Welcome to the 2019 Spring Special Town Meeting. We host a special meeting so it can be completed quickly and the results be sent to the State for approval. There are some issues that need a quick approval, and waiting for the completion of the annual town meeting can literally push us out into the fall. By addressing it tonight, we can get it in to the state sooner, and it can go into effect as quickly as possible.
The night started with an explanation of how notice to reconsider works. If you would like to have the option of reconsidering a vote from town meeting during town meeting, you may give notice of reconsideration. However, you may only do so if you voted on the prevailing side. This was complicated in the case of the vote on accessory dwelling units. The majority vote was "yes", but it was short of the required 2/3 vote, so it failed. reconsideration follows the required vote, not the majority. As such, reconsideration was only available to those who initially voted "no", since that was the prevailing vote. We then held our nightly test vote to check if the clickers we use to vote were working correctly. Good thing we checked, because there were several technical difficulties. In the end, we had our test vote while the display indicated it was article 1. The process of voting remained slow all evening.
Article 1 is the most important topic in town, whether to approve putting a debit exclusion to fund the high school project on the June 11 ballot. The building committee asked for an hour to make their presentation. This was followed up by a question as to whether the opposition would be given the same opportunity. The response: you can always ask. The hour was granted.
Jeff Thielman made the initial presentation. He spoke about the 1975 high school project that was voted down by town twice, and in the end the town did a smaller renovation for a much higher cost. We do not want to make that kind of mistake again. He pressed hard on the reasons we need a new high school, why renovation isn't an option, why delay isn't a realistic option, and that we need a strong positive vote. Other members of the committee spoke, each reiterating those main themes. The presentation closed with a video fly-through of the building and grounds. The moderator recognized state senator Cindy Friedman to provide the state's perspective on the funding. She noted that none of the towns who had voted down MSBA funds in the past had been reconsidered in the program. On that note, we took our break.
The line for snacks was long, and I didn't get back to the floor for the first speaker or two. (Thanks to the Stratton PTO for bringing snacks.) The first speaker I heard was, I believe Adam Pachter. He had a great metaphor: the high school is like an old car. you can keep replacing parts, but the old car you loved will never be what it once was. There comes a time when you need to replace it. I think he was also the one who had the line about explaining arguments to his kids: just because you can argue louder and longer, it doesn't mean you have the better argument. Patricia Worden gave her usual floor speech. Michael Ruderman spoke about holding the promise from the start of the elementary school rebuilds. His kids are past the high school, but he still supports the project. Greg Christina noted that if we vote this down and somehow are able to get back in the MSBA cycle, in five years, prices could easily be 21% higher than today. John Deist pointed out that property values are rising faster than the tax rate. Preserving the accreditation of the high school protects that investment. John Worden introduced David Baldwin, a local historian. He spoke strongly about the need to save the two historic buildings. Their longevity was a testament to their craftsmanship. He noted that the buildings were on the 2018 and 2019 lists of threatened historic buildings, but why were they not on the 2017 or 2016 lists? Was it because they were not valued until fighting their loss was advantageous? Why were all the images chosen to highlight the historic character made when the buildings were stand-alone structures in an open field, rather than looking at them as they are now in the existing context? I have often thought that saving the park and the older buildings on historic grounds was a red herring, and the intent was to justify leaving things as they are. I ask myself, if the high school was modeled not after the State House, but after Boston City Hall, would anyone be discussing the historic angle? The next speaker called the question, debate was terminated by a 166-50 vote, and the motion was approved by an overwhelming majority, 208-10.
Article 2 was initially a proposal to authorize the taking of a property on Grove Street for possible use during the high school or DPW renovation project. This was inappropriately vague, so the proposal was essentially withdrawn. It was voted no action on a voice vote.
Article 3 was a proposal to allocate $75K to allow the Planning Department to hire a consultant. For some reason, the ARB didn't make an initial presentation. Instead, the first speaker asked for a no vote on the allocation, because the town has so many able and knowledgeable residents who could do the work ... for free. Don't mind asking, just assume that those with the expertise will volunteer to do the work. The second speaker spoke along the same lines. It wasn't until the third of fourth speaker that it was made readily apparent that the consultant was to be hired to investigate how best to maximize our industrial areas. It had nothing to do with the residential density questions from the previous week. (An initial presentation would have helped.) A motion to terminate debate was adopted on a voice vote, and the allocation was approved 192-20. While the town staff has expertise, and many town residents have expertise, what the money really allows is to have someone spend the time to do the work properly and thoroughly.
Article four was an authorization to allow Town Counsel to negotiate with two landowners to sell a piece of derelict town property. This is an 8 ft x 12 ft piece of land on the boundary between two lots. The land was held by the defunct Middlesex Aqueduct company because it had an artesian well. It was transferred to the town, but since the town doesn't have access to it, it became derelict. One of the abutters is threatening to sue the town to improve the property, but it makes a whole lot more sense to sell. One speaker wanted to make make sure that the town would sell the fairly at a market rate, not priced based on speculation. After the story about how the town just wants to get rid of the land, the same speaker called out "never mind." The article was passed 218-0.
Article 5 was a proposal to allocate $50K to the Planning Board to hire a consultant to develop a set of residential guidelines. The first speaker liked it because using guidelines would remove whim an opinion from the zoning review process. The Director of Planning explained what the plan would be. The town does not have a design review board, but this process would explore that among several possibilities. A member asked why FinCom had five dissenting votes on the recommended vote, but it was not answered. There were some speakers who thought this should be captured by zoning, but it was properly stated that zoning is about land use and massing, not about appearance. However, having separate design guidelines would allow the ZBA or ARB to have something to reference in evaluating projects. It would not necessarily come into play on by-right projects. After a positive voice vote to terminate debate, the article was passed 197-6.
At this point, it was 11:01, and members were ready to head for the door. The Moderator appealed to us to complete the remaining article so the spring special town meeting could be dissolved. This brought up Article 6 to allocate additional funds to allow the town to continue its current involvement in the Mugar 40B lawsuit. The issues with the clickers continued, so we just approved it by a voice vote. We then dissolved the spring special town meeting and adjourned for the night. We'll pick up Wednesday with Article 22 in the annual warrant.
