, repeal 27 and take the table out of 10. It would be great. I think, you know, one of my concerns, and I just want to raise it, I think if, if there were some pushback, the longer,
more complicated article would allow us to change 27 instead of fully repeal it and still be in scope where the direct repeal wouldn't allow for that. So it, it just depends on what the board wants to do. And that, that's really my, the reason I wrote the more complex one is to allow for the, a little more scope if, if we got pushback from FinCon or town meeting Speaker 6: Ms. Slager, I just wanna reiterate some comments that I previously sent to Mr. Erickson about what people might think about repealing the table in,
in bylaw Article 10. And that's, it's really a companion to another table that is appointments by the town administrator. So I think that town meeting, it's very clear if you're looking for who does what, you know, does it belong in the bylaws? I don't know. But it seems like if we're going to be eliminating the appointments made by the select board, that there's, that could be seen as a lack of transparency because that isn't anywhere else. I mean, you have to go through the list of committees. It really should be on the select board website. Well, it, it should be, but it's agreed.
The fact is if we, if we say that we wanna repeal this, it's gonna, like, we don't want people to know what committees we appoint. So unless there's some other change and, and we have something in place before town meeting, I would not be in favor of, of deleting that table because it, it is one reference point and there's some things on there that I know need to be updated that the, the current table is very much out of date. I have a, and I, and I spoke with Chris Weyman of the chart bylaw review committee
and she said that they did not intend on pursuing this the table because she felt that that was really something that the select board should do. That's not a matter of for the committee. So it's not, it's not like it's something else that's under consideration by, by the CBRC, but, Speaker 5: Right. Well that's why I wrote the more complic complex article is it allows us to, you know, either remove both committees from the table and, and either repeal or modify 27, which is the, IS advisory board. I mean, my personal opinion is we don't need the IS
advisory board, you know, fully described in a bylaw anymore. I mean we probably did at one point. I'd be in favor of repealing that one. We could leave a, a reference in the table that said cable and is advisory board as an appoint as appointments, but without a a describing bylaw. And it just depends on which warrant article we want to put on, on the warrant and what we want to be in scope. Mr. Erickson's suggestion is pretty narrow in scope. So generally
Speaker 6: You wanna keep it as broad as possible. Speaker 5: Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. Speaker 7: I'm, I'm understanding why, why you did that now and it makes sense. Yeah. Because we can also decide what to do with the motion and make it Speaker 5: Narrow. Yeah. The motion becomes, this is the scope, the motion can be whatever we want within that scope. Speaker 13: If I can make one suggestion, 'cause, and I know I missed some of the dialogue, it could be worth considering splitting these into two articles. One for 27 and one for 10. I agree. 27. I I, I mean just looking at Article 27,
it's pretty straightforward. I'm not sure how it would be amended Speaker 5: Just to add the cable, the cable stuff Speaker 13: Fair Speaker 7: Or, or could you do it as a and B type thing rather than Speaker 5: We could do motions And either Speaker 13: Way you can always do that. I just, it just might be a, a way to, to ensure that they don't hold up each other. Speaker 5: I, I'd say so from my perspective, I'd say if we had two articles and the one to modify the table failed, but the modification to 27 of the repeal of 27 didn't fail. We'd still have two committees because of the table.
Which is one of the reasons I sort of made one warrant article so that they could be Speaker 13: Yeah, though discussed together, argue the table doesn't negate any authority of the board to create or or disband committees. And in my research in working with the prior town clerk, we're not even sure when the table was exactly added. It doesn't seem like it was ever really, it just started to be voted on the table largely seems to be more informative and I would argue it hasn't really been updated consistently through the years. There's even in one reference to it, the Middlesex County Board of Advisors, which I don't think
that's been around since the nineties. Speaker 1: I took all those off. Speaker 13: I know. I'm just saying like that is technically on the table today and Lookout Farm Advisory committee. I don't, I believe that disbanded about it did seven, eight years ago. Yes. So the table is really more informative and we can provide that information through other avenues. Just because town meeting does or does not vote on something in the table doesn't mean that the board doesn't have the authority or the mandate depending on if it's part of a bylaw or charter or MGL to or not to a point. But I do agree from a transparency perspective, it's helpful
to have it located with that bylaw. Yeah. I just wonder if it really should be something that needs to be technically part of the bylaw. I'm not sure how to rectify that, which is why at this point maybe it's just a change Speaker 1: Or form of government and then we wouldn't Speaker 5: Well, and we have the same discussion about the personnel pay plan every year too, is whether, right. Why should that be part of the bylaw Could just be something town meeting votes on. Speaker 13: And even that I question whether town meeting, well yeah, Speaker 5: That's all another question's. Speaker 13: A separate, separate conversation for a separate time. It's beyond the scope of this, this agenda item.
Speaker 1: So Speaker 5: Yeah, and I, I don't really care. I just, I think we should keep the scope as broad as possible, whether it's one, one article or two. The one around Article 27 should be modify or repeal so that we have a a a choice. My preference is repeal, I end updating the table, whatever. Speaker 6: Yeah, I think we need to modify that to talk about updating the table. Speaker 5: Well it does says no, but, Speaker 6: But for more than just the two boards. Speaker 13: Yeah, I was thinking doing it for the entirety of the table. Yes. Because there's a lot of other edits. If the table remains, there's a lot of other edits
that need to be made on the table. Correct. Okay, Speaker 5: That's a good idea. Yeah. So maybe two falls article one for the table and one for Article 27. Well Speaker 1: If, if we're going to change the table in Article 10, the scrivener's error where it's marijuana licensing in all caps, but that's not in, I would like that to be changed as well. So not just the appendix but Article 10 so that we put that in upper lowercase so that the font is the same throughout or the, the format, the template is the same throughout. Speaker 5: So I, I would say one warrant article would be something
to see what the, what action the town will take to modify the table of select board appointments and article 10 select board period that's or take whatever action. That's one warrant article. The other article would be to see what action the town would take to update article 27 to information systems advisory board to update or repeal article 27 to update the description and purpose of the board and or rename the bylaw. So that would be the two different word articles. And I think
Speaker 1: Where is everyone on that? Speaker 6: Agreed. I I, I Speaker 1: Agree. I agree too. And I don't think we need to wait till town meeting to put our appointments on our website appointments made by the Speaker 5: Support. No, that's a whole separate thing. Anyway, so I move that we create the two, it Speaker 6: Was on here, Speaker 5: Warrant articles as I just described them. Speaker 1: We need to Speaker 5: Add it. I'll second that Speaker 8: I, I have a question about the table because we're doing a warrant article. Could this be or need further modification down the line? No, Speaker 1: It's gonna need modification every single year to keep this current. Every time we, we form a committee, we're gonna have to go
to town meeting and say, here's a warrant article. We created a committee to, for example, study the split tax rate. And that's a one year time bound task force that needs to be added. So yes, Speaker 5: You don't have to add every committee we create. Speaker 1: I then why update it all Speaker 8: That? Speaker 1: I mean if we're gonna do it, let's do it. Right. It hasn't been done right in a long time. If we're gonna do it, do it right. So yes, it's, and it's not a big lift, it's just a simple warrant article. Okay. Speaker 5: Yeah. That, that's a five minute Speaker 13: A consideration is does that open the board to dialogue it at town Meeting about, well why did you create this committee?
What is the committee for? What Speaker 1: Isn't that for FinCon doesn't, Speaker 13: So then the select board goes to the FinCon and says those same questions. I, the, the point is it, I'm not sure that the, there's really the, the authority rests in the board to create committees that you see as fit. Yeah. Whether or not it's on the, the table that's in the back of the bylaws. I don't, I, my understanding is that, that that authority doesn't go away kind of due to I think what you're Yeah. Kind of getting to. But Speaker 1: Alright, Ms, Speaker 6: This is a, this kind of off the cuff idea,
but what if we only included the ones that were required, like either under MGL L or by the charter? So or the bylaws or, or the bylaws. So the ones that have the citations, so for reference and that and that tick Speaker 1: Off the Waldo and, Speaker 6: And and all the ones that we just, Speaker 5: You know, the ad Speaker 6: Hocs go away, right? The ad hocs are the representatives to regional boards. That is not something that's required other than probably the Keef tech one. So it, what if we just had those that are ones that are not gonna change, that aren't things
that are gonna be temporary unless we change the T bylaws. Just a Speaker 8: Thought. I agree with that. That's a good idea in this form of government. That is something that would be my preference. Speaker 5: Well, and let me point out, we're we can make that decision right later. Yes. Because what we really need to do is get the right warrant article, an article, the article I proposed, which is to update the table in Article 10. We can do whatever we want with motions. Okay. Speaker 8: Where the website is more flexible, more agile, I think.
Yes. Put them all on the website. But I I I struggle with the, with the idea of doing this as a warrant article every single year. No Speaker 1: I wouldn't. But that's our system of government not to beat a dead horse. I mean that's kind Speaker 5: Of like I said, we can decide which ones what, what the table looks like. Agreed. We don't have Speaker 1: To solve that tonight. I agree. Speaker 5: You don't have to solve that tonight. Speaker 1: So tonight I'd like to ask Mr. Sydney if he will take the appointments made by the select board that I just passed out to everyone. If you could go through the charter and bylaws. You don't need to check MGL 'cause I spent the better part of my life doing
that the last week. If you could go through the charter and bylaws and en ensure that they're cited properly here. And for example, the cable advisory board is missing a charter and bylaws, Speaker 5: There is no charter and bylaw. I Speaker 1: Just want you to check it. That's all Speaker 5: I already did. Speaker 1: Okay. But I want you to check the whole, you already had the whole thing. We don't have to go by every single one tonight. I just want you to check the whole thing adds the zoning board of appeals at the bottom. 'cause I left that off. And if you could send that back to me whenever you have it done in the next two weeks, that would be awesome. Speaker 5: Right. Speaker 1: And then I'll get that out to the board and we can get it on our website and when it comes time to write the
motion, that will be done. So we've discussed both of the warrant articles. Yes. Mr. Evans and Speaker 5: Also Net zero Speaker 1: Committee. Oh, I, I had to hand type this because it was an add net zero. And also if you could just double check that I'm not missing any others. Yep. If you guys find that I'm missing any others, please send 'em to Mr. Sydney to add. I had to take this out of a table because the formatting was all screwy and hand type the whole thing. So that's, thank you. I had a, a red line version but it ended up not being a red line version. So Speaker 5: Yes. Okay. I'll check them against MG against everything but mgl l
Speaker 6: So who was actually gonna put together the warrant article language? Because we aren't gonna have a meeting before that prior. Speaker 5: The 20th. The 20th is the day before the, Speaker 6: Oh, it is the day before. Speaker 5: It's the 21st. But we can approve, we can approve the warrant articles the way I described them and I can write them. They're, they're pretty straightforward. Or Mr. You know, exchange with Mr. Erickson and he'll check with Caris. Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you Mr. Sydney. Speaker 5: And, and then that's just, that'd Speaker 1: Be great. Thank you Mr. Sydney. Speaker 5: And I don't think it has to come back to the board after we approve the two articles. 'cause they're both pretty basic. Speaker 1: The the next agenda item is the select. We have
Speaker 5: To vote. We have to vote. Speaker 1: Well we Speaker 8: Had the motion right. And we, we discussion we motion so we can just vote. Speaker 5: Motion is to create the two warrant articles. One to update the table and the other to update or repeal Article 27. Then I seconded Speaker 1: Rich. Yep. Moved by Mr. Sidney. Seconded by Mr. Evans. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? It passes. So those two are done. Item F. Item G is the select board annual calendar. I sent that to you guys by email. Oh, sorry. No I didn't. It's sitting on my desktop.
I just wanted you to go through it and take a look at it based. I made revisions based on our comments. If you could make any additi, any edits or comments, send them back to me and then we'll get that up on the website. That's not something that we necessarily need to vote on. It's gonna change. My guess is once we go through an entire year, we're gonna find things that we're adding on the items that have, are, that are time bounded. For instance Johnson School five Auburn Street, those matters that come up. Or the South Natick dam where we have the latter two five Auburn and South Natick dam. We have on our agenda every three months,
there's an asterisk beside those. And the f the footer says that those are, when those matters are resolved, they drop off the annual. So we'll be adding things and dropping 'em off. Speaker 5: Okay, so you're gonna send that out for us to review? Speaker 1: I just did. Okay. Speaker 8: Yep. Speaker 5: I haven't got it yet, but that's okay. Speaker 1: Moments ago. Just Speaker 8: Got it. Speaker 1: Madam Clerk, could you read the consent agenda? Yes. We might get outta here before 10 and I'm so excited. Speaker 5: Ten four fifty five. It's 7 55. Speaker 1: I know. Speaker 8: The consent agenda reads Item A approve North Main Street banner requests Flutie Foundation
for the Flutie 5K for autism. October 6th, 2025 through October 12th, 2025. And the frosty 5K November 17th, 2025 through November 23rd. 2025. Item B approve Natick Police department's request to accept donations. Item C, approve request for exemption from town bylaws Chapter 41, section four, Ani Ash, Roha and Cassidy Thompson Crowder. Item D approve Ambits Post 79, application for change
of hours for a section 12. All alcohol license. Item E approve request to occupy a public way. 14th annual Circular Avenue block party. Item F approve Natick Community Organic Farms application for a one day liquor license. The Harvest dinner fundraising event on September 13th, 2025. Item G approved Natick Community Organic Farms application for a one day entertainment license and harvest dinner fundraising event on September 13th, 2025. Item H except resignation
of George Richards from the golf course oversight committee. Item I. Referral of zoning articles to the planning board. Amens zoning bylaws, neighborhood corridor, amend zoning bylaws, limited commercial zoning. Item J, approve host committee agreement with Cypress Tree Management. Natick Incorporated. DBA ready item K approve Ambits Post 79, application for a one day liquor license on August 11th, 2025. Does anyone wanna pull anything from the agenda one, please? What? My Speaker 1: One second. Ms. Ger And then Mr. Sydney Speaker 6: Items. DNH. Okay.
Speaker 1: Mr. Sydney, item K. Do Speaker 8: You wanna move any or should we move and then have discussion about why? Okay, I move to accept the consent agenda A through C, e through G, I and J. Second Speaker 1: Moved by Ms. Pope. Second by Ms. Slager. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Let's start with item D, Ms. Slager. Speaker 6: All right. The reason I approve, I I pulled this one is it's a little confusing about what the hours are that they're suggesting
because in their application they had one set and then there was a, a discussion with Billy about what the hours would be and they agreed to shorten it. So I wanna be really clear and for the record what the hours are. And this is what I have. So they've also split it between the canteen and the function room. So the canteen is the new hours as submitted on the application. And that's 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM Monday and Tuesday, 12:00 PM to 9:00 PM Wednesday to Saturday and Sundays 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM Now
for the function room, they requested that the weekend hours stay the same, but they agreed to change the application so that instead of ending at 1:00 AM it would end at 12:00 AM So what that means is, for the function room, the hours would be 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM Monday and Tuesday 12:00 PM to 9:00 PM Wednesday through Friday, Saturday would be 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM and Sunday would be 10:30 AM to 12:00 AM That's how I'm reading it. Hopefully other people agree, but I thought it was important because it doesn't match the application.
Speaker 1: So I have a question. When did Amvets get a one o'clock closing time? We just changed our liquor policy, our alcohol policy recently and they've not been before us. So when in the world Yeah. Would they have gotten a 1:00 PM That's my first question. The second question is, I I do understand having the, the function hall be separate because that's for events and, and, and they do understand based on a conversation I had today, they do understand that they have to be open the hours that are on their license.
So instead of being open at 11 in the morning when nobody is there, they're changing it to three to five. So we can do two things. One is we can send it back to them and ask them to write it out and resubmit. Or two, we can approve it as Mr. Slager enumerated the hours. Speaker 5: Madam Chairman, my understanding is that whatever's on the application goes to the A, B, CC. So if we approve something that's different than the application, we may run into trouble in other ways. I would suggest we just send it back for an updated application.
Speaker 1: Okay. I need a motion to deny. Motion Speaker 5: To deny. Second. Speaker 1: Moved by Mr. Sidney. Seconded by Ms. Slager. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ms. Donovan, if you could send this back with an explanation that we need something a bit clearer, that would be helpful. Speaker 13: I don't see her on here, but we will make sure that she gets that message. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 13: And so the Nile is less about it, it's more to ensure the application, the submission is clear? Yes. Speaker 1: I'd also like to know if their current license
is really one in the morning. Morning. Okay. Because that's, that's not a thing. The clarity Speaker 13: Of it though. If they missed their new hours, they may have also misin input their current hours. Speaker 1: Indeed. Speaker 13: Or they did not, which we will learn. Speaker 1: Thank you. Item H Ms. Slager? Speaker 6: Yes. I don't think we need to do anything with this because it's not our appointment. Agreed. Speaker 13: That is correct. I talked to Ms. Donovan that was an accidental addition to the consent agenda. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 1: So move to not no action. Do anything. Action. No action. Great item. K, Mr. Sidney. So
Speaker 5: I found out late this afternoon that DC Lasagne had not had a chance to go in, inspect the property for this one day license and therefore has no recommendation. And I move to deny the license. Speaker 1: I I would like I have a comment. Ms. Wolf. Schlager, go ahead. Speaker 6: I, I think that we've been there enough. The event is supposed to be this weekend and I think in, in good faith, I'd be willing to approve it. Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm not willing to give anything anymore to amvets. Speaker 1: So my conversation with Deputy Chief Lason today,
he responded, I asked him why we didn't have a recommendation from the police. He said the request is the timing of it. They can't expect that we are able to push these things through in such short notice. The amvets expected to get a per permanent license and questioned if he e even needed the one day. So he will be visiting them tomorrow. We can do two things. We can, we can do three things. One is we can deny it. The second thing we can do is accept it. The third thing we can do is deny it with an eye towards a noon Friday Zoom meeting for with this to be the only agenda item to approve it so
that they're able to do the event. I think it's on Monday, isn't it Speaker 7: Just Speaker 1: Yes, it's on Monday. Eight 11. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 1: And the reason, so I, I'm inclined to not approve it and just send it back, but given that it's a private function by a member there, I think it's a retirement party or something along Life Speaker 8: Member party. Speaker 1: It's a what Party Speaker 8: Life member having a private party. Speaker 1: I I, yeah, I think it's a retirement party. I would hate to screw up a veteran's retirement party because Amvets wasn't very thoughtful. So I'm inclined to suggest that we have a,
a five minute zoom at noon on Friday. Actually, can we even do that? We can't because Speaker 13: I'm just gonna note you don't have enough time for posting. You'd have to post it today by noon. You could do Monday morning. But if the event's Monday it's a little bit challenging, Speaker 1: I'd be inclined to approve it. Speaker 7: I would Speaker 8: Can we approve a contingent on the review from Deputy Luan? Because Speaker 7: We're, we're effectively telling them Yeah, go ahead. Speaker 13: And you're delegating your authority to a town staff member. Right. Which is a big, Speaker 1: We don't do that with the local licensing authority. We have, we have to meet, Speaker 13: I'm not supposed to that for really any approval
appointing approval authority in like s PGAs for special permits, like the planning board. You're not supposed to delegate your authority. Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm, I'm just, I'm so fed up with Ambits at this point. They have a, I think their current canteen hours are sufficient to deal with this. Right? They could have their party with their current canteen hours. Well they Speaker 1: They want it to be outside. So it's the, it's the, I I understand. I I'm very, very sympathetic Mr. Sidney with Speaker 5: Both. I I I'm not gonna vote to approve this. I I am, I'm fed up. We've been, they, they keep, they keep yanking our chain.
They keep expecting special privileges. It, it's been going on for three years now and I'm tired. If they can't do this in time, they don't get it. That's, I'm just, I'm fed up with them. I support veterans, but at this point, I can't support a vets in any way that, in any special way. Speaker 1: Mr. Evans. Yeah, Speaker 7: Normally I'd agree with you Mr. Sidney. But in this case, I think we're pushing back on the hours for, for their other item that was on the consent agenda.
And given that this is a retirement party for a life member, I, I think we can cut 'em a little slack on that. But I, I concur with your assessment that I'm sick and tired of giving them amvets a special case all the time. I, I'm, I am tired of it. Speaker 1: Our license holder needs to grow up. Speaker 7: Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. So I need a motion. I Speaker 13: Move to deny Speaker 1: There any other motions. Speaker 7: Move to approve. Second. Speaker 1: We have a second on the, on Mr. Sidney's motion.
We will take the motion to approve by Mr. Evans second about Mr. Slager. I'm gonna take a roll call. Vote on this one. Mr. Sidney? No. Mr. Evans? Yes. Ms. Slager? Yes. Ms. Pope? Yes. I'm gonna be a no. A three, two. And Mr. Erickson, if you could ensure that that vote count gets back to have Mr. Walsh let them know the vote count. I think that would be eye-opening. Town administrator updates.
Speaker 13: I'll try to be brief so we can meet our deadline of 10 o'clock. It's the summer months, but we are still making amazing progress. There was an amazing event last night, for example, by our police department. Natick night at nights out. I understand. It went extremely well. I unfortunately got caught up here and I couldn't stop by, but I did hear some great reviews and also some, it was a lot of fun. Yeah. And I, and there was a helicopter I a Speaker 8: Lot about that. There was a life flight that took off. Yep. Speaker 13: I hear a lot about that. It Speaker 8: Was pretty incredible. Kudos. Speaker 13: It's scary. Kudos Lieutenant Chad Howard and, and team for putting that together. We are, we've made an offer and it's been accepting.
We're pending our HR stuff for a new deputy town administrator for finance. Congrat. Thank you to Bruce and Linda for being part of the interview panel and team. I'm hesitant to say the exact name right now, but on the 20th I wanna make it a little bit more formal. The individual won't be available on the 20th, but we can at least share more. I want to get through the next just couple steps of, of HR work that we're doing to make sure that it's clear. But we've come to full terms and, and it's looking very positive on that front. And there should be overlap with our current deputy TA for finance. Speaker 1: When will he come on board? Speaker 13: It'll be mid September.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Is it a he Speaker 13: He, yes. Okay. Yep. We we can talk more on the 20th about that. I just wanted to make sure you heard that. Awesome. So it's, it's just positive that we have that ability for that overlap with the current deputy TA for finance. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Erickson. Speaker 13: And there was some email dialogue about, actually, you know, I'll hold that for a separate time. It's not important for time minister update. So Thank you. You Speaker 1: Select board updates. Member of the board. I have some sad news.
I have been unable despite extraordinary efforts to locate a flush tank for Natick days. I've contacted the manufacturer. I have done, I've asked Crock and Chat GPT to find one. I've called every single place that rents out dunk tanks. So we're left with two options and for the public, if this is the first time you're hearing it, what we would like to do, the select board would like to have an opportunity to raise money for the Natick Service Council at Natick days by selling chances to throw a ball and hit a thing
and dump water all over your favorite select board member past or present. So we could do two things. Abandon that idea or a suggestion was made that maybe we could talk to Tony and some of the guys over at DPW and see if they could build us one. Speaker 13: We can certainly ask, I dunno if the capacity's there, but we can certainly ask. Speaker 1: I'll send you some schematics. Okay. Speaker 13: I'm sure there's a YouTube video that Speaker 1: Comes. I mean, I think they would love to have an afternoon off just to put that together. Speaker 6: Yeah. I I may be able to find some pictures. Speaker 1: I, oh, I have 'em. I've Speaker 6: Got No, you have pictures of the Royal Flush tank. That's not what you had. That's not the one that was used at the, the Lilja Fair.
Okay. Or the one that we rented. Okay. So it's something different. So I may have pictures Speaker 1: Mr. Evans. Speaker 7: I just have to confess that I'll be out of town for Natick days. So. Speaker 1: Well that's lucky You. Convenient. That's lucky you Speaker 13: That just happen. Yeah. Speaker 1: What other members of the board, if you have any other ideas about ways that the, the select board could raise money for the NAIC Service Council during Natick days? If you could shoot me an email and I'll explore that. We're rapidly getting out of time. 'cause we need to get permission. We have
to figure out electricity. If there's electricity involved. We need to get water. So it might be Speaker 7: The most difficult. Let, let's not have electricity and water. That seems a little dangerous. Speaker 1: Thank you for that note. I don't have any other updates. And I'll entertain a motion to Speaker 7: Move to adjourn. Speaker 1: Second move by Mr. Sidney. Seconded by Ms. Pope. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No, thank you. Good night.