Selectmen Preview: Liquor License Violation, Town Meeting Dates and More

The Wayland Board of Selectmen will meet tonight at 7 p.m. at the Wayland Town Building.

Town Administrator Fred Turkington provided the following preview of the Nov. 19, 2012, Board of Selectmen meeting.

After reviewing the agenda and receiving public comment, selectmen will meet with representatives of Wayland Variety & Deli and Police Chief Robert Irving to discuss the improper sale of beer to underaged persons and potential sanctions.

At approximately 7:45 p.m., selectmen will continue discussion from the previous meeting regarding potential dates for Annual Town Meeting. Schedule options, logistical considerations, and impacts on attendance will be reviewed. Town Moderator Dennis Berry to be present for the discussion and to offer input.

The board will hear from members of the advisory committee studying the sustainability of Wayland Cares, a program funded for the past five years from a Federal grant which ends in September 2013. The group will propose continuing successful elements of the program and funding options.

After considering the consent calendar and reviewing correspondence, selectmen will then listen to the report of the town administrator, which will include a review of capital project submissions, possible Annual Town Meeting articles, and an update on future meeting agenda items. During Selectmen's Reports and Concerns, the board will discuss general items of concern and schedule office hours to be held later in November.

The meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Wayland Town Building.

Wayland Resident November 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM
You continue to decline to provide the readers with a list of responsible projects developed by the proponents, whom you endorse as "great guys". I will allow that answer to speak for itself. As to your comment regarding anonymity, I suggested previously that this is an editorial policy of the board and that you should address the same with Ms. Lowery. Perhaps some guidance/ education regarding the editorial choice is in order from the editors. My own belief is that one's arguments speak for themselves and providing your identity adds nothing of substance to the discussion, it merely allows for prejudices and grudges to be carried out or formed. Your objection also seems to be restricted to opposing points of view. I did not see you ask any project supporters who post anonymously (see e.g. "Bill") to identify themselves, rather you endorsed their comments.
Jeff Baron November 21, 2012 at 05:34 PM
I am against anonymity in all circumstances. I may not have addressed it, but I stand firm on that issue all the time. I apologize if I was not 100% clear on that issue. Your arguments lose most of their value if you won't stand behind them. No name = not standing behind them. The editorial policy is not my issue -- it is one's choice to lurk in the shadows of anonymity and throw bombs (which is what you're doing). All I can say is that your "thoughts" on the voracity of the project are, in my opinion, incorrect. CVS will go in there, with or without the rest of the project. The curbcut is supported by officials in town that actually have expertise and will not be an issue. Parking won't be blocked. A car or two sitting at a drive through won't have any appreciable effect of air quality. And, as I've said before, the safety issue is a "red herring" being pushed by folks such as yourself. There is no appreciable difference in safety concerns. We allowed a double-drive through and widening of a curb cut next to a playground (TD Bank). Allowing one here is actually a safer proposition than that. As for the DRB, which is advisory at best, it is nothing more than an opinion. I've seen the design and I think it is well thought out and congruous with the neighborhood. My opinion is no more or less valid than their as we are all taxpaying citizens without any legal authority to dictate to anyone. I've said all I'm saying on the "list" request. Your conclusion is false.
Wayland Resident November 21, 2012 at 06:37 PM
You are against anonymity "in [sic] all circumstances"? That election earlier this month must have really ticked you off. Arguments rise and fall on their relative strength in the marketplace of ideas, not on the identity of the person putting them forth. I am not sure what the "voracity" of the project means, perhaps you mean viability or veracity? The curbcut is not warranted and would not survive appeal, exigent circumstances do not exist. The TD Bank drivethrough is adjacent to the playground not directly across from the playground. Moreover, the emergency vehicles need to back in and turn around, playground visitors do not have 20 plus foot vehicles turning around, that is simply not an analogy. Read the DRB comments, they are scathing. Referring to the CVS as a "decorated box with details strangely out of proportion", referring tio a "ponderously repetitive" window scheme and an unattractive unbroken roofline. The members of the DRB "have expertise". I made no conclusion regarding your failure to provide any example of a responsible project developed by the proponents, I simply noted that your failure to do so speaks for itself. You have made a great deal of the fact that the proponents are "Wayland guys", yet neither of them grew up in town or in state. Are the "Wayland guys" going to own the project in perpetuity or sell to the highest bidder, are they willing to restrict future conveyance to a town resident, if not the local guy argument is not persuasive.
Jeff Baron November 21, 2012 at 07:31 PM
Thanks for the spelling lesson. I will use smaller words given how difficult it is for you to interpret what I mean going forward. I disagree with your assertions and think you will end up being proven wrong. You think you're right. Since I am not on a deciding board, and I believe you are not either (although who would know since you are not willing to own your opinions), our opinions are simply that. Frankly, I don't care much about the comments of the DRB either since they are not in a position to legally bind anyone to anything. Like I said before, their is an opinion like yours or mine and their "expertise" carries little relevance. Have a nice holiday. I do not intend to use mine legislating the merits of this project.
Wayland Resident November 22, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Mr. Baron, that is not a spelling lesson, "voracity" is a word. I really just did not understand the use of the word, which which relates to a gluttonous appetite, in this context. Perhaps you meant that I find the project and/or the developers gluttonous. I appreciate you offer to use smaller words, it will make things easier for me. You and your family have a nice holiday as well. We are actually about to break out a few site plans and discuss FAR requirements and sideyard setbacks (family tradition).


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »