MINUTES OF THE CUMBERLAND TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2008 AT 7:30P.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, TOWN HALL

45 BROAD STREET, CUMBERLAND

REGULAR SESSION

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Council President James Higgins.

 

The meeting opened with the pledge of allegiance to the flag.   

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Council President Higgins, Councilors Mutter, Morris, Lemois, Albuquerque, and Kirkpatrick     

 

Also present, Thomas E. Hefner, Town Solicitor and Sandra M. Giovanelli, Town Clerk

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Councilor Ackerman

 

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS:

                                         

CONSENT AGENDA

 

A.   Acceptance of the Regular Town Council Meeting of December 19, 2007

 

B.   COMMUNICATIONS:

 

 1.   C-07-26 – A Letter from the Town of Warren seeking support for a resolution to provide long term health care for our veterans.

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR LEMOIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR MORRIS AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE.  VOTE 6/0.

 

LICENSES-

 

FOURTH CLASS VICTUALLING:  

 

1.   An application from Mahmood Quisar of 90 Girard Avenue, Newport for Kahn & Sons, Inc. d/b/a The Cumberland Spot located at 1152 Mendon Road

 

Council President Higgins asks if everything is in order.

 

Town Clerk states that they should have received a letter from the Building Official relating to some building safety issues.

 

Council President Higgins asks if the Building Official, Ray Madden is present to explain his safety concerns.  Hearing no response from Mr. Madden he summarizes that this is in regards to what is commonly known as Luk Oil.  He explains that apparently there was a change of ownership without anyone’s knowledge and all the licenses were issued under the previous owner’s name.  He states that they now have before them an application for a Fourth Class Victualling House License and there are some issues about workers’ compensation and safety.  He asks Mr. Hefner if he knows anything about this matter.

 

Mr. Hefner states that he discussed this with Mr. Madden this afternoon where he recommended to him that he should restrict his involvement here to his duties as a Building Official.  He adds that Mr. Madden bent over backwards for these people when the licenses were not transferred and it was confirmed that there was a liability insurance issues and Mr. Madden allowed them to remain open.  Mr. Hefner explains that the issue now relates to only one entrance that was open instead of two and the worker’s compensation.  Mr. Hefner states that the Council can pass it and let these people be subject to the law if everything else is in order. 

 

Councilor Morris asks if the regress issue has been resolved.

 

Mr. Hefner explains that there has always been two doors but for some reason one of the door is remaining locked and Mr. Madden has not received the full cooperation of the proprietor. 

 

Councilor Morris would like to see that egress issue taken care of before they vote on this transfer.

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MORRIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR LEMOIS AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO TABLE TO JANUARY 16, 2008.  VOTE 6/0.

      

HOLIDAY LICENSE: 

 

1.   An application from Mahmood Quisar of 90 Girard Avenue, Newport for Kahn & Sons, Inc. d/b/a The Cumberland Spot located at 1152 Mendon Road

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MORRIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ALBUQUERUQUE AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO TABLE TO JANUARY 16, 2008.  VOTE 6/0.

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

A.  ORDINANCES FOR RECONSIDERATION:

 

1.  #07-29 – An Ordinance relating to the Benefit Package for Executive Staff

 

Tom Hefner, the Solicitor, explains that this ordinance was heard at the last meeting and Councilor Mutter made a motion to amend what they had before them at that point.  He adds that while that was happening he did not notice that #07-29A was attached also to the package.  He believes that Councilor Mutter wanted to reconsider the ordinance that was passed #07-29 and substitute with #07-29A.

 

Councilor Mutter agrees with Mr. Hefner explanation.

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MUTTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ALBUQUERQUE IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO RECONSIDER ORDINANCE #07-29 BY A ROLL CALL VOTE.  VOTE 6/0.

 

Mr. Hefner explains that the explanation that is attached to the amended version, 07-29A, should have also been amended from 401k to IRA.

 

Council President Higgins explains that they now have before them for consideration #07-29A which needs to be amended with Mr. Hefner’s recommendation.

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MUTTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ALBUQUERQUE AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO AMEND PAGE 2, THE EXPLANATION BY STRIKING OUT, “401K” AND INSERTING IN ITS PLACE, “INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT (IRA).  VOTE 6/0.    

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MORRIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR MUTTER IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE AS AMENDED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE.  VOTE 6/0.

 

B.  ORDINANCES – PUBLIC HEARING:

 

1.  #07-30 – An Ordinance for a Change to the Town of Cumberland Zoning Map Hidden Meadows Overlay District – Residential Cluster Development (tabled from December 19, 2007)

 

Attorney Michael Kelly of 55 Pine Street for applicant JCM is present. Mr. Kelly explains that this is a petition for the designation of the property in question as a residential cluster overlay district.  He adds that pursuit to the Zoning Ordinance it has been determined by the Town Solicitor and the Zoning Board that the Council needs to designate these overlay districts although there is not clear specification in the ordinance to that affect.  He points out that in fact the Planning Board in the past has approved several cluster and planned unit developments.  He mentions by way of background that this was presented to the Planning Board on several occasions with public hearings in which the original proposal was for 23 single family lots, 44 acres of open space, barn and equestrian center.  He explains that the intent of the development was that the people living in this development could have horses and there would be riding trails on some of the open space area.  He adds that it was designed as a planned unit development under the provision of the Town’s Zoning Code, Section 6-2, which also allows a 20 percent bonus for planned unit development with the intent that 50 percent of the site would remain as open space.  He states that the matter was presented to the Planning Board and approved in July of 2006 with the equestrian center and 23 single family house lots which were appealed by an organization made-up of neighbors called RAFT.  Mr. Kelley continues to explain that the Zoning Board upheld their appeal on November 20, 2006 with the main reason being that the Zoning Board felt that the overlay district had to be established by the Council initially before the Planning Board could approve.  He notes that there is no question that if the Council were to approve this overlay district this development has to go back before the Planning Board for several more public hearings.  He proceeded to highlight the background by noting that JCM filed an appeal with the Superior Court also filed another suit with the Town for declaratory judgment and damages.  He informs that they have since reached a settlement with all parties where by the neighbors pursuant to a settlement agreement involving the Town indicated that their main objection to the development was the equestrian center because they didn’t want the horse and the excrement that would go along with it.  He informs that they have presented a new plan to the Council that is before them and there have also been some minor revision to the ordinance and the plan at Councilor Morris’ request, which they should have all received a copy of prior to the meeting.  He explains that with this residential cluster development the developer has agreed not to have any farm use on the property as would be allowed by the ordinance with the remaining 23 house lots only and as a result they were able to increase the open space on this property.  Mr. Kelley mentions that there was an issue raised in regards to this matter that under a residential cluster that there is no bonus of 20 percent allowed as there is in a planned unit development but if this were to go forward as an agricultural cluster development there would also be availability of a 20 percent bonus.  He adds that under the agricultural scenario the open space as opposed to being kept passive in its current stage which is wooded could be used for agricultural purposes.  He summarizes the proposal is now only 23 single family homes with over 50 percent of the property remaining open space to be deeded to a conservancy group or possibly a conservation deed restriction could be implemented on the property with the Condo association being responsible for it.  He states that they believe this is a fair result and good potential of having all this open space protecting the water shed and its issues.  He points out that this development is at its preliminary stage at master plan that has to go back to the Planning Board and then they will have to proceed through DEM for a permit.  He concludes that this development will be scrutinized up and down both by the Planning Board and DEM through public hearings and asks that the Council pass the ordinance as it has been amended.

 

Council President Higgins clarifies that as a residential cluster overlay as opposed to planned unit development there is no commercial allowed.

 

Councilor Morris explains that this ordinance was reviewed by the Ordinance Sub-Committee and explains that the zoning ordinance as written is very confusing in regards to these overlay districts.  She adds that although the Ordinance Sub-Committee believes that there is a requirement for an overlay district to be established by the Council but some of the regulations are very confusing in terms of density.  She points out that during the Committee’s review they discussed that in an agricultural zone they would be entitled to a 20 percent increase in density while other parts of these overlay district regulations talk about lot size not be diminished but this specifically says that an agricultural cluster development may be reduced to 80 percent of required density which specifically allows for the addition of more dwelling units.  She notes that by right this developer can build 19 dwelling units so they are adding 4 units maybe 5 at best.  She states that the Ordinance Sub-Committee recommends passage of this amended ordinance but would like the record to reflect that the reasons for their decision.  She explains that doing so would eliminate the risk of damages assessed against the Town as well as eliminate the risk of a comprehensive permit which there was one depending that proposed 52 units, 25 of which would be affordable.  She also states that this would eliminate the equestrian center, they would be proving 47 acres of open space, the developers would still go through the engineering review by the Planning Board through preliminary plan and final plan stage and these roads would be private roads that would be maintained by the home owners’ association.  

 

Mr. Hefner summarizes that there are 3 cases pending in Superior Court one dates back to 2004 for a 52 unit affordable housing development that was heard by the Planning Board, denied and appealed to SHAB.  He states that the second case pending was the planned development that the developer put forward to the planning board and was approved as the 23 unit development with the equestrian center that was later appealed by the neighbors.  He mentions that if the neighbors hadn’t filed the appeal this project would have been under way or somewhat along the line but as a result of that it went before the Zoning Board which correctly refused to hear it rightfully so, because the issue of the overlay district needed to be presented to the Council.  He adds that the third suit was filed against the Town and the neighbors that had filed the original appeal however the damage claims were only against the Town.  Mr. Hefner states that his position is to do what is best for the Town to eliminate the risk of a 52 unit affordable housing project and to make sure the damage claim against the Town did not come to fruition.  He continued to explain that his position was to let the neighbors who filed the appeal and the developer work out their differences, which they did, as long as it came before the Council for an overlay district.  He points out that it was originally approved a planned development, which allows for 23 lots, the settlement agreement that has been signed by the neighbors, the developer as well as the Town reads that the parties hereby the revised sub-division plan, which is 23 lots without the equestrian center, may include a non-residential structure or use.  He explains that it is his opinion that the way it is worded it still came be considered a plan development with 23 lots. However they can also get a 20 percent bonus for an agricultural cluster with the trade off of going from agricultural cluster to the residential cluster allows for the 47 acres of open space where with an agricultural cluster those 47 acres can be used for agricultural purpose.  He concludes that they can’t look at this request as an isolated matter from everything else, this will get rid of 3 law suits, the neighbors have agreed to it and the developers have agreed with it and he urges that the Council vote favorable on this matter.

 

Councilor Morris wants to be clear on the settlement agreement issue that they discussed the fact that the plan as proposed would not include a non-residential structure, which Mr. Kelley agreed to, and she wants to be clear that this sub-division plan will not include any commercial structures.

 

Mr. Kelley agrees that Councilor Morris is correct.

 

Mr. Hefner states that based upon the amended version they have before them Councilor Morris’ statement is correct.

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MORRIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ALBUQUERQUE AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE TO AMEND 07-30 BY REPLACING IT WITH 07-30A.  VOTE 6/0.

 

Public Hearing is opened at 8:06pm

 

Sandra Lewinski of 17 Hidden Meadow Drive was present to represent the neighbors group that has been discussed and to go on record that all comments that were made about the neighbors’ group are true and they have signed this agreement.  She states that this group just wants this matter to be over.  She adds that a majority of the group felt that this was a reasonable agreement and they have entered into the agreement and fully intent to abide by the agreement that they signed.  She concludes by addressing Mr. Hefner’s earlier comments that they would not be here if the neighbors had not filed that appeal made the impression that it is wrong to exercise their constitutional rights, which they felt was an appropriate thing to do.         

 

Gus Uht of 44 Torrey Road was present and stated that at one time he was a member of RAFT, the neighbors’ group, but hadn’t been so since June or July.  He states that he believes that this case is bigger than the people here or the 70 to 80 acres, this concerns more than 10 percent of the State’s population because the water feeds Pawtucket and Cumberland and doing anything bad to it is a serious issue.  He adds that he is a licensed professional electrical engineer and proceeds to refer to a map that shows an aerial view of the area.  He points out that Pawtucket Water has been on record as opposing this development.  He demonstrates that the reservoir is about 500 feet from this site with a river or stream running right through the site into the reservoir.  Mr. Uht believes that it is pretty obvious that they can’t support much in the way of development there.  He explains that he has a lot of problems with some of the numbers that have been put forward in terms of lot restrictions and the fact that is had been stated that this road was going to be a private road because it is not in compliance with the zoning regulations.            

Councilor Morris addressed Mr. Uht’s concern regarding lot size by stating that overlay district superseded his reference because those are typical and general requirements but once you are under sections in the Zoning Ordinance they are supersede by the Zone Change.

 

Mr. Uht responds that Councilor Morris’ explanation doesn’t seem reasonable to him.  He points out that after his review of these documents it is his belief that it states that they have to stick to the underlying zone regulations except for the bonus and density change but there is nothing that says the continuous buildable area can change.

 

Councilor Mutter question Mr. Uht’s reference to the Pawtucket Water Supply Board opposition to this project.

 

Mr. Hefner explains that there were no less than two letters from Mr. Champagne stating there concern of the water shed, the type of the ISDS systems that would obviously would have to be approved by DEM and a roadway issue but they were not part of what is before the Council. 

 

Mr. Uht emphasis that in his opinion the Pawtucket Water Supply Board was adamantly opposed and further the State has designated the reservoir as an impaired area so it should not be further developed.  He also believes that they never addressed the fact that they are supposed to have two roads going into a sub-division and there is only one.  He adds that there is a road in the back but Plainville has cut it off so it can’t be used.

 

Council President Higgins states that the issues Mr. Uht mention speak to the process that will happen following this process if approved.  He adds that Pawtucket Water Supply Board is an abutter and have been notified prior of this hearing and this ordinance and unless there is someone present to state their objection they have to assume they do not have an objection to this particular ordinance.

 

Mr. Uht believes that can’t be assumed because they are on record as being adamantly opposed by it in writing.                                              

 

Councilor Mutter states that on another ordinance that is before the Council the Pawtucket Water Supply Board authored a letter stating their opinion on that matter and he is wondering why they may have not authored one on this matter.  He mentions that he is not aware of any letter as part of this record and asks if there is anything the Council can do to make sure this isn’t a problem.

 

Attorney Michael Kelley explains that the plan that the Pawtucket Water Supply Board initially commented on is not the same plan that is before the Council tonight.  He further explains that the plan they commented on was the plan that included the equestrian center.  He adds that he does believe that they are against any development but they have received notice and he has not heard from them.

 

Mr. Uht’s states that he has personally spoke to the Pawtucket Water Supply Board and they are adamantly opposed to this, which he knows is hear say evidence.  He adds that they have their own reason why they aren’t present and he doesn’t feel that he can go into details.

 

Kenneth Bush of 4 Torrey Road as well as a Planning Board member was present.  He points out that they should have all received a letter from him stating his concerns with this project.  He states that he also doesn’t know why the Pawtucket Water Supply Board isn’t present because he has had discussions with them in the past regarding this issue and their opposition to this matter.  He states that it is fairly common for the Pawtucket Water Supply Board to be interested in purchasing property like this around the reservoir.  He adds that he doesn’t know if there have been any discussions going on between the developer and the Pawtucket Water Supply Board and what is going on behind the scenes there but it is obviously to the benefit of the developer to get as many lots approved as possible whether or not if he is going to develop it or offer it to the Pawtucket Water Supply Board.  He questions where the Council obtains the authority to set the number of lots in a development or is it only in the case of a settlement of a lawsuit because it seems to preempt the Planning Board from doing their job. 

 

Mr. Hefner’s response is no, the Council does not just obtain the authority to set the number of lots in the development in conjunction with the settlement.  He explains that in 1994 the Zoning Ordinance was amended creating some language that was ambiguous and it was never picked up on the fact that every project that came through the Planning Board that allowed a density bonus for a development with more than 19 house lots should have had the matter gone before the Council as it is now.  He adds that the Council is the only Board that has the legal authority to give density bonus not the Planning Board and this is how it is going to be going forward.

 

Mr. Bush states that it would seem that the Planning Board is more equipped to handle this issue because they deal with this all the time and for the Council to be able to say out right that there are “x” number of lots approved and then said it to the Planning Board for the other incidentals.  He points that there are some major incidentals that in many cases would not allow 23 lots.  He adds that the Planning Board has very little to do if the Council votes in a way that he they set how many lots this development can have and then all these regulations that he believe it defies make no difference because they can change the number of lots.  He understands the Council granting the overlay cluster district but he thinks it should be up to the Planning Board to determine by planning and subdivision regulation how many lots have been allowed. 

 

Mr. Hefner replies to Mr. Bush's comments regarding the Planning Board deciding how many lots are going to be there, he agrees with him but in this case the Planning Board heard this several years ago and decided that 23 lots were allowed there.  He points out that what was missing was that it didn’t get forward to the Council for the overlay district so in fact the Planning Board had considered it and approved the 23 lots with the equestrian center.  He also addresses Mr. Uht’s early comments regarding the continuous buildable area.  He states that yes they do need the continuous buildable area if they are going to have the 5 acres lots and they are going to take up the whole 80 acres but once you get the approval of a planned development and overlay district they do not abide that anymore.  Mr. Hefner stresses that he does not want to take away from Ms. Lewinski’s early comments; he did not mean to come across that they didn’t have the right to excess their constitutional rights.  He puts it into prospective that this would have been a done deal but for the fact that the neighbor’s group did exercise their constitutional rights and by doing so they now have the right to agree to whatever they want to agree to and he doesn’t think that the they should hold this up at the Council level.               

 

Mr. Bush stresses that he is truly troubled by the development in that area because it is the water shed and it is so close to the water supply.  He concludes that they don’t have an abundance of water supply and he think that it is an area that they have to proceed with an abundance of caution when it comes to development and urges that they don’t go this route.

 

Councilor Morris responds to Mr. Bush’s earlier comments relative to the Planning Board having nothing else to do with this matter because basically the 23 lots were approved at an earlier stage but when going back to the Planning Board virtually all of the engineering, other than this conceptual plan, is going to be reviewed by the Planning Board.  She stresses that it is important to understand that this is not the end of this and as a result the water shed and the septic will be considered by the appropriate bodies including the Planning Board.  She adds that preserving that open space can be dealt with at the Planning Board level by making sure that the open space is where it is going to protect those water shed areas. 

 

Attorney Kelley states that the property is zoned agricultural that could be used for farming and horses without restrictions and the whole area could be cleared and farmed.  He adds that if this were to be developed for 5 acre lots he could guarantee more land would be cleared and disturbed than under this cluster development as proposed.  He points that the Town’s ordinance on planned unit development, cluster, agricultural or residential development are established under Rhode Island General Laws 45-24-47 that specifically says that the minimum area may be reduced, the maximum density per lot and entire development can be changed with density bonuses and also indicates that roadways can be private.  He mentions that this is all proper under RI General Laws and prior to this development being appealed every other cluster and planned unit development in this Town were done by the Planning Board instead without coming before the Council.  He concludes that this developer was following an established procedure that had been in affect for 12 years before this issue came up and the Town gets 47 acres of open space as opposed to cookie cutter lots spread though out this property.  

 

Councilor asks if someone can address the issue of the secondary road that was brought up because he is not sure if that is needed or not. 

 

Mr. Kelley explains that the Planning Board has power to waive any of its regulations, in fact, the cluster and planned unit development ordinance specifically says that the ordinance maybe varied in a manner to ensure the required amount of open space, which addresses the roadway area as well as the continuous buildable area. 

 

Public Hearing closed at 8:39pm

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MORRIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ALBUQUERQUE AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE TO APPROVE AS AMENDED.  VOTE 6/0.

 

Council President Higgins states that after receiving a request for a recess the Council will remain in recess for 5 minutes.

 

Councilor Lemois thanks Councilor Morris for her in-depth review of this matter in sub-committee and her assistance in helping understand this better.  He explains that this has been reviewed several times and he supports this ordinance.

 

Council President Higgins explains that it hasn’t been a practice of prior Council’s to send zoning type ordinances to the sub-committee but they have begun to do that.  He adds that it helps iron out some of the problems that come up during the hearing and in the long run it saves the people involved money.    

 

2.  #07-32 – An Ordinance in amendment of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Cumberland, Rhode Island, as amended, amending the ordinance & map thereof with reference to Cumberland Assessor’s Plat 11, Lot 69 in the Town of Cumberland ordains

 

Council President Higgins states that he has a communication from Attorney Scott Partington, who represents the applicant which asks the Council to table the matter because the Planning Board was unable to hear the matter at their last meeting due to a lack of a quorum accordingly they were unable to render the required advisor opinion.  Mr. Partington requests that the matter be tabled to the Council’s first meeting in February to allow Planning Board time to review the petition and in the interim it is probable that this petition will be resubmit as a C-1 instead of C-2 at which time he will notify them in writing.

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MORRIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ALBUQUERQUE AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO TABLE TO FEBRUARY 6, 2008.  VOTE 6/0.

     

3.  #07-33 – An Ordinance relating to the Cumberland Open Space Commission (Presented by Council President Higgins)

 

Council President Higgins explains that this ordinance seeks to amend the Code of Ordinances in the Section titled Planning and Development whereby an open space commission was created by ordinance.  He further explains that the ordinance was written originally to have three members, one member from the Conservation Commission, one member from the Land Trust and one member from the Town Council.  He states that he personally doesn’t see any reason why the Council representative needs to be limited to one of its members so this ordinance seeks to amend that to allow it to be a resident of the Town to be appointed by the Council.  He adds that this amendment wouldn’t prohibit a Council member from being appointed in the future but it does open it up for more candidates.  

 

Public Hearing opened at 8:50pm

 

Public Hearing closed at 8:51pm

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MORRIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ALBUQUERQUE AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE TO APPROVE.  VOTE 6/0.

 

Council President Higgins asks the clerk to advertise and post the opening.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

A.  APPOINTMENTS-

 

ZONING BOARD:

 

1.  Nomination and Appointment of a Full Member to the Zoning Board of Review

     Term ending December 31, 2012

     Paul Santoro of 33 Scarborough Road

     V. Carol Vaters of 2640 Diamond Hill Road

     Robert Chaput of 46 High Ridge Drive

     Robert Edwards of 5 Edgewood Avenue

     Mary Lou O’Neill of 2970 Mendon Road, Unit 63

 

Councilor Morris states that she is recusing herself from the Zoning Board appointments because two of the members of the Zoning Board filed and corroborated an ethics complaint against her that were dismissed by the Ethics Commission as frivolous.  She adds that although she doesn’t believe she needs to recuse herself so there is absolutely no appearance of impropriety.

 

Paul Santoro of 33 Scarborough Road, zoning board member and nominee, requested to speak to the Council.

 

Mr. Santoro states that it was an honor and pleasure to serve on the Zoning Board the last 3 years but requested to be removed from nominations.  He thanks Councilor Mutter for talking to him about this and appreciated his honesty and communication and also thanks Mayor McKee for inviting him to serve on this Board.  He concludes by thanking the Town for letting him serve in this capacity.

 

Councilor Lemois nominates V. Carol Vaters as a full member of the Zoning Board, seconded by Councilor Albuquerque.

 

Council President Higgins asks if there are any other nominations, hearing no other nominations, he declares the nominations closed.  Asks that all in favor of the appointment of V. Carol Vaters say Aye,  the Aye’s have it and the motion passes 5 to nothing.  Council President Higgins congratulates Mrs. Vaters. 

 

2.  Nomination and Appointment of Two Alternates to the Zoning Board of Review

     Term ending December 31, 2008

     Tara Capuano of 2 Sweet Hill Drive

     V. Carol Vaters of 2640 Diamond Hill Road

     Robert Chaput of 46 High Ridge Drive

     Robert Edwards of 5 Edgewood Avenue

     Mary Lou O’Neill of 2970 Mendon Road

 

Councilor Kirkpatrick nominates Robert Chaput as the 1^st alternate of the Zoning Board, seconded by Councilor Albuquerque.

 

Council President Higgins asks if there are any other nominations, hearing no other nominations, he declares the nominations closed.  Asks that all in favor of the appointment of Robert Chaput as the 1^st Alternate say Aye, the Ayes’ have it and the motion passes 5 to nothing.  Council President Higgins congratulates Mr. Chaput. 

 

Councilor Mutter nominates Mary Lou O’Neill as the 2^nd alternate of the Zoning Board, seconded by Councilor Albuquerque.

 

Council President Higgins asks if there are any other nominations, hearing no other nominations, he declares the nominations closed.  Asks that all in favor of the appointment of Mary Lou O’Neill as the 2^nd Alternate say Aye, the Ayes’ have it and the motion passes 5 to nothing.  Council President Higgins congratulates Mrs. O’Neill. 

 

B.  APPOINTMENT:

 

LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES:

 

1.   Reappointment of Victoria Schulz of 20 Birch Hill Road       

      Term ending December 31, 2010

  

Council President Higgins explains that both these positions have been properly advertised and posted on the Town’s website and there were no other candidates submitted for consideration therefore the incumbents are seeking reappointment.

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MUTTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR MORRIS AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE.  VOTE 6/0.

 

2.   Reappointment of Rev. Fred A. Jeffrey of 33 West Barrows Street

      Term ending December 31, 2010     

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MUTTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR KIRKPATRICK AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE.  VOTE 6/0.

 

C.  ORDINANCE FOR PRESENTATION AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE:

 

1. #07-34 – An Ordinance Naming the Town of Council Town Council Chambers in Honor of Everett Bonner, Jr.   

 

Council President Higgins explains that this matter will proceed according to the ordinance that was adopted regarding the naming ordinance including the advertising and notification.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Leo Donovan was present due to a matter he was before the Council at their last meeting under Public Comments.  He states that there was some confusion as to why he had come before the Council with his issue with the League and he wanted to explain that the Council, School Committee and Mayor are here to make sure that everything in the community works to the betterment of the community.  He adds that what happened to him is only part in partial of what is going on with this Little League and all he is doing is informing the people with authority that he is going to pursue this matter without blind sighting anyone.   

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

MOTION BY COUNCILOR MORRIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR LEMOIS AND IT IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN AT 9:05 P.M.  VOTE 6/0.

 

 

 

________________________________________

Sandra M. Giovanelli, Town Clerk