May 5, 2026 – Annual Town Meeting – Video & Transcript

May 5, 2026 - Annual Town Meeting

Autoscroll:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We have a quorum. A quorum being present, the meeting will come to order. If you could all take seats, that would be great. Welcome to night two of Wayland's 2026 annual town meeting. Thank you all for coming. Do we have any people here who are brand new to town meeting? Anybody? We have one. Okay. Great. Well, welcome and thank you for coming. My name is Miranda Jones. I am the town moderator. I'd like to first thank all of the people who put town meeting together. I did it last night, but I think it bears repeating because an enormous amount of time and effort go into putting together town meeting by a lot of people. So thank you to our town manager, Michael McCall, to his assistant town manager, Kelsey Sparrow-Sperlett, and also to the management analyst and communications coordinator, Jalen Bradica, to our clerk, Trudy Reed, and her staff, to the checkers and to the tellers, thank you, to our DPW director, Tom Holder, and his staff, to the facilities director, Michael Fea, and his staff, to Dave Bernstein and the Elvis Committee over there. Wave, folks. Yep, there they are. In case you have any problems with your hands. To Acting Chief Mark Hebert and Fire Chief Neal McPherson and his staff for keeping us safe, to the WACAM staff, something I need to mention about WACAM, their office is right through that door. There is not a public bathroom there, okay? So the bathrooms are in the back in a couple of different places. So please don't use them. In addition, I want to thank, of course, the various boards who put this town meeting together and to Alessandra Kingsborough. We thank all of them. And to Dr. Steven DeSantis of the USDC, for giving us this opportunity to say a few words about our timekeeper. Fire Exits are through the doors that you came in and directly behind me. Please disable all of your Wi-Fi hot spots. Don't make one of the Elvis people come and do it for you. No smoking, no drinking, alcoholic beverages and no firearms allowed. is a survey on the back table behind you on my left-hand side of the doors there is a table with additional materials including the annual town meeting feedback survey which has a QR code so if you would be so kind as you take your time and give you feedback and say how great it all went that would be great okay so I'm going to quickly go through town meeting because we do have a new person here just to briefly explain what happens I will not take nearly as long as I did last night but so town meeting we have we have the warrant right everyone's got a copy of the warrant if you don't have a warrant that you received at home you're welcome to pick one up in the back of the room in the warrant contains a series of articles articles of series are essentially the items on the agenda that we're going to discuss a town meeting their intent is to put our town residents or really our residents in the town meeting and we're going to discuss the town meeting and we're going to discuss the town meeting and we're going to discuss the same situation and think too we'll we'll any motion, we have the pro and the con. The pro is over here on my right, your left, and the con microphone is over there. Proponents of an article have seven minutes to speak on it, except for the budget, which we got through last night. Opponents have the same amount of time that the proponent takes, and they get a minimum of three minutes. Anyone who chooses to speak at the pro or the con microphone gets two minutes. There is a clock that goes up, and it'll give you the one-minute warning when you have one minute left, okay? That's how we traditionally debate. There are exceptions. There's the consent calendar, which we will not have tonight, but we do have abbreviated presentation procedure tonight. So several of the articles are on that. So under the abbreviated presentation procedure, the proponent waives the right to be heard. There is no debate. There is no opposition. It is a simple warrant article. It is typically not contentious, and it's designated with an asterisk in the table of contents. It's in the front of your warrant. The mover reads the motion, notes if there are any differences between the version and the warrant and what we are about to vote on. If there are any serious questions or if there is any opposition to an article that's presented under abbreviated presentation procedure, we will remove it from that and debate it and vote on it the regular way. Speaking of voting, let's get to that. Here in Wayland, we use electronic handsets. Every voter here should have an electronic set. If you are a nonvoter, meaning a non-Wayland resident or you just have not registered to vote in the town of Wayland, you should not have an electronic handset, nor should you be using an electronic handset. This handset is unique to you. Please don't give it to anybody else. If you need to go to the bathroom, you can take it with you. You can hand it to somebody at the front desk where you checked in. If you are leaving for good, put it in the basket by the exit door. Please don't take it with you. You will be called. You will be tracked down. Okay? Now, in order to vote on the, with an electronic handset, we'll get to that, to use your handset. So when we're discussing an article, I will, and it's, and we've gotten through sort of all the debate, all the questions have been heard, I will then say, okay, it's time, it's prepared to vote. When I say prepared to vote, that is notifying Ricky in the back, Ricky is waving, you can see him. He will, he knows that he's going to turn on this light. Here it is, right here, and that'll be the voting window, and that's, you have 30 seconds to vote. We will not make it any briefer than 30 seconds. That is to protect the integrity of the voting system. While it does seem like it's a long time, we still, we want to make sure that this is done properly and that we can all feel that the electronic voting is reliable. So we're going to stay with the 30 seconds. If you are in support of whatever motion is before you, whether it is the main motion, or it is, say, a motion to amend. We had a motion, we had a couple of motions to amend last night. If you are in support of that motion, and I will announce what you are voting on at the time, you vote one on your handset, that is a yes vote, and your handset should register yes on it. If it doesn't, then you raise your hand and somebody from the ELVIS committee from the help desk will come and help you out. If you are opposed to whatever the motion is that we are voting on, or whatever we're voting on, whatever it is, then you would push two. Two is a no vote, and again, it should appear on your handset. You have 30 seconds to vote. You can change your vote as many times as you want, but the last vote, the last button that you push will be the vote that is sent to OTI, which is Ricky in the back, and to tally up the votes. So again, if you have any problems with your handset, please raise your hand and someone from the help desk will come and help you. If we can't get a vote done in time by the close of the window, we will give you a secret. Thank you. We will give you a secret ballot, okay? So now is the time to ask the test question. So here's the test question. Okay. So I have a dog. First dog ever. We've had her for four years. The question becomes, what kind of dog do I have? So this is what you're going to vote on. You have two choices. Your first choice is, do I have a German Shepherd? If you think I have a German Shepherd, vote one on your handset. Or do I have a Red Fox Labrador Retriever? If you think I have a Red Fox Labrador Retriever, vote two on your handset. Okay? Everyone understand what our test question is? Okay? So prepare to vote. The voting window will go on. Okay. Vote one if you think I have a German Shepherd. Vote two if you think I have a Red Fox Lab. The voting window is closed. And wow, 25 of you thought I have a German Shepherd. Interesting. And 91 think I have a Red Fox Lab. And let's see what it is. And there it is. I read Fox Lab. That's Jenny. Okay? All righty. So thank you all. So everyone ready? We left off on Article 22. Is there a motion? No, no, no. Somebody has to come up and bring me a motion. Yeah. Yes. Ira Montague, 9 Irwin Road. I recognize you, sir. I move you, madam, that the town vote to amend the Town Zoning ILR, Chapter 198, of the Town's Code by amending, do you want me to continue on? Yes, please. By amending 198-104, definitions, 198-201, Zoning Board of Appeals, 198-205, Enforcement, 198-302, Overlay Districts, 198-1559, Conditions for Wireless Communication Facilities, and the Planned Wireless Communication Service District, 198-1602, definitions, 198-2002, definitions, 198-2201, Purpose and Intent, 198-2206, Eligibility Standard, 198-2201, Affordability Requirements, 198-2302, definitions, 198-2202, definitions, 198-2202, Affordability Requirements, 198-2309.11, Affordable Units, 198-2501, Purposes and Intent, and 198-2506.5. Affordable Units, all as printed under Article 22 on pages 66-71 of the warrant for the 2026 Annual Town Meeting. Thank you. There was one amendment to this article, and that is to revise Section 198-401.12.3, as shown on page 68 of the 2024 Annual Town Meeting, and that is to strike that section. Okay. And the clerk has noticed on Number 5, 198-401, that wasn't stated? Okay. That's because that was the one that was being taken out. Okay. Okay. And then also at the last, did you say at the last, second to last line, 2024 warrant? Is that what you heard? Yeah. As opposed to the 2026 Annual Town Meeting warrant? Yes. Yep. That's fine. Okay. Okay. Is there a second for this motion? Thank you. Thank you. Would you like to speak to your motion? I would. And I'll go through this really quickly. Article 22, Zoning Housekeeping Summary. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The purpose of this article proposes minor administrative updates to Wayland Zoning By-law Chapter 198. These are not major policy changes, most are clarifications, corrections, and updates to align with current state terminology and procedures. Key changes, one, terminology updates replaces outdated agency names, DHCD to EOHLC, or both listed. Cleans up and standardizes definition across multiple sections. Zoning Board and enforcement and enforcement clarifications, clarifies roles of the Zoning Board of Appeals, ZBA, and building commissioner, defines how enforcement works. Residents can file complaints. Parties must respond within 14 days if declining action. Confirms penalties. Violations can be fined $300 per day. Three. Nonconforming structures, updates rules for modifying existing nonconforming buildings. Changes allowed, if not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Planning board, not ZBA, handles certain cases. Single and two-family houses can be altered if nonconformity isn't increased. Overlay district rules, clarifies how overlapping zoning districts can interact. If rules conflict, the most restrictive applies. Finally, a second. Affordable housing, standardizes language across multiple sections. Low income is 80% or less of area median income. Rent cap, 30% of household income. District requirements. Mixed use overlay, NUOD, at least 12% of affordable units. River's edge housing overlay district, at least 25% of affordable units, ensures compliance with local initiative programs, LIP, and chapter 40B, getting towards the end here. One other minor, other minor edits, removes outdated definitions, clarifies procedural language. Overall impact, administrative only. Improves clarity and alignment with state law. Financial and voting info, cost negligible. Select board recommends approval, zero, five to zero. Planning board recommends approval, five to zero. Finance committee has no position. Vote required, two-thirds majority. Again, a technical heat up of zoning rules, not substantive policy changes. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak to the motion or have questions, debate? If not, we can move right to a vote. Okay. That's perfect. You can sit down, Mr. Montague. You don't have to. Thank you. All right, let's prepare to vote. If you are in support of the motion under Article 22, vote one on your handset. If you are opposed to it, vote two. The voting window is open. Please vote one in support of the motion, two to oppose it. The voting window is closed. There's no more voting. And with 116 votes in favor and 13 votes opposed, remembering that this is a two-thirds vote, the motion carries with 90%. Is there anything else to be said on Article 22? Seeing nothing, I declare this article disposed. Article 23. Jesse Newberry, Ripper Road, member of the Planning Board. I recognize you, sir. I move you, madam, that the Town vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-law Chapter 198 of the Town Code by amending 198-302, Overlay Districts, 198-1701, Town Floodplain District, 198-1702, City-Basement Districts, and City-Basement Districts. All those in favor? Aye. Members of the Board? Aye. 1702 federal flood protection district bylaws to comply with the town and fema floodplain standards as printed in article 23 on pages 72 through 78 of the warrant for the 2026 annual town meeting is there a second thank you do you wish to speak to your motion yes very briefly thank you tonight we're proposing several straightforward but important amendments to our town zoning bylaw these updates focus on our floodplain district and federal flood protection district regulations these changes are housekeeping they clarify and incorporate the latest fema flood insurance rate map into our zoning map why are we doing this simply it's to keep wayland in full compliance with federal fema standards and massachusetts requirements also massachusetts has asked for updates to town's floodplain management programs to align with these recent changes these updates better protect our homes businesses and i think most importantly they preserve the town's eligibility for the national flood management program flood insurance program the planning board has reviewed this carefully and voted unanimously to recommend approval as have the other boards thank you this is a practical step to help safeguard our community from flooding i urge your support thank you mr newberry are there any questions anyone who wishes to i just wanted to ask could you identify yourself carol plum baldrock road i recognize you are bridges covered under this do you have to call them out for bridges for flood protection i don't believe we have to call them out i think fema covers that thank you any other questions on article 23 any commentary okay prepare to vote please if you are in support of the motion under article 23 press one on your handset the voting window is opened if you are opposed to it press two on your handset voting window has closed there'll be no more voting okay with 123.3 votes in support and eight opposed the motion with a two-thirds vote over two-thirds vote carries
is there anything further on article 23. seeing nothing i declare the article disposed article 24 amend accessory dwelling unit bylaw is there a motion robin borkstedt 90 oxbow road member of the planning board i recognize you thank you i move you madam moderator that the town amend the town's zoning bylaw chapter 198 of the town code by adopting the amendments as printed in article 24 on pages 79 to 85 of the warrant for the 2026 annual town meeting including changes to section 198 104.2 definitions extensive changes to 198-900 and following to differentiate between adus which are permitted by right and those which may now be allowed with a special permit including units that are larger than 900 square feet and multiple units on one property and to provide guidance to property owners and permitting authorities for granting buy right and special permits changes to 198-900 and following to permit affordable accessory dwelling units aadus up to 900 square feet on a buy right basis in parallel with the non-affordable units and to permit larger and multiple aadus by special permit in a manner similar to that provided for non-affordable units and to modify 198 attachment 3 town of whalen table of permitted principal uses by districts and 198 attachment 5 town of whalen table of permitted accessory uses by districts in accordance with the directive from the office of the attorney general is there a second thank you do you wish to speak to your motion i do madam moderator in february of 2025 the new affordable homes act went into effect the act was intended to counter rising housing costs caused by high demand and limited supply in massachusetts and required that all massachusetts communities allow certain accessory dwelling units by right in single family zoned residential districts whalen amended its adu bylaws to bring them into compliance with the new law but the planning board intended to return this year to make adu bylaws more flexible as we're doing tonight pursuant to the current bylaws and the affordable homes act an adu that is allowed by right is currently under development and is currently under development and right in a residential district is a self-contained dwelling unit, which must be no larger than half of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. It must maintain a separate entrance, either directly from the outside or through an entry hall or corridor shared with the principal dwelling, and it must meet all the municipal restrictions, including compliance with requirements for septic systems, health and safety setbacks, additional size restrictions, and prohibitions on short-term rentals. The changes offered in this article create a special permitting process for property owners to seek to build an ADU that meets all of those same requirements but is larger than 900 square feet. It also treats ADUs and affordable ADUs more similarly in terms of the buy-write and special permitting process, and it offers a special permit path to creating more than one ADU. There is interest in the development of a new residential building unit, which is a place in town for ADUs that are larger than the restrictive 900 square feet allowed by the new law, and the interest is to allow for mobility concerns or the number of people residing in a unit. In the interest of protecting abutters, considering the great range of lot sizes in Wayland, the Planning Board has elected to require a special permit process for those larger units, because that process allows controlled flexibility and an interactive process. Under the current by-law, the Planning Board may only grant a special permit to allow more than one ADU in a detached structure. The new by-law will also allow the Planning Board to grant a special permit for more than one ADU within the boundaries of the existing home, if appropriate. Buy-write ADUs require one dedicated parking space, but the special permit process will allow the Planning Board to require more than one parking space for larger or multiple units. In summary, the Building Department can approve single ADUs buy-write if the ADU is under 900 square feet and is otherwise compliant with all the applicable restrictions, and applicants may seek special permits to build larger or multiple units. ADUs are still subject to all the setbacks, septic, health and safety requirements, and they cannot be rented to one party for fewer than 31 consecutive days. These comprehensive changes have been designed with input from residents and housing advocates to permit a balanced development in new housing. The Planning Board is unanimous in support of this article. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions? Any commentary? Yes, at the pro-microphone. Susan Crowley-Bechtel, 38 Moore Road. I recognize you. Okay. For the past 42 years, we've enjoyed living in Wayland, where we raised our three kids, and have developed strong ties to this community. We love our neighborhood, working in our gardens, and having access to green spaces. I can hear you. Yeah. Can everyone hear her? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Yes. Right. Thank you. Proximity to our friends and church is so important as well. Creating an ADU provides a wonderful solution for us to remain on Moore Road. Supported by our son, Christopher, and his wife ... And we can help them in caring for their two young sons, a multigenerational family. We're working on an ADU design which will blend nicely with our current home. our neighborhood and will comply with all the town's regulations. However, it is a challenge to create an age-in-place ADU for two people with 900 square feet allowance. Architectural plans must include sufficient space for mobility devices, paths of travel, and other design features necessary for aging in place safely. We are asking that you please consider these points in your vote for additional square footage so that we and others may continue to live comfortably and safely with family in Wayland. Thank you. Next speaker. Chris Bechtel, 38 Moore Road. I recognize you, sir. Thank you. Less eloquent and shorter, certainly. We're very happy to be in Wayland, living in a three-generation household now, and as my mother just spoke to the challenges of designing a safe age-in-place and comfortable age-in-place unit that's accessible in the event things such as wheelchairs are needed is much more easily accomplished with a bit more space than 900 square feet. So I hope you all support this measure as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commentary or questions? Rebecca Devine, Hereford Road. I recognize you. Thank you. Question. Is there a way that you could have different size requirements based on the zoning, understanding that there are different lot sizes, rather than having to go through a special permit? If you say you have a 80,000 square foot lot versus a 40,000, can you adjust the size? If someone could answer that? Robin Borgstedt, 90 Oxbow Road. I recognize you. Thank you. We tried to look at different ways to accomplish the flexibility that we felt would be helpful in town. And I think that's a great question. I think that's a great question. I think that's a great question. I think that's a great question. I think that's a great question. I think that's a great question. I think that's a great question. I think that's a great question. We decided to leave it in a special permit process because you might have what seems like a house that has a yard, a large piece of property, but at the same time because of wet areas or different things, it would end up pushing a large ADU close to a property line in a place we didn't want it or it just, there were so many different options. Do people have one already? And this is a second one. And we decided that just leaving it in a special permit as a special permit was going to be better. It's something that for the benefit of neighbors, of abutters, it seemed better to have it be a special permit process than just something that the building inspector was in charge of. So we tried different ways. We looked at what other towns have done and we liked the flexibility in terms of protecting the whole neighborhood, the abutters. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, commentary? Thank you. Rachel Bradt, Cherena Road. I recognize you. Thank you, Madam Moderator. I would just like to applaud the planning board's hard work on this article, bringing it kind of up to date with what the town needs in order to be fully responsive to the state law about accessory dwelling units. I think they've done a fine job. I think they're giving us a lot of flexibility. And they'll give each special permit a great deal of thought. I just want to bring your attention to the fact for anybody who's, I should have also mentioned I'm a member of the Wayland Housing Partnership, have been for, I don't know how long, maybe a long time. And I'd like to say we've worked closely with the planning board in developing this article. We strongly support it as a committee. I'd like to bring your attention to the fact that, in fact, there is this great deal of information that's now available for any household that's interested in exploring whether this is an opportunity for you and for your family. There's a flyer in the back table that we've put together. It says accessory dwelling units, ADUs are now easier to create. It provides a listing of resources. This information is also available online. The building department website, the health department website has information about. And the planning department is, of course, always prepared to answer questions. But I would urge you to start with this one pager. It has information on both sides, links to state resources that may be available to you. So I would just like to underscore that you're not alone in this process. If you're looking to explore it, I applaud that. We need housing of all types, small units, larger units, units that are affordable to everyone. And we're looking to explore how we can make that available to small families would be a huge asset to the town. We all know how much the housing issues are facing families and friends all throughout the commonwealth. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Any other questions? Any commentary? Okay. With that, we shall prepare to vote on Article 24. If you are in favor of the motion, the voting light is on. Vote 1 on your handset. If you are opposed to it, vote 2. The voting window is open. Thank you. Over, it's closed, and this requires a two-thirds majority vote. With 142 voting in favor and eight opposed, the motion carries. Is there anything else to be said on Article 24? Seeing nothing, I declare the article disposed. Article 25, Multifamily Housing, Route 20 West, Subdistrict, Amend Maximum Dimensions. Is there a motion? Yes, there is. Annette Lewis. Ms. Lewis, Claypott Hill Road, Chair of the Planning Board. I recognize you, Ms. Lewis. I move you, Madam, moved that the town vote to amend the Town Zoning Bylaw, Chapter 198 of the Town Code, by amending two-dimensional limits in the Route 20 West Multifamily Housing Subdistrict, as printed in Article 25 on pages 85 to 86 of the warrant for the 2026 Annual Test. Move. Is there a second? Thank you. Do you wish to speak to your motion? I do. Thank you, Madam Moderator. This amendment affects just the Route 20 West Multifamily Housing Overlay District on the north side of Route 20, adjacent to the Sudbury Line near the car wash. It's the area just in front of the Longfellow Club. It is an underdeveloped 7.8-acre area, AREA THAT WAS DESIGNATED IN 2024 AS ONE OF WAYLAND'S FOUR MBTA-COMPLIANT ZONING SUBDISTRICTS. WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS AN INCREASE TO TWO-DIMENSIONAL LIMITS, DENSITY, THAT IS THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS, AND HEIGHT. BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, THE PLANNING BOARD WORKED FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS TO COME UP WITH THE STATE REQUIRED SUBDISTRICTS THAT WOULD BE UNOBTRUCIVE TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WOULD COMPLY WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS, AND WOULD MEET THRESHOLDS ESTABLISHED IN THE STATE'S COMPLICATED COMPUTER MODEL. WE DID THIS TO MEET THE INCREASED NEED FOR MORE HOUSING UNITS IN MASSACHUSETTS. WHAT THE STATE DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN ITS OVERALL PROGRAM IS HOW LIKELY IT WOULD BE FOR A DEVELOPER TO WANT TO UNDERTAKE SUCH A PROGRAM. IT ALL TURNS ON AN ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF PROJECT COSTS, REVENUES, DEGREE OF RISK, AND THE ESTIMATED RETURN. THOSE FACTORS ALSO DETERMINE WHETHER A PROJECT CAN OBTAIN FINANCING AT ALL. SEVERAL STUDIES PUBLISHED AFTER WAYLAND'S MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING HAD BEEN PREPARED LOOKED AT THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF SUCH PROJECTS, AND THEY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ADDITIONAL COSTS INCREASED INVOLVED IN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, LAND FOR PARKING AREAS, PARKING STRUCTURES, AMENITIES, LOT COVERAGE LIMITS, AND OTHER SUCH THINGS INCREASE THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT NECESSARILY EQUATING WITH THE ABILITY TO CHARGE HIGHER RENTS TO COVER THE COST OF THE PROJECT. THE PLANNING BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO PROPOSE THAT JUST FOR THIS SUBDISTRICT, THE TOWN MEETING VOTE TO INCREASE THE ELECTRICITY. IT ALLOWED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE FROM 20 TO 32 AND INCREASED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 35 TO 58. IN DOING THIS, THE BOARD TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE GRADE OF MUCH OF THE LAND IN THE ROUTE 20 WEST SUBDISTRICT IS APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET BELOW THE GRADE OF ROUTE 20. AND ROUTE 20 IS RIGHT ADJACENT TO IT. A 58-FOOT BUILDING IN THE ROUTE 20 WEST SUBDISTRICT WOULD APPEAR TO BE 10 FEET LOWER IN HEIGHT THAN EXISTING BUILDINGS IN THE RIVERS EDGE WEST SUBDISTRICT WHERE THE OXBOW APARTMENTS ARE LOCATED. THE RIVERS EDGE OXBOW BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY 53 FEET IN HEIGHT AND 58 FEET IN ONE AREA. AND THEY EXCEED THE 45-FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT PRESCRIBED IN THE RIVERS EDGE WEST SUBDISTRICT. WHICH IS A DISTRICT THAT PREDATED OUR SEPARATE AND DISTINCT MBTA ZONING EFFORT. DESPITE THE 2013 AND 2014 TOWN MEETING VOTES FOR THE RIVERS EDGE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT THAT LIMITED THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS TO 190 AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 45 FEET, THE ZONING BOARD SUBSEQUENTLY ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF 218 UNITS IN THE RIVERS EDGE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONING AND BUILDING HEIGHTS UP TO 58 FEET. THE PLANNING BOARD BELIEVES THAT SUCH VARIANCES FROM TOWN MEETING APPROVED ZONING PROVISIONS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY TOWN MEETING AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE PRESENTING THIS PROPOSAL TO YOU NOW. IF WAYLAND IS TRULY SEEKING MORE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, THEN THIS PROPOSAL IS A WAY TO GET IT. IN ADDITION, IT SHOULD PROVIDE MORE TAX REVENUE TO THE TOWN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DEBATE? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? MADAM MODERATOR, HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD, MEMBER OF THE SELECT BOARD, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION. THANK YOU. SO THE PARCELS AFFECTED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE LOCATED AT THE SUBWAY WAYLAND TOWN LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A 20 AS YOU SEE ON THE SLIDE. THIS OPPOSITION DOES NOT CONTEST THE GOAL OF CREATING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN WAYLAND. RATHER, IT CHALLENGES THE SCALE AND MASSING OF WHAT THIS ARTICLE PERMITS. WITHOUT ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS TO PREDICT OUR TOWN'S CHARACTER, ROADWAY APPEARANCE AND PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE. TWO OF THE TOWN'S PRINCIPAL ADVISORY BOARDS HAVE RECOMMENDED AGAINST APPROVAL. THE SELECT BOARD VOTED 2 TO 3 AGAINST SUPPORTING THIS ARTICLE. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE VOTED 1, 3, 2 AGAINST SUPPORTING THIS ARTICLE. THESE VOTES REFLECT SHARED RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES AT THIS TIME. AND THE SELECT BOARD HAS INDICATED IT WOULD WELCOME FURTHER STUDY AND ENGAGEMENT TO CRAFT A PROPOSAL WITH PROPER HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A FUTURE TOWN MEETING. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TWICE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY THAT AN AMENDMENT IS NEEDED FOR THIS ZONING. ROUTE 20 IS THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE CORRIDOR INTO WAYLAND, A TOWN THAT HAS LONG DESCRIBED ITSELF AS SEMI-ORAL. THE MOST URGENT CONCERN WITH ARTICLE 25 IS THE MASSING THAT WOULD RESULT FROM A 58-YEAR FOOT FIVE-STORY BUILDING PLACED WITHIN 30 FEET OF ROUTE 20. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THIS PROPOSED ZONING MIMICS ALTA OXPO. IT DOES NOT. THIS RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS IN HOW IT IS WRITTEN. ALTA OXPO FOR CONTEXT ALLOWS A HEIGHT OF 58 FEET BUT WITH A MAXIMUM OF FOUR RESIDENTIAL FLOORS, NOT FIVE, WITH A PEAKED ROOF AND THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING CLOSER TO ROUTE 20 ARE REQUIRED TO BE ONE STORY SHORTER. THIS ARTICLE HAS NO SUCH SAFEGUARDS. THESE ASPECTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL IN MAKING ALTA OXPO ATTRACTIVE. THE SLIDE YOU JUST SAW WAS LOOKING EAST ON ROUTE 20. THIS IS THE SAME SLIDE. THIS IS A MASSING DIAGRAM. WHAT THIS STRUCTURE WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THIS ARTICLE PASSES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROADWAY THAT YOU SEE, A PRIVATE ROADWAY. SO, AGAIN, THIS MASSING DIAGRAM DEPICTS WHAT PEOPLE WOULD SEE AS THE ENTRY WAY FROM ROUTE 20 IF THIS ARTICLE PASSES. THIS PROPOSAL ALLOWS 58-FOOT BUILDING 30 FEET FROM ROUTE 20. THAT'S TEN YARDS WITH NO MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FLOORS AND NO LOWER MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AT THE FRONT. THIS ZONING THEN THROWS THE DOOR OPEN FOR DEVELOPERS TO DO BIG BOXY FIVE STORY BUILDINGS WITHIN 30 FEET OF ROUTE 20. FIVE STORY BUILDINGS ARE UNPRECEDENTED ANYWHERE IN WAYLAND AND AGAIN PUTS IT JUST TEN YARDS FROM THE ROAD. IF THIS ARTICLE FAILS, IT WOULD DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. RATHER THE DISPUTE HERE IS JUST HOW AND WHERE THE STRUCTURES ARE POSITIONED ON THE SITE. GOOD ZONING CAN ADDRESS THIS. IT IS SAID THAT OUR DESIGN REGULATIONS WILL PROTECT US. NO, NOT WITH CERTAINTY. OUR REGULATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE STATE AND WILL LIKELY BE CHALLENGED BY A DEVELOPER. THIS SLIDE ALSO LOOKS EAST ON ROUTE 20. THIS SLIDE WILL DEPICT WHAT IS HAPPENING. IF THIS ARTICLE PASSES, A STRUCTURE WILL LOOK LIKE. IT IS SAID THAT THE FOOD PANTRY SITE TO THE LEFT OF THE ROADWAY, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CANDELLA SITE, IS UNLIKELY TO BE DEVELOPED. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. IF THEIR SITE IS SUDDENLY WORTH TWICE OR ONE TO ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN WHAT THEY PAID, ESPECIALLY AS A NONPROFIT WANTING TO MAKE EVERY DOLLAR COUNT, THEY IN FACT HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE TO SELL A PROPERTY TO A DEVELOPER. IT IS SAID THAT ANY CHANGES EXCEPT FOR WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. WE HAVE OUR MBTA APPROVALS AND WE SHOULD NOT DISTURB THAT BASELINE. THIS ZONING IS ABOVE AND BEYOND SO WE CAN AND SHOULD CONTROL THE PROPOSED HEIGHT INCREASE. IN CONCLUSION, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING HERE. NEW BUILDINGS WILL STAND FOR LIKELY 100 YEARS. THE SELECT BOARD, FINANCE COMMITTEE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ADVISE A NO VOTE ON THIS ARTICLE. BUT LET'S HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS SO WE CAN READ IT. THANK YOU. WE WILL REVISIT THIS TOPIC AT A FUTURE TOWN MEETING. THANK YOU, MR. FAYE. SO WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE AT THE PRO AND CON MICROPHONES. DO YOU HAVE A POINT OF ORDER OR A QUESTION? I NEED TO APOLOGIZE. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A POINT OF ORDER? OKAY. PLEASE FACE THE MICROPHONE. SUSAN COFFMAN, SHERMAN BRIDGE ROAD. I RECOGNIZE YOU. THANK YOU. THE INCREASE TO 58 FEET, TO FIVE AND A HALF STORIES, I ASSUME ALLOWS A GREATER DENSITY OF APARTMENTS OR CONDOS OR WHATEVER THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE. AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S ACCURATE, IF THE PLANNING BOARD COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION. ANNETTE LEWIS, CLAPIT HILL ROAD, CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD. YES, THAT IS IN FACT ACCURATE. IN CREATING THE DISTRICTS AS WE DID, WE HAD TO DO STATE MODELING. IT'S NOT A LINEAR KIND OF MODELING. WE COULD NOT DETERMINE ON OUR OWN WHETHER CERTAIN DISTRICTS WOULD OR WOULD NOT PASS THE CONSULTER. WE HAD TO RUN THEM THROUGH THE COMPUTER MODEL AND WE HAD TO USE A CONSULTANT. AND WE HAD A $49,000 GRANT TO HIRE THAT CONSULTANT, WHICH WE NO LONGER HAVE. AND I MEAN, WE'VE USED IT. AND YOU CAN'T DO THE KIND OF ZONING THAT MR. FAY JUST SPOKE ABOUT UNDER THE MBTA ZONING, AND I'LL SPEAK MORE OVER THERE. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? POINT OF ORDER? OKAY. JUDY LINCOLN. I RECOGNIZE YOU. MADAM MODERATOR, I HAVE A QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS, I BELIEVE WE ARE IN DEFICIT OF THE 40B REQUIREMENT AND THEREFORE MY QUESTION IS, ARE THESE UNITS RENTAL UNITS ONLY AND THEREFORE WOULD HELP US WITH THE 40B SITUATION? IF SOMEONE CAN ANSWER THAT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. UNDER THE MBTA STATUTE, ONLY 10% CAN BE REQUIRED TO BE 40B ELECTED. IT'S NOT 40B ELIGIBLE UNDER THE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING LIST. BUT A DEVELOPER COULD DO MORE IF THEY WANTED. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE MBTA REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT WE CANNOT LIMIT AND CAN'T RESTRICT IN GREAT DETAIL HOW BUILDINGS LOOK OR DON'T LOOK. DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER IT AS WELL? THANK YOU, MADAM MODERATOR. TOM, THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER IT. I'M A HAPPY HOLLAND ROAD SELECT BOARD MEMBER. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LAST QUESTION, THERE WAS AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE TOWN'S STATUS RELATIVE TO 10%. WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE. I THINK THERE WAS A STORY IN THE LOCAL PAPER THAT WE WEREN'T, BUT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH 10%. ALLEN MATTHEWS, OLD CONNECTED PATH. I RECOGNIZE YOU, SIR. BASED ON WHAT SOMEONE JUST BROUGHT UP, IF WE DO NOT APPROVE THIS ARTICLE, WE'LL BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MBTA AGREEMENT? YES. OKAY. DID EVERYONE HEAR WHAT THE ANSWER WAS TO MR. MATTHEWS' QUESTION? NO. WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE NOW, AND WE CAN KEEP THINGS THE WAY THAT THEY ARE. BUT IF WE WANT TO HAVE MORE HOUSING IN WAYLAND, THEN WE NEED TO APPROVE THIS. OKAY. THAT ANSWERS THIS QUESTION. OKAY. SO NO MORE QUESTIONS. SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE PRO MICROPHONE. GOOD EVENING, MADAM MODERATOR. MY NAME IS JENNIFER JAMES YOUNG OF ORCHARD LANE. I RECOGNIZE YOU. THANK YOU. AFTER SPENDING MONTHS HEARING CONCERNS ABOUT WAYLAND'S FISCAL CHALLENGES AND THE NEED FOR NEW GROWTH, ARTICLE 25 STRIKES ME AS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF PROJECT THE TOWN SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD REDEVELOP AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AT 534 BOSTON POST ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL USES, INCLUDING A QUICK OIL CHANGE BUSINESS, A PAINT STORE, A CAR WASH, AND THE SUDBURY TRANSFER STATION. IT IS ALSO LOCATED FAR FROM SURROUNDING WAYLAND NEIGHBORHOODS. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS THE TYPE OF LOCATION WHERE GROWTH MAKES SENSE. ARTICLE 25 HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE MEANINGFUL TAX REVENUE, ADD MINIMAL STRAIN TO OUR SCHOOLS, AND HELP STRENGTHEN WAYLAND'S POSITION UNDER CHAPTER 40B SAFE HARBOR PROTECTIONS. IT ALSO HELPS DEMONSTRATE PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING THE STATE'S MBTA COMMUNITY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE BEING TOLD WAYLAND NEEDS THOUGHTFUL GROWTH, THIS FEELS LIKE A PRACTICAL AND STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY TO DO EXACTLY THAT. I RESPECTFULLY ASK RESIDENTS TO VOTE YES ON ARTICLE 25. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND AT THE CON MICROPHONE. MADAM MODERATOR, THIS IS BILL STERLING, 14 MORRIS RUTH. I RECOGNIZE YOU, SIR. I WAS JUST ELECTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT I HAVE NOT SWORN IN YET. I'M SPEAKING ONLY ON MY OWN BEHALF. PREVIOUSLY, I WAS ON THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR TEN YEARS IN THE 1980s TO 1990s, OFTEN DECIDING UNZONING. AFTER THAT, I CHAIRED THE DESIGN WORKING GROUP, 17 VOLUNTEERS WHO DRAFTED THE WAYLAND DESIGN GUIDELINES. WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IN THE SLIDES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATIONS. OUR WORKING GROUP HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE PULLED WAYLAND VOTERS TO DETERMINE WHAT VISION THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD HAVE FOR THE NEW BUILDINGS IN TOWN. WE CALLED WAYLAND'S UNIQUE CHARACTER, NEW ENGLAND VILLAGE STYLE. SINCE 2012, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD, I HAVE ENCOURAGED DEVELOPERS TO FIT THAT STYLE. THE MOST POPULAR EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE ALTA OXBOW APARTMENT BUILDING IN ROUTE 20. REGARDING ARTICLE 25, I HAVE ONLY TWO OBJECTIONS. I DO NOT APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE STYLE. I DO NOT APPROVE OF THE 35-FOOT SETBACK THAT PLACES A 58-FOOT HIGH WALL TOWERING OVER ROUTE 20 AS YOU SAW IN THE SLIDES THAT TOM JUST SHOWED YOU. I ALSO DO NOT APPROVE OF THE 58-FOOT HIGH BOXY FLAT ROOFED SHAPE THAT MOST DEVELOPERS WILL ACTUALLY BUILD JUST TO MINIMIZE COST. IT WILL LOOK LIKE A GIANT SHOE BOX SITTING RIGHT UP AGAINST ROUTE 20. IF WE DENY ARTICLE 25 TONIGHT, WE WILL HAVE A YEAR TO AMEND ARTICLE 25 IN A WAY THAT WILL INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS TO MAKE THEIR NEW BUILDINGS FIT INTO OUR TOWN IMAGE AS FOLLOWS. I'M SORRY, MR. STERLING. YOUR TWO MINUTES ARE UP. TIME IS UP. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU CAN ALWAYS RETURN. YOU GET THREE BITES AT THE APPLE. AT THE PRO MICROPHONE. ANNETTE LEWIS, CLEPIT HILL ROAD, CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD. I RECOGNIZE YOU. THANK YOU. WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THE MBTA ZONING DISTRICTS, WE WERE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO PUT DETAILED DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE BYLAW BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED OR BY THE STATE OR TOLD, WE WERE TOLD WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN NONCOMPLIANCE. WE DO HAVE A SECTION 198-2707.3.3 IN THE BYLAW THAT REQUIRES SCREENING AND BUFFERING TO CREATE VISUAL BARRIERS FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND WE HAVE REGULATIONS, PB306-3 THAT SPELL OUT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUCH AS DESIGN ELEMENTS TO BREAK UP THE LENGTH OF BUILDING WALLS, STEPBACKS TO BREAK UP THE APPARENT HEIGHT, CERTIFICATION FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONCERNING ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR FIRE AND SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND THAT IS, WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, AROUND THE ENTIRE BUILDING. SO PRECLUDING BUILDINGS FROM BEING LOCATED TOO CLOSE TO ROUTE 20. THE PICTURES THAT YOU HAVE SEEN, WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE, THE EDC PUT THEM, OR A MEMBER OF THE EDC PUT THEM TOGETHER AND CIRCULATED THEM. THEY ARE GROSS INADDICRACIES. THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE. NO BUILDING WOULD BE THAT CLOSE TO THE ROAD. NO BUILDING WOULD NOT HAVE WINDOWS IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING. NO BUILDING WOULD NOT TRY AND BE APPEALING TO THE PUBLIC. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. AND WE HAVE, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S IN THE WARRANT ON PAGE 85, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT DOES SAY THAT THE FRONT SETBACK, MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN BUILD UP TO ROUTE 20 BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET AROUND IT FOR FIRE SERVICE. AND WE CAN'T ZONE SO THAT YOU HAVE 200 FEET BACK FROM THE LINE. MS. LEWIS, I HAVE TO ASK YOU TO WRAP IT UP. THANK YOU. BACK AT THE CON MICROPHONE. THANK YOU, MADAM MEDERATOR. I RECOGNIZE YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF WAYLAND SINCE 2024 AS WELL AS A RECENT MEMBER OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. I'M TRAINED AS AN URBAN DESIGNER AND ARCHITECT PRACTICING IN THE FIELD OF URBAN PLANNING AND PLANNING WITH A FOCUS OF LAND USE REGULATION AND ZONING. I HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED ARTICLE 25 AND PREVIOUSLY SHARED MY COMMENTS AND CONCERNS IN WRITING WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD. ONE KEY ISSUE REMAINS INSUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE PROPOSED INCREASES IN THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND DENSITY ALONG ROUTE 20 NEAR THE WAYLAND-SUDBURY BORDER HAVE NEVER BEEN ADEQUATELY STUDIED OR VISUALIZED TO ACCESS THEIR IMPACT ON THE TOWN'S PHYSICAL CHARACTER. BY COMPARISON, RIVERS EDGE ALTA OXPO WAS GUIDED BY THE U.S. COMMUNITY BY MORE ROBUST ZONING AND DESIGN CONTROLS RESULTING IN A MORE DELIBERATE AND CONTEXT SENSITIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SCALE, MASSING AND THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. IN MY PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS NEW YORK STATE AND CALIFORNIA, PROPOSALS OF THIS SCALE ARE TYPICALLY ACCOMPANIED BY SCENARIO TESTING. THIS INCLUDES VISUAL AND SPECIAL STUDIES THAT EXPLORE THE BUILDING HEIGHTS, MASSING AND SETBACK CONFIGURATIONS ALLOWING COMMUNITIES TO BETTER UNDERSTAND TRADE-OFFS BEFORE AND ADAPTING ZONING CHANGES. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY 60% INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND 66% INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT. CHANGES OF THIS MAGNITUDE WARRANT A MORE ROBUST ANALYTICAL AND VISUAL EVALUATION INCLUDING ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS BEFORE FINAL DECISIONS ARE MADE. WAYLAND HAS LIMITED DEVELOPABLE LENGTH AND EACH NEW MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE A LASTING IMPACT ON THE TOWN'S BUILDING ENVIRONMENT. WHILE I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING, I BELIEVE IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE TAKE THE TIME TO STUDY AND CLEARLY DOCUMENT POTENTIAL OUTCOMES. FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND VOTING NO AND REVISITING THIS PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE A HEIGHTENED SETBACK STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO PRIOR TO FINALIZING THIS ARTICLE. THANK YOU. BACK AT THE PRO MICROPHONE. ANDREW CARPENTER, ORCHARD LANE. I RECOGNIZE YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM. I'M SPEAKING HERE AS A RESIDENT WHO HAS BEEN IN THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME. HAS RECENTLY BECOME FAMILIAR WITH TOWN GOVERNMENT, ATTENDING A LOT OF SELECT BOARD MEETINGS FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS. AND FAMILIARIZED MYSELF WITH THIS ARTICLE, ARTICLE NUMBER 25. THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT SEEM TO ME VERY REASONABLE. WE ARE A TOWN THAT NEEDS HOUSING FOR GROWTH. LISTENING TO OUR FINANCIAL ISSUES IN THE TOWN, THE REVENUE GROWTH THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN OUR BUDGET AND NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. WE HAVE MAJOR OVERRIDES AND MAJOR CUTBACKS TO TOWN SERVICES. ADDITIONAL REVENUE IS NEEDED. AND THAT FOR A TOWN LIKE WAYLAND, THAT MEANS ADDITIONAL HOUSING. AND THIS PROPOSED ARTICLE WILL ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN A PLACE WHERE IT'S SENSIBLE. IT MAKES SENSE. IT'S A PART OF THE TOWN THAT'S BEEN, IT'S ZONED FOR THAT PURPOSE. IT'S BEEN AGREED UPON THAT THAT'S AN AREA THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO PUT HOUSING. I'VE DRIVEN PAST THIS AREA MANY, MANY TIMES AND BELIEVE IT IS A SENSIBLE PART OF THE TOWN. IT'S A PART OF THE TOWN. AND I BELIEVE IT IS A SENSIBLE PLACE TO PUT THIS KIND OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN TOWN WITH THE DOVER AMENDMENT LIKE THE COPTIC CHURCH AND VERITAS ACADEMY WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A SAY, ACTUALLY, IN A LOT OF WHAT HAPPENS. THEY CAN BUILD A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE REALLY CAN'T ADDRESS AT TOWN MAYBE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A SAY IN. THIS IS A PLACE, THIS PARTICULAR SITE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SAY AND IT'S A SENSIBLE PLACE WHERE WE CAN PUT MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING TO MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENTS. AND THE NEEDS OF THE TOWN TO INCREASE OUR FINANCIAL SITUATION AND IMPROVE UPON IT. SO THAT'S WHY I URGE FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY HERE TONIGHT TO VOTE YES FOR ARTICLE 25. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BACK AT THE CON MICROPHONE. ANNE BRENSLEY, BARNEY HILL ROAD, SELECT BOARD MEMBER. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW ME, I AM A SELECT BOARD MEMBER BUT I'M PROBABLY THE MOST AGGRESSIVE WHEN IT COMES TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING. I PRETTY MUCH SUPPORT ANYTHING UNDER TWO IDEAS. ONE, WILL IT BENEFIT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? TWO, DO THE RESIDENTS OF WAYLAND WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANGE? SO WHEN I OPPOSE THIS, I'M OPPOSING IT AS SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY REALLY WANTS TO SEE SOME HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY. FOR ONE, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU WOULD ALLOW FIVE STORIES. THIS IS BY RIGHT. WE'RE HANDING THIS TO A DEVELOPER FOR NO REASON. WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT IN WAYLAND IS AS HIGH AS $1,000 A SQUARE FOOT. THERE'S PLENTY OF MONEY TO BE MADE FOR ANY DEVELOPER WHO COMES INTO THIS TOWN. SO GOING AHEAD AND GOING FROM FOUR STORIES. TO FIVE STORIES. FOR NO REASON. WE'RE JUST HANDING IT TO THEM. THAT IS NOT HOW IT NORMALLY WORKS. WHAT NORMALLY HAPPENS IS SOMEBODY COMES TO US WITH A PROPOSAL IN TOWN AND SAYS, HEY, WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. WE WANT TO HAVE AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE. AND WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS. WE USUALLY COME BACK AND SAY WE WANT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE WANT SOME BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY. WE WANT YOU TO PUSH THE SETBACK BACK. SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE TOWN. THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE TOWN. WE'RE GETTING NOTHING FOR THIS. WE'RE LITERALLY JUST HANDING IT OVER. BUT WE'RE DEALING WITH ALL THE EXPENSES THAT GO WITH IT. AND THAT BOX, YOU'RE RIGHT. WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT BOX THAT WAS SHOWN EARLIER IS GOING TO BE THE ACTUAL PROJECT. BECAUSE THERE'S ACTUALLY NO PROJECT IN FRONT OF US. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FROM THE MBTA COMMUNITIES ACT. WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE. WE'RE ESSENTIALLY JUST HANDING THIS TO A DEVELOPER WITH NO LEVERAGE ANYMORE. BECAUSE WE HAVE NOW SET A STANDARD OF FIVE STORIES. WHICH MEANS OTHER PARTS THAT DON'T HAVE THE ZONING WILL ALL OF A SUDDEN SAY, HEY, YOU ALLOWED THEM TO DO FIVE STORIES. WHY WON'T YOU ALLOW US TO DO FIVE STORIES? AND THAT'S A LEGAL CHALLENGE. YOU CAN HAVE A LEGAL CHALLENGE ON THAT AS A DEVELOPER IF ANOTHER PART OF TOWN IS ALLOWING FOR FIVE STORIES. THIS IS WAY MORE ABOUT ECONOMICS. FROM A COMMUNITY STANDPOINT, WILL THERE BE AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT? I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY GIVING IT AWAY. WE'RE GIVING THIS ADVANTAGE TO A DEVELOPER, A FUTURE DEVELOPER. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW. ON A PROJECT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW EXISTS. AND DO THE RESIDENTS OF WAYLAND WANT THIS CHANGE? I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYBODY IN WAYLAND SAY THEY WANT HIGHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE ROAD. THIS IS JUST A VERY, MAYBE FROM A PLANNING BOARD STANDPOINT, THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE. I AM SOMEBODY WHO IS VERY PRO BUSINESS. THANK YOU, MS. PRENSLEY. AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DIDN'T WANT IT EITHER. THANK YOU, MS. PRENSLEY. THANK YOU. BACK AT THE PRO MICROPHONE. THANK YOU, MADAM MODERATOR. I RECOGNIZE YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MODERATOR. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. I DO SERVE ON THE WAYLAND HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, BUT I'M SPEAKING ON MY PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT IS ESSENTIALLY TO BRING PART OF THE EXISTING MBTA ZONING OVERLAY, THE PARCELS UNDER GROUND, INTO, NOT NECESSARILY COMPLIANCE, BUT TO BRING THEM UP TO PAR WITH THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS THAT WERE GRANTED FOR THE RIVER'S EDGE ALTA OXBO DEVELOPMENT. I MEAN, THOSE OF US WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT PART OF ROUTE 20, WE KNOW THAT IT'S A VERY CHALLENGING TOPOGRAPHY. AND AS THE CHAIR OF OUR PLANNING COMMITTEE, WE KNOW THAT IT'S A VERY CHALLENGING TOPOGRAPHY. WE KNOW THAT IT'S A VERY CHALLENGING TOPOGRAPHY. AND AS THE CHAIR OF OUR PLANNING BOARD EXPLAINED, THE BACK OF THE LOT IS ACTUALLY SIGNIFICANTLY, AT LEAST 20 FEET, BELOW THE LEVEL OF ROUTE 20. SO, I MEAN, IF WE HAD, YOU KNOW, A 58-FOOT HIGH BUILDING SET BACK FROM THE ROAD, IT MIGHT BE 58 FEET HIGH AT THE BACK. BUT WHAT WE SEE FROM ROUTE 20 MIGHT BE ONLY 35 FEET. SO I'M REALLY WONDERING. WHY WE'RE PRESENTING THESE SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAMS WHEN THE WAY THE LOT IS CONFIGURED, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT IT'S AN EXTREMELY REASONABLE REQUEST. AND IN TERMS OF THE DENSITY, WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE'S A LEVEL OF DENSITY AT WHICH IT BECOMES REVENUE POSITIVE FOR THE TOWN. AND UNDER WHICH THERE'S A QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT SERVICES THAT WE'RE USING ARE GOING TO BE REVENUE POSITIVE FOR THE TOWN. SO, NOT ALL D MORForm AFFORDABILITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED, BUT RESIDENTS ACTUALLY OFFSET TAX REVENUES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD GENERATE. SO, THE HIGHER DENSITY IS ALSO POSITIVE. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME IS UP. AND I WANT TO CALL EVERYONE'S ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A CLOCK OF TWO MINUTES. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO IT. DO YOU HAVE A POINT OF ORDER OR QUESTION? OKAY? SEEMS TO FOCUS THE PROCEDURAL. RICHARD GOLDEN, DA IL CLARO DRI. I RECOGNIZE YOU, SIR. I'M LISTENING TO THE PROS AND CONS. I'm listening to the pros and cons, and I'm trying to best understand how to balance quite a big debate. The last con speaker, the Select Board lady, made a point that struck me, and I want clarification on it. Is this proposal at this address on Route 20 only for that location, or is it opening up the door, as was said, to any developer anywhere who wants to build in Wayland? Because I had the impression that it was at that location, at the far end of Route 20, before you get to Sudbury, which I don't particularly care about. But if it's opening a door, then that's important for us, as the citizens, to really understand. All right. Mr. Golden, we appreciate your candor, and I appreciate your question. Ms. Lewis, can you answer his question? Yes. Annette Lewis, Claypothill Road, Chair of the Planning Board. It is only for that one district. In order to ... Under zoning, there is no precedent. There's no precedential value of how you zone in one area versus how you zone in another area. That's why we have different zones all over town. Thank you. Back to the con microphone. Madam Moderator, Bill Zirin. Thank you. Madam Moderator, Bill Sterling, Morse Road. Welcome back, Mr. Sterling. I want to wrap up where I left off. Thank you. Basically, I have suggested a simple fix. If we were to deny this article tonight, we will have a year to amend Article 25 in a way that will incentivize developers to make their new buildings fit into our town image, that New England traditional style that we talked about. So, item one would be as follows. You basically increase the setback from the front property lines from 35 to 80 feet in order to become more village style in appearance. Second item would be to encourage stepped massing in the building shapes with floor levels above 35 feet to be set back 100 feet from the front property line. However, I would like to make a point. I would like to make a point. I would like to make a point. I would like to make a point. I would like to make a point. That the increased unit density from 20 to 32 units per acre should be granted only if the use, if the builder and developer uses pitched roofing and stepped massing as we have at Altam. That's my recommendation. Thank you, sir. Is there a question? Please proceed to procedural microphone. George Harris, Holiday Road. I recognize you, sir. Would you like to ask the following question? I recognize you, sir. How close is the town to facing overrides due to its present financial situation, or forthcoming financial situation, and loss of its AAA bond rating? Is there someone here who can answer that question for Mr. Harris and for the town meeting? As mentioned, I think, in the Finance Committee's report.
Feel free. Good evening, Madam Moderator, members of the audience. If anyone has followed— I recognize you, Mr. McCall. Thank you. If anyone has followed the Financial Summit presentations, including the 10-year financial forecast that Mr. Keveny and I have presented on numerous occasions, we, like many other communities, as I mentioned in the publication from the MMA, The Perfect Storm, are facing significant challenges. This year, we were able to, as I say, solve an almost $2 million shortfall, resulting in a levy at about $1.2 million. But at the rate our health care costs increase and other factors, such as labor, shrinking state aid, it is more than likely that we will be facing an override in the next one or two fiscal years. We've made no bones about that, and that's why I said the other night we've been trying to be good stewards of your money up until now. We've worked very hard to maintain our AAA bond rating, and that's through best practices. But all of these could be jeopardized at some point if we aren't able to generate the necessary revenue and or pass an override to ensure that we can fund all of our obligations. Thank you, sir. Do you have a question? Point of order? I just wanted to answer the last question. Ann Brensley, Select Board, Barney Hill Road. I recognize you. I just wanted to respond to that question that was asked pertaining to what I had stated, which was, could this set some sort of precedent? Was it outside of this one parcel? If I'm an attorney and I do real estate development, if I were a real estate developer looking at a different parcel, seeing that this one parcel that is Route 20 West parcel was allowed five stories, I would say either rezone us for that same type of zoning, and if they said no, I would say, well, that's spot zoning. And I would argue that it was spot zoning, which is something that's essentially, you don't win on spot zoning a lot, but boy, could I tie us up. Thank you. Thank you. Back to the pro microphone. Dave Bernstein, 25 Gleason Lane. I recognize you, sir. If what was just stated were true, then the fact that Alta Oxbow, which we approved at what, four stories, we'd be inundated with spot zoning requirements to have four-story buildings all over Wayland. Has that happened? It has not, because it's not legal. Zoning is in one place. Second of all, if we were to change the setback requirements in this property, we would have to start over again with the MBTA. You can't just make one incremental change. We just heard that Wayland needs more revenue. It's clear. It's hard to do it in Wayland because we have residential housing everywhere. We have one area where there's no residential housing, where it's zoned for this kind of use. This is exactly what we need, as previous speakers have said. This is the place to give us more revenue in a way that protects our zoning every place else, gives us lots of advantages. The last thing, wouldn't it be great to have multiple developers competing to be able to build two five-stories in this area? Personally, it would be fine with me if it was ten, but five is good. The point is, more apartments mean more revenue in a way that's financially beneficial to the town. I urge you to support this. Thank you. Thank you. Back to the con microphone. Thank you, Madam Moderator. I'm Jim Grumbach, Winthrop Road. I recognize you, sir. Madam, I was a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals for 15 years. I was a member of the Economic Development Committee, and I'm currently a member of the Wayland Housing Partnership. I believe we need affordable housing. I believe we need revenue. I think Bill Sterling put it very adequately, very properly, when he said this is a matter of planning. There's no immediate need to do this. There's no immediate need. There's no immediate need to establish five stories 30 feet from the road. We can have a more deliberate plan. We can do it in a year. We can do it so it meets design guidelines and makes good sense and also makes good economic sense. I would suggest that we vote against this article and bring it back when it's been put together in a better way. Thank you. Thank you. Back to the pro microphone. Is there a question? Go right ahead. Jennifer Steele, Mayflower Path. I recognize you. I'm just wondering whether a zoning article can, in fact, be brought back to town meeting within one year or whether there's a two-year requirement. If it is voted down and fails. Is there someone who can answer the question? If it is voted down and fails, it can't come back for two years unless the planning board brings it back. Okay. Did you also wish to respond, Mr. Fay? Yes. Madam Moderator, Tom Fay, Happy Hollow Road. I recognize you. If I could ask town council to answer the question that was asked by the residents, please.
Ms. Murray.
Thank you, Madam Moderator. Carolyn Murray, KP Law, Town Council. I recognize you. Thank you. There is a provision under the Zoning Act that does prohibit a defeated zoning article from being brought back within two years. So if town meeting were to vote this down ordinarily, you wouldn't be able to bring it back. However, there is. There is an exception that is made when the planning board recommends favorably on that zoning amendment. And reminder to everyone that this article is actually being sponsored by the planning board. So they have acted, are recommending favorably. It could be brought back and it's not subject to that two-year ban. Thank you. Back to the pro microphone. Madam Moderator, Karen Bluenfeld, Oxbow Road. I recognize you. Thank you. I can't speak to all the... Very minute details that so many people here are steeped in. I look at it from sort of a 20,000 feet. And what I see is we have a giant housing shortage in Massachusetts and the country. Wayland, we say that we're an inclusive, welcoming town. I mean, if you look at the town brochure, all those words that were just published about how inclusive and welcoming we are. And what I hear at town meetings year after year is, oh, well, sure. But that building is too tall or, you know, it's too close to the road or it's too ugly or it's in the wrong neighborhood. And what I say is let's ask ourselves, do we share the common value that we want to be a welcoming community? And do we want to help contribute to the... Do we want to help address the housing shortage in Massachusetts? And if so, let's vote yes for this article. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a question? Oh, okay. Well, we are just about running out of time as it is. But I will let you bring your motion.
Karen Kelly, Old Connecticut Path. I'd like to make a motion to call the vote. You mean a motion to terminate debate? To terminate debate. Okay. With the motion to terminate debate, it's a two-thirds vote. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. We vote on it right now. And it has to carry by two-thirds. So this is simply a motion to terminate debate. So when the voting window goes on, you'll vote one to terminate debate and two to continue debating. And the voting window is open.
And again, it's a two-thirds vote that's required to terminate debate.
And the voting window is closed. So with 112 votes in favor of terminating debate and 45 votes opposed, with 71% in favor, the motion carries. So now we're going to move directly to the main motion. Under Article 25. So the motion before you that Ms. Lewis brought regarding multifamily housing Route 20 West Subdistrict. The voting window is open. If you are in favor of the motion that Ms. Lewis brought, vote one on your handset. If you are opposed to it, vote two. One on your handset to vote in favor, two to oppose.
And this is a simple majority because this is part of the MBTA zoning.
The voting window is closed. And again, simple majority. So voting 87 in favor and 72 opposed, the motion carries. Is there anything else to be said on Article 25? Seeing nothing, I declare the article disposed. Article 26, ban heavy commercial vehicles on Sherman's Bridge Road.
Is there a motion?
Yes, Madam Chairman. Please face the microphone in town meeting. Don't worry about having your back to me. Elizabeth Carter, Sherman Bridge Road. I recognize you. Thank you, Madam. I move you, Madam, that the town vote to request that the select board take all actions necessary to secure permissions and necessary approvals to ban heavy commercial vehicles on Sherman Bridge Road as permitted by state regulations in cooperation with adjacent towns as needed with the understanding that such ban per regulation excludes certain vehicles such as school buses, those serving... nursing residents, emergency vehicles, ones owned by the town or the state, et cetera. Okay. And is there a second? Thank you. Do you wish to speak to your article? Yes, I would, Madam. Thank you.
I tend to ramble, so I apologize. I'm going to read. Thank you. If you go to any nearby town, Sudbury, Weston, Waltham, Wellesley, you'll see these no trucks over 2.5 ton signs, primarily in residential areas with narrower roads, sometimes with... housing close together, that is usual, and we have that on Sherman Bridge Road. Many of our lots are smaller and close together, which is a little unusual for Wayland. The bridge is unusual, too. There's one of these signs I just noticed in Waltham, of all places, on Winter Street, as you cross over 128, and it goes into that whole area heading east with... It's all businesses, corporations, there's a couple hotels at the end. They've got one. So, heavy buses with their diesel fumes, noise, heavy trucks, with their diesel fumes, noise, at all hours of the night and day, are using the bridge to avoid regular commuting routes like Route 20, 117, even Route 2. When coming from the bridge, they turn onto Concord Road, Route 117, to either... Route 126, to either pick up 20 or 117, or Route 2 from there, or maybe they then turn onto Waltham Road to get to 117 faster, another beautiful, all-residential road like mine. This article asks the Select Board to support us to get any needed approvals for this ban on heavy commercial vehicles, as many other towns have done for their citizens. Trucks are noisy, heavy, and stinky. I can never open my windows when there's a lot of traffic, especially diesel-spewing trucks. The house gets filthy, and it's not good for our health, not for children, people with health issues. Unintentionally, this article will also reduce the impact of those heavy vehicles, heavy commercial vehicles, on our bridge's substructure that is already having issues, and its roadway surface. It does not create a ban on the bridge, nor a weight limit, not directly, just that such trucks won't be able to get to the bridge along Sherman Bridge Road, or off the bridge, onto Sherman Bridge Road. So cut through traffic, at least the heavy trucks. If you are a resident there, this article says that the state government's provisional budget for ohneffensive transportation should lessen, both for Sherman Bridge Road residents, as well as for those living on the residential Lincoln Road on the other side of the bridge in Sudbury. Sudbury would object to this. The Finance Committee claims this can't be done, mentioning Mass General Laws, Chapter 85, Section 2, specifically Section 2F, but I don't agree with how they read it. The part about towns in this law reads, I'm deleting the stuff that's redundant, except as herein provided any rule, regulation, blah, blah, blah, of a city or town hereafter may, blah, blah, in connection with the erection or maintenance of signs on any way within its control, shall take effect without departmental approval, provided that such signs, et cetera, are in conformance with the department's current manual, blah, blah, blah, provided, so this is the except, however, that such rule, et cetera, law, shall not take effect until approved in writing by the department, by MassDOT. If made relative to. Or in connection with the following, and there are a number of points, and the ones that I have been pointed to saying, oh, it's not going to work because of those, are any intersection or junction with a state highway. Okay, we will not put a sign up there without approval, and we will not get this without approval. Understood. Any sign excluding heavy commercial vehicles. Understood. That's why we want to get approval. Any rule, et cetera, of a town which would. Exclude motor vehicle travel. Motor vehicle travel. All the cars can go across that bridge. All the smaller trucks, all the trucks coming and going just to Sudbury to do business, you know, come here. We're not excluding all the, all the vehicles. We're not making an exclusion of motor vehicles. So I don't think that's a sign. So anyways. All of these indicate. All of these indicate. That we need MassDOT approval, and that is one thing that I'm asking the select board to do, and to do their best to be supportive of us in the process. Fundamentally, Article 26 is seeking to send that truck cut-through traffic, that's stuff that comes from beyond Sudbury, and it cuts through us on the bridge and my road, Sherman Bridge Road, going to someplace beyond Wayland, and sending them back to the routes they used before late 1999. Specifically, to the state roads, maintained by the state, and off of this road and the bridge that we taxpayers pay to maintain. So back in the 1730s or whatever, some men in Sudbury, which was actually here, and the guys on the other side of the river decided, let's put up a bridge so we can, you know, be closer to each other. Because all the guys on the other side, which is the river. I don't know. This is now Sudbury, originally came from the Sudbury that was here in Wayland. And so a couple guys over there agreed to raise the money, and the guy in Wayland, who lived on what we call Sherman's Bridge Road now, said, I will make a path so that the people can come off the bridge from Sudbury and get to the center of town. And with his own hands, he made this path. He got rid of all the grasses and whatever's in the way. He made it wide enough for the carriages. This path, this road, Sherman's Bridge Road, is the remainder of that path. It's very historic. It goes back to our original bridge. It reminds us of that era when the town sort of kind of began to split in two. And anyway, I know there are at least three homes on the road that belonged to relatives of Ed Sherman. I don't know if it's Edwin or Edward. I don't know. I don't know who did all this work. And one to his daughter belonged to his daughter, one belonged to his brother, and I'm not sure what relative the other belonged to. Still on that road. It's very historic, as well as being . . . MS. Ms. Carter, your time is up. MS. Oh. MS. Thank you. Is there opposition to this? MS. Sure. Can we do it after the opposition? Okay. What's the question? MS. After we get that opposition? Thank you. I appreciate it. There's another question coming up, too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Carter. MS. Good evening, Madam Moderator. Doug Levine, member of the Select Board, Grey Birch Lane. MS. I recognize you. MS. While many of us would prefer that heavy vehicles not traverse our roadways in town, most commercial trucks are critical for our local businesses, small and large, in Wayland and in neighboring towns. They serve our residents, and they serve residents in our neighboring towns. And as such, there are specific requirements. They are specific requirements set by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which this article unfortunately does not meet. The Select Board cannot unilaterally ban commercial vehicles from a town road or bridge without approval from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. No such approval was ever received. According to our counterparts on the Sudbury Select Board, with whom we have been collaborating closely over the better part of a year as we worked to rebuild Sherman's Bridge Road and repair it, there have been no requests or discussions from their residents for such a ban on Sherman's Bridge or Lincoln Road, which is the continuation of Sherman's Bridge Road once you get into Sudbury. The article seeks to exempt certain heavy vehicles, such as those that provide commercial services for our residents. Mandating that our police officers somehow enforce a ban that permits some heavy commercial vehicles but not others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I recognize you, sir. Thank you. Through you, Madam Moderator, I'd like to ask Town Council whether your municipality has authority to unilaterally impose a heavy commercial vehicle restriction on a bridge that connects those two municipalities. Okay. Ms. Murray could answer the question. For those of you who don't know Carolyn Murray, she is our Town Council. Even though it was temporarily absent last night. She was absent, but please note that it took three people to do her job last night. Just saying. Madam Moderator, Carolyn Murray, KP Law, Town Council. I recognize you. Thank you. So, in answer to the question, and this was actually even described and alluded to by the proponent in her presentation, the reference was to General Laws Chapter 85, Section 2. And the simple answer to the prior question is no. The Town cannot unilaterally impose a heavy commercial vehicle ban on a road that connects two towns. And this would, you know, obviously connects Wayland and Sudbury. There's actually a specific process outlined in the statute that would require us, if Wayland were to initiate this, it would require the Select Board to initiate this idea of a heavy commercial vehicle ban, send notice to the Town of Sudbury. There would have to be a public hearing that would have to be held. And we would also have to get the concurrence of the Chief Executive Officers in Sudbury to this ban. And then you still have to get MassDOT to approve it. So no. We cannot unilaterally impose this ban. Okay. Are there any other questions or debate? I'm sorry. Do you have a question, Ms. Wharton? Do you want me to get a microphone up to you? Okay. I have a, is there a microphone? Yeah. I have a question. Well, it's great. Thank you, Tom. Sure. You can sit. Yeah. Please sit. Thank you, Tom. Denise Wharton, 106 Main Street. I recognize you. My question is, when you're looking at a bridge that can only tolerate so much weight, isn't that taken into consideration when you want to get two towns together to go to MassDOT and see if they will limit the weight? Is there anyone who can answer that question? Madam Moderator, Michael McCall, Town Manager. I recognize you. Thank you. Having attempted this in a previous community, everything the Town Council said is correct. And once you have, let's say, the Select Board want to do this under what's called the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, for which there is a Massachusetts edition, and you have to go to MassDOT. In the Massachusetts edition, there's criteria that the town has to go through in order to apply for MassDOT. It talks about the condition of the pavement and the roadway, but it doesn't talk about a bridge. There is, and I think there may be a separate article this evening, about the weight on the bridge. But our DPW director is here, and I think he would nod that at this point in time when MassDEP worked on this before, DOT, there is no weight restriction on that bridge. Currently. So that would not come into play when we would look at this. But some of the things the town would have to do, as I said, there could be restrictions, but only in the nighttime, or you would have to look to the condition of the pavement, or you would then have to show that it was in excess of essentially 5% of the vehicle traffic were considered heavy commercial vehicles, those of the gross weight over 10,000 pounds. So there's a lot that would go into this. And you have to propose an alternative route for trucks to go through, and there's criteria on how that alternative route is established. And because if you think about it, we're looking at, if you think the letter H, there could be parallel roads, and then there's the road through the middle, which is Sherman's Bridge. You have to ensure when you're putting an alternative route, that on each side of that letter H, it's in the same town. If not, you have to have buy-in, and you have to show an alternative route. So, there's a lot that goes into it, but the bridge is not considered in determining that criteria. Thank you. Does that answer your question? Okay, so then, if there are no other questions, okay, we'll get to the microphone in a second. Do you have a question, Ms. Martin? Oh, I have an answer, I think. Oh, okay. Madam Moderator, Carol Martin, Lake Road. I recognize you. Thank you. I think Mr. Holder deals with this on a daily basis, and I think I'd like to have him come up and maybe answer that question. Because I'm not sure that I, who have been following this, was clear on that answer. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Madam Moderator, Tom Holder, DPW Director. I recognize you, sir. So, the question was, would a weight restriction impact the success, or really, the consideration of this proposed article? We have been dealing very closely with MassDOT over the period of the last year, with the bridge project. And MassDOT has stated to us a number of times. Thank you. A number of times, clearly, that the bridge does not have a weight restriction. They are not intending to place a weight restriction on that bridge. So I think the answer to your question is that it's really not part of this consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Holder. Yes, at the procedural microphone. Madam Moderator, my Brookman, Orchard Lane. I recognize you. I'm very puzzled as to what a yes vote is. I'm wondering what a yes vote would mean on this, since we've been hearing repeatedly that it just can't be done. So I'm wondering, you know, if we were to approve this article, what would it mean? Well, by reading the motion itself, it says that a yes vote would be to vote to request that the Select Board take all actions necessary to secure permissions and necessary approvals to ban heavy commercial vehicles. So what it's doing is it's asking the Select Board, a yes vote would be asking the Select Board to take all actions. So can the Select Board, are there actions the Select Board could take? That's a good question. I don't know. Is anyone on the Select Board able to, or Town Council, able to answer this question? Can the Select Board take actions? Carolyn Murray, Town Council. Madam Moderator. I recognize you. This motion asks, requests that the Board take certain actions to carry out. I will say, you know, that in this case, the Town Council is the only one, and they should not take action because you are, the meeting that we've had with the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of State is obviously going to take some action. But the Board of Elections is one of the only people that, the Board of Elections, is a big하는 vehicle and requires that the City of Detroit be. The District of the City Board, the City of Detroit, is not a heavy commercial vehicle. And perhaps this is a good time to sort of stop and review the distinction of the two powers of a legislative versus an executive branch, and go back to our Civics 101. Town Meeting is obviously the legislative branch. You folks appropriate all the money. You pass all the bylaws. But you have an executive branch that carries out and implements those bylaws. You appropriate money. They're the ones that put a project out to bid and award a contract and do all of those things. There is case law, and I mean this with the utmost respect to town meeting members, but there is case law that very much upholds the difference between executive and legislative powers and is also very clear that town meeting, no matter what you vote, cannot compel the executive branch to take action. So while you can all request tonight that the select board take all actions necessary to try to implement this ban, the select board don't have to take any of those actions. They can if they choose to, but they can't be compelled to. So in my opinion, this is really a non-binding resolution or a sense of the meeting as to whether or not you support this idea, and then it's up to the select board to do what they wish with that information. Thank you, Ms. Murray. So going to the pro-microphone. I have, this is Pialita Lugter. I live on Sherman Bridge Road. I recognize you. I also have years of, decades of experience with traffic safety. It is true that Sherman Bridge currently does not have weight requirement. Weight requirement by state law would be asked by the town, and town doesn't. Never Weyland, town of Weyland, never asked for it. So if you asked for it, MassDOT, I spoke to MassDOT, they may or may not. It is up to the town. This article is not asking for bridge weight limit. It is asking for the road's weight limit. The least the town select board would do, instead of wasting our time, is to request. And talk to the MassDOT. It is for the safety of the resident. It is not true that commercial double trucks, commercial trucks need to pass that. And it is, Sherman Bridge is a wooden bridge. It will be up to us, the taxpayer, who will fix that bridge. Year after year after year. Because it will have a huge, you know, operation cost at that point, to repair cost. I asked for the cost estimate for the repair. I didn't get it. So least they could do is minimize the damage. And it is town boards and select boards responsibility to ensure the safety of the resident. Thank you. At the con microphone. Madam moderator. Clifford Lewis. Cleveada Road. I recognize you. Thank you. I think town meeting should look at this in a practical way. There is not a single person on the select board that has voted in favor of this. Requesting that these people do something that they don't want, is just not a good idea. Thank you. Back at the pro microphone. Thank you. I got cut off. Miss Carter. Elizabeth Carter. Sherman Bridge Road. Thank you. I recognize you. I got cut off. cut off when I was going to explain about the different bridges the one we have now is the first two-lane bridge and the third replacement since the original and in 1999 Sudbury on its own had been working to get the signs removed from the bridge because before 1992 when this bridge was built the previous bridge had a two and a half ton limit weight limit and the signs remained there until Sudbury's request on its own without consulting Weyland to have them removed people who live right by the bridge and Weyland said one day I got up I didn't see any signs I don't know what happened to them and we didn't know until we found out inside ways ever since then well that's 1999 late 1999 there was a bridge collapse a partial collapse of the bridge and the bridge collapsed and the bridge collapsed and the bridge collapsed and the bridge collapsed on Route 117 which meant all the trucks that's a designated truck route had to find alternative routes and they did they found our bridge and that continued as more and more vehicles developed and appeared in Metro West more and more heard about it and so it's not just the ones that were coming on 117 that needed to find another way it's all kinds of trucks that are coming from out West out down South out East coming through the shortcut to avoid Route 20 or to avoid the traffic on Route 2 and again I since this is not going to ban um school buses and I think that was Lincoln's main reason uh Lincoln Sudbury's main reason to get the limit removed so that their you know 15 ton uh school buses would be able to go back and forth the Lincoln Sudbury school buses I don't think they're going to object because it won't stop those buses and many of the residents um that live on Lincoln Road will also get the benefit of less of the heavier um vehicles thank you thank you Miss Carter two minutes is up thank you there's a question met a moderator I'm Laurie Glick and I live on Brooks Road I recognize you sir thank you I have a question uh one thing that nobody said and I'm wondering if particularly if the petitioners have um have looked into this is where is all this truck traffic going to go if it if it if that particular traffic is not going to be able to go down Sherman's Bridge Road I assume there will still have to be truck traffic going from Wayland to towards the Sudbury direction or in the reverse um and really what I'm I want to know this because I'd like to know whose neighborhood the traffic would go through
if you can answer that Miss Carter great Elizabeth Carter Sherman Bridge Road thank you for the question what this article is really seeking to do is return that traffic that found out about Sherman's Bridge Road that used to use other uh roads to go back to those highways 117 Route 20. um and there there's no way you there's it's possible to do that in Sudbury they can take 27 they can go up to Route 117 you can take Route 6. um you could take Route 20 for the trucks that are trying to get to the highway you know cutting through our road so that they can miss some of Route 20 and go up to 117 and then cut through another neighborhood and get there faster so they can get on 128. we're trying to get rid of those the cut through traffic it's not going to get rid of all of them um but thank you just wondering which which neighborhoods it would or which other routes it would take thank you appreciate that and at the con phone Rebecca Divine Hereford Road I recognize you thank you um as a side point nobody that drives a truck and trailer wants to go over Sherman Bridge Road I'm somebody that's in the business with people that drive truck and trailers nobody that has a big vehicle wants to go over that road there's not as much traffic as people are talking about here I get that it's frustrating but this is not something that's going to change the status Waze Google Maps people find every cut through people that are driving these big trucks and trailers are wanting to go over 27 20 117 it's a lot easier on them the select board cannot do what she's asking her them to do and I I think at this point we just need to um understand that this is tied to other people's arguments about the bridge construction um that they're trying to to pass different ballots but my point is that nobody wants to go over this bridge if they don't have to and the board can't really do anything with regards to this so I encourage everybody to vote no on this thank you thank you Mr Lewis point of order Madam moderator Clifford Lewis Claiborne Hill Road I'd like to move the question please is there a second okay so the we are doing going to vote on just terminating debate right now okay so if you would like to terminate debate vote one on your handset when the voting light goes on if you wish to continue to debate vote two okay the voting window is open if you wish to terminate debate vote one if you wish to continue debate vote two and this is a two-thirds vote
voting window has closed with 125 voting yes and nine people voting no the motion carries that's over two-thirds it's 93 percent I did not do the math myself so with that we are going to move directly to voting on the main motion under article 26 to ban heavy commercial vehicles on Sherman's Bridge Road if you're in favor of the voting window is open if you're in favor of this um article vote one on your handset if you oppose this this motion under article 26 vote two one in favor two opposed and this is a simple majority vote the voting window is closed with 28 uh votes in favor and 109 votes no the motion does not carry is there anything else to be said on article 26. seeing nothing I declare the article disposed article 27 Sherman's Bridge five ton weight limit is there a motion I am Doug Stutz of Sherman's Bridge Road I recognize you sir please face the town meeting in the microphone do you have a motion yes that article 27 be indefinitely postponed is there a second thank you do you wish to speak to your article Mr Stotz I'm hopeful that uh we can work all this out before a legislative action by the by the town meeting is uh is warranted okay uh does anyone have any questions for Mr Stotz or anybody here with regard to article 27. okay any debate we'll move right to vote we are voting to indefinitely postpone article 27 the voting window is open if you are in favor of voting to indefinitely to postpone it vote one on your handset if you wish to oppose it vote two one in favor of the motion to indefinitely postpone two to oppose it voting window is still open voting window is closed with regard to article 27 with 118 in the affirmative voting yes and four no the motion carries is there anything else to debate on article 27. seeing nothing I declare article 27 disposed article 28 increased safety reduce fear for residents and vulnerable road users of Sherman's Bridge Road and Sherman's Bridge is there a motion Elizabeth Carter Sherman Bridge Road I recognize you Miss Carter I move you madam I'm sorry did I get a second second thank you sorry go ahead I move you madam that the town vote to request at the select board establish a 25 mile per hour speed limit on Sherman Bridge Road and uh I'd like to cut and onto the bridge okay um just on Sherman's Bridge Road add a crosswalk replace an augment signage to alert drivers to blind drives poor sight lines a school bus stop that isn't marked wildlife crosswalk wildlife crosswalk and presence of vulnerable road users VRU instructing them to keep minimally four feet away from all VRUs and aim to complete this no later than that of the Sherman Bridge project okay so just to be clear you wish to strike from your motion under part one under established a 20 mile per hour speed limit on Sherman's Bridge Road you would like to strike the words and onto the bridge correct yes okay other than that is this motion substantially similar to the um warrant article yes except it says crosswalk twice okay all right and is there a second to this article now I know why I didn't ask before is there a second to this motion thank you would you like to speak to your your motion yes thank you um a few minutes ago I didn't get to around to it but I just tried to describe the beautiful road Sherman's Bridge Road that runs from Concord Road to the bridge it's tree line and forested preservation land sloping to the edge of the road and many other areas are rising and dropping land on either side of the road particularly at the East End I mentioned traffic someone questioned that so there wasn't bad a 2023 traffic study found in seven days 12 405 vehicles traveled that road what this works out to is about 345 000 vehicles a year if you live yourselves live on a purely residential road with no traffic lights no more than one cross Street imagine this kind of traffic there this is what we have every day and I see lots of trucks with trailers going by because I'm outside in the garden the thing is that the road lacks sidewalks in some of the most dangerous areas such as the half of it from Route 126 Concord down so we walk in the road or we ride a bike if we say we want to visit a neighbor it's a short road to get into our mailboxes especially if they're across the road to take a walk of the bridge for the gorgeous views, or we stop walking, as some have, out of legitimate concern and fear. People using a road like this are called VRUs. They are at risk of serious injury or death from cars and trucks, a risk that rises rapidly as speed increases, as well as by weights of vehicles. Heavier ones deal a bigger blow compared with a small car. Also the cone of vision, what a driver can see, narrows with speed. Lots of speed there on this 25 mile an hour road. Cars, trucks, even school buses, not ours, even though the other ones. One traffic study reported the most common speed, 38 miles an hour. That's 50% higher than the limit. And it had an average of 36 miles per hour. At 38 miles an hour, a cone of vision on a street road is limited to 50 miles per hour. 50% risk of getting hit or killed for a pedestrian or a cyclist. But this road isn't always straight. So the cone of vision is reduced even more. And the risk of death or serious injury if hit is higher. The article asked for a crosswalk so older adults can reach the mailbox safely on the other side of the road. I would like to highlight the importance of the crosswalk. It has a very important role in the medical records of a person who has side of the road, requests assigned to alert drivers to the crosswalk and to the blind drives they're about to encounter. And some current statistics, if you don't have my handout, lots of pictures of what I'm referring to, you can get it on my seat back there. So from throughout the state, the car and vulnerable road user crashes for bikers and pedestrians from January 1 to March 24 of this year, 60 bikes across the commonwealth were hit, 252 pedestrians were struck and injured, 14 were killed. This is during the time we had all the heavy snow and the really deep temperatures and just less than one quarter of a year. People 65 and up are significantly at more risk than any other age group of being harmed and seriously harmed or killed. You can see the handout. I'll go out for more statistics from recent years, but we've got 1,600, 1,300 and 1,412 receiving non, pedestrians receiving non-fatal injuries, 2024, 2025, 204 died. The BRU laws were established in 2023, but awareness of them and putting proper signs up is slow but improving. These laws are our state's contribution to nationwide effort to make the streets safer for all users. And to be less motor vehicle centric about American roads. I have a quote I probably don't have time to, but it gets to this whole point. So this article is also seeking to lower speed from 25 to 20. This isn't a lot, but it does reduce the risk of death and serious injury. We can do this by establishing the road as a designated safety area. There's nothing I could find anywhere that says a whole road, especially one that's only 0.7 miles long, cannot be so designated as one town official has suggested. There is in the mass amendments to the 11th edition of the manual, the uniform traffic control devices says the authority to establish safety zone limits is granted in Mass Journal Law 90, Chapter 18, Section B. Safety zone limits should be used when the adjacent land is likely to generate more, to generate road users, vulnerable road users. The safety zone can contain one or more futures that may create potential conflict between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users. Only one or more. One of those was driveways. We have those short driveways that the drivers can't see out of because of the high hill around them who have to back out because they can't turn around around a curve with oncoming vehicles that are all speeding. There's also the whole problem of speed. There's a lot of speed. There are a lot of speed. sight lines and the curves and the inability to have one continuous sidewalk down the entire road because of the landscape, particularly at this end, the Concord Road end. And that affects also the visibility of the driver and makes it more dangerous if they're going faster. And there are cyclists, not just the people who are walking to see their neighbors or get their mail, but there are cyclists who come from other towns, entire clubs come and use the road, and it is dangerous for them. But they love to go over the bridge because there's wonderful trails over there, so they have a whole route. The law reads in Section 18 , notwithstanding Section 18 or any other general specific law to the contrary, Board of Selectmen, et cetera, of a town that accepts this section in the manner provided in Section 4, Chapter 1, may, in the interest of public safety, and without further authority, establish designated safety zones on or at or near any way in the city or town which is not a state highway, and with the approval of the Department of the State is a state highway. Our road is not a state highway. Sorry, Ms. Carter. Sorry, folks. Seven minutes is up. Thank you. Is there any opposition to Article 28? Good evening, Madam Moderator. Doug Levine. Gray Birch Lane, member of the Select Board. I recognize you, sir. So this article seeks to implement a number of traffic controls, as we heard, on this small stretch, which is Sherman's Bridge Road, including a reduction in the speed limit of five miles per hour from 25 to 20 miles per hour. So as the Finance Committee comments, which I can attest were exhaustively researched in the warrant note, while the Select Board does have the authority under Mass General Laws to regulate speed limits within the town on non-state roads, which this is, that authority is restricted to a framework set by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and there are three options. Because Sherman's Bridge is not within a school zone, the remaining two ways that our board can reduce the speed limit from 25 to 20 miles per hour are one, what we just heard, is designating the area a safety zone. The other option is to have a road that is adjacent to a park or playground, a hospital, or a medical facility, a daycare facility. I think an argument could potentially be made that because there is a boat launch at that bridge, a number of recreational users, that we could argue that there are an increased number of vulnerable road users there. However, the Select Board does not currently have the authority to designate a safety zone on any stretch of roadway because the town needs to adopt the relevant statute first at town meeting. This has not been done, and so like the other article, this article is at best premature. The last method is to implement a special speed regulation. Which would be a recommendation by MassDOT, the Department of Transportation, based on a traffic engineering study. So based on a number of requests from residents on Sherman's Bridge Road, the Select Board commissioned a traffic study, one several years ago, another one this past fall in 2025, and the overall evidence was really inconclusive to warrant a reduction of five miles per hour in the speed limit. However, based on continued requests from residents on Sherman's Bridge Road, there has been a reduction of five miles per hour in the speed limit. So we have commissioned another traffic study, which is currently underway. The police department is conducting that in consultation with the Department of Public Works and Mr. Holder. As your warrant notes, with one exception, the Finance Committee and the Select Board voted to not support this article. Again, the Select Board is looking into this small stretch of roadway, and if necessary, and the evidence points to it, we'll take necessary measures. But right now, it's just premature and not appropriate at this time for town meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Levine. First thing I want to do is, I've spoken to Ms. Carter about this article, and the moderator is going to divide the question in this article. Specifically, I'm going to separate this into two votes. The first vote will be on whether or not the town votes in favor of requesting that the Select Board establish a 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on Shermansbridge Road. And the second vote will be everything else that's listed in the motion before you. Okay, so there's going to be actually two questions here, one on the speed limit, one on the remainder of the motion that's before you. Does everyone understand that? We're still going to, we're not voting yet, but we still have, we might have questions, we may have debate, but I'm doing it on my own, and I've spoken to town council about it, and I'm dividing the question in two. Okay? And I'll be very clear before we vote how we're going to do this. That being said, are there any questions before we continue on? Okay. Mr. Lewis, go ahead. Oh, wait a minute. There's an actual question. No, I was going to call on a question. Alan Matthews, Old Connecticut Path. I recognize you, Mr. Matthews. Especially based on what you've just said about splitting the question, I'm a little confused as to, again, with this, just like the previous article, what is and why is this going to be divided? I think it's going to be divided. I think it's going to be divided. I think it's going to be divided. Okay. And what isn't legal for the town to do in this matter, given this road goes into Sudbury? Okay. Is there, would you like to answer that, Ms. Martin? Feel free. Carol Martin, Lake Road, member of the Select Board. Through you, Madam Moderator, the Select Board would like to pose a question for town council. Does Massachusetts general law permit a town meeting vote that would require a reduction in the speed limit on a town roadway? Ms. Murray can answer that. Thank you. Carolyn Murray, KP Law, town council, Madam Moderator. I'm sorry. I apologize. I recognize Ms. Murray. Okay. Thank you. So the answer to this question becomes a little bit more convoluted than the prior article. Under one statute, under Chapter 90, Section 18, the Select Board get to impose any kind of speed regulations on any roads under the town. Okay. There's a separate statute that allows for a 20-mile-an-hour safety zone to be designated by the Select Board, and then there is also a reference in there that would suggest it would require acceptance by town meeting to impose that regulation. But then I want everyone to remember some of the comments I made under the prior article, that. Again, this is a road connecting two towns. So then we go back to Chapter 85, Section 2, that talks about not only regulations relative to roads that empty into two different communities, but it also talks about installing any kind of traffic control devices with respect to, again, a road that is leading to and from two different communities. That. And then it suggests that, again, if this were going to cover the entirety, that in order to put up any speed signs limiting the speed limit, that we may also need to get the approval of Sudbury to do that. So I don't think it's quite as straightforward as the other question was. Okay. There's one more question. Madam moderator, may I respond to that? No. She... The question was asked for legal counsel to give an opinion. So it's a legal opinion that was directed towards legal counsel. So I have another question that's come up as well, if you would like to ask your question. Sorry. I'm trying to have full and fair debate, but I have to... I want town meeting to be as well informed as possible before they make a decision. Okay? Rob Quimby, Cleason Lane, and also a FinCom member. I recognize you. Thank you. I'd like to ask town council to confirm... If you could speak into the microphone, please. Sorry. So everyone can hear you. Yep. I'd like to ask town council to confirm if this article, similar to the last, essentially serves as a non-binding resolution, encouraging the select board, but not requiring the select board to take action. Thank you. Carolyn Murray, town council. Madam moderator. I recognize you. So, again, this has similar language that the motion made was to vote to request the select board to establish the 20 mile per hour speed limit. I know the moderator has also indicated that she's going to divide the question, but I don't think that that will change the substance of the request. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Madam moderator, Clifford Lewis, Clayby Hill Road. I'd like to call both parts of the question. Thank you. Okay. So this is a motion to terminate debate. And while we're going to vote separately, the debate is similar to both. So right now, all town meeting is being asked is whether or not you wish to terminate debate or you would like to continue with debate, which requires a two-thirds vote. So please prepare to vote. And if you are in favor of terminating debate, vote one on your handset. If you are opposed to terminating debate, vote two. So the clerk has just pointed out something. I neglected to ask if there was a second on the motion to terminate debate. Okay. Thank you. And with 107 in favor of terminating debate and 12 opposed to it, it's 90% the motion carries to terminate debate. So we're going to go right to the debate. Okay. So we're going to go to the debate. The first motion is this. Should the town vote to request that the select board establish a 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on Sherman's Bridge Road? That is your first motion, the first vote you're going to take, okay? It's just the 20-mile-an-hour speed limit. So when the window light goes on, vote one if you are in favor of requesting the select board impose a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit or take all action. If you are not in favor of it, vote two. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So one if you are in favor of requesting the select board to impose the 20-mile-an-hour speed limit, two if you're not in favor of it, if you oppose it. Okay. With 45 votes in favor and 75 votes against, the motion does not carry on the first motion, which is the 20-mile-an-hour speed limit. Okay. The motion does not carry on that one. Now we're going to the second vote. The second vote is the town vote to request that the select board add a crosswalk, replace and augment signage to alert drivers to blind driving. Okay. Blind drives. Hold on a second on the voting window. Let me just go through. I just want the town meeting to be clear as to what they're voting on. The second motion is to request that the select board add a crosswalk, replace and augment signage to alert drivers to blind drives, poor sight lines, a school bus stop, wildlife crosswalk, and presence of vulnerable road users, instructing them to keep minimally four feet away from all VRUs and aim to complete this no later than the Sherman's Bridge project. That is currently the motion pending before you. And so if you're in favor of it, vote no. If you're in favor of this motion, vote one on your handset. If you are opposed to it, vote two. I'm sorry, is there a question? No. Thank you. You second. I think we've already seconded this to begin with. I just divided the question. When Ms. Carter first brought the motion forward, there was a second. But thank you. Okay. So when the voting window is open, vote one if you are in favor of requesting the select board to do this. Vote two if you are opposed to asking the select board to do this. Okay. And the voting window is closed. With 49 votes. With 49 votes in favor and 69 votes opposed, the motion is not carried. So neither of the two motions underneath this article carried. Is there anything else on Article 28? Seeing nothing, I declare the article disposed. Article 29, Sherman's Bridge Second Pedestrian Walkway. Is there a motion? Yes, Madam Moderator. You can state your name. Doug Stutz, Sherman's Bridge Road. I recognize you, Mr. Stutz. I move you, Madam, that Article 29 be indefinitely postponed. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Thank you. Do you wish to speak to your article? Motion, excuse me. As before, I hope that we can still work these issues out and resolve them without legislative action. Thank you. Does anyone wish to, have any questions for Mr. Stutz? Okay. We'll go right to the vote then on Article 29. This is a motion to indefinitely postpone Article 29. If you're in favor of indefinitely postponing it, vote one on your handset when the window is open. There, the window is now open. You may vote. If you're opposed to it, vote two. It's a simple majority quantum of vote. Okay. The voting window has closed. And with 113 votes in favor and one vote opposed, the motion carries. It is indefinitely postponed. Is there anything else on Article 29? Seeing nothing, I declare that article disposed. And please, folks, please stick around. We're getting through this stuff. Okay? I don't want to lose the quorum if possible. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing none, we can move right to a vote. If you are in favor of indefinitely postponing it, the voting window is open. Vote 1. If you are opposed to indefinitely postponing, vote 2. The voting window is closed on Article 30. And with 111 votes in favor and one vote opposed, the motion carries to indefinitely postpone. Is there anything else to be said on Article 30? Seeing nothing, I declare the article disposed. Article 31, accept Mass General Law Chapter 138, Section 12D, conversion of wine malt licenses. Madam Moderator, Bill Whitney, Woodridge Road, member of the Select Board. I recognize you, sir. Thank you. I move you, madam, that Article 31 be adopted under the abbreviated presentation procedure. Is the motion under Article 31, word for word, the same as the article text printed in the warrant? Yes, it is. The motion is brought under abbreviated presentation procedure. This is our first one tonight. Under this procedure, the motion is approved. The moving party initially waives the right to speak to the motion but does reserve the right should there be opposition or a question. Any questions or opposition? Seeing none, we can move right to a vote on Article 31. When the voting window is on, vote 1 on your handset if you are in favor of the motion under Article 31. Vote 2 if you are opposed. This is accepting Mass General Law Chapter 138, 12D, the conversion of wine malt licenses. Vote 1 if you're in favor, 2 if you're opposed. The voting window is closed. Town meeting voting 99 in favor, 11 opposed. The motion carries to indefinitely put, oops, strike that, sorry, carries under Article 31 accepting Mass General Law Chapter 138, Section 12D. Anything left to be stated on this? Seeing none, I declare Article 31 disposed. Article 32. This is the long-term facilities inventory. Is there a motion? Carol Plum. 17 balls. I move you, Madam, that the Town vote to amend its general bylaws of the Town Code by adding a new Chapter 22 entitled long-term facilities inventory as printed in the Article 32 on pages 95 to 96 of the warrant for the 2026 Annual Town Meeting. And is there a second on this motion? Thank you. Do you wish to speak to your motion, Miss Plum? Yes. We don't waste taxpayer money because we debate too much. We waste money because we start things before we're ready. We also often deal with predictable capital needs only once they become urgent. And that limits our options. One reason that happens is we don't have a clear shared picture of what the town already owns and what it's going to cost to maintain or to replace it over time. This isn't about our effort or our intent. It's a structural problem. Right now, we vote on a one-year budget and review a five-year capital plan, but we don't see in one place the full listing or long-term facility needs like schools, buildings, infrastructure that extend well beyond that five-year timeline. The Finance Committee's own report shows that tens of millions of dollars in capital needs are already identified over the next five years and with additional major projects not yet scheduled. So the long-term obligations are real. They're just not presented clearly to us residents when we vote. So Article 32 fixes that in a very straightforward way. It requires that a single publicly available... Judge Muniz is having her lunch. Mrs. Wow. Judge Muniz is having her lunch. Please. Raise your hands if you agree to that, if not. xxx I've always heard that an affordable home will be a national asset. Do I get that right? What does this mean? As you know, a lot of folks in our district live like this. So when we're making this public application if it wasn't for bill 세계 6 or the repeal of the Southern Roving 코로나 19 hearing, that would have been a big blow. And a lot of folks didn't get it. We could have done it. pictures before decisions are made and not after. This is how you move the operating discipline upstream. You may hear that this inventory already exists, or that it duplicates existing work. But if that was true, residents would already be able to see a complete, up-to-date, single list of all the town facilities and their long-term needs. We can't, because it doesn't exist in that form today. The pieces all exist, but they're scattered, they're not standardized, and not presented as one clear view. That's the difference. So the capital plan answers, what are we funding in the next five years? The inventory answers, what do we own, and what does it need over time? These are different questions, and you need both answers to make informed decisions. Future obligations in 5, 10, or 20 years should influence the decisions we're making today. You also may hear that this creates bureaucracy. Well, it doesn't. It doesn't add staff. It doesn't add spending. It doesn't approve a single project. It simply organizes the information the town is already expected to have, and so the residents can actually use it. This isn't about slowing things down. It's about not going fast without full information, and that's what costs money. Better understood information. That information leads to smarter decisions, and that is how we control long-term costs. This article doesn't spend money. It makes sure that we see the full picture before being asked to vote on pieces of it. So please vote yes on Article 32. Thank you, Ms. Plum. Is there an opposition to this? Lake Road. I recognize you. Select Board Chair. Thank you, Madam Moderator. It's getting late. Late night. So on behalf of the Select Board, I rise. Thank you. May I rise in opposition to this article? It's a bit odd to rise in opposition because the Select Board supports understanding our capital needs, particularly large capital needs in the 5, 10, 15, 20, and beyond horizon. It's why last year the Select Board proposed the establishment of CIPC, the Capital Improvement and Planning Committee, one goal of which is to prioritize capital projects to ensure town assets are maintained and long-range costs fully understood. The Select Board opposes this article because it will only create an inventory of what needs to be done, while the CIPC Committee will take the next steps, prioritizing each project, determining a timeline for inclusion in the capital budget, and reviewing proposed costs as it develops the capital plan for the town. That is career-oriented. That is creating the big picture and an actionable plan. This is a huge undertaking, and the town recently spent $116,000 on an asset inventory of town buildings, just town buildings, not town and school, just town, to aid the town manager and the Facilities Director and the CIPC Committee in their endeavors. Using this report, the Facilities Director recently produced a report on the CIPC and the CIPC Committee. The report is presented to the Select Board, a list of capital projects, including timelines and proposed costs for several of the larger town buildings that are being incorporated into the capital plan. The Select Board anticipates more conversations, both with the Facilities Director and the town manager, over the next year to ensure the town has a fully developed, long-term prioritized capital plan that identifies our needs. Thank you. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair. We will now move to the new power slide, which is the first one to come out of its office. I'm going to put all of our resources and resources on the table. As you can see, we are in full recovery mode. This is a new project. I'm excited to share it with you all. I'm excited to share it with you all. Tori fix the problem that we had last night in terms of our IT issues being 20 years behind? Because that seemed to be a big surprise to everybody in the room yesterday and I don't know how they fixed that problem. Is there someone who can answer this question? Intent was not to do anything but facilities and I don't think IT necessarily falls under the facilities part. What do you think? And again, it was more that the residents get to see the list. That is one thing that is, if you've ever, oh, I can't do that, I have to go to the camera. Yeah. Right now we're just answering questions. Okay. Do you have a question? Mr. Matthews? Okay. Was your question answered? I don't know if any, hold on a second, Mr. Matthews, I don't know if there's anybody here who can answer it. Well, I don't know if that's relevant to this, it's whether or not this, yeah, okay. Does this motion have anything to do with the issue with our, the current status of our IT? Yeah. If you can answer the question. Okay. You can help me too, I guess. Madam Moderator, Carol Martin, Lake Road Select Board Chair. So this is one of the conundrums that I personally had when I saw this proposed article, is that is very broad language and it does not define exactly what would be in the inventory. Quite frankly, when I looked at it. I thought it was going to have every capital item in every building, which would include locks on the bathrooms, new faucets. So it's too broad. But does it, the question is, is this going to cover IT stuff? So in that sense, if you look at it as a broad definition, I believe the answer is yes, it would include everything in the building. I have to look at the facilities, everything in the building, right? Thank you. Okay. All right. We have a question now. Yeah. Alan Matthews, Old Connecticut Path. My question was, the proposer said that this would not add cost or bureaucracy. So where is this inventory going to come from? Who's going to generate it? Can someone answer that question? I'll think about it. So your question was- If you could just identify yourself as Plum. Of Carol Plum, Bald Rock Road. Thank you. Your question was, how would it not cost money to do this? I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think it's a good question. Yeah. Okay. So we have a couple of things. One is if we can have the inventory, you know, put it in a place that's going to be able to do this, it's going to be able to do this. Right now, as it's always been referred to, we have the insight onsite report that they've already paid for. And if we pull together all the pieces that are there, I'd like to point out, at one point, back when Louise Miller was the- Which is, if there is a way to answer his question directly. Is there? Can you restate your question? Essentially, who's going to do the work? Okay. Right? to be someone out of the town manager's office pulling together a spreadsheet can i go back over there sure of course of course mr lewis oh i meant sorry mr mccall has something to say are you answering this question about who would do the work madam moderator michael mccall town manager i recognize you answer this and also make a comment on the previous question as well because it says the purpose is town-owned buildings and facilities i'm not sure unless we're doing an actual asset inventory and going down and looking at every capital item that we're going to be able to ascertain what all of our i.t infrastructure looks like so i do know our our new i.t director would like to get down to that level a lot of non-public entities they actually have barcodes that they affix to every piece of equipment so that they can scan them in and know what they have for actual inventory he's indicated to me at some point he wishes to be able to do that and he's the one that can do it and i'm very excited about that and so i want to make a comment and i can't wait to see this we need to get to that to that level so i hope that answers your question i don't think this will do this as for the other question if you heard me the other night i have instituted a hiring freeze and i have asked all department heads to come to me specifically if they need additional personnel my office is currently operating with with less than full think would be falling on both the town manager and the facilities department to update this i think we have a shared philosophy here all of us we want to ensure that all of our facilities and assets are maintained and delivering as i said the other night the best that we can because we're a customer service organization the newly formed capital improvement planning committee did come back to us this year and asked some serious questions about the investments into the town building for instance i think what would be more prudent as we have talked at select board meetings to look at a long-range plan for certain facilities such as the town building which consumes a lot of our capital dollars because that building was built in 1935 we have to retrofit it for a lot of our hvac and other things and we have problems inside the windows are not standard size so we're investing a lot of dollars in there to maintain a building that's probably out lived its useful life for the purpose that we now use it we could potentially use that as housing if we were to do something mr mccall we just mr matthews asked who's going to do the work so that the work would fall most likely on the town manager's office and the facilities department
okay great i'm going to let mr lewis have um go to the microphone now he's been waiting a long time uh clifford lewis clayton hill road i recognize you thank you madam moderator i'd like to move the question please okay that's the motion to terminate debate so uh is there a second okay if you're in favor of terminating debate vote one on your handset if you are not in favor of terminating debate at this stage vote two on your handset so it's a motion terminated debate when the light goes on the light is on if you're in favor of terminating debate vote one if you're opposed to it vote two uh yes and this is a two-thirds vote okay the voting window has closed this is the motion terminate debate for 96 in favor and 10 uh opposed the motion carries the motion we will we are terminating debate we're going to go right to the main motion under article 32 on the long-term facilities inventory okay so prepared to vote please if you're in favor of this article please vote one on your handset if you are opposed to it please vote two this is the motion voting on the main motion under article 32 right now it's a simple majority vote unlike the last one okay the voting window has closed we're going to go right to the main motion under article 32 with 32 votes in favor and 78 opposed the motion does not carry is there anything left to be said under article 32 seeing nothing i declare the article disposed article 30 33 madam moderator tom faye happy hollow road select board member i recognize you sir thank you madam moderator i move you madam that article 33 be adopted under presentation procedure and is the motion under article 33 word forward the same as the article text printed in the warrant yes madam moderator okay thank you mr fay so under abbreviated presentation procedure the the sponsor um waives the right to speak in favor but does not um but reserves the right to speak should there be opposition is there any opposition or any questions on article 33. you have a question come on up oh i'm sorry i didn't know that i didn't realize you're in opposition okay then mr faye has the right to um speak in favor of it then thank you for letting me know i had no idea madam moderator would you like me to read the the full motion okay please do i moved madam moderator that the town vote to amend the town code by repealing chapter 149 sales and replacing it with chapter 149 peddling hawkers and solicitation as printed in article 33 on pages 97 through 100 of the warrant for the 2026 annual town uh meeting okay and i did i get a second to this motion is there a second okay and mr fay would you like to speak to your motion briefly your honor briefly madam moderator this amendment updates chapter 149 of the town code to align it with current town procedures it also adds a new section 149-14-16 authorizing the police department to provide residents upon request with a list of registered solicitors and allowing residents to register their address to prohibit solicitors from entering their property this update was reviewed with former police chief berman and the current acting police chief mark hebert thank you mr fay was that 30 seconds long miss kingsford how many 32 seconds okay but he has at least mr siaki you're it's uh time for opposition unless is anyone else speaking in favor then you have three minutes if you're opposing speaking um opposing it you have three minutes just as a note anytime you're opposing any motion you need to tell the moderator beforehand so i can prepare for it i wouldn't have put this in abbreviated presentation procedure if i had known okay fair enough um madame moderator tom siak or rolling lane i recognize you sir um last last year as many of you know i hope you all know my wife published a book on the early history of wayland slavery and colonial wayland and it's sold through you know amazon and barnes and noble but uh last year there were three instances where we we sold them directly in in town one was when she she presented at the unitarian church and after her present dictation we sold a few books and there was another one either either at the the coa or the town building i don't remember but again she presented and afterwards we sold a few books and and then once in the fall at the event at the town center and
so those are all instances where by the definitions that i read in this article she was a hawker or a peddler or something and would have come under this this provisions um i just finished our uh taxes last month we lost about 400 on her her book project writing a local history book is not a way to make money
if we had had to go through the processes that are laid out in this article and and uh the fact that it was a public service if we had stormed the state of you know we believe it asked for fifty dollars we just wouldn't have bothered we wouldn't have sold the book at all in town and uh in as much as it's mostly a public service i'm sure that's not what what was intended in drafting this article but it's what the letter of the wording says I would urge that we turn this article down right now and allow it to be redrafted, allowing for people who make jewelry to sell at farmer's markets or other low-scale casual kind of sales like that without these kind of bureaucratic requirements. Thank you. Are there any questions? Susan Weinstein, Concord Road. Yes, I recognize you. The way I read 149-7 on page 98, it seems to me that those kinds of situations would be taken into account, that your wife would be able to sell as long as she had permission from the property. Yes. Yes. The owner or the person having control. And I would think that if you're invited to do a talk on your book, that that would include authorization. I'm sorry. Was that a question? Is that a reasonable way to interpret this writing? Okay. Is there anyone who can speak to the Chapter 149, I believe, yeah, dash 7. Weinstein was referring to 149, Section 7. Okay. So this metamoderator Tom Fais, Happy Hollow Road- I recognize you. As the opponent to this article stated, the thrust of this article is, does concern door-to-door solicitation. For example, you'll find that Section 149-14 states the police chief shall establish and maintain a do not solicit registry consisting of addresses of residents who have elected not to receive visits from hawkers, peddlers, or solicitors. Under 149-15, the police chief shall establish and maintain the do not solicit registry. It states, a current copy of the Do Not Solicit Registry shall be provided to all registered hawkers, peddlers, or solicitors at the time their license is issued. A new section states, no registered hawkers or peddlers, is that 149-16, no registered hawkers, peddlers, or solicitors shall enter upon the property of any residents listed on the Do Not Solicit Registry. The same section states, no registered hawker, peddler, or solicitor shall enter the premises of a resident or business who has displayed no trespassing or a no soliciting sign or poster. So, in short then, the thrust of this article does concern door-to-door solicitation. I think on balance, given that the focus of this ordinance focuses on that, it should be passed. Thank you. Okay. So, does that answer your question? Okay. I don't know if anyone else can. Do we have another question? Unless anyone else can answer that question? Judy Lane, Concord Road. I have two questions. Sure. So, this mentions door-to-door solicitation. So, there are two circumstances under which I can think that happens. One is people coming to my door asking for a donation for some environmental cause, is usually what it is. So, would that, question number one, would this prohibit that from happening? Number two. Would people canvass for votes? They go to your door and say, I'm supporting candidate Elizabeth Warren, and I'd like you to come and vote. Do you know where to vote? We're not asking for money, but we're asking for you to take some kind of action. That that come under to prohibition under this new law. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Can anyone answer her question with regard to whether or not this law would prohibit that from happening? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. This question is set. Sue has mentioned that environmental issues would prohibit people who go to the door, say, for example, for environmental causes, and the latter example was political people looking for action, not for money. So yes to the first part, and no to the second. Thank you. Any other questions before we go to argument? Okay. I'll go over to another question. Sorry. Mrs. Plum. Please go to the microphone. I'm looking at 149-15. And it says that you're going to prohibit African-Americans from ever arriving, and now they're French citizens. provide this copy of the names to the registered hawkers peddlers, and on the next side it says the registry is solely for the purpose of complying with this bylaw and should not be used for any other purpose, including marketing, compiling of databases, or resale. That doesn't seem like a very practical option if you're about to hand this to people who are going to be out settling the marketing. So how are you going to enforce that? Okay. So that's Chapter 149, Section 15 and 16. How is it going to be enforced, essentially? Madam Moderator, Tom Fay, Happy Hollow Road, member of the Select Board. I recognize you. So the proposed bylaw, really revision, permits residents to have their names placed in the registry stating, hey, I don't want to be contacted. So the individuals who want to solicit get that. Okay. Is there another question? Thank you, Mr. Fay. Is there another question? Please. Madam Moderator, can I ask a question? Yes. Karen Blumenfeld, Oxbow Road. I recognize you. Thank you. A quick question. So it begins by saying, every person who engages in a transient temporary business, selling goods, wares, et cetera, does that include children selling lemonade on the street? There's that question. Can anyone answer her question? No. The distinction here is door-to-door. Thank you. Okay. Somebody else can answer that question? Hmm? This is about children selling lemonade. Yes. Annette Lewis, Claypott Hill Road. Yes? There's a specific exception in the bylaw, proposed bylaw, for... Exceptions 149-12, the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any person conducting a garage sale nor to any person who goes door-to-door to sell wares, periodicals, or merchandise on behalf of any group organized for any of the purposes of the meeting. Okay. any of the purposes described in Massachusetts general law chapter 180 and B individual registration should not be required for minors under the age of 18 except in connection with for-profit commercial activity so a Girl Scout cookies could be sold okay thank you do you have a question Miss Peabody Maryam Peabody Bayfield Road matter moderator my question is the same following up on miss Lewis's is it could someone define what's in Mass General Law 180 that's what's accepted so does and someone say what is permitted under Mass General Law 180 there's someone who could answer that anyone what's under Mass General Law chapter 180 it's the same paragraph that that miss Lewis just read it says the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any person conducting a garage sale nor and I'll leave there out of everything else nor for any purpose on behalf of any group organized for any of the purposes described in Mass General Law chapter 180 if you can answer that mr. Faye yes Tom Faye Happy Hollow Road members select board Massachusetts 180 concerns charities charitable organizations thank you you have a question go right ahead Susan Kaufman Sherman Bridge Road I recognize you under the bylaw the town bylaws chapter 149 covers door-to-door sales it's shorter it has some some it has fewer provisions I'm wondering what's different about this one which is much longer and why was it necessary to add this if anyone can answer her question by the way we're running we're we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a n you know we're on page one hundred of the warrant section 149 16 entitled prohibition on entering resident registry properties so concerns the. It concerns the registry. And I won't read it but that is one of the main distinctions with But that's something and more then there is just for merges we had Facebook some concerns and I seek the exception of injuries andrule Sheriff Dory etc. Yes sir that comments enthusiasticpper Mr. Van cloak I wake up and I have to go now because we are inner city and there's most are black arguement going on with this this proposal thank you any other questions before I go to the pro and con microphone mr. Matthews Alan Matthews old Connecticut path I just want to make a clear distinction here if I were to say go around door-to-door to try and convince people about the glorious path of the Buddha that would be okay but the moment I if I said oh and by the way would you like to help me out but if give me a few books that would not be okay is that clear if anyone can answer that question Tom Faye Happy Hollow Road select board member donations are exempt from this from this ordinance okay so there appears to be a mr. Barry there appears to be perhaps a disagreement as to whether or not they're exempt mr. Barry Dennis Barry 15 George Street I recognize you if in fact this is in 10-15 George Street I recognize you if in fact this is in 10-15 George Street I recognize you if in fact this is in 10-15 George Street I recognize you if in I recognize you if in fact this is in 10-15 George Street I recognize you if in this case if you've attended for door-to-door then why do we have the first line engaged in transient temporary business selling goods where it's periodic merchandise or goes door-to-door why don't we just I'm going before making a motion I just like there's there a reason why we need those first what are the 10 or 12 words why is it there if the intent is sickly door-to-door can anyone answer mr. Barry's question are you going to answer it? No. Okay. One of the aims, Madam Moderator, Tom Fay, happy holiday. I recognize you. Thank you, Madam Moderator. So one of the aims of this article is to prevent individuals from just popping up a tent anywhere in town, public property, most likely to sell their wares. So that is a type of activity that causes that language to be in the proposed ordinance. Okay. Do you have a question? Okay. Robin Borgstad, Oxbow Road. I recognize you. With respect to the solicitation of donations, right in the definition of door-to-door solicitation, it says that in that definition is securing or attempting to secure donations. So I'm not clear how they say that it's not included. Though on a later page it says you're accepted if you're securing bona fide, if you're working on behalf of the organization. I know you're working on behalf of a bona fide nonprofit organization, but that seems like something that the town would have to be deciding on the fly. A second question is, would this apply to vendors who are coming to, let's say, the Russell's markets? Because if some of them have to pay a fee and register, they're going to, as we've heard from other people, kill their profit. Can anyone answer this? Madam Moderator, Tom Fay, happy holiday. I recognize you. Thank you, Madam Moderator. So because Russell's is an established business, and these individuals, although they do come during the winter for the marketplace, Russell's is not a transient type business, it's an established business, and therefore this would not apply. Okay. Are there any other questions? Or of course. Chano Mendler, Orchard Lane. I recognize you. So my question is whether or not we might consider removing the word or after the list of things that persons might engage in, and the reason being that that would specify those who go door to door. And the problem that that might resolve is that otherwise we would be precluding vendors at the farmer's market. At Russell's, and also at the Wayland Festival. We would have to be, I think, imposing onerous obligations on those vendors to go through some kind of complicated bureaucratic procedure. So are you bringing a motion to amend? Or are you asking a question if a motion to amend would change? I'm asking if that would be a solution. Can anyone speak to this question? If we were to change the language. Simply. By removing the word or? So that we would be specifying door to door for all of these activities. And would that then protect the vending at the farmer's markets and at the Wayland Festival? They would be, it wouldn't apply if we removed the word or. Is that a solution? Oh, and just to direct your attention where she's looking, if you look at page 97 under section 149-1, License Required. If you look at the second sentence, the first word is or. That is the word you mean, correct? I'm sorry, Mr. Fay. Were you going to answer a question? I apologize. Madam moderator, I threw you a request that you permit the town clerk to answer the question that's been asked. Okay. Ms. Reed. Thank you, Trudy Reed, through the moderator. I recognize you. Thank you. So this was proposed, these changes, we currently have it, but it's listed in our town code under sales. It's a little weird chapter heading. However, I worked with a former chief police because he found that this was a concern of people going door-to-door, not registering with the town. Residents were concerned with people coming around door-to-door trying to sell the goods. So it was the idea to put a registry in place. I'm wondering if the word or in the second sentence under 149.1 would eliminate all the questions. Second line. Second line, or answer all the questions that's come up. But this really is meant, this was really intended for businesses going door-to-door, selling magazines, things like that. It's not to preclude Girl Scout cookies. It's not to, if you've got a regular delivery of frozen meat, or produce or something like that. It's not to prohibit them from coming to your home because you've already acknowledged, you're the one who implemented that sale. So it's okay for businesses like that.
According to the former police chief, he received a lot of calls and complaints about how the town could put a limit on door-to-door sales. That's what it is really trying to look at.
So it's currently in the bylaws. It was just updated and tried to put a few more definitions in to make it more clear. It was also to prohibit sales happening on private property
and interfering with traffic in public ways. Thank you. I believe a motion to amend is coming. Please vote. Hi, Jessica Greenfield, 7 Ridgefield Road. I recognize you. Thank you. I have a question. What happens if we lose a quorum or don't finish by 10.30? So we can't finish the rest of the town's business unless we have a quorum. So I would say we can finish this article, but we can't finish the rest. And so we have also town meeting scheduled for tomorrow night too. Isn't that great? Isn't it? So if we don't have a quorum, unless you can get bodies back in here, and I don't know how many people we have right now, but unless we can get bodies in here, because we have until 10.30 tonight, unless somebody moves to extend town meeting, until the business is done. And I'm pretty sure we can get through the rest of the articles pretty quickly. So to answer your question, that's what happens. Okay? Now, you'd like to make a motion to amend. Madam moderator, I'd like to make a motion to amend article 33. I apologize. Hold on a second. Your motion is to lay on the table, which would supersede your motion to delete, to amend. Yeah. So yes, yours would go first. If you're doing a motion to lay on the table. Madam moderator, Clifford Lewis-Claybaud Hill wrote, I move to permanently postpone this article so that we can move on. I'm sorry. That is still, yeah, that still ranks higher than the motion to amend. So yes, you can make that. I'll continue my motion to permanently postpone discussion on this article so we can go on to the rest of the things on the warrant and finish up. Okay. So I think, just to be clear, Mr. Lewis, just to be clear, come on back. You're postponing indefinitely, like we've done with other articles. Okay? You don't want to bring it back to town meeting. To postpone. Okay. Is there a second on the motion to postpone indefinitely? Second. Okay. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay. Okay. It's a two-thirds vote, and I would say that the ayes have it. So we have a motion to indefinitely postpone. The motion carries. And I'm going to be buzzing through these articles without the electronic voting, okay? Just so you all know. Is there anything else to be said on this article? Article 33. Okay. With that, I say the motion to postpone indefinitely passes, and the article is now disposed. Article 34. Madam moderator, Tom Fay, Happy Hollow Road, member of the select board. I recognize you. I move you, madam, that article 34 be adopted under the abbreviated presentation procedure. And is the motion under article 34 word for word the same as the article text printed in the warrant? No, your honor. I will read the, no, madam moderator, I will read the revised motion that is quite similar and absent a few words. If you would, please. I move that the town vote to amend the town code by adding a new chapter 159 entitled visible house numbers as printed in article 34 on pages 101 and 102 of the warrant for the 2026 annual town meeting. Okay. Is there a second? Okay. Can we get article 33 up on the screens? Because I want you to be able to see. 34. 34. Yeah, 34, sorry. Here. And is it fair to say that the words including the renumbering of existing properties when necessary was deleted? That's correct. That from the warrant article. That's correct, madam moderator. Okay. All right. So now, so do you, is there, there is a second. Do you wish to speak to this or it's under abbreviated procedure, right? Yes, madam moderator. Okay. Are there any questions with regard to what's happening here? This motion has been changed. Feel free to come up. Yes. Shouldn't have moved that. Madam moderator Lawrence Krakauer, Orchard Lane. I recognize you. Question is it sounds to me as if this will require renumbering existing properties, how can that not happen if you are establishing this uniform distance-based street numbering? So will it in fact require renumbering my property? I've had this number for 54 years. Understood. Let me see if someone can answer the question. By deleting the language including the renumbering of existing properties when necessary, Mr. Krakauer is asking if whether or not his home, for example, or any other one's home, if present, or not, houses can be renumbered. So madam moderator Tom Fay, help me on the road, member of the select board. I recognize you, Mr. Fay. So the town doesn't have a bylaw like this as of yet, but there's a state statute that does require every building in the Commonwealth have affixed upon that structure a number indicating the structure's address. And this bylaw improves emergency response times and aligns with the state's policy. So I'm just asking if there's anything you'd like to add to that. I think it's very important that the town has a number that's in line with the state regional 911 requirements. Reduces confusion from duplicate or irregular numbering. To the question, a town can modify a number if necessary. And typically it's done for safety reasons, for one reason or another, but it's extremely rare. I don't know if the assistant fire chief wishes to answer this question, too, seeing as I had conversation with him about this earlier. The question is, would... By voting in favor of this motion, which has been revised from what's printed in the warrant, would this allow the town to renumber somebody's present home? Assistant Fire Chief Richard Ripley. I recognize you, sir. Thank you. So the intention of this bylaw is strictly to create uniformity in the numbering of homes. The only person in the community that has the authority to assign numbers to any established structure is the building commissioner, and that's only done in extreme circumstances where property might be changed to have a different frontage to a different adjacent street, such as a corner lot, that it may be beneficial for the petitioner or the applicant that's doing renovations or building a home, but the town cannot unilaterally just change someone's address. It's not lawful. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Assistant Chief Ripley. Does anyone else have any questions? There you are. You can go where you want. Excuse me, Madam Moderator, because in a sense it's the same question. I believe this happened in Western Mass to my sister in Conway, which is a rather sprawling town, but however, she was required to change her address, and it was routine, and it was done throughout the town, and her address was now the number of yards up the road. Maybe it's extremely rural. It's extremely rural, and that had something to do with it, but I thought that was enforced, and that was the whole point that the 911, you know, someone making an emergency call can know exactly where you are given the number, same way we recently renumbered all our highway exits. Okay. Do you have a question? Do you have that? Is there a question? Well, I guess in some sense, is my sister's experience out of the ordinary, or will it somehow be different here? Okay. I'm not sure that anyone knows where the town of Conway is, or whether or not what their bylaw is. That's the concern, is whether or not it's an identical bylaw. Correct? Madam Moderator, Tom Face, like Board Member, Happy Hollow Road, it's extremely rare. Extremely rare. And again, this bylaw mirrors, essentially, the state statute, so. Okay. Are there any other questions? Any opposition? Any... This is still a question. Okay. We're still under abbreviated presentation procedure. We're trying to get through this. So if there's nothing else, we'll move right to a vote. Okay? Moving right to a vote. And this is a majority vote. Okay. Voting, just shout out vote. If you're in favor of the motion under Article 34 as presented, say aye. If you are opposed to it, say nay. Okay. It's a simple majority. The ayes have it. Is there anything else to be said on Article 34? Seeing nothing, I vote... I declare this article. I declare this article disposed. Article 35. Didn't hear you. What? Oh. Well, thanks for asking. Can anyone tell me if we still have a quorum? Thank you. All right. Article 35. Don't ask that again. Anyway. Come to the microphone. Everyone's going to hate you for it. Everyone. Anyway. Mr. Levine, do you have something on Article 35? Doug Levine, member of the select board, Gray-Birch Lane. Okay. I recognize you. I move, madam, that Article 35 be approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And now, will Article 35 be adopted under the abbreviated presentation procedure? Okay. And is your article the same as it's printed in the warrant? With one minor modification... And what is that? Adding the word private in section one, line two, before the second occurrence of the word land, so as to read no private land. Right. And that is in... I've discussed this before with somebody from the select board, that this is to add further Do you, is there a second on this motion? Thank you, do you wish to speak to your motion? Oh, sorry, this is abbreviated presentation procedure. Okay, are there any questions about this motion under Article 35? Any opposition? Seeing none, we'll go right to the vote. All of those in favor of, who are in favor of Article 35, shout out yes. All those who are opposed, shout out no. The yeses have it. Is there anything else to be said on this motion? Seeing nothing, I declare Article 35 disposed. Article 36, Acceptance of Mass General Laws, Chapter 30, Section 2, abate up to $25 on past due tax bills. Is there a motion? Yes, Madam Moderator. Ann Brunsley, Barney Hill Roads. I recognize you, Ms. Brunsley. I move you, Madam, that Article 36, I move you, Madam, that Article 36 be adopted under the abbreviated presentation procedure. And is the motion under Article 36, word for word, the same as the article text? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So under this procedure, the proponent is initially waiving the right to speak to the motion. Are there any questions? I'm sorry. Is there a second? Thank you. Are there any questions or opposition to this motion? Hearing none, if you are in favor of this motion, say yes. If you are opposed, say no. A majority vote. It sounds like it was unanimous. So if there's nothing else to be said on this article, the motion carries. And I declare the article disposed. Article 37, petition to allow print-free digital legal notices. Is there a motion? Yes, Madam Moderator. Ann Brunsley, Barney Hill Roads, select board. And is this being brought under the abbreviated presentation procedure? Yes. Article 37 is to be adopted under the abbreviated presentation procedure. And is the motion under Article 37, word for word, the same as the article text printed in the warrant? Yes. Given that, is there any opposition or any questions to the motion under Article 37? You have a question? Annette Lewis, Claypott Hill Road. I recognize you. Article 37 does not have any town council opinion as to whether it's consistent with law. And I would like to know also why the planning board isn't listed as one of the committees and how you would prove that you did your appropriate publication, if it were did not. Okay. So those are three questions. So we've got town council's opinion, correct? Okay. The last question was how you would prove it was digital. And why isn't the planning board on here? Okay. Can anyone answer these questions? Yeah, you've got to come up. Have you recognized? Rob Quimby, Gleason Lane. I recognize you, sir. Thank you. So it does say, if the planning board is not listed under Article 37, word for word, that it is not consistent with law. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And is this being brought under the abbreviated presentation procedure? Yes, Madam Moderator. And is this being brought under the abbreviated presentation procedure? Yes, Madam Moderator. And is this being brought under the abbreviated presentation procedure? Yes, Madam Moderator. Can you recognize it? Yes. Okay. Rob Quimby, Gleason Lane. I recognize you, sir. Thank you. So it does say including, but not limited to, so I would assume that would cover planning board. Yes, I'm wrong about that. Okay. One question. The last two questions are legal opinion and sorry, limited to digital. Go ahead. Carolyn Murray Town Council, Madam Moderator. I recognize you. So under Section 2, so two things. First of all, the... Yes? The question being, would this be consistent with state law? This is actually looking for special act of legislation, so it would replace state law if it actually passed. And then section two, although it refers to the town, Wayland Public Schools, it goes on to say, and or their subdivisions, committees, boards, commissions, or officers when they're required to provide legal notice. So that inclusion of the word boards or commissions, in my opinion, would apply to any town of Wayland board that chose to instead use this digital publication. And the last was the digital piece. And the last question was, how do you prove that the notices went out digitally, correct? Date and time. Normal digital history. We would have history that it went out, along with who it was sent to. And time stamped. What do you mean, what do you mean, postage? Normally, the planning board is required by state law to post in a newspaper on two consecutive weeks that are seven days apart and seven days before the hearing. I want to know, if we were to post online, digitally, how do we prove that we have done it? Because we have to report to the state. Can anyone answer that? No. We have an answer. Madam Moderator, Jim VanSkyver, Holiday Road. I recognize you, sir. I am answering the question. All you have to do is take a screenshot and provide it to the state of your digital announcement. Yes. Okay. Do you understand that? I don't know that everyone can hear that, that answer, that how do you prove that on the date that it was posted. That's the question. Do you want to do this one? Yeah. Go ahead. Madam Moderator, Michael McCall, town manager. Two things. Under the state law, we have to make sure that we have the information that we need. We have to make sure that we have the information that we need. We have to make sure that we have the information that we need. We have to make sure that we have the information that we need. Under Section 3, it does say in the last sentence that the select board by majority vote shall determine at least two means of legal publication set forth in Section 2 above. But as to the question about how we preserve that, my suggestion would have been the same. We have a communication coordinator who oversees our website. We could have a designated section for legal notices. We would know internally when you make the amendment to the web page, it would be time stamped. We could also take a screenshot and we could time how long those postings were placed on our website before they were taken down. So we should be able to track that without any problem. It would be posted on our website for 14 days. Please talk into the microphone, please. It would be up there for 14 days and we would have a record of it and we could maintain that and provide that to anybody who wants to use it. It would be required through a public records inquiry. Do you have another question? Do you have a question, Mr. Lewis? Yeah. This would require— If you can identify yourself just for the record. Clifford Lewis . This would require a public records request to do something that's just very simple. It just doesn't make any sense. I don't know. Is that a question? Oh, okay. You are up here at the procedural microphone either to ask a question or are you responding to the prior question? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I didn't hear the response, though. This would require that the public make a public records request every time they wanted to know whether the posting was proper. Okay. Understood. Okay. And you have a question, Mr. Matthews. Yeah. Alan Matthews, Old Connected Path. What provisions are made in this for people who do not have digital access? Yeah. I would say the same provisions for those people who don't subscribe to a newspaper. The earlier point. When we do pay to post in a regular newspaper, regular circulation, we usually go to Metro Daily West where we now utilize the post. We get what's called a tear sheet where they give us a copy, and that's all we have. But we could create the equivalent, and usually before every public hearing that I've ever attended, there is a question or a statement by that board saying it was properly posted before they start the meeting. And at that time, someone could inquire, and we could provide that same digital copy to that board and a history log of how long it was up there. Thank you. Mr. Lewis, do you have a motion? Madam moderator, I'd like to move that we permanently postpone the vote on this article. You mean to postpone indefinitely? Yeah, postpone indefinitely. Is there a second to your motion? Okay. All in favor of Mr. Lewis's motion to postpone indefinitely say yes. Yes. All opposed to it, say no. I'm sorry, what? Actually, you know what? There is. You can. It's debatable. So you're welcome to. Sorry. We're going to rescind that vote, folks. Okay. A motion to postpone indefinitely is debatable. Susan Weinstein, Concord Road, chair of the Community Preservation Committee. We have to deal with posting just for one thing, but it's kind of a hassle. It does cost money. It would be really nice to be able to just do this digitally. Okay. Thank you. So please don't postpone it. Just vote it. Okay. Anything else to be said on the motion to postpone indefinitely? Anything else? Okay. Now we're going to take a voice vote. Those in favor to postpone Article 37 indefinitely say yes. Those who oppose postponing Article 37 indefinitely say no. You know what? It's too close. I have to do a, I have to do, I can't tell if it's a simple majority or not. So we're going to, when the voting window is open. Thank you. If you, this motion to postpone indefinitely, if you want, wish to postpone indefinitely, vote one for yes. If you oppose postponing this motion indefinitely, vote two for no. And thank you all for sticking around. I appreciate it. Okay. Motion to postpone indefinitely, 36 yes, 66 no. So the motion is not postponed. We continue with the motion. And I would suggest to you that it should not be under the abbreviated presentation procedure unless you're all ready to go right to a vote. If there's, you are? Does it look like it? Okay. We're going to vote on the motion under Article 37, petition to allow print-free digital legal notices. When the voting window goes on, if you are in favor of the motion under the article, vote one on your handset. If you are not, vote two. If you're opposed to this, vote two. We're voting on the main motion under Article 37. If you're in favor of it, vote one. If you're opposed to it, vote two. Okay. The voting window is closed. This is the main motion. Seventy-three in favor. Thirty-one opposed. The motion carries. And we still have a quorum. Okay. So anything else to be said on Article 37? Seeing nothing, I declare Article 37 disposed. Article 38. We only have, we're almost there, folks. We're almost there. Prohibition of cryptocurrency machines. Is there a motion? Madam Moderator, Bill Whitney, Woodridge Road, member of the Select Board. I recognize you, sir. Thank you. I move you, madam, that Article 38 be adopted under the abbreviated presentation procedure under Article 37, petition to allow print-free digital notices. Is there a motion? Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. UNDER ARTICLE 38, SAY YES. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED, SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES FOR A SIMPLE MAJORITY. IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT TO BE SAID UNDER ARTICLE 38? HEARING NOTHING, I DECLARE ARTICLE 38 DISPOSED. ARTICLE 39, IS THERE A MOTION? YES, MADAM MODERATOR. CAROL MARTIN, LAKE ROAD, SELECT BOARD CHAIR. ARTICLE 39, TOWN MEETING AND ELECTION. THANK YOU. I MOVE YOU, MADAM, THAT ARTICLE 39 BE ADOPTED UNDER THE ABBREVIATED PRESENTATION PROCEDURE. IT IS THE MOTION UNDER ARTICLE 39, WORD FOR WORD THE SAME AS THE ARTICLE TEXT PRINTED IN THE WARRANT. YES, MADAM MODERATOR. OKAY. AND UNDER THIS, YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS TO, INITIAL RIGHTS TO SPEAK ON THIS MOTION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON ARTICLE 39 OR ANY OPPOSITION? HEARING NONE, WE'LL MOVE RIGHT TO A VOTE. ACTUALLY, I NEED TO GET A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND? THANK YOU. WE'LL GO RIGHT TO A VOTE ON ARTICLE 39, THE MAIN MOTION IS PRINTED IN YOUR WARRANT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY YES. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NO. UNANIMOUS VOTE THERE. SO IS THERE ANYTHING, THE MOTION CARRIES, IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT TO BE SAID UNDER ARTICLE 39? HEARING NOTHING, I DECLARE THE ARTICLE DISPOSED. ARTICLE 40. DOUG LEVINE, MEMBER OF THE SELECT BOARD, GRAY-BURCH LEAN. I RECOGNIZE YOU, SIR. MADAM MODERATOR, I MOVE THAT ARTICLE 40 BE POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. IS THERE A SECOND? DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? JUST BRIEFLY, AT A PLANNING BOARD HEARING ON THIS ARTICLE LAST WEEK, WE RECEIVED SOME VERY HELPFUL FEEDBACK FROM ALL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, AND THE ARTICLE NEEDS MORE WORK IF WE WERE TO BRING IT BACK, SO I'D ASK THAT IT BE POSTPONED. FAIR ENOUGH. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY OPPOSITION? THEN WE WILL GO RIGHT TO VOTING, AND WE'LL TAKE A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING ARTICLE 40 INDEFINITELY, SAY YES. ALL OPPOSED TO POSTPONING IT INDEFINITELY, SAY NO. UNANIMOUS DECISION, THE MOTION CARRIES. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO BE SAID ON ARTICLE 40? HEARING NOTHING, I DECLARE ARTICLE 40 DISPOSED. ARTICLE 41, MR. STOTZ, IS THERE A MOTION? BRING IT HOME, MR. STOTZ, BRING IT HOME. MADAM MODERATOR, DOUG STOTZ, SHERMAN SPRIDGE ROAD. I RECOGNIZE YOU, SIR. I MOVE YOU, MADAM, THAT ARTICLE 41 BE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED. IS THERE A SECOND? AND DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? YES. BY POPULAR DEMAND. SO WE'LL GO RIGHT TO A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF INDEFINITELY POSTPONING? ALL IN FAVOR OF INDEFINITELY POSTPONING? ARTICLE 41, SAY YES. ALL IN FAVOR OF INDEFINITELY POSTPONING? ALL IN FAVOR OF INDEFINITELY POSTPONING? ALL OPPOSED, SAY NO. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NO. THE AYES HAVE IT, FOLKS. THE MOTION CARRIES. ANYTHING ELSE TO BE SAID ON ARTICLE 41? HEARING NOTHING, I DECLARE ARTICLE 41 DISPOSED. YEAH, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? EVERYONE'S FAVORITE MOTION? SO MOVED. YEAH. SECOND? DO YOU EVEN HAVE TO SAY IT? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL. THANK YOU. YOU'VE ALL BEEN GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR STAYING. I APPRECIATE IT.