Issue 17 May 2025
The Town’s Give and Take Day will be held on June 22.
Gather your unwanted items to give and come to the Town Green that day to see some treasures to take.
Conservation Commission 4/8
This meeting continued the saga of 10 Fire Road 54.
Public Hearings
Continued Notice of Intent – 10 Fire Road 54
Bill Hannigan, Hannigan Engineering, representing the applicant, presented updates on the 25-ft buffer zone and the vernal pool jurisdictional area. He showed a PowerPoint presentation with aerial images and site plans. There were aerial photos from 2008 which is the cutoff point in the bylaw for grandfathered developed areas, and aerial photos for the years after. Other photos were included to show the uses of the areas.
The plans were updated to stay out of the 25-ft buffer zone, with the structure’s footprint reduced.
The relocation of the drive and mitigation plans for its movement was a primary focus of discussion.
Commissioner Jim Lavallee requested a walk through erosion controls one more time.
Commissioner Dennis Hubbard appreciated the changes to the footprint and the fencing and the additional planting.
Chair Tom Seidenberg appreciated the footprint reduction and the changes made.
Hannigan went through the erosion controls in detail.
The septic system was also reviewed in detail.
Jeff Roelofs, attorney for John Bowen, an abutter, doesn’t think the aerial photos add much to the discussion and the “disturbed” and “developed” are not equivalent words. He also said having a vehicle on a place of land does not make that area a driveway. He reiterated the concerns about the impact on the pond and vernal pool. He stated the footprint of the house is still three times as big as the current structure. He recited bylaw language about minimizing impacts on the environment. He showed a slide with an overlay of the proposed over the current to emphasize the changes and the impact.
Hannigan talked about the vehicle traffic and the driveway definition. He emphasized that they are committed to returning the site to as natural as possible.
Patrick Garner, environmental scientist for an abutter, John Bowen, said the buffer zone and beyond is a resource area for the vernal pool species. He would like a detailed planting plan and would like no intrusion into the 100-ft buffer zone. He would like an alternative analysis.
Chair Seidenberg asked for items that the abutter’s representatives asked for as well with a material stockpile plan, and construction sequence timeline.
Hannigan responded that most of the iterations that have been provided are the alternative analysis and that until the plan is settled, the other items cannot only be guessed. If this plan is going to be the plan the Commission is comfortable with, then those items can be completed.
Chair Seidenberg asked if the structure footprint is now acceptable to the Commissioners. Hannigan said if it is then he is willing to go forward but Chair Seidenberg said this is not a final determination on the project.
Hannigan wants to close the hearing and make the planting plan and the construction sequence a matter of the Order of the Conditions.
Chair Seidenberg disagreed about closing the hearing.
Commission Lavallee agreed with the chair and also would like to see the roof runoff plan.
Garner asked if the bylaw 215 required an alternative analysis, and though the answer was not specifically, he asked for this to be pursued.
Hannigan came back on to maintain that various plans has been provided to show any alternatives.
Commissioner Lavallee asked if the site was being improved environmentally or worsened. Hannigan said in many aspects it was improved, and cited the roof runoff control, the driveway improvements, and the septic system is definitely being improved. The trench on the side of the new driveway will provide sediment control.
Commissioner Lavalle commented that as part of the record an analysis is necessary, a compare and contrast analysis. Chair Seidenberg clarified, “The Bylaw 215-6.i contains the presumption of significance for the buffer zone. if the commission is going to find it's not significant, we need some kind of evidence, some kind of evaluation, to make that determination.”
A motion was made, and the hearing was continued to April 22.
Continued Notice of Intent – 121 Fire Road 11
Larry Greene, McCarty Engineering, shared plans of removing a wood deck and replace with patio and make other improvements on the back of the house.
The hearing was closed, and an Order of Conditions was approved to be issued with standard conditions.
Continued Notice of Intent – Lot 3 Neck Road (a portion of Assessor’s Map 30, Parcel 128), Construction of a single-family home.
This hearing was continued since peer report was not completed; some flagging was missing.
Continued Request for Determination of Applicability – Removal of dead trees within the Seven Bridge Road right-of-way
Applicant requested continuance until May 13, 2025.
Discussion
2038 Lunenburg Rd.
Site inspection report dated 7/15/2024 in response the Enforcement Order.
Chair Seidenberg recounted that the report had been into the Conservation Agent for almost a year. Cara Sanford has asked the Commission for an update. He did not know why it had not been presented to the Commission. He also explained there are two Enforcement Orders, one from 2021 and one from 2024.
Attorney Peter Campobasso commented that the applicant had thought the Orders were essentially closed. The pipe that was discharging is still capped and the haybales are still in place.
The Commission agreed that a site visit is necessary before lifting the latest 2024 Enforcement Order.
Commissioner Hubbard brought up the road runoff which is affecting the adjacent brook. Chair Seidenberg and Hubbard agreed the runoff is probably from the road. Chair Seidenberg suggested that the Department of Public Works needs to be involved.
In a discussion between Atty Campobasso and Chair Seidenberg it was agreed that the Notice of Intent which was filed in response to the Enforcement Order 2021 should be withdrawn, and the reports are available showing the work done in response. The Enforcement Order from 2021 was lifted.
General discussion regarding updating the Wetlands Protection Bylaw
No updates; ongoing review and comments were requested from the Commissioners.
General discussion regarding the oversight of open space parcel
Commissioner Lavallee led the discussion on the Cook Conservation Area. The area has a complex ownership. The area was shown on the screen showing all the parcels involved in the area. The parcels are owned by different entities, some by the Conservation Commission and some by the Town and some other entities. There was a discussion about deed restrictions and all the parcels. Some parcels are very old and cannot been searched by computer. Some discussion occurred around the parcel given by Capital Group.
Commissioner Lavalle showed all the wetlands and said the trails stretch about 5 miles.
Update on Agent Hiring
An offer was made, and the new agent starts on April 28.
Minutes
The minutes of 2/11, 2/25, 3/11, and 3/25 were tabled as they had not been reviewed. Commissioner Hubbard cited some errors to be corrected.
Planning Board 4/16
This meeting had three public hearings on four bylaws changes to be voted on at Town Meeting.
Executive Session
Purpose to discuss proposed conditions with respect to 0 Hill Top LLC v. Town of Lancaster Planning Board, et al.
The Board went into Executive Session.
Minutes
Approve minutes of March 24, 2025: A draft of these minutes can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planning-board/minutes/3-24-2025-pb-meetingminutes-draft.
Public Hearings
Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment: Integrated Plan Overlay District (IPOD)
This Bylaw was adopted by the Town in 2009 to provide design flexibility for mixed use and increase densities while preserving open space. The Planning Board is proposing an amendment to update the IPOD Bylaw to adapt to recent development trends. The current bylaw can be viewed here: https://ecode360.com/11813706#14291823.
A draft of the proposed amendment can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif16016/f/pages/suggested_ipod_changes_w- _tc_rev._3.18.25-bk_responses.pdf. The Town of Lancaster Planning Board will hold a public hearing via Zoom and in person at 701 Main Street, Nashaway Meeting Room, Lancaster, MA, on Monday, March 24, 2025 at 7 PM to hear and act upon a petition adopted by the Planning Board regarding the following matter: To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 220-8.7 Integrated Planning Overlay District, of the Lancaster Zoning By-laws.
This public hearing is continued from March 24, 2025.
The Board discussed parking, wanting to encourage shared parking, and cut down on the large parking lots for large developments.
Brian Keating, the Planning Director, said some forms of industrial uses are appropriate within residential areas, such as medical offices, etc. with no medium to heavy industrial uses. Keating wanted to open up possibilities while keeping the residential component. Chair Frank Streeter would like to see a redline.
The Board liked the changes Keating had made.
The minimum lot size is 10 acres, and the Board agreed to increase residential density to 20 units per acre. There was a discussion on the height of buildings to achieve density. Also, there was mention underground parking. The height limit for a building is 70 ft. Chair Streeter said a traffic study should be required updated per building phase.
Chair Streeter went over the explanatory report for the Warrant Article and asked for any changes. Some corrections and improvements were made.
A vote was taken to close the hearing and approved. A vote was taken to approve the report with the additions of definitions by Keating, member George Frantz suggested adding the definitions via footnote to keep the text clean. A definition of light industry is needed for the report. Keating said one was available in the use schedule. Chair Streeter suggested striking industrial from the uses allowed since this was too broad. The text was then approved.
Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment: Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations
The Planning Board is proposing an Amendment to the Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations Bylaw to accommodate homeowners who do not live in the Solar Overlay District who want to consider a ground mounted array special permit but who would not be able to meet the zoning dimensions for the Residential District. The Current Bylaw can be viewed here: https://ecode360.com/31334671#31334671. The proposed amendment can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif16016/f/pages/proposed_amendment_gr ound-mounted_solar_photovoltaic_installations.pdf.
The Town of Lancaster Planning Board will hold a public hearing via Zoom and in person at 701 Main Street, Nashaway Meeting Room, Lancaster, MA, on Monday, March 24, 2025 at 7 PM to hear and act upon a petition adopted by the Planning Board regarding the following matter: To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 220-76 Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations, of the Lancaster Zoning By-laws.
This public hearing is continued from March 24, 2025.
The definitions for a small system was 25KW and for medium was 50KW according to National Grid outlines. Again, Chair Streeter requested a redline. Some language was discussed about what is a suitable building for an installation.
Roy Rezac, 125 Harvard Rd, asked if there were public comments during the public hearing. The chair answered yes. Dennis Hubbard, 258 Grant Way, then asked small meant up to than 25KW and medium meant over 25KW up to 50KW. The definitions were refined.
Rezac came back to ask about the standalone energy storage units. He thinks the definition should be expanded to include all the sources that can feed into the unit, including solar and other generators.
The setbacks were then discussed. Keating explained the 200-ft setback affects the large arrays, reducing the available land use. Chair Streeter said relief was available through the Zoning Board of Appeals.
There was then a discussion about the height of the arrays. The maximum is 20 ft.
Rezac asked to return an earlier section and pointed out that Massachusetts has a guidance relative to solar systems indicating that the special permit process is not an acceptable way to review solar installations since it could result in a rejection. Chair Streeter is not comfortable with saying any solar array can go in by right. Rezac agreed that this needed to be sorted out on a case-by-case basis. Rezac asked then returning fees for a denial. Keating added language to make sure it was understood the fees would be retained for the work the town had done.
Some other language was cleaned up.
Stephen Muturi, 184 Deershorn Road, asked about the setbacks for a small system. He asked if under 25KW he could do an array by right. There was a discussion about the process for approval of the amended bylaw.
Rezac questioned if more than the Planning Board need to be involved in a solar installation(s). He wanted some of the language clarified. There was discussion and some language was specified for the medium and large systems to keep the setbacks clear. Rezac suggested there should be a matrix of what is needed for small, medium, and large arrays as far as paperwork and the boards needed for approval. He finds the current document too confusing for a resident to follow what is actually needed for a small system installation which is allowable by right. Further clarifications were discussed.
The Warrant Article needs to be submitted and so logistics about getting the changes updated in time were discussed. Keating is transcribing the clarifications into the document, and then was asked to send to all the members for review, and then the members were asked to respond only to Keating with any typos or other small corrections needed before it is submitted for Town Meeting.
The hearing was voted to be closed; the bylaw was voted as approved with the discussed modifications; and the report about the amended bylaw was approved.
Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment: Flood Plain Regulations
Massachusetts Flood Hazard Management Program (FHMP) program staff work with FEMA and officials from National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participating communities to implement the NFIP in Massachusetts. The FHMP is a technical assistance program and has no regulatory authority. FEMA periodically modifies its maps and policies, and local governments should adjust their floodplain regulations to remain compliant. The current regulations can be viewed here: https://ecode360.com/11813849#11813849. The proposed amendment can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif16016/f/pages/draft_final_amendedfloodplain_regulations.pdf. The Town of Lancaster Planning Board will hold a public hearing via Zoom and in person at 701 Main Street, Nashaway Meeting Room, Lancaster, MA, on Monday, March 24, 2025 at 7 PM to hear and act upon a petition adopted by the Planning Board regarding the following matter: To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 220-Article VII Floodplain Regulations of the Lancaster Zoning Bylaw. This public hearing is continued from March 24, 2025.
Keating recounted his interchange with Katie Payton, Flood Plain Management Specialist, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. Keating used their model bylaw to create the town bylaw. The map will be available. There was discussion about having the map on the town website. Chair Streeter suggested not putting the map into the bylaw, since it gets updated regularly. The flood plain map from 2020 is on the town’s website. There were no other comments.
The motion to close the hearing was approved.
The report was approved.
ADU Report
The ADU report was approved.
Public Meetings
357 Sterling Road – Site Plan Review
The Board will vote to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a site plan to add a 6,780 square foot Community center to a place of religious assembly protected under the Chapter 40A §3. The Public Hearing pursuant to §220-34 was opened on January 8, 2024, and closed on March 24, 2025. Project Documents can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planningboard/pages/357-sterling-road.
Keating recounted how he looked at the issues around the lighting and he added that the lighting must be shielded so not to be intrusive to neighbors.
Chair Streeter asked about shuttle for additional parking on Sawyer Street. Keating suggested putting the parking plan into the Order of Conditions. There was more discussion about parking enforcement.
The stone wall repair was discussed also as needing a timeline for completion.
The Building Inspector has the authority to sign off on the completion of items in the Order of Conditions.
Atlantic Union College Update
Keating and Jeff Nutting, Interim Town Administrator are meeting with the entity interested in the AUC Campus to determine what is allowable with the zoning available for the site.
Keating said the same type of meeting will occur with the state in discussing the DCAMM site.
Conservation Commission 4/22
This meeting again centered on 10 Fire Road 54 with the public hearing continued one more time.
The new Conservation Agent is starting Monday, April 28.
Public Hearings
Continued Notice of Intent – 10 Fire Road 54
Reconstruction of a single-family home
Bill Hannigan, Hannigan Engineering, representing the applicant, presented a letter of the requested items from the last meeting:
Roof train runoff
He explained that he had worked with the architect to determine building layout and roof and there are three proposed roof drain pits to address stormwater runoff. Roof runoff is considered clean runoff.
Planting plan
Chuck Caron, Caron Environmental Consulting, in a letter, specified plants for different areas.
Planting along the driveway to reinforce the vegetative community.
Proposed plants include:
Pepperbush
High bush blueberry
Witch hazel
American hazelnut
Gray dogwoods
Red Maples
Sassafras
Shadbush
A planning schedule is available and the method of saving the materials from the movement of the driveway to restore the area around the driveway.
Construction phasing plan
Phase 1:
Demarcate limits of work and erosion control measures.
Pre-construction meeting with town and contractors.
Tree cutting within the limit of work.
Demolish existing structures and remove utilities.
Phase 2:
Site construction and driveway utilities.
Harvest and temporarily plant vegetation.
Remove stumps and construct the driveway.
Phase 3:
Site construction including building foundation and utilities.
Install septic tanks and roof drains.
Finish driveway to binder coat of pavement.
Final Phase:
Install post and rail fence.
Prepare driveway and install final pavement.
Final closeout and request certificate of compliance.
Commissioner Jim Lavallee confirmed the stockpile area and the siltation fence. He asked about landscaping plan, and where the lawn areas were delineated, and Hannigan pointed out the details. He suggested during the construction process, the Commission give approval before moving to the next phase; Hannigan agreed.
Commissioner Dennis Hubbard inquired about irrigation plans for the lawn areas. Hannigan did not know but he said it is a small area. Nicole Quill, the applicant, said there are no plans for an irrigation system. Commissioner Hubbard also asked about the removal of existing driveway material. Hannigan said Phase 2 would be the time frame for the driveway and would be contained in the stockpile area. Commissioner Hubbard asked about the gravel being removed and the septic area. Hannigan agreed that he can show this.
Caron said that the low area around the driveway should be able to stay the same and the plants saved.
Chair Tom Seidenberg asked about the removal of the old septic system. Hannigan said if a concrete tank, it would be filled with sand and left in place. If a steel drum, then it would be removed. This would all be done with the Board of Health oversight.
Chair Seidenberg asked about a dumpster. Hannigan said yes, right next to the structure.
Chair Seidenberg went on to say that he or the Conservation Agent will need to be the square footage of the mitigation areas, the amount of area for loam and seeded, and the total of impervious square footage, and the altered area inside the buffer zones.
Chair Seidenberg asked about water lost in the vernal pool area. If the flooding was to be contained by the raised driveway, he asked for the water volume to be quantified. He is concerned about flooding towards the neighbor’s driveway. Caron said there would not be any measurable impact. Hannigan said he could do some calculations on the volume.
Attorney Richard Nyland, representing the applicant, wanted to be clear they recognize the resource area as significant. He said they are only improving areas that are already disturbed. He thinks the area will be better off after the construction than before.
Patrick Garner, environmental scientist for the abutter, John Bowen, raised concerns about vernal pool protection and the resource area. The resource area is not a buffer zone but a resource area. The lighting and construction timing need to be discussed since this affects the vernal pool species. No construction should be done between February and July to protect the species. He said the water displacement due to driveway changes needs to be quantified. He also noted that the dock had been moved/installed without prior notice, which is a violation. He said Caron’s plans are robust, but he notes there is a lawn area which was part of the 25-ft buffer. He asked the Commission to look more closely at the planting plans.
Chair Seidenberg said the Commission is aware of the resource area. He said the Commission is looking at this within the bylaw discussion for better clarification and enforcement in the future.
Garner also mentioned that the septic system will be interfering with the buffer zone for the vernal pool.
Jeff Roelofs, attorney for Bowen, had submitted a letter and had a presentation with aerial photographs. He showed a deck installed in 2008 which had not been authorized. He discussed other historical uses and the clearing of the areas within the last few years. He showed 9 mature trees that will need to be taken down for the project. He showed the narrowness of the driveway which has been widened since 2023.
Also shown are photos from 2016.
Photos showed a new dock area. He said the dock should be removed and the natural vegetation should be allowed to regrow.
Atty Roelofs maintained the only developed areas were the narrow driveway and the house footprint without the deck, so the new structures impact the resource areas and buffer zones should not be deemed as necessary and if not necessary, should not be allowed. The current state is not the historic state, he said.
Nicole Quill stated that the information provided by the abutter is misleading. She recited a letter that had been sent to the Commission:
“I just want to preface this; that you know this has been going on a long time and we continue to receive a lot of misleading information from the abutter which has been incredibly painful and frustrating. So, I'm hopeful that this letter that we've prepared can help provide additional context and really reorient the commission to the true facts.
So, we purchased the property in April of 2022 and have been working extremely closely with the conservation commission to understand the existing resource areas and buildable areas for over two and a half years. To date, we have followed the commission's recommendations and filed an ORAD. We've completed several site walks to identify the existing developed areas, and we've hired Oxbow Associates to consult for the town on multiple matters. Throughout this process, there has been an exceptional amount of discussion around the historical use and conditions of the property. We have provided photo evidence and statements to provide insight to the commission. Unfortunately, one of our abutters, John Bowen, has been providing misleading information to the commission throughout this process. We think it's important to note that the Bowens have been trying to purchase our property from the moment our offer was accepted, and have continued to try over the course of the past three years, including submitting additional houses for us to purchase throughout the past few years. We'd like to take a moment to remind the commission of the existing and historical conditions. To the north of the house is the existing driveway that wraps around to the west of the house to the shed. The driveway has been paved in the past and can be clearly identified due to all the existing gravel which was dropped by the previous owners 20 plus years ago. This was confirmed by our butter, Bill Putnam, who has lived at his property throughout all seasons for 40 plus years. To the east of the house is the current septic. Abutter, Bill Putnam also confirmed its location recently and he has witnessed it being dug up to be drained in the past. In addition, this area is also the lawn which has had picnic tables, fire pits, stored launch boats, had a lakeside sauna which has in the past burned down. We've also seen remnants of turf lawn in the mud as well. To the south of the house is the current point well which has been landscaped with rhododendrons which are not found anywhere else on the property, in the general area. To the west of the house is the excavated area for the lawn and the shed. This area was also used to park cars, which has been evidenced by the photos. All this is evidenced by the historical aerial photos found on the Lancaster GIS maps from 2001 through 2023. We've submitted these photos alongside other historical photos for your reference. The last meeting we received feedback that the proposed plan was not approvable, and as we have in the past with all feedback from the commission, we took this and made appropriate adjustments. We have updated the house to be completely outside of the 25 ft wetlands setback and have reduced the overall footprint by 40%. The proposed footprint is extremely comparable to the Bowen’s and Putnam’s properties. We have added a 1 and a half car garage which we believe to be a very reasonable request in the New England region. The entire building structure is clearly located in existing developed areas, whether it be the existing structure, driveway, lawn, or a landscaped area. We have worked tirelessly to develop a plan that accommodates all of the feedback and requests from the commission. We are confident our current proposal achieves this, is compliant with the necessary bylaws, and is in an approvable state.
We now ask the commission to consider the facts we have presented and come to a decision. Thank you.”
Hannigan added more support to Quill’s letter in another review of past meetings and the changes and conclusions made during those meetings.
Chair Seidenberg asked the commissioners if there were anymore requests to the ones already cited.
Commissioner Lavallee wanted to know when the driveway construction will be done. He also wanted to make sure there will be no lighting along driveway.
Hannigan agreed with this. He said the volume of the vernal pool will not substantially change, less than a 1/4 inch. He said the dock was out of his scope.
Commissioner Lavallee said he also agreed the dock should be removed and then if needed, properly permitted before being rebuilt.
Chair Seidenberg agreed, that the location of the dock was not being approved within the Order of Conditions if given.
Commissioner Hubbard did not have anything further.
Garner came back to emphasize the water volume and displacement need to be quantified. He wants it looked at more carefully than the calculations that Hannigan just stated. He wanted the hearing to be continued to make sure to have answers on this topic.
Chair Seidenberg asked about the septic being set back from a vernal pool and wetlands. He asked if it meets the setbacks. Hannigan said yes.
Chair Seidenberg asked if the Commission needed the square footage on the plans and the volume numbers. The Commissioners agreed and did not want to close the hearing.
Hannigan said the clients wanted to close but he understood the Commission needed the additional information.
Nicole Quill said they would like to close but understood that the information was necessary.
Chair Seidenberg said yes, the Commission wants the information as complete as possible on the Order of Conditions since it was likely that the project would go to litigation.
Hannigan then agreed the hearing should stay open one last time and he would have the information added to the plans.
The motion was made to continue and approved.
Continued Notice of Intent – Lot 3 Neck Road (a portion of Assessor’s Map 30, Parcel 128)
Construction of a single-family home.
A motion was made to continue to May 13 and approved.
Continued Request for Determination of Applicability – Removal of dead trees within the Seven Bridge Road right-of-way
Applicant requested continuance until May 13 and then had been approved.
Discussion
0 Hill Top Order of Conditions Amendment Request
The applicant wants to amend conditions 25 and 26. Condition 25 concerns the roadway, and Condition 26 concerning drainage utilities. Proposed language was provided in the letter. Commissioner Hubbard is concerned about the runoff and sediment movement.
The Commission is willing to amend the language after a discussion but not necessarily to the language proposed in the letter. A motion was made to have that discussion to be on a future agenda and approved.
Chair Seidenberg will present this and see if the applicant will accede to this new discussion and not appeal the Order of Conditions.
2038 Lunenburg Enforcement Order
Chair Seidenberg said the drainage system is not outside the Commission’s jurisdictional areas as he had previously stated in the last meeting. Considering this, he said the Notice of Intent should not be withdrawn and should be finalized and a site visit should be done.
General discussion regarding updating the Wetlands Protection Bylaw and Regulations
This was tabled.
General discussion regarding the oversight of open space parcels
Commissioner Lavallee said there was no longer a quorum at the meeting. He noted Tom Christopher was on the call and had provided a lot of information on the Cook Conservation Area. A resident reached out about 0 Hawthorne Lane. Commissioner Lavalle looked at the site but there needs to be some discussion on policy once the town takes ownership.
Minutes
The minutes of 2/11, 2/25, and 3/11 were approved. The minutes of 3/25 and 4/8 were tabled for further review.
Select Board 5/5
This meeting was Chair Steve Kerrigan’s last meeting.
Administration, Budget, and Policy (Vote may be taken)
Preparation for Annual Town Meeting Fiscal Year 2026 and review Warrant Articles as necessary.
Discussion of who was to present the warrant articles and the articles were assigned to the different Board members.
Appointments
Council on Aging
Beth Currie – term to expire June 30, 2026
The motion was made to approve and passed.
Licenses and Permits
Application for Entertainment License
Name of Concern: 2025 Unified 5K
Contact Person: Brendon Aylward, Executive Director
Date: Saturday, May 31, 2025
Time: 8:30 AM – 11:30 AM
The motion was made to approve and passed.
Town Meeting 5/5
This meeting was started by the Pledge of Allegiance. The members up on the stage were introduced, including the Select Board, The Finance Committee and the Interim Town Administrator.
Article 1: Amend FY2025 Operating Budget
Action: Transfer $100,000 from free cash to FY25 reserve fund
Jeff Nutting, Interim Town Administrator explained that instead of a shortfall, the Town would break even on the budget.
Outcome: Passed (120 in favor, 8 opposed)
Article 2: Appropriation of Funds
Action: Approve as printed in the warrant
Nutting explained that at the last annual town meeting, the town voted to put money in the capital stage stabilization fund for these purposes, but failed to actually vote to appropriate the money. This is a technicality to just reaffirm what was voted last May.
Outcome: Passed (125 in favor, 3 opposed)
Article 3: FY2025 Budget Approval
Action: Approve budget of $31,425,039
Nutting quickly went through the budget and the reduction of the town operating budget but the raising of insurance and retirement expenses.
Outcome: Passed (119 in favor, 13 opposed)
Article 4: Tax Offset for School Bond
Action: Approve $1 million for tax offset
Nutting explained this was for repayment of the School Bond.
Outcome: Passed (125 in favor, 9 opposed)
Article 5: Revenue from Retained Earnings
Action: Approve $115,000 as printed in the warrant
Russ Williston, 13 Highfield Dr, asked why this came this year from retained earnings instead of energy credits. Cheryl Gariepy, Finance Director, answered that the solar field had gone down last year and no one was aware for a while, so it wasn’t producing any income.
Outcome: Passed (126 in favor, 14 opposed)
Article 6: Appropriation for Various Projects
Action: Approve $1,933,168 as printed in the warrant
Outcome: Passed (130 in favor, 10 opposed)
Article 7: Zoning Change
Action: Approve as printed in the warrant
Outcome: Passed (125 in favor, 11 opposed)
Article 8: Appropriation for Capital Projects
Action: Approve as printed in the warrant
Outcome: Passed (131 in favor, 8 opposed)
Article 9: DPW Garage Roof Replacement
Action: Approve $400,000 from free cash
This was increased from $300K since it is a public bid project and the Town wanted to be sure to have the funds.
Outcome: Passed (126 in favor, 8 opposed)
Article 10: Compensation Plan
Action: Approve as printed in the warrant
Outcome: Passed (122 in favor, 10 opposed)
Article 11: Community Preservation Act (CPA) Allocations
Action: Approve as printed in the warrant
Anne Ogilvie, 4 Turner Lane, asked if the projects these funds will be spent on will be voted on even though the funds have already been allocated. Nutting responded that actual expenditure of the monies will need to be voted on.
Linnea Lakin Servey asked what the lower amount would be on the note. Nutting answered that it was 14%.
Outcome: Passed (129 in favor, 5 opposed)
Article 12: Park Umbrella Purchase
Action: Approve as printed in the warrant
Linnea Lakin Servey 1394 Main St, asked the material for the shade.
Win Clark, 928 Main St, said it was replacing direct sun so is better then what’s there.
Tom Woods, 698 Main St, chair of the Recreation Committee said it was UV blocking, fire retardant canvas material that is able to come down in the winter.
Outcome: Passed (132 in favor, 7 opposed)
Article 13: Library Roof Replacement
Action: Approve $750,000 with specified fund allocations
Nutting explained the distribution of where the funds were coming from and that this involves a bond under the CPA portion.
Alix Turner, 620 Main St, asked about the older projects that have funds being returned to fund this, whether those projects were completed.
Nutting explained the projects were done and so the projects are being closed out except for the bridge was not repaired, and the town is looking to the state for funds for that.
Jennifer Leone, 1 Holiday Lane, asked about the funding for the bond.
Linnea Lakin Servey said the repayment will come out of the projected town funds to the CPA.
Nutting said the payment will have to be voted on every year.
Joe Mule, Library Director, came forward to say “I just want to make one point that might be confused in all this. There are new there are no new taxes. So, you're voting for a bond, but it's not adding to your taxes. It's going to be paid out in future earnings collected through CPA. So, everything that you're voting for, the money is already available. So even though you hear the word debt, you're not paying more in your taxes. There are no new taxes.”
Win Clark, 928 Main St, questioned whether it has to be voted on every year. Nutting said yes. It is in the budget, not a new number, but it is in the package to be voted on every year.
Outcome: Passed (131 in favor, 9 opposed)
Article 14: Repeal Surplus Property Bylaw
Action: Repeal outdated bylaw
Outcome: Passed unanimously
Article 15: Zoning Bylaw Amendment
Action: Amend iPod bylaw for design flexibility
Frank Streeter, Chair of the Planning Board, read the report by the Planning Board. Streeter said Town Counsel has advised that the 25% and 75% split needs to remain so the revised Article is contained in the “Motions” document.
Member Jason Allison made a motion to adopt what is on the printed “Motions” document.
Dennis Hubbard, 258 Grant asked whether there were copies.
Moderator Bill O’Neill asked for the “Motions” sheet be distributed.
The motion to amend the Article was approved.
Linnea Lakin Servey asked for this be tabled so the residents can absorb what is being proposed. She made a motion to table.
Town Counsel suggested that the motion should be to postponed, since tabling needs a 2/3 vote and postponing only needs majority.
A vote was taken and the motion failed.
Linnea Lakin Servey then made a motion to postpone which was passed. 102 in favor, 44 opposed.
Outcome: Postponed indefinitely
Article 16:
Withdrawn
Stephen Muturi, 184 Deershorn Road, asked why it was being withdrawn.
Chair Streeter explained that Town Counsel said it could not be put forward as written.
Article 17: Accessory Apartments Bylaw
Action: Adopt Commonwealth's model bylaw
Chair Streeter read the Planning Board Report.
Cara Sanford, 350 Bull Run Rd, asked if the state was mandating this.
Chair Streeter said yes.
Outcome: Passed (133 in favor, 10 opposed)
Article 18: Floodplain Bylaw
Action: Adopt Commonwealth's model bylaw
Chair Streeter read the Planning Board Report.
Outcome: Passed (127 in favor, 10 opposed)
Article 19: Development of 220 Old Common Road
Action: Appropriate $100,000 from free cash
This was a contingency amount for any needs coming up.
Outcome: Passed (128 in favor, 12 opposed)
Article 20: Exit Civil Service for Police
Action: Approve exit from civil service
Nutting explained the history of the Civil Service and the need for this exit now to save money.
Outcome: Passed (128 in favor, 12 opposed)
Election Results 5/12
