Framingham planning board adopts corrective measures after Open Meeting Law complaint over ANR for 144 Old Connecticut Path

The Framingham planning board on Feb. 12 voted to adopt a set of corrective measures after an Open Meeting Law complaint said an approval-not-required (ANR) plan for 144 Old Connecticut Path was added to an agenda within the 48-hour posting window.

The measures, approved unanimously, direct the board to re-do consideration of the ANR for 144 Old Connecticut Path at the next meeting; require agendas to close one week before meetings; require the chair's approval before staff post agendas; and require planning staff who support the board to attend an Open Meeting Law training conducted by the city solicitor's office.

The actions respond to a complaint filed Feb. 7 by Charles Wannicki on behalf of Framingham Unfiltered alleging the board violated the Open Meeting Law by adding the ANR to the agenda on short notice. The board chair said the office has 14 days under the Open Meeting Law to submit a written response that includes corrective measures.

“The buck stops with me. I take full responsibility,” the board chair said, acknowledging the agenda change and apologizing to the board, the administration and the city. The chair said the endorsed cure will include redoing the ANR consideration and the other steps voted by the board.

Board member Mister Sarkeesian challenged that sole responsibility, saying he had asked that additional notes be added to the ANR plan and that he, together with staff, had worked to provide the plan materials on short notice. “I was just trying to be accommodating and be a public servant,” Sarkeesian said.

Board members and staff clarified that an ANR endorsement is not a public hearing. The chair noted the board has a 21-day window to review ANR plans to determine whether a plan meets frontage and lot-size criteria and said re-placing the item on the next agenda preserves that review period and avoids any risk of constructive approval.

During discussion, members questioned how the agenda change had passed current rules: the board’s rules and regulations (section 11.3) state agendas close one week before meetings. The chair told members the posted amendment occurred after the cutoff and after the chair had not been consulted.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to adopt the corrective measures presented by the chair (including redoing the ANR review for 144 Old Connecticut Path, closing agendas one week prior, requiring chair approval of posted agendas, and requiring staff Open Meeting Law training): Passed, roll-call vote: Mr. Buoy — yes; Mr. Maturin — yes; Mr. Norton — yes; Chair — yes. Mover: not specified in the record. Seconder: not specified in the record. - Motion to authorize the chair to work with the city solicitor to prepare the official written response incorporating the corrective measures: Passed, roll-call vote: Mr. Buoy — yes; Mr. Maturin — yes; Mr. Norton — yes; Chair — yes. Mover: not specified in the record. Seconder: not specified in the record.

What was discussion vs. decision: board members and the chair discussed responsibility for the agenda change, the 21-day ANR review window, and whether the one-week agenda cutoff is appropriate; the board formally decided to adopt the corrective measures and to authorize the chair to work with the city solicitor on the response. The transcript records no change to substantive policy or zoning bylaws beyond the procedural measures adopted in response to the complaint.

The planning board also noted existing public information: the meeting agenda and the complaint are posted on the city’s public meeting portal and the chair said planning staff can provide copies on request. The chair and members said the board may consider amending its rules and regulations at a future public meeting if members want a different cutoff than one week.

The board adjourned following the votes.