Natick finished its Fall Annual Town Meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 7 in large part by putting off discussion of a bunch of topics related to the town’s charter, aka, constitution, and bylaws. As we saw during night #5 the previous week, even a few of such important issues can chew up an entire 2-hour-plus meeting.

Article 25 on the Town Meeting Warrant contained nearly an alphabet’s worth of amendments (labeled A through P and R through U), and the town’s legislative body only got from C into I at the last meeting. The prospect of getting through the rest on night #6 appeared unlikely.

---

Redefining newspapers

The 2 items under Articles 25 and 26 we most looked forward to hearing discussion on were amendment “S” under town charter-changing Article 25 (“The definition of local newspaper is expanded to allow for additional means of communication with the public”) and town bylaw-changing Article 26’s motion “A,” which would allow the town to use communications vehicles other than old-fashioned newspapers to announce Special Town Meeting. The town under current law is required to fritter away tax dollars on legal notices about meetings, etc., in print newspapers that most no longer read, rather than running them in places where people might actually see them.

Alas, these possible changes got referred back to the sponsor, the town’s Charter & By-Law Review Committee as part of broader referrals for consideration at a Special Town Meeting or Spring Annual Town Meeting.

---

Un-chartered territory

At the outset of the meeting, and actually even earlier in an email from Moderator Frank Foss to Town Meeting members, proposals were floated to finish business that night. This would be done in part to let the town get on with other important activities, such as setting tax rates and getting year-end financial documents into the state. “We kind of have this conversation every fall…” when Town Meeting runs 4 or more nights, Foss said, noting that he’d discussed possible alternatives with the Select Board ahead of time.

One option proposed was wrapping things up and pushing Articles 25 and 26, both from the Charter & By-Law Review Committee, to a subsequent Special Town Meeting or Spring Annual Town Meeting for continued “robust discussion,” as Select Board Chair Bruce Evans put it. Due to regulatory and logistical issues, a Special Town Meeting likely couldn’t happen until early in the new year. Evans described the charter and bylaws as “the backbone of how we govern our community” and said they warrant discussion at a more “thoughtful pace” than can be done at this time.

Town Meeting Member Michael Linehan raised the possibility of voting on the chunk of Article 25 already discussed by the body, then carving off the rest for later discussion. Paul DeRensis, special counsel for the Charter & By-Law Review Committee, said such an approach could help move things more efficiently through the state approval process, though some Town Meeting members questioned whether expediency should really be the emphasis—that Natick should take whatever time it needs to discuss such an important matter.

Town Meeting member Jonathan Freedman, citing earlier comments from the head of the Charter & By-Law Review Committee, urged against dividing the article: “If we divide this, my concern is that that holistic view of Natick’s charter will be lost” when proposed changes go to the state legislature.

There was some debate over just how urgently the changes already reviewed under Article 25 need to be made, though Charter & By-Law Review Committee’s Paul Griesmer was among those in favor of dividing the article and getting changes approved sooner than later.  The vote on the motion to divide was a close one, with 53 “Yes,” 52 “No,” and 2 “Abstain” votes.

 

Town Meeting member Julian Munnich, after that vote, had these words to share with his peers: “For those who are somewhat uncomfortable that not a complete package is going to the legislature all at once, I can only remind this body that the United State Constitution was in two parts: The initial foot in the door was the initial part and there were a lot of people who had a lot of concerns about what was missing, and then we had the Bill of Rights. If the single most important document in our nation could happen in two parts, I think our humble yet utilitarian town charter can follow that example.”

The next twist came when Town Meeting member Elise Gorseth made a motion to refer Article 25 A-H back to the sponsor. Dan Sullivan, supporting this motion, spoke to the irony of bundling the amendments under Article 25 in an effort to save time, only to wind up discussing the article over 3 nights. While acknowledging good work on the issues, Sullivan said the article wasn’t ready for prime time and that Town Meeting should take a fresh shot at it in the spring.

An equally close vote on referral took place, with the motion failing by 1 vote (53 “Yes,” 54 “No,” 1 “Abstain”). Later, the rest of the amendments were referred to the Review Committee.

---

If you appreciate Natick Report saving you the time of plowing through the whole Special Town Meeting yourself, please consider supporting our work

---

Why no ‘Q’?

Natick Fall Annual Town Meeting’s version of “What’s the meaning of life?” was asked about an hour from the meeting’s finish. Town Meeting member Judith Kuhn, referring to the missing letter in the Article 25 amendments, posed this: “I wonder if I’m the only one who wonders why there’s no ‘Q’?”

The Charter & By-Law Review Committee’s Griesmer said that “once upon a time there was a ‘Q’,” but town counsel recommended removing it. “To clarify, town counsel has no problem with the alphabet, it was [that counsel] particularly didn’t think the subject matter under ‘Q’ would be a good idea.”

---

Article 26: Bylaw changes

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program…

Like with Article 25, a motion was made to refer 26 back to the sponsor, with some suggesting it would make sense to sync up changes in the charter and bylaw at the same time.

Though others argued that having just 4 motions under this article might make getting through it on Tuesday doable. The Review Committee’s Griesmer was among those looking for Town Meeting to deal with Article 26 that night, explaining that all the changes are designed to make Town Meeting more efficient—perhaps a strong selling point for those attending night #6 of this one.

Town Meeting member Dan Sullivan, who cited research he’d done a few years ago illustrating Natick Town Meeting’s inefficiencies, spoke up for referral, suggesting such a delay can’t possibly make Natick Town Meeting any less efficient.

Motion A was referred back to the sponsor, and an effort was made to refer B through D, but then discussion broke out about Motion B, which had to do with moving motions at Town Meeting. So a vote took place and it was referred back to the sponsor. Motions C and D were separately referred back as well.

The grand finale was Article 33, a citizen petition seeking to give long-time homeowners a property tax break by freezing their rate where it was at the 25th year of ownership. The Finance Committee recommended indefinite postponement, and after no one chose to ask questions or enter into debate, Town Meeting voted 76-18-6 in favor of indefinite postponement.

If everything could have been that easy…

---

• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #1 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #2 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #3 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #4 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #5 recap

Night #5 of Natick Fall Annual Town Meeting picked up with discussion of amendments under Article 25, which contained nearly an alphabet’s worth of proposed changes to the town’s charter (aka, constitution), and it ended that way as well.

(See Natick Pegasus recording of the Nov. 2 meeting.)

Initial discussion, after Town Meeting members tested their electronic voting devices on a question about whether Taylor Swift would be appearing at an upcoming football game, focused on a charter change designed to address the issue of low attendance at Town Meeting.

A proposed amendment to amendment C under the article would require at least 2 Town Meeting members be present to reach a quorum—an effort to help the town’s legislative body gets its job done but with assurance that all precincts are represented. Natick has struggled to get even close to a full complement of Precinct 1 members elected, which in turn has led to underrepresentation in town Meeting. Member Grace Keeney said she had started on “Team Efficiency,” but was swayed by discussion in the previous meeting about representation to put forth this amendment.

While some members applauded the creativity of the approach, the amendment got voted down in a landslide, with some of those against it arguing that such a change could actually lead to voting manipulation. If a precinct’s members were in the overall minority in being against or for an issue, they could stall the meeting by being absent as a group.

Member Paul Griesmer said “The way to solve the underrepresentation problem in Precinct 1… is to actually promote civic involvement, not to adopt a rule that could hamstring the meeting or could transfer almost unique veto power to a very small representation from a particular precinct.”

Amendment D concentrated on the process for submitting articles to be included on the Town Warrant, essentially the agenda for Town Meeting. The amendment in part sought to achieve efficiency by having appointing bodies, rather than groups they appoint, be responsible for submitting articles. A motion was proposed to nix amendment D, but it failed to gain approval.

---

If you appreciate us saving you from watching the whole meeting, as well as the previous ones, please contribute to support our work, or recommend your favorite local businesses to advertise on Natick Report

---

Amendment E, as the Charter & By-Law Review Committee’s Christine Weithman put it, “is where we support our town employees.” The idea was to not force department heads to show up at Town Meeting night after night…after night….after night…after night…after night if the topics being discussed most likely won’t be in their areas of expertise (and giving the moderator leeway to get any information needed during a session, such as through remote access). Such required attendance can be considered “aversive” by those being recruited for town jobs, Weithman said.

Town Administrator Jamie Errickson added that requiring department heads to attend every meeting can affect their daily work performance. They can be more effective, he said, if “discretion” is used for when they really need to show up at Town Meeting. The town administrator would be the 1 member of the administration required to attend all sessions (“Can I motion amendment to that?” Errickson joked.)

Amendment F involved consideration of eliminating preliminary elections, though the Charter & By-Law Review Committee decided against that. It did, however, leave things open to adopt ranked-choice voting, which if approved would eliminate the need for preliminary elections.

With Amendment G, the effort was to clarify separation between the executive branch (Select Board, town administrator) and legislative branch (Town Meeting) but not allowing the Select Board to force members of the legislative body, including he moderator, to appear before it. There was some concern this might be a solution looking for a problem given the general cooperation within Natick’s town government, but Moderator Frank Foss, when asked for examples by a Town Meeting member, was able to share a couple.

Amendment H simply clarified that Parks & Recreation commissioners advise not just the town administrator, but the Select Board, too.

Next up, amendment I, allowed for appointment by the moderator of a deputy to run Town Meeting if the moderator becomes unavailable. Consideration by the Charter & By-Law Review Committee was given to recommending this be an elected position, but it went with appointment to ensure the deputy would be someone who could work well with the moderator. Current Moderator Foss, to laughter, pointed out that “Moderator is not the most sought-out job in town,” and that it is important for the moderator to mentor a sidekick.

A motion was raised to scrap the amendment due to concerns over possible conflicts of interest in having a moderator appoint a deputy and because there are provisions for a backup, but it failed to pass. The moderator, in addition to presiding over Town Meeting, appoints members to the Finance Committee, and other committees as needed.

Amendment J was designed to make the town’s charter consistent with state law regarding the policymaking powers of the Select Board, which are currently limited to making only “broad policy,” Charter & By-Law Review Committee’s Weithman said in introducing the amendment.

It was pointed out during discussion of this motion some 2 hours-plus into the meeting that a quorum no longer appeared to exist. Indeed, a headcount proved that to be true. On to Nov. 7 for night #6, with the rest of Article 25 (up to amendment U), plus Articles 26 and 33 still on the docket.

---

• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #1 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #2 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #3 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #4 recap

Natick Fall Annual Town Meeting continued on Thursday, Oct. 26, with members voting on issues ranging from paid family medical leave to recommended charter changes. While some wishfully hoped this might be Town Meeting’s final night, that was not to be. While a costumed crew of Town Meeting members might have been fun on Oct. 31, as the body has been gathering on Tuesdays and Thursdays, it was decided to skip convening on Halloween this Tuesday and pick things up again on Thursday, Nov. 2.

Citizen petition proposes local adoption of Paid Family & Medical Leave

Article 32, a citizen petition put forward by Kat Monahan, sought to have Natick become the first town to adopt the state’s Paid Family & Medical Leave program that went into law 5 years ago. (Monahan laid out her case at Town Meeting as well as in a letter to editor on Natick Report.) PFML would support employees who need to take time off from work when a new child arrives, sickness strikes, or a family member needs to be taken care of, and could be an attractive benefit for those working for the town or thinking of doing so. “I want to stress that implementing this would be the most cost effective way to get these benefits to our town of Natick employees,” said Monahan, who has seen the benefits of PFML at her place of work in the private sector.

Both the Select Board and Finance Committee voted before Town Meeting to refer the article back to the sponsor, and Town Administrator Jamie Errickson explained that the town would like more time to determine whether PFML would be the best approach for Natick to take in addressing any additional leave benefits. “It might be this program, it might be a different program,” he said. A key issue is determining whether this is a benefit employees actually want, and the town has yet to conduct any sort of formal survey on the matter, he said. There would also be union negotiations to consider for the town and schools.

Town Meeting voted 71-17-5 to refer to the subject matter of the article to the sponsor, town administration, Select Board, and School Committee.

Deficit you say?

One nugget dropped by Errickson during the PFML discussion, in talking about the potential cost for such as program being in the nearly $700,000 neighborhood, was that when recently looking at FY25 financials with the Select Board it was revealed that the town might be looking at a couple million dollar deficit. “It’s not a big deficit,” he cautioned,”and we are working on the budget right now. And a forecast is not a budget, just want to hammer that point home…

Charter changes

The next batch of articles and motions taken up by Town Meeting focused on the town’s charter, aka, constitution, and were brought forward by the town’s Charter & By-Law Review Committee, a group formed every 5 years.

Things started off with a simple approval to hear a report from the Committee, delivered by Christine Weithman. (We’re currently looking to find a copy of the report online, a challenge noted a couple of times during Town Meeting.)

The headline was that the Committee recommended Natick keep its current form of town government, with a combination of the Select Board and town administrator (though tweaking the title to town manager) serving as the executive branch, and Town Meeting as the legislature.

This recommendation came amidst a backdrop of a separate effort to launch a Charter Commission, if voters agree in the spring, to review the town’s way of government.

---

Please send news tips, photos, ideas to natickreport@gmail.com

If you’d like to contribute $ to support our independent journalism venture, please do….

---

It was recommended by the Committee that the size of Town Meeting remain the same, with 180 elected members across 10 precincts. A study of the past 10 years’ of Town Meeting showed encouraging attendance figures, especially when an online option is included. “[D]uring the pandemic the vote totals show that we had some of the highest attendance during the past 10 years. If a hybrid Town Meeting becomes an option in the future, we believe we will see the kind of attendance seen during the pandemic,” Weithman said.

(Vote totals during this year’s Fall Annual Town Meeting have tended to wallow in the high 90s to low 100s.)

The Committee has focused most of its work of late on Town Meeting articles and charter changes, and requested an extension of its work under Article 24 until Fall Annual Town Meeting next year to cover bylaws. That was approved.

Recommendations by the Committee, such as broader use of consent agendas that bundle motions under a single vote and designating the moderator rather than the town clerk to fill vacant Town Meeting slots, would be among those designed to make Town Meeting more efficient and perhaps not last as many hours or nights. Other proposed changes to the charter would modernize it by going the gender-neutral route in its wording. The Committee in Article 25 proposed using a Special Act of the state legislature to gain approval for a bunch of charter changes in one fell swoop, then getting final approval from registered voters next year.

Nearly an alphabet’s worth of amendments (minus the letter “Q”) were considered by Town Meeting through a process that Moderator Foss attempted to streamline with a recommended process at the outset that would avoid a slew of separate votes unless amendments to the amendments were brought forth by Town Meeting members. One amendment, B, that sparked discussion involved switching from having the now-appointed town clerk fill Town Meeting vacancies to the elected moderator, to avoid possible conflicts of interest with the town administration. Those in favor of the motion say it will help to prevent conflicts of interest in filling Town Meeting seats, though a counterargument raised was that the town needs to first find a resolution to its lack of elected Town Meeting participants (a motion to delete the amendment failed to pass).

A similar argument to that counterargument was raised regarding amendment C, which proposed basing Town Meeting quorum on the number of filled seats and not the full 180-seat complement. Emily Warmington, one proponent of removing this amendment, expressed surprise that a “floating quorum” would be recommended: “Changing the bar for what meets a majority seems on its face undemocratic.”

A question about whether the Charter & By-Law Review Committee had discussed ways to address the Town Meeting participation issue (some precincts don’t fill all their allotted seats, others have little or no competition for them) elicited a response from the Committee’s Paul Griesmer. He said the idea to have the moderator rather than town clerk fill vacancies could help since the moderator might have more time to focus on that. The allowance for hybrid meetings and a return of the long-running citizens’ Leadership Academy, a sort of recruiting tool tool got phased out a few years back, could also help, he said.

Those in support of amendment C said it would allow Town Meeting members who do show up to get on with their work. Charlene Foss encouraged her fellow members to do whatever they can to educate neighbors about the importance of participating and encourage them to do so.

The  motion to remove amendment C failed, and when Town Meeting returns on Nov. 2, there will plenty more of the alphabet to get through.

• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #1 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #2 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #3 recap

The third night of Natick Fall Annual Town Meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 24 (see Pegasus recording) largely dealt with a few citizen petitions, the first of which prompted an hour-plus of of questions and debate regarding local protection of access to reproductive and/or gender-affirming care and information about such services. Town Meeting also approved articles to shift responsibility for appointing fire and police chiefs from the Select Board to the town administrator, and updating roles and responsibilities of Personnel Board members.

Not a wizard

Not to be overlooked near the start of the night’s session was Moderator Frank Foss’s confirmation, while reminding people to stand up to be recognized, that “I’m not a wizard…I really can’t make voices out.”

We confirmed that Hogwarts is not anywhere on his resume.

Article 31 (Safe & Fair Reproductive & Gender Affirming Care Access By-Law)

This citizen petition led by Cody Jacobs sought the adoption of “by-laws protecting access to reproductive care and/or gender affirming care in Natick and/or ensuring transparent access to information about the availability of these services.”

As laid out during his introductory presentation, this article emerged in the aftermath of the Supreme Court last year overturning Roe vs. Wade  and numerous states since making or seeking to make abortions illegal within their confines and for residents going elsewhere for such procedures, and further, limiting or banning gender-affirming care.

While Massachusetts has instituted protections, including prohibiting certain state employees from sharing information with those involved in criminalizing out-of-state care, Article 31 was proposed specifically to shield Natick residents, visitors, and employees from legal trouble. Examples of situations that could get legally complicated, including those involving divorced parents in different states, were shared.

“What it does is fill in a gap with the state law,” Jacobs said. Later, he added that one thing Article 31 would offer is protection from “weaponization” of laws in other states by parents involved in custody battles.

While the Finance Committee made no recommendation on the article, Town Meeting approved it by a vote of 69-36-5. The article withstood a proposed amendment related to parents’ rights, as well as motions to refer back to the sponsor and for indefinite postponement. Town Counsel Karis North, who was called on numerous times throughout discussion of the article for her opinion, also shared a lengthy memo in the Finance Committee Recommendation Book regarding concerns raised by this article’s possible approval. When called on to share an opinion or shed light on facts, North was careful throughout the night to answer questions directly and offer little to no elaboration unless pressed. She did her part to keep Town Meeting moving along, though did require a recess at one point to get clarification on a question related to the impact that the article might have on Natick police officers’ duties.

It became clear during discussion that Natick was early on in considering such additional protections, though not the first community in Massachusetts to do so. Some argued that Natick might be better off waiting to see how the state’s attorney general handles a couple of previously submitted proposals, including from Brookline and Amherst, and then crafting its proposal similarly to any that might gain approval. Town Meeting Member David Coffey recommended referral of the article back to the sponsor, in part due to legal murkiness around it: “I’d be a lot happier if I saw what the attorney general did with the other towns’ bylaws.”

---

Please support Natick Report, your local news source, by contributing or becoming an advertising partner

---

Article 29 (Eligibility of Finance Committee Members to Serve on Charter Commission)

The wind sort of got knocked out of the sails on this article from the start when Town Counsel North basically said that Finance Committee members would be allowed to serve on an elected Charter Commission. Article sponsor Josh Ostroff sought to determine, before starting his presentation, whether passing the article would even be necessary. “I’m not sure necessary is a legal question,” North briefly replied.

Ostroff then went on with his presentation, arguing that approving the article would make it unambiguous that Finance Committee members could also run for election to a Charter Commission. He acknowledged anyone wanting to take on such responsibilities would certainly be signing on for “an extraordinary commitment of time.”  A campaign has launched to form a Charter Commission that would review and make recommendations about the town’s form of government.

Town Meeting approved the motion on this article by a vote of 58-42-4.

Article 30 (Replace SATM 2023 Town Seal with 1876 Town Seal)

Proponent Jeffrey Alderson spoke respectfully of the efforts of the Town Seal Review Committee, whose work resulted in Spring Annual Town Meeting approving a new town seal to be used for official business (not to be confused with a current effort to create a town brand or logo). Though he did say the process for bringing forth the eventual design to Spring Annual Town Meeting was flawed.

Alderson argued for Fall Annual Town Meeting to nix that seal, which features the bridge and river in it, for a super basic design approved all the way back in 1876 but not considered during the recent review process. The 1876 seal that reads “Natick Incorporated Feb. 19, 1781,” he said, is historic, meets legal requirements, and like the recently approved seal, is non-controversial (i.e., no racist imagery, like the outdated one depicting the Rev. John Eliot preaching  to three Indigenous people). The 1876 seal is consistent with those from some other communities as well, Alderson said.

Why go to the extent of bringing this article to Town Meeting? “I do believe that there was a chilling effect put on this body in terms of speech and debate, that to criticize the aesthetics, or for any other reason to criticize the design, the process, or the committee, that you would be seen as racist. And I suffered that myself and I took that very personally,” Alderson said, adding that going with the original seal would give an option to those who felt their voice wasn’t heard in the spring.

Simon Poliandri, who was a member of the Town Seal Review Committee, made a motion for indefinite postponement of the article, arguing that the idea of using the original seal was never brought up by anyone during that committee’s two-plus year process. He described the article as a “respectable and valid point of view” from a Natick resident, but more of an opinion than the result of a public process.

The main motion was not approved, with the vote totaling 45-53-4. So a relatively close call. A motion for indefinite postponement failed to pass, so it is possible this topic could rise again at a future Town Meeting. Though the proponent in this case, Mr. Alderson, vowed not to do that himself.

 

 

---

• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #1 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #2 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meting night #4 recap

Natick Fall Annual Town Meeting picked things up for night #2 on Thursday, Oct. 19, with Article 15, which involved lots of numbers and letters, plus a handful of other zoning articles and a few citizen petitions.

Natick Pegasus recorded the meeting.

Zoning clean-up

Director of Community & Economic Development Amanda Loomis took Town Meeting through proposed zoning updates in Articles 15, 16 and 17, largely of a housecleaning nature related to land use. Loomis described the changes as “setting the stage for future substantive amendments” by reorganizing information so it’s easier to use based on an ordering of letters and numbers. She called out a few items, such as making it clearer where research & development and lab uses might fall, in light of recent town discussions on the bio lab front and the emergence of more energy-related developments.

Zoning clean-ups do always tend to excite the crowd. Town Meeting member Rick Jennett, showing enthusiasm for Article 15, said “I’m thrilled. Organizational therapy for our community is fantastic…” Apparently he had company on that thought: the article passed unanimously.

Other zoning cleanups included removing references to subsidized housing districts in the bylaws since nothing in the community is zoned that way. Such zoning was unnecessary in light of other developments in town, including the addition of an inclusionary zoning bylaw, smart growth overlay districts, and a housing production plan to ensure Natick supports.

Article 20 involved expanding on amended zoning from the Spring Annual Town Meeting for parcels along Lake Cochituate, shifting them from Industrial-II to Highway Mixed Use-I. The goal is to allow for a more cohesive district, Loomis said, that goes from the FedEx-MathWorks campus to the Cochituate Rail Trail (there’s still a residential buffer there), and to allow for future growth of a small corporate campus but with fewer different types of zoning districts in the location. The motion for this article easily passed.

Bring on the citizen petitions

Here’s where things got a bit uncomfortable, as Town Meeting took up a series of citizen petitions.

In Article 21, the proponent sought to have properties at 24, 26, and 30 North Main Street rezoned from Residential General to Downtown Mixed-Use or Center Gateway, extending that zoning past Cochituate Street along Rte. 27. Unfortunately, for 30 North Main St., in particular, where the property had long been used for retail and residential, approval for retail at the site expired due to lack of use for that purpose for too long.

 

30 North Main St., has had a history of retail use, and was last home to Natick Appliance, but that business stopped operating before the pandemic. It had previously housed a furniture shop and gift store for many years. The proponent pitched the property as an ideal mixed use candidate given its proximity to town improvements in that area, such as the train station, Rte. 27 itself, and the rail trail.

Attorney Kenneth Phillips, speaking on behalf of the owners, said one of the “heartbreaking components” of the situation is that the owners have been approached by many prospective business tenants but that they’ve had to be referred to town hall. Donna Bradley, a member of the family that owns the property, reiterated these sentiments during remarks, stressing the predicament that she and her family are now in given their inability to lease the property to possible tenants.

Phillips asked for a referral back to the article sponsor, which seeks to work with the Planning Board on a plan that might get approval at Spring Annual Town Meeting.

Going more smoothly was Article 22, which sought to extend Downtown Mixed Use zoning to allow for body art establishments. This proposed amendment, which Town Meeting approved, was sparked by a business owner that provides skin care services seeking to add micro-blading and other such permanent make-up offerings. Further expansion of this allowed use could be back for discussion in the spring.

Article 23, seeking to safeguard roads from disproportionate housing developments for safety reasons, spurred discussion of whether the article should be referred back to the sponsor or that no action should be taken. There were concerns raised that the article was specifically designed to derail a plan to plop 32 affordable units onto 5 Auburn St., a dead-end street with just a few homes on it. “During the prior debate, it seemed very clear that there was, as a previous speaker referred to, a Trojan horse hidden in this article,” said one Town Meeting member in urging others to dispatch of it. In the end, Town Meeting voted for no action.

Town Meeting peters out

Article 27, regarding roles and responsibilities of the Personnel Board, was being discussed nearly two hours into the meeting, when a call was made to figure out if a quorum remained at the high school auditorium. Nope, and that was that for the night, with things slated to pick up again on Tuesday, Oct. 24.

---

In case you missed it: Natick Fall Annual Town Meeting night #1: That old house; Budget adjustments; Be on the lookout for zeroes; Hiring help; #! @*&% PFAS

• Fall Annual Town Meeting night #3 recap
• Fall Annual Town Meting night #4 recap

---

Please support Natick Report, your local news source, by contributing or becoming an advertising partner