Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-BOS-min69 -432 Selectmen's Meeting July 14, 2016 A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen was held on Thursday, July 14, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. in the Selectmen Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Pato; Mr. Valente, Town Manager; and Ms. Burke, Temporary Clerk, were present. Selectmen Concerns and Liaison Reports Mr. Cohen, as Trustee of Cary Memorial Library, is concerned about the decision of the Historic Districts Commission to require that the Town replace the very bad sidewalk in the rear parking lot with brick. The sidewalk is falling apart and was going to be replaced with concrete. Clarke Street is concrete on both sides of the street. There has never been brick sidewalks in the area. It is a safety issue and he understands the HDC is not responsible for finances and safety. Can the Town Manager look into this? How we can take care of this? Town Manager Report Mr. Valente spoke on the Library sidewalk issue. He indicated he asked the Town Engineer for safety reasons to look into a temporary asphalt sidewalk for $60,000 to $80,000 until we can get approval from the Historic Districts Commission for a permanent sidewalk. Secondly, he asked for an estimate for what a brick sidewalk would cost. It has not been bid but the estimate is another third. We have budgeted $149,000 whereas it is $195,000 to $200,000 to put in brick. Minuteman School Building Project — Special Election Ms. Rice, Town Clerk, recommended a special election be held in Lexington on Tuesday, September 20 from 12 Noon to 8:00 p.m. at the Lexington Community Center, 39 Marrett Road. She feels we are well positioned to have a successful election. Absentee ballots will be available. Mr. Pato hopes for a strong turnout as Lexington has been supportive for a new school and capital costs to refurbish the old building will cost more. He pointed out that communities that do not belong to the district do not share in the capital costs to refurbish. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4 — 0 to endorse the Town Clerk's recommendation that the Lexington Community Center serve as the only polling location for the Minuteman School Building Project Special Election on Tuesday, September 20 from 12 Noon to 8:00 p.m. Receive Minuteman Statue Restoration Report Mr. Pinsonneault, Director of Public Works, presented a slide show overview of the Daedalus, Inc. report on preserving, repairing and restoring the Minuteman Statue. The Town had public meetings and took a step back in order to get an analysis. 69 -433 Selectmen's Meeting — July 14, 2016 Treatment options include two parts: Part One: 1. Cleaning particulate matter and bird guano. 2. Removal of old and degraded coating. 3. Repair of open seams and cracks. 4. Inspection and repair of the connection between the capstone and bronze. The conservators report indicated that these need to be done regardless of what patina we decide. Part Two: Surface Coloration: Option 1 would make green color even and cover the disfiguring areas of black weathering using paint. Option 2 would apply a brown patina using traditional patina techniques. The color could range from light, allowing greens to show through, to deep to appear uniformly brown. Option 3 would not modify the color in any way. Options 1 and 2 would involve testing for review and approval by a curator. All options would be followed by an application of Incralac and wax. Mr. Kelley wants to make sure whatever process they use is tested before the statue is waxed. Mr. Pinsonneault mentioned the time line: If a decision is reached by the Board on July 25, the work which takes about a week could be done mid to late August. Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7, spoke about a mid- November meeting where Dr. Michael Evans had a suggestion. There was nothing in the packet with his input. He strongly suggested we obtain his professional input and include his recommendations. Mr. Adler, Precinct 1, said given the importance of the statue to the entire country, could we get a grant from the National Parks Service to pick up portion of the renovation cost? Ms. Barry wants to see maintenance in the budget every year. It will be on the agenda July 25 and the Board will take more public comment and anticipate taking a vote. Update on Munroe Tavern Expansion Project — Preservation Restriction Mr. Valente stated the Town holds a Preservation Restriction on Munroe Tavern and although the Tavern is owned by the Lexington Historical Society, the Town must approve any alterations to this building which includes the proposed archives addition. He retained the services of an architect /preservation consultant, Ms. Wendy Frontiero, to review the proposed project and provide an opinion as to whether the proposed project complies with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. The draft consultant's report indicates the proposed addition does comply with the Secretary's standards but she is recommending four minor changes. He asked for comments from the Historical Commission and received back comments from a member who believes the 69 -434 Selectmen's Meeting — July 14, 2016 consultant correctly reviewed the project in regards to the rehabilitation standards. While they are not supporting the project, they believe it does comply with the criteria we have to follow. Ms. Barry reminded that there is no action to be taken by the Board. Mr. Cohen questioned whether the report had been shared with the Historical Society. Mr. Valente responded yes. Mr. Cohen felt it was a good report and questioned whether Mr. Valente received any feedback on the four suggestions from the Society. Mr. Valente indicated he intended to issue a letter saying the project complies with the Standards and as part of it condition it on these four recommendations and give the Historical Society time to respond to the report and the four conditions. Mr. Valente responded affirmatively to a question from Mr. Pato who wanted to verify that this was the extent of the Town's oversight of the restriction. Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7 — There is nothing in the report that specifically provides the language of the restriction and it should be included in the final report. Ms. McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, concern is that it doesn't address the notion of not altering the building in any way. Wondered if Mr. Valente asked for commentary in the report on this. Mr. Valente indicated he provided the entire preservation restriction to the consultant. Ms. McKenna concerned about the language of the CPA funding. Has that been addressed? Carcia Property Discussion - Adjacent to 227 Grove Street Ms. Barry indicated they were to be joined by members of the Conservation Coinrission. Mr. Hamilton called his commission to order. Mr. Valente indicated he received a call from a representative, Mr. Bolling, from the Trust for Public Land who had been contacted by residents in the area about the Carcia property, which is currently under purchase and sale agreement between a developer and the property owner. He wanted to know if the Town was interested in purchasing the property. Mr. Valente told him the matter had not come before the Board of Selectmen and we had to be cautious in having any discussion because this project is before two of our committees under a regulatory basis, our Conservation Commission and Planning Board, and we had to be sure we were not interfering with a private contract by trying to undermine that contract. He went on to say that Mr. Bolling spoke with the developer's attorney and he was amenable to a discussion with the Town. Mr. Valente contacted the attorney, John Farrington, and confirmed that the owner was open to a discussion with the Town. The lawyer would be recommending three things: First, that the Town would cover the purchase price, secondly, that the Town would cover the developer's cost 69 -435 Selectmen's Meeting — July 14, 2016 so far, and thirdly, that the Town provide some consideration to the lost profit by their not going forward with the development. Ms. Barry questioned whether this property was on the Conservation Commission's list of properties to pursue. Mr. Hamilton said the Commission has a long history of interest in this land. Past discussions with the landowner have not been productive and he gave some detail about those The CC is more interested since the Town acquired the Wright Farm, the increased passive recreation activity in the Burlington land - locked forest, and the Bedford Old Reservoir large conservation area kitty -corner to the Wright Farm with an inactive reservoir in the middle. Mr. Kelley feels we are in a reasonable position to have a conversation with the property owner. Need to understand the financial costs. Mr. Hamilton indicated that he thinks we are limited to purchase no more than the appraised value. Mr. Pato indicated we are limited to use CPA funds to use the appraised value. Look into whether it is feasible to consider CPA funds because of previous commitments. Mr. Cohen feels we should get an appraisal and compare with existing purchase and sale agreement. He does not understand the tuning. CPA projects like this usually come into our possession by November 1 and, if on the warrant, come up at the Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Hamilton mentioned if we find price is too high, we might be able to split off the lot in the front and the Town purchase the rest of it in the rear. Ms. Barry summarized by stating there is interest to potentially acquire this property but we do not know the cost. Do we want to move to get an appraisal of the property? Mr. Kelley spoke in favor of pursuing an appraisal. Have a conversation with the developer's attorney. Find out what the numbers are. Mr. Wolk, Conservation Commission and chairman of the Land Acquisition Subcommittee, concerned that Board and Town Meeting should be thinking over the next year of the Balanced Housing Proposal. Appraisal is based on the development costs and the cost of the parcel by right. Some Balanced Housing Proposals resulted in fewer units, but when we have to go by an appraisal by right, a developer can pay much more than the Town can by statue. This is a dichotomy. Should the law be modified, changed or should we modify our appraisal procedures? Mr. Pato concerned about the likely cost. Is it feasible? If the target price is well beyond what we are able to do. Acutely aware of pressures on our budgets. We are limited in what we can do to prevent development in a particular location. Mr. Cohen agrees we should not go out and get an appraisal yet. We could have a discussion with Mr. Farrington and find out what his client would agree to if a compromise could be reached. Ms. Barry questions whether Mr. Valente could get more information from Mr. Farrington about the order of magnitude of the cost and then come back when we have a full Board. 69-436 Selectmen's Meeting — July 14, 2016 Mr. Valente indicated we could avail the resources of the Trustees of Public Lands. Could help us with the appraisal and help with negotiating a purchase price. If we have a tuning issue, they could even help with purchasing it themselves with an option back to the Town. The Board can take up again on July 25 or August 15. Mr. Valente will get back to the Board about which date. Comment Period: Bill Rhodes, 4 McKeever Dr., Opposes the development. Compromise could allow development of the front part of the property only. Christopher Locher, 242 Grove St., organized "SaveLexington.com" wants to see preserved as conservation land. Presented petition signed by 1,650 residents against development. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed St. Thanked Cascia family for maintaining this open land. Wants Town to use all resources to keep land for the public and the future. She made a comment that the entire property was not assessed by the Town. Mr. Pato asked to get a clarification of the assessed value of the property for the next meeting. Marcel Gaudreau, 151 Grove St., Said he is an outdoorsran who appreciates conservation land. He supports some houses in the front but not the present proposed development. Consent Agenda Approve Use of Battle Green — Promotion Ceremony Joseph Mahler, US Air force, had requested permission to do a promotion ceremony on the Battle Green. He will conduct the ceremony on Friday, July 22, 2016 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Town Departments (Police, Fire and DPW) do not have an issue with this request. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4 -0 to approve the consent agenda. Executive Session Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4 -0 by roll call to go into executive session at 5:06 p.m. for an update on the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, 20 Pelham Road, and to discuss the physical condition of the Executive Clerk, Board of Selectmen's Office. Further, the Chairman declared that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4 -0 to adjourn at p.m. A true record; Attest: Pauline D. Burke Temporary Clerk 69 -437 Selectmen's Meeting July 25, 2016 A regular meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. in the Selectmen Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman Barry, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Ciccolo, Mr. Kelley and Mr. Pato were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 by roll call to go into Executive Session under the provisions of Exemption 6 to discuss the matter of the "Carcia Property Adjacent to 227 Grove St." and, upon completion of that discussion, to re- convene in Open Session. Open Session re- commenced at approximately 7:13 pm. Town Manager's Report Mr. Valente projected a photograph of historic brass /steel weights and measures, housed in an original wooden cabinet and on display on the second floor of the Public Services building. The restoration and relocation of the artifacts was overseen by Donna Hooper, recently retired Chief Information Officer. Mr. Valente announced the appointment of two new Town employees: • Tom Case, replacing Ms. Hooper in the position of Chief Information Officer, will begin in August. Mr. Case has an extensive background in executive -level IT management. He has worked previously in the private sector, never for a municipality. Mr. Case accepted the CIO job, telling Mr. Valente the Town's challenges appear more interesting than those he encounters in the Bio /Pharina world. • Derek Sencabaugh has been appointed to the job of Assistant Fire Chief for Training. He has 20 years of experience with the Lexington Fire Department, serving the last 4 '/z years as Captain. Mr. Sencabaugh was at a fire scene during Mr. Valente's announcement but was later able to join the meeting to be introduced and welcomed. Verizon Wireless Pole Attachment Small Cell Communication Equipment — Public Hearing Chairman Barry opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. and introduced Attorney Daniel D. Klasnick representing Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. Also commenting on this matter for the Town were Ken Pogran (Chair) and Ben Moroze from the Communication Advisory Committee. Verizon Wireless proposes to install on existing utility poles, 10 "small cell" communication devices to meet increase WiFi demand. A petition including specific pole locations and plans has 69 -438 Selectmen Meeting – July 25, 2016 been submitted to the Town. Mr. Klasnick stated he had worked closely with the Inspectional Services Dept. and Building Commissioner Fred Leonardo, who in turn received input from Special Town Counsel (Katherine D. Lauglunan of Kopelman and Paige) about the permitting approach. A letter from Special Town Counsel was included in the supporting material. Mr. Klasnick also provided the Communication Advisory Committee (CAC) with radio frequency information in the form of an affidavit including maps, an RF report certifying FCC compliance, and a suirnnary of what Verizon wants to accomplish with these installations. Mr. Klasnick emphasized that, while Verizon Wireless has a license which allows access to the utility infrastructure, it does not own the poles. In this case, the owner of the poles is Eversource who has evaluated Verizon's request and chosen —based on Eversource's criteria — particular poles to be used for Verizon's purposes. Ideally, Eversource prefers that small cell canisters be added to the top of the poles which increases the overall height. In some cases, however, side installation is deemed preferable. A single change to the petition refers to the identification number of the pole at 20 Pelham Road. Mr. Klasnick reported that he personally inspected the site and he concurs that the pole must be replaced before the installation. He provided a revised set of plans to the Board with this notation added. Ken Pogran and Ben Moroze from the CAC confirmed that the committee had met with Mr. Klasnick and reviewed the submitted material. Subsequently, the CAC advocates support for Verizon's petition with regard to the six (of ten) poles located within the Town's right -of -way. Mr. Pogran said CAC's support is based on an overall desire to improve WiFi capacity that suffers as residents add devices and as reliance on connectivity grows. He added that, as more people cut the landline cord, the dependability imperative increases. CAC acknowledged the Town's zoning bylaws make it hard for Verizon and the other utility providers to build additional communications macrosites. The new technology of these small cells is a way to address consumer need and postpone or eliminate the need for large facilities. Describing the dimensions of the proposed installations, Mr. Pogran said the small cell unit is comparable in mass to a transformer, something that is "already within the accepted utility pole - scape." Mr. Pogran acknowledged this Verizon request is likely to be a forerunner to future requests — not only from Verizon but from all the communication providers. He added it is important to note that small cells are radio transmitters and that radio waves have been suspected of causing health concerns. However, the CAC accepts the analysis that these particular devices are low- 69 -439 Selectmen Meeting – July 25, 2016 powered, the waves cover a limited area and —by comparison to larger installations— are preferable because they produce little more than the ambient radio frequency exposure. Further, the CAC accepts that small cells comply with safety standards. Mr. Pato was satisfied with the salient points of the presentation and CAC recommendations. Mr. Kelley asked about ownership of the poles and Mr. Klasnick clarified that Eversource and Verizon often jointly own them but that Verizon Wireless —a separate entity — negotiates for access primarily with Eversource. Mr. Kelley asked whether the small cells would address so- called "dead spots ". Mr. Klasnick responded that the installations were capacity solutions rather than coverage solutions, adding that they were being proposed for high demand areas. Mr. Cohen said he assumed the damaged pole on Pelham Road would be fixed instead of made into a "double pole ". He requested Attorney Klasnick encourage Verizon to address the rampant double pole problem and emphasized the illegality of allowing double poles to remain in place in disregard of State legislation. Piggybacking on Mr. Cohen's comment, Ms. Barry asked Mr. Klasnick to "work his magic with Verizon" on fixing the double pole on Woburn St. (first on the petition list). Ms. Ciccolo asked for confirmation that the small cell addition would not increase the height of the pole more than 12 inches. Mr. Klasnick said that the diameter of the devise is 12 inches but the height of the antennae —and the addition to the pole —is closer to 38 inches. Depending on the individual pole, the device might be added to the top —which is preferred —but alternatively might be installed on the side. Mr. Valente addressed the matter of how Verizon Wireless will be taxed. He stated that while he and Assistant Town Manager for Finance Rob Addelson have had ongoing issues with the parent company, they are confident that Verizon Wireless —an entity separate from Verizon —will accept the Town's Personal Property valuations. To explain the nature of the dispute with Verizon, Mr. Valente said the company's physical property is valued by the State's Department of Revenue, and Lexington accordingly bills Verizon based on that assessment. Verizon has disputed and legally challenged many of the valuations statewide. If abatement demands are judged by the Appellate Tax Board in Verizon's favor, the difference between assessed and actual tax payments presents for Lexington between $700,000 and $2.5 million in foregone revenue, with several cases going back over a number of years. Mr. Valente added that the State will defend its personal property valuations in court, and because of the significant exposure, Lexington has decided to collaborate with several other nearby communities that are similarly affected. David Kanter, 48 Fifer Lane, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, expressed disappointment about the lack of emergency battery back -up for these transmitters in the event of power outages. Glenn Lucas, 7 Allen St., lives near one of the proposed pole locations (3 Allen St.). He asked whether there will now be a flood of other similar requests from other providers. Mr. Pogran 69 -440 Selectmen Meeting — July 25, 2016 replied that not every provider has adopted the technology. Mr. Lucas responded that, if they do, the visual effect of a proliferation of small cell appliances atop multiple poles will not be advantageous to property values or to the appearance of the town. The pole in question, he added, is a mini -pole that looks temporary but has nonetheless been in place for at least 19 years. He suggested a better location would be a pole adjacent to the junk yard access road on Waltham St. which is not within sight of any residence. In response, Mr. Klasnick said that not all poles are viable for small cell installation and that Eversource judges the requests, then identifies appropriate poles that are not already overly - utilized. Mr. Lucas asked that Verizon consider side - mounting rather than top - mounting at this location. Ms. Barry asked whether Verizon would take abutter feedback into consideration. Mr. Klasnick said Verizon is always happy to work with the community but in this case the optimum installation, from Verizon's perspective, is on top of the pole. The residents of 3 Allen St. spoke against using the pole adjacent to their property, citing safety concerns and the negative impacts to the appearance and appeal of the town and to home values. They also asked that Verizon consider moving .the proposed installation to the pole near the junkyard on Waltham St and to plan future installations on poles further away from residences. Mr. Klasnick reiterated that the safety requirements have been met and offered a copy of the safety report to the residents, which they accepted. D.J. Modoono of 336 Marrett Road asked about noise and decibel levels of the small cell's radio frequency. Mr. Klasnick replied that, to his knowledge, there was no more noise beyond than that of the present electrical transmission. Galina Raynus of 15 Pelham Road expressed concern about the pole adjacent to 20 Pelham, directly across the street from her home, saying a top- mounted installation would be unsightly and unsafe and that it would negatively affect her property value. She asked that other options be considered. Mr. Klasnick said that the Pelham Road installation is planned to be side - mounted. Mr. Pogran reiterated that the technology presents no changes to the RF environment. Mr. Klasnick corrected the identifying code for the pole listed first on the petition (Woburn St.) The revision was duly noted. Selectman Pato assured residents that the Board had heeded the safety concerns presented but, after reviewing the evidence, become satisfied there was no increase to the hazard level. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve the request from Cellco Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless, to attach, maintain, and operate small cell communications equipment on existing utility poles at six (6) locations within the Town right of way as specified in the petition. 69 -441 Selectmen Meeting – July 25, 2016 Appointment of Election Officers Ms. Barry and Mr. Cohen recused themselves from the discussion and vote due to familial connection to two applicants. Ms. Ciccolo assumed the Chair and, before the vote, commended the Town Clerk's outreach efforts that resulted in a robust list of appointees. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen approved the list of Election Officers as presented, 3 -0 -2. Sign Warrant for 2016 State Primary Ms. Barry noted that the State set the primary date for Thursday, September 8, to avoid holding an election on the Tuesday after Labor Day. Six items of note will be on the ballot: Representative in Congress for the Fifth District; Councilor for the Third District; Senator in the General Court (precincts 1,2,4 -7); Senator in the General Court (precincts 3,8,9); Representative in General Court for the Fifteenth Middlesex District; Sheriff for Middlesex County. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to sign the September 8, 2016, State Primary Warrant. Approve Transfer from FY16 Salary Adjustment Account -- Library Department Mr. Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, presented the details of this request. At the annual assessment of Town department budgets done in June, it was found this year that two departments' salary expenses (Town Manager and Police) would require adjustment as a result of collective bargaining outcomes. Subsequent to those findings and approval votes, the Finance Office identified a third adjustment necessary for the FY16 Library salary budget in the amount of $16,000, also due to contract negotiations. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve the transfer of $16,000 from the FY16 Salary Adjustment Account to the FY16 Library Department. Endorse and Sign Letter for Human Rights Committee The Chair recognized Sean Osbourne, Chairman of the Human Rights Cominittee(HRC), who spoke about two recent hate graffiti events —one racial, one anti - Semitic. Mr. Osbourne asked the Selectmen to take steps to publically affirm the Town's position on such acts as contrary to Lexington's core beliefs. To that end, Chairman Barry read into the record a letter co- written with Mr. Osbourne that was addressed to Members of the Lexington Community. In it, these acts are denounced and the 69 -442 Selectmen Meeting - July 25, 2016 Town's solidarity with the victims is affirmed. The letter further asks community assistance to plan and implement responses to such incidents that are antithetical to the core values of Lexington. Ms. Barry and Mr. Osbourne also commended the quick response of the Harrington School staff, who reported the incidents, and the Lexington Police, who removed the graffiti and continue to investigate the matter. Following the reading of the letter, Selectman Pato underscored the importance of standing firmly by the Town's values and at the same time openly addressing such incidents. Mr. Cohen commended the HRC and Mr. Osbourne for the work they do. Mr. Kelley asked if the letter could be posted at the Library and the Community Center, as well as on the HRC's webpage and in the two local papers as planned. Ms. Ciccolo echoed the sentiments of her colleagues, agreeing with the importance of a firm and unified response. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 for the Chair to sign the letter. Mr. Osbourne attached his signature as well. LexFarm Annual Update Ms. Barry recognized presenters, residents Sue Schiffer, Vice President of LexFarm board of directors, and Carolyn Goldstein, resident and volunteer. The LexFarm mission was refined and refocused in 2015 and the initiative is now in its 3rd growing season. In 2015, a farm manager was hired and in 2016 an assistant was added. In conjunction with Piccadilly Farm, the 20 -week CSA program has grown to 200 shares and a 10- week share option has now been added, bringing the total number of shares to 300. In 2015, 5,371 pounds of produce were donated. Education and on -farm events were continued and sustainable farming practices were improved. Major improvements to the property include: Water and sewer connections completed (courtesy of the Town); oil tanks, lines, and piping to the greenhouses replaced ($5,200); parking lot striped and handicap parking marked with signage ($300); hoop house reskinned and weatherized ($5,000); well pump replaced ($3,000). Planned in the future: Bury power line from farmstand to greenhouse ($1,500); paint farmstand ($800); replace walk -in compressor and evaporation unit ($5,200); walk -in insulation ($3,150); design and installation of an ADA compliant bathroom for staff, volunteers and patrons ($15,000- $20,000). LexFarm's strategic plan includes implementation of recommendations (from Harvard Business School Social Enterprise Fellows) to build staff capacity as well as increase donations and volunteer support. Ms. Schiffer thanked the Community Endowment of Lexington for its grant 69 -443 Selectmen Meeting – July 25, 2016 that was used to hire a consultant to advise on board development strategies and to craft a business plan that will strengthen organizational vitality. Ms. Schiffer closed the presentation with enumerating the ways residents can support LexFarm: shop at the farm, buy a full or half share, become a member, attend events, volunteer. Review and Approval Busa Property (52 Lowell St) Conservation Restriction The Chair recognized Charles Lamb, Chair of the Community Farming Committee who presented revisions in response to public comments regarding the draft of the Conservation Restriction for the Town -owned farm property located at 52 Lowell Street. Revision #1 provides unproved language for what would happen in the event the farm no longer functions in an agricultural capacity and the land reverts to recreational use. Mr. Lamb attributed the suggested revisions to John Bartenstein, Sanderson Road. Revision #2 speaks to an abutter's comments about allowable building within the property. Mr. Lamb said Mr. Valente advised that current zoning set -back regulations of 15 feet would be applicable. The Community Farming Committee, in conjunction with LexFarm, validated /approved the above revisions as well as a change from "grantee" to "grantor" in the last sentence of the document. Mr. Pato posed a question pertaining to the 15 foot setback, asking— if abutting properties were acquired— whether the same setback would apply, noting that the CR is an agreement in perpetuity. Mr. Valente replied that, if adjoining properties were added to the current parcel and treated as one, the same restrictions would apply but it would ultimately depend on how the melding of the properties was handled. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve with revisions the draft of the Conservation Restriction for the Town property at 52 Lowell Street and to forward said draft to the planned holder of the CR and to the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs for review and comment. Update on Parking Management Program The Chair recognized Melissa Tintacolis, Economic Development Officer; Claire Goodwin, Management Fellow; Chief Mark Corr, Lexington Police Department; David Kucharsky, Assistant Planning Director; Megan Zammuto, Economic Development Coordinator. 69 -444 Selectmen Meeting – July 25, 2016 Ms. Tintacolis presented updates about new parking management strategies, approved by the Board of Selectmen in December of 2015, which followed an overhaul of the Town center parking plan (approved in June 2014.) The deployed strategies address both long- and short-term needs, including: an employee sticker program at reduced hourly rates; 91 parking spaces converted from short-term to long -term occupancy; 119 Smart Tech parking meters installed along Massachusetts Ave. Ms. Tintacolis said the goal for peak hours is 10% availability in the lots and 15% availability on the street. To measure the success of these changes, the Parking Management group focused on five metrics: a physical parking count to understand occupancy peaks; an employee sticker program; ground -level observations from Police; analysis of Smart Tech meter data; and a survey of businesses. Finding highlights: Spots converted to long -term use have been well - utilized. Businesses report a slight -to- significant improvement, especially for their employees in parking satisfaction. Police report more positivity in the form of better compliance, interactions with the public, and better administrative capability. One out of four people use credit cards to pay for parking at the meters which improves compliance. Peak hours are weekdays from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Still to be done: complete meter upgrade; and continued dialog with businesses. Claire Goodwin then presented the results of a parking survey that was conducted in conjunction with Police Department staff and the Parking Management group. Four separate full -day parking counts were taken at various tunes of the day /week and a full week of midday /peak counts was done as well. Three lots were analyzed— Depot, Edison Way, and Waltham St —as well as metered spaces along Mass Ave. The Waltham St. Lot was closest to capacity during peak (3% availability); the other two lots had slightly more availability (6 -7 %). Including the on- street option, overall parking at peak averaged 9% availability with the least availability at the Waltham St. Lot (3 %) and the greatest on Mass. Ave. between Winthrop Road and Grant Street (15%). Ms. Goodwin also presented findings on the sticker program for businesses. As of July 21, 466 Pay -As- You -Go stickers and 232 Pre -paid stickers had been sold. The types of businesses that participate most in the program are hair salons, doctors' offices, and restaurants. There is no longer a waiting list for new businesses' employees to receive parking permits. Depot Lot users are predominantly non - sticker holders (44 %); 19 % are Prepaid and 37 % are PAYG. Prepaid sticker holders are asked to park in specific lots that were previously underutilized. A portion of the Town Hall Lot was converted to all -day parking. The survey 69 -445 Selectmen Meeting — July 25, 2016 reveals that the sticker program has freed up spaces for customer parking that had previously been occupied by employee vehicles. Police Department feedback on the sticker program has been positive although it was noted that some businesses have been slow to change parking behaviors. As for the new meter program, about a quarter of 119 Smart Meter space users are paying with credit cards and staying 1 '/ to 1 1/2 hours per visit. Again, Police feedback on the meters has been positive. They note the meters are easier to administer and the data they record /send is useful. Patrons also like the 15 minute grace period the Smart Meters provide. DPW has lowered the height of 51 meter poles and will adjust the remainder. All poles are expected to be upgraded by the end of September 2016. Megan Zammuto, Economic Development Coordinator, ran a survey of local businesses and gathered results from 39 of a 185 targeted respondents. The survey asked for feedback on how the new program, implemented March 1, 2016, has affected employee and customer parking satisfaction. 53% of respondents say employee parking has improved, 20% say it's gotten worse and 27% say it's unchanged. For customers, the survey showed a 38% improvement with 21% saying it's worse and 41% saying it's unchanged. Written comments were generally positive. David Kucharsky, Assistant Planning Director, then gave an update on the changes made to Massachusetts Ave. and Slocum Road last summer following a March 9, 2015, decision by the Board of Selectmen to create 18 parking spaces on the north side of Mass. Ave. near Rowland Avenue. An assessment of vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist behavior included: radar feedback on westbound volume and speed; turning vehicle counts at the intersection; and parking utilization along Mass. Ave. during peak hours. The analysis showed that the creation of the parking spaces has produced the intended result of slowing of traffic speeds. An additional positive and intended result is that fewer vehicles park on Slocum Road. Ms. Ciccolo praised the team and said the results of the parking initiatives are precisely what the Board had hoped. She also reported she's personally found it easier to frequent downtown businesses. Mr. Pato expressed praise for the team, and gratitude for the results, acknowledging the tremendous amount of work involved. Mr. Kelley asked what still needed to be unproved. Ms. Tintacolis replied that business employee compliance could be better, adding there is a need to identify additional locations for long term parking. Also, parking on Tuesdays for the Farmers' Market can be scarce since the nearby lot is normally used for no- sticker - required all - day parking. The team is working with the Market to identify alternative parking for patrons. 69 -446 Selectmen Meeting — July 25, 2016 Elaine Ashton, 32 Cliffe Ave., asked that improvements be made to the hard -to- understand instruction graphics on the meters. Update on Payment -in — Lieu- Parking Policy (PILOP1 Ms. Tintacolis was again recognized by the chair to report how the Payment -in- Lieu -of- Parking policy is being streamlined /simplified. The purpose of the policy is to provide property owners that wish to make building changes in the Center Business District a mitigation option to meet parking requirements. Ms. Tintacolis requested input from the Board of Selectmen on the PILOP draft which will then be reviewed by Planning, the Center Committee, center property owners and subject to public comments that will be accepted until September 12, 2016. After that date, the draft will return for a vote by the Board of Selectmen. Businesses that cannot meet their parking requirements as zoning bylaws mandate can apply for a special permit either from the ZBA or from Planning but Ms. Tintacolis said there is currently minimal consideration to the aggregate impact of these decisions over time. The proposed policy provides a more deliberate way to calculate mitigation because it sets a per space price alternative of $8,000, due at the issuance of an occupancy permit. The amount could be adjusted over time for inflation and conditional, based on the type of business seeking the special permit. A fmal decision on dollar amount would be made by the Assistant Town Manager of Development on a case -by -case basis and in the form of a recommendation/condition of the special permit. The funds would be set aside in an account to be used to help manage parking, including the eventuality of creating additional parking locations. The PILOP initiative is intended to fit the overall goal of fostering investment and redevelopment in the center of town but also to reflect more accurately the true cost of parking in the form of a meaningful contribution. The PILOP proposes that a square footage net increase of 35% would trigger a full mitigation payment as would new construction on vacant lots or demolition for construction. Credit toward mitigation payment is eligible under several conditions: change of use from a higher number of parking places to a lower number; internal reconfiguration that does not add square footage but modifies how interior space is used; if off -site parking is available within a '/ mile radius; or the increase in floor space is equal to or less than 35 %. In response to a question posed by Mr. Kelley, Ms. Tintacolis said the cost was calculated using a mitigation formula that identified a range of $8,000- $16,000 per space. 69 -447 Selectmen Meeting — July 25, 2016 David Kanter, 48 Fifer Lane, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, voiced skepticism about $8,000 being equivalent to the cost of creating new parking spaces. He prefers a re- analysis of the zoning requirements to detennine whether the numbers continue to make sense in today's environment. Aaron Henry, Town Planner, replied that he could not speak to the adequacy of the dollar amount but he assured that an analysis of these zoning rules is underway. He called the PILOP a bridge to zoning improvements. Mr. Henry estimated a draft revision of the bylaws will be reviewed by Planning Board this fall. John Farrington, representing a number of downtown business owners, speculated that these PILOPs would be paid by the initial building tenant, not the building owner. He believes the desire of the Town to attract businesses other than banks, realtors or chains will be thwarted by the entry -level cost of tenancy. He suggested instead that the PILOP not focus on mitigation but on the type of tenant the Town wants to attract. Mr. Farrington then addressed full - mitigation projects that increase square footage by 35% or more. The 1775 building that currently houses Bertucci's intends to add two additional stories and will add parking beneath the stores. The project will include ten more spaces than strictly needed to meet zoning requirements (38 as opposed to 28), thus adding to overall parking inventory. Under the PILOP draft as written, and with a square foot increase of more than 35 %, the project would trigger a set -back to zero for parking spaces and the total number needed would have to be recreated. He asked for reconsideration on how the spaces for this project would be calculated. However, he commended the PILOP proposal in general. Jerry Michelson, Chair of the Lexington Center Committee, agreed with Mr. Farrington's comment about the "pass through" of mitigation costs to the business tenant. He asked that some means be found to make sure the payment is not something the tenant would assume. He added that the one -time mitigation payment has to be substantial enough to cover a long -term solution. Also, he pointed out that, at a certain unknown break - point, parking management alone will not be enough and parking creation will become necessary. Mr. Cohen agreed that the mitigation costs should not be passed on to the tenant. He said we have a zoning bylaw that requires parking spaces. If a new building is going to be built and there is no place for any parking, it should probably be turned down rather than find a way around zoning with a PILOP. Ms. Ciccolo wondered if the mitigation payment could come earlier in the process than at the time of occupancy license issuance, making it harder for the building owner to pass along the cost. She added, from a building perspective, it costs $17,000- $20,000 per space to build a parking garage, not inclusive of the cost of the land. 69 -448 Selectmen Meeting – July 25, 2016 Mr. Kelley asked some procedural questions, adding he had reservations about how a new building owner might use the PILOP as a way to overbuild a building that didn't include parking because he could take advantage of the mitigation option. Mr. Kelley is also concerned about the redevelopment calculation such as in the case of the 1775 building. It seems as if there's no opportunity for grandfathering. In most cases, this would shut down creative redevelopment in the Center. Mr. Kelley asked for reports from continuing discussions on the matter in advance of a final presentation. Seeking what she called a fine balance that encourages reinvestment and redevelopment, Ms. Tintacolis called the PILOP a meaningful subsidy that is not intended to cover the cost of creating new parking. Ms. Barry clarified the process going forward, and listed discussion participants: Planning, Town Manager, Center Committee, and center business owners. The PILOP draft will be posted on the website and public comment is welcome through September 12. The matter will come back before the Board in September or October. Minuteman Statue Restoration Dave Pinsonnault, Director of Public Works, addressed the Board, seeking direction on how to proceed with needed repairs and restoration of the Minuteman Statue. Ms. Barry noted that the Monuments and Memorials Committee (MMC) recommendations had been received that morning and she recognized the Chair of that group, Sam Doran. Mr. Doran summarized the Committee's findings: Daedelus Inc. of Watertown has made recommendations in two areas: 1) repairs need to be carried out in order to assure long -term preservation of the statue; and 2) surface treatment — either green or bronze— will determine the statue's appearance. The MMC agrees that the repairs should be carried out. The second recommendation about surface treatment carries a level of controversy since opinions differ. Currently, the oxidation and residue on the statue is what defines its appearance. Repairing and cleaning the statue will remove the residue, leaving a bare surface and an exposure of past repair work that will not be appealing. The Committee supports Daedalus' recommendation to keep the closest to current appearance by opting for one of several treatment options that would retain the green color. A particular green has not been identified — although a darker green is preferred by the members of the Committee. Once the Board of Selectmen agree to a way forward, the MMC intends to work with the contractor to achieve the desired hue. Mr. Kelley expressed concerns about the level of risk associated with any of the courses of action presented. The current weathering of the statue acts as a sort of protection and removing it 69 -449 Selectmen Meeting - July 25, 2016 might cause problems. Part of the recommendation calls for semi- annual waxing of the statue and he senses there is little support for that kind of high maintenance. Mr. Doran replied that waxing /sealant application is done semi - annually to the Minuteman statue in Concord. The MMC has confidence in Daedalus' credentials and noted the many monuments of importance the company has restored and maintained. Ms. Barry noted that resident Michael Evans, a consultant on the preservation of the Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Bell, also gave input on the restoration of the statue. An email from him is included in the material on the agenda item. Mr. Kanter, 48 Fifer Lane, asked the Board to consider reaching out to Mr. Evans for a more in depth analysis of the statue and options available before a decision is made. Mr. Kelley agreed with Mr. Kanter and further asked for resolution regarding the divergent approaches as recommended by Mr. Evans and by Daedulus. He said more information is needed before making a decision. Ms. Ciccolo asked whether Daedalus had been given the opportunity to review Mr. Evans' comments. Mr. Pinsonnault replied that it had and the feedback was there is a lot of common ground between the two. However, he noted that Daedalus has been able to closely inspect the statue and stands by its report saying it offers a comprehensive assessment /recommendation. Mr. Pato shares some of Mr. Kelley's reservations and would like to hear from Mr. Evans as well. He asked whether there is a time pressure involved. Mr. Pinsonnault replied that impacts on tourist visits and school trips were two pressures as well as the urgency to deal with the necessary repairs. Ms. Barry reminded her colleagues about several issues: a significant crack; an open seam that must be dealt with; "goop" on the statue's feet; and whether the statue is securely attached to the capstone. Mr. Cohen is open to having Mr. Evans address the Board but he also believes Daedalus has solid credentials and has made a credible recommendation. He cautioned that the project should not be delayed much longer. To Mr. Evan's charge that Daedalus was swayed to make a specific recommendation, Mr. Pinsonnault said the consultants were asked to make an assessment and offer a range of options and they fulfilled that request. The process, once determined, would take about two weeks to complete. 69 -450 Selectmen Meeting — July 25, 2016 Ms. Ciccolo found the recommendations and multiple options confusing but also felt the decision should not be delayed much longer. Questions about cost cannot be fully answered until the scope of work is determined, however, Mr. Pinsonnault quoted initial estimates at $9,000- $12,000. He emphasized that the repair and cleaning needed to be done in any case. A straw poll on preferred color yielded a majority for green over bronze with Mr. Kelley arguing for keeping the statue's appearance as close to what it is currently and to, in effect, leave well enough alone. Mr. Doran said his con nittee reviewed the Daedalus report and was thoroughly satisfied with the recommendations and the level of objectivity. He pointed out that one of the Monuments Committee members, Charlie Price, has been lobbying for the statue's repair since 1999. A final important point, he said, is that once the statue has been cleaned and repaired, waiting more than a week or two before applying the color is not advisable because grime will re- accumulate. Mr. Pinsonnault will set up a meeting with Daedalus and Mr. Evans and report the results of that discussion to the Board. Stonnwater Regulations The Chair recognized Mr. Pinsonnault, DPW Director; Dave Pavlik from Engineering; Denise Cameron of Woodard and Curran, Environmental Consultant. Before turning over the presentation to Mr. Pavlik and Ms. Cameron, Mr. Pinsonnault said a vote on this matter would not be requested until a Selectmen's meeting in August (later revised by Ms. Barry to September). However, he cautioned that the Town is not currently in compliance with the EPA regarding stormwater management and, therefore, time is a factor Implementation of a plan, once approved, is envisioned for January 1, 2017, with a public education and feedback period before that date. Mr. Pavlik then explained that the Town is required to submit a stormwater management plan to the EPA every year which describes how rainwater discharges will be prohibited from entering the sewer system. This is common sense because such a plan protects public health, is good for the environment, and reduces the risk of localized flooding. The Stormwater Bylaw was first adopted by the Town in 2008. Leading up to the bylaw's adoption were multiple community discussions with the development community, Planning, Conservation and others. The plan was submitted to Town Counsel for clarity. Woodard and Curran made sure the bylaw complied with the EPA's requirements. Ms. Cameron began her part of the presentation saying that the regulation is based on the current bylaw. There are two Town entities involved: the Board of Selectmen as the authority and the DPW as the day -to -day administrator, guided by the regulation's standards for when to apply the bylaw. The three standards are: any development that "disturbs" an acre or more of land; 69 -451 Selectmen Meeting — July 25, 2016 development in a vacant lot or significant teardown and rebuild; when a special permit is required under sub - division plan review. The cases where the bylaw does not apply are largely residential disturbances of less than an acre such as landscaping, gardens, or a back deck. Woodard and Curran is working with the Town to break down the thresholds further to make the permitting process scalable. Proposed is an above threshold category defined as an acre or anything greater and a below threshold category defined below an acre but meeting the applicability standard. Key requirements above threshold: Applicant must demonstrate they are meeting the 10 standards of the Massachusetts handbook on stormwater management; applicant must submit an erosion and sediment control plan; and an assurity guarantee submission must be filed with at least one Town regulating board. Further, inspections for compliance during construction must yield positive results. The applicant /permitee must also undergo a close -out process to receive a certificate of completion. After construction, a yearly, perpetual inspection and maintenance plan is required. Key requirements below threshold: The vast majority of projects in Lexington are likely to be under threshold. In these cases, the permit requires establishment of a sediment and erosion control plan. Some anticipated FAQs: • The application fee proposed is $300 or a penny per sq. ft. to a maximum of $1500; • Engineering also has the option to bring in a third party inspection entity and the initial fee for that would be $5,000 put into escrow for potential refund at the end of the project. • It will take 2l days to get a stormwater permit approval but the approval would be presumptive if no action to the contrary is initiated. This is inclusive of a seven day comment period specified in the bylaw. Mr. Kelley commented he has no problem with the goals of the revisions, although he sees the change as possibly onerous to the applicant with a smaller project. He also pointed out that a site plan review already requires an erosion control plan and he is concerned about redundancy. On another front, he is concerned that construction of addition projects might not be captured under the provisions. He suggested that, on smaller projects, a statement of responsibility be required to clarify accountability. Ms. Ciccolo asked if CAD will be required for the "as built" projects. Ms. Cameron confirmed this is the case. Asked if Lexington is behind in meeting the EPA's compliance deadline, Ms. Cameron replied the Town is in the middle of the pack. If it can be demonstrated that compliance is in the pipeline, the plan would be judged 50% complete. 69 -452 Selectmen Meeting – July 25, 2016 Victory Garden Way Street Acceptance —Order of Taking The Chair again recognized Mr.Pavlik, Engineering, who said there is nothing to add to the information in the packet on this matter. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve acceptance of Victory Garden Way, a subdivision completed to the Town specifications. Continued Discussion FY17 -18 Goal Setting Mr. Valente said that the final stages of this goal - setting exercise are to look at action items for each goal, most of which has been done. Once those are fully completed, the task of prioritizing remains. Mr. Valente said he is certain that there is more on the list than can be accomplished in two years. Finishing the action items will enable clear understanding of what can be achieved. Chairman Barry asked the Board to complete the action items as assigned so the way forward can be finalized at the August 15 meeting. Approve CPA Grant Agreement— Greeley Village Door and Porch Project Mr. Valente asked the Board to approve and sign the agreement between the Town and the Lexington Housing Authority using $263,250 in Community Preservation funds to replace failing rear doors and porches at Greeley Village. The funding will be supplemented with $87,750 from the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve the agreement. Approve CPA Grant Agreement— Lexington Arts and Crafts Society Lighting Project Mr. Valente asked the Board to approve and sign a grant agreement following 2016 Town Meeting approval of $24,280 to replace lighting in Parsons Gallery at the Lexington Arts and Crafts Society. The funding will be supplemented with $12,000 in private funding. Mr. Kelley said he would be voting against the measure as he is against public money being used for private organizations. Ms. Ciccolo worried about committing CPA funds before knowing the private fundraising effort has met with success. Mr. Valente said the agreement was not written in a manner that would allow CPA funds to be expended without the private funding in place but, if the Board prefers, an approval vote could be postponed until he finds out how the fundraising effort is going. Mr. Cohen said the money, being CPA money, is not just turned over to the group. He added that the Board has not expressed such caution for other CPA projects where expenses are shared. 69 -453 Selectmen Meeting – July 25, 2016 Mr. Pato said he is sensitive to Mr. Kelley's comments about granting the funds to a private organization and he would feel more confident if he knew how the private fundraising endeavor is going. We have an obligation to make those funds available now that Town Meeting has voted the funds, but we are stewards of that money to make sure how it's going to be applied. The vote was delayed until the August meeting to allow time to check with the Arts and Crafts Society. Support Bedford's Nomination to the Boston Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization Bedford has represented Lexington on the MAGIC board and asks to continue serving in this capacity. To do so requires that Bedford get approval from five of the represented towns. Ms. Ciccolo commented that Bedford has held this position for a long time and has done a good job. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to authorize the Chair to sign the 2016 MPO election nomination papers from the Town of Bedford. Selectmen Appointment —Town Celebrations Committee The Selectmen were asked to approve the nomination of Glen Bassett to the Town Celebrations Sub- Committee. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve Glen Bassett's appointment to the Town Celebrations Sub - Committee for a term to expire June 30, 2017. Approve Town Manager's Appointment to Council on Aging Mr. Valente asked the Board to approve the appointment of Julie -Ann Shapiro to the Council on Aging. Ms. Shapiro has been a member since 2013 and is current with her ethics training. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Town Manager's appointment of Julie -Ann Shapiro to the Council on Aging. Consent Agenda Adjustments to Water & Sewer Charges Upon motion duly made and seconded it was voted 5 -0 to approve the following adjustments to Water and Sewer charges as recommended by the WSAB: $17,452.88 Approve Comptrollers Annual Review Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve the Town Comptroller's Annual Review as drafted by the Town Manager. 69 -454 Selectmen Meeting - July 25, 2016 Approve Calendar -FY17 Street Acceptance Schedule Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve the FY2017 Street Acceptance Schedule. Approve One -Day Liquor License - Lexington Historical Society Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve a one -day liquor license for the Lexington Historical Society to serve wine at their Fall Fundraiser to be held on Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 17 Solomon Pierce Road, Lexington tom 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Approve Minutes and Executive Session Minutes Mr. Pato submitted five changes to the minutes pending approval. Four of them are spelling /grammatical in nature. The only substantive change appears on page 69 -256 in the penultimate paragraph and involves a clarification to the correction of a misstatement about the number of parking spaces. Mr. Pato asks that the minutes be annotated in this manner to avoid confusion: "Note: Later in the meeting, the number of parking spots to be removed was corrected. The number is three." Mr. Pato's revisions were acceptable to the Board. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve the minutes of January 4, 2016, January 11, 2016, January 12, 2016, 2016 Public Meeting on Center Streetscapes Project, January 14, 2016, January 19, 2016, 2016 Public Meeting on East Mass Ave project, and January 25, 2016. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of executive sessions held January 4, 2016 (both sessions), January 11, 2016, January 14, 2016, and January 25, 2016 were approved by a vote of 5 -0 but not released. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to approve the minutes of May 2, 2016, May 9, 2016, May 17, 2016, 2016 Natural Gas Leaks Hearing and May 23, 2016. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of executive sessions held May 2, 2016, May 5, 2016 (both sessions), May 17, 2016 and May 31, 2016 were approved by a vote of 5 -0 but not released. The Board expressed tremendous thanks to Ms. Chabot and Ms. Burke for diligently working to clear up the backlog of minutes. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:28 p.m. A true record; Attest: Kim Siebert Recording Secretary