To the Editor:
On Jan. 8, I submitted four petitioner’s articles for Town Meeting, pertaining to Sherman’s Bridge and the 1971 Agreement between the town and the residents of Sherman’s Bridge Road. Much has changed since.
On bridge design, the Sudbury/Wayland DPWs iterated repeatedly to a proposal that largely maintains the bridge’s historical appearance and authenticity. With this resolved, time pressure for citizens to express through Town Meeting desires to preserve the bridge have lessened.
In March, the Select Board asked Acting Police Chief Hebert for a traffic study on Sherman’s Bridge Road. These data ideally will inform collaborative discussions on speed and volume mitigation measures on Sherman’s Bridge Road. Therefore, Town Meeting action would be premature.
Finally, the Town Meeting warrant contains misleading, incorrect and prejudicial statements on Article 30.
Finance Committee commentary like “Since there is no agreement, there is no need to renegotiate one” contradict plenty of clear, compelling evidence that an oral agreement was reached between the town and residents of Sherman’s Bridge Road in 1971.
However, late on the second or third night of Town Meeting is not the appropriate forum to debate the legal and moral obligations of our Select Board to acknowledge and respect agreements made by their predecessors.
These should be pursued at a more thoughtful pace in a more even-handed manner, preferably through collaboration but potentially through litigation.
For these reasons, I will be asking the Moderator to “pass over” Articles 27, 29, 30, and 41 at the Annual Town Meeting.
Doug Stotz
Sherman’s Bridge Road
