by Frank Schroth

The board reviewed the recommendations of the Capital Improvement Committee for bonding $1,992,049 to fund largely DPW and school requests. The schools requested ~$215K to purchase smartboards and Chromebooks. The DPW amounts will be used to fund, among other things, purchase of 3 trucks (~$140K) and replace sewer and water meters ($1.2 million).

Amy Dexter, Town Accountant, presented the recommendations. Member Tom Hurley also sits on the Capital Improvement Committee. Member Conlon recused herself due to conflict of interest concerns.

Ms. Dexter explained that the committee receives requests from all department heads and they review them together. The number of requests funded is a small percentage of those received. The bonded amounts for the three funds are:

• the General fund  –  $585,049 which will include but not be limited to school technology requests and surface drains,
• the Water Fund – $714,000 which will include but not be limited to trench suring system, a truck, and meter replacements
• the Sewer Fund – $693,000 which will include but not be limited to two trucks, and meter replacements, and the Sewer Fund

The meter replacements are a big ticket item ($600K for both sewer and water) and are needed to ensure proper billiing and measurement. Their life span Ms Dexter explained is fairly short, about 15 years. Joe Lynch, DPW director, has a 5 year plan to replace all the meters at a cost of $1.2 million per year.

Dexter also said the school request was a necessary one. The schools are required to begin PARCC testing (which will replace the MCAS) and the Chromebooks are required for administration of the test.

Chair Keohane and member Hurley voted to approve the recommendation of the committee.

The board also took up the issue a response letter to Mass Housing in response to the 40B 72 unit apartment proposal for Randolph Avenue. Town Planner Bill Clark and Town Counsel John Flynn reviewed the letter which they had drafted with input from other town department heads such as Fire and Police.

The letter calls out several issues with the proposal that include safety and traffic, wetlands and environment, topography and design. For example, the proposal only has one road in. There no second means of egress for emergency vehicles. The road could be made wider but Mr. Clark explained that would only exacerbate the impact on the wetlands. The road/driveway  out has no signalization and is off a major state road that feeds I93, I95, and Rt 24 as well as south shore towns. The developers have stated that the proposal is a smart growth development. In response to that Clark and Flynn argue it scores poorly as it has no proximity to amenities (e.g. the only shopping is a Tedeschi’s market) and while there are bus lines, access to pedestrians seeking to go in town is problematic and dangerous due to size and configuration of intersection. The design of the buidlings (there are three) is much larger than any of the other residences in the neighborhood.

There was discussion around the addition of a mansard roof but Member Conlon noted that mansard roof or no it doesn’t diminish the size of the structures relative to their surroundings.

Due to the topography of the site (e.g.sloping) and the work required to fit the structures in there will be significant impacts to habitats and wetlands.

The letter concludes:

A couple of minor edits were suggested. The board voted to approve the letter after edits are incorporated.