LONGMEADOW — The Longmeadow Select Board spent most of its Oct. 21 meeting putting the final details on the Nov. 12 Town Meeting Warrant. While most of the 29 articles were easily approved, the language of a few articles created confusion and led to some articles being pushed to 2025.
The first article that left the board with questions is the citizen’s petition article, filed by the ad hoc group Educational Advocates for Responsible Spending. The article seeks to “authorize the continued expenditure of funds” for the combined middle school at the site of the existing Williams Middle School. The article goes on to say that it “shall not restrict the expenditure of funds by the town for activities related to rehabilitation, renovation or reconstruction of the present Williams Middle School at the current scale and enrollment level, or for activities related to the construction of a combined middle school at another site, or take any other action relative thereto.”
After conferring with town counsel, Town Moderator Rebecca Townsend said the language in the citizen’s petition is not “actionable” and will be considered a resolution. As is tradition, the lead petitioner will be given the opportunity to make the main motion. She said the motion can be affirmative — voters are asked to affirm the continued expenditure of funds — or negative.
Select Board member Josh Levine, who serves on the School Building Committee, said the article’s proponents do not want it to pass. “As a symbolic vote, I think it’ll throw things into disarray,” he said, adding that people have come to him confused with what a yes vote would mean. Select Board member Andrew Lam said Townsend is good at clarifying the impact a yes or no vote will have on a given article.
Select Board member Mark Gold agreed with Levine, though. He said a negative motion would significantly change the meaning of the article from what is written in the warrant. “Somehow, that just goes in the face of what’s proper,” he opined.
Despite this, Townsend reiterated that a negative motion is allowed under Town Meeting Time, the document governing the body’s rules.
Lam asked if the School Building Committee could be given time to make a presentation in opposition to the motion. Townsend said presentations of five minutes for both the petitioner and the committee that issues a recommendation on the motion would be allowed. As the School Building Committee is the pertinent committee, it would be allowed to speak for or against the issue, Townsend said.
Two zoning bylaw articles also left the Select Board with more questions than answers. The first of these was an article written as an amendment to the stretch code. Adopted by the town in 2014, the stretch code is a set of rules regarding the energy efficiency of new construction and additions that is stricter than the state’s standard building code. The Energy and Sustainability Committee proposed the article “adopt” the specialized stretch code, a 2022 update that expands the current code.
However, conflicting language left it vague as to whether the specialized stretch code would add to or replace the existing bylaw.
The second confusing bylaw article would have added a section on light pollution to the town’s general bylaws. Gold said the bylaw would give people a mechanism to complain about their neighbor’s lights. Town Manager Lyn Simmons told him that people already complain about lighting.
The article stated that exterior lighting must not result in “glare, light trespass beyond the property it is intended to illuminate, compromised safety” or “impacts on the nocturnal environment.” The article did not provide definitions or a metric for measuring light brightness. Without such a way of measuring the offending light, the board members agreed that the bylaw was too subjective and vague in its present form.
Both bylaw articles were delayed until the spring 2025 Town Meeting so they could be improved.
Water infrastructure
Longmeadow was “put on notice” by the state Department of Environmental Protection regarding its water infrastructure, Simmons said. For several years, Longmeadow’s water has had higher than recommended levels of HAA5, an organic byproduct of chlorine that is safe at low levels.
The Springfield Water and Sewer Commission, which provides Longmeadow its water, is under a consent order mandating that it upgrade its facilities, work which is underway. The commission celebrated the groundbreaking of an nearly $300 million upgrade to the West Parish Water Treatment Facility earlier this month. Work is scheduled to be completed by 2028.
Simmons explained that MassDEP has made Longmeadow aware that if the upgrades do not improve the quality of the town’s water by August 2028, it will be put under a consent order to upgrade its own facilities and equipment. If the town is put under a consent order, it will have 24 months to come into compliance or make significant progress toward compliance.
