Conference 7.286::maynard

Some background on master plans: 

Maynard has not updated their Master Plan or Open Space Plan since 1975. Since
then, most of the larger parcels of land have been developed or are in the
process of being developed: Vose Hill, Old Marlboro Estates, the corner of
Parker and Great Road, Summer Hill Road, Old Mill Road, George Rd., Reo Road,
etc., etc. 

There are still parcels of land that have not been built on, most are smaller
than the above, but are excellent as buffer zones for neighborhoods, nature
study areas, trail connections, playgrounds and just some green space.  IF
Maynard completes a Master Plan, it can qualify for 3 funding programs that can
reimburse the town for up to 90% of the purchase price of land and in some
cases it will also reimburse up to 90% for the creation of parks and structures
on this land.  These funding programs also reimburse the town for the purchase
of aquifers, wetlands, and water protection areas. 

A Master Plan will also examine some of the zoning issues that Maynard has yet
to deal with.  Currently, Maynard has NO aquifer protection zoning.  This
allows a developer to build a subdivision in wetlands within 400 feet of the
town wells.  Subdivisions necessarily have chemicals that runoff into the storm
drains and in the above mentioned subdivision the wetlands that surround the
town well.  These chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, motor oil, paints, salt
and who knows what else) get into the aquifer.  Many are filtered by the
wetlands and are broken down into harmless organics prior to getting into the
well; but how can we guarantee this?  What if we have a severe rainstorm and
the entire process is speeded up?  Is our water safe?  Do you want to worry
what the guy on the other side of town does in his backyard because he lives
close to our water supply? 

Another important feature of the Master Plan is to make town boards fiscally
responsible.  The Master Plan would call for a Capitol Improvement Planning
Program.  This would require all boards to develop a forecasting budget for
large expenditures: vehicles, new buildings, maintenance or improvement of
buildings and equipment, land purchases and other large items.  These boards
would have to coordinate their efforts, work together instead of displaying
histrionics at town meeting to fund their current "emergency".  Most
maintenance items can be predicted unless a tree falls on the item needing
repair. 

The Master Plan would require the town to look at where to spend its money in
general.  If the consensus were that roads needed major improvement, then a
program to do that would be laid out.  Currently many of Maynard's major
expenditures are done in crisis mode.  "Fix this because the world will end
otherwise."  The public would be involved in helping to make the decisions
about the community's needs by way of public hearings.  Their opinions and
ideas would be included into the Master Plan.  The Master Plan can also be put
into the charter of each board requiring them to abide by it when planning
their budgets. 

A Master Plan allows a town to determine and plan for its own future instead of
leaving it open to making decisions based on crisis or circumstance.  The
Master Plan Committee has been formed of Planning Board members, Selectman Bill
King, a Chamber of Commerce member and Cindy Ruzich of the MNPA.  The committee
is looking for more volunteers and for input from the community. If you have a
comment or would like to volunteer call Dave Grimley 897-9338. 

The Maynard Neighborhood Preservation Association is supporting the Master Plan
funding article number 8.  All Maynard voters are urged to attend the Special
Town Meeting and vote for this article.  If you need more information about the
Master Plan contact Steve Ruzich DTN 223-6112 or Cindy Ruzich (outside DEC)
897-6160. 

    
    ARTICLE #8: MASTER PLAN - should definitely be supported, the
                town is dwindling away and action should be taken now
                before land and money disappear completely.
    
    
    ARTICLE #4: UNMARKED CRUISER - 8-10 years, whose kidding whom,
                the 1983 car is dying now, I would say a new
                car given the use would go 4-5 years.  Maynard
                has 3 marked and 2 unmarked cars at the moment
                for 5 sq. miles.  Stow has 2 marked and 1 unmarked
                for 3 times the size.  Maynard P.D. station is
                downtown besides, I think the town could use some
                walking patrols and get back to interfacing with
                the community on a face to face level.
    
                                                Mark
    

    Maynard has only 1 unmarked car

What's the deal with the dump?   I assume we don't own it already?

What is the story about us not having one anyway?  

We've been here 3 1/4 years, dump stuff was before our time.

Thanks !

    re .4
    Right we don't own it.  Used to lease it.  (Still do??)
    
    Don't have one know because noone wanted it in their neighborhood.
    
    If we had gotten it (or do get it, hopefully) the "army land"
    was mentioned, but....
    
    In any case, properly operating a landfill is not easy.  hence,
    no dump.
    
    re:
    cruiser, agree on the life
    re:
    comparison to Stow:
    What are the two populations of the two towns?
    How many restaurants, etc does Stow have?
    How many in Maynard?

    Point is, I think Maynard has a larger population, including
    "active visitors" (as opposed to the number who simply drive through
    Stow).
    
    thanks
    dave pierson
    (Prospect St...)

    The dump was taken as town property by eminent domain, capped, and
    is no longer used.  I. e., the town said "We're taking that land
    and paying you $xxx for it".
    
    The problem is that the former owner disputes the method the town used
    to determine price, and has filed a court suit to get an additional
    $225,000, plus whatever legal fees are incurred.
    
    I haven't seen the details, but the Town of Maynard has taken the court
    suit seriously enough to reach an out-of-court settlement with the
    former owner for $100,000.  The Town Meeting must say "yes" to give
    away the $100,000. 
    
    The problem is that if the Special Town Meeting says "no" to the
    article, then it goes all the way in court.  If the town loses in
    court, then the entire $225,000 plus $50,000 or so in legal fees will
    be removed from the State's funds to the Town of Maynard.
    
    My personal opinion is that deciding to spend $100,000 now is better than
    being forced to spend $275,000 or so later.  All for an ex-dump.
    
    -Steve

    I knew that we'd get in trouble when the dump was taken by eminent
    domain, but I guess we're stuck with the $100K expense now. And now
    that we have it, we can't do anything with it for quite a long time. I
    guess that was the idea of taking it -- to prevent anyone else from
    doing something to that land that the town would be responsible for.

    is there any way that there can be a discussion of the merits of all of
    the items at the beginning of the meeting instead of taking them in
    order so that the money won't be gone before we get past 1 or 2 items?
    Or should I have gone to the Town Fathers' Forum? (And why's it called
    that anyway? Some of the "Fathers" look like mothers to me.)

    					-- hs 

.7>    I knew that we'd get in trouble when the dump was taken by eminent
.7>    domain, but I guess we're stuck with the $100K expense now. And now
.7>    that we have it, we can't do anything with it for quite a long time. I
.7>    guess that was the idea of taking it -- to prevent anyone else from
.7>    doing something to that land that the town would be responsible for.

Yes, that was Town Counsel's point and the meeting last night.  As you know,
Hal, it passed.  (I was back of you about four rows, on the other side of
the aisle.)

.7>    Is there any way that there can be a discussion of the merits of all of
.7>    the items at the beginning of the meeting instead of taking them in
.7>    order so that the money won't be gone before we get past 1 or 2 items?

For those who aren't familiar with the the rules, the idea is that the
town goes into the meeting with $x dollars in a Free Cash account, and then
you all vote on the articles until you either finish them all, or free cash
is depleted.  There can also be articles which do not allocate funds, or
take money from sources other than Free Cash.  If you keep voting Yes on 
money articles after there's no free cash, then those articles will depend 
on a Prop 2 1/2 override.  Obviously, the first articles have a better 
chance than the later ones.  

Last night at the Special Town Meeting, there was discussion of each article as
it was presented, but nobody jumped ahead and said "let's deny this article so
we can give money to a later article". Also, nothing was proposed which could
have required a 2 1/2 override. Instead, several articles were withdrawn. 

I believe that the general sequence of events is determined by state law.
Perhaps this extends to forbidding such a general discussion as you propose,
Hal, but I don't know.  Perhaps the current procedure it is tradition, or
done to keep the meeting time down to a tolerable amount.  Three hours
was regarded by people around me as a quick meeting (7:30 - 10:30).

One of the people I was with suggested that available money situation could
have been made clearer by, say, keeping a running total on a large board on the
stage. A related question is this: Could the information about the special town
meeting have been distributed better? 

For the regular Town Meeting, warrents are mailed to all households in town. 
A Special is only for emergency items, and it's up to you to get a copy of
the warrent.  There was also coverage in the Beacon.

Note that articles can be presented out of sequence.  Anyone can make a motion
to change the order, and then the group votes on it.  I understand that this
has been done in the past, often with great contention.

.7>    Or should I have gone to the Town Fathers' Forum? 

Well, yeah, you would have gained some information, anyway. The Town
Fathers' Forum is a once-a-year selectmans' meeting where all the boards
supposedly get together and discuss what they've been doing in the past
year, comment on each others' work and coordinate their efforts.  The
public is invited. 

This year, there was discussion was about what the various boards were
asking for at the Special Town Meeting.  E. g., the proposed Master Plan
was discussed, since it involves a good number of the boards. 

However, the DPW didn't bother to show up, and the School Committee declined
to answer any questions about their proposed article, so the discussion
could have been better.  The only member of the "public" there was my wife,
who attended to meet the Fin Com, because she was going to join that
committee a week later. 

.7>    (And why's it called
.7>    that anyway? Some of the "Fathers" look like mothers to me.)

One of the town "fathers", Brigid Menzi of the School Committee, suggested that
the meeting would be better named the Town Forum, and the fathers agreed.

-Steve

There was $326,000 in the free cash account.  A "*" indicates a yes vote.

*ARTICLE 1: Blue Cross/ Blue Shield  YES 186    no 27  $200,000  ($175,000 from 
	free cash)  In addition, town employees pay $175,000 from their 
	paychecks for this. 

*ARTICLE 2: Landfill Out of Court Settlement  YES 181   no 40  $100,000

*ARTICLE 3: Fire Fighter Unpaid Bills  YES (hand vote) $100

*ARTICLE 4: Police Dept. Unmarked Cruiser  YES 157  no 70  $13,500
	(an interesting note: the cost to fix the existing cruiser went up 
	from an estimated $2,000 on Nov. 1 to $3,000 at Town Meeting)

ARTICLE 5: School Committee Budget   WITHDRAWN  $153,842

ARTICLE 6: DPW Snowblower  NO 170    yes 65  $37,089.60
	It seems that the story on the snowblower money was somewhat confused.
	This money was requested for a lease agreement to last 5 years.  The 
	money would have to voted again for each of 4 more years ($37K x 5)
	to eventually own the snowblower.  If the town did not vote this money 
	one of these years, all the money would revert to the company and the
	town would be left out in the snow with no equipment.  It was 
	suggested that the town borrow the money to purchase the snowblower.

ARTICLE 7: Assessors Software   WITHDRAWN  $103,000

*ARTICLE 8: Planning Board  Town Master Plan YES 162   no 79  $30,000
	This may be the best $30,000 that Maynard has ever spent!  The Master
	Plan will eliminate some of the continued crisis in town government.
	The Master Plan Committee needs volunteers and input from the town.
	If you have an idea about how the town could better plan for the 
	future, whether it is a simple suggestion or even a grand scheme, 
	please contact a member of the Committee or attend the next meeting
	Dec. 1, 7:00 at town hall.  Thanks to everyone who supported this 
	article.

*ARTICLE 9: Council on Aging  Part-time Clerk  YES 171  no 81  aprox. $4,000
	Establishes a 20 hour/week job at $7,526.00 a year in future years,
	plus benefits.
	
*ARTICLE 10: DPW  to dispose of defunct stuff  YES (by hand)

ARTICLE 11: Selectmen Transfer of Money  NO 137  yes 76  no appropriation
	This was a transfer of money ($40,000) from the Selectmen's sale of 
	real estate account to be transferred to the Conservation Commission's
	account to purchase a parcel of land off Lewis Street.  This was voted
	no apparently because Conservation has already paid for this land and
	all this article would do is deplete the Selectmans' fund to reimburse 
	Conservation for $40,000.

*ARTICLE 12: Planning Board Rezone a small parcel on Waltham Street (no $$$)
	YES 128  no 36
	This rezoned two lots from 1/2 residence and 1/2 business to all 
	business.

*ARTICLE 13: Planning Board   Amend Garden Apt. Zoning Bylaw   (no $$$)
	YES 134  no 26
	This removed redundancy in the zoning bylaws.  The information deleted
	from the bylaws is already contained within the Dimensional Tables.

ARTICLE 14: Planning Board   Amend Zoning Bylaws    (no $$$)  NO 77  yes 89
	This required a 2/3 vote and lost by 21 votes.  This would have taken
	all of S-1 (10,000 s.f.) and made it S-2 (20,000 s.f.), all of S-2
	(20,000 s.f.) and made it S-3 (30,000 s.f.) and also
	increased other dimensions incrementally.  Yes, it would have caused
	problems for some existing property owners who wanted to build a 
	garage or shed; however, it would also have made it exceedingly more
	difficult for a developer to put in as many houses on a given piece of
	land.  

	For example, a development on south Parker Street: Contemporary
	Estates by Roger Hatch, is grandfathered for 10,000 square feet.  
	Right now there are 6 lots in this subdivision.  If the zoning 
	amendment had gone through; a similar parcel would only have been
	able to have been subdivided into 2 or 3 lots.  This subdivision is
	on Vose Pond and the developer is proposing dumping some of his water
	into the pond.  

*ARTICLE 15: Planning Board  Add Parking Standards  (no $$$)  YES 92  no 33

        Here are some results from the Special Town Meeting:
    
    Art. 1.   $175,000 free cash for Blue Cross/Blue Shield Y-186 N-27
    APPROVED
    
    Art.2.    $100,000 to but landfill,have agreement to settle 
                                                            Y-181 N-40
    APPROVED
    
    Art.3     $100.00 injured firefighter                   unanimous
    APPROVED
    
    Art.4     $13,500 unmarked cruiser                      Y-157 N-70
    APPROVED
    
    Art.5     School Comm. $153,842                         withdrawn
              Because $200,000 was needed for health ins.(including
       school employees) and the previous vote in favor of the landfill
       the article was withdrawn. The School Comm. will have to make
       across the board cuts for the remainder of the school year
    
    Art.6     DPW rotary snow blower. It was pointed out that the
              request for  $37,089.60 was only 1/5th of the total cost.
              It would require that at the next 4 town meetings their
              would have to be a favorable vote for the same or a greater
              amount to continue payment. The appropriateness of requesting
              the money this way was questioned.        Y-65 N-170
    
              It was suggested this could be financed with a loan.
    APPROVED
    
    Art.7     Assessors Dept. $103,000. Withdrawn due to lack of funds.
    
    Art. 8    Plan. Board $30,000 for Master Plan      Y-162 N-79
    APPROVED
    
    Art.9     Counc.on Aging $4260.00 part time help with benefits
                                                       Y-    N-
              This was not a secret ballot. Voters were asked to stand.
    DENIED
    
    Art.10    DPW dispose or old machinery-all goes out for bid,even
                scrap.                                 Y-    N-
    APPROVED                                      ( I didn't get this)
    
    Art.11    Selectmen transfer to Conservation Comm. for land purchase.
    DENIED                                              Y-    N-
                                                  (missed this one too)
    
    Art. 12   Plan. Brd.-lot zoned half business,half residential.
              This was approve in a previous Town Meet., but the
              notice was not posted in the paper on time and it
              was bounced by the Atrny. General.
    APPROVED  This was a secret ballot and due to 20 ballots that
              came in marked twice(some earlier confusion on a vote
              that did not need a ballot) a revote was taken.
                                                       Y-    N-
    
    Art. 13   Plan. Brd.eliminate duplication in the bylaws.A
              change was made to Sec.6a 5 Subsection 4. It was 
              apparantly not a duplication.            Y-134 N-26
    APPROVED
    
    Art.14    Plan Brd. Changes to dimensional table and upgrade of
               lot sizes. There was alot of discussion. People seemed
              to think existing lots would become illegal. And people
              who have not subdivided what might be an extra lot presently
              were concerned. A suggestion was made that larger parcels
              be upgraded to reduce overcrowding. Town Council pointed
              out that this is spot zoning and is illegal.
                                                           Y-     N-
              Missed the exact count.
    DENIED    by a fair margin
    
    Art.15    Plan. Brd. New parking lot regulations.Once again
              a fair amount of discussion about existing property
              being grandfathered.                         Y-     N-
              Sorry, missed the vote count again,it was getting
              late and I was fading.
    APPROVED
    
    
    If anyone can fill in some of the vote counts I missed please do.
    

     CORRECTION TO NOTE 128.10 -Art.9 approved
            I incorrectly stated that Art.9 was denied. Art.9 ,a request
    by the Council for Ageing for $7526.00 was reduced to $4260.00.
    This appropriation was approved.