The primary focus of the meeting was the proposal to refine the bylaws governing underground fuel tanks. The committee addressed the inclusion of propane in the definition of “fuel” within the context of underground storage regulations, an addition intended to clarify and delineate the applicability of various regulatory requirements. A newly added sentence to the applicability section was proposed to specify that certain monitoring requirements, typically applied to oil tanks, should not extend to underground propane tanks. This distinction was seen as essential due to the different properties and uses of propane compared to oil.

The committee engaged in an extensive review of Section 5, particularly subsection A1, which pertained to monitoring requirements. It was noted that these requirements, along with certain inventory control provisions, should exclude propane tanks. The committee considered the unique nature of propane storage, which does not typically involve the same environmental risks as oil tank leaks.

Further deliberations explored the replacement and installation of tanks, especially those constructed from fiberglass. The committee clarified that provisions involving cathodic systems were only necessary for oil tanks, as these systems were not relevant to propane storage. The necessity of these regulatory changes was underscored to prevent imposing unnecessary burdens on propane tanks, aligning with their distinct characteristics.

Questions arose regarding the applicability of these regulations to both commercial and residential tanks, but the committee acknowledged a lack of comprehensive data on the prevalence of underground propane and oil tanks in Natick. This gap in information did not fall within the scope of the current agenda, but it highlighted the need for clear delineation to avoid unintended consequences in the bylaw’s application.

Transitioning to another significant topic, the committee discussed the establishment of a specialized zoning advisory council. The advisory council’s role would be to provide legal counsel with expertise in zoning and land use matters, offering guidance rather than engaging in litigation. Clarity in the council’s appointment process was sought to rectify previous ambiguities, with the select board holding the primary responsibility for appointments. However, provisions were set for the planning board and town moderator to step in if the select board failed to act.

Citing experiences from prior zoning classification studies, the committee recognized the value of having a dedicated attorney to prevent potential pitfalls in zoning articles. The Financial Committee expressed support for this approach, acknowledging the need for expert guidance to ensure procedural accuracy and avoid past mistakes.

A debate emerged over the role of the town moderator in this context, focusing on the extent of their responsibilities concerning the proposed changes. While some members questioned the moderator’s authority to appoint external counsel, it was clarified that the advisory council would serve as a resource for the moderator to consult on technical zoning matters. This provision was designed as a backup mechanism to guarantee the availability of expert advice during town meetings.

Despite some reservations, the committee reached a consensus on the benefits of having specialized legal support. A motion was introduced to accept the proposed changes, including redline edits and amendments, and was passed with a 5-0-1 vote, with one abstention.