Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-23 Board of Selectmen Minutes Page ~. PSBRU, Y The Board of Selectmen held their regular meeting on this date ~n~th all members ~re~ent except T.J. RcEvoy who was ill. Present were Selectmen Charles A. al~Sbury, Ralph R. 3oyce, R. Louis DtFruscion with Chairman John W. Graham presiding. The warrant was approved, the minutes tabled until next meeting. The meeting lasted until 12 midnight. POLE LOCATION: Approved: installation of I pole (remove I pole) on Pleasant Street, approx- imately 215 feet west of Wiley Court. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS-SMOLACK APPLICATION: Letter from the North Andover League of Women Voters highly endorsed the Smolak's application for the sale of development rights on his farm. They stated that a study revealed that North Andover was forturste in having small farms still in operation but these farms were in iminent danger due to the loss of experienced, older farmers who are not being replaced by younger ones and due to the pressure of developers. They also stated that the Smolak farm is: a local beauty landmark, a recreation spot for groups of apple pickers a wildlife habita, and most importantly, a suitable food-producing area in a densely, populated state. They would like to see the Smolak land, and that of other farmers, protected for the future benefit of the Town. The Board voted to receive the letter for their files. CONSEI~VATION COMMISSION - SMOLAK APPLICATION: (1) J~m.e~s Lafond, Chairman of the Conservation Commission and other members of the C6nse~vation Commission appeared before the Board to advise them that their C0~is's~°n had voted $20,000 to be contributed to the OoumDnwealth for the purppse of acquiring an Agricultual Preservation Restriction on the proper~y knownasl Smolak's farm. This contribution will come out of the Conservation Fund toW'ards the preservation of the Smolak Farm providing Town approves the application. The Selectmen advised him that they had already endorsed the application. A letter to Town Counsel sent by the Conservation Commission' %rill give m~re facts to Town Counsel to support their position even though Town Counsel had already advised the Planning Board that Town Meeting action (affirmative) to the appropriation was necessary. It was brought out that the State would refund $0% after the Town appropriation. Status of the Barker application was brought up. Lafond said it was still being considered for funding under the 1980 round of funding. There was $5 million available and there is now $1.5 million left, which has to be spent by July .1. If Barker is not funded, he will have .to re-apply. Relative to the question of why Barker did not receive a similar financial commit:men: as proposed for Smolak($20 Laf0nd said they weren't aware that they had the funds at the time, and in addition, Smolak's land is of greater ~mportance to the Town. The land is in the watershed of the Lake and has an acquifer on it with 13 acres of wetlands. If Barker was to re-apply under the program, the Commission would consider making a similar contribution. The Board voted unanimously to approve the contribution pending determination T own Meeting action required or not. Chairman Lafond then said he would like to make a public statement on behalf o~ himSelf and the Conservation Commission. The issue was, '~ben is the Con- servation Commission !-': to be allowed to function properly and carry out the duties of the Commission .w~theUt being continually harrassed .b,.y. the of 'the Town.-::,:~ ~ ~ ~. ,--. ' - _...~. :" Conservation Commission member, Anthony Galva~a, speaking on"behal'f of the Commission made the following statements: "The issue here tonight is a simple one.. it is whether or not the COnservation Commission can continue to function or not without continually having to defend their position before this Board on matters that are within the Jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission both by State Statue and Town By-Laws. We find it disconcerting that you ent complaints about the actions of the Conservation Commission without our being present 'to defend ourselves. Rightfully, these, complaints, should be addressed to us 'by the complainants and, if they are not satisfied with us, there are routines for redress required by law not the least oq which is the Conflict of Interest law. Crying on the Selectmen's shoulders is not one of these rou- tines and we don't think that you should allow it. By giving a hearing to unsu~atantia~ and irresponsible charges when we were not present to refute them we feel tha~ you have abetted the complainants cause by allowing the . . ~ c ara er degradation/~nd=~e ]lgn~y of the Conservation Commission since these char appear.ed in a local newspaper and gave only one false and distorted side of a fabricated stpr¥. ~56February 23, 1981 (continued) Page 2. Conservation Commission (continued) (2) The facts are that both complainants have outstanding violations of the Wetlands Protection Act against them. It is our opinion that their organ- ized but amateurish attempt to damage the reputation of the Conservation Commission is a smoke screen to mask those violations, past, present and future. We understand that the Conservation Commission has been characterized to you as "Tapioca," operating under the pervasive, malevolant influence of our consultant, Dr. Turano. A year ago, when the same people made the same accusations against Dr. Turano, he resigned his position on the Conservation Commission because he felt that he lacked suport from your Board. Subse- quent to his resignation, recognizing his invaluable expertise and contri- butions to the quality of life in North Andover, you appointed him as a ' consultant to the new Conservation Commission and we re-affirmed'that appointment by a vote of our Commission. The Town of North Andover is indeed fortunate to have a person of Dr. Turano's credentials and qualifi- cations willing to donate so much time znd expertise in the Town's best interests. We feel that he deserves affirmation of support from the Board of Selectmen. To those who think that we are under Dr. Turano's influence, I suggest that they learn the difference between ~ to the advice of an acknowledged expert in the environmental field and being under'his malevolant influence. We listen to the opinions and advice of our consultants on a particular subject, and then together with the facts that we have gathered individually, we make up our--°wnmtnds on the matter before us. Anyone who thinks other.- wise .does not know the people on this Conservation Commission. The only influence that we operate under is the awesome responsibility of protecting the interests of the Town of North Andover under the Wetlands Protection Acts and all other Matters brought before the Conservation Commission. At this time when water shortages are reaching the critical stage, instead of having the time to act positively to protect what Wetlands, Watersheds, and aquifers that are left in North Andover, we find ourselves in a position of having to defend our actions to you. Most other Conservation Commissions throughout the State have the time to act positively because they do have to spend their time defending themselves against irresponsible charges. As an example, our neighboring Town of Andover has committed $600,000,~ matched by an additional $600,00 from self-help funds for a total of 1.2 million dollars spent to acquire Wetlands and Watersheds. As a con- trast, North Andover has committed $75,000, or which $31,000 has been spent. Within the past year, all of us have stood before you to answer your questions as to why we wished to serve on the Conservation Commission.. Apparent~ our answers to your questions about our ability to serve and our integrity satisfied you because you saw fit to appoint us to the Conser- vation Commission. Now it is our turn to ask you of your intentions. If... you do not agree with the manner in which we are conducting our business~ treating one a~d all with fairness and impartiality as prescribed by la~, or, if you question our integrity~ then you should dismiss us. You appointed us and you can call for our dismissal. If this is your pleasure, thenw~ respectfully ask that you do it now, tog~ght, not next week, next month, or whenever. If dismissal is not your pleasure, then we respectfully ask that you let us go about the business you appointed us to conduct without the threat'of inquiry into each or our actions or decisions. The l~%~ORissue at stake here is North Andover's Wetlands and Watersheds. The question is, "Are they to be protected or are they to become the ~' playground?" Gentlemen, the ball is in your court." Chairman Graham replied that the Board has in the past always supported the Conservation, Commission. Just recently, it was the attitude of the Selectmen that they are here to solve problems, that they must hear com- plainants case whether they wece Justified or not. Osgood and Follonsbee did not wish to pursue the matter further with the Conservation Commission. Selectman Salisbury stated that the members of the Conservation Commission deserve tAe thanks of the Board and Town for a job well-done. Th~ Select- made it clear that they were not interested in complaining of developers against the Conservation Commission. Petitioners should have met with both Board and Conservation Commission to discuss complaints. ~ (continued) Page 4. MAIN & SUTTON STREET INTERSECTION: James D'~ngelo, representing Vanasse/Hangen, appeared before the Board to report and present several plans for improvement to the Main and Sutton St. intersection. Me stated that the record showed that there had been 28 accidents at the intersection within two years. Traffic signals would elim- inate accidents especially at the peak hour of 3 and 4 P.M. Delayed signals would also help on the high left and right turns. They recommended the area be resurfaced, new sidewalks installed and parking restrictions on both of Main Street. They did not recommend that an island be installed but pro- posed land t~ing for about 650'ft. to widen the corner at Sutton and Main Streets. The land, owned by Trombly, would be paid for by the Town. Bud Cyr said that he would like sidewalks installed from the intersection to the railroad crossing. It was voted to take the proposed improvements under advisement, and to look into a land-taking appraisal. TOWN BUILDING SHEDS: Letter received from the North Andover Veterans Firemen's Association with a plan' that requested the Selectmen to consider refurbishing the town building shed that was formerly the Public Works shed. They store their handtub called the "Governor Bradstreet" there and it would be a deffnite hardship to them if the buildings were torn down. The Board voted to invite them to a meeting todiscuss the letter a~d invite Bud Cyr to attend the meeting, also. _~ PLANb~NG BOARD: NAMING OF STREETS: Letter from the Planning Board stated that notice is hereby given that on February 11, 1981, the Planning Board adopted the policy to name new streets · .in.North Andover. In conjunction with this policy, they had named a street, previously known as "Road A.", Monteriro Way, whichis located off Quail Run A previous ruling from Town Counsel had delegated the naming of Town streets to the Board of Selectmen. After a short discussion, it was voted to have the Chairman of the Selectmen, Mr. Graham, sit down with the Chairman of the Planning Board to discuss this matter. This meeting will take place after March 2nd, election day. FIRE CHIEF'S EXAM: Notice'of Fi~e Chief's exam to be held on March 21, 1981. It was voted to a~thorf~e .the posting of the notices of the exam. BONDING REQUIREMENT: Notice received of bonding requirement for Treasurer/Collector and Town Cle: Vo~ed to have Dewhirst and Long acquire the bonds for their signatures. TOWN COUNSEL AUTHORIZATION: "TheBoard voted to authorize John J. Willis, Town Counsel to represent the Board'.of Appeals in the Lipomi, Heinze v. Subatch, et al and the Board of Appeals suit. RECEIVED: Notice'of Card Plan approval. Change of date for the March of Dimes from April 5 to April 26 for the "Superwalk." CARL:THOMAS FIELD: Joe:walsh was scheduled to discuss with the Selectmen preventive measures to protect the Carl Thomas Little League Field from vandalism. It was postpone~ until the March 2nd meeting. Z~ February 23, 1981 (continued) Page 3. Co~servation Commission (continued)(3) Selectman Salisbury went on to say that the Board is grateful to the Con- servation Commission members for doing a fine Job, that the Board enthus- iastically supports the Conservation Commission despite the distorted newspaper stories re the Conservation Commission and Dr. Turano. Mr. Vanessa stated that the developers constantly try to violate and do vi0tate the Wetlands Act, and theywant to rid the Town of a good Conservation Commission. He said the Board should put a stop to the harrassment of the Conservation Commission and allow them to do their work instAad of spending time defending themselves. Chairman Graham said it was grossly unfair the accusations that the Board does not bare the interests of the Town At heart. Problems come up that the Board bas to hear. Selectman Salisbury stated that Boards do not have to defend themselves. Bud Cyr commended the C.C. for doing a fine job and said he always had a good working relationship with them. Selectman DiFruscio said to let the Conservation Commission do their Job..tell developers to appeal to the courts, not the Selectmen. Pat Trombly stated that the Selectmen should have some kind of policy ire developers complaints...that all complaints and accusations must be sub- stantiated. Selectman DiFruscio a§reed..documentations of developer's accusations. Selectman Salisbury stated that the Conservation Commiss$on. should only have to deal with the Wetlands Act and enforce it ; andthat their decisions should not be questioned. After further discussion, it"' was voted that the Board formulate a policy to handle all complaints of any nature and determine a manner ~ .4eaSY,with said complatnts, regard!ess~ what Board was involved. , UOP PEESENTATION ON NESWC PROJECT ECONOMICS: John Phillips, representing UOP, appeared before the Board to make a presen- tation of the N~S~C economics.. Brian had advised that the final documents had been approved at the last two meetings of NEKWC. The transportation sharing agreement provides for each community to pay $3/ton and a rebate will be returned to the community on a pro-rated'basis depending on, each community's tonnage and distance from.the plant. Mr. Phillips stated that this was the best economic deal for all communities, that tt was a dramatic revenue energy saving plant. North Andover is authorized.to sign service. agreement with UOP to construct Resource Recovery Plant. Since 1975, it has been a stap by'step process..service agreement bas been negotiated, a contractwith New England Power has been negotiated for sale of the electricity that will be generated by the Resource plant. This comin§.~. year we hopefully will.sign contracts with communities for this long rem disposal facility. In light of 2 1/2, everyone is sensitive to costs any ~ervice. This facility offers the opportunity to communities to re~ ceive directly large majority of excalating revenues generated by sale electricity to offset project costs. UOP guantees maintenance and operating costs together with the base, design and construction of the plant. As. soon as 900 tons per day has been committed and signed by the communities,.~ they will proceed with the construction of the plant as soon as the bonds are sold. Every day that is saved in this regard is $30,000 saved.to the Town because that is what esculation is doing to the costs of this proJe~t.i UOP will also ~ua~ancee performance...UOP ~uarantees to dispose of the 465,000 tons per year that this project is designed to accomodate and, if we miss it, then UOP is liable to the communities. UOP also guarantees energy output. Technology has proven the energy output of similar existing . plants and they guarantee the energy output of this plant. USP ~UA~antees. metal recovery after refuse is burnt. They also guarantee env~ornmentai compliance. The requirements set forth by the Federal State Government must be kept or, obviously, the plant cannot function. The financial plan is that UOP will be the owner of the plant. Private ownership enables UOP to qualify for tax benefits, investment benefits, depreciation, etc. This enables UOP to share benefits with the communities which reduces their costs. Financial details bare been structured through UOP financialad- visors and reviewed b~..cum~unity financial advisors and details are being presented to the Board of Selectmen for their review. February 23, 1981 (continued) Page 5. 239 HILLSIDE RD. AND RT. 114: ~ Brian S. reported on the meeting held on Tuesday in Boston. Representative from the STate' reiLcrated the Stat~si',position that'they preferred to. go with their original plan to dead-end Hillside Rd. A discussion followed on the possibility of getting lights at the intersection. Although he wasn't opti- mistic about getting the lights, he said if that is what we wanted it would be worth a-shot to try to get them. He indicated that he could probably give us an answer within 30 days. If the lights are not acceptable to Boston, the island concept was discussed. He indicated that if we wanted to pursue this option, it is possible that the District Office will erect a temporary island with barrels to see how it works. It was left that the Selectmen would dis- cuss it at the Board meeting tonight and then send him a letter on what option we wanted to pursue first. Selectman Joyce said he didn't favor lights, that traffic would be eliminated by barrier plan. Selectmen Salisbury and were of the opinion that installation of lights would result i~ more safety, that it was a better solution than barrier. It was voted 3-1 to send letter to the DPW requesting the installation of lights and requested answer in 30 days. Vote: Yee; Graham, Salisbury, DiFruscto...No: Joyce. LANDFILL: The landfill was discussed with Bud Cyr. It was agreed that a management plan should be submitted by Frank Geltnas before the landfill is in operation. Also, a policy should be formulated by the Board of Health and submitted. COMMUNITY DEUMAO~tNT..iDEPT.: - .. Gayton Osgood appeared before the Board to have t~,em appoint him Director of the Co~,~unity Development Dept. and approve and authorize him to advertise for an Administrative Assistand and Secretary to administer the HUD grant. A newspaper interview given by Louis MtnicUcci was discussed.-,~ In the interview, Louis expressed his opinion of the HUD grant administration'. When questioned about this, Gayton Osgood sta~ed Louis, as the Housing Administrator, works full'time on Housing and canno~ be further involved in the administration of HUD. There will be a continued, good relationship between the Housing Authority and the Community Development Dept. The Board voted to table the appofntment of Gayton until the Chairman had talked with Louis Minicucci re the newspaper article. Chairman Graham called an executive session to discuss litigation~ LICENSING COMMISSIONERS: S.tar Pizza: Application received to operate a coin-operated amusement device. Mr. Wolf§an was present and advised the Board that the establishment would have restricted'rules when machine would be operated. He would supervise the use of.the machine as to school children and asked'permission to operate it on a trial'period. Chairm~ia DiFruscio..stated tha~, in his opinion, the machine was located to near the Middle School and the children would be spending all their money cn the machine. It was brought out that the Police Chief opposed the machine also because of the closeness of the school. It was unanimously voted, to'denY the application and asked the Star Pizza manager to have the machine removed.. It was also voted to send letters to all liquor.and comumn victualer holders instructing them to obtain a permit for any coin-operated amusement devices in their establishment. GAS PERMIT TRANSFER: request to transfer agas permit from Sun Oil Co. to Sea and Wharves, Inc. was taken under advisement until next meeting. R. Joyce wanted to know more about the Sea and Wharves company. Loft Tavern: Two letters received from police chief with reports of two liquor law violations...servtng liquor after hours...It was unanimously voted to hold a hearing on March 2, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. All persons involved would receive a notice of said hearing by certified mail. Riehdale's: Copy of letter received sent to Richdale's Superette from Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission requested they be present at a hearing at ABC re allegeddholding of too many licenses by one company. Voted to receive for files. , ONE-day wine license: Application granted to Lansdowne LTD for a 1-day winS license at Boston Hill after ski meet with stipulation reception is held in- side and hours are submitted. Voted unanimously. One-day liquor licenses: Two applications received from Merrimack College.. Feb. 28th for Parent's Weekend Dinner Dance..March 31st for Perkins Lounge Dinner Theater. Vote: 3, Yes..1, No. (Graham) on both applications.