 |
Oct 18 2010 Sutton Massachusetts Town Meeting
The October Sutton Town Meeting for 2010 was held at the Early Learning Center on Boston Road, Sutton, and began at 7:30pm. Only 57 people (out of over 8,000 residents) were there. That is even less than last year! The town had NO signs anywhere that talked about the meeting as of Saturday. I began posting on this site about the situation and the sign in front of the Town Hall did get updated by Monday night to talk about the town meeting - but that was it. No other sign in town let residents know there was a meeting. Even the sign *at* the Early Learning Center didn't say the meeting was there! So people who wanted to attend and who drove to the Early Learning Center might think they were mistaken. I will really have to work on this issue. The town should be posting signs about these meetings.
Here is the official warrant for this meeting: October 2010 Warrant
There were 16 articles at this meeting, which you can read in the PDF file. Almost all of them passed unanimously, with the person reading the motion, someone seconding it, no discussion, no questions, and a unanimous vote. So I won't list those items out one by one. They simply were read and passed.
Article 6
The first article which had any discussion was Article 6 - sponsored by Steven Grondine. This involves the about 2 acres of land that the ruined remnants of the Blue Jay Restaurant are on. This restaurant burnt down in the summer of 2006. You can see photos - Blue Jay Restaurant. At this point there is just a concrete shell remaining. This land had been grandfathered into allowing a restaurant to be there, but the owners haven't rebuilt yet. They came up to explain the recession has been bad, it might take them 5 or more years to find a buyer, so therefore they wanted this land *permanently* changed from "R-1" (residential rural) to "V" (village).
If this change isn't made, then their ability to build on it ends in August 2011, and even that date is an extension the governor put in to help people in this situation.
Many people asked just what happens when this land becomes "village" land permanently. Apparently it could then be used for a variety of uses - auto repair shops, gas stations, any type of store, etc. So there would be no guarantee that the land would be used just for a small family restaurant. Concern in the room seemed to be that an "eyesore" gas station could be plunked in the middle of a residential area.
If the land turns residential, then at most 2 homes can be put onto it because of wetland issues.
It was asked, if we turned down this request now, and he wanted to put a small restaurant on it in say 5 years when the economy got better, could we let him do that? The answer was that yes, as long as 2 years pass from this request, he can come back and request for a specific change when he has someone interested in that task.
In the end, the group unanimously decided NOT to allow this land to be permanently changed from rural residential to village.
Article 7
There was a tiny amount of discussion on Article 7, which goes the opposite direction - someone wanted to turn a block of land from industrial into residential land. The aim was to be able to create a house lot. This passed without issue.
Article 16
So interestingly, all the articles between 7 and 16 passed quietly - but then we hit Article 16 which was - really - just a housekeeping article. But just like a few years ago with the "driveway debate" - the article brought up an issue that many people didn't realize existed, and got them talking.
Here's the thing. When a road runs in front of your house, the town owns that road. Most people know that. But most people don't realize that the town ALSO owns all land alongside the road, anywhere from 5 feet to 25 feet onto the land. That is, the "front of your property" is not what you think it is. If you have a grassy lawn that goes up to the road, a chunk of that land is owned by the town. Therefore any trees or bushes on that land area is ALSO owned by the town and you can't touch it.
So the article's purpose was just to put the existing, already-in-place law's violation information into our bylaws so residents can find it easily. This isn't a change. This is already the law. If you touch a tree or stone wall in the "public right of way" - i.e. owned by the town - you pay a $500 or $300 fine. This isn't new. This already is true. This bylaw change just makes sure people know about it.
Apparently many people at the meeting did NOT know about it and were grumpy. This meant if a tree was in front of their property and had falling down limbs they couldn't touch those limbs? If their stone wall was falling down, they couldn't touch the stone wall? The answer was CALL THE TOWN. If you have a tree "on town property" (even though to you it looks like it's on your own property) you have to call the town and they will come and prune it or remove it for you. If you touch the tree WITHOUT town permission you can be fined.
Someone asked, what if the tree is storm damaged and leaning on power lines? The answer was the town doesn't even touch it then - they call Mass Electric. (I'll note here that I was just talking with "Mass Electric" i.e. National Grid and when I referred to them as Mass Electric the rep laughed at me and said they haven't been known as Mass Electric for YEARS. I'm glad I'm not the only one who still calls them that name.) So then it was asked, what if the storm has damaged a tree, and I've got a chainsaw, and I do the work to take it down because it's risking my property, will you reimburse me? The answer seemed to be no. Or, more precisely, it was "we'll check our budget and see what we can do."
The group seemed rather discontented with this situation. The words "nanny state" were mentioned and it was wondered if any other states near us had these kinds of "we fine you if you touch our trees" laws. Nobody knew. Apparently you're not even supposed to touch little brush that is in that 5 foot to 25 foot area of frontage.
But what if you hire an arborist to do some work for you? Apparently the land owner still gets the letter and now has to explain why a person "under their hire" caused damage to town property. It was mentioned that hopefully this arborist had insurance.
Someone asked about changing their stone wall. The answer was they could not just "do it". They had to draw up plans for their changes, come to town meetings, the neighbors would all be notified, and it would have to be approved.
One woman stood up and said that she had a rotting tree in front of her house. She told the town a year ago about this tree and asked to have it dealt with, for safety reasons. The tree is still there, rotting.
A vote was taken, on including this information in the bylaws. A number of people enthusiastically said "NO!" to the idea. It seemed that they weren't actually against the bylaw change, since this is already a law and cannot be "undone". It seemed they were just vocalizing their unhappiness with the whole situation.
The meeting ended at 8:10pm.
Sutton Massachusetts Town Meetings
Sutton Information
|
| Follow @SuttonMass | Tweet |
| 
|
|