One notable issue involved the proposed amendments related to a liquor license policy for events in town parks. This amendment included provisions such as the use of wristbands for individuals aged 21 and older and restrictions on issuing one-day liquor licenses for events on town land with playgrounds. Concerns were raised about the clarity of the language, particularly whether individuals under 21 would be allowed in designated drinking areas, which could potentially extend throughout an entire park. This ambiguity sparked a debate, as some members worried that such wording could contradict the intention to restrict access to alcohol for those under legal drinking age.

Members considered whether it would be more effective to allow the town meeting itself to interpret and clarify the language, given the potential for confusion. Ultimately, no consensus was reached on this second amendment, with mixed opinions on whether adopting it would cause further issues at the town meeting. Some members argued for leaving the language unchanged, allowing town meeting members to address it directly on the floor and thereby reduce pre-meeting confusion.

The committee did find common ground on the first amendment, agreeing to change the language from specifying 21 years old to saying “legal drinking age,” thus future-proofing it against any changes in the legal drinking age. However, they chose not to amend the second amendment regarding beer gardens, due primarily to the absence of input from the original proposers of the amendment. The select board was mentioned as potentially having discretion in deciding the suitability of issuing liquor licenses for events in parks with playgrounds, such as Cunningham playground.

Another discussion revolved around the amendments to the MPIC article. The planning board had expressed concerns over a lack of consultation, and no formal decisions had been made by them regarding the proposed amendment. There was notable debate over the redundancy in the wording, particularly items one and three, which seemed to overlap in their directives to the planning board. Item one required recommendations about specific planning actions, while item three addressed changes to the master plan. Members discussed whether to revise or remove item three to prevent confusion, considering that clarity should be prioritized over expedience.

The urgency of the upcoming town meeting was a recurring theme, with some members advocating for prompt actions on amendments to avoid confusion during the meeting. It was argued that providing a clear and concise proposal beforehand would facilitate smoother proceedings. However, others cautioned against rushing the process, emphasizing the importance of careful consideration of the language to ensure it aligned with the overall intent of the article.

A critical procedural issue also emerged concerning the committee’s ability to vote on an amendment that had not been formally presented. It was clarified that the committee could propose their own amendments to their recommendations, which added another layer of complexity to the decision-making process.

In the midst of these discussions, procedural and logistical concerns were addressed, such as the involvement of various town bodies in the decision-making process and the practicality of involving the large town meeting body in these discussions. The planning board’s role was questioned, especially regarding the master plan’s scope and authority, highlighting the need for better coordination among town entities.