hear my call to order the March 24th, 2025 select board meeting at 7:06 p.m. with a roll call vote. We'll start with Bill Olsen. Bill Olsen, I am here. Rosie Kennedy. Rosie Kennedy here. Tom Myers. Tom Myers here. And Caroline, I'm here. We are waiting for Bill Wilson, who's gonna be a few minutes late, but we will let you know when he joins the meeting. Um joe. Are you sharing anything? No, not yet, but I can when you want me to. No, I just um Uh, all right, so next up, I will start with our, uh, Board and committee openings. Uh, One second as they're loading. All right. Um, the Affordable Housing Trust has one opening, the conservation, I'm really sorry. Joe, can you read the boards and committee openings, the file keeps shutting down on me. uh, portable Housing Trust has one opening. The Conservative, uh, Conservation Commission has two openings. Council on Aging has one associate opening. The Cultural council has 1 opening. Community Preservation Committee has an opening for a historic District Commission member. The Historic District Commission has 2 openings for 3-year terms, 2 openings for 2-year terms, one of whom must be a resident of the historic District, and one must be a resident realtor. The Human Rights Commission has one at-large opening, and the Hamilton Wenham Cultural Council has 3 openings. Awesome. Um, with that, can you, can you, uh, tell me what's next since I'm waiting for the file to reopen? Um, I will move to. I'm so sorry everyone, this is, it's the file is just corrupted and keeps shutting down on me every time I try to read it and I'm trying to forward it to a different application. Um, next, I think, well, I was gonna say we'll ask, does anybody have any board or uh Board updates or reports Bill Olson, I'll start with you. Nope, not today. Tom, anything from you? Nothing for me. Thanks. Rosie, anything from you? Yeah, just a couple of things. Just um counsel on aging had another great meeting as we do every month, and there's um lots of energy on the board and we actually have um um new associate member who has applied and um was heartily endorsed by the COA and I believe her credentials have been forwarded to us and hopefully at the next meeting we can um approve her as an associate member. Um. The Conservation commission, I sat in at their meeting, um, the Conservation commission has really regained their strength with the new membership and um there's nothing um horribly exciting going on there, but um there, there are no big issues, I guess is what I should say, but they're doing a great job and they're, um. really paying attention to our wetlands bylaw. And then there was just one other thing, and I'm guessing we would probably talk about this a little bit tonight, but it's in, in reference to one of the um select board candidates asking about posting signs around town. I think he said he has 4 signs and would like permission from the select board. Now, the problem is if we let this go until the next meeting, then it will be Basically, moot. So I'm hoping that we can find time tonight to maybe talk about that for a minute and just allow candidates to post their signs for just a brief amount of time. Bill Wilson's joining the meeting at 7:10. Perfect. Um, I don't know, Joe, that there's not technically an agenda item for talking about the request from the candidate. Yeah, the, the request was received today I believe by email, so it wouldn't have been time to have it on the agenda. You could uh take up discussion about it in new business. I would say that generally campaign signs aren't allowed on public property. Um, that's not just the time bylaw, it's kind of considered. You know, they don't let campaign, uh, people campaigning for instance hold their signs within 10 ft of a polling place, etc. so it just the board can do what it wants, I guess, but um I just want to call out that's uh, breaking a long standing practice in town. Yeah, I, I, I agree, and I think at this point any decision made would cause confusion and wouldn't give all candidates the opportunity for the same, so we can discuss it later as well, but Um, All right. Uh, Rosie, anything else? I don't mean to cut you off. Nope, that's fine. That's all, that's all I had. I would just like to say, I just, as an um rebuttal to your and Joe's comments about signs um during um campaigns, town campaigns, um, uh, we have always allowed um candidates to put their signs around even on um Public property, they have removed them properly and I think it um hinders their ability to be known in the community by not allowing them to post their signs. So that's just what I wanted to say. So the only public property that I've known about, and this is, this doesn't mean it is the only one, was that for a while they were posted. In front of the Cumbies on that corner, which was considered town property, but we had a request from a citizen last year to remove signs from there because it was public property, so we ended up like asking for all signs to be removed from that space. Other than that, I didn't know of any public property that we were allowing signs on. Sure. Well, also, um, up by the um blinking light, gas station on Asbury Street, signs have always been there. I, I, I just think it's a, it's a courtesy to, to our candidates, and they do remove the signs promptly. So I, I, I would advocate to, to let our candidates do that. I know it can get a little, little crowded, but I think that's just part of the democratic process, and I would strongly encourage the board to think about it and allow candidates to put their signs up. It's just 2 weeks, so it's just my comment. All right. Thank you, Rosie. Um, Bill Wilson, welcome. Do you have any um reports for us? Um You know, we have a pretty full agenda. I think I have some school stuff. I'll just uh bring that into that discussion. OK, perfect. Um, next we have our consent agenda and we have 3 items on the consent agenda. Uh, the first is the approval. Of the request for the youth football banner on the tennis courts, uh, approve the Little League request for banners on the outfield fences, and approve minutes of March 10, 2025 select board meeting. Uh Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion to approve the consent agenda. And the 2nd, 2nd. I do have a couple of questions, Joe. I assume that the outfield banners for the Little League is just a repeat of the approval from last year that we already made. I'm yeah, I just, yeah, sorry, um, yeah, all these are actually repeats of, of past years, uh, the, the youth football always hangs a sign on the tennis court, and the banners that you're, uh, you've been asked to approve for Little League are their fundraising banners to sponsor banners rather that they put up the last, I think it's been 2 or 3 years, and I believe if you have questions, there are members of Little League and youth football here just in case. Yeah, so my, my understanding, my belief is that last year was the first year we did the. Patton Park, baseball banners. We want to see how they did. It didn't seem to be an issue. So I thought I'm fine with that. I think we did as a year as a trial to see how the effect would be, but I was, I was fine with it. It wasn't uh overly uh commer commercialized, so. But um they still fine with that. The, the youth football, the only issue I have with that one was the um was the letter talks about every, every year. It's, it's, it, it can't be, we have to vote every year. It can't just be a a one and done. So I just don't know how we, uh, obviously we'll make it clear in the, in the motion, but the letter is not accurate. We're not approving the letter, we're approving one year. So All right. So, do you want to amend the motion? I don't have one for you. I don't know if we have to amend it or just make it. I'm not sure because um I'll just say like uh. We are amending the motion to clarify that approval for the request from youth football and the little Little League are a one-year approval and will need to be made again annually. The mood. Perfect. All right. Any additional questions about any of the consent agenda? Just, just a comment. I mean, we just said that perhaps it's not so good for candidates to put their signs up on public property, but here we are allowing um Um, marketing, um, sponsorships to be placed for our, um, football and Little League. So I'm just wondering what, what the difference is and Again, I would ask you to, we would ask you to think about the importance of letting candidates put their signs on public property as well. Again, you have a member of the public that has a hand up. Yep, uh, is it Mr. Kraft is that? Yes, hi. Can, is my mic on? Sorry, um, yeah, mine is actually not an advertisement. It is more, um, an announcement for registration for our youth, our youth league, and we, um, in the past spent 5 to 6 weeks that we, we hang it on the tennis courts, um, so it's actually, it's not a sponsorship or anything. It's not asking for money. OK, but it's, it's uh it's, um, Encouraging children to come and register. So it's the, to me it's the same principle, um, and it's not, um, any, um, derogatory feeling toward the youth football. I'm just trying to make the comparison that we do a lot of things in our community that um benefit our small communities, so that's my point. I, and again, we can, we can talk about it later in new business. My, my, my concern is that we haven't outlined what counts as public property, which means you can have people putting signs uh on town hall. You can have people putting signs in the park, you can have putting signs and like, unless we have time to designate, like, where are these areas like even the Asbury to date. I'd actually didn't know that was public property. The times that I put signs out there, I had to ask the gas station and they treated it like their property. Um, and so I, I just, I'm a little anxious to get, to make a sweeping statement that town property is open to the public for, for political uh signs, candidate signs without any regard for size, duration, placement, things like that. Whereas I feel like for town programming, um, On a specific location for a specific period of time as voted by the board, I just feel like there's less gray area there. Well, you're also talking about a 3 ft by 10 ft banner for the youth football versus um a campaign sign is 18 inches by 24 inches. Um, and, and I agree that there should be some boundaries that they should come down as soon as the elections are over. I think that public spaces that people have traditionally put signs are at the in front of Cumberland Farms and in front of the um blinking light Asbury um. Um, gas station, and I, I think that's a, a reasonable request since it's been done um for years and years and years and decades, as long as I've been here, and I think it's I think it's unfair to stop that because a person complained and people can complain, um, I'd, I'd, I've never seen people be appalled by it, um, as a, as a general rule, but again, I'm just, I'm just making the point, that's all. Mr. Kraft, did you have another comment? Yeah, I just want to clarify my, my banner is 3 by 6, not, not 3 by 10. Because, uh, which was approved, um, 3 years ago by the uh rec department when we first, we had originally went for a 3 by 10 but and, and we settled on a 3 by 6 so as not to be uh too large. So with that, I will take a roll call vote on the approval Um, all right. of the consent agenda, starting with, uh, William Olsen. William Olson I. Tom, Tom Meyers I. Rosie Kennedy, Rosie Kennedy I? Bill Wilson, Bill Wilson I. In Caroline W I. Um, I accidentally skipped public comment. It was not intentional. Um, I will bring it back to public comment. I will remind folks that public comment is 3 minutes, uh, for a topic that is not currently on the agenda. If you have an agenda item for which you have comments, I ask that you hold your comments until such time as we're on that agenda item. Uh, but if we do have folks who have public comment on unrelated items, feel free to raise your hand, uh, and we can call on you. Perfect. All right. Uh, with that, we'll move into our core agenda. The first item is the approval of the raising of the pride and Juneteenth flags at Patton Park, uh, in June 2025, a discussion and vote. Uh, the Human Rights Commission has started their, uh, Juneteenth and Pride uh activities. Um, and so we wanted to go ahead and get this on the agenda to ensure that we have flags to be raised as a part of the flag raising ceremonies, uh, and to kick off all of the other Pride and Juneteenth activities happening in town. Um, I believe that we have someone here from the Human Rights. Is it Jamie or Anna who, who here anybody would like to talk. The chairman of the Human Rights Commission, I believe is on and uh as well as uh the secretary, Nyte Jamie Knusson. Anything you like to add Jamie I see you. All right. Um, Yeah, yeah, so we, we meet monthly, uh, and We had started making plans for those flag raisings in January, and because they have uh been authorized pretty, uh, Freely over the last 4 to 5 years, I think depending on which flag you're talking about, it might, it might be 4 or 5 years, but um So, and we, you know, yeah, so we'd we'd love to have that and have that, uh, know that we can plan on that each year. Thank you, Jamie. I will first entertain a motion to approve the raising the flag, the pride and Juneteenth flags at Patton Park for June 2025. Can I just make one comment before we get into that. Um, I know we've done this every year for as Jamie said for the last 5 or so years, and I, I believe we talked about this before, um, I think it was last year, uh, about just making this an annual um thing without having to come to select board every year, and I think Last year when we discussed it, it was something about the flag policy that didn't allow sort of this, you know, every year thing and we'd have to, you know, update the policy, but there is language that allows for, you know, something that's customary to be, um, I think it's in section 4, sorry. So, it did allow for like a customary raising of a flag, so it sounds like this is done once a year in June. It seems like we could probably just vote once to make it a regular thing, rather than making as much as I love seeing Jamie, um, and I'd love to see him more, um, but I think we don't need to make him come every year to, to request it. Yeah, as long as the policy has a provision that allows us to do it, I'm happy to Entertain a motion to approve the ride and Juneteenth flag raisings at Patton Park in June in perpetuity. So moved. Perfect. I think it's good to have the yearly discussion just to get awareness to it, but um. You know, I mean, and I have to probably go back and look at the policy. I'm, I'm 100% for it, but I kind of like that we talk about it every year because it's something, give it some relevance, so. Yeah, I would, I would agree. I, I like it coming uh on an annual basis. So we currently have an, an unseconded motion for not, so we would like to revise the motion for approval for June 2025, we can do that. So moved. All right. Do I have a second? I do need a second for the flag. To revise it or just to vote for it? I got a I got a 2, I got a motion to revise it for annual. I just need a second for that motion. Oh yeah, no, I, I prefer things like this to be annual in discussion. I support it, uh, but I'd like it to come across, that's, that's, that's the motion. The motion is this is only for 2025. 0, I thought it initially came in that way. I'm sorry, I thought, uh, Tom was looking to change it. We motion and now we're, yeah, we changed it back. So I just need a second for the, I make a motion to approve a 1 for 2025 approval for the right from Bell. Um, any additional comments about the flags from the board first, please. Yeah, I'll just make the comment that both Newbury and Ipswich have um in the past year, revised their um flag policies to allow just for state flags, the United States flags, and MIA flags, and so I just wanted to bring that up to the board. Any other comments from the board before I move to public comment. Uh, Peter, I see that your hand is raised first. Uh thank you. If I'm not mistaken, a request to uh raise a Christmas flag was denied last fall. Is that correct? I don't know if there was ever a formal request. Was there one made? Um, if there, if, if it was denied, as we know for the the policy, the Uh, the flags are at the discretion of the select board, um, and are taken, they have to be presented by a member of the select board and then discussed and voted, um, and I think it was, it was determined that, um, that flag was not representative of. A flag that we wanted to fly in the town. Anna, I see that you have your hand raised. Do you have a comment? I do have a comment. Thank you so much for the minutes anesthesi 227 Highland Street. Um, I guess the, the points I would want to make are, first back to Tom's question about the time period. The language of the policy does allow for flags to be displayed for a period of time that is reasonable or customary. I actually raised this comment last year. I went back and watched the minutes and there was some discussion about Not sort of having this conversation on an annualized basis, because in some ways it's, it's painful to have to validate it. Um, as a point of contact, the town of Lenham is actually not doing this on an annual basis. The school district is not doing this on an annual basis. Um, and the reason I make that point is that if you go back to what the purpose of these flags are, the Juneteenth flag celebrates the end of slavery, and the pride flag celebrates the inclusion and support for LGBTQ members of our community. So, I don't actually see how it's good to every year go back and decide, do we want to celebrate the end of slavery? That should, in my opinion, should be a very hard yes in perpetuity. I don't think the town of Hamilton should ever backtrack on that. Similarly, support for our LGBT community members is more important than ever. There are renewed attacks on them. They're historically marginalized. I don't see why we as a town, through you, our executive board, would not want to make the statement that all people are welcome in the town of Hamilton. So to me, having to bring it up for annual discussion, I actually, I find that hurtful, like as a, as a concept, and these are in fact customary displays. They have a period of time. The pride flag is the month of June. It's been that way since the Clinton administration. Juneteenth is a newer federal holiday, but they've always been on or around June, June 19th, right? So these are customary displays. And I would, I would articulate to the select board using your government speech. I don't understand why we would not want to celebrate the end of slavery and celebrate inclusion every year in perpetuity. Um, so I ask that you reconsider Tom's motion, but I also ask that we just, we do this. I don't understand why we wouldn't. I strongly support this. Um, as a way to show recognition for these groups and who we are as a community and what we stand for on a really value, value principle basis. So, um, Thank you for your time and your consideration. I appreciate it, Anna. Thank you. Uh, Bill, I did see you come off mute. Did you have something to say before I go to other members of the public? No, you cannot. You can get commenting. Yep, Natalie, I see your hand is raised. Do you have a comment? Hi, yeah, Natalie Hildreth, uh 121 Lindon Street. Um, I just wanted to um echo what Anna just said. I also think it's, um, It's hurtful to each year have to vote on this and hear you guys validate it, um, or, or not validate it, um, and hear the same arguments played out over and over again. Um, I also want to um echo that it's uh You know, uh, the, the students and children in our district, you know, hear that and look to you as leaderships on this, on this issue as well. Um, recently, I looked back at The DEIB audit, the school district did in 20122. Um, and according to that data prepared by an outside consulting practice, um, in 2022, 18% of the students in our district identified as LGBTQIA, or non-binary. And um in that presentation of 40 and survey, 45% of the faculty and staff of our district said they had seen students treated unfairly because of their sexual orientation at school. Um, I can only imagine these numbers have grown worse under the current landscape in our country, um, and I would just, uh, Remind you that representation matters so much, especially right now, and that um you please think of the young people in this district who need to feel safe um and included where they live and um I think the American flag is only so much stronger when it's flown with the pride flag, with the Juneteenth flag, um. It's a strong country that recognizes and works to uh right their wrongs, um, especially throughout history. Thanks. Thank you, Natalie I appreciate it. Um, Magmore Street. I hear somebody's on the phone that isn't muted, but I don't know if that's an intentional comment. Uh, Tosh Blake Sagamore Street, can you hear me? I can't. Yep. Oh, good. OK. I got, I got muted right before when they went to comments earlier. So, oh, thanks for um yeah, I'm probably the no caller on the board there. Um, yeah, as I brought up before, um, my view on these flags and, and generally speaking, identitarian politics flags is our town should not be flying them for any particular group, whether it's, you know, for a racial group or for uh sexual orientation or whatever. Um. I think for one thing goes against the as I brought it before the select board's code of conduct not to engage in politics, like it was one of the items there and to represent the whole town, and the select board is using his discretion not to represent the whole town when they decide for vague reasons to say not to fly a Christmas flag or something like that, so. Kind of a violation of the code of conduct. I know at the time Mr. Olson said, well, the code of conduct's nonbinding. In my opinion, that's not exactly best practices to consider the code of conduct nonbinding, even though I know it's a discretionary decision by the select board. But I think in my opinion when these flags first were starting to be flown in town just a few years ago, it was at a time of sort of political hysteria. And some groups, you know, kind of made a lot of noise and going against our town tradition, we never flew political flags for any kind of subgroups or identity identitarian causes before suddenly did, and I think it was an unethical decision, and I would like you to maybe reconsider that rather recent tradition and to me it's You know, it's, it's kind of a, you know, maybe kind of a cringe thing to be doing because it doesn't, it doesn't make sense and there's no ethical reason why you would fly one flag and not the other flag other than, well, it's government speech and the particular people on the board have the majority, you know, I think it's maybe time to retire that tradition and let people if they want to have a business and their private property fly whatever flags they want to find, but I don't think it's really a town government prerogative to be doing anything like that. Thank you. Gosh. Nancy, I see that your hand is raised. Hi, thank you, um, Nancy Steffis one Highland Street. Go ahead. Um, I also serve on the Human Rights Commission, uh, proudly, and, um, I also, I wanna point out again as Anna pointed out that that winner has removed the requirement to go before their select board every year, um, it removes. The burden for from volunteers to have to repeat the same story over and over again and uh to speak to Tasha's point, um I do believe that the citizens of Hamilton. Do care about human rights and appreciate the flags being flown. That's it. Thank you, Nancy. I don't know who from the board has attended the flag raising in the past, um, but it is one of the more um humbling. Events that I've been to in town. Um, I've had parents come up to me of children. Um, I've had residents, um, residents who've told me they don't typically go to large town gatherings, but who are so grateful to know that this is something that we continue to do year over year. Um, and when it comes to how I I choose to use my government speech. Um, I feel very strongly that, um, you know, I, I think that there's a side that errs on depoliticizing, um, in an effort to silence the voices of those who are oppressed in a, in a minority. Um, I think it's a convenient excuse to not stand on the right side of history. Um, and I think that that same ideology is weaponized in another way as well for the other side. And so, um, frankly, like whether it's because this board is sympathetic to our LGBTQIA or our, uh, black residents. Like, so be it, but I think that we do have government speech and we do have the power to show that we choose to be on the right side of history, uh, despite this continued rhetoric that it's not, you know, technically, you know, apolitical and it doesn't represent the town, um. I can say that I really don't actually care, uh, because I think that that's just sort of a weaponized ideology of simplicity that doesn't have broad use for me, um, in this time in society. Uh, Ms. Brown, I see that you have your hand raised. Hi, Margaret Brown, 58 Moulton Street. Um, first off, I want to express my gratitude to the board for establishing a flag policy that has space for both the pride and Juteth flags. Um, these flags are important symbols of belonging and visibility, and I want to thank you for flying them in past years. Um, speaking as a queer person who grew up here, representation truly matters, especially in this town. And for years I've driven by the town hall in Patton Park during June, proud to be a part of a community that outwardly supports my peers and allies. Um, with the increasing attacks on human dignity of black and brown and queer folks at the national level, it's more important now than ever to show our community solidarity with the marginalized. I urge you to display the pride flag and your team flag flags this year, um, and we're a safe and welcoming community and flying, um, commemorative flags is no small acknowledgement of that. Um, also, the points raised about bringing up annually, um, bringing this up annually, causing stress are completely valid, and I can personally attest, I'm shaking with anxiety right now. Um, but thank you again, um, and yeah, that's it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Um. Yeah, Caroline, I just, yeah, I mean, all great discussion. I appreciate. I think it's important that we have dialogue, ongoing dialogue, continued dialogue on this stuff. We're not debating the celebration of these holidays. The town supports that we're all we're debating right now is flying a flag. So whether the flag flies or not, the town supports and encourages these holidays to be celebrated. But our flag policy. In my, in my view, requires that on a yearly basis, the select board votes on the flags. So it's a part of the process. It's not a hurtful process. It's just part of the process. So, um, so that's, that's where I sit. I said that I support it 100%, but this is part of the process that we put together, and it's an important process and a positive process. It shouldn't be a negative process, should be positive and representative of, of us talking and debating and, and, uh, sharing thoughts and opinions, so. Yeah, I, I would, uh, slightly disagree with that point, Bill, and I, I do think that there is a message here, and I do think that the fact that it comes back to us every year, uh, and the fact that we have to approve it every year, uh, does, uh, there is some symbolism there that is the You know, the thought that we could deny it on a, a yearly basis and that there is this questionable, you know, support of that community, um, you know, every year. So I think by, you know, for us as a board to send that message that we, you know, embrace the LGBTQ community and that We're willing to do this on a yearly basis, um, I think sends a really important message that I would want to support that on a yearly basis. I think there's language in the policy that, you know, allows for customary flag flying on a, you know, a customary basis, and this is something that happens every single year in June, um, you know, I, so I, I just, I, I think there's a message that we're sending, um, Tom, Tom, I get that, but we cannot vote for anything in perpetuity. We just vote even if we voted in perpetuity. The next select board could change it back. So we're not really, I mean, it's, it's like once again it's a, you're talking about a message that has no teeth. So I'd rather not just pass things that have no teeth, just to pass things. I'd rather, uh we cannot pass something in perpetuity. We can only pass something as good as it is in another select board votes the other way. That's how the policy works. So that's, that's why I'm saying let's just, let's just follow the policy and have a discussion and because we cannot pass anything in perpetuity. Even if we pass today in perpetuity, it doesn't mean anything. It does mean at least for the time being that we can continue to fly that flag on a yearly basis without having to come back to the select board and any time the select board could, you know, decide that they want to reinstate the yearly requirement or they can decide not to. I do think that I agree with the commentary that's been shared here that there is a message that we're sending, um, so I, you know, I would support doing that. But I think the better message is every year we pass it, and we support it and we're standing behind it. So I'd rather have that message that bills and supports and St votes yes every year and help us pass this policy allow to do that than to pass a policy that really doesn't hold any teeth. That somebody else can change it down the road. Yeah, I think an opportunity like this we continue to support it annually. We voice it, we give it awareness. I think if we do want to change it into perpetuity, those are big words. I say we dust off the policy and, and bring it into the policy, not on a, on a motion that really wasn't, um, you know, other folks can't contribute to the discussion that might, might have an input here. So, I'm happy to, uh, for new business to put it on there. We'll have this discussion and we'll add it into the, to the flag policy if you'd like, we'll have that discussion. I just don't think right now the, the, you know, the current processes every year we vote on it, every year we stand behind it. We have, we've demonstrated that. The discussion almost sounds like we don't feel that way, which is a little bit disheartening. Um, but, you know, the fact that I get the message thing, Tom, I get, but, um, that really wasn't the intent of the You know, we're gonna to voice our, my plan was to voice my discussion tonight. support for it. You know, next year we'll do it again. There'll be another mix of people. here and they can voice their opinion there. A lot of things come to us annually that potentially, you know, we may get next week that says, let's put something else on there into perpetuity. And, you know, I, I think that's a disservice, you know, where we just put it on there and then it just happens versus, you know, talking about it annually. Yeah, um, we do have a motion. I, I, I look forward to watching this discussion next year. I think that to Tom's point, when a group of white cisgendered straight people get together and decide year over year whether non-white, non-straight, non. People get represented in town, I think that in and of itself sends a message, and I think that's the message that we're saying, uh, we would like to see change in the future. It is not, you know, the dominion of the oppressor to choose every year, whether or not to support those that do not have the same, um. You know, basis in society, but we have a motion, and I, I mean, I don't want to leave it on that though because we're not voting to support or not support it. We are we 1100% support it. This is about the first comment that was made when we opened this topic was Rosie letting us know that other towns have stopped flying this flag. Rosie has a history of asking for us not to fly this flag in town. So when you say that next year, everyone's supporting this, and this won't come up again and there won't be any dissent, two of the candidates that are running for election do not want this flag to fly, and if they made public comments to that end. So I'm fine if we pass it this year, but I will not sit by and Pollyanna, that every year we will graciously vote to fly the flags of the people in this community that feel like they are marginalized because I factually know that to be untrue. Caroline, I'd just like to point out that although I disagree with um flying the flag, the pride flag, I don't disagree with um the quote unquote marginalized groups right to exist and to be treated in a respectful and equal manner. So please don't conflate um my political position with my personal decision. I have very, very good. Friends who are gay, and I find it rather insulting that you would say that. I'm talking about something that represents everybody in the town. I'm not talking about marginalizing anybody. So I, I, I flag does not represent me. I, I, the, the, the POW MIA flag, I was never a prison of war or missing in action. So to say that the flags have to unilaterally represent every single person in town is factually untrue. I'm saying that the flags that we would choose to fly would represent the town, that would represent all of us, such as the state flag, such as the national flag. I will, I will, Caroline, I, I think we should probably. That's it. Leave it at that, but I just wanted to make that point that how I feel in terms of what we're representing in our town versus what we don't allow to be represented. We couldn't fly a Christmas flag. I mean, that just is so Because there's a federal separation of church and state because Christmas represents a, a Christian holiday. Well, it's, it's not always a Christian holiday. It's, it's about kids and Santa Claus and, and, um, good cheer and Um, giving to your community. So, so I think that you're choosing to put it in that, in, in that context, but it's not only about that. And so, again, I just want to defend my stance as a, I mean, look at, look at how heated this discussion is even talking about it. As I said, I have very, very good friends who are gay and lesbian, and I wouldn't trade their friendships for the world. I see that we have a comment. Heather, would you like to come off mute? Hi, I'm so sorry I came a little bit late. Um, I grew up in Hamilton and I work in Hamilton, but I'm a Beverly resident. May, may I be able to speak? Joe? Uh, yeah, you, you don't have to be a resident to speak at a public comment. Oh, OK. Thank you, thank you. Um, I just wanted to just quickly put in my piece about the flags. Um, I felt it was important to speak out. Uh, to me, the flags acknowledged that we have just different life experiences and different backgrounds. You know, Hamilton has increasingly gotten more diverse. Um, I actually think they represent our neighborly connections. Um, I believe this is a good time to support each other and our neighbors and to hold dialogue, and these flags allow us to do that. And I just hope we just continue to be open and welcoming to People of different backgrounds and different walks of life. And yeah, that was just my little piece I wanted to put out there. Thank you. Thank you, Heather. Bill, I think somebody was making a comment. I was gonna say, I mean, I think we came here tonight to vote something that we voted 3 or 4 years in a row, and I think things changed and we're unprepared for the change, and we don't like to do things quickly and change things quickly. So I appreciate the, the motion to change things, but it was. Different than that so, so I agree with sort of Bill Wilson's comment that if perpetuity is a discussion that we want to have, let's put that on the agenda item as a separate topic and talk about it, then we're prepared to talk about it. But I support the flags fine 100%. I always have, and I'm ready to vote. Awesome. Uh, all right, we'll start, we'll call vote, Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. Uh, Bill Olsen. Bill Olsen, I. Bill Wilson. Wilson and I. Tom Myers. Uh, I'm gonna abstain, not because I don't 100% support the flag raising, but because I disagree with the message that we're sending by making them come back on an annual basis to ask this question, so I'll abstain. Tom, uh, Caroline Boo, I. Thank you, everybody, for the spirited debate. All right. I do appreciate the conversation. Um, with that, we will, uh, move to our next agenda item, which is to reopen the warrant, um, of, for April 5th. I believe we're going to, Joe, are we gonna sort of combine the 2nd and 3rd agenda items? Yeah, yeah, I think, I think that's probably the best, the best way to do it is to get started by reopening the warrant and then um. Uh, going through each article, uh, you can take your votes, you can decide if something needs to be on the consent agenda. You can, and there's a couple of articles we're gonna ask you to consider removing, uh, for various reasons. So if we can move through the uh through the war one by one, that probably is the best use of our time. I make a motion to uh reopen the warrant second. All right, uh, the, the warrant is now open. Um, I know that, oh, sorry, I keep forgetting you this firstly. Um, we'll start with the roll call vote, starting with you, Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I, Mr. Olson, William Olson I, Mr. Wilson, Bill Wilson I, Tom Myers. Tom Meyers I. All right, Caroline I. Now the warrant is officially open. Um, I know that we do have 2, 11 or 2 articles to be removed, Joe. 12 articles. One is in section 2 and one is in section 4. OK, um, so we, I, I think what we were thinking is that the best. The way to do this is just to go quickly item by item, we can take a um A vote For your recommendations, our recommendations as we go one by one, we can point out the things that we're gonna come off and we can note the things that are going to go to the consent agenda. Does anybody feel differently about that process or have a cleaner way to do that? Works for me. OK, great. Um, So the first article election of officers. We don't need to do anything with this one, correct? No, no, nothing to do there, nothing to do with 1.2. Um, Unless Mr. Bowler has a comment or a question about what reports that we made, I don't know. Um. I don't know who's planning to make reports or bills gonna allow them this year. Say that again. Uh, I know the moderators here. One was, uh, item 12 is reports. Right, um, I would just, uh, Remind anyone that any boards or committees or proponents that are uh planning slides for the uh Town meeting that they need to be submitted for my review and for inclusion in the uh Um, Slide deck by the end of this week. in terms of reports, I, I haven't heard from. Any boards or committees that they're gonna make reports to this point. None have come forward to the time's office. OK. So what does anything else need to happen here, Joe? No, if we don't have any reports, it's not, that's fine. I'm just, I'm making notes as we go along here, so should we should be all set to probably just pass over reports when we get to it. OK, perfect. Um, So, the next is the consent agenda. Is there currently anything stacked in here? No, um, we usually have, uh, uh, this we do usually do as we go through the articles, you identify the ones that you think should be in the consent agenda. There's usually a conference with the time moderator and town council just to make sure that um the, the article won't need more than 50% vote and you go, so. OK, um, can you scroll down? Sorry? Can you scroll down? Oh yeah, right. So Joe, are you saying as we go through these, we should maybe identify ones we want to move to the consent agenda along the way? Yeah, yes, OK. All right. Um, 2-1, compensation and classification table, um. The any questions on this particular article? Uh, this is Tom McEnany here. This is one that is typically on the consent agenda. OK, um, if it's going to be on the consent agenda, do we still need to put our favorable action on it? Yes, yes we do. Um, so I will, um, You want me to, you want me to put you that one in the consent agenda motion and then when we get to the end, I'll read off all the ones we have there and you can make a motion one motion rather than have to do this at the end of every article. Yes, that's fine, but I still need to take a favorable action vote, I believe. Um, Mm What is the best way to, is it just all and it doesn't have to be an official motion for favorable action, or does it? No, it does. It does. All right, um, so I will entertain a motion for favorable action on, um, Article 2-1 for compensation and classification table. Uh, I mean, sorry, so moved, so sorry, so moved. I need a second. All right, um, for favorable action, we'll start with you, Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I Olsen Roy Olson, uh, yes. Wilson, Wilson I. Uh, Meyers. All right, so 55 recommendations for favorable action. Uh, Fincom is gonna add yours later, correct? Yes. All right, so 50 favorable action also for the consent agenda. So let me ask you this question because we have gone in sort of in circles in this before, but for financial things, we typically are supposed to rely on our income to advise us. So typically we ask what Fincom has voted before we actually vote on financial items. John McGrath is here. John, yeah, we voted favorable 4 to 0. Great. So just keep that in mind, Carolyn, as we go through the financial items, it'd be good to get John to comment before we vote. So, uh, Article 22 prior year bills, this happens, uh, every year. We do need to pay our bills. Fincom, I assume you support us paying our bills. Yeah, we voted a 4 to 0 favorable. Can you pay my bills? I, I make a motion to recommend favorable action on Article 2-2. 2nd. Awesome. Uh, we will roll call starting Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I and I and I. Tom, was that you? Yeah, all right, Tom, Myers I Caroline Bou I, so 50, uh, favorable action. Does this go in consent or no? No, it's 4 5th vote. No, it's. Got it. OK. Uh, 2-3, uh, general town departmental appropriations. Um, this is the general operating budget for the town and schools for the 2026 budget, um, Dumbledore. What was your favorable 4 to nothing. All right, motion for a favorable recommendation for Article 23. 2nd, 2. All right, roll call starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. Olsen Now Wilson Olsen Olson, William Olson I Caroline I. All right, 50 favorable on the budget. Joe, can you scroll down for me, please? Yep. Capital expenditures 24. All right. Capital expenditures, this is a 2/3 vote. Um, this is appropriate. That um that actually has changed based on originally. It wasn't clear how these capital items would be funded and the quantum of vote required to approve it depends on the funding source or whether or not the town was going to at least purchase any of the equipment. So I confirmed with Joe that the funding source in this case will be either water department retained earnings or free cash. So this will be a majority vote as opposed to a 2/3 vote, right. Correct. So should we Keep it here or move it to consent. Well, it's typically a separate one. if we were to move it to consent, we would need to identify in the actual article itself, the funding source and specific dollar amounts for each item and typically the way it's generally worded is in the warrant to give kind of maximum flexibility, so it'll say to raise an appropriate transfer from available funds or borrow a sum of money. So if you could change that, but it's, it just would make the article much, much lengthier. No, this, I think it's, it's fine. And alsoincom, have y'all did y'all vote on the revised or or the existing? We voted on the revised, including the water department truck. OK, and what was your, your recommendation? We voted favorable, 4 to 4 to nothing. Um, is the board comfortable moving forward knowing that there will be amendments and changes, but that the Fenom has voted favorably? I, I would, but I think we could just, just to make sure Can we just stroke, can you go to page 45? we look at it. Appendix D, just so we're all looking at what we're. Approve in here. Yeah, thank you. So, um, there won't be any further amendments to this, uh, item after tonight. We'll, we'll, we'll take that line out about needing a 23 vote, otherwise, we'll just record your votes. But near and dear to my heart, sidewalks and roads. We've got COA building, public safety, patton Park, libra condenser, a police cruiser, and portrait is all coming from free cash and the water truck coming from the water department. Yeah right. All right, um. So given the change, I will entertain a motion to recommend favorable action. Um, on Article 2-4, uh, assuming the amend the changes outlined here. So moved. Second. Great. Roll call starting with Rosie, Rosie Kennedy I. William W and I. Wilson I, Tom Meyers I. Caroline I. We have a 50 favorable action on 2-4. Uh, the next is 25, which is the water enterprise budget. Um, An increase Um, Final We voted favorable 4 to 0. Great. Any questions from the board on this article? This is typically on the consent agenda as well. All right. Uh, so Joe tagged us for consent, um, and I will entertain a motion to recommend favorable action on Article 2-5. Recommend favorable action on Article 2-5. Thank you. Bill Olson. Olson roll call starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy I. William W and I Bill Wal and I I Uh, all right, 50 favorable action on Article 2-5 and I sorry, Dom. moving it to the consent agenda for discussion after this. Uh, Article 2-6, uh, annual financial actions, there's a list for, uh, cemetery sale, water enterprise fund, and The Clark fund for the uh to the Conservation Trust fund, um. There is a tax rate impact. Fincom, how did you vote? Yeah, we voted favorable, 4 to 0. Great. Any questions from the board? This is another one that typically is included on the consent agenda. Thanks, Tom. This will this will reduce the tax rate. Mhm. Yeah. Yes, it reduces tax because the things that that money gets spent on don't have to be paid for from the tax. Fantastic. Um, I will entertain a motion to recommend favorable action on Article 2-6, the annual Financial actions. Make a motion to recommend favorable action on Article 2-6. 2nd, 2nd by Rosie roll call starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy I. William W and I. The Wal and I, Tom Meyers I. Caroline W I board recommends favorable action 50 and moving this, wait did we say? Did you say consent agenda, Tom? Yes, that's typical of the consent agenda and same with the next 1, 27 is is usually a consent agenda item as well. OK. I recommend fable action on Article 27. Jacket. All right. Um, Fin Fincom voted favorable for nothing. Any additional discussion for the board. Roll call starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. William Wolf and I. Bill Wolf and I. Tom Meyers I. Caroline B U I, uh, board recommends favorable action 50 and moving to. And Open trust fund. Um, All right. Uh. Mr. McGrath, how the, how the Fincom voted favorable, more than nothing on the OE. Great, um, recommend that we uh make a motion, we recommend favorable action on. OE article 2-8. Can this will go on the consent agenda? Yes, in my opinion, it can. It's, I don't recall if it's typically been in the consent agenda or not, but it's usually noncontroversial, and we just need to fill in the specific dollar amount here where it says to the $125,000. OK, yeah, so that's fine. It has a specific funding source dollar amount and noncontroversial generally so. Certainly would be appropriate to include in the consent agenda. All right, we have a motion, we do not have a 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, um. I'll start a roll call vote unless there's, wait, is there further discussion? Yeah. Roll call starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. William Wilson I. The Wolf and I, Tom Meyers I. Caroline will I select board recommends favorable action 50 and moving to the consent agenda. Uh. Next is Article 29, which is the stabilization fund. It looks like we want to remove this one. This is what we want to remove. We have, uh, there's no need to make any contribution to the stabilization fund this year. The stabilization fund is sufficiently funded, uh, to meet our minimums and our financial policies, and the budget was tight. We decided to not fund, uh, not proposed funding for this this year, so you don't have to have the article in the warrant. And the Fedcom supports that position. To remove it. Yeah, OK. Um, did you, are we at 5% basically or yeah, we're slightly. Wendy, is it exactly 5% or is it a little bit over? I can't remember. Um, we're a little over. OK. I don't have the exact percentage in front of me, but we are over. Uh, so I will entertain a motion to remove Article 2-9 All right. from the warrant. I move that we remove Article 2-9 stabilization fund from the warrant. Thank you. Uh, all right, Roll call vote, starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. Walt and I. Bill Wal and I, Tom Myers I. Caroline I, we've removed article 22-9 from the warrant. Um, Article 2-10 is the Capital stabilization fund. Uh, it's a free cash transfer. Uh, are these values all correct? Yes. All right. And is this a Um, Consent agenda item, or is this an all by itself item? We typically include this separately because it's a 2/3 vote under the town's bylaw. So, um, it's usually not part of the consent agenda. And the Fincom supports that point, and they also provide favorable action on this 4 to 0. OK, um, I will entertain a motion that like Ford recommend favorable action on Article 210. Second. Um, roll call starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy I. William Wilson I. Bill Wilson I, Tom Myers I Caroline B I. Uh, 2-10 board recommends favorable action 50. Um, Article 2-11 is the community preservation budget. Um, There's a list of projects in the appendix uh for review, um, if folks would like to see it. Um, do we have CPC and Fincom guidance here? Yeah, the Fincom voted uh favorable 4 to 0. Um, There there really aren't any new funding. Um, requests here. This is basically budget transfers and the first town hall funding that was voted on at the special town meeting. So that's the first line item, first time that line item is shown here. It's pretty significant, $340,000 for that, um. So given The size of that. I think it's appropriate, at least for year one to remind everybody that is how the town hall is being paid for. So that's just my opinion. We didn't vote on that point at the Fincom per se. So John, can I add to that? Yeah. OK. So, um, just to clarify a little bit, this is only a portion of the town hall, uh, funding. We, we did not bond for the second portion yet. We will bond in FY 26 for the second portion, so it will be greater next year. Just want to clarify that. Right, but it's, it's pretty sizable amount. Correct. So, anyway. I think it should stand as a separate item this year, um, and then we can make the same decision next year if we so choose. Review here, the appendix F is up on your screen right now. Um, the CPC did vote, um, when they voted not to put forward any parts, they voted seat 6 to nothing to, uh, approve this budget, uh, that's in front of you. So as you can see, there's a small administrative expense that, that's an annual thing, um, it allows us to help them run their meetings and conduct a business. There's a, a debt, open space and recreation. There's a debt for historic preservation, that is the town hall. There's a transfer to the community housing, um, trust. Um, and there is no transfer to historic preservation because they're the town hall that satisfies that need. So, um. That's everything this year. So current town clerk here, uh, is it possible to add the dollar amount specifically in the article or at least commit to it being in the motion because then when I go to certified vote and upload it and send it to all the places I need to send it, it just, when you just name an attachment, there's always that risk that the attachment gets lost or misplaced, and it would just make it stronger. I just don't know if there's any rules that prevent us from doing that. Huh? Um, well, in my opinion, it's, when you look at the appendix F, um, when you go down where it's in item number 1, administrative expense, it specifically spells out what the appropriation is. Same with number 2, open space and recreation Project data. It tells you specifically what the appropriations are, the dollar amounts and where they're coming from. So, that's what, in my opinion, we would be looking at as opposed to the, you know, the kind of the spreadsheet, so to speak, at the top of the page. What is at the bottom in terms of the administrative expense, open space and recreation allocation, historic preservation allocation, and then the transfer from the undesignated fund to the community housing reserve. That's, that would be what would be reported. Well that I'll get right into motion. Well, it's, it is in the motion because there's a the motion would have the reference to Appendix F. um We've learned though that in the in in past years that sometimes that stuff gets separated. And then there's no way to recreate history, um, believe me, there are a lot of missing appendixs when, uh, uh, an article in a motion only reference it. I just wish there was a way to make that much stronger because So I don't know. we've been having some challenges with that. But if that's not permissible, I understand. Well, it is permissible. The question ultimately it's a policy decision whether, you know, folks feel it's necessary or not. If the motion is to Approved the CPC budget as set forth in Appendix F. In my opinion, Appendix F clearly set forth what that budget is. If there's some sort of concern that somehow Appendix F is going to get lost in the shuffle, then, you know, somebody could make a motion that says, you know, I moved to appropriate. You could literally read the four paragraphs that are set forth on Appendix F out loud, if, if that's more preferable But in my opinion, you don't have to, but ultimately, it's a for folks. policy decision, how you want to approach it. And I did add the top uh purposely to make it clear this year because we didn't have that in the past. So I did add that those budget line items so that it was very clear. Appreciate that. Thank you. And this could be on the, in my understanding, I believe in the email that I received from the chair of the CPC was a request to include this on the consent agenda, which I think typically it has and certainly could be. If the board feels otherwise and you want it to be a standalone item, that's, that's certainly, I mean, with every other article we have the total. Can we just have the total 5434 we don't even have the total in it, right? I'm sorry. Well, it's, it's not really a total. It's, it's a there's different buckets. There's an administrative expense, but I'm just saying just have the total just so we know what the total is. We're asking for 543. 040 0 45 as outlined in the in the appendix, yeah, as outlined in the appendix. Right, but that's not how the motion, you have to, the motion would have to specifically designate which buckets the uh the monies are going into, and that's why it's set up the way it is. Wait a second. We had, we just voted on, on uh $825,000 for the for the capital expenditures, and we voted on a on a number. Well, that's gonna be because the motion on we didn't actually include a number in the capital expenditures. The article that was approved. was to raise an appropriate transfer from available funds or borrow a sum of money for, to fund the capital items. When we do the motion on the capital budget, the motion is going to specifically designate the funding source, what those funds are going to be used to purchase, um, in that case, because some of them are, you know, some of them are free cash, some of them are, um, Uh water department retainer Tom I but we're talking about the warrant is what we're talking about. How does the warrant become more concise? We know what the motion is going to be at town town hall, but we're talking about what the warrant, how the warrant's written, and Karen's concern is that the warrant isn't written concisely with the dollar amount. We have risk later. So why can't we put the dollar amount in the warrant under that line like we have it in every other article. Well, we don't have it in every other article, but it's typically not done that way. Everyone we've done, Tom, everyone we've done so far has a number in it. It says expect a request 852 125. Expect a request 2,514,566. So don't tell me that every single other one has a dollar. Right, and I'm sorry, and I don't mean to argue with you at all. I'm saying like in the actual motion, in the actual warrant article itself, there's certainly in the article, whether it's, you know, indicating what the expected request will be or if it's included in the brief summary in other places. Karen in this article, can we add something in the article request that refers to a dollar amount? Just like every other article does, even if it says I'm not sure how you would do that with, with, I mean, yeah, I'd have to think about how it's not typically done that way in not just in Hamilton but anywhere. So I'd have to think about how to do it, but I mean I guess, I guess I don't understand why you couldn't do it like every other article you expected in parentheses 500, whatever the number is 524243. Again, because it's, it's usually separated out by the buckets. Um, you know, there'll be a separate indication of what the amount is that's being allocated to the administrative expense, separate amount being allocated to the open space, historic for me. And I think Tom's understanding me. Can you translate for me? I, I, I think, I think. I, I understand what Tom's saying that this isn't just asking for 543045. It's saying that $30,295 is gonna get transferred from to the administration expense line item. $102,100 is gonna get transferred to pay the debt on the open space and recreation line item. $340,000. So that's the thing you can't just say 543 $45 because that's not actually what you're asking it to do. Can I add a little clarity? Um, Bill, it's also driven by the law and the percentages. Each line item has to do with the percentage of the law. So I think that's why it absolutely needs to be identified separately. I'm not saying don't get rid of the, don't get rid of the separate, but why can't we have a line in the actual article that talks about the total amount that is further defined in the, in the appendix, just so we have a reference and we know it's the right number when we go find the appendix later. I mean, could you add to the brief summary right at the end, please refer to the warrant appendices for a list of projects valued at 5.3045 right it's I can, I can add it into the brief summary. That's not a problem. That's all I think that's all that is. You still need the appendices. Yeah, you still need the appendices. I'm just saying to put it in. Record keeping, we don't have a defined records management system with that are digitized, so everything is paper and you go to the hanging files in the clerk's office and you have different versions and then you have amended on the floor and then and I mean I just spent a lot of hours with Mark redoing entire zoning bylaws because things got messed up by references and not being. Here with documents, so I, you know, that's fine. I, I mean we'll get it straight right now, but I, it's just it's something I'm committed to improving in the town of Hamilton because just referencing a document that everybody assumes gets attached forever to the minutes and to the certified votes that are required by the Department of Revenue and um the treasurer's office and bonding um bond council, etc. it's a risk, but I, I've said enough thank you. Joe, just add it to the Joe just add it to the, uh, just add it to the brief description brief summary. I will, I'll add a briefs. Good tomorrow. That's fine. That just doesn't live in the record, but thank you. Do we have a motion here? Yeah. I don't remember. You had a motion. I think you had an emotion. Uh, I thought I had only asked if the CPC and the Fincom had And we give you that answer or maybe we don't I make a motion favorable action on Article 2-11. And we're gonna include in the consent agenda as well. Uh, if that is the recommendation of counsel, it's one that typically has been included in the consent agenda, um, so, but it's up to you whether they're included or not. I love a good consent agenda item, Tom. It's just nothing thrills me. It's less people we have to argue with about getting up and, and making motions. Um, all right, I will take a roll call vote, uh, starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. William Wolf and I. Bill Wolf and I. On my side. Caroline B I, uh, favorable action 50 select board, and moving to consent agenda. Um, the next item is the 2-12. It's the Consolidated Elementary school project, uh, the approval of the funds, um, for the purpose of paying, paying costs for a consolidated elementary school. Um, Joe, if you could scroll down just a bit, um, Fincom. think I voted favorable 3 to 13 to 1. Um, all right, um. I see. Um, I see that there's a public comment we're we're not gonna take comment on the um warrant until we get through all the articles at which point we will um take comments before we close the warrant. So just a heads up to folks that are in the room, um. I will entertain a motion to recommend favorable action on the article. I can't see it anymore. What is it? I think 212 for the consolidated school. Let me make sure, sorry. 212, yeah, make a motion to recommend favable action article 2-12. Tom. Um, do we have any I just know that that's gonna change to 211 because you removed 29, so they'll all move up once, so that's gonna change to 211. All right. The motion in question stands for the consolidated school regardless of, OK, um, any discussion before we take a vote? So this school board, does what does the school board do? Does the school board also make a, I mean, I know they didn't vote, but what was their vote? Uh, school board initiated this by voting it and sending it to us to be in the warrant. So, um, what was their vote? Was their vote unanimous or do we know? Is there anybody from the school board on tonight? I don't think anybody school boards on. try to find out, hold on. Since it's a borrowing article um of a regional school district, it's by Understanding that the school district committee would have to have voted by at least a 2/3 vote. In favor. I'm, I'm asking the superintendent right now. OK. Tom while he's asking what happens if um They exceed the number due to, you know, increased costs throughout the projects, things of that nature. Does it have to come back again for anything over and beyond the amounts listed? Yes, that's correct. This is the amount that's the borrowing amount is the 142, 266034, and so. Um, that's the limit of their authority at this point. If they had, if they needed more funding, they would have to come back to both towns to. Get authorization. That's what I thought, yeah. I believe the school committee vote on this was 5 to 1. That's what I remember. I don't, I think it would be, I don't know what John I'm sure we're allowed to put on here and not put on here, but I think it'd be good to have it on here, but. They're part of a public committee, part of the process. He's on the phone, so. I like that recommendation, Bill. To to put the school committee, yeah. Yeah. Would they need to, uh, this is for Tom, KPla Tom, would they need to take a formal vote? A favorable action, or would it be OK to use their vote to put it on the warrant as an analogous vote for favorable action? That's a good question. I mean, I think we could, if there's any question or concern about that, I think we could just put down the, the, the Hamilton Wenham Regional School District Committee voted, you know, X to Y to authorize the borrowing. Right, it makes sense. The, uh, the superintendent is gonna double check the minutes, but he, he recalls, he believes only David Frankco voted against it, but he's gonna double check and give us the actual number. He'll send me a text in a minute. Looks like Amy, my recommendation is to have that um is there a public. A public and voted board is part of the process. Um, I recommend we put them on this list too with what they voted to push this board. Yeah, can we, can we let Amy speak and see what she has to add to the? Amy, are you, are you here? Yeah, go ahead. I'm here. Sorry, I was doing other things while I was listening. Um, yeah, our February 6th, um, meeting, I can send the link to the minutes if anybody wants to see, but our vote, um, On this item was 5 to 1. OK. Yeah, I would just make sure that the positioning of the language is clear that that was the vote to approve the funding ask, not that they took a separate favorable action vote cause I just feel like. Yes, agreed. The language, I believe the language is the same as what appears in your warrant. Um, Can I email this, these minutes to somebody? Is that helpful? Sure, send him to Joe. OK. I'll do. Don't need more emails. Joe Joe. Um, all right, uh, if there's no further questions or comments, thank you, Amy, sorry, I didn't mean to. I have, I have a couple of um comments. Oh yeah, go ahead. Sure, we talked about the brief summary and we talked about including the actual um award from the MSBA which represents 35% of the total cost. I think it was. So we had talked about putting that into the brief summary because um the 51.28% of eligible approved project cost is not It, it would be clear to voters to understand that the MSPA is paying 35% of the entire project. And we did talk about this. Yeah, the 51.28 right, is the state state statute, but up to, but yes, we're expecting only funding of 35%, right? So we should, we should make that clear. There's also a couple of typos in the brief summary, um, authorized, there's a type one authorized, um, we're missing an E on finance for Hamilton finance, um, and then it says potential tax impacts as opposed to potential. I don't know if those matter, but cool. Come on little Coke. Uh, if you're on an iPad, we ask that you please mute yourself. Um, all right, do we feel prepared to take, did we take a motion? Yes, we have a motion and we have a second. Uh, are we ready to take a vote for favorable action here? Bill, Bill, you had said you were gonna hold some of your school comments until the warrant discussion. Is this anything we talk about or not for this discussion? Um, well, the only thing that really relates to this, well, there's two really when I, I believe there is a meeting, a tour of, uh, Winthrop school on the 31st of this month at 6:30. So anyone, it'll be similar to the cutlet tour, so just, um, you know, March 31st. Uh, and remind everyone too about the tax calculator that is on the district website, uh, to go in there and they can personalize what the impact of their tax rate will be. So those are probably the two that would relate to this bill. Thanks. I mean, Caroline, just, you know, once you wanna go on record this, you know, as we vote, right? The reason I'm voting for this is because after a lot of thought, reviewing a lot of that, I, I just personally, I think that uh we need to invest in the school, and this is the most equitable solution for the school. I have all of our students go to the same elementary school with the same modern amenities and try to split up our students amongst 3 different schools at 3 different. Three different levels of renovation and, and, and who knows how many votes get passed in the future if we pass the first vote for, you know, if this thing gets failed and then we have to go back and start from scratch and do one school at a time. I just can't imagine we're gonna pass 3 schools. So, I'm voting yesterday. I think this is a really hard effort that's been done over the years to get a really equitable and, and successful plan together to make sure our students have, uh, you know, have a, have a good experience and, and building for the future. So, um, so I'm voting for this. Recommended favorable action. I appreciate that. Um, any other comments, then I'll take an official vote. Um, I would echo. Um, Bill's comments, I will say that, you know, there's been a lot of talk about renovations, and it is never, to my mind that it's never been the case that renovations were not an option in some form or fashion. Um, it's that renovations that met the goals of, um, the schools, but also the goals of the town, which is where we represent. Um, I don't see a way, you know, when I got on this board. I remember talking to a lot of fixed income seniors, and everybody kept saying like, we need more revenue, we need to drive more revenue, we need more money, we need to be able to pay for these things. And what we've learned over, what I've learned over the last 3 years is that um The silver bullet of revenue is not coming. Commercial development will not save us, even if we got a Trader Joe's. Um, the tax rates here and the, the road to hoe to increase revenues in this town and take the burden off taxpayers, in my mind, does not exist at scale. And so the next option is to start consolidating and making decisions now that create, like, less and less expense in And I do not believe that we as a town can afford to maintain 3 the long term. schools in perpetuity. Um, I do not think that our children, if they choose to live here in the future, can afford to maintain these 3 schools plus the two schools that we already have in perpetuity. I think we're constantly looking for ways to be more efficient. We talk about, you know, public safety and shared services and regionalized services, and in the spirit of trying to find ways to save people money in the long term, I do think that we need to consolidate our schools. Uh, it doesn't mean that I don't love small schools, I don't believe in them. I've talked to John McGrath atnay about this. I've, I've talked to the, the pro and the anti-group and when I look at from the select board perspective, our job to be fiscally responsible and build a future that we can maintain, um, knowing that taxpayers will take the burden of this no matter what, I don't see another option besides consolidation. So, that is also my perspective. Yeah, and I, and I believe, you know, this is, this is definitely an article that, you know, it requires 2/3, right, twice, uh, town meeting and then the vote again, uh, at the election. But this is a personal decision. I think, you know, I, I worry greatly about, um, you know, I, I worry about the teacher's contracts and funding that. future costs. I worry about Buker. We haven't talked about Buker and, and, and fixing that, you know, for. Uh, for pre-K and K, um, the roof there I know needs work. There's probably other work we're gonna that'll probably be next for SOI. We've got the high school roof. I think that is already, uh, in with the MSBA. Um, so my point here is I support it as well. I do think we need to start, and I think in the long run, if we consolidate with the enrollment that we have, you know, we will save money in the long run versus handling each school individually. But I do think it's critically important. That when we talk about this, we talk about the big picture and the 5 to 10 year capital plan that the schools are gonna need, uh, uh, which will impact the tax rate ongoing. It's not just this. We've got the, the fields that were voted in, you know, a year or so ago, and that, that money's coming in. We've got, uh, a lot of other, other capital projects that I'd like to learn more about that are coming up for the schools. So I just want to make sure, you know, and hope that those are discussed, you know, at town meeting even. And let people make an informed decision. The the vote at the ballot box bill is only 51%. Oh, it's not 2/3 as well. No. No, correct. Neither one of these votes is 2/3 actually. So the, uh, the debt exclusion ballot question is a majority vote. This is a, it's an approval of a regional school district borrowing as opposed to a, a straight borrowing by the town and the school, regional school district committee is required to vote by 2/3 to. Authorize the borrowing, but the approval of that vote by the towns that make up the district is only a majority vote pursuant to general laws Chapter 71, Section 16 d. So it's just a majority. Let me, let me just, let me just this, you're saying the vote at town hall is only excuse me, a town meeting is only a majority vote. That's correct, yes, because it's a, it's an approval of a regional school district borrowing. So it's generalized chapter 71, Section 16. But I I I believe we voted 2/3 for the fields last year. Am I incorrect in that? I don't recall what the specific um was because that was also a dead exclusion. um, again, I don't recall, I'd have to take a look back at it, but under Chapter 7116, it is a majority vote, but I can take a look back to see what we did last year and why it was different if it was at all. And that's, and you're saying this, Tom, because it's a regional school district. Regional school district, correct, right, um, by statute. The regional school district Committee has to vote by a 2/3 vote, but they, and I'll confirm that again, but Uh, under Chapter 71, Section 16, it is a majority vote to approve a borrowing by exclusion was a 2/3 vote. It's if it's a town borrowing, so if, if it was a situation where the town was borrowing money. Well, the town is going to be paying for this. I'm not sure I understand how it's a borrowing is technically done here by the regional school district. Um, and so the regional school committee has to vote by 2/3. If the borrowing entity was the town as opposed to the regional school district, then It is a 2/3 vote. Under chapter 44 section 7 or 8. OK, but you will, you will. I'll double check, sure, of course, yes, I definitely will, but um. Cause was the borrowing for the fields, Rosie, was that by the school district or was it by the friend, like the, the group it was still by the district that was the that was the district. And Joe, am I correct in my recollection that it was a 2/3 vote? I, I, that feels very rosy, but I don't, I'd have to go back and look at it to be sure. I'm not 100% sure. All right, well, we can certainly follow. Yeah, I can, I will confirm that. Um, well, the good news is it passed by 51% if we voted 2/3. That's true. That's true. Um, I'm good at math. I will take a roll call vote on this now, starting with Rosie. So I'll just make my brief comment that I think this is an extremely financially irresponsible decision and my vote is an unequivocal no. William Wilson, I Bill Wilson and I Tom Meyers, yes. Caroline WI, uh, select board votes for one to recommend favorable action on article. Whatever 2121 it'll be 2-11. It'll be 21. 29 out so everything moves up and up. So much enthusiasm for that, Joe. Just so much enthusiasm. I don't make it clear in the record. I don't want anybody to question it. I'm shocked this is in a 2/3 vote though with this much I'm shocked. money, this much impact on the community that allow, allow a board just be the 2/3 and because because the schools because the school voted 2/3. That's why. The school board did, but yeah, it's weird. I don't know why. But it, but it's not the school board is gonna be paying for this. I agree with Rosie on this one. All right, well Tom one of the biggest decisions this town will ever make. Tom and Joe. Yes, we will confirm. Y'all will confirm. Um, all right. The next is Article 3-1, uh, which is the HEO Act. Uh, we may recall that there was some conversation the last time we reviewed this about the inclusion of certain clauses or articles, and I think it's all been cleaned up and represents the final version here, correct? You scroll down a little bit. sorry, scroll down. This one got cleaned up and it's good. Um, finance committee, can you please tell us your where you. I don't know what just happened. Yeah, not sure what's there, um. Yeah, we voted uh favorable on the Hero Act. 4404 4 to 4 to nothing. Yeah, I make a motion that the select board recommend favorable action for Hero Act Article 3-1. 2nd. Great. Any additional discussion here by the board? This could also be included on the consent agenda if you'd like to do so. In my mind, Tom. Great. Consent agenda added to the list, we'll review it at the end. Uh, if no additional conversation, I'll take a roll call vote starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. William Wilson I. Wilson I, Tom Meyers I. Caroline Bou I select board 50 recommends favorable action on the Hero Act. Uh, next is Article 3-2, which is the extension of the Cutler lease, um. I, we discussed this ad nauseam in our last meeting, uh, Fincom, where did you land? Um, we actually didn't vote on this. That's really disappointing for us, but we will, we will on Wednesday. OK. Well, they voted for the school, so my guess is they want a lease. Yeah, I think one requires it. Yeah, I agree. I recommend this. I make a motion of select recommend favorable action on Article 32 for extension of lease color school. Do I have a 22nd. Uh, any additional discussion? This can also be included on the consent agenda if you wish I don't know if this, if it's, you know, kind of tied with the to do so. school project if there's some discussion that will occur, but it could be included if you wanted to. I'm apt to leave it for the optics of this vote. I just feel like we should leave it unless anybody feels differently. Hey Caroline, this is John. I wanted to correct my earlier comment. We actually did vote on it. So I apologize. So we did vote for the uh favorable action on the extension, sorry, 440 yeah, 40, yeah, we, yeah we, yeah, sorry. All right, um, roll call vote, starting with Rosie. Uh, Rosie Kennedy, I. William Wal and I. Bill Wal and I. Tom Meyer's eye. Caroline bull you I select board votes 50. Uh, for recommends favorable action on 3.2. Um, moving to 3-3, this is the revolving fund, the new spending limit, we talked about this last time, our, our wreck. The Department does such an amazing job with their programming that they need more money in the revolving fund. Um, then calm, I'm assuming this was a 40. Correct. Great, um, I'll entertain emotion. I make a motion to recommend favorable action on Article 33. This could also be included on the consent agenda as well if you wanted to do so. I like that idea. Does do people feel OK with moving this? Not all, not all at once, everyone. All right, Joe, put it on the list to talk about at the end. Uh, did I get a second on that motion? 2. Great. Roll call starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I, Bill Wilson I. Bill Wal and I, I'm Iras I. Caroline B U I slick board recommends favorable action 50 on the revolving fund. Oh, down. OK. Next 34, uh acquisition of easements on Woodbury Street. Um, I see a highlighted section here. Yeah, this has been, uh, it's been adjusted. What's there I think is correct now. We had originally had a blank there for we had wrong street address and then we had a blank on the uh uh the assessor's map a lot. So that citation is filled in. I'll just take the highlight out tomorrow. OK. Um, I will entertain emotion. I fable, I, I, I make a motion that the select board recommend favorable action article 3-4. Second. Yeah. This is one that could also be included on the consent agenda, and I didn't recall that the Fincom give their recommendation as well. I just didn't take that down. Yeah, the Fin didn't vote. We're pending the corrections that Joe made, so we'll be voting on this one on Wednesday night. OK, thank you. Um, I'm fine to put this on the discussion list for consent agenda at the end. Uh, if there's no further discussion, I'll take a roll call vote starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. Play W I. Bill Wilson and I. Tom Meyers I. Caroline B U I select board recommends favorable action 50 on 3-4. Can you scroll for me, Joe? Yeah. We're into the zoning articles now. So fun. OK, um. So the first one is Article 4-1, which is the zoning bylaw Amendment for the GPOD. Um, this was introduced at the last meeting we discussed with Marnie. There has since been much discussion, um, On this item Is there any additional discussion we would like to have? Uh, as a board. I do have, I do have some questions because I, I have gotten some questions about this particular bylaw. While it's a small change, it has a big impact in terms of limiting our ability for multi-family housing in the future. Um, and I just wonder if anybody else on the board has, has heard about this, that it's, it's not an innocuous change in that sense, or if we have anybody from the planning board on the line. I've, I've gotten a lot of negative pushback on this. So, I'm curious how their public meeting went. Yeah my director is here. Oh, I see Mark Connors. Mark, can you come off for a moment? Sure, um, can everyone hear me? Yes, yes, right, uh, so this is the one, article that the planning board, the only one of the articles that the planning board had. Um, receive feedback on at the public hearing, there was some opposition to this article. This would have the impact of reducing residential density in the um areas of town that fall within the groundwater protection overlay district. Um, a lot of those areas already have an 80,000 square foot minimum lot size, so those areas wouldn't be affected, but if you're in a zoning district that has a lower requirement, uh, you would be affected by this. So that's. Go ahead. Um, no, I'll wait my turn. I, so my question is, were any changes made based on the public feedback? No. No, the planning board discussed it, um, and they voted unanimously to advance it to the warrant. There was some discussion about revisiting this, um, potentially modifying the future. Um, there are ways you can protect groundwater resources without necessarily having to just impact residential density. So that was a discussion, uh, the plan was open to having, and I think, you know, they're interested in kind of revisiting this in the future, but their feeling was. You know, they should advance this now to have something in place um before that happens. I see that Beth from is here. Beth, can you speak on behalf of the planning board? Um, I can give you a little more, um, information. Um, Jonathan Poo actually spoke to the history of the wording, and this was the original wording of the bylaw. Um, and I think they were wanting to return to the original wording of the bylaw, and they're not really sure if and when the bylaw wording changed. So I just wanted to share that part, that this was historically when this first was passed, like in the 80s or 90s, um this was the actual wording that was there. So just thought that might be helpful to understand. Mark Johnson, were you at the public hearing? Thank you. Yeah, I pretty much was the main opposition to this, um, so the, um, Uh, the, the characterization of how it was at the planning board meeting was not about the zoning implications across all of town. Uh, it was about the fact that they were trying to correct, uh, uh, uh, something they thought was a mistake that was made in 1985, uh, when we rewrote our zoning, groundwater protection zoning in 2000. Uh, we've now had this groundwater GPOD for 25 years, and the mistake has not had any implications or consequences. What what they claim it to be a mistake. Uh, however, it was highly debated at the time, so there's no, um, it's one person's opinion that it's a mistake, um, that Jonathan Poo is recalling a conversation with someone that claimed it to be a mistake, but the The whole action of applying it, um, was not. They also justified the, um, the bylaw as a way to protect groundwater. However, um, uh, the consequences of it are, are not as, uh, Director Connors just mentioned, you know, mostly. In our larger zones. It is, um, I sent Joe an email and I can sort of share my screen as well. I've, I've circled and bowled the GPOD sections, and it is basically from Union Street all the way through Asbury all the way down to the Topsfield line. I it is some of that is, is 2 acre zoning, but a great deal of it is actually. Um, less than a quarter acre, so it's non-conforming. We have a quarter acre minimum zoning in our, in our, in our district, and it also applies basically to the entire Bridge Street all the way through tobacco, including Forest Street and everything else. So it includes huge zones. It applies to our single. Family zones as well. So basically it is saying this is a, you, you, you have a zoning district that is 1 acre, half acre, or 2 acre and is moot if it's in the GPOD because it becomes a 2 acre minimum by this simple two word change. Uh, no, the ADU is not yet implied, not doesn't doesn't, um Does that include ADUs? has not yet been implemented. Uh, it's part of what we're talking about. The, the ADU does not carve out the GPOD. It is clear that the state, if we were to, um, contest the ADU, um, the state would probably say no, groundwater doesn't apply and it doesn't, but we, we, that we would have to go through a legal process to be assured that the GPOD doesn't apply because the GPOD is an overlay district that applies to all areas. It applies to all of my question. So if we pass this and then we pass an ADU. There's a chance that someone would go to build an ADU where they'd be in the GPOD and they would not be able to do that by right without a legal. It, it is, the GPOD makes it a special permit from the So the planning board, no, they, they may or may not. planning board. Each planning board has different anti-development approaches. So it is up to each planning board and is within their authority to be aggressive or not aggressive as they implement our special permits. Um, but the, at the, at the one of the reasons they are advocating this is they claimed that there was and there was confusion and ambiguity, and I pointed out to them in a memo that in fact there wasn't confusion and ambiguity. um, it is pretty simply an anti-development approach and, and for the record, I am not in the GPOD. I'm not, I know there's no point here. Um, the, so they would be creating. Ambiguity in the ADU, uh, there is another level of protection that we have in that we have no zoning other than single family homes anywhere in town. So if we are really going to do higher density, we need to put in place the zoning to do it. The town meetings that approve whatever future condo cluster housing we have, whatever we do can make sure that our groundwater is properly protected within the zoning. That we put in place so we actually don't need the groundwater protection as much for future zoning that we can that we can improve so the whole idea that this is a. 40 year old mistake that we have been living for the last quarter century, um, it, it, there's no imminent threat, there's no imminent risk. They're trying to correct it, and it basically changes the zoning in town for no net immediate benefit. Um, and it, it just, and I actually, if, if it is not passed over, I intend. Fully with one sentence to offer an amendment on ground meeting on an ATM floor, um, and if you'd like, I can tell you how simple I'll just read it to you, and I'll tell you how simple it would be to make sure that our groundwater protection properly protects our groundwater by not doing this. And my my, my amendment will be. And I'll run it past legal counsel. Um, it's any proposed development that falls within the GPOD, which has more than 4 dwelling units per 80,000 square feet of land area, which is our minimum zone, we have tons of spaces that do that. So which is more than 4 dwelling units per 80,000 square feet of land area, shall be required by the applicable permitting authority to use engineered septic systems so that the town's groundwater is properly protected. So basically, If we have condors or cluster or any type of density. It will automatically be required to have engineered septic system or some other solution that would be acceptable to the planning board. That is all you need to protect the groundwater. Uh, if you, if the goal is to protect the groundwater, that does it. Changing building lot to dwelling unit causes all sorts of other problems. So did you recommend that to the planning board during the public hearing? Can I just interrupt? I wasn't able to speak on the school consolidation issue, and I'm not sure somebody asked for a planning board member or Mark Connors to speak. I'm not really sure why we're opening up the floor to have a conversation when the chairman of the planning board is not in attendance. Yeah, it doesn't seem like it's actually being, um, fairly. Uh, yeah, I apologize. I was trying to understand what was spoken about at the um at the public hearing. I had heard that there was that there was a lot of opposition, but I had also heard that no changes were made. So I was just trying to understand like I. It's a, it's a fair point, but the other fair point is we were gonna take this off of the warrant last week, and the only reason we left it on the warrant was because they were having a meeting, and we need to hear the feedback from that meeting to vote on. So this is a completely different discussion. This is something that's been on, on our, on our agenda for 2 This is a brand new thing, and we specifically said we're or 3 years. gonna take it off the warrant. Unless the planning board comes and tells us what happened because they had no public meeting as of when we voted we did have a public meeting on this, right, and we did and we voted unanimously on this after, after we put it on the warrant, not before we did, yeah, when, when we met last time to go through the warrant, the public process hadn't happened yet, and then we were going to get feedback from the planning board on the public process and the changes that were made from the public process. To your point, we don't have representation from the planning board, so I was just trying to understand what happened at that public meeting. Well, I was told by the planning board chair that it was unanimously voted to. It was unanimous, yeah, to, to retain that we didn't, we did take the feedback, yep, and we still decided unanimously to vote for it. All right, so, um, I, I, I, I'll be honest with you, like, I don't know what to do with this. I just to note, Marie Crouch is here. Oh great, Marnie, I see. Uh, to make it clear that we did have a public hearing. there were two people who attended who spoke against the change to the groundwater uh Protection Overlay District, Rick, Rick Mitchell and Mark Johnson. And basically, the decision was unanimous by the planning board that the best way to protect the groundwater overlay district was to change the language of the existing bylaw, and that is because the denser the housing that is in the groundwater protection overlay district, the more likelihood there is to be problems from seepage from failed septic systems. and, and the like. So, to say that what we have done is not protective of the groundwater protection overlay district is not true and that the planning board recognizes that that bylaw does need to be amended to take into account new technologies, but one of our members, Pat Norton, spoke to that very issue because he had attended a meeting of the um Ipswich uh Watershed um uh Association and uh the Ipswich Watershed Task Force is undertaking, uh, uh, an effort to look into a new Treatment systems and, and the like, and it may be that we will get assistance in evaluating that bylaw, but in the meantime, we wanted to take action to protect the groundwater overlay district. I mean, as we all know, the, the amount of land in Hamilton that's available for development is, is limited. And because it is limited, we wanna make sure that that land is protected and the development that takes place is the the best development that can be had, not just any development. And so I, I speak for the entire planning board. We considered this, um, this amendment, um, we've considered it for quite some time. We went through the process. Can I ask you a question? Can I, can I ask you a question? there's a discussion here be more helpful to be a discussion. Um, so are there currently lots that would be nonconforming that are current lots right now we voted for this. We would change the aspect of the lot because right now it's a quarter acre lot or half acre lot. So we're changing zoning for lots that already exists. Is that correct or incorrect? No. I thought I heard, I thought I heard someone say that they're half acre lots within these areas that will now not be buildable because they're only 40,000 square feet. That's not my understanding. I mean, the, the, the, the overlay district, it overlays uh whatever the underlying zoning is, whether it's R1A or RA it's an overlay district and so it doesn't any existing house in the groundwater protection overlay district is probably grandfathered in, but it's not taking away anyone's. So if you take, if you tear the house down and file a permits to build a new house, they're not gonna, they're not gonna be take that right, it's not gonna be taken away from them. Well, that if there's a pre-existing non-conforming use, that's one thing. If you have a house in the groundwater protection overlay district, and you tear it down, uh, you know, then the, then the overlay district would apply, right, so all these people that have happy. laws aren't allowed to tear their house down and build a new house. Well, have you read the entire groundwater protection overlay district? Do you, do you realize what the intent of that groundwater? I know what the intent is, but I'm saying, are we taking people's rights away from them? They own Martin, I'm asking you a question simple. I'm asking for, for a big theory. Are we taking someone's rights away from them? They have a half acre lot and they tear their house or build Are we saying they can't do that now? a house. I that's a yes or no answer. It's a hypothetical question. I it happens all the time. Well, no, I don't have the map in front of me of the ground. I'm asking for a map. I'm saying, does this new bylaw prevent someone to tear down a house and build a new house if their property is less than 80,000 square feet? It's not a hypothetical. It happens all the time. I just want, I, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm just asking a yes or no question. Well, I'm not sure that the groundwater protection overlay districts are so extensive that this is going to create a huge problem in Hamilton for homeowners. I think my question is the whole town of Hamilton is covered by the groundwater protection Overlay District. My, my question is what I was told was that this was a backdoor, and again, I'm just asking the question, a backdoor that if a developer came in to buy two single-family lots and wanted to put multi-family housing, they would not be able to do that anymore because of this. Because if you need 80,000 square feet, just like in the RA district, you need 80,000 square feet. And, and the, the, the purpose here is to promote the very purposes that are set forth in the groundwater protection uh uh overlay district. It's not, it's not to, to take away rights that developers might have. It's, it's to promote what's in the groundwater protection of the Lake District, and you see all, I don't have it in front of me because, frankly, I was, um, I, uh, I was away and I was unaware of this meeting, I should have been, but I wasn't. Um, so I don't have that in front of me, but, you know, there are all sorts of things that you cannot do in the groundwater protection of the Lake District. I mean, it's, it's, it's It's our groundwater. We have enough water problems, you know, with, with drought and everything else and that, and, and our water capacity and, and this is a way to protect it while we try and look at, uh, a, a revised. I got, I got it back. I might get back. I completely 100% support what you're saying. I'm asking a very simple question that I've been giving misinformation. I need someone to clarify. If someone has a lot within the GPOD that's less than 80,000 square feet and they want to tear their house down and build a new house, does this change prevent them from doing something they could do before the change? It's a very simple question. Is that a yes or a no? I just need, I, I could be wrong, but I want to understand it. The short answer is I don't know, because they, you know, I would have to, uh, it's, it's in some sense a legal question, but I would think that you would have to get some type of variances to do that with this change. But I mean, when, when the planning board considered this, it was, it was, it was not, you know, in the context of a single um Uh, homeowner and, and that was not brought to anyone's attention during the public hearing. So to the extent that Mr. Johnson is raising this now, he did not raise that that argument before the planning. No, I, I, I, I told you guys that you were changing the zoning and it was an anti-development approach, um, and so that's. You also said that You know, you understood the, um, the, the purpose of what the planning board was doing, and you suggested if we wanted to protect the ground we're not gonna have a debate, but I'm just trying to get. I don't have a debate, but I'm trying to just get clarity on the interpretation because once again, we, we always get into this where we always agree to do corrective bylaws, right? I say we need to be, we need, we need to have the bylaw to be complying with state statute and state law and federal law. We need to change spelling mistakes and we need to change and we all, we're always 100% for that. It's when we make substantive changes to it that affects people's rights to the property they own. I'm trying to figure out if this is a correcting errors and making grammatical changes in state and make it consistent with state, with, with state law, or are we really changing things. Literally gonna vote to change things and we, we only had a public meeting like in the last week. Like I hate rushing things. Like I applaud the, I applaud the planning board moving and stuff forward, but I just hate rushing things to a, to a vote on town meeting floor when we don't even know you, and you can't even answer a question that people have. Ask me, and I can't answer the question. So when you can't ask questions like how do I vote to put this on a warrant if we can't even answer some simple questions. My understanding is that that you as a select board can vote vote that you don't support this bylaw, but it's not my understanding that you can unilaterally take this article off the warrant. You can, you as a select board can vote. 3 to 5 or, you know, 5 to 0 or 0 to 5, whatever way you want to not support this bylaw amendment. But I don't think you can unilaterally say we're not going to put this to the voters. Tom? What's our, what's our right here? I thought we vote on what goes on the warrant. Yeah, um, I'd have to take a look to see if there's anything specifically in your town bylaws that says otherwise, but the only thing that needs to the select board controls the warrant. It is the select board's warrant. The only thing that has to be on the warrant is a petitioned article by a group of citizens pursuant to General law Chapter 39, Section 10. And for an annual town meeting, that would be a petitioned article that includes 10 or more signatures like we have, which is the last article on the draft warrant that is before you this evening. Or for a special town meeting warrant, um, 100 signatures or more, but as far as what your policy may have been and things like that is, is, uh, you know, I don't know what typically the practice has been, but from a legal perspective, unless there's a bylaw that says otherwise, what I can tell you is The select board controls the warrant and the select board decides what goes on the warrant and with the exception of petitioned articles. Um, which have to be on the warrant. It's up to the select board generally to make that determination. Well, it is my understanding that the language of the groundwater protection overlay District was, was consistent with the change that the planning board made and that it was amended at some point in time, uh, to read the way it And the planning board is attempting to go back to um uh does now. the, the, um, language that was originally in the groundwater protection of the Lake District. We were not able to document that because those records would be buried. In, in the town hall, um, the, uh, we're just not able to get, get that information. But, um, one of our members, Jonathan Poo has, was familiar with some of the background here and, and it was his belief that that was the case. You know what, I'd like to make a comment here. The GPOD was enacted in the 80s, um and the intent was, as has been stated, to protect our groundwater. Um the reason that the language per dwelling unit was put in there was because at the time this this bylaw was um Enacted, there was no contemplation of multi-family units. So it was intended, and I do remember this being an argument um with the planning board, oh gosh, maybe 10 years ago, and it was very strongly stated that it was enacted, meant to be 11, Dwelling unit per 80,000, but it was changed to it, it, they use the word building um erroneously and it just kind of has morphed to mean well it could be wrong. I disagree with you. I, I, I disagree with you. And I'm just give and, and if it's OK with you, I would like to give my perspective on this. And so that's what I understand was the case, and it's unfortunate that we don't have records that are available to let us know exactly what was intended, but that's the history that I was given about this, and I know we had this same discussion. about these same issues 10 years ago. So, I'm just giving you my perspective. As I said, uh, Jonathan Poo was, um, you know, very well acquainted with Dave Thompson, who was responsible for I think for the, for the groundwater protection over Lake District, his company at the time. And so that's where Jonathan Poo got, you know, his, uh, information that the original language is, is What the planning board is proposing to revert to. So, Caroline, this is my issue with the process here is that we're debating things, we shouldn't be debating the day we're supposed to finish the warrant cause we didn't, it's just not enough time. So I, I'm At a loss on what to do here. So, um, there's two options, uh, We, do we have a motion and a second on the table for favor, favorable action, Joe? Or no, I, I, I, no, we never got that far. OK, so we either continue and we, uh, take a vote, uh, where we can either express our displeasure either by um one of those three options, uh, favorable action, unfavorable action, or abstaining, or you're welcome to make a motion to remove it from the warrant if that's something that we feel we have legal precedent to do and the board feels strongly about doing it, um. I, for from, from my perspective, I would say um. I, I, I don't know the right answer here. I, I don't doubt that this is returning to a pre-intention of, you know, what it says here, um. I, I'm, I'm wondering about the timing. I'm wondering why now, I'm wondering why the urgency. I am concerned that this means that if somebody wanted to put a two-family. In their quarter acre lot, we're saying that they can no longer do that. They can only have a single family which reinforces this sort of bar against multifamily housing, um, my phone, but I, I'm more worried about, I'm more worried about conforming lot people that have currently conforming laws that will be now non-conforming. That's what I mean like that all, you know, if somebody says, you know. I'm gonna take this house and I'm gonna turn it into a two-family, I'm gonna tear it down. Suddenly we're saying like, no, you're not. You don't have 80,000 square feet. You're not doing that. I want to protect the GPOD so don't once again support Marty's efforts to protect the GPO. I just don't know this is the way we do this in this town is to, is to rush things like this and change people's properties that they spend a lot of their life savings on. So I just don't, you know, it's wanting to save GOP I think to change someone's investment. Well, it's very interesting that we noticed out a public hearing, and all these people who were talking to you didn't attend the hearing. Well, I mean that's town government. Yeah, but Marnie, that's, that's, but you had one, you had one, you had one public, I mean, so people don't make one meeting doesn't mean no bylaw gets pushed through. I mean, usually these things should The change zoning bylaws should be multiple discussions. I just don't know how many guys have had, but I'd like to, sorry, when you're done, I'd like to recognize John McGrath. He's had his hand up. Yeah, um, let me just play this back. Uh, we voted favorably for this, but it happened to be the same night as the public hearing. I think what's in the best interest of the town. is to Allow all interested parties. A chance to reexamine this, um. And give everyone a chance to go deeper. So I would recommend uh we're gonna reconsider this on Wednesday night and revote on it. Um, my recommendation at that meeting will be, um, I don't think we all understand. Enough about it to satisfy each of our interests. So anyway, I think what's in the best interest is to is to bring this back in June after we have some time to um go deeper, and I, and I apologize, I wasn't at the public hearing, so I didn't get. Anyway, I make a motion, I make a motion to remove Article 4-1 from the warrant. Wait a second. 2nd. 2nd from Tom. Uh, Mark, I see your hand is raised. What's up? Right, just, I think someone raised ADUs, um, so I want to clarify that we've been told that we can apply this to ADUs. So, um, if you were, if you follow the, we cannot, we cannot, we cannot require a non-conforming lot to, um, have stricter requirements, so you would still be allowed to have any ADU if you fell within the zone. And uh to Bill's questions about non-conforming, I would just point out that the existing language is uh to have an 80,000 square foot building lot. So, um, most of those situations, um, they would already be nonconforming, so I, I don't think there'd be a huge change in um The process for, for folks that are in those districts. Obviously, if they want to subdivide, that'd be different. They would no longer be allowed to do that. Mhm. And I appreciate that, but once again, I heard you don't I want, I need to, to be, for me to be comfortable putting think so. this on the warrant. I need a more definitive answer from either you or Marnie about how this affects people who have lots of less than 80,000 square feet in the GPOD. And until we have that concrete answer, I don't feel comfortable putting on the, on the warrant. I 100% support. I support what you're doing. I just need the answers to, to answer to people. If I don't have it, I can't put it on the warrant. I, I'm also maybe there's a question for Marty, like, I'm, I'm wondering. Like why our approach is to say, if you don't meet these requirements, the answer is no, instead of here are the solutions for how to do this. If it's less than this. Like it just doesn't feel like there's a lot of like innovation or creativity or flexibility. It's just sort of saying like, if you don't meet this, the answer is no. Well, the, the, the way the groundwater protection overlay district works now is, is that, well, for example, You have, uh, Canner Book and Patton Ridge. They're, they're multi you know, their condo developments in the groundwater Protection Overlay district. Now, they were, they were subject to a special permit, so there were, there was the opportunity to require uh storm water and wastewater systems that were ostensibly, uh, designed well enough to take care of that increased seepage. But if you didn't have a special permit, There would be no ability for a single family house um to require any level of a sophisticated system to protect the groundwater from that type of seepage or just maybe uh well even ADUs, I mean that that has that potential. Got it. OK. So that that's the, that's the rationale. So, so Mark and, and Rick when they came before the planning board are thinking in terms of Uh, developments like Canter Brook and, and Patton Ridge, but of course, they were, they were subject to a special permit. If you do not have that, then there's no ability to really oversee how the uh the groundwater would be sufficiently protected. All right, so we have a motion in a second to remove this. I think we need to take a vote here depending on how that vote goes, then we decide. They're the next step. So I'm going to take a roll call vote, and I'm gonna start with Rosie Kennedy. Yeah, I support the planning board in this. They voted unanimously. I vote to not take it off the warrant. Did I say that correctly? She voted. I'm sorry. Yeah, OK. I, I do struggle, I do struggle with this because I promote what the final board is doing, but I don't feel comfortable bringing it to why I say they should bring it in June when there's more answers and more clarity. So I vote that yes, we're moving the warrant and move it to the June meeting. OK. So it's an I from Bill, uh, Mr. Wilson. Uh, I think a lot of work's been done. A process was followed. I'm not comfortable removing it either. I think this debate can happen on the floor and and it can go down on the floor if if people feel like their questions aren't answered, and I would encourage the planning board to make sure they have answers to all those questions for for town meeting, but I'm a no to removing it. Mr. Myers. Uh, Tom Meyers I. You would like to remove it. Yes, for removing, yes, um. All right. Um, There goes my abstain. Thanks y'all. Um, well, you could have stayed and then it wouldn't pass and it would stay on the warrant, and the voters would get to. Debate and decide. Oh, even if it's a gridlock, it, it goes to the favor the motion is is. It is because we we because we already voted it for it to be on the warrant. My, my challenge is that Even when we ask the public to engage, uh, they do not engage, uh, until they realize that something affects their backyard, which they won't realize until later. Um, and I think that the place to have this conversation, and I think, Mark, you know, you have things that you feel you can and should do on the floor, things you should bring up, um. And so if the if the idea is to delay this because we think that we're going to change it back to building versus dwelling, I don't think that's going to happen. The planning board has voted unanimously, so while I don't know that I disagree with this, um, I'm not going to vote to take it off the warrant because I don't know. I feel like we'll spin our wheels between now and June, and nothing will change and it's gonna go to town meeting anyway. um, so I'm a no. So it stays on the warrant, um, and now I need a motion to Uh, yeah, I need a, a motion to recommend favorable action on 41. The moved. All right, um, roll call vote, this an I is favorable action, a nay is non-favorable action, starting with Rosie. Um, Caroline, did you get a second? Oh sorry, I thought you were the 2nd. Who did someone's 2nd? I'll second it. Wilson. All right, Rosie. So please, sorry, so much discussion. I am voting in favor or not in favor, correct? Yes, yes, ma'am. I vote in favor. Great. Awesome. Wilson, Bill Wilson, yes. Tom, abstain. Yeah, uh, I abstain as well. So we have a 212. The motion, the motion of favorable action passes. Yeah, but last week it doesn't really pass. You just put the, you just put the tension, the abstention, it passes 2 to 1. So no, it passes, but we always put the vote on there. We put 212. We stopped doing, we stopped doing that 2 years ago. Because it's, it's a vote of the board that matters. Those who vote, that's right. from my memory, yeah. So Joe, how do you want it to reflect in the in the 21. I make a motion that we can say 212. I make a motion we put our actual vote on Article 1 under the select board. It'll it'll it'll say favorable action 212. OK, that's fine. What you do, right? OK, yeah, that's what I thought it said, um, the select board and then it has in parentheses 212 we got out of actually identifying. No, that's fine. I'm sorry, Joe, I misunderstood you. Yes, I agree with what you're doing. Yeah, that's fine. OK, thank you. All right. Good God. All right, this is such an exciting one. I just can't wait till the meeting. Um, all right. Next we have, um, 4-2, which I believe we're going to remove from the warrants. And, and I believe that the planning board asked us to remove this as well, so. All right, so I will entertain a motion to remove Article 4-2, the zoning bylaw Amendment, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.4 from the warrant. I move that we remove articles 4.1.2 and 4.2.4 from the one. It's it's Article 42 that you remove the motion so you don't have to call the sections. Uh, do I have a second? Second. All right, um, roll call starting with Rosie. To remove this. Yes, ma'am. I. William Wolf and I. Bill Wolf and I. Tom Meyers eye. Caroline will you I. Uh, can you scroll down for? Yep, get there. Uh, all right. Next is Article 4-3, which is the zoning bylaw Amendment for temporary signage. Did make a recommendation? Pardon. Did Fin make a recommendation? The planning board made a recommendation of 70 and the finance committee. Did y'all talk about this? I don't know that this has finance. Yeah, but we voted favorably for it. OK. Or or nothing. I make a motion that's like board recommend. Favorable action on Article 4-3 zoning bylaw Amendment temporary signage. Again, the numbering on all these going forward will change. This will be yeah, that's why I'm listing the article. Could I have a second, please? I Awesome. Uh, any questions? I know we discussed this at the last time that We're actually making this more legal. We had a somewhat not legal version of it before. All right, uh, roll call votes starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. William Mo and I Bill Wilson I, Tom Meyers. Caroline B U I board recommends favorable action 50. Um, Next is Article 4-4, which is a zoning bylaw amendment, uh, All right. updating the definitions. Um, can you scroll down a little bit, please, Joe? Um, on the next page. Again, these are all provided to us, uh, I believe in January 1st, in January and then additionally, uh, before the last meeting, um. I see, uh, Marnie, do you have your hand raised still or? OK, take that down. Um. So we, we've all been able to see what these changes are, um. But if there's any questions, we can certainly ask uh more uh folks that are here. Martin, did anything changed in the last meeting? Any, any, did you have any public comments on this or not? Uh, I apologize. I, I don't have it in front of me. Which, which are this is just the definite, just the definitions. There were no changes. There were no changes. It's just definitions. These were the building commissioner's definitions, I believe. I is that correct, Mark? Yes. OK, yeah, they're fine. OK. Um, with, um, if no further questions, I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion to recommend favorable action on Article. Currently Article 4-4 zoning bylaw amendment definitions. Hm. Wait a second. Second, Rosie, a roll call vote starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy I. William Wilson I. Bill Wilson I, Tom Meyers I. Caroline I, the board. I just had two comments on this 11 was, did we get a finance committee recommendation? Yes, favorable 4 to 0. OK, that was one. And then, um, my second comment was just in the, and I had sent, um, we just, there was some revisions that were made on the, on the planning side, but, and by the town planner, um, late last week. And so when I reviewed this, I did have one comment in the brief summary, um, where it says that the article seeks to add new definitions. And I, I believe these are existing definitions, so I thought that we should just change that to say to. Uh, amend the definitions for close floor area, etc. minor change, but that's correct, yeah, they existing definitions, so it should be to amend. OK, thank you. I'll, I'll make that change. All right. Um. Joe, can you scroll down for us, please? All right. Uh, next is Article 4-5, which is the ADU bylaw. There is a Note here. What is the note? Um, so I can, I think I can explain that. So, um, there was new legislation that was passed which became effective on February 2nd of 2025, which essentially requires you to include ADUs as of right, um, in certain zoning districts as part of the um principal dwelling unit. And so you essentially have to allow them as of right. Um, however, the proposed amendments that the planning board's looking to make here include some and those, those are a majority vote under Chapter 48 Section 5. Some of the other amendments, however, that the planning board's looking to make are 2/3 vote, which is fine, obviously, to do it that way, but the statute basically says that you should not combine. In one article, zoning bylaw amendments that require a 2/3 vote with those that require a majority vote because then it subjects the entire article to a 2/3 vote, which, you know, you could have provisions that would Otherwise passed by a majority vote bail because they were combined in an article with a 2/3 vote. So it's a long way of saying that there's really two ways to One is we can separate it out into two different articles, so handle this. we could have an article, this one's 44, obviously the numbering is going to change because of the deletion. So you could have an article 44 and 45. That has in one article the changes that are going to be subject to a majority vote, and in the other article it could be the changes that are subject to a 2/3 vote, or alternatively we can leave it as one article, but the motion on the floor of town meeting will have to first move to divide the question. And then vote each provision separately because of the different quantum of vote that's required depending upon the type of change that's being made. So I don't know what's cleaner, um, but that was a question that I asked. Warrant warrants open. We probably should have 22 articles. Yeah, I agree. I was gonna say that I agree with you. So I don't know what can we what can we do tonight legally since it's not written and we're not voting on it, that's something we need to write right now or, or can we leave a placeholder for it? Well, I think the best way to do it would just be to leave a placeholder, but, um, you know, the, I understand obviously the intent would be to have the changes that require a majority vote in one article, the changes that require 2/3 vote in a separate article while dealing with um accessory dwelling units, of course. And I think that would be easier for um the voters to understand if we did bifurcate it. Uh, Billy, you're on mute. I think I don't know if you're trying to speak there. Yeah, thanks, Tom. I make a motion to separate Article 45 into two articles, one that references the um the ADU by right, and the other one that addresses other zoning changes to the uh ADU. Uh, is there any bylaw. Yeah, I agree. I think that's the way it should be handled. Yeah. All right. Can I get a second, a second, by Rosie. Um, we'll take a roll call vote starting with Rosie. Yeah. I just, um, Madam Chair, just before you take the vote on that, Mr. Connor had his hand up, so I didn't know if you wanted to comment on that before you voted. My only question, Tom, is the, uh, I know that removing that one section, the temporary living area that would require the 2/3 vote, but there was that there's also those provisions for the larger accessory dwelling units and um, are we sure that requires a 2/3 vote or because yeah, I, I, it's not my area of expertise, but I did um ask Robin to take a look at the questions that were posed and um. You know, we can certainly, I'll have her look at it again when we draft the final version of the article and obviously we'll share it with you beforehand, but what we want to do is just separate out the things that require Majority vote from those which require 2/3 vote and to the extent that there's a question. You know, I can ask uh uh Robin to take a look at that. Perfect. If you could just double check, that would be great. Um I can get those two new article questions tomorrow. I will do my best. I know Robin was preparing for a trial, so um I will do my best to see if I can get her to take a look at to be posted. We still got to get signatures from the select board. I mean, it's understood. We will, we'll get as soon as possible. And then does that mean we need to, we won't, we just won't have the, the votes on them or we'll have to do something on the, on the, at the meeting beforehand. I think we can vote because we know what the three items are right, yeah, we know what they are. We have to separate them. So the appendix. Uh, which is attached which shows the various changes to the, you know, for, for ADUs, it's not going to change. It's just going to kind of get separated out into kind of into ones that require majority vote and ones that require 2/3 vote, and then that will be split into two different articles, but the, the substance is not changing at all. But I guess it just meant like, are we OK? At the end of this, we're gonna take a vote to close the warrant. And we're gonna take that vote assuming language in it and we're going to assume that language and the recommendations based on the language. Is that what everyone's saying? Well, when you phrase it like that, no, no, that's what I'm saying, that's what I'm saying, but I think because we're not changing the, we're not changing the changes. We know what the changes are. We're just separating them into two votes. Because one requires so we could still, we could still vote on the on the changes that we're recommending them, which is recommend to be that to be done in two separate articles instead of one com in one combined article. Yeah, I get that. I'm just trying to think so right now I'm about to ask y'all to make a vote of favorable action on. What will we didn't vote. We got a first vote on split into two articles, right, right, right, I get that. I just wanna say one of them we're gonna call the zoning bylawy right. Amendment By right ADU. The next one we're gonna call zoning bylaw Amendment what? Special permit. Special permit. ADU. Special permit language. ADU. ADU, right? Yeah, OK, so Is that, is that right, Marty? Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. What we did is we took a look at section 3.0 of the zoning bylaw. Section 3.6 is now the bylaw section dealing with accessory dwelling units. And that requires a majority vote. The remainder of our amendments to section 3.0. Require a 2/3 majority, but we amended the table of use regulations, which I believe is 3.1.2, but there were errors in the table of use regulations, and then we added um A uh definition for a large accessory dwelling units, and we've provided a definition of that. We eliminated an unused bylaws section dealing with temporary uh apartments. I believe that was 3. 5 mark, you can 3.4. And then um I don't have this information in front of me, but you do. So I think it makes perfect sense to divide the, uh, the amendments to 3.0, uh, in terms of the requisite vote. So 3.6, which is the section dealing with ADUs would be one article, and the remainder of the amendments to 3.0 would be the other, but the, the language that you have in front of you now would all be unchanged. So we're saying The first one is the zoning bylaw amendment for. Um, 80U. 3.6, the bylaw bylaw 3.6 for ADU. And the second is language updates for section 3.0 pursuant to ADU change for 3.6. Well, it's not pursuant to uh the ADU. It's just a, a, a total reexamination of 3.0. So we're eliminating the temporary um. Apartments, which was never used, and we're also considering these larger accessory dwelling units by special permit. But there was more to it than just the larger, um, for lack of a better term, ADU um by special permit. There was more changes than just that and the uh 3.6. OK. So, Tom If we're going to. So we haven't taken a vote yet, but we're gonna take a vote to split them into two. Right. Then we're going to take recommended action for each and we're going to need the language for what we're taking recommendation action on. So are we fine to say zoning by law amendment? Forcely dwelling units, 3.6, bylaw reference 3.6. For the first one. It's 3-6. I, I just don't have, um, again, this is, uh, Robin Stein from my office handles the zoning and planning board issues, so I didn't, um, review all of the specifics of it. She did. And I know it does 3-6 include the large accessory dwelling units that are subject to a special permit? Yes. So that's the second. OK, Joe, if you, Joe, if you wanna go to page uh on the meeting minutes, go to page, uh, or sorry, on this, go to page 3030. Give me a second. No. Well, it's not, it's from the meeting, man, yeah, keep. This isn't this is in the zoning bylaws, right? Yeah, I got a way to go. There it is right there. All right, so just keep going down right there. 3-6 is right there and 3-0 is below that. 3-6-5 requirements success goals are subject to the following requirements, yeah. But is it, it's the entirety of 3.6, right? It's 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6, all the way through, right? That's the by right, yeah, so it's, it's 3.6, it is the first uh Warren article. And then the 2nd. isn't, uh, so the table of use regulations 3.1-2, um, Marty, I believe that's a 2/3 vote, correct? Is that what you're saying, yes, OK. Yeah, the first page is uh right there right views, yeah. Uh, I actually, uh, I, it may not have made it to you, but that table of use regulations, it is a separate table in the bylaw, but it's also section 3.1.2. Am I correct, Mark? And that, that should actually be included in it is in the version that I saw, yes, yeah, so all these changes here, so you're eliminating. Yeah, conversion for temporary. Changing the wording to accessory dwelling unit, yeah. OK, so we're saying the first is the zoning bylaw amendment. For the, for accessory jelling units, including 3.6. And 3.1.2. No, no, is, is the only one that's separated out. OK. And then, so that's the first one and then the second one is the language updates to The entirety of section 3.0. Right, everything else. Everything else. OK. OK. OK, so the first, we have a motion and a second on the vote to split them. I'm now going to take a roll call vote on the splitting starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. William Wilson I. Bill Wilson I. Tom Meyers. Caroline Bou I. All right, these have now been split. The next is a Vote a favorable action for the zoning bylaw amendment for accessory dwelling units, regulation 3.6. So I think the motion to recommend favorable action for the changes to the zoningile of ADU section 3.7 for the entirety of section 3.6. Uh, do I have a second? I All right. Uh, any additional discussion about 3.6? Is there a planning board recommendation? I'm planning what I'm sorry, finance committee recommendation on this article. We voted favorably on the combined article. We will revote it if we get the language. Wednesday night you vote you vote 40. OK, OK, 40. Thank you. All right. So, um, I will take a roll call vote for favorable action on ADU 3.6, starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. William W and I. Bill Walsh and I. Tom Meyers. Caroline WI. The board recommends favorable action 504. That zoning by law amendment. Uh, the next is a motion for favorable action for the zoning bylaw amendment updating the language in section 3.0. And make a motion to recommend action for all other changes for the ADs involved not included in the previous article. And, and that That, um, Madam Chair, it would include in the on the last page of that um appendix there, there are some amendments to Section 11 of the definitions as well. OK. Section 11, section 3.0, and the use table. That's right. OK. Uh, do I have a 2nd, 2nd. Rosie BU. Uh, all right. Any additional questions here? Yes, I, can I ask a question, Corinne here? Yes, separate articles but still one attachment. Is that correct, Tom? I've never submitted one of the attorney general quite this uh. Confusing. I think, OK. Sure. I mean, we can do it, um, if it's, again, it's, it's a policy decision really. I mean, we can separate it out to have an appendix related to each article so that one appendix, as opposed to one appendix or we can have one appendix. It's either way, um, it doesn't, uh, it just is going to depend on how the motion is worded. So the motion could be worded on the floor too. You know, to adopt the changes set forth in Appendix F under, you know, Section 3.6, for example, on the first one, and then the motion on the second article could be the same thing to adopt the changes shown in Appendix X um sections on the table, table of use provisions Section 3.0, Section 3.11, Section 11, etc. So it's really going to depend on how the motion is worded, but Um, you know, if you want to break it up into two appendices, we certainly can do that as well. It's up to you. Yeah, I just, I'm just looking ahead to all the work I have to do to get to the attorney General's office and want to make sure they're not gonna reject it because of something, So if you're saying I think, you know, I, uh, in the motion you know. being really clear about which parts of the appendix pertain. Uh, I, it sounds good to me, but I don't know what the attorney general's office, I've never done one like quite like this, so I just wanted to raise it. So I think as clear as we can be in the motion, it'll help me get these documents prepared, submitted, and have them approve them. So it sounds like Corinne, we we need something that clear because I agree that it's hard to follow. The the first motion should have an appendix that clearly shows 3.6. Within whatever relevant context it needs, and then the second one is the rest of 3.0 plus 11.1 plus the reference table. It certainly makes it clean and, and less questions will So, um, I just don't know at this late date how difficult come back. that is. Um, yeah, um, the only thing I would say is that there are, it, it's fine with respect to the language that's being added, is, is that's not as difficult. I think it's We we're making the um deletions. So, you know, as you can see in the appendix, section 3.4, um conversion for temporary additional living area is now listed as reserved as opposed to stricken. Section 3.5, um. It looks like that's deleted I guess that's not changed, OK, and then so 36, um, you know, I, I mean I can take a look at it and see if it makes sense to separate it out into two different appendices, but Um, You know, uh, yeah, we can definitely do it either way, but ultimately, um, You know, as long as the motions clear, I don't know that would make a huge difference one way or the other, but I, I get, I get the point certainly that at least for Um, a person who shows up at town meeting and hasn't had the benefit of really Digging deeply into the war and it certainly makes it a lot simpler to just turn to append a separate appendix for each section. So then we probably want like I don't know G1 and G2 We don't why don't we do that? and yeah we can do that. I like that suggestion. Yeah, this number in the same letter than the same so people know they're related. Appendix appendix, uh, yeah, I think it's a good idea. Appendix, you got it. OK, that's fine. And, and I can certainly take uh the first stab at, at doing that and we'll have um the town planner as well as the planning board chair review it as well just to confirm. yeah, I forget. Uh, I do not believe we took a vote. Nope. Uh, we, we motioned and we seconded, right? Yeah, you know. Great. Uh, roll call vote starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. William Wilson. Wilson I on Meyers I. Caroline Blu I, uh, uh, the board referenceable action 50. Um, Great. Joe, what's next? 46. Yeah, what page was I at? Jeez, I gotta go back. We're on page 26.6, yeah. There you go. OK, um, Here we have another zoning bylaw, 46, the zoning bylaw Amendment inclusionary housing bylaw. We have a 70 recommendation from the planning board. Fincom, did you vote on this? And we voted favorable 4 to 0. Great, um, I will entertain emotion. I make a motion that we approve favorably Article 4-6. 2nd. Great. Any additional discussion by the board? I will take a roll call vote, starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy I. William and I. Bill Wilson I. To Meyers. Caroline B I. Uh, the board recommends favorable action 50. Next, we have Article 4-7. Uh, this is the zoning bylaw Amendment for site plan review. Yeah, I thought we didn't put this on the warrant. You make a vote at the last minute and take anything off. You you left everything until after the hearing. I thought we voted that's not what I remember, Joe. We did not vote to put this on the warrant. We said we would revisit it if they had a successful public meeting. Yeah, I thought we did take this off. Yeah, there were too many, uh, there were too many changes. Right, this is the one where you, you have, you have a site plan review before as of right? Mark did. There were lots of things that were commented by, we had two different had one version, we had different versions, so we're trying to, we're trying to figure out which was the most current version. And then you're gonna have it, then you're gonna have it, so Mark, while we're trying to figure that out, can you just give us a quick update on how you're absolutely so my recollection is that you did not vote to take it off the warrant. We revisited um the bylaw. And we had a public hearing. No one attended. The public hearing, but your concern was that the pre-application conference was mandatory and it's no longer mandatory. That's right. And there was some questions about the design guidelines, but they're not mandatory either. Uh, there was to be a committee form that would draft some guidelines for the planning board's consideration, but, um, there is nothing in the bylaw that would make those guidelines mandatory for any development. They were really just To try and promote good design for any Uh, project that, that was subject to site plan review. So your major concern was, um, that the pre-application conference was mandatory and now it is um completely voluntary. Uh, it, the pre-application conference, even in the original, was non-binding. Uh, and it remains non-binding. So what is discussed at that pre-application conference, if an applicant chooses to attend, is non-binding and then we also eliminated the $75 fee associated with the pre-application conference. So, that, that was my recollection of your particular issues with the revised site plan review and we addressed those at our planning board meeting, and I think we uh It would appear to me that we satisfied your concern that it was mandatory by eliminating that requirement. Mar sorry, go ahead, Marie. I'm, I'm hoping you have the revised version. Yeah, we have it. OK. Mark, I see your hand is raised. I would just echo what Mary said, I think the issues that are controversial have been addressed, mainly that the pre-application hearing that has been made voluntary, so it's recommended, but it's not a requirement anymore. Um, most of the other changes are minor administrative items. There's a section, uh, talks about the minimum requirements for our site plan that got into the weeds on technical requirements. So the planning report's gonna move that into Um, regulations instead of part of the bylaw, which is what several towns do, which we think is a cleaner way to approach it. So I really don't see uh anything controversial in here. And then the other, the other comment we had with a bunch of um questions from town council on the other markup, has this been Now reviewed, I don't see any comments on here, so I'm assuming that. To Robin was at the public hearing. We went through all of her concerns. OK. OK. I think first I got, and I know Joe's been looking at it, but just so we're clear, I'm just gonna make a motion that we make a motion that we include. Article 4-7 zoning bylaw Amendment site plan review in the warrant. I Um, yeah. Any additional comments, questions? All right, roll call, Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I Will Walt and I. Bill Wilson I, Tom Meyers. Caroline WI slickboard runs favorable action 50. No, that was just included in the. To include it in the warrant. Yeah, because I feel like we did not vote. OK, yeah, so it's in the warrant, sorry. I just so we may have done it, but we did it again just to make sure we didn't miss something. Great. So now we need to take a vote on favorable action on Article 4-7. Yeah, I mean, I applaud the planning board for listening to us and working foridly to get this thing back into it. So I think it's a great uh best practice to do this type of work. So hopefully, our applicants take you up on this. I think it's a great idea. So thank you for that. Did the thing come up? Yeah, favorable 4 to 0. Thank you. I'd make a motion that select board recommend favorable action on Article 4-7 zoning bylaw Amendment site plan review. Second. Any additional questions? Great, roll call vote starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, hi. Will Wilson I. Wilson I, Tom Is I. Caroline I this time. The select board recommends favorable action 50. Um, all right, continuing with our zoning bylaws, uh, 48, uh, the FEMA flood maps, uh, this is a requirement by the state that we discussed at our last meeting. We need to update the flood maps, um, the It says that we'll provide our Recommendations at time eating, is that just old language? Well, it's in there for now because this had all come up really quickly, but the, the current version of the warrant that you have in front of you does include the whole um the whole bylaw as Appendix J, I believe. And um I, I don't know if Fincom wound up voting on this or not. Uh, I did express, I did answer some questions from them at their last meeting about it, but uh I wasn't there when they took it up for vote. Yeah, we did not. We wanted to see the final write up that's in the, in the warrant now, so we're gonna vote on it on Wednesday. So Joe, just to refresh, the, the changes here came from Statute or they came from our council. So, so they, no they, so basically, we were updating the floodplain map to reflect the changes in the uh in the to reflect the changes that were made by FEMA's map amendment. So, um, there's language in there, it's standard language. It was approved by the state. The state said if you make any changes to it, you're gonna have to let us know that we approved this language right now. Town council's reviewed it. He's Satisfied with it, I believe, Tom. Yeah, that's correct. So yeah, this is just to answer your question, this is really controlled by FEMA and DCR. DCR ultimately approves the language that's required. So we did take a look at it just to make sure that we didn't see any blaring issues and, and it's fine. However, if there are changes to this, um, then it could present a problem with respect to people being able to get flood insurance. So, but it's required essentially this needs to be in place by, I want to say it's July of 2025 or else people would potentially not be able to get flood insurance anymore if they're in the flood. That's correct. It needs to be in place by July of 2025. So, um, I, I recognize this was kind of rushed as I explained last time they were emailing the wrong person trying to get our attention on this. Um, they finally reached out to me. We got it in front of you as quickly as we could. It's unfortunate that it's gone, gone this quickly, but um I didn't want to take the chance of asking you to wait on this until June and have it go sideways in June and then leave our residents without the opportunity to purchase floodplain insurance. All right, um, do we, I don't think we can I make a motion that it's like for favable action. The current article 48 Zoning bylaw amendment FEMA flood maps. So I Uh, any additional discussion. But just one question, um, did the planning board vote to support this article? They haven't had a public hearing. It's a late edition, so the hearing will be on April 1st, so their recommendation will have to be presented at a town meeting. OK, thank you. Did Marty have any, did Marnie have any comments on this as the chair? No, I, we haven't had the public hearing, but obviously, the ability of people to get flood insurance is, is critical. So, uh, and if this language is something that's been supplied by the Commonwealth, um, It's unlikely that the planning part is not going to vote um uh any other way than for favorable actions. So it, it, it almost goes without saying, but we will have that public hearing um on April 1st, and, and, you know, as you're aware, this really kind of stuck up on the town. So this is the earliest that we could have the hearing, given the, the notice requirements that are um that, that we have to abide by. Uh, all right, I will take a roll call vote starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy on. Way W and I. Walt and I, oh Meyer's eye. Caroline WI, uh, favorable action recommended 50 by the select board. Um, next. On the um Warrant is Article 5-1, which is the citizen's petition, um. There, can you scroll down just did the fincom take a look at this one? Yeah, we did, and we decided not to register a vote on this uh uh article. OK. Um, I'm sorry, John, well, does that mean you will not be registering a vote? I, we, we agreed that we're not gonna register a vote. We're gonna let the uh. To meeting, listen to the petitioner without our position. Did you see any, were you presented with any texts or information? No, we, uh, we did invite the petitioner to join the Fincom but they declined. So, Um, All right, I mean it's curious, is that a better action to no action than to actually give it, give it a vote, so I'm not sure if you want to consider the same. Since there's been no, since there's been no information presented to us, it'd be hard for me to vote yes or no. Yeah, I, I, I agree with that. So I, I would certainly support that. Just, we'll just not make a recommendation because you're right, we don't have any information, so. I, I would make motions like what uh do no action on recommendation for Article 5-1. you're, you're voting that you don't make a recommendation or you're voting no no action or no, no action on recommendation. Second, Any additional questions, comments, commentary? All right. Uh, we'll now take a vote to. Take to not make a recommendation. Starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. But also. The Wilson I uh Meyers I. Caroline B you. Bye. So just um so I'm clear for purposes of the warrant, do you want it reflected in the say that the select board voted 50 to make no recommendation on this article. OK, thank you. I don't know. That's my opinion, but other people should voice. That's that's what I heard you guys, OK, that's, yeah, I just want to make sure I had it right. Um, Should we revisit the um consent agenda item? Sure, I think it makes sense to just confirm that and I, I've been keeping a running list if that makes sense to kind of just run through them quickly. Yeah, Tom, you want to run through and I'll check you get what I have. OK, I have Article 2-1. Uh, the classification, compensation classification table 25, which is the Um, Water Enterprise budget 2-6, which is the annual financial actions, 2-7 Hamilton Development Corporation, 28 OE Trust fund, The new article of which is used to be um 2-11. It is now 2010 CPC CPC and then They 3-1, Hero Act 3-2 extension of Cutler school lease, and 3-4. Um, Which is the, I'm sorry, the recreation revolving fund, I believe we were going to add to the list as well, correct. My notes say that the that the chair had noted that for purposes of transparency and because some people will think it is linked to the consolidated school vote, she thought the 32 should not be in the consent agenda. OK. OK. I'll take that one out. So 313334. OK. All right. Uh, do we need to take a vote or no? That we I thought we had to take a vote on that, yeah. So the motion is to move 3-13-3 and 3-4 to the consent agenda. Along with 212-52-62-72-8, and now 210. I'm sorry, I had um did we have? So 2 It was OE 2-dash. 10 is the CPC, right, OK. Yeah, that's right, exactly. 12522728210313334. Exactly, yes, that's correct. Um, 2122 2,324,252,627,210. No, no, 212526. 272-8210. 313-334. Correct, that's what I have. Yeah. All right, I will entertain a motion to move Articles 2-1, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 28, 2-10, 3-13-3, and 3-4 to the consent agenda. Don't moved. I. Awesome. Any additional discussion? All right, roll call votes starting with Rosie, Rosie Kennedy I. Walton I. Bill Wal and I, I I I. Caroline B. I. All right, we didn't talk about who's gonna. Present each one, right? And we're gonna talk about that Monday, our, our next meeting. Um, if we can, we can add that to the, we can, I mean, do you have a member of the public be here too. Um, we can actually add that the agenda is going to be very brief on Monday was Originally only gonna be one thing, but I can, I can make motion move as part of that agenda. Perfect. Right. All right. And make a move to close a warrant. Uh, before we do that, I did say that I would take public comment before the warrant was closed. Um, I see, I see, Beth, you have your hand raised. I, um, I had sent the um. School committee and then I sent you the select board a notice um or a request asking that there be clarification on the um information that keeps getting misrepresented or I would call material omission. Which is a slide and I guess it's also been in some of the other writing materials where it says there's 0% reimbursement by the MSBA for renovations and those who read the fine print then may see but not always spoken is the statement that based on the ed plan. I actually found minutes from last year that actually contradict that, that in fact maybe the MSBA would have given some level of reimbursement. And the school committee or actually the superintendent continues to use this slide to the point where I have talked to people who are paying attention and they've said to me, the MSBA does not reimburse for renovations, meaning they think that they never reimbursed for renovations, period, because it has been stated in such a way. That um I believe it is misleading and so I'm very concerned that this could open us up to some kind of legal challenge and if the school committee isn't going to do the right thing, I would ask that the select board ask the school committee to do the right thing or the select board itself put out a clarifying statement both now and at town meeting. So I hope that makes sense. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Yes, I think, uh, I think what that statement says is for, um, the MSPA will not reimburse for any um code upgrades slash repairs. But the but the minutes actually represent something different. That particular option, it said it, it may, um, it may. It not a lot, but it may, uh, actually, the MSBA may uh reimburse for that top item. So in the minutes from last year, it actually said a different phrase, and so I feel like I've already felt like it was. Misleading just because I've had numerous conversations where people misunderstand this information and I don't think it leads to trust in the community. Um, and then when I found that information that is contradictory, it just made me feel all the more that this needs to be addressed. Well, I, I think the issue is, Beth, um, I, I, some, somebody sent me that um email that was sent home and um uh I think it was on March 3rd. I, I may be uh incorrect in the exact date, but the, but the statement was that Um, for, for code upgrades and repairs, which is a totally separate program from the core program, which would include renovations. So, I, I, I, I agree with what you're saying that um that the statement was made. But the other part of that is there was not an application made to that particular program. So I, I just wanna make sure that we, if, if we're, if you're um if you and others are upset about something that we understand exactly what the issue is because The the core program with the renovation and then the code upgrade and repairs program, that's a separate entity. And of course, they wouldn't reimburse for that because we didn't apply for that. So, right, it still seems very um Like the golden rule is do what you'd want somebody to do to you. It doesn't really feel like it accurately portrays what is before us, and that is very concerning. So we're not, we're not voting on whether race. So I guess your question is if it shows up on a slide deck, you want us to make sure we're fact checking the slide deck. So I guess when we get the slide deck from the school committee, we can fact check the slide deck to see if it's accurate. So I, I mean, I did send you a copy of what the slide is that has been continually put before the community and it's concerning. So we'll get the slide decks and we'll look at them. Yeah, and while we're at it, maybe we'll update the flyer that went to everyone in town that used false data about renovations that were quoted pre-pandemic and used a price per square foot that was less than $200 per square foot higher than what we were quoted. Maybe we could all be using accurate information with each other and then trust would be everywhere. Or even giving us what they're going to present sharing data transparently with the boards beforehand and with our finance committee that would also help engender trust and transparency in the community. I think we would have all liked to have had that information sooner, Caroline. I too am. Um, it's still processing all of that came into the our mailboxes in the last few weeks, and, um, I think everyone would have loved to have seen that information a year ago so that we could have digested it as a community, um, but I think that it was, it was. It was not sent at the spirit of. A conversation because the data was not analogous to the situation that we're in. And it, it gave people false. I don't think we've had enough time to digest to see if it actually is or is not. So I'm, I, I just, I just differ with you on that, but I, I think we all were from 2019. The construction quotes were from 2019. 35% at least we're at a 35% minimum growth rate on construction, so if you compare that to the numbers, I mean, I've looked at the numbers. The numbers are like 300%. It's a third of the price. So even if it went up 35%. It's still less than, I mean, I, that's why I think a good dialogue would have been great if we had this information before because even with the 35% increase, it's still significantly less than what we're being told, so something isn't adding up. So I mean that's just me looking at the information that I've dug into and looked at since that flyer came out. Yeah, Natalie, I see your hand is raised. Yeah, I can. Hi, yeah, I've just been following the uh MSBA process um since 2018 and uh watched what happened in Ipswich and um I think what Beth is referring to about the, you know, lack of transparency and seeing different Numbers or whatnot was really the former school committee member who left in the middle of the year who had the idea that a a consolidation box was checked and therefore a conspiracy was happening that of course is going to be in the meeting minutes for when she was on the board saying all of that. She since quit. And we know that the MSBA requires an educational plan. It's one of the very first steps. We, the process is then to come up with a school building committee made up of staff, teachers. People on board, local, local people in town, and the whole process has been followed to the T that the MSBA requires. The only conspiracy and mistrust here is the, the, the online ramblings. That have just been nitpicking the process apart. A consolidation box was checked also with Cutler because the state said to check the box if we wanted to be considered for a consolidation that would affect all elementary students. There's not a conspiracy. I see you freaking out, Rosie, but like I feel like we're not the only person in this town. The teachers don't wanna teach in a cardboard box. has been followed. The only person breeding. Mistrust here are you Beth her and rabble rousers that are anonymous. All right. All right, I'm gonna, I'm gonna I'm gonna stop us here. Um, I will entertain a motion to close the warrant. I didn't make a motion to close the warrant. Uh, roll call vote, starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy I. William Wilson I. Wilson I, Meyer's eye. Caroline B you I. Uh, the warrant is closed. Tom, you're not off the hook. We still need that language, so let's not. Yes, I will work on that tomorrow and get something over to Joe by tomorrow or Wednesday morning at the earliest. All right, perfect. The latest I should say, sorry, it's getting late. Now, I know everyone was thinking that must be the end of the agenda, but it's not. Um, we still have a couple of items. Uh, we have a, we want to review the draft of the town meeting or the uh the draft for the special town meeting calendar for June 26th. Uh, that's the special town meeting. Um, I think, Joe, that's just a matter of you flashing the, the dates, and we say we understand. Is that true? Yes, but I made you co-host in the event that I have to leave, I mean made you host an event I have to leave and now I can't. I don't want to be the host. Well, the alarm is going to be set in this building in about 44 minutes, and if I'm still in it, there's gonna be a response. If I'm on this call in 44 minutes, I'm going to go out this window in front of. Can you make me? Can you make me again so I can share my screen? If, if I knew how, hold on, um, click on the ellipse in my box and say make host. The ellipses on your box. 3 little dots. Yeah, no, I, what an ellipses is. I was an English major. the right corner, you get it. OK. All right, now I can share. There we go. So as you can see, it's a condensed schedule. Uh, I've only included planning board select board and finance, uh, advisory committee meetings. Um, we tentatively be calling for opening the warrant on uh. April 22nd and uh closing the warrant on May 5th. There's all the all the planned meeting dates are in here that'll allow us all to make sure that we're advertising whatever hearings and things we have to have done in time uh for the items to get recommendations. Tentatively have the finance advisory committee select board and planning board all making votes to recommendations on the last week of May and first week in June, and then ending culminating with the June 25th. is that June 25th or was it June 26th? Let me make sure. 26 June 26th, so I gotta fix that. June 26th finance advisor. I'm sorry, June 26, I mean I have that right, OK. Um, all right, I will entertain a motion to approve the special time meeting calendar for June 26th. Second. OK, uh, any additional questions? No, um, roll call, Rosie, starting with you. Rosie Kennedy, I. William W and I. Bill Wal and I, Tom Myers I. Caroline will you I, great, um. We have a couple of new business items. First is a communication from Saint Paul's Church. Yeah, so it obviously Saint John's, uh, Saint Paul's Church reached out inquiring about, I, I, I, what exactly, I don't know, they, they're offering to have a cell tower in their, um, a, a cellphone array in their bell tower. Uh, I don't, uh, uh, they'd have to go through a special permit process with the planning board to get that done. Um, I think they need to look and see if it would, uh, assist with what, um, we've already got going on in town. As you know, we are, um, looking, we have had interest in the second site behind the public safety building, and I actually have a draft RFP out that Bill Wilson and I are looking at to be able to, to put out soon. So, um, I don't know if the site at Saint Paul's would overlap with that or Improve it or make it worse or what, but um we can let them know what we're doing and inform them what the process is. But you don't know that's on, it's on Union Street. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Joe, I thought when I read it, they were just probably heard of our of an interest of another tower downtown, so they were offering their location, but I'm not certain of that. Um, I don't think somebody's gone to them in addition to, but we should probably, uh, reach out to the pastor and ask if that's the case. I, I could do that. Yeah, I would, I think it'd be great and Bill, if you could just sort of keep this in your web of, of things, I think that would be great. Um, next is a communication from Congressman Moulton's office. And I, yeah, I just shared that with the board. I wanted the public to be able to have it, so I figured I'd share it in your packets and then it'll be online. Uh, just changes in the way the, uh, federal government is looking at things and how it impacts, you know, opportunities for different things here in the state. So, um. There are likely to be grant cuts in the Department of Transportation based on uh some of the direction coming out of the federal administration. So we'll pay attention to that and see if any of those affect us. Yeah, I similarly had a meeting with uh. Rep Casner, and she, she mentioned the same, that the, the budget changes and the grant cuts and the funding cuts that are coming over the next couple of years are, are most certainly going to be something that we're, we feel and see, so. And then you know that there was, I don't have it in the packet because it came today. There was an uh email communication that Ms Ms. Kennedy spoke about at the beginning of the meeting, so um I'll leave that up to the board to discuss. God, that was so long ago. I, Um, yeah, so we did have a uh a request from a candidate to I know. place signs. There you go, yeah. On public property, um. And I, I, I sort of defer. I, I have no problem in theory with us authorizing this. I just don't feel equipped to authorize it correctly. And if we make this, yeah, I don't even think you can. I'm a hard no. I don't think you put political signs on public property. I think it's a, you know, I, I'd have to go look at our bylaws and the state bylaw and federal bylaw, but you, I don't think you put public signs on, I mean political signs on public property. I think what's happened in the past has been by By inference or access, people thought that they were asking the gas station to put it on their property. So I will say that we can't debate it right now. I, I would just say that since 200, uh, well, since the events of 2020. Um, it seems every year, every election cycle, especially the federal election cycle, but every election cycle, I wind up getting phone calls, uh, if the clerk is on, she'll tell you she gets the same. We get phone calls, uh, asking us to send somebody out to remove the signs in, in public, in a public way. At various spots and it's been for the last 3 or 4 years, every election cycle we get the request. There's plenty of there's plenty of private property in town next to public property, so you just gotta make some friends on the public property and put your sign there. I see Cinne that you have your hand raised. Yeah, I mean, I think we got two things. I think we've mentioned it already. The zoning bylaw 6.3.1 reads that all signage on town property requires prior approval of the board of Selectmen, so, uh, select board. So that, that certainly is a vote you can take, but this is not on the agenda. So this is now would be a violation of the open meeting law. You can't possibly vote on something we're not voting. We're just talking about new agenda items. Yeah, we're not voting. Yeah. I, I would definitely be in favor of if we, we identify the areas, uh, to Rosie's point, like that have been there, you know, that are highly traffic visible to give people better awareness of candidates that are running. Not everybody has friends on the corner of Maine and Maine. Perfect opportunity to look at our signage bylaws that we've been taking the can down the road on. Well, but, but in, in all reality, right? I mean, whether or not we've had the bylaws, we've sort of ignored them or we've let people take liberties with it and It, it just doesn't seem like it's a huge deal to me. I mean, certainly if there were 27 signs on every corner, that's, that's one thing, but I will just reiterate my um interest in in the public interest of letting people advertise their their names on limited public areas for the few weeks before a town meeting and as I said, people do remove their signs very rapidly after the election. I, I honestly don't see um that it's a huge we could vote on Monday, Rosie. Yeah, I, I would also, I would again, like I, I think we're being inconsistent here because we're saying we need like very specific room policies and only friends groups can put things on our electric sign because God forbid we tell people about a picnic that they may or may not agree with and then we're saying with no thought we're gonna just say like there's public property that people can put signs on. And I will anecdotally say that when I was back home in Texas during the election, they allow rampant signs in public places with no regulation, and I showed up to the courthouse with my mother to vote, and there were 20 ft by 15 ft political signs, 10 of them. And I'm not saying that's gonna happen, but I'm saying we do need to say like we're, I think you need some sort of policy that outlines we're talking about a minute a maximum number of signs, a maximum size of signs, a period of time they can be there, because just because people haven't done it yet, we've seen the 3A signs on private property. Are we suddenly saying that people can put if their slogan for their running for something is, you know, say no to babies and it happens to be like, I just think you, we have to be as thoughtful about this as we are about. Every other thing we argue about here. Well, I think it's, you know, I mean, I think it's pretty reasonable to say somebody could have an 18 by 24 inch sign to advertise their candidacy for a particular position on limited public spaces for the two weeks prior to election and must be removed within 3 days after the election. I mean, it doesn't. I, I don't know. I just, well, I mean we can talk about, we can talk about putting an agenda for Monday we could debate it then, but I mean it just seems like. I, I don't know. To me, it's always been down, and I appreciate that people were very upset about an election last year, and, and I agree we shouldn't allow 6 by 10 signs, but I think an 18 inch by 24 inch sign. I always thought, I mean, you said it's been done. I always, always thought that that was not. I thought that was private property. No, no, really, I'm telling you I thought it was I mean I put I thought I asked the gas station permission. my sign there. I did too, yeah. I did not think it was, I wouldn't have not have, I would not have put my sign there if I knew it was public property. That was my own mistake. Well, I think it's the, I think it's the, the, the right of way, but you're right, people did ask the owners. You know, for, uh, I, I, I, I just don't see that. Well, if it's worth the discussion we can put on the agenda for Monday. That would be great. A short, a short discussion. I mean, just, I mean, you know, have to turn into a big half hour. Volatile discussion. I'm just giving my opinion. Somebody else can give their opinion. We vote on it? Yes, no, but I, I don't think we should just dismiss it. And honestly, if we wrote it down, I'm happy to vote on it. I agree. I just say I, I don't think we can just randomly say like, yeah, just, it's always been a thing, just keep it, I think if you're going to authorize it, you have to authorize it with parameters. Uh, so that's, that seems quite, quite reasonable. All right, uh, if there's no other new business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Oh, I will make a motion to adjourn. Again. OK, roll call starting with Rosie. Rosie Kennedy, I. William Walz and I. Bill Wal and I, Tom Meyers I. I. Thanks everybody. Good night.