There were two articles remaining for Town Meeting to address, but before they could make an appearance the issue that has roiled Town Meeting for 4 nights came back for an encore.

Town Meeting Member Webster Collins was the first person to speak from the floor and what he had to say surprised some. He made a motion to reconsider Article 2, the zoning overlay article that had failed to pass last Tuesday.Brian Walsh explained: a member of the winning side of an article could make a motion for that article to be reconsidered. If the motion was made in the first hour of the session, it would only require a simple majority to pass. If it was made after the first hour, it would require a two-thirds majority. Walsh noted the motion had been made and tabled it for discussions of Articles 3 and 4.  Article 3 was to amend the bylaws “by providing provision for the appropriate handling, use, and supervision, of explosive materials within the Town.” Article 4 would appropriate $6,200,000 for the construction and maintenance of a wind turbine.

Two members sought to amend Article 3. Ms. Jeffries requested that the article be amended to include 5, 3, and 1 minute notifications to residents. Another member asked that the Fire Department have two personnel on site rather than one.  Both of these failed to pass. It was decided both would put a burden of the contractor who would likely appeal the requirement and that the state, which has some of the strictest blasting requirements in the country, would rule in favor of contractor. Article 3 passed.

Richard Kleiman, Chairman of the Wind Energy Committee, gave a presentation summarizing the proposal to erect a single wind turbine (not two as originally contemplated). In short, the turbine would be cash positive in its first year. However, there was some confusion as to how the cash flowed and exactly how much money was saved: $150,000? $141,000, $810,000? The confusion stems in part from a complicated combination of grants and energy contracts. Several individuals took turns at walking through the numbers. In the end, while full comprehension of the financial model may not have been reached by all members, all members did agree this was a very good thing for the town. It passed unanimously.

And then it was back to Mr. Collins and his “reconsideration” motion. Mr. Webster took the floor to speak to his motion. He ticked through three issues: a critique of the process, what a no vote meant and an explanation of next steps. Mr. Webster said, “It’s the neighbors! It’s the neighbors! It’s the neighbors!” His point being that their concerns were not factored in properly from the beginning. He also felt that the traffic impacts should have been more thorough and “been done right up front.”  With regard to the “No” vote he expressed that it was due to unhappiness with the mitigation clause. “Markets move continually.” All that said, he did not want to let a developer with the funds available to Coffman to “escape.”

And the debate began anew. Moderator Walsh reminded members on more than one occasion that they were not debating the merits of the article but whether or not to reconsider it. Selectman Fagan said that as much as the Tuesday vote pained her, “It is time to heal and move on.”  Town Meeting member Joe McEttrick challenged the body, “You took a stand and you should stick with it.” The subject became moot when Mr. Collins returned to the floor and withdrew his motion at which point Moderator Walsh adjourned the Special Town Meeting. The members will reconvene in May for Annual Town Meeting.