Issue 5 July 11, 2024
Planning Board June 24
The primary focus of this meeting was a proposed development on White Pond Road. White Pond Road is across from Gove Farms on Mechanic Street. The road starts in Leominster and ends in Lancaster. The development is to be located at the end of the road.
Minutes were approved from 4/10/2024.
Public Hearings:
For 357 Sterling Road, a continuance was requested until July 8th. This was approved.
For 0 White Pond Road, Hannigan Engineering presented 6 pages of site plans for the development proposed on Lots 5A1 and 5A2 with 4 residential units, housed in two duplex style buildings with 3 bedrooms each and 2 parking spaces in front of the garages. The applicant is GoVenture Capital Group. The rest of the property will be designated open space. These sites would have a well and septic.
The proposed access road to these units is the gravel road abutting the solar array off Mechanic Street, which will be improved at the driveway to the units by paving.
These sites will come before the Board of Health at the end of July.
Abutters have the following concerns:
2 acres zoning bylaw; all other properties have had 2 acres.
The access road being used was put in as an emergency access road. The main access road entrance is on the other side of White Pond Road on Mechanic Street; this is across from D’Ambrosio EyeCare.
Drainage is a big concern. The solar field already affects this area which drains into White Pond. The main road has been under water several times this year.
Also, the septic will be an issue and White Pond may be affected by the drainage.
The well will be about 20 feet from wetlands, so the well may be compromised by flooding.
Chair Frank Streeter commented the well may also be needed for fire control. This needs to be checked. Also he commented about the steep slope behind the units, to which the engineer responded that runoff will be redirected by stone and landscaping.
The open space associated with the plan and integral to the zoning for these units, will need to be reviewed by the Conservation Commission, in whatever manner it is achieved, either by a homeowner association or by deed restriction.
The underlying lots are not residential lots. They are subject to the Enterprise Zoning requirements. The applicant is using Flexible Development to use these lots as residential. The setbacks for a residential zone is 50 feet. Right now, the setbacks are 30 feet on these developments.
Joe Ramirez, resident on White Pond Road and head of the White Pond Association, publicly commented that fire control is an issue on this dead end road. There have been two house fires and the Lancaster Fire Department was unable to help in at least one situation. He asked how many homes are allowed on a dead end street. Currently there are 40 on White Pond Road. Streeter reiterated that the applicant needs to consult the Fire Department to understand these concerns.
The plans also need a peer review.
This public hearing was continued until July 22nd.
Discussion:
Master Plan has no new update.
Staff Reports:
Wayfinding program is working on signs and finding grants for the work needed.
Hawthorne Lane needs a hearing process for an acceptable approval to take this road as a public way. Brian Keating, Town Planning Director, has drafted a letter. The road has acceptable parameters for the passage of safety vehicles but the Superintendent of the Department of Publics Work, Scott MacDonald, has numerous concerns about the water pumping station and storm basins. Streeter said that this was slated for the proposed town meeting in the fall. Streeter says it is feasible to say no and brought up the question, “Who owns the road?” This is a failed subdivision. At the next meeting, Streeter suggests having a vote and then send a report to the Select Board. All information will be gathered and distributed before the next meeting.
McGovern Blvd does not have an update.
2038 Lunenburg there is no update to the required plan site update.
Chamber of Commerce Sponsored Welcome Sign is similar to the Wayfinding Program proposed signage. Keating said he with coordinate between the two entities.
Conservation Commission June 25
The major discussion in this meeting brought up numerous past actions by the Board regarding 10 Fire Road 54, their impact on a decision on the Notice of Intent, and all the parameters surrounding the vernal pool and wetlands adjacent to the current dwelling and directly affected by the proposed larger dwelling.
Continued Notice of Intent for 0 Heritage Lane:
The wetland flags were re-evaluated. No impact to the driveway. Needs a peer review for the wetlands. No reason to do peer review on the Notice of Intent. This could to be dropped to save costs for the applicant. The part about the Notice of Intent review was dropped by agreement and this item was continued until July 23th.
Continued Notice of Intent 10 Fire Road 54:
The letter from an abutter and a response from applicant will need to be legally reviewed. |
Attorney, Chip Nyland, and the engineer, Bill Hannigan, for the applicant spoke to two exemptions. The first exemption is the vernal pool; a plan had been submitted with shaded areas that had been previously said to be “developed” within the 100 foot buffer zone. This was peer reviewed and this was reviewed by the Commission and the Order Resource Area Determination (ORAD) was approved in 2023. The second exemption should be grandfathered if the alteration was prior to 2007.
Overall the Commission is concerned that any work does not affect the vernal pool area. The term “developed area” is in question because photos show just bare ground in this area.
Chair Tom Seidenberg said the overall question is whether the bare ground in the photos show what could be considered “developed area.” Does the adoption of the ORAD in 2023 designate this area as developed?
The Commissioners agreed that they did not think all the shaded area on the plan is developed.
Nyland maintained that the area is developed for vehicle and foot traffic. Hannigan maintains the area has been defined and the area has been disturbed, which in his opinion, shows development. The plan, under advice given during its creation, was drawn to show that the disturbance or development that has occurred for these purposes.
Chair Seidenberg said the shaded area is still within the two wetlands buffer zones.
Hannigan maintains that altered areas, disturbed areas, and developed areas all mean the same thing; and this area shows alterations and disturbed areas. Nyland would like an agreement on the plan and then they could move on to improving and changes to the plan that the Commission would like to see.
Attorney Jeffrey Roelofs, attorney for the abutter, gave a presentation. He doesn’t think the Commission approved any areas of disturbance in 2023. The shaded area was not specified as an exclusion in the ORAD. The abutter has submitted photos of past conditions, as far back as 2007. One photo showed the mature trees that would need to be cut to accommodate the building of the second garage, so should not be considered a developed area. A photo from 2021 shows a more natural condition that would not qualify as developed area. Roelofs showed a plan with the buffer zones for the wetlands and vernal pool with the proposed buildings imposed upon them, where the buildings intrude in the buffer zones.
Patrick Garner, senior wetlands scientist, who does peer reviews and has issued ORADs throughout the commonwealth, and sat on the advisory committee that did the protocols and processes for submitting NRADs (Natural Resource Area Determination) commented; ORADs are used for delineation of these areas and not for the approval of any use of these areas. He thought the discussion of the use of the current ORAD “went off the rails” when trying to use it as approval for a plan. He concluded saying the creatures using the vernal pool travel out of the vernal pool, during their life spans. Having a buffer zone provides protection for creatures traveling between habitats.
John Bowen, abutter, had mailed a letter outlining the things the Commission wanted to see from the applicant and he is not sure there was a response. He stated he was able to comment on the history of the property and he is discouraged that there was statement made that previous conditions couldn’t be known, as he can provide photos. Chair Seidenberg clarified he was commenting that the Commission could not speculate on past conditions.
John Quill, father of the applicant, spoke to the existence of the septic system in the disturbed area which was installed before the property was bought. He stated that the vegetation shown in photos shown by Bowen was during a period of time when the camp was empty for a year. Also that the previous owners had used part of the shaded area as a drive to the pond to launch their boat.
Hannigan stated there had been a response to the items Bowen brought up.
Bowen stated there were no boats at the camp before 2000. Quill countered there were 5 boats when the property was bought by the applicants.
Chair Seidenberg moved to get to a conclusion with the commissioners. After a discussion, the commission agreed that the shaded area is not an exemption but simply a defined area. The hearing was continued until the next meeting.
Continued Notice of Intent McGovern Blvd:
A request for a continuance was receive to continue until the next meeting. This was approved.
Discussion:
The report for the Wayfinding will be at another meeting as the participant needed to leave.
The request for an extension on 0 Elizabeth Lane and O White Pond Rd (DEP File No. 193-0589) was approved. This is for the water main extension which expires in October.
Open seat on the Commission was a review of the Select Board’s decision at the previous Select Board meeting appointing candidates to the Commission. There is still an empty seat on the Commission, as this was Bruce McGregor’s last meeting. Chair Seidenberg asked Chair of the Select Board to reconsider appointing Carl Fawcett for this seat.
Chair Seidenberg commended McGregor on his three years of service.
Chair Seidenberg had a discussion explaining the town bylaws and state regulations regarding beach areas with Jesse St. Laurent, resident.
The minutes of 5/14 and 5/28 were approved.
Select Board June 25
This meeting put off appointments to the Community Preservation Act Committee again to the next meeting since questions arose about how residents apply for these volunteer positions.
The June 3rd minutes needed to be corrected. Member Ralph Gifford recounted the errors. The minutes will be approved at the next meeting.
There were no Public Comments.
Under Appointments:
Gifford pointed out that the town’s rules state that new people applying for appointments need to submit resume or statement to the Board prior to the meeting about why they should be considered. Chair Steve Kerrigan wanted to get the uncontested appointments done before having a discussion on the rules of appointing members to boards or commissions.
Deb Williams, a current member of the Affordable Housing Trust, was approved for another term. Roy Rezac was appointed as Tax Fairness Committee Rep from the Finance Committee.
Both Chair Kerrigan and member Jason Allison maintained in response to Gifford’s statements about the rules and policies of providing a resume or statement for consideration was arduous and detrimental to getting volunteers and not done in recent history.
After discussion about the rules about appointments, the appointments for the Community Preservation Act were tabled until the next meeting with Kerrigan voting no against the tabling the appointments but the motion passed with Allison and Gifford in favor.
Linnea Lakin asked what kind of resume is needed. Gifford answered anything that pertains to position being desired.
Licenses and Permits:
All were approved.
New Business:
Allison would like Town Administrator, Kate Hodges, to look at the policies and procedures for applying for boards and commissions and make a recommendation for language to revise the chapter from which Gifford made his earlier comments.
Board of Health June 27
Three of the properties having orders against the homeowner for occupied trailers came up for discussion and next steps were determined in each case. Potentially homeless people have or do occupy these trailers.
Permits:
0 White Pond Road; application for construction septic permit was continued until the end of July.
Lot 1 & 2 Ponakin Road; Permits were issued in 2015 and variance free. Need re-issuance. New permits was approved.
Lot 3 North Main Street; Permit were issued in 2015 and variance free. Need re-issuance. New permit was approved.
Title 5 Inspection Reports:
296 Hilltop Road; this passed.
88 Shirley Road; this failed and the residence will have two years to upgrade.
47 Centerbridge Road; this passed.
64 Old Hickory Road; this passed.
Discussion:
489 Neck Road property has an occupied trailer. Cease and desist order was received by home owner on 6/14. Need a new inspection. Bill Brookings, Nashoba Associated Boards of Health, will do an inspection mid-July.
700 Fort Pond Road; the Board has received a response from United Ag. Turf CFO, Mike DeMartin, who assured the Board on June 26th that the company has hired William R. Proctor Inc. to remedy the situation, i.e. to get a certificate of compliance for the septic. This is continued until mid-July.
194 Grant Way has a dust, noise, & odor complaint from an abutter. The business owner has committed to moving the offensive material the first week of July. The Board will check mid-July that this has been done and the issues resolved.
1263 North Main Street all paperwork is received and needs to be recorded; this is in process.
132 Kilbourn Road has an occupied trailer. Two cease and desist orders have been sent and the response cards have not been received. The Board will proceed with a constable serving the notice if the receipt for the order is not returned by July 15th. Brookings will call the owner and the Board will inspect to see if the trailer is still occupied. Then the Board agreed that if the trailer continues to be occupied legal counsel will be consulted for condemnation either by the town or housing court.
679 George Hill Road (Hawthorne Hall); the certificate of compliance is due by 6/30. William R. Proctor Inc. will be doing the septic system. Dillis & Roy have requested an extension to the June deadline until August 16th. The system is being built. The extension was approved but further extensions will not be granted.
27 Russell Lane has an occupied trailer with running generators creating a noise disturbance. A generator was running on June 20th. On the 26th the generators were not running and looked like one attached to the trailer had been weather-proofed for storage. Another inspection is planned to see if the generators are shut down and whether the trailer is empty and whether the dumpster/trash issue been resolved. After the inspection, next steps will be decided if necessary.
Chair Pasteur said the position of a clerk needs to be filled. Melinda Apgar, member, was designated as clerk. Apgar is also the Board’s representation to the two other organizations associated with the Board of Health. Member Sheila Mallette will step in as the representative to the Nashoba Associated Board of Health.
Pasteur will remain chair until May 2025.
The minutes of May 30th were approved with clarifications in section 5 by Apgar.
Zoning Boards of Appeals June 27
The overwhelming majority of this meeting involved the proposed development at 13 Neck Road which is at the corner of Neck Road and Centerbridge Road. Many issues were discussed; the Board generally agreeing that the density was too much for the area though the developer is standing fast at 11 housing units. Financial disclosure and the Housing Appeals Board were mentioned during the discussion.
The minutes of 1/25/2024 were approved.
Jean Rich, clerk of the committee, sent in changes to the minutes of 2/22/2024; these changes were not seen in the documents on the website.
The minutes of 2/22/2024, 3/28/2024, and 4/25/2024 were tabled until the following meeting.
Public Hearing:
240 S. Main Street; the notice of the public hearing was read by Chair Robert Alix. The Attorney for the applicant, Atty Cirillo, explained the applicants want to take down one garage and add onto another by building a smaller garage extension, to possibly make way for 13 additional parking spaces at the building. The attorney said this makes the property less non-conforming to the town requirements. Rich put forth that 11 spaces were better suited to the area since the other two spaces would narrow the driveway excessively, especially in view of getting emergency vehicles through to the back of the building. This was seen as reasonable.
Discussion followed about parking, etc. Atty. Cirillo commented that the petition concerned the garage teardown and the addition to the building. The parking site plan would be going to the Planning Board for site approval.
The variance was approved with side setbacks added.
In regards to 13 Neck Road, Christopher Alphen, attorney for the applicant, thanked the Board for the continuance from the last meeting, and explained the applicant for 13 Neck Road has been working on the letter of concerns sent by Lancaster Department of Public Works (DPW) and Department of Public Safety (DPS). Also, the property has been staked out now, and additionally sewer credits had become available and have been purchased. The firm, Hancock Associates, has worked on the concerns by the town department. They would like to go over the response during the meeting. Attorney Alphen will submit a final waiver list.
Several documents were received on 6/25 including the response to the town departments’ concerns, site plan update, snow management plan, automobile management plan accompanied by a traffic review, emergency access and a stormwater report. All these materials were not provided hardcopy to the board members, only the site plans, but are available on the town website.
Russ Tedford, from Hancock Associates, presented the responses to the town, contained in a letter submitted on 6/25/24. In the letter, Tedford explained the responses to DPW’s concerns.
Tedford also explained the responses to the DPS comments; the parking area will have only one way to making the lane large enough to accommodate emergency vehicles. He also addressed snow removal with reference to the snow management plan. The emergency access to occupants of the units was addressed with an emergency access exhibit. There is no code, except for the state’s Comprehensive Fire Safety Code. The exhibit plan shows adherence to this code. The “autoturn” exhibit shows how the fire apparatus can access the site.
Discussion followed about snow management. Board member, Eric Jakubowicz brought up that his experience with plowing is consistent with the snow management plan, but later brought out concerns about snow storage on site.
Chair Alix stated the plans show a perfect situation within the responses and that isn’t reality. Atty Alphen stated this is a rental property and this type of density is seen in other communities. It will house tenants that may not otherwise be able to live in the center of Lancaster.
Member Rich stated the buildings were 10 feet apart, the porch on Center Bridge Road is three inches from the sidewalk; she stated for her, this doesn’t work in Lancaster. She cited safety concerns. She said the design could look more like the other houses in the neighborhood and the density needs to be reduced.
Atty Alphen said they are not going to reduce the density because it is not economical for them. A note: this property was bought in October 2019 for $202,918.
He said they could do two buildings instead of three. Would the Board consider that? Member Rich made some suggestions on the location and size of the buildings. Atty Alphen stated before civil engineering dollars were spent, he would like to know if it would be rewarded by approval. Chair Alix asked if it is truly the case that the project is not viable with a lower density.
Town counsel, Atty Brian Winner, stated that a peer review would be wise. He also stated that if the applicant maintains lowering the density would make the project unviable, under the 40B regulations, the Board is allowed to ask for a financial disclosure. This might make the review easier. He said that with the other comments made, including any changes, that this may put off to be a future request when other items are more understood, including all the 6/25 documents and getting feedback from DPS. He also asked if it was possible to achieve closure on all the open items before the public hearing closes at the end of July. He suggested thinking about the schedule. The hearing need to be closed within 180 days, which is the end of July, and then the Board has 40 days to render a decision.
The Board had a discussion among the members and all agreed that due to safety concerns the density was too great. At a question of what the property would look like, the engineering firm brought up some virtual renderings of the current plan.
Chair Alix said peer reviews were needed. He asked the Board members what other items are necessary. Peers reviews were mentioned again, responses from the DPW and the DPS, member Rich would like to see the financials, she also suggested that bringing a fire truck in and around the staked off traffic lane would be a good idea, even though the ground is rough.
Brian Keating, Town Planning Director, said the engineering firm for peer reviews would need a new contract, Atty Alphen said he would speak with the applicant.
Atty Alphen asked if it was a 7 unit building and then a 2 unit building, would be an acceptable. Both members Frank Sullivan and Rich said that it is the 7 unit building causing the most safety concerns and to maybe move it back on the lot. Atty Alphen said the abutters may have concerns about putting the 7 units building along the abutters’ property line. Sullivan stated that the lack of open space for kids is a major concern.
More discussion around how the seven unit and two unit buildings might be better situated. Chair Alix said the next steps are peer reviews.
Public Comments were opened and Atty Benjamin Tymann, introduced Dan Merrikin, a civil engineer who provided work for an abutter. He would like the applicant to respond in writing to the letter of 4/24. He went through the issues brought up in the letter: need a better understanding of the runoff coming the site, don’t think the current calculations suit the development, also the project is located in a critical environmental area and the porous pavement would not contain a leak of hazardous material, additionally they are not respecting the inter-building setbacks, and finally in the stormwater management design, the porous pavement needs to be 3 feet above the high ground table and it is not.
Martha Moore, resident, wanted to clarify that the initial response to the project was negative. Twenty-six residents at the first site visit were negative in their response. She said that projects of this density are not put in historic districts. She said no town board should be responsible for the economics of the project, only the applicant. Only 3 affordable apartments are in the project. The abutters’ values will go down, and what and will there be remedies to the loss in home values?
Sam Malatos, resident, echoed the parking concerns. He thinks 9 units may too much with the parking proposed. Not enough open space for any kids and the train tracks, two sets, are very close with not a lot of space nearby. Would like to know if four or five units would be do-able. That would be an acceptable project. Would like to see the financials.
Deb D’Eramo, resident, repeated that peer reviews are needed. What is the turning radius of the new fire truck that is on order? Primary concerns are child safety and health issues for family.
Taylor Malatos, resident, said the abutters will be impacted by the parking issues. It is unrealistic to have a 1.5 parking spaces per unit. She asked the Board review all the community’s previously submitted concerns.
Kendra Dickinson, resident, cited a situation that while holding an open house at the house across Centerbridge Road, the traffic was stopped because of congestion. She has serious traffic concerns and stormwater concerns.
Atty Alphen said the applicant would object to paying for a peer review based on an abutter’s letter. Rich would like to know if the abutter could pay for the peer review. Chair Alix says there are funds for this.
Atty Alphen said if they need to go before the Housing Appeals Committee they will be reverting to the original design without any of the improvements and modifications they had made for Lancaster. He doesn’t think the applicant will reduce the density from 11 units.
Town Atty Winner then said the proforma financials would then need to be produced. Chair Alix asked if it needed to be asked in writing or during this meeting. Atty Winner said that the financials would show the 11 units and what would happen with a reduction to a 9 unit project.
Board discussed what number should the reduction be since 8 or 9 had been discussed.
Atty Alphen says that under state regulations the applicant needs a draft decision would be needed to provide a proforma financial report.
Chair Alix asked if the Board needed another discussion to provide this. Atty Winner suggested an intermediate meeting. It was agreed another meeting was needed to have a draft decision and also get enough information from peer reviews and responses from the DPW and DPS. Also a decision for proforma financial statement would be made at that meeting.
The public hearing was continued until the 18th.
Select Board July 1
A major disappointment occurred for the previous chair of the Community Preservation Act Committee when she was not re-appointed after being instrumental in the Committee’s formation and getting Lancaster needed for over $225K of preservation projects.
Public Comment:
Anne Ogilvie, making a comment for Roy Rezac. For the FY26 budget process, he suggests an early step would be setting top level goals for boards and committees. He also recommends setting financial goals for broadening of the tax base to attain tax diversity, providing a 5 year budget forecast, minimizing the impact of the new High School costs, and providing high quality town services.
The minutes of June 3rd and June 25th were approved.
Administration, Budget, and Policy:
Kate Hodges, Town Administrator, reported on the budget calendar for FY26; the proposed calendar has been distributed. The communication asked the town departments for capital budgets. She also sent the calendar to Dick Trussell, chair of the Finance Committee, and said that January would probably be the target for getting started on the budget. Member Ralph Gifford commented that budgeting and goal setting go hand in hand, and he would like to see the Board proceed with goal setting and get a progress report on the prior goals. Chair Steve Kerrigan says the goals is on the agenda on July 15th. Kerrigan said prior goals could also be discussed. Member Jason Allison says prior goals would not be a worthwhile discussion. The Board approved the budget calendar.
Hodges talked about the ratification of the BSC/Mass Development Contract to determine the different zoning possibilities for the DCAMM property. Lancaster has a grant from One Stop for $32K and Hodges would like to use this money to engage Mass Development to talk ab0ut zoning. Gifford would like to know what outcome would likely to be achieved. Hodges will share presentations and prior work. Gifford asked if the grant was new. The grant is new, and should lead to a robust presentation to the Conservation Commission and Planning Board about options for the property, commercial or residential. The motion to approve the use of this money was approved.
Hodges talked about the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Thayer Memorial Library concerning the Historical Commission’s artifacts, giving the Library the permissions to display the artifacts. She requested a review. Gifford asked that the wording under Section 8 be Town Administrator, not Assistant Town Administrator. Hodges replied she was trying to be clear in the responsibility for the permission. The wording was then asked to be changed to the Office of the Town Administrator. Hodges also clarified that the Select Board would be the last body to approve, that this MOU was not to be approved then, so Chair Kerrigan advised getting any clerical errors in for correction.
The ratification of the appointment of Kelly Dolan to Assistant Town Administrator was approved. Gifford asked for the fiscal details. Chair Kerrigan said that this was a matter of public record. After the chair’s remarks, Hodges went through the duties and the compensation of something less than $30K towards this position, and it was further brought out that these details were settled in Executive Session, and so not in the public record until this recounting.
Hodges repeated the FY25 to FY30 Capital and Instructions review went out that day and are due by August 15th.
The procedure for appointing members of boards and commissions was discussed, as in regards to Ch. 304 of the Town Code 05-01-2009. Gifford asked that the rewrite be available to the residents for review. Chair Kerrigan disagreed. Hodges and Kerrigan will make suggestions to how to review this. Gifford asked that it be treated as a public document. Allison objected to Gifford’s request. Allison said a resident’s time to focus on town items is small. Some discussion revolved around the review process.
Hodges has sent out the Finance Policies again after initial review. The Finance Committee needs to review and then it will come back to the Select Board for approval.
The LLEC Inc.’s Special Permit Removal of Earth Products expires on August 20th. This will be on a future agenda to approve.
The Community Preservation Act Committee appointments came next with 6 applicants for two seats on the committee. Chair Kerrigan asked if the applicants wanted to speak on their own behalf.
Linnea Lakin Servey spoke to her history with the CPA. She was instrumental in its coming to Lancaster. She is the current chair and over the past couple of years over $255K in projects have been done. She said it was still a brand new committee and she would like another three years to mentor others and help bring it forward. She noted that Lancaster’s bylaws could be changed to include two more members at large since the applicant pool was so large.
There were no other statement from applicants.
The board members were asked to nominate their choices, up to two per Board member. Allison nominated Michael King. Gifford nominated Linnea Lakin Servey. Chair Kerrigan nominated Michelle Vasquez, who Allison seconded. Gifford nominated Margot Streeter, who Chair Kerrigan seconded.
After the Board members recounted their reasons for their nominations, votes were taken on the applicants:
Michael King; Allison Yes, Kerrigan No, Gifford No
Linnea Lakin Servey; Allison No, Kerrigan No, Gifford Yes
Margot Hammer Streeter; Allison No, Kerrigan Yes, Gifford Yes
Allison then brought up that Margot Hammer Streeter sent an email that day. It is understood that Hammer Streeter is not willing to serve if Lakin Servey was not re-appointed. Chair Kerrigan stated that he hoped she would reconsider but there can be a new appointment made later to fill her seat.
Michelle Vasquez; Allison Yes, Kerrigan Yes, Gifford Yes
The Select Board then went into Executive session to discuss the strategy in pursuing the litigation against the Lancaster Historical Society.