Special Town Meeting sets standards for lawn care


A small quorum of residents cast their votes during the Nov. 9 Special Town Meeting in the Longmeadow High School gymnasium. Reminder Publications photo by Chris Maza

Nov. 14, 2011

By Chris Maza

Reminder Assistant Editor

LONGMEADOW — While whether or not the grass in Longmeadow is greener may be debatable, residents can rest assured that it won’t be longer.

A small quorum of slightly more than 50 residents at the Nov. 9 Special Town Meeting elected to pass a new by-law requiring that property owners in town must keep their land free of litter, while maintaining a maximum grass height of six inches.

According to the explanation given for the article in the warrant, there have been 23 documented complaints regarding overgrown lawns through June 23, due to the increase in vacant properties in town. The town, however, had no legal mechanism with which to force property owners to cut their lawns.

While eventually passing by a majority vote, the motion was not without its detractors.

Resident Curt Freedman said he saw the merit of the article, but felt in its original form, it would lead to residents being in violation despite the fact that they routinely care for their property.

“I agree with the intent of this by-law, but its wording could create problems,” he said, holding up a six inch ruler. “This is six inches. Six inches is only ankle height. I could go on vacation and be in violation.”

Freedman proposed an amendment to the article, requesting that the by-law would require the owner or person charged with caring for the property keep it generally free of litter and that 90 percent of lawn area would be allowed to be no higher than 10 inches, excluding dandelions and weeds.

The vote to amend the warrant article failed.

Resident Larry Starr asked Town Manager Robin Crosbie what the enforcement mechanism would be used to enforce the by-law, to which she explained that the town would first send a letter to the property owner asking them to come into compliance voluntarily. If the owner remained non-compliant, the town could use fines, as it does for the majority of other by-law infractions with $25 being levied against the property owner the first offense and $100 for the second and other subsequent offenses.

Starr questioned why the town would not simply mow the grass.

“I don’t see how this is an effective strategy. It may produce some revenue from the town, but if I’m a neighbor, I want the lawn to be cut,” he said.

Crosbie replied that if the town were to mow the property and file a lien, it could become very costly to the town.

Residents defeated Article 4, which proposed the consolidation of utility budgets of the School Department, Department of Public Works (DPW) and the public library.

Jennifer Jester, chair of the School Committee told voters the schools were against the centralization of the budgets.

“The School Committee opposes this. The primary reason is because consolidation would not save the town any money and the school district has managed it sufficiently for years,” she said. “The school department has been effective stewards of this aspect of the budget.”

Select Board Chair Mark Gold explained that currently the three entities can purchase their energy independently, but if all departments had a larger single budget, the town could receive more competitive utility rates.

“We believe in addition to being cleaner and neater, this could afford town to potentially bid for energy in a bigger package,” he said. “Larger volume will make it easier when purchasing power.”

School Committee member Armand Wray argued that centralization went against the idea of transparency.

Select Board member Rob Aseltine added that he felt the move would hinder the town’s departments’ ability to govern its energy usage.

“I normally would be for consolidation, but the problem is there are very few, if any, benefits but there are risks,” Aseltine said. “This would sever operational control from budgetary responsibility. It’s a bad managing practice.”

Residents did approve the purchase of three new town vehicles.

Articles 15 and 16 requested the spending of a total of $230,000 toward a new full sized dump truck — $169,000 — and a one-ton dump truck — $61,000 — to replace outmoded and damaged trucks in the fleet upon the completion of an independent fleet study, which was also approved in a later warrant article.

Crosbie explained that the DPW’s fleet was suffering from what she described as “fleet paralysis” and said the eight full sized dump trucks, which are used from plowing the main rights of way, are the “backbone of the fleet.”

The Select Board asked that Article 20, which requested $208,000 be transferred from the ambulance fund to purchase a new ambulance be withdrawn, but Starr objected and made the motion.

Aseltine said there had not been time for a complete presentation of how the ambulance fits into the Fire Department’s fleet and therefore the Finance Committee had not recommended the motion.

Fire Chief Eric Madison explained to the town that the ambulance had more than 7,500 hours of use on it and was now suffering from mechanical problems and stressed that it was in the interest of public safety to approve the purchase of a new vehicle.

“It’s tired and in need of replacement,” Madison said. “On top of other things it has an electrical issue we haven’t been able to find the root of that causes the ambulance to stop running and it has transmission issues,” he said. “These are not issues you want coming to your front door in a time of emergency.”

Comments From Our Readers: