Live Blog Session 3: Town Meeting Will Carry into Fourth Session

Editor's Note: Wayland's 2013 Annual Town Meeting began on Thursday, April 4 and continues, as necessary, on April 7, 9 and 10. Patch plans to attend each session and bring you live updates from the floor of town meeting. The live blog will be updated with time stamps, the most recent posts at the top.

Feel free to jump in with your own comments and questions in the comment section below.

10:30 p.m. - John Bladon has moved to extend Town Meeting by one hour, which would extend us to 11:30 p.m.

We're voting it now 93 yes, 143 no. We will begin Article 20 and finish it, but will not necessarily stay till 11:30 p.m.

We move into Article 20, Amend Town Code Section 91: Regulation of Dogs.

Bladon says that the article is to conform with amendments to state law. There are also three elements that are not related to changes in state law -- they further define voice control, put the dog officer under the town administrator and make the dog officer a town employee.

The primary con speaker says she has been a breeder for many years and works regularly with "dog people."

She objects to the article because it does not make the town's bylaw consistent with state law.

Margo Melnicove has moved to terminate debate. Debate terminated by a vote of 172, yes, 23 no.

The vote on the motion now. The motion under Article 20 fails 39 yes, 145 no.

And with that we adjourn Session 3.

We'll be back tomorrow night, Wednesday, for Session 4 beginning at 7:30 p.m. at the field house. There will be a vote as to whether to reconsider Article 10 related to funding a new DPW facility.

10:16 p.m. - Article 19 now ... The motion is being made to extend the charge of a tree committee established at last falls Special Town Meeting and that Article 19 be considered by that group before Town Meeting take a vote.

"It's with reluctance I did this," Mr. McCannon says (I missed his name, sorry). But, he says, the article has not been fully vetted and needs to be further discussed and examined before a vote is taken on it.

We're voting Article 19 now; it passes 181 yes, 29 no.

10:09 p.m. - Kent Greenawalt presents the motion under Article 18 - Accept Roads as Public Ways. 

Greenawalt says that the situation for most of these roads is that they were not taken in as public ways through some process over the years, but it's time for the town to take over responsibility for these roads.

Tony Boschetto is asking what the cost of obtaining these roads would be.

Mike Lowery says that there is a handout that outlines the costs for bringing the roads "up to a reasonable standard." The total is roughly equal to the amount of money that the town would receive from Chapter 90 reimbursement over the course of eight years.

Judy Bennett says that when the town accepts these roads, they should be in perfect condition so the town doesn't have to expend any money to bring them up tostandards.

Cherry Karlson says that, to clarify, any money to maintain these roads has already been approved in the DPW budget for next year. The only cost with accepting these roads is the $100 laid out in the Warrant.

Motion to terminate debate has been made. Debate terminated by a vote of 239 yes, 22 no.

Now the vote on Article 18 ... it passes by a vote of 200 yes, 63 no.

9:50 p.m. - Mike Lowery is asking that the town reconsider Article 10 (Appropriate Funds for Construction of New DPW Maintenance and Storage Facility and Accessory Structures). He says the votes on River's Edge indicate the town is unsure about what they want with a DPW facility.

He further discloses that a grievance has been filed on behalf of DPW employees with the town and Personnel Board Chairwoman Nancy McCarthy has the details.

Berry says that the vote on whether to reconsider Article 10 will be made after the remainder of the Warrant articles have been considered.

We're moving ahead to Article 18.

9:49 p.m. - Clifford Lewis is moving to pass over Article 17 since Article 16 did not pass.

Sam Potter is urging voters to not pass over the article, so that the zoning would be set and the EDC could spend the next year going out to collect bids and more information and return to town meeting next year for approval to sell the land.

We're voting whether to pass over Article 17 ... that motion fails 141 yes, 190 no.

So John Bladon presents the motion under this article, which would amend the zoning bylaw for the River's Edge area.

Becky Stanizzi asks that voters approve the zoning change so that further investigation can be done to further develop the project and give voters more information when the project is again presented to town meeting.

Peggy Patton is speaking against the article, saying that the Warrant doesn't appropriately disclose the wireless overlay district already in place thiere.

Molly Upton is speaking against the zoning, saying that she hopes there will be an amendment to adjust the number of units.

Looks like session 4 is coming tomorrow night. We have to be out of here by 10:30 and we're mired in Article 17 -- with 24 total articles in the Warrant.

Colleen Sheehan says that the zoning needs to approved now so that this project can move forward.

We now have a motion to terminate debate. Debate terminated by a vote of 256 yes, 59 no.

We now vote the motion under Article 17. Article 17 fails to achieve a two-thirds vote with 197 yeses, 123 no.

9:17 p.m. - John Bladon presents the motion under Article 16. This has to do with transferring the land at the Route 20 old septage site from the Board of Public Works to the Board of Selectmen in order to pave the way for a proposed housing development, known as River's Edge.

Becky Stanizzi is making an amendment to the motion, saying that the transfer of land will not include the land of the landfill access road -- that will remain a part of the town.

Stanizzi says that this property would bring tax dollars to the town "in spades." It will also bring the town to 10 percent 40B projects, which means it would bring an end to developers coming to the town for affordable housing projects and would return that power to the town.

"Thirdly, we can do good," Stanizzi says. The Rivers Edge project would bring affordable housing to Wayland.

"Three seconds," Stanizzi says. "If you don't like it, three seconds is all it takes to drive by it. Even if you don't like the project. That's what's amazing about this project, we can do it without affecting anybody."

Stanizzi says that even if this project seems "a little scrunchy" or "not like Wayland," it can be good even in being different.

Don Bustin is offering the primary con speech.

He begins by pointing out that the Economic Development Committee, which has worked through proposing River's Edge, is "good."

But River's Edge is a proposal for four buildings that will be taller than anything else in town. He calls River's Edge "senior projects," and point out that the proposal is to sell the land, not to have a town building committee develop it.

Bustin is asking whether Wayland needs this land as a backup for the the new DPW facility, since the funding for the River Road site was voted down at Session 2 of ATM.

He says that there are no really guarantees with this project, that it will ultimately be an apartment complex even though it's been presented as a very particular project.

As Bustin continues, the line is growing at the pro mic. I see just one person at the con mic.

"This is a fundamental project that changes the character of the town," Bustin says. "The town is being asked to sell a very valuable asset."

Bill Sterling rises to speak in favor of the plan.

Gail Shapiro says it's appalling to put poor people and old people where she used to throw away her garbage.

There's now a motion to pass over this article because the motion doesn't include a price to sell the land and its a valuable asset that the town needs to further investigate. He says that this article needs to include further conversations with Sudbury, as Wayland continues to clean up the property that was used jointly by Sudbury when it was a septage site.

Sam Potter says that conversations have been had with Sudbury and that handling this as a long-term land lease, which the mover suggested in his motion to pass over, was not appropriate in this case.

Marty Gossels is now speaking in favor of passing over the article because there are more costs associated wth this project that are not clearly laid out in the article.

Gretchen Schuler is now saying that she wants to pass over this article until a decision is made about a new DPW facility.

We now have a motion to terminate debate. Debate has been terminated 301 yes, 49 no.

Now we vote on the motion to pass over the article ... 157 yes, 205 no. We'll continue discussion of Article 16.

Lew Russell says that he's concerned about the nearby cell tower. He doesn't have a problem with the project, but is concerned about the project's location. He says the radiation impact on young people and some elderly individuals could be a problem.

Jacqueline Ducharme says that this project would help the town protect its elderly in a way that the state's 40B developers will not do. Seniors need housing options and the the River's Edge project would offer that.

John Dyer commends the EDC, but doesn't support the River's Edge project because "it does not represent the kind of values that I think we want in Wayland."

"We've taken al the 40Bs and put them in one place," Dyer says, adding that he wouldn't mind having a 40B project in his backyard if its small. "I'd like to see the project redone in a scale that's appropriate for that location even if we don't satisfy all the 40B requirements."

Potter responds that it is a dense project and it was intentionally done that way in order to protect the town from 40B developers who use 40B as a threat when they want to come into town and develop.

We're running up against the one-hour time constraint on any particular article, so a vote is coming imminently.

Well, we have a motion to extend debate by 15 minutes (it came with some groans). We're voting now ... 63 yes, 303 no.

Time for the article has expired, so we're now voting the motion (it requires a two-thirds vote)

The vote: 239 yes, 129 no -- it's 64.5 percent, so it does not pass.

8:13 p.m. - We begin with Article 15 ... the acquisition of the Finnerty's property by the town.

The motion as presented on the floor includes some details that aren't in the warrant; namely, that the treasurer be authorized to borrow $1.3 million to acquire the property.

Gil Wolin is further addressing the article. He's comparing the Finnerty's project to "Little Shop of Horrors," where a little plant keeps growing and growing and feeding on the blood of people. He also says that borrowing the funds to buy the property would cost the average taxpayer $12 annually.

Gail Shapiro is now speaking to the article. She points out that CVS is an approved use of the corner, but "so is a Hooters restaurant." She says that another CVS is not needed in the area and the added traffic, noise, etc. would disrupt the neighborhood.

She adds that the petitioners don't necessarily support eminent domain for this, but that the language had to be included.

Joe Nolan rises to speak against the article. He says that it exposes the town to a "substantial financial risk" to borrow the funds for the property. The two Wayland residents who bought this property are on the record as saying they don't want to sell it, Nolan says, so acquiring it by purchase doesn't appear to be an option.

"If we were to take this property, we don't have a plan to fund a community center, we don't have a plan to staff a community center," Nolan says. He adds that his primary reason to speak against this article is that it takes one of the town's most "desirable" properties off the town's tax role.

He goes on to point out that the new businesses proposed for that site would provide many jobs for the town. 

"I can't in good conscience support this article," Nolan concludes.

Nancy Leifer is now speaking and is telling voters that they will be bearing some of the costs for the development of the project, particularly as it relates to signage, sidewalks and the intersection at the site.

Leifer says that "it's a dangerous precedent" to allow developers to come in and re-zone land, speaking to developers plan to tear down two homes and make that space parking lot.

A speaker (I missed his name - Sorry!) is saying that he's concerned this article is a "knee-jerk response." He says that he believes many residents have grown accustomed to Finnerty's being vacant and there not being traffic there, but he remembers when Finnerty's was still in operation.

Wolin returns to the pro mic to point out that the newest plans for the corner feature only one building -- a CVS.

Bill Steinberg is now speaking against the article. He says this reminds him a bit of residents coming forward a few years ago with similar concerns about the Lee's Farm property.

"The Finnerty's property has been on the market for many years," Steinberg says. "I never heard anybody come forward to look at this property as a place where we could put any kind of community center or senior center."

Steinberg says that he's concerned this article hasn't been properly "vetted," especially given that there are many people that insist on vetting other articles that come before Town Meeting.

Nolan responds to Wolin's statements, saying that the current property owners do still want to build two buildings on the site. He explains further that exercising eminent domain over the property would expose the town to legal proceedings.

Richard Waack nowtakes the mic to say that he adamently supports the article, that he remembers when Finnerty's wasn't there and he sees this as an opportunity to return the corner to that state.

He asks why CPA funds wouldn't be available to acquire land for open spaces in Cochituate.

Steinberg responds that CPA funds could be available for open space, but there's a process for this. Furthermore, he says, the article on the floor proposes a community center which he does not thingk would be eligible for CPA funding.

We have a motion to terminate debate. Debate terminated 308 yes, 37 no.

The motion is now up for a vote. It requires a two-thirds vote because it includes borrowing.

The vote ...  118 yes, 229 no. The motion fails.

Session 1 (April 4) 

Session 2 (April 7)