Future of Walpole

Article 31: Fin Com: Fav action 13-0-0. Select Board: 5-0-0. No comments, Article 31 passes unanimously. Bill Buckley (P7) moves to dissolve, R. Buckley seconds. Spring Town Meeting has concluded.

Article 31 would authorize the Select Board to grant a permanent easement or easements at 625 Washington Street (Bird Middle School) to allow for the utilities running from Washington Street to the current building to run from East Street to service the new middle school building

Article 30: Fin Com Refer back 13-0-0. Select Board: Refer back 5-0-0. Planning Board: Refer back 5-0-0. No comments. Article 30 is referred back to committee.

Article 29 requires a 2/3 vote, and it fails. Next is Article 30: Amend Zoning Bylaw Section 5-D: Excavation or Filing of Earth, Activities Allowed. The Planning Board voted unanimously to send this article back to Committee for further review, so a vote of no action is requested

O'Connell: By reducing the number of parking spaces, are you increasing the number of buildable units? Deschenes: Currently the only housing use allowed in CBD is mixed use. In theory, less parking means a bigger building, but it really depends on the development itself.

Abate: We'd be shifting the burden from the landlord to town depts like fire and DPW. Czachorowski (P7, PB): I voted in favor. Looking forward, this promotes walking and fewer cars.

Article 29: Fin Com: Fav action 12-1-0. Select Board: Fav action 5-0-0. Planning Board: Fav action: 2-1-2. Abate (P3, Planning Board): Parking in the CBD can be an issue. Walpole Center does not provide enough resources to support not having a car.

Now a vote on Article 28, which also does not pass. Next is Article 29. This proposed amendment seeks to establish a residential parking scale based on bedroom count for multifamily/mixed-use developments that are within the Central Business Zoning District.

O'Neil: Move the question. A 2/3 majority agrees. Article 27 (2-family residences) is up first and requires a 2/3 vote. We move to a standing vote. Article 27 falls 4 votes short of a 2/3 majority.

John Hasenjaeger (P1): The Planning Board writes the articles, the ZBA enforces them, there's plenty of oversight between them and the building commissioner. Oversight shouldn't be a reason not to support this article.

Denitzio (P4): Most of us have the luxury of having space. But there are many people in Walpole who would like more choices. Long waitlists for apartments. Why not give those people more options? Why not be more neighborly in our community, rather than treat it as a country club?

Shocket (P8): This article takes away the rights of citizens. Even if this is well-intentioned, I opposed this.

Lawson (P2): I opposed this article because it affects my constituents.

Kelly: Someone mentioned we got rid of it 40 years ago but it worked for many years before that. Lawson (P2): I'm opposed because my constituents would be affected when most of the town would not be.

Kelly (P3): I'm in favor of multi-family housing. I think people would be happier with this type of housing scattered about rather than large complexes. You'll see less crime and problems in these smaller houses than in large developments.

O'Leary (P3, Planning Board): I dissented. We're not opposed to having multifamily houses, we just want them to go through the special permit process to allow the neighbors to be aware of what's being proposed and raise any issues they have.

Barrows (P1): I'm a GR resident. If our community feels that we need to create more family dwellings, why should the burden be placed on just the 6.6% of residents (size of the GR)? Shouldn't we spread it through all the residential areas? Many lots are non-conforming.

Ahigian: It's a great place for Baby Boomers as they downsize, it's a great place for working families to go. Taxing that kind of development by asking developers to go through more hoops is not whag we should be doing.

Ahigian (P1): I'm a resident of the GR and am in favor. I'd ask those opposed to think deeply about why you think it's necessary to have a public hearing for a multi-family house and not a 5,000 sq ft McMansion. I think multi-family housing is a great kind of housing.

Czachorowski: The reason to remove the special permit is to get rid of an obstacle toward someone wanting to build housing. It promotes more and more affordable housing. We can grow in a planned way.