===OCR macOS Vision===
===PAGE 1===
Members Present: Tom Alonzo, Chair; Phyllis Luck, Vice Chair; Damon McQuaid, Clerk; Michael-
Ray Jeffreys, Member
Member not present: Katey Adams, Member
Others present: Heather Lemieux, Town Manager Adam Burney, Land Use Director
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Alonzo stated
In accordance with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, please be advised that this meeting is
being recorded and broadcast over the Lunenburg Public Access channel.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was none from the Board or the public.
APPOINTMENTS
St. Boniface Church, 817 Mass Ave., One Day Special License, Beer & Wine for Sept. 28th
Tom Bodkin, 63 Beal St., and Claude Poirier, 68 Wildwood Road, presented for the license request. The
event will run from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. rain or shine. There will be lots of craft vendors and lunch
and dinner will be served.
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd.P. Luck
To approve the one day beer and wine license for St. Boniface's Oktoberfest on September 28th
Vote: All in Favor
Ratification of Town Manager Appointment of Assistant Treasurer
Ms. Lemiuex stated there is an appointment before you for ratification of Susan Murchie as Assistant
Treasurer. It was a temporary position due to a vacancy and this is a permanent appointment. Ms.
Murchie has been with the Town for almost two years as Principal Clerk.
Due to her moving over to this position a vacancy was created in the principal clerk osition so that will
be posted
Motion:D. McQuaid
2°°:P. Luck
To ratify the Town Manager appointment of Susan Murchie to Assistant Treasurer
Vote: All in Favor
Ms. Lemieux stated she was very excited about the next appointment which is Building Commissioner.
We have been searching for a building commisioner for some time. Casey Burlingame comes with 25
years of construction experience. He started as a local Building Inspector for the City of Worcester and
currently works for the Town of Southbridge and Brimfield.
Motion:D. McQuaid
To ratify the Town Manager appointment of Casey Burlingame to Building Commissioner
2°: P. Luck
Vote: All in Favor
===PAGE 2===
Olel appucalls.
Mr. Jeffreys asked what other boards or committees they were currently on. Mr. MacDonald is serving
on the Personnel Committee. Mr. Nault stated he was on Sewer Commission for three and a half years.
He does not currently serve on any committees but helps out the Lunenburg Boys and Girls Club
occasionally and helped decorate the town center for the holidays for the past six years. Ms. Luck
thanked both men for stepping forward and knows persoanlly how valuable they have been on the Sewer
Commisison in the past. Mr. Alonzo concurred with Ms. Luck.
Motion: M. Jeffreys
2nd: P. Luck
To appoint Dave MacDonald and Mike Nault to the Sewer Commission
Motion: C. Luck
2nd: R. Stober
To appoint Dave MacDonald and Mike Nault to the Sewer Commission
Vote: Ms. Pease-aye, Mr. Luck-aye, Mr. Stober-aye
Vote: Mr. Jeffreys-aye, Mr. McQuaid-aye, Ms. Luck-aye, Mr. Alonzo-aye
Mr. Luck stated he was happy to have them both back as we worked for many years with them.
They responded very quickly to our serious need.
The Sewer Commissioners adjourned their meeting.
Introduction to Olive Avenue Productions relative to filming for Castle Rock in Lunenburg
Joe Stargensky, Streaming Manager for the Hulu channel's show Castle Rock, introduced himself and
stated they have been filming around the Devens area. They would like to come to Lunenburg to film
some scenes around Lake Shirley, a private residence and possibly some road scenes. He has been
communicating with Land Use Director Adam Burney and they will be filming around Ruth Street. We
bring around 120 staff people with us and set up a base camp consisting of trailers away from everyone.
When we film in a residence, we notify the neighbors and rent driveways. The road scene involves
closing a road temporarily. We will begin setting up on September 5'" as filming involves a lot of
preparation in advance. We use support services of the town when needed such as Police details and we
will be filming during the day only. We anticipate to begin filming on September 16" from 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. for four days in a row. We plan to film some water scenes on the lake. Ms. Lemieux has seen
our setup in Clinton where we were filming recently. Mr. Jeffreys asked if they would be using
generators. Mr. Stargensky stated yes. Mr. Jeffreys asked Ms. Lemieux what was her impression of the
Clinton site. She stated it was impressive to see what goes into the production. Also visiting that site
were the Police and Fire chiefs and Mr. Burney so we could get different perspectives and to see what
was needed of town operations. It answered many of our questions and we are in a good place knowing
the needs of the departments will be met.
Mr. Alonzo wished him the best of luck and knew he was in good hands with the town personnel. Mr.
Stargensky thanked all for accommodating them.
===PAGE 3===
null -
Add - Florence Street @ Pierce Street for southbound traffic
Add - Kirby Avenue @ Florence Street for westbound traffic
Add - Clearing Street @ Whalom Road for northbound traffic
Add- Pierce Street @, Clearing Street for westbound Traffic
Add- Clearing Street @ Lesure Avenue for southbound Traffic
Add- Lesure Avenue @ the Lesure Avenue Extension for the southbound Traffic
Add- Otis Street @ Burke Street for the northbound Traffic
Add- Hamlin Street @ Burke Street for the northbound Traffic
Add- Natick Street @ Burke Street for the northbound Traffic
Chief Marino stated he would like to add the stop sign at Rogers Way at Whalom Road for northbound
traffic because it was never codified after the construction project. He added with the exception of
Rogers Way these are T intersections that never had stop signs. Residents from The Clearing and Wallis
Park area had approached him due to increased traffic from nearby development. He added The Clearing
is a very narrow street and he would like to approach the residents to see if they would be interested in
making it a one-way road coming from Whalom Road.
Due to the acceptance of the new motor vehicle speed chapters at Town Meeting last year, he would like
to add a safety zone in front of the town beach. This would reduce the speed limit to 20 miles per hour.
He also would like to do this in the Chestnut Street and Marshall Park areas. Discussion ensued about
the town beach area.
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd: P. Luck
To approve the modifications to the Traffic Rules and Regulations as submitted
Discussion: Mr. Jeffreys asked the Chief to give residents some leeway as they get used to the stop
signs for the first two weeks or so. Chief Marino stated they would. Chief Marino will provide an
amended signed document to Ms. Lemieux that includes Rogers Way.
Vote: All in Favor
TOWN MANAGER REPORT
Community Advisory from Nashoba Associated Board of Health and Central MA Mosquito
Control:
The Nashoba Associated Board of Health has issued a community advisory that has been posted to the
town website and Town Facebook page. The MA Department of Public Health has tested and identified
mosquito infected with Eastern Equine Encephalitis in the towns of Bolton, Harvard, and Shirley and
West Nile Virus in Littleton and Leominster. There have been no mosquitos in Lunenburg that have
tested positive for either EEE or WNV. Lunenburg residents can contact Central MA Mosquito Control
at (508) 393-3055 or visiting their website at cmmcp. org to request their property be sprayed. The
Nashoba Associated Board of Health advises the public take all the necessary precautions, suchas protective
clothing, applying insectrepellent, and beingawareofpeak mosquito hours during dusk to dawn.
===PAGE 4===
scheduled to be picked up on the curb. This can be done by requesting this service through their website,
cmmcp. orgorcalling (508) 393-3055. Tire recycling isaimed to eliminate mosquito larval habitats and reduce
the risk from mosquito-borne diseases. There is no additional cost to residents ormunicipalitiesthatare a
member ofCentral MA Mosquito Control, and certain restrictions apply.
Announcement on Existing Vacancies:
The following is a list of vacancies on the following committees:
• Agricultural Commission (1 regular member and 3 alternate vacancies)
• Americans with Disabilities Act Commission (1 vacancy)
• ArchitecturalPreservationDistrict Commission(1 designprofessional; craftspersonorbuilding contractor
familiar with historic renovation)
• Finance Committee (1 position appointedby theFinance Committee Appointing Committee)
• Housing Authority (1 electedposition that willbeajointappointment withremaining Housing Authority
members and Selectmen)
• Planning Board (1 elected position that willbe ajoint appointment with the remaining Planning Board
members and Selectmen)
• Zoning Board of Appeals (1 regular member and 2 Associate vacancies)
Talent bank forms can be obtained on the Town Website and forwarded to the Board of Selectmen's office.
Update on the Summer Street Road Reconstruction Project:
Concrete sidewalksand driveways have been completed in the Lunenburg section ofthe project. All driveways
have been paved and loam placed in the Lunenburg section as well.It is anticipated that seeding of all the
loamed areas will occur in the next couple of weeks. Concrete sidewalk and driveway installation is in
progress in the Leominster section ofthe project. All the concrete sidewalk work (excluding the Baker'sBrook
Bridge) is expected to be complete by the end of September. Paving of the final course is scheduled for mid-
October. The Contractor anticipates having mostof the contract work competed by the end ofthe construction
season this year. They will most likely be back in the spring to complete punch list work.
MassDEP Recycling IQ Kit Grant Update (TM Goal #2):
I held interviewstoday for the four grant-funded positions under the Recycling IQ Kit grant. Wehad approximately
30 applications to choose from a good pool of candidates. Selection of four candidates will be done this week.
The magnetic postcards advertising recyclable items were sent out to residents last week and we received
two ofthe four signboards last week; one isat the intersection outsidethe Ritter buildıng and the otherisat the DP W
on Route 13. Wewillbe putting up two more signboards and the two banners in the near future.
ADA Public Rights of Way Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan (TM Goal #3):
===PAGE 5===
which was forwarded by the Land Use Director. In that correspondence, there were a number of datesfor a
site walk that the Board will need to request their preferred date.
Iam workingon gettinga price from a third party arborist to review the listofpublic treesthat Unitil hasincluded in
the SRP to be either trimmed or removed (32). The privatetrees are not under the jurisdiction of the
Planning Board or Board of Selectmen.
Meetings and Other Announcements:
Town Counsel and lare in the process of scheduling a training for Open Meeting Law, Conflict of Interest and
Public Records Law. I hope to have one evening training for allelected/appointed officials and one day training for
all staff. As soon as the date is scheduled, it will be announced at meetings and sent out through the townwide
listserv.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Discussion about Unitil's Storm Resiliency Program
Mr. Alonzo noted a date to go on the site walk has to be determined. Ms. Luck asked would there be
some indication of which trees are recommended for removal or not from the Tree Warden and the local
tree contractor. Mr. Alonzo stated he was planning on the Tree Warden to go the site walk as well. Mr.
Burney will check with Unitil about the 5:30 p.m. time slot on September 17. He noted the Planning
Board did a site walk prior and it took close to an hour long and they got less than a quarter of the trees
done.
2. Town Manager Annual Evaluation Process
Mr. Alonzo stated they would be voting on the process next week with a full Board.
Earth Removal Permit Renewals
Mr. Burney referred to his August 29 memorandum (excerpts are italicized) on the PJ Keating Co.
permits. They are asking six out of their seven permits be renewed and are asking permit #19 not be
renewed because it is covered under permit #15. Over the past 2 years, the Select Board has worked to
get an understanding of the existing Earth Removal Permits, their location and status. During this time,
Garry Rhodes and I have worked with one another and PJ Keating to clarify their operations and the
relation to the permits they hold. Below is a review of their current renewal applications and my
recommendations.
Permit #15 Mr. Burney stated the way the permit is written covers the west side of Reservoir Road,
north and south of the B & M Railroad, exclusive of the office building on the corner of Reservoir Road
and Leominster-Shirley Road. The majority of the earth removal is north of the B & M Railroad. The
area south is their scale yard and material storage, but there is still a significant amount of material to the
east of that property that in the future could be removed. The area north of the B & M Railroad on the
west side of Reservoir Road was an area that had some issues the last time you renewed. During the
===PAGE 6===
taken due to the hydro-seed being placed outside of the growing season.
Recommendation: The permit should be renewed with a condition that the vegetation be substantially
established no later than April of 2020.
Mr. Burney noted the former environmental staff at P. J. Keating is gone and new personnel were hired
between March and May of this year. They are catching up with the former personnel's work duties.
Ms. Luck asked when this permit would be renewed until. Mr. Burney stated August 2020. Ms. Luck
preferred an inspection in April, Doug Vigneau, of Keating's provided a photo of the hydro-seed taking
in that area. Mr. Jeffreys noted he took a tour of the permitted areas and it was his opinion that they are
aggressively trying to get up to speed
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd: P. Luck
To renew Permit #15 for P J Keating Co, until August 31, 2020 with the condition that the vegetation be
substantially established no later than April 2020
Discussion: Mr. Jeffreys requested a specific date for the April inspection. Mr. McQuaid amended his
motion to until the end of April 2020, Ms. Luck seconded the amendment.
Vote: All in Favor
Permit #16
he permed setocared north of leominster-Shirley d and east of Reservoir Red A large portion of the
removal operation and is in fact a manufacturing operation where stone and other materials are
processed. The remainder of the site located north of the B&M was the subject of specific
conditions in the 2019 renewal process. Specifically, the condition that disturbed areas be
revegetated was complicated by the fact that the area north of B&M contains Priority and
Estimated Habitat for the Blanding's Turtle and there were questions about the reclamation of
disturbed area with the mapped habitat. The removal of material was restricted until such time as
the outstanding questions regarding the Priority and Estimated Habitat were resolved with the
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. The Town is in receipt of communication from
the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife that indicates the revegetation of the disturbed areas and
removal of earth in the area outside of the Priority and Estimated Habitat would be permitted.
Recommendation: The permit currently contains a large area (north of Leominster-Shirley Rd. /
south of B&M Railroad/east of Reservoir Road) that is not currently nor is proposed to be used for
earth removal, I recommend this area be removed from the permit. Due to the presence of the
Priority & Estimated Habitat, it would be helpful to have a more precise boundary of the area
where earth may be removed. The applicant should provide a plan, prior, to the permit renewal in
2020, that defines the area outside of the Priority and Estimated Habitat and the 250' buffer along
Reservoir Road where material exists that may be removed.
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd: P. Luck
===PAGE 7===
my recommendation that they be considered together for the purpose of review. The site is
currently the location of P. J. Keating's recycling area, equipment repair garage and equipment
storage area. Material exists which may be removed.
Recommendation: The permit should be renewed.
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd: M. Jeffreys
To renew permits #17, 27 & 30 for PJ Keating
Discussion: Ms. Luck asked if they are not removing material and they have recycling material
and equipment repair/storage there, why do they need to keep an earth removal permit. Mr. Alonzo
noted material exists that can be removed.
Vote: 3 in favor, 1 nay (Luck)
Permit #19
This site is located north of Leominster-Shirley Rd. and south of B&M Railroad. The area is
currently used for material storage and processing. The area is currently not being used for earth
removal but material remains. This area is not abutting residential properties.
Recommendation: The permit be renewed.
Mr. Burney stated his understanding was that P. J. Keating does not wish to renew this
permit because the land is covered under permit #15. Mr. Vigneau stated on the permit
application for permit #19, we indicated #19 parcel is covered under permit #15 and there is no
request to renew permit #19.
Ms. Lemieux noted this statement regarding Permit #19 was not found in any of the BOS
meeting minutes. Mr. Burney stated his understanding that there was permit north and a permit
south of the railroad, which is why he questioned the non-renewal renewal request.
Permit #15 is south and Permit #19 is north. Mr. Alonzo stated so the worst case scenario is if
if we renew it and it's overlapped, then there is nothing lost; if we deny it and it's not
combined then they have lost a site. Mr. Burney concurred. He added there was a substantial
amount of time spent over the last two years to identify the permit numbers and where they
were attached to and that is where #19 was attached to, south of the railroad.
Mr. Vigneau stated when Commissioner Rhodes was here, he was with Mr. Burney and myself
and Rob Robinson, who was the Vice President of Aggregate and we discussed this. He
indicated at that time that we should not file a permit application for permit #19. We have been
assured by Commissioner Rhodes and discussions with Mr. Burney that it is covered under
another permit.
Steven Mullaney, S J Mullaney Engineering, consultant for P J Keating, stated the language of
permit #15 describes the permit area as being on the westerly side of Reservoir Road and on
both sides of the railroad. Permit #19 as we understand it was the westerly side of Reservoir
Road and just south of the railroad. So the area of permit #19 is also a portion of the area of
permit #15; we are confident that by not renewing permit #19, we still have permit coverage
over all the land that P J Keating needs a permit for.
===PAGE 8===
from the puoue ways. Imes nas veen compiercu.
Recommendation: The permit be renewed.
Mr. Burney stated that is the quarry adjacent land and the small little bit of quarry on the corner of
Fort Pond Road and Leominster-Shirley Road, south of Leominster-Shirley Road and east of Fort
Pond Road. There was a requirement to install buffers at the 100-foot buffer. He viewed some of
them, but not all of them because it is a thick trek through the woods. There is a gas easement 50
feet wide about 50 feet off the road and you can identify where that 100 foot is. He did see at least
three signs that were in that area. He was confident they placed the signs all the way through due to
the work done at the other sites.
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd: P. Luck
To renew Permit #57 for PJ Keating
Vote: All in Favor
Mr. Burney moved on to Permit #56 held by Powell Stone & Gravel. They currently hold one earth
removal permit. Permit #56 was issued for the properties at 151-181 Leominster-Shirley Rd. and was
issued retroactively for earth removal completed prior to 2018. This permit was issued to account for
previous removal and to allow for the approval of a closure plan.
Permit #56
The property at 151-181 Leominster-Shirley Rd. is currently used as a material storage and loading
area for Powell Stone and Gravel. This property was originally permitted by the Planning Board in
2013 as a proposed vehicle repair facility. This use was never constructed and instead the property
has been continually used as a material storage and loading area since around that time. In
reviewing Earth Removal Permits over the past 2 years, it was identified as an area where earth
removal was performed without a permit and an area where the use was different than the approval
Development Plan Review from 2013.
To resolve this issue Powell Stone and Gravel was directed to amend their Development Plan Review
approval by filing with the Planning Board for an amended Site Plan Approval and to obtain an Earth
Removal Permit. Per the requirements of the Building Commissioner, both of these approvals were
sought. On 13 May 2019 the Planning Board approved the amend Site Plan Approval request. The site
currently reflects the layout of this approved plan. Additionally, Powell Stone and Gravel received
approval from the Conservation Commission to install storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs)
adjacent to the material storage area.
Recommendation: The closure plan should be accepted and the permit closed.
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd: P. Luck
To accept the closure plan for permit #56 and not renew the permit
Discussion: Ms. Luck asked if Powell Stone & Gravel was fine with that. Mr. Burney affirmed.
Vote: All in Favor
Permit #55
===PAGE 9===
To accept the closure plan and not renew the earth removal permit tor 496 Massachusetts Avenue
Vote: All in Favor
The Board thanked Mr. Burney for his assistance with the earth removal permit renewal process.
Meeting with Lake Shirley Improvement Corporation's Aquatic Ecologist re: new Notice of Intent
filing and approval from Board of Selectmen to file Notice of Intent application
Joanna Bilotta, 362 Sunset Lane, Lake Shirley Improvement Corp. (LSIC), presented Wendy Gendron,
Aquatic Ecologist, of Aquatic Restoration Consulting, LLC, who prepared the Notice of Intent (NOI) for
Lake Shirley.
Ms. Gendron stated the NOI was for control of aggressive aquatic plants on Lake Shirley through the
use of winter water drawdown and herbicide/algaecide applications. They have been using this
technique for several years now.
Mr. Alonzo noted the Town, by lack of ability to determine otherwise, is the owner of Lake Shirley, and
LSIC, acting on behalf of residents living on Lake Shirley, are requesting permission to file the NOI
with the Conservation Commission. Our role is not evaluating the science of it but to see if it is in order
and can be forwarded to the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Alonzo stated on August 27, Ms. Lemieux reached out to Ms. Bilotta reminding her that the NOI
needed to be filed and with the Conservation Commission identified seven bullet items.
That the NOI should include:
• Water quality tracking data
• Weed control thresholds and targets
• Drawdown goals and planning
• Plan to address native weed decline
• Plans for fanwort
• Alternatives to chemical treatments
• Long range goals
He asked Ms. Gendron, "Do you believe those seven items were addressed in this NOI?"
Ms. Gendron responded to each item:
• Water quality tracking data-yes
• Weed control thresholds and targets- not actual numbers but targeting certain growths, yes, she
did not believe there was a number on x%
• Drawdown goals and planning- there is a drawdown depth and data from past years, which
would be followed in the future
• Plan to address native weed decline - there are zones set aside as no treatment areas to
preserve native plants
• Plans for fanwort- specifically there is a potential application for it on a case by case basis if
funds allow
===PAGE 10===
water quality seems to have decreased over the last 13 years or so. Does this plan address that. Ms.
Gendron stated this plan addresses algae control which is a result of poor water quality. Does it address
the incoming water quality? No, if you look at Dr. Wagner's report from Water Resource Services
(WRS), over two-thirds of the phosphorous coming into the lake is from the main tributary and that is
beyond their control.
Ms. Luck requested to read into the record an email from Conservation Commission Chair Bursch
because she wanted to hear Ms. Gendron's opinion on it.
"Please review the following concerns about the recently received draft of the Lake Shirley Notice of
Intent. In my opinion, this puts us back at square one. The application does not contain any of the
current conditions or concerns laid out by the commission. My concern in the BOS endorsing this
application in its current form will place the commission back having to dictate the scope and breadth
of the proposed activities. This will put the LSIC back on having to defend and argue every point the
commission puts forth. This application has no specific descriptions of any of the activities requested.
No goals. No plan. No research for alternatives. No water quality testing
There is no proposed review by the commission prior to the use of pesticides, no public notice, no
data collection, and no criteria on where, when or how to apply pesticides into the waters of Lake
Shirley. There is nothing in the application to support the use of a drawdown.
There is no description of the process to be followed. There is no method to determine if this
activity is successful. The narrative makes several assumptions based on a 2018 WRS report. The
WRS report should be included, at least the conclusions. Many of the excerpts from the report are quoted
as arguments against the concerns of the commission. The full report needs to be reviewed for context.
There is no mention of several concerns that the commission has, Fanwort, Fishkill, Drawdown and it
only argues "against" plant species concerns. It argues against pesticide residue using only the least
treated year totals.
There should be a discussion between the Board of Selectmen (Town) and the agent (LSIC) prior to
this application being submitted to determine what the overall goals are for Lake Shirley.
This application puts the commission right back where it all started. The commission should not be
having to determine the scope of this activity. To view in a very general manner, this application is to
perform specific activities to manage Lake Shirley. It needs to include,
1. The current conditions and what is wrong with these conditions
2. What the target conditions should be
3. The specific activity requested and how it will achieve the target conditions
4. Mechanism to measure the activities to prove they are successful
Concerns for LSIC Aquatic Management Application
1.
The main interest of the Wetland Protection Act being cited as the reason for the
management activity is wildlife and fisheries habitat restoration.
a. There is no data presented on the current state of the habitat areas
b. There are no plans on what needs to be addressed in the habitat area.
c. There is no specific description on how any activities will protect the habitat
d. There is no plan on how to determine if this activity is having a positive or negative
===PAGE 11===
the habitat at Lake Shirley.
g. There are concerns about the current management of Lake Shirley, decrease in
native plants, fishkill, fanwort, increase in algae blooms, there is no mention of
how to address these concerns.
1. The Lake Management Plan is referenced but not included in the application. The actual,
specific plan should be included. This plan should lay out all activities planned, why they are
being performed, how they will be performed and how they will be documented.
a. The WRS study should also be included as it referenced many times in the
narrative. The conclusions should be read in their entirety as they contain several
follow-up activities for Lake Shirley
1. The drawdown request has no data showing that activity is or has been effective. The only
data shown actually downplays the effectiveness of the drawdown. There is also no
description of how the drawdown level will be determined, monitored and data gathered.
There is no plan for communications of dam operations. There is no emergency action plan
for valve failure.
a. The data table provided shows drawdown is effective for fanwort control, but the
fanwort spread continues
b. The data table shows pondweed growth is increased by drawdown, resulting in
more chemical treatments.
c. DEP questioned the drawdown effectiveness in 2015 application process
1. Almost every report to LSIC has expressed the need for continued water quality data
collection and reporting. There is no plan for water quality testing. "
Ms. Luck read a follow-up email from Matt Marro, Conservation Administrator.
"I have also reviewed this application and I share the same concerns -this is a multipage application
that doesn't say very much I'm sorry to say."
Ms. Gendron stated she would like to have time to be able to respond to those comments to the
Conservation Commission. She requested a copy of the email. Ms. Luck asked Gendron how she
planned to address the comments. Gendron stated she could read the list and file an amendment to the
NOI, or in person address each of those points. Mr. Jeffreys asked if there was a plan for independent
water testing. Gendron stated she had trained volunteers this past summer. They collect dissolved
oxygen and take temperature reports; they also collect grab samples for water quality and algal samples.
Other than when it is collected by volunteers, it is expensive when you send it to a laboratory. When
water clarity has declined more than five feet, they will do that twice a week or once every two weeks
Mr. Jeffreys believed the Town has a vested interest in the quality of its lakes. If we have an agent
that is employing chemicals, the burden is on us to test and verify that what is said is being done, is
being done as any responsible owner should do. He asked Ms. Lemieux if we have funds allotted or
could we allot funds to test Lake Shirley independently if it is being treated. Ms. Lemieux stated
she could not answer that without knowing how much it would cost. Ms. Gendron stated ideally
===PAGE 12===
He Medal st de. dells l you lave ideas l contiers,
up at a different time and should not impede the process or mechanism of this application. This
should go to the Conservation Commission. To Ms. Gendron, you can address their concerns that
are in the email that was read into the record.
Vote: 3 in favor, 1 abstention (Luck)
CURRENT BUSINESS
Discuss proposed response to Open Meeting Law (OML) complaint received from Joanna Bilotta
on August 6, 2019 related to the Acting Chairman's actions at the Board of Selectmen's meeting
on July 23, 2019.
Town counsel Adam Costa presented an overview of the OML complaint process. The complaint dated
August 6, 2019, referenced a BOS meeting on July 231d where Vice Chair Luck was Acting Chair for
that meeting. The substance of the complaint was that she read a prepared statement commenting on
matters involving the Lake Shirley Improvement Corporation (LSIC), currently in litigation with the
Town. The litigation involves the Conservation Commission of which Mr. Luck is a member and which
has already been the subject of a seperate OML violation. The LSIC was not notified that it was to be
the subject of the meeting and nothing regarding the corporation, litigation or the lake appeared on the
agenda. In parentheses, it says, "a copy is attached hereto." I understand that boards routinely have
public comment periods during which citizens might make a comment that the Chair could not have
anticipated or reasonably expected to include in the agenda, but here it is the acting Chair's own
prepared remarks. It is hard to imagine a situation where something more clearly could have been
anticipated and included. One is forced to conclude that the omission was deliberate and intended to
prevent LSIC to respond.
Costa noted there was an allegation that another OML violation occurred during a Conservation
Commission meeting relative to the LSIC. He assisted the commission in responding to those
complaints and submitted responses to the complainants and the Division of Open Government. We
don't have a response as of yet in that regard or whether that is deemed to be a violation or not. We did
concede in our letter that we did believe it was a violation and took remedial action. The process that I
undertake when there has been a OML violation is I conduct an investigation on my own and speak to
the Chair of that board. In this case, it was different; the Chair was not present at the meeting. I had a
conversation with Ms. Luck and I watched the video.
Attorney Costa presented a proposed response and requested comments or concerns. It's unclear
whether the public comment constitutes a violation of the OML because had the statement been made by
somebody who was Chair, as opposed to acting Chair or Vice Chair, the person responsible for setting
the agenda. I would not disagree with the statements made by Attorney Bowen or Ms. Bilotta that
certainly those topics would have been reasonably anticipated by the Chair and that is the standard for
including an item on an agenda of a public body. In this case, the agenda was not set by Ms. Luck but by
the Chair. The Chair was absent. Costa cited one incidence in another town where statements were made
by the Chair that were not on the agenda. There are a lot of competing factors here so I don't believe this
is a violation, but I can't say that without absolute certainty. So I recommend taking remedial action by
===PAGE 13===
we have find a way to work together.
Attorney Costa stated the remedial action is an option that is presented when I don't find a former case I
can direct the Division to and say we did exactly what they did here and you said it was fine. It doesn't
need to be taken; you can modify the remedial action any way you choose. Or you can take no remedial
action and stand on the ground that this was not an OML violation. I can adjust the letter accordingly.
Mr. McQuaid stated he was in favor of the draft with no remedial action because he did not see how that
time and action would help anything. Mr. Alonzo stated he agreed but we have to address the order and
he would like to close the subject. Costa suggested on page 3 eliminating the paragraph about remedial
action and replacing with a sentence indicating that there is an opportunity at the beginning and the end
of each meeting for the general public, including LSIC, to participate in public comment and leave it at
that and then proceed to address the remedy and conclude the letter.
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd: P. Luck
To approve the draft with modifications to paragraph 2 on page 3 as presented by Attorney Costa
Discussion: Mr. Jeffreys asked if it was possible to extend an invitation to LSIC and list it on the agenda
and have a conversation with them on how to come to agreement. We need to have a better working
relationship with them as they are our agent. Mr. Alonzo stated he wanted to know what the goals and
topics would be and who wants to speak before placing it on the agenda.
Vote: All in Favor
2. Discussion on setting a date for a fall Special Town Meeting (STM)
Ms. Lemieux directed the Board to two proposed schedules for a Tuesday, November 12 Special Town
Meeting. Option 1 allows for less opportunity for the BOS and Finance Committee to review the
warrant. Option 2 opens the warrant earlier and allows for more meetings for the boards.
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd: M. Jeffreys
To set the date for STM to November 12, 2019 and open the warrant on September 10 and close
the warrant on September 30 at 5:00 p.m.
Discussion: Ms. Luck wanted to make sure the dates are posted in prominent places in town and on the
town website and Facebook.
Vote: All in Favor
3. Discussion on Identifying Repairs to the old Primary School
Ms. Lemiuex stated in response to a letter from the Architectural Preservation District Commission
(APDC), I asked the Facilities Director to get a quote for the repairs that they identified in their letter.
Install 2 sump pumps with new hoses
$394.00
Roof repairs/watertight condition
$7500.00
Downspout replacement
$125.85
Security alarm upgrade
$2000.00
Window blocking/ hardware
$750.00
Misc. hardware (repairs)
$100.00
===PAGE 14===
Alonzo asked what would we gain with these repairs. Ms. Lemieux stated the APDC identified these
repairs as keeping the building from further exposure to weather and falling into further disrepair. Mr.
McQuaid stated this is a data point that we need to include in a larger package of information we should
be assembling to file with them for a demolition permit. This quote doesn't do anything to fixing the
building up. There is a much larger number associated with that. We clearly do not have the money to
do. We should see if there is anyone else interested in fixing it up to provide an alternative to the APDC
or to prove that nobody else wants this building. Mr. Alonzo suggested placing this on the September 10
workshop agenda. It was suggested to invite the APDC to that meeting next week.
4. Request from Lanni Orchards to Petition the State Legislature for additional Package
Store License
Mr. Alonzo noted by state law the Town is allotted a certain amount of alcohol licenses per population
and we are at our limit for package stores. The only option to get additional licenses is to petition the
state legislature. Attorney Costa reported the Town could assign one license to Lanni Orchards, if they
were to discontinue business, it can be discontinued or go back to the Town for someone else. Lanni
Orchards would still have to apply to the Local Licensing Authority (Board of Selectmen) and the
application still has to go through the Alcohol Beverages Control Commission (ABCC) for final
approval. Discussion ensued on whether to request one or two package store licenses.
Costa stated in his experience the request is for one particular entity. He will research what has
happened in other instances for some guidance for the Board.
5. Minutes/Warrants/ Action Items
The Board approved Minutes of July 16, July 23 and August 6, 2019. The Board signed an accounts
payable warrant in the amount of $409,996.58, a payroll warrant in the amount of $739,315.36 and a
deductibles warrant in the amount of $557,411.05.
Mr. Alonzo reported he read the Town of Harvard just entered a municipal aggregation agreement using
only renewable energy sources. He wondered if the Board should discuss this option at a future agenda.
Ms. Lemieux will research how long the current contract is for and what the difference in rates would be
for renewable sources.
OLD BUSINESS (CONT.)
2. Public Comment and Social Media Policy Review
Mr. Alonzo presented a public comment policy from the Natick School Committee that was changed
due to a court case against them. He referred the Board to item #4:
Public Speak shall concern items that are not on the School Committee's agenda, but which are
within the scope of the School Committee's authority. Therefore, any comments involving staff
members or students must concern the educational goals, policies, or budget of the Natick Public
Schools, or the performance of the Superintendent.
===PAGE 15===
Committee's authority.
Mr. Alonzo added basically, those are the only reasons you can stop someone from publicly
commenting. It has not been an issue in our Town but it is good to have those items in our policy in
the event someone wants to do what is listed above. He thought this was a good addition to discuss.
Attorney Costa stated it is a tricky situation, public comment sessions are protected by some 1st
Amendment sections, but not the full range. They have to be balanced against a Chair to maintain
some amount of decorum at his/her meeting.
Ms. Lemieux stated our current policy does not address profanity. Mr. Alonzo asked the Board to
read the Natick policy for future discussion. She asked Attorney Costa, in light of tonight's OMI
complaint and the public comment period, should we include any language that would preclude any
further OMI complaints?
Costa stated the risk that exists for potential OML complaints is mainly with Board members
making public comment. Some previous determinations state if the Chair has advance notice that
another member is going to state something publicly at a meeting, it ought to be on the agenda,
particularly if it is prepared remarks. You may want to adopt a public comment policy that is
addressed to Board members as opposed to the public; indicating out of an abundance of caution if
any board member wants to bring a topic forward at a meeting and discuss it in great substance,
they are advised to notify the Chair at least 48 hours in advance so it could be added to the agenda.
Mr. Alonzo moved on to the Social Media policy from the Town of Easton. This item will be
discussed at future meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was none from either the public or Board.
Mr. Alonzo reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule. There is a workshop on the 10* and a
regular meeting on the 17th
". He also reminded all about the Elected/Appointed Board/Committee
Appreciation Reception on the 19th at Eagle House from 6 - 8 p.m.
Motion: D. McQuaid
To adjourn the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
2nd: P. Luck
Vote: All in Favor
Respectiully submitted
laurem. Peterson
Elaine M. Peterson
Executive Assistant to the Town Manager
RECEIVED & FILED
NOV 0 6 2019
LUNENBURG TOWN
CLERK OFFICE