Share This Article
The Tuesday, February 27, meeting of the Sudbury Select Board featured a contentious debate about a public forum on the proposed Firearm Safety Business Zoning Bylaw, as well as draft articles about the proposed bylaw that will run in the Select Board’s quarterly newsletter.
The proposed bylaw would require firearms businesses to get a special permit from the Select Board, impose regulations on their operations, and limit the locations of a maximum of two firearm businesses to an industrial district along the southern side of Boston Post Road at the Wayland border. The relevant parcels include a local restaurant, Soul of India, and a portion of the Land Rover/Jaguar dealership.
Though the Select Board has yet to vote its position on the warrant article containing the bylaw, Members Russo, Carty and Roberts voted to add it to the Town Meeting warrant in January, and Members Dretler and Kouchakdjian voted against doing so.
Deliberation turned sour when Member Russo indicated a desire not to have minority members of the Select Board speak as Select Board members at a public forum hosted by the Select Board. (2:01:05) Chair Dretler and Vice-Chair Kouchakdjian, the two who voted against putting the bylaw on the warrant, voiced dismay at what they believed was an attempt to muzzle different opinions.
Russo argued that the board’s code of conduct policy requires all members to support a decision of the board, even if a member disagrees with the decision, after the board has voted. Chair Dretler argued that the board hasn’t taken a position on the warrant article yet and the Planning Board hasn’t held its hearing yet. The board did vote to add the bylaw article to the warrant for Annual Town Meeting, but they will take positions on all articles at a later date.
What About Wayland?
Another tense exchange occurred when Chair Dretler informed the board that Wayland has proposed to zone the parcel adjacent to Land Rover for by-right high-density housing. Wayland, like Sudbury, is seeking to comply with the new MBTA Communities law that imposes housing zoning requirements on many municipalities.
Late last year the board was told that Wayland was going in a different direction with the MBTA Communities zoning, so the proposed zoning in Wayland’s warrant article was a reversal of what the Select Board had been told previously. It doesn’t appear anyone was tracking the MBTA communities planning process in Wayland after the Select Board was told Wayland would not be locating a housing zone in that area.
If a developer were to build housing on that Wayland parcel, it would put housing much closer to the Sudbury parcels that could allow gun businesses. It would also put housing closer to the parcels that allow gun businesses than the proposed Sudbury bylaw currently permits via its setback requirements. However, it is unclear if those setbacks would have any applicability based on the uses on the other side of the town line, or if zoning in Wayland has any influence on zoning in Sudbury. The Select Board opted to seek counsel from the town’s legal and/or planning experts.
In addition to Wayland’s proposed MBTA Communities zoning, Chair Dretler noted that the town line between Sudbury and Wayland bisects the parcel currently used by the Land Rover dealership. It was unclear if that had an impact for the Sudbury firearm bylaw, because the portion of land in Sudbury would permit a firearm business if the bylaw passes. The board is seeking guidance on that as well.
Vice-Chair Kouckakdjian made a motion to withdraw the article from the warrant based on her concerns that the bylaw has not been fully vetted. Chair Dretler gave it the second but the motion was eventually struck based on concerns that such a vote may not have been properly noticed based on the language of the agenda item.
Accusations of Misinformation
Later in the meeting, the majority sought to edit a Select Board newsletter article (page 86) authored by Kouchakdjian (3:12:30). After a debate about the precedent for editing other members’ articles, the majority relented and the two articles submitted for the quarterly newsletter were approved without edits.
The majority opinion is that the firearm bylaw significantly restricts gun businesses in both locations and operations. That’s typically contrasted with the current state of Sudbury’s zoning bylaws, which have no regulations for firearms business uses. The minority opinion is that the bylaw allows two firearm business uses, and codifies that in Sudbury’s bylaws. Both statements are technically accurate. Whether the bylaw “limits” firearms businesses to two or “allows” two firearms businesses appears to be a semantic distinction that has more to do with framing the bylaw to influence public perception.
Highlighting the dysfunction in the meeting, Member Russo at several points argued that statements from the minority were not factual. But Russo himself began framing the minority position on the bylaw as “opposition to gun control” during the meeting (2:13:30). The minority members have called for stronger gun control than the bylaw provides, including larger setbacks from sensitive uses in the existing draft bylaw, and a preference for an all-out ban on gun shops, in prior meetings. The majority has objected to a ban because a proposed ban failed as a Citizen Petition at the last Annual Town Meeting, and because Town Counsel has warned of a potentially expensive lawsuit if the town implements a ban.
Next Steps
The bylaw will likely be on the agenda again for the next Select Board meeting, since the board is seeking to understand more about any possible conflicts with Wayland’s proposed MBTA Communities zoning. It also remained unclear what exactly the agenda would be for the public forum, though they did pick a date and location: March 28 at the Goodnow Library.
The Planning Board will also hold a public hearing at a later date, as is required by law.