Category Archives: Town Meeting

Zoning articles for the ATM

Posted on January 27, 2016 | Comments Off on Zoning articles for the ATM

town meeting

At the Board of Selectmen meeting last night I made a motion, that was unanimously supported by all the selectmen, that directed the Town Administrator, Mike Sullivan, to draft the two articles for the warrant for the annual town meeting (ATM) on April 25:

  1. The first article is to basically re-vote the 2012 zoning change vote that purportedly allowed assisted living facilities in residential zones, and
  2. The second article would allow the residents to undo that 2012 vote, if that purported 2012 change was in fact valid, and also further, if the residents, now with full information, decide that they do not want it.

My motion also asked the Town Administrator to follow up with the Planning Board to ask that the Planning Board follow through on vetting the articles to the annual town meeting (ATM).

This was my attempt to correct what I see as a 2012 ATM vote that was taken without all the necessary information in front of the residents at the time, since I am told that  the actual language was not available at the ATM, and that one had to visit the Town Clerk’s office to see the actual language.  I do not feel people should be asked to vote on bylaw language changes that are not presented and/or readily available to them.

It is my understanding from what I have heard others say that the Planning Board is required to hold hearings on any zoning change, so I expect that the Planning Board would have to hold such hearing if my suggested warrant articles are to proceed to the annual town meeting (ATM).

Comments Off on Zoning articles for the ATM

Posted in Development, Permitting, Planning, Town Meeting, Zoning

ATM warrant articles

Posted on January 25, 2016 | Comments Off on ATM warrant articles
2014 -town meeting

2014 -town meeting

The selectmen will close the warrant for the annual town meeting at our meeting tomorrow night.  Mike’s email below circulated some (but not all) of the current warrant articles for the town meeting on April 25.

After those, at the bottom, you can see my email back to Mike and town counsel about the two articles that I have asked to be included, that would clarify the town zoning relating to siting of assisted living facilities in residential zones, given the way in which the 2012 ATM vote about that issue happened.

 

 

 

The following articles should be voted on at the Board’s January 26, 2016 meeting if you wish to place them on the ATM warrant. If there are additional I left out, please also vote on those. If you do not wish to place any of them on the list don’t vote to do so for those particular articles. Thanks. Mike

 

Article 15.   To see if the Town will vote to fix the salary and compensation of the following elected officers: Moderator, Town Clerk, Selectmen, Assessors, School Committee, Trustees of the Public Library, Park and Recreation Commissioners, Planning Board, Housing Authority and Trust Fund Commissioners, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

  Officer

Present Salary

W.C. Recommends
  Town Clerk $66,000 $       ?
Selectmen, Chairman        900          ?
Selectmen, Clerk        900          ?
Selectmen, Third Member        900          ?
Assessors, Chairman        900          ?
Assessors, Clerk        900          ?
Assessors, Third Member        900          ?
Moderator            0          0
Housing Authority            0          0
School Committee            0          0
Library Trustees            0          0
Planning Board            0          0
Park & Recreation Commissioner            0          0
Trust Fund Commissioner            0          0

 

(Board of Selectmen)

 

Article 17. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate and/or transfer from available funds sums of money requested by the Selectmen or any other Town Officer, Board, Commission or Committee to defray operating expenses of the Town for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2016, or such other sums as the Town may determine, as required by General Laws, Chapter 41, Section 108, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen)

Article 20. To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of preparing a Capital Plan for the Town, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen)

Article 21. To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of preparing a Town-wide Master Plan, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen)

Article 28. To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of purchasing and installing traffic signals and associated traffic markings and signage at the intersection of South Street and Spring Street (route 27) and/or for the purpose of making improvements to the traffic signals, markings and signage at the intersection of West Street and North Meadows Road (Route 27), and to authorize the Chief of Police to apply for and accept grants and to expend funds for such purposes, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen and Chief of Police)

Article 31. To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of providing ongoing maintenance and security at the site of the former state hospital, or do or take any action in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen)

Article 32. To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of hiring consultants, engineers and/or attorneys to assist the Town with ongoing preparation of a master plan for reuse of the former hospital and surrounding areas and to advise the Town on matters concerning the site’s disposition, reuse and environmental remediation, said funds to be expended under the direction of the Board of Selectmen, with the understanding that the Board of Selectmen may authorize any other Town board, commission, committee or department to expend a portion of said funds for such purposes, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

                                                                                                           (Board of Selectmen)

Article 34. To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of making improvements to the downtown, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen)

Article 39. To see if the Town will vote to accept Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, of Chapter 44B of the General Laws, otherwise known as the Massachusetts Community Preservation Act, by approving a surcharge on real property for the purpose permitted by said Act, including the acquisition, creation and preservation of open space, the acquisition, preservation, rehabilitation and restoration of historic resources, the acquisition, creation, preservation and support of community housing, and the rehabilitation and restoration of such open space and community housing that is acquired or created as provided under said Act; to determine the amount of such surcharge on real property as a percentage of the annual real estate tax levy against real property and the fiscal year in which such surcharge shall commence; to determine whether the Town will accept any of the exemptions from such surcharge permitted under Section 3€ of said Act; or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen and Community Preservation Act Study Committee)

 

Article 40. To see if the Town will vote to accept as public ways all or a portion of the following streets:

Rockwood Road from Station   .00 to Station   .00.

Quarry Road from Station   .00 to Station   .00.

Erik Road from Station   .00 to Station   .00.

 

, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen)

Article 41. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Code of Medfield Regulations, Chapter 150 Historic Preservation, Article II Demolition Delay to establish a procedure for handling appeal of a decision by the Medfield Historic Commission to the Board of Selectmen, by adding a Paragraph   to read as follows:

 

(under discussion with Town Counsel and Historic Commission)

 

,or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen and Historic Commission)

 

 

 

 

Mike and Mark,

Please know that I have removed my fellow selectmen from receiving this email because I am not allowed to communicate with them outside of a posted meeting about matters of substance, under the  terms of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.

I see two things needing to be done.

  1. Since I do not approve of a process at a ATM where one has to make a separate trip to the town clerk’s office to read the item being voted, I feel that needs to be corrected – maybe by re-voting the same item with a proper description; and
  2. If Mark is legally correct that assisted living is now allowed in residential zones based on the 2012 ATM vote, I would also like to also see a second item to give the residents the opportunity to undo that vote, if that is their wish, even knowing that would not affect the pending LCB petition.

Thanks in advance.

 

Best,

Pete

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on ATM warrant articles

Posted in Permitting, Select Board matters, Town Meeting, Uncategorized, Zoning

Submit ATM warrant articles now

Posted on January 4, 2016 | Comments Off on Submit ATM warrant articles now
2014 -town meeting

2014 -town meeting

 

The window is soon closing to add warrant article for the upcoming annual town meeting (on the last Monday in April).  Mike Sullivan emailed the selectmen today to ask the selectmen to get any ideas we have submitted (a copy of that email appears below).

Please be prepared tomorrow night to request any articles that you would like to place on the Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting. The Warrant Committee wants to get an early start on the special articles. I’ve been trying to put together a draft warrant, but so far have received very few actual requests to put articles on the warrant.

Comments Off on Submit ATM warrant articles now

Posted in Town Meeting, Uncategorized

ATM 2015

Posted on April 28, 2015 | Comments Off on ATM 2015

At last night’s annual town meeting it took about an extra ten minutes after the 7:30 PM scheduled start time for the 250th attendee to arrive and make the required quorum number.  This was the MHS gym at the outset.

2015-2

In what was mainly a routine ATM, the three most contentious issues turned out to be:

  1. a proposed zoning change that would have deleted a limit on  building heights to “2 1/2 stories,” to instead to rely upon the 35′ height limit.  There is no definition in our zoning of what constitutes a “1/2 story,” so that vagueness in that current zoning caused the Planning Board to seek greater certainty.  Zoning changes need a 2/3 vote to pass, and this article probably did not even get a simple majority, and thus was easily defeated.
  2. Straw Hat Park funding of $32,500, which is half of what is required to construct what will surely be the gem of the downtown, thus making the construction happen over two years instead of  one.  It passed by a vote of 143-96.  Lots of discussion for such a small part of the town’s $60m. annual budget.
  3. $150,000 to fund the consultants this next year for the master planning and continued clean up of the former Medfield State Hospital site, which controversy was caused by warnings from one resident that development at the MSH site had already been predetermined, and that the no build/open space option is not included, despite that the latter has always been stated as the first option that the master planning will consider.

This was the room at the 10:30 PM end of the ATM, when we had almost certainly dropped below the quorum level, but thankfully no one asked for a quorum call, so we successfully concluded the town’s business –

2015-1

Comments Off on ATM 2015

Posted in Budgets, Select Board matters, Town Meeting

Town Meeting tonight

Posted on April 27, 2015 | Comments Off on Town Meeting tonight

 

Tonight is our annual town meeting, at 7:30 PM in the gym at MHS.

This was my view of the Special Town Meeting, just over one year ago, when we voted to buy the MSH property – big crowd.  2014

Comments Off on Town Meeting tonight

Posted in Town Meeting

Straw Hat Park – 1 or 2 years

Posted on April 21, 2015 | Comments Off on Straw Hat Park – 1 or 2 years

The email below today from Jean Mineo.  I favor building the park in just one year, not over two years, if we are agreed that we are going to spend the money to create the park.  And I agree that it makes sense to build this park in the center of our downtown.  It is an “extra,” but for me one well worth doing for what it will bring to our downtown.

Hello Mark, Richard and Pete,

 

I had planned to attend tonight’s Selectmen meeting but plans from last night were rescheduled to tonight due to the rain. I write with an update for your consideration and deliberation.

 

As a reminder, Straw Hat Park Committee members include the town planner Sarah Raposa, The Garden Continuum President Monique Allen, and representatives from: DPW (Bobby Kennedy), Parks and Rec (Kevin Ryder), businesses in the area (was Tim Larkin, now is Keith Maher/Starbucks), residents (Minta Hissong), Downtown Study Committee (Matt McCormick), and the Cultural District (myself).

 

The Straw Hat Park Committee has asked the Warrant Committee for an allocation of $70,500 to pay for the construction of the park, including the first year’s maintenance in order to get the plants off to a good start (if the Garden Continuum is hired for this work, they will guarantee the plants). In the second year, we anticipate the maintenance cost will decrease to $5,500 and decrease again in the third year. In the third year, the plants are established and begin to mature. The plants have been selected for year round interest, long term sustainability, drought tolerance, and to spread – thus reducing mulching, weeding and watering needs significantly in subsequent years.

 

The Warrant Committee will vote 5 – 2 in favor of $32,000 for the 2015 budget and they will be heard at Town Meeting.

 

With an allocation of $32,000 the park construction can begin sometime Aug – Oct. 2015. This allows us to take advantage of the planned DPW presence in the Green Street area this fall and realize some efficiencies in the use of heavy equipment when it is available and nearby. We can address drainage issues, contour the slope, trench for water and electricity, replace and widen the sidewalk and back asphalt (where a bike rack is planned). The site will then be covered with mulch and fenced off until the remaining funds are in place.

 

The Straw Hat Park Committee expects to make a brief presentation and a motion to amend the warrant article for the full allocation of $70,500. We have 3 reasons:

 

  1. There is no guarantee that funds will be allocated at Town Meeting 2016

 

  1. Construction site. IF funds are approved in two phases over two years at Town Meeting 2015 and 2016, this park in the heart of downtown will remain a fenced off construction site for about a year (infrastructure in fall 2015, finishing work in fall 2016 to include plantings, patio, seating). Planting is ideally done in the fall and won’t be done over the summer even though funds could be released in July 2016 if approved at Town Meeting.

 

  1. Price increases. As we’ve heard on all capital improvement projects in town, prices increase over time. A two phase project will also require some additional expenses not included in the single-phase budget (for example, mulching the site for year, additional labor, fencing). We anticipate an additional 10% increase of $7,050 or $77,550 overall budget in a two phase project.

 

While we will work with a two phased project if necessary, we do want people to understand the implications.

 

As you know, we were successful in securing all of our consultants (design, engineering and graphics) at no cost to the town at an estimated value of $9,000. The funds requested at Town Meeting are to actually build the park. The committee has taken on the added role of raising an additional $34,000 (over and above the $70,500 requested at town meeting) to bring in extra amenities of signage, planters and a fountain feature requested by residents. We have in hand over $18,500 from 20 families toward this goal of $34,000. Personal Best Karate should be recognized for their early and generous gift of $1,000. Other businesses including Rockland Trust, Zebras, Leuders, A&D Appliance, Hurley Testa, Starr and Glick Orthodontics, Berkshire Hathaway, and Needham Bank have already made donations. Local businesses including Larkins, Zebras, Starbucks, Brothers, and Honey’s have also contributed goods toward fund raising initiatives. We have additional fund raising initiatives and grants planned and are optimistic we can raise the funds for the enhancements.

 

We ask for your support of $70,500 in a single phase project to fund the infrastructure and basic park amenities – seating, grass, plantings, a patio, lighting, and ADA accessibility at the Straw Hat Park.

 

I am available until 2:30 today by phone to answer any questions.

Thank you for your consideration,

 

Jean

 

JeanMineo@aol.com

508-242-9991

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JeanMineo

Comments Off on Straw Hat Park – 1 or 2 years

Posted in Downtown, Town Meeting

Warrant Committee positions on ATM articles

Posted on April 17, 2015 | Comments Off on Warrant Committee positions on ATM articles

The Warrant Committee is in favor of all the annual town meeting warrant articles, except the following articles:

34 – new zoning definition of a half story – they had a tie vote

38 – traffic study for South Street intersection with Rte. 27 – they recommend dismissal

39 – Community Preservation Act – they recommend dismissal

On article 23 for funding construction of Straw Hat Park, they voted 5-2 in favor of funding only half the amount needed this year.

The selectmen take positions on the warrant articles at our meeting next Tuesday.

Comments Off on Warrant Committee positions on ATM articles

Posted in Town Meeting

CPA – Lexington’s experience

Posted on April 15, 2015 | Comments Off on CPA – Lexington’s experience

Interesting insights below into the Community Preservation Act, by Lexington’s Capital Expenditure Committee, which in hindsight rued its opposition to the CPA, given how much state money they got.

The CPA is all about getting the state matching money – because that state money in turn lowers our property taxes (if we eventually spend for open space, historic preservation, and affordable housing).

Medfield has adoption of the CPA as a question at its annual town meeting on 4/27/15, at 7:30 PM in the gym at MHS.

 

LEXINGTON CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE
STATEMENT TO TOWN MEETING
April 6, 2011
(edited for length)
When Lexington’s Town Meeting considered adopting the Community
Preservation Act in 2005, the Capital Expenditures Committee unanimously
recommended its rejection, primarily citing concerns about “crowding” out
future Proposition 2½ override votes. With 20:20 hindsight, the present
committee, 4 of the 5 members still being the same as 6 years ago, will be the
first to admit that we were wrong. I will have more to say on that topic in a
minute.
State Match
Clearly, the most important aspect of the CPA is the State “match”. Since
ratification, Lexington has received $6.4M in matching funds and we expect
approximately $859,000 more in the upcoming fiscal year. That yields an
effective State-match rate of about 50% over those five years. While the trend
in matching percentage has been downward since the 100% match in our first
year of adoption, the most likely scenario is that the matching funds remain
strong enough to justify continued CPA project funding in Lexington. And
because we are at the maximum surcharge level Lexington receives a higher
matching percentage rate than towns with a lower surcharge level.
Proposition 2½ Debt Exclusions
Some of the CPA projects we have funded in Lexington over the past several
years would, by policy, have been performed using Proposition 2½ Debt
Exclusions if the CPA had not been adopted here. This is because not only is
it difficult to find that much money in the “regular” tax levy, but it also
implies widespread consensus by virtue of passing a voter referendum. So by
obviating the need for debt exclusions for eligible big-ticket items like land
purchases, the CPA has provided a more flexible funding environment.
This flexibility and streamlining can be considered a positive in that it has
created a debt exclusion-free environment for CPA-eligible projects.
Regarding Lexington’s recent CPA land purchases, it is arguable that the
CPA aspect of their funding has saved the taxpayers money. Clearly there is
the obvious state match to consider. But there is also the aggressive bonding
taken by the Town with the recommendation and approval of the finance
committees. Of the three major CPA land purchases, one was cash and two
were financed with 3 year front-loaded bonds. Had any of these been funded
using debt exclusions, the bonding would almost certainly have been for a
much longer term and therefore would have cost the taxpayers tens of
thousands of dollars more in debt service.
Project Diversity
The CPA has allowed Lexington to advance several projects which would not
normally be on the Town’s agenda. For example, the Lexington Historical
Society has received funds for restoring the Hancock-Clarke House and
Munroe Tavern. And funding has been approved for several affordable
housing projects which normally would have been difficult to fund with tax
levy monies. These projects count favorably against our Chapter 40(b)
threshold.
Impact of a Reduction
CPA-related projects in Lexington would look quite different should a
reduction of our 3% surcharge prevail. A cursory scan of the projects that
have been funded over the last five years indicates that most of those would
not have been funded if the only revenues available had been from a 1%-
surcharge. Moving forward with a reduced surcharge, it is clear that large
land and affordable housing purchases will be far less likely to occur, and if
they do, they will likely require the use of long-term bonding, a policy which
contradicts our past tendency to thoughtfully use short-term bonding for CPA
monies when debt funding has been necessary. Further, a reduced surcharge
will eliminate significant contributions towards Town projects creating the
possibility of deferred or eliminated projects, and/or future debt exclusions.
Crowding
As I mentioned before, prior to Lexington’s adoption of the CPA in 2006, this
Committee had been concerned that once the taxpayers had experienced the
additional demand of the CPA surcharge, it would “crowd out” their support
of Proposition 2½ operating overrides and debt exclusions. We were wrong in
this assumption. So far, that crowding effect has not materialized. In fact,
while there was split support for the four overrides in June 2006 before any
CPA surcharge appeared on tax bills, in Jun 2007, after the CPA surcharge
appeared on the bills, there was support for both a $4 million override for the
schools and a $27 million debt exclusion for the public works facility. The
current 3% rate creates a relatively minor impact on the average tax bill and
won’t present a crowding factor. Additionally on the topic of crowding, it can
be reasonably argued that the CPA funding at the current percentage has
actually reduced the number of overrides and debt exclusions, and will
continue to do so.
Project Costs and Matching Funds
Based on the most recent State-matching funds rate, the taxpayer presently
pays only 78 cents on the dollar of every CPA project. That number is 67
cents on the dollar if you take the overall matching rate over the past five
years. Undeniably, there are some projects that have been advanced by the
CPC over the past five years that were not unanimously supported by the
CPC and Town Meeting. That’s nothing new. Very rarely does Town
Meeting show unanimous support for any given year’s capital docket.
Nevertheless, the CPA has funded many beneficial and positive projects in
Lexington. If they weren’t positive, a majority of Town Meeting members
wouldn’t have approved them. And the fact stands that Lexington has already
received $6.4 million of CPA matching funds; make that $7.3 million with
this year’s match.
Capital Advocacy
It is this Committee’s job to advise Town Meeting on matters related to
capital spending in Lexington. The Capital Expenditures Committee believes
that the CPA at the current 3% surcharge level and State match have been
beneficial to Lexington’s capital agenda and we unanimously oppose
reduction of the percent 3% surcharge.

Comments Off on CPA – Lexington’s experience

Posted in Budgets, State, Town Meeting

ATM on 4/27

Posted on April 13, 2015 | Comments Off on ATM on 4/27

Two weeks to the Annual Town Meeting – at 7:30 PM in the gym at MHS.  This today from the Moderator –

Hello All: Two weeks to go to our Annual Town Meeting. This is my
regular appeal to ask everyone to take the usual steps to promote
participation and attendance at Town Meeting. (We have our usual challenge
of holding the meeting on the Monday following the school’s spring break.)
So please think about banners, school packets, blogs, emails, etc. And
thanks for your consideration. Best, Scott

Scott F. McDermott

Town Moderator

Town of Medfield

781.799.1285

Comments Off on ATM on 4/27

Posted in Town Meeting

STM says yes and yes again

Posted on March 24, 2015 | Comments Off on STM says yes and yes again

Both articles passed last night at the Special Town Meeting (STM) by overwhelming majorities, that were with one close to being unanimous, and with the other was unanimous.  The public safety building must still get a majority vote at the regular municipal election next Monday, March 30, to proceed.

The first STM vote, to fund the $700,000 construction costs of a money making solar photovoltaic installation behind the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), was unanimous.  As soon as the town’s new Energy and Facilities Manager, Andrew Seaman, who was presenting on behalf of the Energy Committee, mentioned that the array will be revenue positive starting in its first year, the Moderator jokingly interrupted to call for a fast vote.  The presentation may have continued, but the wisdom of a money making project was clear in the unanimity of the ultimate vote.  The array is projected to save the town $726,509 in electricity charges at the WWTP over 20 years.

Conversations with Energy Committee member Fred Davis after the meeting disclosed that the MEC’s solar consultant is already recommending to the town to proceed as fast as possible with other installations before the state subsidies for solar end in the next couple of years, which will change the economics dramatically.  The roof of the Highway Garage has already been recommended, but the old landfill is also being eyed.  Few old landfills remain without solar arrays, and there is even grant money to support such an installation.  Medfield never properly closed the landfill, so the closure may need to be revisited, but the economics may still make the project attractive.

Vote 2 to fund the almost $19m. construction costs of a new public safety building seemed to find the vast majority of attendees grudgingly, if realistically  accepting of the need for us to pay more in property taxes to allow for the new building.  This observer guesses that perhaps 20-40 people voted against proceeding.  There is no disagreement over the inadequacy of the old facility, and only minor issues verbalized over the size and scope of the new building and the lack of options presented.

Selectmen meet again this evening, to hear from all three of our legislators.

Comments Off on STM says yes and yes again

Posted in Buildings, Energy Committee, Fire Department, Police Department, Select Board matters, Town Meeting