Uxbridge voters approve soil bylaw, and a process to remove official
UXBRIDGE – At town meeting Tuesday, it was all about the soil:
how it came to Uxbridge, how it was monitored, what it might be doing to
the water supply and what should be done about it.
And from the get-go, when resident Justin Piccirillo asked Town Moderator Charles E. “Ed” Maharay to go out of order and first take up Article 17, a citizen petition to allow a process for elected officials to be removed, it was clear residents wanted to see changes.
The citizen petition to allow a process to remove elected officials
received a two-thirds majority to pass, with 152 votes in favor out of
215 cast.
A proposed bylaw to regulate earth removal and soil importation, Article 10, which was amended after negotiations between selectmen, the town manager and the grass-roots group Uxbridge Citizens for Clean Water, also received a two-thirds majority to pass, with 200 votes in favor and 32 opposed.
Mr. Piccirillo said he was disappointed about having to bring the citizen petition, but he saw a “widening disconnect” between town officials and citizens. He pointed in particular to members of the Board of Selectmen and others whom he faulted with giving deference to landowners’ rights over community well-being and not sufficiently overseeing the town manager who signed a letter of support for two controversial soil importation projects.
Alluding to the soil projects at reclamation sites on Millville Road and South Street, he said, “I want people to think about the liabilities in which our town might now be a responsible party.”
Under the citizen petition, the article, which amends the town charter, would first have to be approved by the attorney general and then by voters at the town election in spring.
If the charter is so amended, a citizen could obtain 200 signatures to have the Board of Selectmen call a special town meeting or place the petitioned removal on the annual town meeting warrant. The citizen would have to give reasons for removing the official at town meeting and a two-thirds majority would be required for the official’s removal.
Selectman Peter Baghdasarian spoke against Article 17, claiming the amended version presented at town meeting differed significantly from the article on the warrant.
The soil importation bylaw, Article 10, addressed concerns head-on
over the tension surrounding reclaiming private land with soil imported
from construction sites in Eastern Massachusetts and elsewhere.
Dr. David Tapscott, representing Uxbridge Citizens for Clean Water, said “We feel this bylaw is a necessity.”
He said there were several potential soil-fill sites in Uxbridge and the bylaw, which would give the Planning Board authority to issue a special permit and would require project owners to sign an administrative consent order with the state Department of Environmental Protection, would give the town a meaningful way to regulate these projects.
The bylaw in Article 10 is based on a bylaw passed by another community in 2003.
Some who spoke opposed the bylaw, saying that a bylaw approved at last spring’s town meeting, which prohibits soil fill projects entirely in town, would be more effective.
But others said they questioned the enforceability of that provision.
“These articles place an undue burden upon our Planning Board,” said Mark Stacey, who opposed the bylaw and related zoning table changes. He added that Uxbridge “gets zero” out of the soil projects, when it should require a tipping fee.
“I can assure you that this has taken over my life and I’ve had many
sleepless nights over this,” said Rachael Frazier, a member of Uxbridge
Citizens for Clean Water. “It pains me that this is a town that has been
divided.”
Ms. Frazier called for transparency and accountability, which she said the bylaw would provide, as a way for the town to heal.
Patrick J. Hannon, who operates the two soil projects, said that information on everything that is brought in is filed electronically with DEP and is available for citizens to view.
Mr. Hannon said the soil being brought in was not “contaminated” as some speakers suggested, but according to state officials, was safe enough to use at playgrounds and day care centers.
And from the get-go, when resident Justin Piccirillo asked Town Moderator Charles E. “Ed” Maharay to go out of order and first take up Article 17, a citizen petition to allow a process for elected officials to be removed, it was clear residents wanted to see changes.
A proposed bylaw to regulate earth removal and soil importation, Article 10, which was amended after negotiations between selectmen, the town manager and the grass-roots group Uxbridge Citizens for Clean Water, also received a two-thirds majority to pass, with 200 votes in favor and 32 opposed.
Mr. Piccirillo said he was disappointed about having to bring the citizen petition, but he saw a “widening disconnect” between town officials and citizens. He pointed in particular to members of the Board of Selectmen and others whom he faulted with giving deference to landowners’ rights over community well-being and not sufficiently overseeing the town manager who signed a letter of support for two controversial soil importation projects.
Alluding to the soil projects at reclamation sites on Millville Road and South Street, he said, “I want people to think about the liabilities in which our town might now be a responsible party.”
Under the citizen petition, the article, which amends the town charter, would first have to be approved by the attorney general and then by voters at the town election in spring.
If the charter is so amended, a citizen could obtain 200 signatures to have the Board of Selectmen call a special town meeting or place the petitioned removal on the annual town meeting warrant. The citizen would have to give reasons for removing the official at town meeting and a two-thirds majority would be required for the official’s removal.
Selectman Peter Baghdasarian spoke against Article 17, claiming the amended version presented at town meeting differed significantly from the article on the warrant.
Dr. David Tapscott, representing Uxbridge Citizens for Clean Water, said “We feel this bylaw is a necessity.”
He said there were several potential soil-fill sites in Uxbridge and the bylaw, which would give the Planning Board authority to issue a special permit and would require project owners to sign an administrative consent order with the state Department of Environmental Protection, would give the town a meaningful way to regulate these projects.
The bylaw in Article 10 is based on a bylaw passed by another community in 2003.
Some who spoke opposed the bylaw, saying that a bylaw approved at last spring’s town meeting, which prohibits soil fill projects entirely in town, would be more effective.
But others said they questioned the enforceability of that provision.
“These articles place an undue burden upon our Planning Board,” said Mark Stacey, who opposed the bylaw and related zoning table changes. He added that Uxbridge “gets zero” out of the soil projects, when it should require a tipping fee.
Ms. Frazier called for transparency and accountability, which she said the bylaw would provide, as a way for the town to heal.
Patrick J. Hannon, who operates the two soil projects, said that information on everything that is brought in is filed electronically with DEP and is available for citizens to view.
Mr. Hannon said the soil being brought in was not “contaminated” as some speakers suggested, but according to state officials, was safe enough to use at playgrounds and day care centers.
No comments:
Post a Comment