2022-04-06 SB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

refuse provide in Section 181-57, that the town of Lexington is committed to reducing generation of solid waste within the community by working to educate residents to reduce solid waste that they generate, accelerate recycling and composting efforts, commit the remainder of solid waste to waste-to-energy resource recovery disposal, reduce toxicity in the waste stream, etc. She explained that the Town already has a commitment and an explanation of the importance of waste reduction. There are already goals for converting waste to waste recovery, reducing toxins, and increasing recycling via existing Town regulations. The regulations also, per Section 181-61 B, provide for the pickup of a maximum of six approved containers per week, plus one bulky object. She believes the goals of this article could be served either by amending the bylaws to eliminate the requirement of free refuse disposal, or by this Board, through amending its regulations, reducing the six-barrel minimum to some lesser number. Mr. Pato stated that he does not see the basis for these concerns. The resolution says to prioritize waste reduction programs that minimize the impact on environmental justice communities, and to the impact being created for other communities. He does not see the implications being suggested and supports the resolution. Mr. Sandeen explained that he supports this article, as he believes it calls for creating a plan to help reduce the Town’s waste and will consider curbside composting which is not included in the Town’s current bylaw. This plan would then help to inform the Select Board on the items brought up by Ms. Hai. Ms. Barry stated that she is struck by the divergence between the non-binding resolution and what the Board has heard from the Town Manager. She will abstain on this item as she believes further work is needed. Mr. Lucente stated that he will vote in favor of this article because he believes in planning, and does not believe this article, as written, is too restrictive. Ms. Hai stated that Article 27 will have two Board members abstaining and three in favor. Regarding Article 31, Ms. Hai noted that the moderator will be moving this item off the agenda for tonight’s Town Meeting and bringing it back later in the schedule. Ms. Hai explained that Article 34 and Special Town Meeting Article 3 are intertwined. The Special Town Meeting article proposes to change the bylaws to permit remote participation to count towards quorum. It requires that operating rules for such participation be adopted by Town Meeting before any use can be made of the allowance, and it only provides for hybrid, not fully remote meetings. Any bylaw change has to be reviewed by the Attorney General. Article 34 provides for a Home Rule petition, which would authorize the Town to amend its bylaws to allow for remote participation for hybrid meetings. It also allows the Board to make future adaptations to the bylaw through Town Meeting only. Section 2 in Article 34 provides for the relocation of a particular session of Town Meeting, which has already been called to a fully remote platform under specific circumstances. Existing law allows us to relocate to an out-of-town physical location under the same specific circumstances. Mr. Makarious explained that Special Town Meeting Article 3, Section 1 is an amendment to Chapter 118 of the bylaws. This does not change the 100 person quorum requirement but adds a new section that 75 members shall be present at the physical location identified, for a hybrid Town Meeting. Section 2 defines the hybrid Town Meeting process, including a requirement that the Town Meeting authorize the use of a hybrid Town Meeting and the corresponding rules by two thirds majority. Mr. Lucente stated that he would like to have a majority of the members of the quorum present in person. He has concerns that people will abuse this, instead of using it when necessary.