Westwood Station: Town Meeting Information

I recall, not so long ago, how Massachusetts voted down a change to the law that effectively prevents grocery stores from selling beer and wine. It seems to me the liquor license law, which ought to be about public safety, is instead a crude, highly-politicized tool used to protect or advance business interests.

The problem with Westwood Station is the facts continue to change. There is huge support for the project from people who want tax relief and better services from their town. This is what they have been promised and this is all they hear of the project. For people who have been attending meetings, the facts continue to change. And that is the problem. They will change as the developer sees fit and the town does not support the residents with the changes. If anyone in this town thinks 1000 rental units will not impact the schools system, they are clearly misinformed. Yes, the developer has promised us millions - but look at what the modular classrooms at the middle school alone cost. There goes the mitigation. Then what happens to our schools? This town needs to come together and work together for the best possible solution. The town has not addressed the size of Westwood Station at all. That is what the neighbors have been asking for. Again, at a town meeting, we were sold the idea of a development on 50 acres. This is 150 acres. Where is the accountability? There is none.

As far as Wegmens is concerned - sure an upscale market would be great. But as a previous blogger pointed out, Roche Bros has supported this community for years. Does that go out the window? I spoke directly to the developer about this and pointed out while competition is good, 140,000sq ft is MASSIVE. That is 3.5 times bigger than the Roche Bros in West Roxbury. And with beer and wine. Is there no one in this town willing to protect the character of the town and the businesses that thrive here. The average customer of Wegmens travels 30 miles to shop. While the residents near the Station are fighting to control the traffic, the residents on the other side are pushing this project through. Again, a previous blogger mentions traffic on Gay and Clapboardtree Street. I hope the town supports these neighborhoods better when the shoppers from Dover and Medfield start travelling to Wegmens. They are not taking the highway that is for sure. Now is the time for all residents to work together, size this down and protect what we have for a town.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. The facts that were told before the permit was issued, changed after it was issued. Again, no accountability. Please protect this town. No one wants Westwood Station to go away. We just want it to be a development that fits the town, the neighborhoods and the character.

Just to clarify...this article is from an email that is being circulated around town; I received a copy and decided to post it here. The argument and facts in this article do not necessarily represent my opinion.

I was just reading Westwood Station- The Facts and there is no source listed for where this information was generated. Earlier this week I had asked the traffic plan to be posted which Dave did quickly after receiving the source of the information. I think for transparency sake the source of the Westwood Station - The Facts should be identified. If some individuals are required to list the source, all individuals should follow the same protocol.

Thank you.

Roche Bros is getting shafted here by allowing competition directly against them. They don't deserve it and it shouldn't be allowed, especially after never saying No to any request from any member of the town on any town issue. they are an excellent supporter of our community and if nothing else, should receive our support back. Roche Brothers is plenty upscale for my tastes and should they decide to leave the town in the wake of a Wegmans, we have another issue on our side of town to deal with, namely a large empty store...and you know, we would deserve it if we allow it to happen.

TO MY FELLOW CITIZENS OF WESTWOOD

Attendees at the Town Meeting scheduled for May 5, 2008 will vote on a Warrant Article so tailored that it fits only one business. We should recognize that this is not fair play, and that it would give a big competitive advantage to one new food store in town at the expense of other long-standing local businesses. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Westwood resident as well as an owner of one such business: Roche Bros. Supermarkets, a proud member of the Westwood community since 1970.

Article 18 of the Warrant would authorize the issuance of a single license to sell beer and wine for consumption off the premises by a grocery store or supermarket, but only if: (1) the store has a floor area of more than 100,000 square feet; and (2) the store is located in the mixed-use overlay zoning district. In other words, only the proposed Wegmans at Westwood Station would be eligible for the sole license.

To enact a law for a narrow private interest is discriminatory and just plain unfair. In fact, I have been advised by counsel that such a discriminatory law may well be susceptible to legal challenge under both Massachusetts law and the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Proponents of Article 18 have implied that if the town votes "NO" on Article 18, then Wegmans may abandon its plans to come to Westwood Station, and consequently the viability of the entire Westwood Station project might be in jeopardy. It is scare tactics of the highest degree to suggest that the entire Westwood Station project is going to fail because Wegmans must operate its store without a beer and wine license.

Having a license for the sale of beer and wine is a nice amenity for supermarkets; however, it is certainly not integral to Wegmans’ service formula. According to its company website, only five of the 71 stores currently operated by Wegmans offer “Wine and Spirits” for sale. The rest operate either with limitations on types of alcohol sold or without alcohol sales at all, so Wegmans is clearly able to adapt its operation to any local and state regulations as required. Therefore it is unnecessary to pass a law that is discriminatory and unfair in order to get Wegmans to come to Westwood Station.

Selectman Nancy Hyde recently referred to Wegmans’ characterization of the Westwood Station location as a "bull’s-eye" for the company. In fact, at a recent board meeting in town, a Wegmans representative refused to characterize the inability to obtain the license as a potential "show stopper." He went on to say that Wegmans would have to consider both options, but that without beer and wine included, the store would be on the lower end of the proposed range for square footage. Although Wegmans might prefer to have the only wine and beer department in town, it seems quite clear that they would operate their supermarket with or without the license. The developers are disingenuous to imply that granting the sole license of this type in the town of Westwood is critical to the viability of the Westwood Station project.

Citizens should be afforded the opportunity to vote on a comprehensive warrant article that addresses the issue. The sale of liquor for off-premises consumption is an issue best addressed with a rule that applies to all business in town. What has changed so drastically in town since the 2006 Town Meeting? At that time, the Finance Committee recommended unanimously "that the Town vote Indefinite Postponement" of that year’s liquor license warrant article, which would have created two off-premises licenses for the sale of alcohol. The reasoning then was, in part: "the petition limits the Board of Selectmen to authorizing only two licenses. To the extent residents are open to having such establishments in Town, we would prefer that the Board of Selectmen were empowered to determine the appropriate number of licenses as opposed to being restricted to issuing only two licenses." In 2006, the town determined that a warrant article allowing the Board of Selectmen to grant two licenses did not address the issue comprehensively. However, this year the Selectmen have proposed an article that would grant only one license. This is inconsistent and inefficient. In fact, during the Finance Commission public hearing on March 25, Selectman Patrick Ahearn (the dissenting member of the Board of Selectmen’s 2-1 vote) and many members of the Finance Commission voiced similar sentiments.

In closing, as I have stated before, I am thrilled that the town is working so hard to secure a solid financial future by encouraging development of a strong commercial tax base. Roche Bros. welcomes the challenge of new competitors in the market, and we are ready to give Wegmans their biggest challenge of any market they’ve yet been in. However, I would hope that the voters of Westwood at Town Meeting will vote to provide a fair and level playing field for all of us who have long supported the community and not authorize the selectmen to petition the legislature to enact such a discriminatory and unfair law.

So we encourage the voters of Westwood to attend Town Meeting on May 5, 2008, and please vote "NO" on Article 18.

Thanks, and hope to see you there!

Rick Roche
CEO/Owner, Roche Bros. Supermarkets
Resident, Town of Westwood

It strikes me from reading the commentary that the problems would be solved by allowing more flexibility both in the number of licenses that might be issued and the physical constraints regarding the size of the store. The size restrictions are apparently aimed at preventing convenience stores and gas stations from being eligible for liquor sales. Better restrictions might be available to fulfill the intent of allowing a grocery store, such as Roche Brothers, to still be able to apply for a license and restrict licenses to convenience stores. For instance, it might be a matter of the hours of operation, the type of operation, the hours during which alcohol sales could be permitted, the percentage of a store's business (either measured as square footage or revenue) that could be devoted to alcohol sales, the physical set up of such sales within the store, etc.

Assuming that Roche Brothers would also be interested in having access to a beer and wine license, and assuming that more tailored restrictions are possible and would be welcome, wouldn't it be possible to offer an amendment to the article on the floor at Town Meeting? As the article is presently written and presented, I would oppose it, but I would certainly be open to considering modification that addresses the various concerns raised.

It has been like everything else with this Board-Change everything they agreed upon(or sold to the town earlier)to appease the developers-for the way we are bending over-they should be paying for gold paved streets for the town(not a couple of million dollars).