00:00:19,667	S1:
All right. Good. Good evening everybody. Today is Monday, October the 20th. It is 7:01 p.m. and I call this meeting of the Hamilton Select Board to order. My name is Bill Wilson, the vice chair, but I.

00:00:34,067	S2:
Just lost the audio. The meeting this evening.

00:00:36,267	S1:
As you can see, several of our board members are with us, but on zoom this evening. So with that, why don't we do a little problem?

00:00:44,100	S2:
According to Ben, we have a problem with the audio. H.W. Kemp, do you have the audio back?

00:00:49,367	S1:
Okay.

00:00:54,200	S1:
Do I start over? No.

00:00:56,400	S2:
I don't think so. I don't. You're.

00:01:04,767	S2:
Nuts. Are you all set? I think so.

00:01:07,767	S1:
Okay. Okay. Hey, Ben. Can you hear us? Thumbs up.

00:01:11,567	S2:
Yeah.

00:01:11,901	S1:
You're good. All right. Thank you. All right, so, um, why don't we do a roll call? Roll call? Since we have members who are not here. Starting with you. Ben.

00:01:21,801	S2:
Ben is here. Bill.

00:01:29,367	S2:
I see him.

00:01:30,100	S1:
Come back around to him if he hears this. Rosemary.

00:01:32,567	S3:
Rosie Kennedy here.

00:01:33,901	S1:
Bill Wilson here.

00:01:37,767	S1:
I see a name. I know, Tom Myers will be joining us later.

00:01:43,567	S2:
He's coming in. It looks like he's starting to come in. Okay. Bill Olsen, can you hear us? Yeah. William Olsen here.

00:01:49,167	S1:
Here we go. Okay. So we do have a quorum, I think. Just let us know when Tom Myers enters the room and we'll have the minutes reflect that. So thank you all for coming out. We do have a good audience here. We have some folks on the line who have some, uh, have to get off at certain times. So if unless anybody objects on the board, I'd like to do a few things a little bit out of order. We should start with our.

00:02:13,501	S2:
It's causing all kinds of feedback on this.

00:02:16,100	S4:
One is, oh I'm sorry.

00:02:18,000	S1:
Yeah, I was going to keep telling that one.

00:02:20,868	S3:
I know these kids in their phones.

00:02:22,868	S4:
I know.

00:02:24,601	S1:
Um, so we'll start with the Verizon cable license, uh, discussion. But then I thought instead of board committee openings and consent agenda, we'll go right to public comment, um, where we'll have 30 minutes for folks to talk about any item they would like. Then we'll go right into our first agenda item after that to talk about the developer agreement at Gordon Conwell. Um, and then we'll just follow the regular agenda through that order. We'll have ten minutes of additional public comment after that discussion. That gives the folks in the in the room and online. The the opportunity to to make some comments within a ten minute window after they hear us discuss the topic. Plus you have the 30 minutes up front. So I think ample opportunity. So with that said Joe, who do we have? Is it Bill the bills or so?

00:03:10,667	S2:
Bill August is here, but are you going to take. Are you going to open the meeting? And then I did then then pause the meeting until after the development agreement discussion. Right. Is that what Bill Olson asked for?

00:03:22,100	S1:
Why would we do that? I will if that's what we want to do.

00:03:25,267	S2:
Yeah, we were going.

00:03:25,868	S5:
To get into the development agreement first if just to spend time on that. So that's a priority for tonight.

00:03:31,501	S1:
Oh you mean over the Verizon cable.

00:03:33,667	S5:
Correct. And we'll get to that afterwards. Yeah.

00:03:35,767	S1:
How long that take. We have an attorney on the line that bill's hourly.

00:03:41,067	S1:
I agree I suggested we pushed the consent and any committee meetings past it. But if you guys think it's that, what time do you have to leave, Mr. Olson?

00:03:51,567	S5:
I mean, I'll say as long as I have to, but, um. But I was hoping to do the development agreement first, so I'm not sure. How long will the cable thing take? Is it five minutes or is it 20?

00:04:02,000	S2:
Mr.. August, there's a statement for the chair to read and then, uh, definitely some, uh, some words from the H.W. Kamm director. Um, I don't know if there's anybody in the room that's here to speak to the streaming area, so.

00:04:15,167	S1:
Why don't we just jump in, bill? Uh, we'll jump in right in. Do we need to pause the meeting to do that or just reorder it? Help me out here. I'm not sure why the logistics of pause comes into play anywhere.

00:04:24,067	S2:
Well, because you've opened the hearing and you want to move to something else. So you just table this for now and then come back to it. Okay. After you. When you're ready. All right.

00:04:31,267	S1:
Okay. I never opened it. You're right. I opened the meeting. I never opened the hearing.

00:04:35,801	S3:
So let's.

00:04:36,367	S1:
Do so. I didn't open the hearing, so we'll just go right into our for public comment, okay.

00:04:42,667	S1:
So if we have anybody who would like to make a comment, we have a 30 minute window. Um, we'll use that time judiciously. So what do we do? 2 to 3 minutes. Three minutes. each person and go running.

00:04:57,567	S4:
Notebook.

00:05:03,267	S1:
Yes, sir.

00:05:04,000	S6:
Mr. Scott Madden, 12 Old Cart Road. Good evening. I'm here to request a Select Board hearing, as is called for in our bylaw 37 to address the vacant, unsafe, dilapidated building at 19 Old Cart Road and enforce our bylaw. This is not a new problem. One of our neighbors has lived next door to the property for seven years, and has never seen the dilapidated and unsafe property occupied. Our bylaw becomes enforceable after 180 days, while the owner was ill and living in California. I helped him twice, once when water was pouring out the front door in the winter, and again when a downed branch pinned a live electrical wire to the ground. The town removed an abandoned car and ordered landscaping almost five years ago. The owner tragically passed away a year and a half ago. His heir, who lives in Oregon, has since allowed the situation to spiral, and he stopped paying the local landscaper this past spring. Neighbors are now mowing the property. Enforcement of our bylaw includes a fine of $300 per day. This fine was designed to be strong motivation, not just for compliance, but more likely to force the sale of dilapidated properties. Fine started this spring and stopped following my appeal to the town manager in August. The fines were rightly reinstated but then stopped again. Why? The heirs lawyer appeared at last week's Board of Health meeting, admitting the property is a teardown and is speaking with realtors. So the fines were starting to work, but no corrections have been made to the property to justify the suspension of the fees, which should amount to nearly $10,000 per month. The loss of revenue and the continued lack of enforcement are urgent. You have a clear path forward. The Attorney General advised the town to obtain a receiver for the property. Think of a receiver as a court appointed property manager with broad legal power to repair, sale and settlement. This is exactly the expertise the town lacks. Yet the Board of Health hesitated. The Select Board must not. We need decisive leadership. I urge you to hold a public hearing within the next week and review the relevant information from Health building, DPW, police and fire departments going back five years. Reinstate the $300 per day fines immediately, Accept the Attorney General's advice and move to appoint a receiver, as the town cannot manage the process itself. We cannot continue to lose tens of thousands of dollars and fail to use skilled resources. We lack a receiver. Please uphold our bylaw and protect our neighborhood. Thank you.

00:08:08,367	S1:
I appreciate that, Scott. And just Joe, if you can kind of give us the background on that and let us know what's going on.

00:08:14,267	S5:
I can I can comment quick. Bill. What's up? Um, no Scott here. If I could comment real quick. Can you hear me?

00:08:20,400	S1:
Yes we can. Bill.

00:08:22,767	S5:
Yeah. So, Scott. Yeah, we hear you. We got your emails and your notes, which makes sense. Um, we are going to discuss today's at New Business and decide next steps. But, you know, we're not going to debate it right now. But just keep in mind we have contact our attorneys at the property is in probate right now. So the fines aren't being paid because there's no current ownership. So we're trying to get this thing through probate so we can figure out who owns the property. And and so that's kind of unfortunately, the sticking point right now is we've got to get the property through probate since the since it has not been assigned ownership to the new area yet. So we hear you were going to talk about a new business at the end of the meeting and figure out how we can help resolve the issue.

00:09:02,000	S1:
Okay. Anybody online? Anybody in the room? It's a good opportunity.

00:09:10,901	S7:
Uh, chairman of the board and board members. My name is Keith Doyle, 22 Lee Park. I'd like to thank you for your diligence and good work these past several years on the development agreement with Gordon Conwell. And as a resident, I'd like to say good job and well done. It's a lot of hard work in that. I'd also like to see the town to get the opportunity to vote on this. I believe as a town that we'll get a huge amount of increased tax revenue. I don't know what the full numbers would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's close to half a million. I think that for the town that would be tremendous. I really do. I think we've been quite cash strapped as a as a town and it'll make a big difference. And I also think the seminary has been giving more than plenty to the town, just in various ways. And this opportunity would be is a way of giving back. By giving this opportunity for the town to vote, it will give this give the town a tremendous opportunity for increased tax revenue. And as we all know, in Massachusetts, every town needs affordable housing. And 50 units initially would be classified, I believe, at potentially 209. And that would bring Hamilton into compliance. I think that would be tremendous in compliance with the state. Not to mention the benefit of people being able to move here in an affordable manner, which a lot of there's a lot of interest here. I think it would add tremendously to the downtown life. It's a small downtown, but it would just add that extra bit, the local business. I think it would be tremendous to what it would attract. Um, so personally, I'd like to see the town. I personally like to see town officials who are fiscally responsible and take initiative with this kind of business opportunity and see it, sees it. And and also who can rein in spending when it's necessary. So but again, once again, I'd just like to reiterate and say thank you for the work you've done today.

00:11:20,601	S1:
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

00:11:28,501	S8:
John Woodbury Street I take issue with the latest speaker. Um, the we all know that the seminary had had a handshake agreement when they got this huge windfall of about being allowed to build buildings, and he did not keep to it. And now they're being allowed another windfall, possibly by selling their buildings for tens of millions of dollars. And word has it that they wanted to also have significant commercial space where they'd have other continuing rent. That's not the point. What's important is what's good for the town. It seems to me that although if, as the gentleman mentioned, if we do have half $1 million worth of additional tax income, I have to ask what? How? To what degree is that offset by school charges? And I'd be very interested as a citizen to know really what the potential benefits and costs are. Also a small point, completely separate. I would like to suggest that possibly residents are given more time at the end of the meeting than at the beginning, because the meeting itself might engender questions. Thank you.

00:12:42,467	S1:
Thank you.

00:12:49,400	S2:
Hi.

00:12:50,267	S8:
Jake.

00:12:50,901	S7:
139 Essex.

00:12:52,267	S8:
Street.

00:12:52,868	S1:
I've obviously.

00:12:53,901	S8:
Sent a few emails on the subject of.

00:12:56,767	S9:
Browns Hill, and I think the planning board is doing great work with the body. And I think there's I'm going to try and not address those and try and keep my comments more directed towards the select board. A few things one, the Gordon Conwell posted a report on the sewer treatment plant, which I think is a step in the right direction. I think one thing that came out is that Martin's engineers have been doing sort of monthly reporting, and they've actually been reporting to the Board of Health. So at the last selectmen meeting, there was a big discussion that the Board of Health has nothing to do with it. So I do think the Board of Health has some of the documentation, which I think is helpful. I think what would be great is if either Martin engineers made themselves available for questions and comments from the public and the people that live next door nearby, or they could just produce the last 12 months of reports that Martin Engineers has, has put together, and that would hopefully start to shed some light. Second is on traffic. Um, the planning board posted a transportation fact sheet by Howard Stein. Hudson. I think it's these. That's not really a traffic study, right? It's an estimate of how many cars were coming to the site based on what Gordon Conwell has told them. And then it's an estimate of what the traffic could be. What I'm more concerned with and what I think the Board of Selectmen should be more concerned with, is essentially public safety and what will happen inside the site once the public is formally invited onto the site by selling a section of the site to the public. So that's where I really think a traffic study needs to be done. Um, third, which I'm not going to address heavily. Continue to think commercial is not in the right spot. I've had some conversations with Merwin and people at Gordon. I think they're going to propose some things, most likely at the Ode. I assume that I think is is worthwhile. And then, um, lastly, I was sent this. It's a it's from an attorney to the select board in March of 2019. And I'm going to give it to you guys again, because I think it's relevant. And I don't know if it was ever answered in March of 2019, but I believe that the site still falls under the pod. And so we're rezoning a section that we overlaid on top of it. And basically everything that we're rezoning is in contradiction with the pod. So the pod says the one overriding factor that I see is that you need 80,000ft² per dwelling unit, Not per building lot per dwelling unit. And I just don't know. I'm just trying to understand what there are people who don't want anything to happen there. I'm not one of them. I want to see the 209 units become apartments. But I do think that if we don't dot our eyes and cross our t's, we're going to leave ourselves open for if we have a vote and it is successful that it gets challenged and gets shut down, or alternatively, people start saying that it shouldn't have happened because of XYZ. So I really think that voting on the development agreement now switch to the development agreement feels premature until the body is sort of set and you have a sense as to sort of what's what. So I'll leave you with this and I can email it to you as.

00:16:20,667	S1:
Well in a bit.

00:16:21,868	S9:
Yeah, I can email.

00:16:22,701	S2:
It to you.

00:16:23,000	S4:
As well.

00:16:23,300	S1:
I appreciate it.

00:16:24,100	S4:
Thank you.

00:16:26,100	S1:
Thanks.

00:16:32,000	S4:
Okay.

00:16:38,000	S10:
Nancy, 215 Woodbury Street. Jake covered most of what my concerns are because I was going to ask for an update on the email where we, as a group of butters asked development, asked a select board relative to the development plan for some concessions, and those included specifics on the sewer treatment plant that it not be expanded, that it can't be expanded and about its location. We also mentioned commercial development and deed restrictions, which I would like potentially you to comment on. Um, also the potential or lack thereof, high density development, and I understand from going to planning Board and reading the documents that some of those things have been addressed, but in some cases not specifically. And um, again, the traffic and safety and a site review, that site review is really critical. And I go back to, yes, it'll take time and yes, it will cost money, but what is the rush? What are we really trying to accommodate? Do we know if the buyer of the dorms that's going to convert them to apartments has an issue with going forward? If we were to move the public meeting to January or February or something, do we know that, as Jake mentioned, there's a lot of I's to dot T's to cross. The planning board has been working hard. I know you've been working hard, but there's still a lot of issues, big ones and not so big ones. And I really hope that you would take the time to do this right.

00:18:29,968	S1:
Thank you.

00:18:37,000	S11:
Good evening. My name is Valerie Peck and I live at 37 Miles River road. And I want to speak to John's comment just really briefly. My understanding is that what he's speaking of, relative to the money and the schools, has something to do with the pilot agreement. And I kind of want to hopefully dispel that notion. And that there was no official pilot agreement, is my understanding. But if we could produce that documentation that suggests that they did not make those payments, and that might lend a little more oomph to that argument. But I don't think that there's any such document there. But that was just an option. I mean, that might be helpful, but in the brief, in the spirit of being brief and keeping things succinct, I'm just going to read my comments, which a copy. Everyone should have received a copy Um. Earlier today. Um. All right. Members of the Select Board and the town. My husband and I are one of the largest Butters. Roughly 800ft of property line on the west side of the campus. In fact, if you look at the map of the zoning diagram and look to the left, there's a tiny little house and a tiny little garage in black. That's us. We've attended nearly every planning board meeting from the inception of this process nearly three years ago. At this juncture, I'd like to say that with careful thought and consistent involvement, we are in support of the extensive work the Planning Board has done towards a thoughtful and comprehensive zoning overlay district one, which emphasizes controlled density, cluster development, open space, and responsible infrastructure. While I know there remain a few open issues, in particular as it relates to allowable uses, I'm optimistic that these may be resolved to the satisfaction of the Butters and the town. I, too, appreciate the efforts of the Select Board in facilitating an arrangement that serves to address 40 B requirements. It provides for contributions by the seminary towards town expenses in this effort, and it generates tax revenues revenues which will hopefully take the pressure off our already high tax bills. But I also appreciate the seminary's willingness to keep working towards all that I have just mentioned, and for what I see will hopefully be a win win for both the town and the seminary. I think we must not forget that the alternative of not passing this bo wad may result in the seminary leaving, and in doing so, leave us with a hill of excessively large homes, which is a housing stock. We do not need concrete retention walls, long asphalt driveways and drainage issues. and I think we know what that looks like. We will have decreased tax revenues, and we will lose our ability to satisfy our 40 B requirements. And of course, we will no longer be able to have access to this beautiful piece of property. So I hope we take this chance to vote yes on the body. And we will be at tomorrow's planning board as well.

00:21:46,467	S1:
Thank you. Thank you.

00:21:51,367	S1:
Anybody else in the room? Online.

00:21:53,801	S2:
Nobody online.

00:21:57,000	S2:
Here we go.

00:21:57,300	S1:
Okay, I'll close public comment. And as I mentioned on the onset, I think we'll kind of reorder, uh, the, um, the Verizon cable discussion, uh, and public committee openings, and we'll jump right into our first agenda agenda item, which is, uh, further discussion and approval or discussion or non approval of the Gordon Conwell development agreement. So with that said, I know Mister Mr. Olson. Rosemary. You guys have been doing a lot of the the front work on this. We had a rather lengthy discussion in our last meeting. We went over a lot of the issues. We've read all of your emails. I appreciate all of the feedback that we've gotten from everybody. We've tried to incorporate what we can into the agreement and certainly into our discussions, and we certainly invite those to to come up for public comment when that's available. I if I recall, and I'll let Rosemary and or Bill chime in. Some of our larger issues that we asked the school possibly to come back with or Joe some internal diligence, if you will. Were around potential traffic studies to address the concerns. I share those concerns relative to a new use versus the old use of traffic and what that road looks like today, and the width and sidewalks as such. So further discussion on traffic. Further discussion on wastewater treatment. We had a lot of discussion as well on accessibility. Some good points, both sides of that. I think we owe that area a little bit more discussion as well. But I think those were some of the top three that I had for follow up orders since Rosemary in the room was there. Were there other issues before we get into?

00:23:35,267	S5:
So yeah, had some comments to add if.

00:23:37,868	S1:
Okay.

00:23:38,400	S4:
John.

00:23:39,801	S5:
But I think it's a good start. No. Everybody hear me. Fine.

00:23:42,467	S4:
Yes.

00:23:43,467	S5:
Yes, I applaud everyone's efforts. I think this has been a good process. It's been a long process. I don't think we're rushing to a solution. I think that we've done our due diligence with lots of discussions. We've taken all the above comments and tried to work into it what we can. Um, no agreement is perfect, but I think this is a win win for the town. I just want to go through some of my points from my opinion, and then we can now go to Rosemary, and then we can go through the rest of the board. But, um, and I do want to say two things that sort of from the above comments. Right. So number one is that we have committed to the butters that we will work with, you know, with DF and on on making sure that the wastewater treatment, as much as we can control and dictate is is up to par. We're going to hear Marilyn speak to that a little bit later tonight about what the cemetery is doing, but we are going to stay committed to that fact. I don't think we control the size of it, because if it's required to change because of DPW, don't know that we can, um, I don't know that we can control they can improve it if it needs to improve. So we can talk about that. Um, and we are committed to the traffic study. We are willing to take some of the funds that we will get from the seminary to fund a traffic study. We're going to talk about that tonight to to make sure that the Butters understand the traffic impacts of I mean, we're not really adding any units, but there's still going to be impacts to the site. So we're going to take some of the money and do a traffic study. Um, but we also understand that any any future development, if it ever happens, would be a special permit, which would also require their own traffic study. So there'll be multiple layers of traffic studies from our point of view. But I want to go through some of the. But I came up with sort of the top ten reasons I'm sort of now am. You know, there's a lot of discussion, thought. But I'm for this process. I want to go through the top ten reasons I came up with that. We can debate tonight. But, um, you know, someone mentioned tax revenue. Um, we don't know. The final track tax revenue is going to be on this thing. But if you take 209 units and you value each one around $100,000, which would probably be more than that, you're talking, you know, like someone said, over a half $1 million of tax revenue. So we will get to that number we've asked for income to we. That's fine. Come to, uh, prepare some some calculations on what they anticipate the tax revenue might be. So we hope to hear from come before town meeting on what that tax revenue might be. Um, number two, someone mentioned that up front we will get 52 units, which is 25% will be added to our inventory. And number three is that we're going for all 209. So we're going to work with the seminary and the state on getting all 209. But we will at least get 52, which will take care of our Affordable housing numbers. Um, the seven year olds are going to give up a 40 B, so we'll have no risk of 40 B ever being developed on that property. Um, and they've also agreed to limit the number to 209. So the 209 units that are there right now will remain 209 units. So we don't have exposure to additional units within those apartment properties. Number five is we're going to be getting $1 million over time from the seminary based on how they sell and divide the property. They stay there and and become good. If they stay there forever and become neighbors, great neighbors to Hamilton, Hamilton will will welcome that. And if they decide to sell it, we will also share in the, in the in the cost of that and the profits from that. Um, number six is, as someone discussed, the new zoning district is really worked on very hard by the planning board. It's going to be very restrictive, um, about what future development happens on that property. Um, and what can be developed. When I say commercial use, we're limiting the commercial use to residential commercial use. Um, in terms of, uh, homes of, of certain types, um, for either, um, retirement, elderly care facilities, things like that is what it's limited to. And we can talk I hear the planning board talk more about that. Um.

00:27:36,567	S5:
Number seven is any future development will require, you know, continue to require DEP approval of a water wastewater treatment facility. So we'll continue to get monitored and and dictated by them. Number eight, um, is a I sorry I mentioned that one before is the is that we will hopefully get all 209 towards a 40 B. Um, number nine is that we've tried to listen to everybody at the time. We think this is like a win win for the town in terms of taking care of our affordable housing, taking care of open space, taking care of a tax base, um, and protecting an unknown development of that property which we cannot control. And then this works in number ten. It works towards our master plan for the town. So I think it's a win win. I think the only current open issue right now that we'll talk about tonight is access to the property. And while the seminary has allowed access for 55 years, um, it's hard to legally write it into the development agreement because there is no legal basis for, uh, for public access to a private property or private institution. And so while they'll have no intent on changing that access, um, it's hard to legally write it because there's not a legal description of an easement or any area. So, um, so we'll talk about wording that we would agree to put in the development agreement regarding, you know, remain at the site unless written notice is given for any security issues the school may have with having access to the property and then the ability to during a A special permit if the development rights are purchased by others. Uh, a special permit agreement to review access to the site at that point during a special permit process. So, um, but I think we've done good work. I think we've gotten a long way. And, um, and I think there's a list of reasons why this is a win win for the town. So, um, those are my comments. And because, Rose, you worked hard on this, all that. Rosemary also give her comments and her opinion on the public access.

00:29:39,868	S1:
All right. Thanks, Bill. Rosemary.

00:29:42,567	S3:
Okay. Thanks, Bill. So I think there are two issues, um, that in my mind are still outstanding. Um, first of all, I just want to make it clear that although there's a monetary contribution to the town from Gordon Conwell, there are many other issues to be considered. So if life was as easy as throwing a little money at it, We wouldn't have any problems. So we have thought long and hard about all the issues that are related to this potential sale. Um, and the first, I think I'll agree with Bill that everybody has really worked hard. We've listened to the Butters and the seminary has really given a lot as well. So I think we've all tried to work really hard together. We do have that body that's in process by the planning board, and I think they're doing just a phenomenal job. And they certainly have relied upon many of our other bylaws and in reaching their district requirements. So with that said, um, my first question is, and this is probably a question more for for the board. I'm wondering why the town of Hamilton is taking on the financial responsibility for a traffic study. Uh, my opinion about this is that Gordon Conwell should work cooperatively with the potential new owner and organize a true traffic study that would answer the questions of the Butters. I certainly don't have an issue with the town contributing some small amount, but I think it's it's an issue to be discussed between the parties who will be managing the sale. Um, so that's my first comment. And, um.

00:31:54,667	S3:
Regarding, um, access to the property. Um, we appreciate that the that the seminary has allowed, um, people to traverse, traverse the property for, for many years and we hope that that continues. We would like to be a little bit stronger, and we would like for the, um, for the seminary to agree. We can't. Bill, your comments are correct. We cannot compel them to do that. But they can agree that, um, we would have access to the property with access being limited or, um, terminated for cause and that the party that would bring cause, should there be any litigation, would be solely the town of Hamilton that would limit any and it would actually eliminate any frivolous lawsuits. So to not put Gordon Conwell in the position of having to defend what they would consider a frivolous lawsuit. The second issue, um, is the heritage landscape. Now, at one point in these discussions, early on, Gordon Conwell and the negotiating team had talked and many of the Butters had felt that there was too much development being planned, and they would like to see some sort of a conservation restriction on the middle campus which the seminary was in, was agreeing to. But in further discussions with the planning board, they feel that it would be good for Gordon Conwell to be able to develop the middle campus and to keep in some sort of conservation restriction. The heritage landscape and the reasons for that are as follows. The benefits are many. I took a tour of the campus last week and it is a phenomenally beautiful campus, and I think one of the most important things is to come upon that heritage, heritage landscape with the beautiful old trees and the undulating terrain. And I think that serves to increase the value of the campus, which can only help. Good and Conwell when an Fe decide to sell another part of the campus. So I think my opinion is by keeping that portion of the campus open adds to its value, which ultimately will allow the campus to monetize itself more. Gordon Conwell And certainly for the town to increase tax their tax base. So I think that those that's a win win situation if one thinks about that. Um, and so um, sorry, I just and it also controls for over overdevelopment on the campus when Abramson submitted their study. Their analysis in 2023. They decide they looked at this and they decided that there would be 50 residences allowed. Well, right now we have 209 units, and that surpasses 50 residents, while still allowing for a considerable amount of development in the future within the campus. So I would still advocate for having a conservation restriction on the heritage landscape for the many reasons that I've discussed and for allowing public access, which is indeed, along with the heritage landscape. It's a public benefit for for many, many years, the town has looked at that property starting as early as 2014, with the Renaissance report talking about the value of the heritage landscape. So I would strongly like for the seminary to consider the two things that I've discussed and also the, um, also financing the traffic study. Other than that, I think we have some very good pieces to this, which I think will be very beneficial to the town and to the seminary.

00:36:25,067	S4:
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Rosemary.

00:36:27,100	S1:
Um.

00:36:28,000	S5:
I just have one more follow up since I've had these meetings with you. Um, just when you when you use the word open there, do you mean open in terms of open to the public or open in terms of undeveloped land, or did you mean both? When you say open.

00:36:40,000	S3:
In terms of the heritage landscape?

00:36:41,868	S4:
Yes.

00:36:42,567	S3:
Um, I was specifically referring to just keeping it open, not necessarily, um, public use.

00:36:51,000	S5:
So I thought that's where we ended up on development agreement is that we would have a portion of the property would remain with the conservation restriction of the middle campus, is that not is it? Joe, I don't know if you can comment that, but that's where I thought we left things with the Maryland last meeting.

00:37:07,968	S2:
So I just evidently a miscommunication or misunderstanding of what was what the agreement was, because you and Myron said that you agreed. And I took that to mean that based on what was in the development agreement at that time. So, uh, we didn't add anything back in. So if you had a different understanding, then I apologize. Um.

00:37:29,367	S5:
But the conservation restriction was coming through. The was the zoning bylaw.

00:37:36,767	S2:
So you had asked you had asked if the intent was to, um, trim the seminary's Dover rights and everybody said no. And you said, well, then we're in agreement. And that's what Marin said. Yes. So we're in agreement. So.

00:37:50,601	S5:
Yeah. Well, the summary the agreement was while the seminary controls it, we cannot impact the their Dover agreement, but if they sell the property, the bylaw would would overrule which would which would put it in conservation. So that's what we talked about at our last meeting.

00:38:07,367	S2:
Right. And we believe the way the and just for everybody's edification, the chairman of the planning board is listening in. So if you want to ask her, but I believe the current version of the Brownsville Overlay District does restrict development in the heritage landscape. And I believe the seminary has been working on that language with them. So yeah, that's.

00:38:23,868	S5:
Yeah. So I think we're in agreement. Yeah. If we can't, we can't override a Dover agreement. So if they stay there forever and they never sell the property, then they remain a good neighbor, remain an institutional neighbor. But if they decide to develop the middle campus, it becomes a conservation restriction. I thought that's how we wrote it in and that's what we were in agreement with. So if something didn't change, then.

00:38:45,400	S2:
So the only thing, the only thing I'd say, Bill, is that a conservation restriction isn't done through zoning. It's done through applying for the restriction Or as an attachment to the to the deed. So there's there's a gray area here. So there planning board is attempting to restrict the development of the heritage landscape if the property passes to other hands. But that would be through the zoning and the special permit process in which nothing would ever get built there. It wouldn't be a specific conservation restriction which would be attached to the deed.

00:39:22,100	S1:
So is there anything we'd want to put in this agreement or that would fall, fall in suit, you know, through the planning board and the zoning agreements?

00:39:29,567	S3:
Well, this would be a different it would be a different form of, um, uh, it would be a contract. So zoning amendments can be made at any time. And a special permit does not necessarily guarantee that things will be limited. And so, um, a conservation Restriction of the heritage landscape would keep it open, perhaps not in perpetuity, but as long as legally allowed. I believe 3030 years was what I understood that to be.

00:40:08,400	S2:
Um, I think that's right. I believe that's right.

00:40:11,667	S3:
And and so and so the other the other part of it is, I mean, I think, as John Wooden had said, that some parts of this, um, of these discussions will be in the body. The Browns Hill overlay district and some parts of it will be in the development agreement. And as John Whitton had stated, that one is used as belt and suspenders for the other. So.

00:40:44,000	S1:
So could we add suspenders to this?

00:40:46,400	S2:
Did you want to ask the chair? The planning board chair? Marney, are you looking to be recognized?

00:40:50,267	S4:
Are you there?

00:40:51,567	S3:
Yes. Can you hear.

00:40:52,701	S4:
Me? Yes.

00:40:54,767	S12:
Uh, right now, in the downtown overlay district, there is a provision regarding open space, which I will read to you. It says for any new development within each district, regardless of the use, the minimum percentage of the gross acreage set forth in table four shall be specifically identified as common open space and, where applicable, accessible to the occupants or public through deed restrictions, covenants, public dedication or other method acceptable to the Planning Board unless the required open space amount is reduced or waived by the Planning Board. So, to the extent that the heritage landscape is owned by the seminary, the overlay district, and anyone else for that matter, but the heritage landscape is not subject to being, developed now to seminary. I imagine exercising its Dober amendment rights could be something to that property. But as contemplated now, the retreat house can be reused as of right. There can be an expansion of the retreat house up to 10% through a special permit process. But that heritage landscape cannot be developed now. Ideally, the the seminary will honor that it will not assert over amendment rights to put other structures on that property which on that subdistrict, if you will, there would be nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses, because only existing structures will be deemed conforming under the Brownsville Overlay District. But certainly if the seminary were to, uh, sell, uh, what it owns, including the heritage landscape. Uh, if someone were to buy the retreat house, then the conservation restriction could be part of the special permit process for that part of the campus. But the heritage landscape could not be segmented and sold in in different places. There's only the only structure that can be reused is the retreat house. So. So in that sense, um, while I support Rosie's position, I think that having the conservation restriction on the heritage landscape now, um, is very beneficial. There's this backup provision, if you will. Um, that Get set with in the Brownsville Overlay District. And similarly, we have a provision in addition to the one I just read that specifically provides for open space access, and that was called from the greatest overlay district. So again, I support Rosie. I think that that it's beneficial to the seminary to, to permit public access to the site and uh, and, and agree to that and provide if they were to provide notice to the town that they were curtailing public access that they at least set forth. Cause. No, I believe I, I proposed, um, changing the language from, um, reasonable cause or good cause to just simply cause. Because I think we all know that religious institutions, you know, are subject or can be subject to or, or hate crimes and that type of thing. So, um, the balance of spenders would be to try and use some of the provisions that are now in the Brown district by incorporating them into the, into the overlay district. But if there's if there's pushback on that, uh, the overlay district is going to be the, the fallback. And uh, with respect to the, the development agreement, because that's a contract. The parties could do agreement, amend it at any time in the future. But the overlay district can can only be modified if two thirds majority of the citizens in Hamilton agree to any change. That's assuming it gets adopted in the first place. But I think that the planning board still has work to do on on some of its tables. And we're really pushing hard, but we have lots of constituencies to consider. I mean, we have the butters, we have other people in town. We have obviously, the seminary is very interested in how their property will be used. And then we have the opinions of the different members of our seven member board. So it's it's been a it's been a challenging couple of weeks.

00:46:21,400	S5:
But just to break down the specific question that was asked of you, Marty, and I appreciate your response, was that are we protected from the intent of the agreement, which is the heritage landscape will not be developed?

00:46:36,000	S12:
Well, the the the only if the seminary were to agree to the conservation restriction. It could not be developed if they do not agree to that. Then there is the potential at some point that exercising their Dover Amendment rights, they could, for example, say we need apartments. We need apartments for our our students.

00:47:00,667	S5:
We know that, okay. So we know we're not going to give up the Dover Agreement. We've already been to that debate last week. You're not going to go through that again. The intent was if the property sells, that the heritage landscape can't be developed. That was the intent of the agreement. That was what we asked for. So does do you feel like you have protected that in your current zoning bylaw or will.

00:47:19,467	S12:
We can we can protect it with the subsequent owner.

00:47:24,167	S2:
Okay, great.

00:47:25,467	S12:
But you know, it's my.

00:47:29,667	S12:
View that the seminary has the capacity to waive the exercise of its Third Amendment rights with respect to the heritage Landscape. Correct.

00:47:40,701	S5:
That's the. That was what we agreed to. Two weeks ago.

00:47:43,467	S13:
Well, I mean, I.

00:47:45,100	S12:
Agree to that. I mean, it would be essentially a waiver of their Dover Amendment rights or with respect to the heritage landscape, if they were to go ahead and agree to a deed restriction that would run with the land. Um, but if they if they will not do that, then then, um, if they.

00:48:04,901	S13:
Would sue.

00:48:05,601	S12:
And I you know, that's something in the development agreement whether they execute it or not.

00:48:10,968	S5:
All right. Thank you. So, Joe, I'll go back to you. So we asked obviously our council to this is an important element, right. That during the ownership that what we agreed to two weeks ago not to go back and change our agreement, we talked about the meeting. Public record was that we're not going to impact the Dover Agreement or Dover, but if they sell the property, we wanted to protect the heritage landscape. It sounds like Marni says, that the zoning bylaw is based on that intent. Are we covered on that show or do we need to add any belts and suspenders?

00:48:42,167	S2:
I think that what? As what? As Marty said that having it in the zoning is the belt and suspenders. The suspenders to the belt. It's because we can't get it in the agreement. The seminary has declined that they are getting into the zoning does do that. And part of the reason they've said that is because they know that it's going into the zoning as well. So.

00:49:03,567	S3:
Well, what you're saying is we're not going to ask them to waive their Dover rights in terms of, um, contributing a deed restriction to the heritage landscape. They could, but we're and I'm asking them to and we have been discussing this for some time. But what what you're saying is we can't, Bill. And that's, uh, they can if they chose to. So I think we should make that clear. If, if they're not going to, they're not going to. but it doesn't mean that we can't make a concerted effort to have them do so because they have the rest of the property to be able to develop. We're not restricting. We're not asking them to restrict anything else.

00:49:51,501	S5:
Right. But we talked about this two weeks ago. This is what we agreed to. So I just don't want to go back on. But like two weeks ago we talked about this exact item. And what we agreed to at the time was while they maintained the property, they were not going to restrict their Dover rights. And so that's about the the risk was if they sold it to protect it at that point. So I mean, we can talk about it as a board. But that was my understanding of what we did two weeks ago.

00:50:18,000	S3:
Well, we didn't specifically talk about the the heritage landscape. And I think there was a slight misunderstanding because the board was under the impression that we that they cannot waive partial Dover rights. Overwrites and in reality, if they agreed to it, they could. So I want to make that clear.

00:50:40,467	S5:
Um, yeah, I was clear on that. And we can go through the board and make sure if they were clear, unclear. But I was clear that that's what we decided last at our last meeting. So but we can make sure everybody on the board was clear when we let people speak. But I was pretty clear that that's what we agreed to.

00:50:54,167	S3:
Right. Because because we because perhaps the board understood the Dover Amendment rights versus the Dover amendment. Rights cannot waive them versus opt not to waive them. There's a difference that I just want to make sure that the board understands that.

00:51:17,067	S1:
But yeah, no, I don't disagree. I mean, Bill's my recollection is what Bill had just said. You know, I'll throw another angle at it if you will. Like, like if we restricted their Dover agreement. Not sure why they'd do that, although it is a chip in the in the game if you want to use an Analogy, but what if that ability allowed them to stay there and not potentially sell the property? And then we would see even more development? What if that smaller controlled growth prohibited or stopped, mitigated future growth and they wouldn't have to sell? And if they couldn't expand their the retreat house or whatever the example was, you know, that allows them to stay and have be an ongoing entity. I mean, isn't that a something we wouldn't want to restrict them and force them to sell because they couldn't do the the growth they wanted to through the Dover Agreement?

00:52:04,267	S2:
I'm warning you, Mr. Hannigan. Marnie's raised.

00:52:08,100	S1:
That. Okay. Marnie, if you have a thought on that.

00:52:10,167	S12:
I do have a thought on that. I think that you could craft a conservation restriction that's specifically carved out Dover Amendment rights. So you could have the conservation restriction in place with an exception for any entity that owned the property exercising its amendment rights such that. Upon sale to another entity that was not a religious or educational institution. The conservation restriction then would be fully enforceable against any type of use or development. You just carve out the Dove Amendment rights when you when you draft the conservation restriction and record it, that's all. So that that is something that would should not be something that the, the seminary should, uh, balk at because.

00:53:09,267	S5:
I think, I think bear would agree to that last meeting. So whatever that means in terms of document. But I think we're on that same page.

00:53:15,801	S12:
I think that's the answer that you just go ahead and draft the over the conservation restriction and just have a language in it. The calves of the dove amendment, as simple as that.

00:53:29,868	S1:
I like that.

00:53:36,767	S4:
I'm not sorry.

00:53:37,767	S5:
I'm not entirely. I'll just.

00:53:39,868	S14:
You know, say I'm not entirely following the mechanism like the the paper trail here in terms of getting this into the development agreement and what we're voting on or.

00:53:50,501	S4:
Well.

00:53:51,467	S14:
Walk me through the the contract, the piece of paper. Who's writing it? Where does it materialize in this process? I missed that.

00:54:00,868	S12:
Well, you have a you have a development agreement. And as part of the development agreement, there would be an execution of a conservation restriction.

00:54:11,167	S14:
And that's not in here now, is that correct?

00:54:13,667	S12:
It would not be in there would be a separate document suitable for recording in the Essex South registry of deeds.

00:54:20,501	S14:
Right. We're not even we don't we don't have anything in the development agreement right now in front of us. No rights to such a document.

00:54:27,567	S12:
So Information relating to the conservation restriction was removed at the last iteration that you saw at the very end. There was a statement to the effect that the or the question of the conservation restriction remained open.

00:54:47,767	S12:
So what will happen here, ideally in my view, is that there would be a conservation restriction and in any way they can. Um, practising lawyer would have access to, to a essentially a form and you would just carve out of the conservation restriction, uh, the exercise of the amendment rights. And then that document, that conservation restriction would be recorded at the at the same time as the development agreement. And I believe the development agreement provides that it may be recorded, but I would strongly recommend that the development agreement be recorded because everybody thinks they'll remember all this stuff. But in 20 years, when none of us, none of us are around. Having that paper trail in the Registry of Deeds is critically important. So that.

00:55:43,868	S5:
So, Jo. Jo. Jo. Jo. We got Jo Jo. We got a lot of discussion here. And I appreciate what Barney controls the planning board, not the development agreement. So, Jo, can you comment on what steps we need to take in order to get the intent we're trying to get here, so we all are on the same page.

00:55:58,200	S2:
Well, you had a version of the development agreement in your packets tonight that you could vote on. If you want to make changes to that, you'd have to vote to make that change. And then the seminary would have to respond. And if, depending on the response would be determine whether or not you had an agreement.

00:56:15,167	S5:
But specific to this item, what language would we need to add specifically this item to the development agreement?

00:56:22,801	S2:
I agree with the Planning Board chair. I'd need to get council to write it for me. I'm not an attorney. I'm not going to try to draft that on the fly. Um, but I could contact John Whitten this week and have him draft it. But your board would be voting blind because I wouldn't have it on until at least Wednesday or Thursday this week, you know?

00:56:45,501	S5:
Well, in fairness, I mean, this is what we talked about last week is what we agreed to. So I'm kind of understanding the gap. It's exactly what we agreed to. But now we're talking about something we already agreed to last our last meeting. So I'll just let the table write down here Marilyn's opinion when he gets up and talks. But let's keep moving through the board and get another comments if Rosemary's done.

00:57:08,400	S1:
Yeah. So, um, Ben, did you have further comments or.

00:57:13,667	S14:
Go ahead. I just had that one question for now. And I while Marty was there.

00:57:18,267	S1:
So so I didn't have I thought we had resolved the comp, uh, conservation piece as well. I did want to hear from, uh, Gordon Conwell around, uh, the wastewater treatment kind of how that is the status of it today and, and growth and how that gets managed. I want to hear about traffic studies. I do agree with Rosemary that, you know, I do agree with what was said on the onset that there needs to be a more extensive one done on the future use, not on what's been done. But it's fair that we talk about what's been done. But I think that cost should be burdened by the school, not the town. Um, and then the access piece, you know, I think Bill had said it's difficult to control access, you know, to a to an entire property, I think as other areas, whether tobacco or any property that we look at, you know, if there were a defined, you know, head trails, then it's easy to control. Open space is not. So I actually tend to think that it's within the right of the seminary. And we've been very fortunate, you know, for the access we have. I would love to preserve that. Maybe there's a way to have trails outlined and allow certain areas to be accessed. Um, and maybe there is, you know, softer language to Mani's point relative to, you know, because they're not saying today they're going to remove any of that access. Right? It's just what if something happened? In today's world, there is a lot that happens around anything that's said or done, how you finance things, you know, legals, teas and seeds don't like to see the general public and just have random access everywhere. That can be a challenge. So I, I tend to think that needs to be controlled, but I'd love to have some access. It's a great property. Um, and the traffic study might help provide that, you know, add some sidewalks, allow that, you know, some entranceway down sidewalks that are safe, you know, on the sides of a of a busier street. So I'm at a point where I'd want to hear from the seminary on some of those items. Um, and we can talk further about the conservation. I did think we had that. And that would be only a change of control thing. You know, they would not forego their Dover agreements. But in the event of, you know, a change of control or a change of hands of a new ownership that would run through the special permit process, if we want to put suspenders on that and we can. I'm open to that, you know. But I do think we checked that box a couple of weeks ago, but happy to entertain it. Get your thoughts if that's something we could get even at a, you know, a a verbal state where, you know, attorneys are going to look at it. But if at all is we're all in a general agreement, we could add it either as a separate document or I don't know why we couldn't add letter D or L or M whatever's next into this agreement.

00:59:51,100	S3:
Yeah. So so the comment is that they would retain their Dover rights until such time if and when the area that includes the heritage landscape is sold, that the board feels that we would very much like to see a conservation restriction on that property. Okay. Okay.

01:00:16,501	S1:
That's what I had. Ben. If you didn't have anything else, we can get into a larger discussion. Bill, if you had a thought on how to to kind of get into that dialogue with the seminary, that'd be great too.

01:00:27,567	S5:
Oh, I just had one question for Joe. So I'll while I agree with you that the seminary should bear the cost of the traffic study, that was kind of the intent would be the first $100,000 they donated. We would allocate, you know, a certain amount of that to the traffic study. Um, they could donate more money. But we've already got up to, you know, over $1 million. But, Joe, how much do you think a traffic study would cost us? So we know where does that 10,000, 20,000? What are we? What are we.

01:00:52,567	S14:
Talking?

01:00:52,868	S2:
We could probably get a traffic study done for 20 to $25,000. The the issue is that, you know, a traffic study prior to any change of use is going to be kind of similar to what you got from the seminary today. It's going to be making estimates based on past years or estimates based on similar projects in other places. It's not going to be hard numbers. You're not going to be able to what I had suggested Bill before was that the town, the payments that the seminary is offering to make and the development agreement are essentially mitigation payments. Mitigation payments can be used to mitigate the town's expenses for things like roadway improvements that would offset any traffic impacts. We're not going to know what the traffic impacts really are until after there's a change of use, so we can study it some more. But my guess is you'll get something very similar to what the seminary sent over this weekend. Um, that's generally what I've seen in other roles that I've had in other towns. That's how traffic studies get done there. Estimates there. It's math. It's not actuals. And you won't get axles till there's a change in use.

01:01:57,767	S14:
Yeah. So there's a.

01:01:59,167	S5:
That's valid.

01:02:00,067	S1:
In every way. I don't disagree with what you said, but I mean clearly this is now a public road. It's not a driveway to an institution. And clearly the use will be different. The traffic will be different. The width of the road is probably required to be different. The drainage, whether or not there's a required sidewalk, because, yes, it's still a it's a college campus. And it'll it's almost a sidewalk in a way. Now because the traffic is so low, clearly that will will change, you know. And a sidewalk in my I would probably be necessary, I would think. But it was a traffic and I haven't read through the traffic study in detail. Did that account for 209 units?

01:02:37,501	S5:
Well, yeah. Because because Bill, they haven't done changing square footage, not changing you. That's not changed. This is not a change of you're not changing the property just using it differently. So the question is it's you know, you're not adding more bedrooms, you're not adding more. The seminaries had people there. So I, I still think we should do one, Joe. As, as to just check the numbers from our point of view and have it being done by the town and not by the, by the seminary, but it is going to be just an, you know, a review of their, of their numbers. But until a special permit comes in, they're not going to be required to, to do any different improvements. improvement bill. So that's the issue that when a new development comes in, that's the opportunity for us to really go through the the site plan review.

01:03:20,567	S1:
We would build a street like that that had 209 dwellings on it to that those specs as a town, if we start, if we were to build a a road into a development of that size, and this is our opportunity to make sure it's fitted right.

01:03:38,767	S1:
If you tell me we would but I think we would. So that's not really fair. Or say for the residents.

01:03:46,000	S4:
There.

01:03:46,267	S2:
It's unlike anything else we have anywhere else in town. We have examples of small three and four homes being built, basically with driveway dimensions. We've had fights on on other streets in town by road about potential development and the some people feeling that the driveway that was offered wasn't sufficient. And the developer's saying that was as far as they were going to go. So it's it's come up before, Um.

01:04:12,701	S1:
I just think, I mean, I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, but we mentioned 1.1 million, and that does sound like a big number. And it is, but really only 400,000, you know, comes to us as if the if the school stays as is right, then it starts developing. That's where the other money's come. And and I'm not sure we want it to get this right. We want the school to be a long time partner for many more years. And so that 400 gets eaten up quickly, you know, with the, you know, the schools and services and stuff. That's what I think the 400 is meant to be, not further analysis and expense to, you know, to justify those first two bullets, 25 of 400 is a decent percentage of it.

01:04:52,968	S3:
Well, and also isn't this do I understand that these are going to be private roads? Is that correct. In the town is not going to be responsible for any of these roads. Is that correct? Right. Okay.

01:05:04,501	S1:
So we are responsible for liability probably.

01:05:07,100	S3:
Well I think that's part of site plan review that we had.

01:05:10,968	S2:
They'd be. We'd be responsible for everything that happens after they cross the threshold from their driveway to our streets. Right?

01:05:16,000	S1:
And so, God forbid something happened on that road, though. Is that a liability?

01:05:20,400	S3:
No.

01:05:20,801	S1:
Not town.

01:05:22,167	S3:
No, it's it's it's a private road. So that wouldn't affect us. The we will mean the fire department and the police department will. More specifically, the fire department will mandate the width and the safety of the roads when they do site plan review. So we will not be on the hook for improving any of those roads.

01:05:43,567	S1:
Right. I'm just all about safety on them right now.

01:05:47,000	S14:
Yeah.

01:05:47,367	S5:
Okay.

01:05:48,100	S14:
Driving to play is where where the exits, you know. So if the traffic patterns are going to change where these streets exit the property onto the public roads, that at Essex and Woodbury and Bridge Street, if there are improvements needed at those intersections. So that that's where it would kind of materialize in our world, right? Joe?

01:06:15,300	S2:
Yes.

01:06:16,767	S14:
And so I'm just kind of seconding that I'm in favor of the traffic study being conducted by the town if one's going to be provided. Um. However, if the study were to kind of come back at a future point in time and say that some mitigation measures would be warranted along the public frontage of those streets I just mentioned, you know, what would that cost look like? And who's responsible for those costs at that point? Is it us? Is it the seminary or is it the developer?

01:06:51,367	S2:
It we again, we need an engineer to look at it. I don't think that the street, particularly like on Woodbury, is wide enough to handle a changing Woodbury street. So you'd want to look at probably Essex and maybe Bridge Street as the places where you'd want to look to make improvements to improve access. Because the width of Woodbury is too narrow and it's a windy road, so I don't know that.

01:07:14,367	S1:
Oh, and what you're saying, though, is we would we would bear the cost of that down the road. We would own that. There's no there's no putting that back to discussion, Ben. No, after the fact. That's why people are suggesting we do a study now so we know before we get into it. And that would and then our diligence would say, okay, the 400,000 or so in the first two milestones would cover all of those expenses, because our traffic study told us we're probably going to get there. Yeah. I don't think the 100 of the 300 I'm looking at, the milestones are meant to do that traffic study. That should have been the diligence done right now. And that's why I think we need to do it. I think everyone on the board does. It's just who should pay for it, which is surprising a little bit. I do think that should be part of it.

01:07:54,100	S5:
But but Bill. But Bill, I agree with you. But we they did do a traffic study. We would be doing a check of their traffic signs like they the seminary did do the work to do a traffic study based on what they know now. So they and they provide it to the town. So we want them to pay for two. We can make them pay for two. But I'm just trying to figure out how much like, what are we actually what's the what are we actually doing here? What are we asking them to do so well.

01:08:19,267	S3:
And also Bill, when the site plan review is done and fire department goes in there, and if the fire department tells them that they need to make their ingress and egress more accessible to fire apparatus or emergency apparatus, the onus is on the owner of the private road to do that, right, because of responsibility. And so so I don't think we should we should panic about any anything that needed to be to be done regarding the private roads. They're not our responsibility. Our responsibility is Woodbury or Bridge or whatever. Um, Egress or ingress was specifically on public property. And so that's why I vote for. If there is any further traffic study that needs to be done regarding anything within the campus, that that's not the town's responsibility financially, financially as my point.

01:09:26,400	S2:
So and traffic improvements could include things like making the access point on Woodbury a one way and making the access point on Bridge Street a two way potentially or making keeping making those both one ways and having the only two way intersection, the one on Essex, so that there are things you can do because you reduce the amount of conflict in the traffic by having one way as opposed.

01:09:48,801	S3:
To that's a traffic plan. Is that different than a traffic study?

01:09:53,100	S2:
That would be part of it'd be part of traffic improvement. So we would those would be things that a traffic engineer could recommend.

01:09:58,400	S3:
Okay. And okay.

01:10:01,000	S14:
So that's all. All this to say, these types of recommendations that might come out of a study that maybe is slightly more. And this is where what I'm asking the question is like, well, when does that happen? You know, if it's just based on if all we're going to get is something similar to what we received, that's not particularly useful. Um, if we have to wait until it's occupied. Actually it.

01:10:26,167	S5:
Happened.

01:10:30,467	S1:
What happened?

01:10:30,901	S14:
Sorry.

01:10:33,367	S2:
Now you're muted.

01:10:35,868	S14:
Go ahead Joe. I'm asking like when when is the point in time if you have to wait until it's fully occupied then do the study to see you know, how did it how did traffic flow and patterns change? What redirection need to occur?

01:10:48,000	S2:
I didn't I didn't mean to suggest that you had to wait till it's fully occupied. What I said was that anything that you would do, you would look at the roadways, you look at the traffic patterns, and you make an assumption about traffic levels based on past history when the units were occupied, and potentially similar developments of similar size and what their traffic patterns are. And then you overlay them on our roadways and the engineers would say, okay, you could do A, B, C, D and E, or any group of those things to improve the efficiency of the traffic into and off of the campus. Some of those might be structural. Some of those might be change of use, but those things would come out. But they would still be based on math assumptions until you actually had use of the property again.

01:11:31,667	S1:
So so how does like Bill, you had mentioned, we'll do another study, which I'm reading through the report. Um, are you saying that because you think these assumptions are incorrect and how would we change them to get a different study?

01:11:47,100	S3:
More commonly.

01:11:47,767	S2:
I mean, peer reviewing studies has done a lot of times. So it wouldn't be it wouldn't be.

01:11:52,667	S5:
Just peer.

01:11:53,100	S2:
Review. You know, we work, but.

01:11:56,501	S1:
We do that with Before with this one. I mean a recent a current and appear in a for future state.

01:12:03,968	S2:
We just got that this weekend so I can send it to tech or somebody that we work with and have it peer reviewed. Um.

01:12:11,200	S1:
I just I just don't think this is a burden for the town to do this. That should that should be part of this. I think what I'm hearing from half the board is we don't trust this, right? Because we think the traffic pattern will be different. That's why we want to do this with a peer review or whatever. The proper, you know, title for that is, I think that should be done. And part of the package that hands it to the town that says, here's what you got coming. We gave you milestones that we feel will pay, you know, to help subsidize, ease some of that burden as well as the other services going forward, which I think the milestones are great. I just feel like a traffic study shouldn't be one of our costs that it was done. Yes, but it was done from what I'm hearing from the entire board, not to the extent we we would.

01:12:53,968	S5:
No, I don't I don't agree with that statement.

01:12:55,868	S1:
That's what you just said.

01:12:56,767	S5:
No, no, I said we would do a peer review. Not because we don't believe the study, but because we think it's the right thing to do for the residents to do a peer review. I'm not making an opinion about whether or not it's acted or not. I'm just saying we'll do a peer review. A week ago, we didn't have the traffic study. We just got out within the last week.

01:13:13,567	S9:
So no.

01:13:14,367	S1:
Joe just clarified that.

01:13:16,100	S5:
Right. So I'm not I am not at all saying that. I don't believe it. I'm saying that we do peer reviews all the time. It doesn't mean we don't trust it. It's just a verification process.

01:13:25,567	S1:
It's called due diligence, I get it. So we should have done it. Now we have it. We should do it, but we don't pay for it.

01:13:30,100	S5:
And you're. Well, we're not paying. We're not paying for it. We're taking the we're not paying for it. We're taking the the money from the seminary and putting it towards the traffic study.

01:13:37,167	S9:
So.

01:13:37,467	S1:
That that money is for future services, not to.

01:13:40,367	S14:
Sell.

01:13:40,667	S5:
Not for mitigation.

01:13:42,067	S2:
Payments, to mitigate to mitigation impacts of change of use to the town. That's the way it has to be defined.

01:13:48,167	S1:
Because otherwise I don't agree.

01:13:50,868	S15:
I don't agree state.

01:13:51,667	S2:
Doesn't.

01:13:51,868	S15:
Look at it.

01:13:52,300	S3:
And also it looks like Marnie has left, but I'm. I'm fairly certain that in site plan review, this will be addressed.

01:14:02,567	S2:
The traffic plan review for any future development. But I don't think this goes to site plan review.

01:14:09,000	S15:
But it's part of the apartments. We're thinking.

01:14:11,467	S1:
Apartments. That's really the big right.

01:14:12,968	S3:
But but the apartments because they're going to want some amendments, some changes they'll, they'll need they don't have um carte blanche right to just do whatever they want. They have to undergo a peer review. I mean, excuse me, a site plan review.

01:14:32,767	S1:
Right. So, no, this is a good traffic study. If it remains the same, the same patterns of time of day, days of the week and all that, if all that stays consistent, this is good. If we think that's going to change for a minute, you know, and increase, you know, flow on to the public way, then then it doesn't. And that's what I think Bill Olson is saying. We you do a peer review. I'm sure we got to give. I don't know how you do a pair of you, because you got to give them criteria. I would imagine that says we feel that it'll change by X. What does that mean? Right.

01:15:03,167	S3:
Right, right. And also I think I think the reality is you'll have a different demographic occupying the apartments and in the future use as opposed to what the seminary students use it for. Now, I think you can expect that the people who live in those apartments, first of all, we expect that they would be fully occupied, which is not the case now. You're likely to have more traffic, significantly more traffic, because I don't know of any, um, family that doesn't have at least two cars in their possession. And so those are things that need to be looked at as well in terms of a traffic study. So.

01:15:48,667	S15:
Okay.

01:15:49,467	S3:
Um, just thoughts.

01:15:52,267	S1:
So is there anything? You guys are. Sorry. We've been.

01:15:56,367	S3:
Taking notes.

01:15:58,567	S1:
Yes. We appreciate all you're doing.

01:16:02,567	S16:
Thank you very much. And again, all of us, thank you so much for the work. And it's been a great deal of work and we appreciate it very much. I, I can take any of these in the order since we just finished with the traffic study there. Why don't we start with that? Yeah. So and just the timing of it. You requested that we do the transportation analysis and we just got that today. So I understand that the board has not had an opportunity to look at it closely. And so I would I would suggest that maybe it'd be worth looking at it very closely first before making, you know, decisions about wanting any additional traffic review or anything like that. Howard Stein Hudson is, is it's an independent. It's not related to us. It's one of the preeminent, uh, engineering firms in the in the state. And they did this study. We provided them with the information. We'd provide the new whatever it is, we'd. Anybody have to do it? They'd have to be provided with the information of what past use has been. There's a little bit of a misunderstanding here. The apartments have been in the last several years. They've been up to 70% occupied. They're about 60 to 70% now occupied. So they're not empty. The departments have been there for 40 years. Two of them have been there for 50 years. So we're talking about doing a study to see whether the last four decades of use has been a problem. We don't need that. Right? We we we know that it hasn't been a problem because it's been there for four decades and we've had intensive use with students. Now it's important to understand about students. Students have most of those are spouses married student housing. Uh, they the spouses have full time jobs, so they've got cars. So the use that the seminary makes of that premises is now intensive. And even though it's 30% down. 35% down in terms of occupancy right now, it's not they're not empty. And they've been used the whole time. The infrastructure on the campus is been the same the whole time, and so there's no need for additional changes to it. It's worked well. It continues to work well. It's currently working well. And with an additional 30% of occupancy of those apartments, there's no change here. This is not a new construction. This is not a new development. This isn't a proposed development. It's not even going to change its use. There are people who are going to live there in the future. There are people living there now. They continue to use it. So I don't think we need to do another transportation analysis. You'll get the same answer. You'll when you read it, you'll see that they rely on the institution of Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual Trip Generation, 11th edition. There are specific numbers there there based on then the anticipated with the 209 units going forward and then taking what could be developed there based on what the Planning Board has put together in terms of the overlay district, what uses there could be, and there and you'll find the conclusion at the end is that with these 55 plus, which is the most likely use of the premises of the of the property that it could handle six times the density that the planning Board is, is, is proposing to bring us back up to the high water mark of the last 40 years, which we've met. We've hit that high water mark many times. So the point is, there's plenty there that we don't need traffic studies to figure out which way to come in and out, because we've been doing it for for decades. It's two way in from Essex. It's always been one way in, from at least. I think for the last 40 years it's been one way in from Woodbury and Bridge has been by there. It's been both two way and one way. And sure, those could be adjusted, but there hasn't been an outpouring of of complaints about traffic over the last four decades. And there's no change here. It's going to be the same thing. So I would ask that we not bog it down, delay this thing. For more information, you asked us for the transportation analysis. We went to an esteemed firm to do that. You can do the due diligence on whether these people can be believed. And and I would suggest that we've done what you asked, and we've we've demonstrated that there's there's a lot of additional additional traffic that this campus could take and the neighborhood could take without any adverse impact. So maybe I'll move on. Um, let me talk a little bit about the access. Uh, there's one thing we haven't talked about there, and that is I mean, first off, we've been consistent for four years that we can't give access. We just can't do that. It's too dangerous. We've had threats. We've had. There was a graffiti incident recently. So we just we cannot put ourselves in a position of having to litigate even against one party, which is if that's the town. This is a seminary. We're not interested in litigating, but we don't if there's if there's reason to litigate, that's a, that's a that's expensive and it creates, then the possibility that someone would disagree with the seminary's reasons for doing it. But I think I can put it to rest with a practical protection for the town, which is we're selling 209 units. Those are no longer going to be exclusively occupied by seminary people. Right. Students, as a practical matter, policing that or constraining the access with those people coming in like that is going to be logistically very difficult. Now, does it mean that we couldn't do it? No, but it would be difficult. You'd have to do something like Ipswich Country Club with a gatehouse and a gate to stop people in, and everybody would have to pass codes and call ahead. Could that be done? Yes. Is it likely? No. Could it be done? If it was necessary? Yes. Are we willing to give up the ability to do that? No. So we we think the town is going to be protected. You've got 55 years of people being able to come on there. We're delighted when people come on there. And so there's no intention to stop that. But we just need to be in a position. It's private property. We need to be in a position to restrict access. Um, one significant development that the Planning Board has done, and it was last meeting. And since then, we've actually just we've we've sent a letter to the chair, both of this, this planning board, this select board and then the planning board. We we have suggested that the Planning Board withdraw all commercial uses, with the exception of the gatehouse and pilgrim Hall. This is a substantial concession on the part of the seminary. For the entire time that I've been up here. We understood that as a matter of right, we could repurpose the buildings that we currently have to. Commercial uses. The planning board last meeting took that away. We think at this point that for the for the peace of the community, in order to extend this out to the Butters who are concerned about commercial. And we understand that concern that at this point to, to to to really put out a pathway that I think of least resistance for the select board, for the planning board, for the Butters, for the seminary, for the town residents. We're suggesting that we just pull commercial, except for those two buildings, that's about a 90% reduction in square footage that could be commercially used, and it would eliminate anything on the top of the hill at the upper campus. We think that simplifies things, that at that point, it's pretty much going to be 55 plus age restricted housing and and what other other kinds of residential uses the Planning Board thinks is appropriate, and we're prepared to move forward on that. But I think that's going to, you know, that takes away that as a traffic concern. There won't be any commercial use. It'll be residential, which we're all used to.

01:23:48,968	S3:
Um, and I'm sorry, could you just reiterate the buildings that you said will just be for commercial?

01:23:55,868	S16:
Sure. So the.

01:23:57,100	S3:
The.

01:23:57,767	S16:
Pilgrim Hall, which is the old stables down at the bottom of the hill and then the gate house, is that small house out by Bridge Street?

01:24:05,968	S3:
Okay. Yeah. No, I, I was aware of that. That's very nice. Good. Good.

01:24:11,467	S16:
Um, so again, we hope that that that does a lot for for you all and for the town and especially for the butters that that will take a lot of the pressure and tension out of the room and out of their concerns. I do want to address open space. So open space. I've pushed hard against open space for the last three years, completely unsuccessfully. And so what we ended up doing, we thought we'd reached an agreement where we would concede. So the bylaws says it's got to be 40% of the property needs to be open space. So we have 100 acres. The heritage, the the the planning board asked us to to relinquish the heritage landscape. That's 15 acres. They then asked us to relinquish the natural zone. That's another 25 acres. So that's 40% of the property is going to be consisting in two districts, which cannot be built on. Then they're going to apply that 40% factor to all the rest of the plan. So if we come up with any proposal or anybody in the future as a proposal, they've they get another 40%. So the math works out. So it's going to be 64% minimum open space, leaving the seminary with only 36% to to develop. Let me add to that. Recently the planning board is now saying that they will. They will render what are called steep slopes. Unbelievable. And that's a number of additional acres. Those are that's particularly on the upper campus going down toward Bridge Street. You know, it's the steep areas they're saying that's not buildable. So that's going to remove that from construction as well. Essentially making that again additional open space. The planning board also we pushed hard saying we didn't want the planning board to require us. So the owners of the new whatever the developer would be to deed over rights and covenants, that sort of thing for the open space. They are insisting on that. We're conceding that issue that they now will have. They will require that in the future. And at the last planning board meeting, they added the requirement that they could require access to those areas. So in terms of the access

01:26:17,567	S16:
that's going to there's the possibility in the future of, of of that is part of a special permit. The planning board has kept control over the whole process. They've got special permit requirements for every use except for the apartments which are already there. And so I think the town is going to be well served by that. Uh, and so the last thing I say, in terms of the heritage landscape and the covenant restrictive covenant, um, I do want to say there is there is a distinction between a conservation restriction, which we've never agreed to, and then a restriction on use, uh, which is under a different statute. I would suggest that anything we look at would not be a conservation restriction, because that goes to the state. It's very hard to change it as a town, if ever in the future you want to do something like that. But as long as we're there, you know, again, I do agree with those members of the board who said we decided this a couple of weeks ago. I made it really clear. Are you saying you're going to restrict over amendment? No. And so I think that's where we're leaving it again, that we're not going to restrict the Dover use.

01:27:23,667	S15:
Um, I.

01:27:24,267	S2:
Just don't want it to be another. I apologize on my own. I don't want there to be another misunderstanding. Or are you saying then, now that it is okay to include language in the development agreement that says that should the the property pass to another owner, there would be a CRM. There would be a restriction of use in place on the heritage landscape.

01:27:43,167	S16:
Yes.

01:27:43,467	S15:
So because.

01:27:44,567	S16:
I'm hearing.

01:27:45,167	S2:
That's what I'm hearing is the disagreement. You everybody said they agreed, but there was a misunderstanding about what was being agreed to. So I want to clear that up so that we can put it to bed once and for all.

01:27:55,367	S1:
So yeah, I, I.

01:27:56,701	S16:
I'm hearing this for the first time tonight and so I do need to, I need to sit down and talk about it. Just like the lawyer. I'm not going to draft on the fly. We need to consider that. I don't think that that's necessarily out of the question, but I do need to talk talk with with the seminary about that and make sure they understand what's being asked there. But so we certainly can look at that. Again, not to misunderstand, we're not agreeing to it right now, but that's something that we would we will talk about after this meeting. Um, the the other issue is the, the, the the wastewater treatment plant. And I don't know, Joe, if you've got the PowerPoint there. Um.

01:28:38,567	S16:
My hope is and this has been posted to the, the, the town website so everybody can look it up. But we put together a PowerPoint. And I think it's helpful because I hope that this dispels a lot of misunderstandings. You know, you know, the old thing, this is not your I know it is not your father's Oldsmobile or whatever. This is not your backyard septic system. We're used to building a septic system and then forgetting about it for 40 years. That's not what this is. This is a this is a sophisticated wastewater treatment plant. You can go to the next slide there. You know, how do we deal with wastewater. We have our own treatment plant. It handles all of the all of the effluent from the premises. And it's been in place since 1978. These are permitted by the state. And I can just wait maybe till, you know. No worries.

01:29:29,467	S2:
Um.

01:29:30,267	S17:
I don't know what happened here.

01:29:33,000	S16:
Well, it's we I can just. I'll just continue. From the interest of time, you know? How does it work? It filters all of the of the effluents, all gravity fed. It's processed in a processing center, and then it's pumped out to a leaching field. It's regulated by DEP under the groundwater discharge program. Uh, it is. You can continue on, Joe, if you want. Uh, yeah. That shows the arrow points down near Woodbury Street to the treatment plant and then, uh, up toward where that north arrow is. Up beyond that is the leaching field, sort of the intersection there of the roads. Uh, next slide, uh, and that's the building. Uh, next slide. And again, these are the if anybody wants to look them up again, you can look and see how it's, uh, it's it's regulated. Next slide. Uh, is it inspected? This is a key piece. So we have a contract with Martin Edge Engineering which is it's a separate and independent organisation. It's not us. They're on site every single day of the week for 2 to 3 hours. They inspect the equipment, they test the water quality and they make sure that it's operating properly. Uh, in the next slide, they provide as, as already been said, I think it was back one, but they provide monthly reports and those go to mass DEP and they also go to the the Hamilton Town Board of Health. And that's been done for for years. Uh, at mass, DEP inspects the wastewater facility annually, and we are in full compliance with all the escrow and repair requirements for escrow. Um, it's had it's had a great a great track record. Uh, and we have 24 over seven monitoring. So aside from the 2 to 3 hours that Martin is just there. We. Six times a day. Personnel go down to check if there are issues. Then they have. They have engineers to come down and repair it. We've done some recent upgrades, a number of which were to try to mitigate any of the concerns that the butter's across the road and at Woodberry have. That included installing a new roof and restoring the structure to really keep that premises in good shape. There was a former greenhouse enclosure. It's now a fully enclosed structure with which minimizes the sound in the order they've got exterior aeration fans. They moved those so that it would attenuate the sound issues for the neighbors, and then they've painted it green to make it kind of blend in a lot better. They've also put out next slide replacing the fans. Uh, they've got new lighting. Uh, they also you see on that photo, they've planted 20 new trees along Woodberry Street again to attenuate the visibility Melody and the sounds and this and anything that comes out of there. And then they've got new fencing. So we've we've really tried to be good neighbors. These are not required under the agreement with the buyer. These are things that the seminary has done again to try to try to manage the concerns. So what will happen when the is sold? We continue to manage it. We'll continue to own it. It'll be subject to shared agreements of use. And then again the same kind of inspections will continue and the new owners will be contributing financially to, uh, to what they've, you know, what their usage is of, of the area. So those, I hope, address the issues and demonstrate that this is it's that's not a real concern. Any expansion of anything up there has to comply with DEP on it. Uh, if there is any there's, there's excess capacity. But if, if it if it needed to be expanded, it would all have to comply. It would have to comply with all the groundwater protection, etc. we can't just put leaching fields wherever we want, so there's protection there. I hope. Does that answer anything? Are there any particular questions that I can touch upon?

01:33:34,467	S3:
I as usual I have two questions. Two comments. Actually, I just wanted to just correct your statement about the natural zone. The natural zone is primarily wetlands, so that wouldn't be in large part developable at any rate. So.

01:33:51,267	S16:
So yeah, that's not actually true because the natural zone now takes the entire entrance and the whole roadway all the way up, and yet there's wetlands to the right or the east of that. But this, this acreage there, there's more acreage. Some of the roads go right through from A and B go through the natural zone. So it certainly consists. There's quite a bit of wetlands there, but it's it's undeveloped land under the zone now.

01:34:21,367	S3:
Right? That was just my point that, um, we're not demanding that you add those 28 extra acres. It's just the reality of the situation. Just just a comment. And then just the other comment I wanted to make is at our last meeting when you were here and very, um, agreed to bring this information that you just presented to us, I think is very helpful to the Butters. Thank you very much. Um, just a just a question. You had said you'd be the statement that you made about $1 million in improvements. Um, were there other things or did that pretty much cover the the million dollars?

01:35:02,667	S16:
I would have to get that confirmed. But I think that that those are the improvements were made in that cost point. That's my understanding.

01:35:09,767	S15:
Okay.

01:35:10,801	S1:
And would you say they were effective, like you mentioned, replacing the greenhouse, did that control noise, odor or things of that nature.

01:35:16,367	S16:
Was that that's the goal? I don't have personal knowledge as to what the result is, but that's part of the purpose for doing it.

01:35:24,601	S15:
Thank you. Marilyn.

01:35:25,467	S2:
Could I just add the after the last meeting of the board also asked that we find out what we had on hand. Uh, as noted as noted in the with the board health. As noted, the engineering firm consultants do provide copies of all their reports and all their inspections to the local Board of health. As a courtesy, it's not. The Board of Health doesn't control it. Um, what controls is the state and DPI gets those as well and reviews them and it does their own annual inspection. We have the last two years worth of those reports, and I will be putting them on the website so people can can find them under the Board of Health. They've been they've always been available in the files at the Board of Health, but we're going to make them more available by posting to the website.

01:36:10,167	S1:
Is there ever a response from the mass DEP on those, or has there been any violations, concerns, issues, or is what they submit.

01:36:17,167	S2:
I mean, they're submitting that it's I passed inspection or it had an issue when they've corrected it or but I haven't gone through all the reports but.

01:36:26,567	S1:
Well that'll be.

01:36:27,067	S15:
Good.

01:36:27,467	S2:
DPI is is a helpful.

01:36:29,767	S3:
Yeah I hope that's helpful for the butters to be able to access those reports.

01:36:35,100	S16:
Can I just make a couple of concluding thoughts. So please, unless there are more questions. But, uh, as you know, we've been at this now for a couple of years on this this development agreement. We are very comfortable with where we are at this at this point. We're prepared to agree to what the latest one that's that's posted. Uh, it's it's been a good process. We think we've conceded a great deal. We appreciate where this will get the seminary with the sale of the apartments. Uh, so we're prepared to move forward with what is there and on the table with the board right now. Uh, and the last thing I'd say is nothing's changing. And that's that's the goal of the sale, is that nothing changes. The seminary will continue to do its thing. Yes. We're rightsizing the campus. We're not in an expansion mode. And it doesn't seem that education is going to move in an expansion mode, but we are going to use the buildings that we have and nothing is changing. It's going to be the same. The apartments that have been there for 40 years will continue on, hopefully for many years, and the town will benefit from that, as will the seminary.

01:37:43,667	S3:
So just with the, um, the language about the heritage landscape that will be forthcoming via our town council. Joe, is that the plan?

01:37:55,767	S2:
If that's what you vote and tell me to do? Well, I'll get I'll get John Whitton to draft it and we'll include it and then send it back to seminary.

01:38:01,801	S15:
So if.

01:38:02,367	S9:
That's the.

01:38:02,868	S16:
Last piece and we can all today say that's the last piece, that'll help me in my conversation with, with the seminary if, if, if we can just say with everything else we're good with, let's look at at tying up the heritage landscape after, uh, you know it's a non overuse. Then that's something I can, I can speak with my client on.

01:38:26,000	S1:
Did you have any other closing comments or did you have other.

01:38:29,501	S3:
Um, I agree with you, Marilyn. If. Yeah, that that would be the last, um, point of discussion. The heritage landscape, I think everything else, I agree, we've spent a lot of hours discussing this, and I think that both sides have given fairly and I'm I'm satisfied with the addition of heritage landscape issue that we've discussed tonight.

01:38:58,300	S15:
Okay.

01:38:59,567	S18:
Thanks, Rosie.

01:39:00,868	S1:
Okay. Why don't we do. We're all set about ten minutes, as I said on the onset, you know, uh, if those who haven't said anything or any clarifications, we'll start that now. And if Joe, you can keep us on us, on the honest, on the ten minutes.

01:39:14,467	S15:
Two minutes.

01:39:15,167	S1:
That'd be helpful. Yeah. Bill, did you have something? Were you adding or.

01:39:19,467	S5:
No, I just wanted to say the next step, obviously, is additional comment for those who haven't spoken. And then if we don't vote tonight on the final version, I would like to go on record and take a vote based on, you know, a straw vote based on if we make the changes to the conservation restriction. Everybody else in agreement. I just want to go back and read, relitigate this thing again. So I just want to make sure he goes to the record that they're in agreement with the with the development agreement pending the language on the conservation restriction and Bill amendment language.

01:39:52,767	S16:
Mister chair, can I just have a comment?

01:39:54,801	S15:
Yes, please.

01:39:56,400	S16:
Sorry, Scott. So yeah, Bill is using conservation restriction. That is a different beast. So this would be a restriction that we're talking.

01:40:02,467	S15:
About that's.

01:40:03,400	S16:
Not submitted to the state, but rather is is something that the town could change.

01:40:07,067	S15:
In the future. Bill would be filed with the deed. Right. Thanks. Yes.

01:40:11,868	S1:
Yes.

01:40:12,501	S3:
Yes.

01:40:13,667	S1:
Go ahead, Mr. Madden.

01:40:15,000	S6:
Scott Madden 12 Old road. Thank you. Select Board for putting up with years of twists and turns related to this project. Um, Gordon Conwell is sitting on $50 million of value. Um, so I agree with Mr. Wilson. The private party owns a peer reviewed traffic study. Uh, because we do have a problem. It isn't the same old four decades ago world. We have new drivers. There are people who cut through or around there, through the town. Public areas to Beverly, back to Ipswich. Um, and we've got major intersections. What these become that are wide open. Things like, uh, uh, Woodbury and and bridge or the other end of Woodbury, which is known dangers. We just put up flashing signs. Um, So the these are things that we know we've got problems with that are only going to get worse with more people. So it's not unreasonable to say offer the traffic study and include the scope of those intersections at all of the primary intersections Miles River bridge, Woodbury in Essex. And consider tightening all those things, doing all the things that we know how to do to narrow roadways. Stop having them. Just like big flow through intersections of people sail through stop signs and have them T-boned and stop and make it safer. So don't agree at all with Gordon Connell's presentation that this is like, oh, we've been dealing with this for years and nothing's new. This will be new. Um, also, uh, $1 million to the town, um, isn't enough. It's 2% of $50 million. And we're enabling this $50 million. So I don't agree with that at all. Whatever you come up with, I believe should be put into a fund to save for school capital expenses, because the epicenter of so much of this debate has been about pilot or not pilot programs or formalized or not formulas. We've had committees over decades going over all this stuff. So please.

01:42:35,701	S15:
Pick.

01:42:35,901	S1:
Up on that too, as we go.

01:42:37,200	S19:
Thank you. Put it in a fund that we can use for town needs.

01:42:40,701	S3:
Can I just make a comment among the board here for for one second that, um, regardless of the, um, donation or the.

01:42:51,400	S1:
Kind of going into the ten minutes and I'd rather keep track of all the comments come back to us.

01:42:56,100	S3:
Okay.

01:42:56,567	S15:
All right.

01:42:56,901	S3:
Just because I just want to make a comment about, uh, to you after.

01:43:01,601	S1:
Yeah. Let's just we'll save time for that. I just want to.

01:43:03,601	S3:
Sorry.

01:43:04,267	S1:
Control the public comment sector.

01:43:06,300	S11:
Yes. And he.

01:43:06,901	S3:
Already.

01:43:07,200	S11:
Spoke.

01:43:07,567	S20:
So I think that's great just to give other people another time in terms of the traffic study, I think is kind of ironic because we were asking for traffic studies for three A and that never happened. So let's just be consistent as a community. You know, people pass through a without any traffic studies as it's a zoning exercise. So at least in this situation we have apartments. It may not be a perfect traffic study, but we know that those apartments exist. They know we know they've had cars. They've been driving. And I think it's unrealistic and unfair to just be always throwing mud at the seminary. Honestly, it's kind of breathtaking. This is private property we're talking about, and the seminary is engaging with us as good citizens because they could surely just flick a switch and do a bunch of single family houses and take their business elsewhere. But that's their right. So they are here in good conscience, as good neighbors to do the right thing for the town. So I think that this hostile relationship with the seminary needs to stop. They are here negotiating, in fairness, and people might be pissed off about something in the past which may or may not be true because there's a rumor mill that goes around and there's a lot of lies about what they owe and what they don't owe and what has been done. And I just think there needs to be a record setting straight. I think there should be a statement from the seminary about the pilot program rumor, what they actually have to do and what they're choosing to do, and then ultimately, let's forget about it and move forward. We are talking about the 209 units they exist today. This is not new building contrary to three a okay. And they're not doing a hostile 40 B they're bringing in revenue okay. So yeah, they're giving us a million. But then they're also allowing these apartments to have revenue, which is the sore point in the town that those apartments are housing people that aren't paying taxes. So isn't that great? Like we get to have some tax revenue. I think that's really important. So let's just not forget about that. Um, and open space again. I think we have to have this balance between our request for open space. It's private property. Let's do the best deal we can and let's get it done for the town.

01:45:19,400	S1:
Thank you.

01:45:19,701	S15:
Deb.

01:45:23,868	S9:
Uh, Jake. Mar 139 S6. I just wanted to clear up a few things. One is this. I know people keep calling out a traffic study. This is not a traffic study, right? It's a transportation fact sheet. I think one thing we should just get to the bottom of. How much do you guys pay for this? Just so that we have a general sense as to what something like this costs.

01:45:42,367	S15:
Haven't gotten the bill yet. Sorry.

01:45:43,901	S9:
Okay. When when you get the bill, I'm sure you'll tell us all. Email me. I'll email everyone and let them know. This is one piece of a traffic study, right? What a traffic study is going to analyze. They're going to take this data and then analyze the speed limits on Essex Street, on all the streets around it. Should there be speed bumps inside of the site? Things like that? Should there be sidewalks? Things like that? Bill Wilson was adequately pointing out like, the point is that you do this stuff before. I think that the one thing I don't want to lose sight of, the seminary is doing a great thing by backing off the commercial. Ask I. And it's great. And I think that's a huge step forward, at least for me. And I'm going to talk to all my neighbors about that. I think that's a great step forward. I think that the I think we're on the right track with the wastewater treatment plant. I really push you to give the consultant and let people have like an open house down there. I'll come down. I'll walk through it and see what it looks like. Talk with the consultant, read the reports, all that stuff. But I think on the traffic study, I just want to be clear. This is not a traffic study. This is one piece of a traffic study. And I like this is just. And I'm not saying this is wrong. This is let's assume this is right. Great. We have one piece of multiple pieces of the traffic study. So I think keep going. But it's evaluating the speed limits on the roads, including Essex Street and Miles River and all those other streets. But I think that, um, that stuff is really important. And in terms of the mitigation payment, I would just urge you to put into that. How much have we spent on legal and everything that we've done up until this point is 100,000. Like, have we burned through that already? Have we not burned through that? I've had traffic studies to the tune of 50 to 100,000 and much, much more for a site that's half the size. But this is a residential, you know, it's a rural town. So we'll sort of see how that comes out. So I the one thing I will disagree on, Merwin and I have had a lot of talks. None of them are hostile. This is a negotiation. It's what it is. I want something to get done here. I think that we're getting really, really close, and I think that we have a very good chance of doing it. Do I think it should happen on December 9th? I don't know, It feels really rushed. There's a lot to do. Marnie said herself. Like I'm reading all those tables and things like that. I'm going to send her my comments. But the tables are very in depth and everyone should spend some time reading them. Thanks.

01:48:09,000	S1:
Appreciate it.

01:48:09,400	S15:
Jake.

01:48:17,000	S8:
John. Desk 195. My question is, what is the assumption the town has made in terms of the number of school kids in the apartments, and what is the cost per kid per year?

01:48:30,467	S8:
Do we know that?

01:48:31,567	S15:
No.

01:48:32,767	S8:
Is that not an important factor? I mean, is there a way of finding out?

01:48:39,267	S15:
That's my question.

01:48:40,367	S2:
There hasn't been a do we have one on the line so we don't answer.

01:48:43,367	S15:
To our public. So yeah.

01:48:44,968	S8:
My point is, if we're going to get $5,500,000 in tax revenue and there are 200 families, I'm thinking there might easily be 75 to 100 kids. 100 kids. Ten, 20, 20,000 bucks a year. A million bucks. So we're underwater. If that's the case.

01:49:02,100	S1:
Any developments going to put children in schools that has.

01:49:05,767	S5:
Yeah, we've come to do some numbers before town meeting, but it's again, the units exist now. Kids have been in the school for now. We have not receiving any money from the. So if we survive with that we're only a better position for the tax revenue.

01:49:22,000	S15:
But in total time.

01:49:24,167	S2:
Well, we're.

01:49:25,367	S15:
Pretty much over.

01:49:25,968	S1:
Any.

01:49:26,167	S15:
Other.

01:49:26,667	S2:
You get one.

01:49:27,100	S15:
More on line, we'll take it back.

01:49:29,000	S1:
Anybody else? One more online.

01:49:31,100	S2:
Online.

01:49:31,467	S15:
Johnson okay.

01:49:34,367	S5:
Thank you. Board I'm John Sissel.

01:49:36,467	S15:
I.

01:49:36,701	S5:
Live on Essex.

01:49:37,467	S21:
Street in Hamilton. I've just recently moved into the community. I will disclose also that I am a trustee at the seminary, so I'm now a neighbor and a citizen of the town. I've been working with Myron and the team in the background as a trustee. And I just have a comment on the transportation analysis. You know, it sounds as though what we tried to do with Howard Stein Hudson was to look at a high watermark benchmark of history of the seminary and then show that its current use is significantly less and that the infrastructure inside the campus supports what we have. And even if we grew significantly, we would never come close to the history. I'm hearing from the neighbors and others so that if the town has changed around us and we have cut through or other traffic impact, obviously the seminary can cooperate and have is trying to, but we obviously are not going to control things outside of our campus. Right? We're only sharing what is inside historically, what it is currently and what it could be based on the planning board. So I just wanted to mention that obviously, if there's changes going on in the town or need for safety, because that's something the seminary similar is always advocating also. We want a safe environment for the community in the neighborhood, but obviously if the town feels like it needs to continue to study roads around the seminary, obviously those are things that we don't control as much, right? We're sharing what we do control, and we're happy to continue the dialogue with all the data and how we came about with this analysis and update from Howard Stein. Hudson. So thank you.

01:51:19,000	S15:
Thank you.

01:51:21,367	S2:
That's the end of comment.

01:51:23,267	S17:
I think you wanted to go back. Okay. Let's see.

01:51:24,868	S15:
We do have we're done.

01:51:25,767	S2:
No.

01:51:25,901	S15:
We're done.

01:51:26,467	S1:
All right. I think we're done with public comment. Appreciate all the feedback both before and after. Uh, let's take one more roundtable and discuss whether or not we're ready to take a vote on recommended with any subject changes to bring this to the town meeting. So, Rosemary, I know you were waiting anxiously.

01:51:43,501	S15:
Thank you.

01:51:44,467	S3:
I just had a comment. I wanted to comment on the payments from, uh, Gordon Conwell. Um, the the payments that they're making now do not preclude any future mitigated mitigation payments, um, in relation to any further developments. So this is not the end all. And certainly a lot of people have pointed out to us that this is a very small payment. Um, I'd like to point out that we started at $200,000, so we've certainly surpassed that five times over. Um, and again, we will be cognizant of costs in the future, and we will take mitigation payments into consideration when and if any new developments come into fruition.

01:52:40,367	S15:
Okay.

01:52:43,000	S22:
Bill, are you with us? Did you have anything? Bill Olson.

01:52:45,968	S5:
Yeah, I said a couple of things.

01:52:47,000	S15:
That.

01:52:47,968	S5:
Um. Can you hear me?

01:52:49,667	S15:
Yes.

01:52:51,100	S5:
All right, so number one is. Yes, I agree with Rosemary. Where any further development on the property would require a special permit, which would require a site plan review, which require a traffic study and a review of any improvements, which would be the burden of the developer and not the burden of the town. So that is the concept we're moving forward on. But I do think we should put some money into this thing. So I know everyone's not gonna want to give up more money, but it probably makes sense to add $40,000 to the 100,000 to pay for a traffic study. That's the one thing that's going to get us over the threshold. I'm hoping the seminar is going to push back on that. So I'm willing to put that in the development agreement. And then obviously just the, um, just the it sounds like we're in agreement on the, on the on the other item with the heritage landscape, we just have to find language to both agree with. So I'm fine with those two changes. And um, and I think we were trying to do so I would like to have a vote tonight to make sure that and go on record that we're not looking for anything other than those two changes, and we'll vote next week once those changes are made. Or next meeting.

01:54:00,100	S22:
Ben?

01:54:02,901	S14:
Yeah. Um, thank you all for the rich discussion and the detail. Uh, Marilyn, I know last time you came in, we gave you quite the long list of to do's, and so you've clearly been very busy over the past two weeks coming back with all this data and intelligence. So, uh, really appreciate the the thoughtfulness and the attention to detail. Um, so, you know, those those items last time were sort of around the wastewater treatment, around around traffic, around, um, public access. You know, those seem to be the three main, recurring themes that would have had an outsized impact on the Buttars. Um, I think the rest of the issues, you know, as we've been in discussion over the past couple of months about the net benefits to the town I think we're. Where I'm at. My mind is. You know, I agree with kind of what Bill Olson is put on the table. I think that's a reasonable a reasonable ask to get us to a place where we have more confidence and more certainty about the impacts, you know, through the campus, along the public frontages and at the major intersections, you know, surrounding the campus and how this potential change could affect us. Um, so I think, Jody, we have a legal review lined up as well. Once we have all the uses from the zoning from from the planning board.

01:55:23,167	S2:
Yeah. What's the what's the planning board finalizes its zoning. It'll be reviewed by town council as well as all zoning usually is before it gets put before the, um, town meeting.

01:55:32,601	S14:
Okay. Do we know, um, when are we getting the final, um, table of uses?

01:55:40,767	S2:
Um, the hearing is tomorrow night, and I think their intent is to wrap up on November 4th. So we would send it to council at that point and make sure review is completed before the warrant is put out. Less than two weeks later.

01:55:55,567	S15:
Right.

01:55:56,367	S14:
And then comes assessment. Um, kind of cost of benefits.

01:56:01,801	S2:
They have to look at the zoning and the development agreement. So again no longer. Yeah. So that's where we're at.

01:56:07,501	S15:
All right.

01:56:08,501	S14:
Um.

01:56:09,367	S15:
Oh. Sorry, Bill.

01:56:12,567	S14:
Last item. Um, the the payments for the the upper campus and middle campus. There's no escalation on those. It's just, um, they are what they are. And if that development happens within the the term of this development agreement, that's that's the payment. Is that correct?

01:56:32,167	S2:
From the seminary. But you, as Rosie noted, if if somebody buys the property and wants to do something there, there'd be a site plan review, there'd be a special permit process. There would be an opportunity to assess the impacts and ask for mitigation from the future developer. So all of those things would happen.

01:56:46,868	S15:
All right.

01:56:49,067	S1:
All right. Good feedback. I think the only open question would be around this, uh, fact sheet on transportation is could we leverage the same vendor and get something done at a less than 20 K or 20 K? Do they have enough information that we could turn it into a peer study as it was described, or something additional to make it a true traffic study to cover? Is that something you'd be willing to do to take another step? I guess use the same vendor. There's probably some synergy there.

01:57:17,367	S15:
And look into it again, hearing it for the first time tonight, I just want to make sure the scope of that request and I don't know what it is. So I'm I'm glad to talk to you about that. And Mr. Sissel may have some thoughts.

01:57:32,501	S22:
Any thoughts?

01:57:33,701	S1:
Mr..

01:57:39,300	S14:
I don't know that John could hear the full.

01:57:41,767	S21:
Yeah, I heard it. Thank you. I'm sorry. I was just muting myself. I so I you're I think, again, the seminary is very concerned, as you are that that this is done right and that there's safety in mind. The types of things that I heard from the neighbor are all based on increasing external traffic. And yes, the seminaries peak traffic historically was much more than it will be when this is when this apartment is sold. The increase is de minimis. But your request is not unusual. And I think Howard Stein Hudson, uh, we could work with the town to figure out what the scope of a continuous study is. I think the future is right. You're right on the special permit. Meaning when it, when and if something ever happens beyond the sale of the apartments, that's when there's going to be a deeper dive relative to transportation studies. If there was going to be an increase over what we're doing today. But if it's around safety and there's concerns of safety, I think it's a fair request to look at that a little deeper. And Myron, it's just a matter of agreeing to the town on some sort of a number. And the number that's being bantered about is probably more than sufficient to cover that kind of additional, um, review.

01:59:03,000	S1:
It wouldn't be sufficient.

01:59:04,567	S15:
Right?

01:59:04,868	S2:
He said he said it would be.

01:59:06,067	S15:
Oh, what he said.

01:59:06,868	S1:
Yeah, I would think it'd be an excess. Probably. So I don't know if you're comfortable putting that number and not to exceed up to, but not to exceed just to control it a little. I get why you'd want that, but yeah, I just and I don't know, that's a good what is the scope. I'm not sure what the scope would be yet from. Oh. But I think Joe, who would work with the seminary on to address our concerns as a town on the the entrance ways on the impacts.

01:59:28,801	S15:
I'd.

01:59:29,167	S2:
Say probably myself and the police chief and potentially.

01:59:32,000	S17:
DPW director, but.

01:59:33,767	S15:
So I'd be.

01:59:34,467	S1:
Good if we just, you know, you guys agree to work with that? Not to.

01:59:38,467	S15:
Concede.

01:59:39,067	S1:
We'll throw a number in there if you'd like, and it should be a lot less, I would imagine, because I do think we're only looking to understand it up until the sale of the the apartments. Correct. Because anything they're on secondary use or something in the whole area that would drive more traffic will be part of a special permit process.

01:59:57,968	S3:
Right. And I'll just add a little comment here that when I drove through the seminary, it was um, around dusk and, uh, we, we noticed and we may be wrong about this, but we noticed that apartment buildings A and B did not appear to be occupied. And so is that correct?

02:00:26,167	S23:
Correct. The occupants in both of those buildings.

02:00:28,267	S3:
Okay. Um.

02:00:29,968	S23:
At least half in each one of those rooms.

02:00:32,100	S3:
Okay. So. Okay. All right.

02:00:34,367	S1:
So did you conscious.

02:00:35,601	S15:
People.

02:00:36,567	S24:
And conscious.

02:00:37,767	S3:
People. Right. But I think that alone, when we're talking about the expectation that there will be full, um, full occupancy, I.

02:00:49,868	S15:
Think that will.

02:00:50,367	S1:
Go into the scope on full occupancy of the apartments up through milestone two is is the extent of the study. I think we put the to not not to exceed the 20 K just to cap this. I don't think it'll get I think as the gentleman online said, that's more than sufficient that along with, you know, the heritage restriction thing I guess, or whatever the language, I think. Are you comfortable with the language you're going to speak with the attorneys on?

02:01:12,667	S15:
I think those who.

02:01:13,601	S2:
Are attorneys and propose something and have them.

02:01:15,968	S15:
Lawyer.

02:01:16,267	S2:
Of course.

02:01:16,868	S15:
Yeah, yeah.

02:01:17,367	S1:
Do we need any more clarity on that now? But if not, I think as a select board, we're probably ready to kind of take a vote on this.

02:01:23,801	S15:
Yeah.

02:01:24,767	S3:
So I make a motion that we're that we the select board, engage in a straw vote regarding the development agreement with Gordon Conwell. Well.

02:01:34,167	S1:
Do I have a second?

02:01:35,901	S5:
Well, based on. Based on. Based on two changes. Right. Just want to memorialize the two changes based on the the funding of a $20,000 safety and traffic study and the heritage landscape restriction.

02:01:51,067	S3:
Right. Okay. Right. Um, so amended.

02:01:58,567	S1:
As amended.

02:02:00,300	S5:
Second. That.

02:02:01,901	S1:
All right, let's do a roll call, starting with you, Ben.

02:02:09,667	S14:
Sorry. As amended. I have an additional comment. Um, I think.

02:02:16,701	S14:
I'm a little concerned about about the timeline. I think what we've discussed here and what we're voting on is, is fine as is. So, like, as far as the development agreement goes and as so amended, I'm in agreement with it. So I mean, yes, on that front With the caveat of our coming back to discuss our timeline. During the conversation.

02:02:37,400	S15:
Yep. Okay.

02:02:38,367	S1:
Fair enough. Mr.. Olson.

02:02:41,367	S5:
Olson I.

02:02:43,267	S1:
Rosemary.

02:02:43,868	S3:
Rosie Kennedy, I.

02:02:45,400	S15:
Uh.

02:02:45,567	S1:
Bill Wilson, I and Tom is not present. So that passes four zero. Uh, one not present.

02:02:53,767	S15:
To.

02:02:53,968	S2:
The timeline.

02:02:55,167	S15:
Yes.

02:02:56,000	S2:
The planning board plans to open the hearing tomorrow night. My understanding is they're intending to work to be able to close the hearing and finalize on their meeting on November 4th. You have a meeting on November 3rd. I would suggest that we have to get this all done on your agenda to be voted on the third, because the planning board has said several times that they need definitive definition on what's in the development agreement so that they can make sure that they go together. Well. So you're being asked by the planning board to vote on the development agreement so that they can finalize the zoning.

02:03:26,267	S3:
We'll be able well, with this straw vote and the proposed Host amendments we will be able to give them, I believe, sufficient information.

02:03:34,701	S1:
I think so. I think that was the intent of this straw vote.

02:03:38,000	S15:
Yeah. All right.

02:03:38,868	S1:
So, so but yeah. Does that answer your question, Ben, or further discussion from your end or concerns?

02:03:48,000	S15:
Um.

02:03:51,267	S14:
I guess it's sort of like, you know, I know we're putting a lot into this over the next six weeks, you know, between now and potential vote. Uh, there's been a lot, you know, quite a few twists and turns. Uh, you know, the seminaries given a lot to get us to to where we are as of the town. Um, I think that we've done a very good job kind of over the past two weeks in particular, getting everything out into the public in these meetings. Um, the concern being that we continue to do a good job with that. But, you do we have the time to kind of to make sure that this information is being disseminated and that, you know, we can do our best to ensure a favorable, favorable vote? Um, that's you know, my understanding is that if we don't get a favorable vote, we're kind of, uh, two years before we can bring it back or something to that effect. Um, so

02:04:53,901	S14:
that's my main concern on the time crunch here at this point. But

02:05:00,167	S14:
does anyone else share that concern, I guess, from the select board or have any? Um, if there are no concerns. Any other thoughts on it?

02:05:11,167	S3:
Well, the concerns been are I think, um, we appreciate those timeline crunches and, um, I believe that the that the crux of and, and the lion's share of those issues rests with the planning board, and they're aware of their time crunch, and they are working very hard. And I do believe they were considering yet another extra meeting. They had an extra meeting last week and they are considering another. So I think the planning board is very aware of that. I think for us we have we have, um, I feel very confident that we will be able to have a vote and the the planning board will be able to get their, their work done.

02:06:00,100	S15:
All right.

02:06:00,868	S2:
Joe, Ben, I just add to that, I mean, I think I am in full agreement with you. I kind of wish that we would have been at this point two weeks ago because we wanted to be able to express what's been agreed to by the board's, what's being proposed by the planning board. So we could have done more. So we can we can do more public education, but we can't start that until everything gets finalized. So I'm hoping that we get it off my list.

02:06:28,000	S17:
At the next meeting.

02:06:28,767	S2:
So we can start right afterwards and put things on the website. Ask. Do Q&A. Maybe if people want us to, we can set up an extra meeting or two where we invite the public and ask questions in advance of special time meeting. Um, there's a lot to.

02:06:45,801	S15:
Do.

02:06:46,100	S2:
But we.

02:06:46,467	S15:
Need.

02:06:46,667	S2:
To make a decision in order to propose something.

02:06:48,701	S17:
So.

02:06:49,767	S14:
Right. I think that's like, once have the legal review kind of like, finalized. We know that the documents mesh well together. Once you have the analysis on cost benefit and being able to, you know, articulate the the road that's been traveled. Um, you know, and especially if we're making if we end up making a favorable recommendation, you know, just being able to create that, that space and that opportunity.

02:07:16,000	S15:
Yeah.

02:07:16,601	S14:
You know, between kind of the middle of November and December 9th, um, would seem prudent.

02:07:24,200	S1:
But the planning Board has a calendar of meetings and events, and they've added it sounds like and they're comfortable that they can.

02:07:31,000	S15:
Yeah.

02:07:32,267	S1:
So yeah. No, I wish we had another month buffer as well. But I think a lot has been done. And now the work to be done is finalized through the planning board and then get the, you know, educate the general public, as I think Ben put it.

02:07:44,067	S15:
Um.

02:07:44,801	S2:
And just for one last, I know people have asked about, you know, why why are we trying to get this done by December 9th? My in my mind, there were two reasons. One, we were we were approached by seminary because the purchase and sale agreement with the proposed apartment developer has a sunset. It's going to end at a certain point. And they wanted to get this done before that so that they could keep that deal in place. The other thing was kind of to initiate what we got tonight, which was moving toward a decision, because without a time, a date when everything has to happen, we've been just rolling along for the last 2 or 3 years. And it was it was time to set a date. Okay. We're going to make a decision by this date or we're not going to. So, um, that. Those are the two reasons that the date was picked and pushed. And yes, we knew we had a short time time frame when we did it, but I think the idea was to get us to decision points so that we'd have an actual proposal to propose.

02:08:36,901	S15:
Right. Right. All right.

02:08:38,767	S14:
I think lastly then like, just, you know, and I don't know if it's possible just for the exact timelines, but to even if it's kind of some scenario analysis, um, from fin com before we vote would be helpful. Um, so I don't know if there's, there's something we can do there.

02:08:56,167	S2:
They have a meeting with they have a meeting on the 29th. I'll share with them what we've done tonight and the latest version of the overlay district that we have from the planning board. Again, it will be. So it'll be a little bit adjusted based on what? What they have in front of them.

02:09:09,868	S14:
But even if it's directional, you know, and scenario based, that gives us something to kind of bounce off of. Um, before we take final vote. So that would be helpful from my perspective.

02:09:23,367	S15:
All right. Good.

02:09:24,167	S1:
Good input. Ben. Thank you. All right. With that said, I think we're ready to go to the next agenda item. If anyone.

02:09:30,667	S2:
We are.

02:09:31,968	S1:
More than welcome to her. If they'd like to take us.

02:09:34,200	S2:
They're waiting.

02:09:34,767	S15:
Patiently.

02:09:35,667	S2:
So is Mr. Melville somewhere?

02:09:37,467	S17:
So.

02:09:39,167	S25:
So do I have, uh.

02:09:42,767	S2:
The longest is here, sir. Thank you for bearing with us.

02:09:47,000	S1:
So, do I need to.

02:09:49,000	S15:
Do a.

02:09:49,267	S1:
Motion?

02:09:49,601	S15:
Open hearing?

02:09:50,267	S2:
Yeah. I think you need to make a motion to open the ascertainment hearing. And then, uh, Mr. August prepared a statement for you to read as the chair to open the hearing motion. And we have just for the record, we have lost Mr. Olson.

02:10:02,968	S1:
Here on ascertainment.

02:10:04,367	S23:
Okay.

02:10:06,467	S3:
So I will make a motion to reopen.

02:10:10,968	S24:
Or open slash.

02:10:12,100	S3:
Open resume the Verizon cable license ascertainment hearing.

02:10:18,167	S1:
Perfect. Nicely said. Do I have a second?

02:10:21,901	S14:
Second.

02:10:22,667	S1:
All right, we got a second. All right. Bill? Or bill?

02:10:27,100	S15:
Or both.

02:10:31,767	S14:
May ask him to unmute.

02:10:33,667	S2:
Not sure bill I guess you muted. You need to unmute. Sorry.

02:10:40,667	S26:
Since that by the way that was a very impressive, uh, discussion of the, uh, the land use issues. Um, so it was a good learning experience. No problem. This is the cable hearing. This is a very pro forma type of hearing. In the case of Hamilton, in the sense that the select board doesn't have to decide anything tonight, take any actions at an ascertainment hearing, unlike a final hearing where you vote on approval, but on an initial hearing which we just have to get under our belts. Um, it's just to. It's an important purpose, but our only statutory duty is to listen, because the statute says we have to allow the public an opportunity to be heard on the, uh, uh, pending. Uh, uh, town needs for a Verizon license renewal. So there's no heavy lifting, no actions need to be taken. And there's an opening statement that I provided that explains that. And then if anyone is here to provide comments, uh, we take that under advisement in the negotiations process and we're very far along. This is a somewhat pro forma renewal because we just renewed Verizon four years ago. They only do five year licenses now. And after very detailed review of it with your studio person who knows the needs inside out in terms of supporting the channels. He's happy with the existing license. So we're we're mostly just trying to recycle, uh, and uh, re adopt the existing Verizon license and have a cost effective, simple process. So that's relatively simple compared to past renewals, where we didn't have the luxury of just trying to extend or re adopt an existing license. So that's my overview and perspective on what, uh, you know, we don't have to invest a lot of, uh, intellectual, uh, analysis at this stage of a process. Thank you.

02:12:53,267	S15:
Thanks, Bill. Bill.

02:12:54,300	S1:
All right. So I think I'll, uh, I'll read the, uh, ascertainment public hearing, uh, note, uh, on the onset. And that will allow for any public comment. To your point. This is a public hearing on Verizon's cable license renewal and is part of the cable license renewal process to ascertain the community's cable related needs. Hamilton's Verizon cable license. License expires on June 6th, 2026. Federal and state law provide for holding a hearing to allow the public an opportunity to comment on town and public cable related needs and Verizon's performance. Notice of this hearing was posted twice in the Boston Herald, as required, and on the town's website. Copies of the legal advertisements are entered into the hearing record. We will provide interested members of the public and other interested persons with an opportunity to submit input about what cable related needs are important to Hamilton, and about how Verizon has performed under its existing license before proceeding to public comment. I would like to thank Hamilton's community television access provider, Hamilton Windham, cam and Bill Melville and Verizon for their participation and assistance in the ongoing license renewal proceedings in this hearing. The board will hear comments on all Verizon Cable related matters to include customer service, license administration, and important local studio needs. Community programming, PG access, and Verizon support for Hamilton's local channels. Please try and keep comments limited to three minutes. If members of the public or other interested persons wish to provide comments following this hearing, they can send their comments to the Town of Hamilton. Care of Josh Joseph to our Town Manager. At this time, I welcome any public to proceed with comment, please.

02:14:49,100	S2:
Looks like we have Bill. Melvin is the only member of the.

02:14:50,767	S17:
Public.

02:14:51,167	S15:
So I'm.

02:14:51,467	S27:
The member of the public and also the Executive Director of.

02:14:54,267	S15:
Camp.

02:14:54,501	S1:
Bill. Thank you for all your work.

02:14:57,000	S27:
So this is, um, I don't know, probably number 4 or 5 could be more than that. But I think you've been through a couple of these. So I started thinking about why this is important. And it's, um, really important. You know, I started thinking about the history. Cam, became. We've been doing this for almost 20 years, which is crazy. When we first incorporated. We broke off from Comcast and we, um, became a nonprofit. Um, so I started thinking about this, all this, this, this, this technology upgrades that happen. But I think after the last few years, particularly Covid, in the last couple town meetings where you could hear, um, uh, the needs from some of the people to make public access more accessible, particularly when we talk about the captioning. Right. And we have to basically think about, uh, Ada now has compliance where you have to have to have that for your broadcasts. Um, also audio descriptions is something that might be coming down the pipeline. So there's all these things where, um, people are accustomed now to almost being served, uh, on their plate. Like what they want to see. So we got. I invested in app and a lot of people use that, which is really good. So those kinds of things, although they're pretty slick and stuff. Um, there's something that's necessary for the, the, the landscape that we're in. We can't be in the 1980s public access and just show old reruns and meetings in here and there. People demand more than that. Right. And I know being around here long enough, people in Hamilton and Wenham, uh, really have high expectations of, you know, what they want and how they want it done. So this is really important. The the struggle we have is year to year. We lose subscribers. And that's where we get our funding from. And I know as a group, uh, part of the Alliance Media Group, they're going to the state House and saying that we need to change like the funding model, because at some point this is really going to be so few subscribers of cable TV. The revenue is going to possibly dry up. So it's really important that we invest and think long term. The last thing I want to say is I've been working closely with Tim Olson, the DPW director for the new renovation, and I'm looking at this as a way to really show off, um, the new renovation and also like the latest and greatest technology that we can provide for that, for that space.

02:17:42,400	S15:
Excellent.

02:17:44,300	S1:
Is that already part of the install?

02:17:46,968	S27:
Uh, that's that's that's that's would be next year's budget. I our price quotes for basically what I'd like to do. You know, um, when I went to the conference last year in April in Las Vegas, I sat down with some, um, resellers of this, Basically Ross, who is a high end, uh, TV broadcast production company. They make very expensive equipment, but they have the stuff that's to be localized where it's called the quorum, where you would be in the production room of the town hall, and you'd have a view of the of the meeting space. And every person that's sitting here would have their picture. So it's set up to eventually be voice activated where the camera would go to you. Yeah. But at this point, it's just going to be. I'll see. Uh, Phil Olsen, press on you. The camera goes to you, right? I'll see someone else press there. Yeah. So it's going to be really good also to be able to put up agendas, talking points, all those kinds of things. So to really like bring it up to the, uh, you know.

02:18:52,100	S15:
Can.

02:18:52,467	S1:
Or should we outfit other rooms or do you think, like we're here?

02:18:56,667	S27:
Well, I mean.

02:18:57,400	S15:
That's.

02:18:58,000	S27:
Like, this is I think this was a good investment.

02:18:59,868	S15:
Yeah, I.

02:19:00,100	S27:
Think here because it's a nice space Like? It depends. I did a meeting for when I'm at the museum, so that's doable.

02:19:09,467	S15:
Yeah.

02:19:10,467	S27:
So I mean.

02:19:11,901	S1:
You can be mobile.

02:19:12,667	S15:
And you.

02:19:13,000	S27:
Can be, you know, the technology is there where you can be mobile.

02:19:17,200	S15:
I think the the.

02:19:18,000	S1:
Addition of that, having the town hall back will be.

02:19:20,501	S15:
Huge.

02:19:20,801	S27:
Yeah. It's it's a, it's a 50, it's a 50 foot 50 foot room. It's huge. So it's going to be great.

02:19:26,567	S15:
Awesome.

02:19:26,968	S1:
Good. That's great. That's good. Update.

02:19:28,467	S15:
Appreciate it. Okay.

02:19:30,100	S26:
Can I make a couple of closing remarks to chair Bill?

02:19:34,200	S15:
Yeah.

02:19:34,567	S1:
Brief.

02:19:35,367	S26:
Even though I was saying how, you know.

02:19:37,767	S15:
We.

02:19:38,367	S26:
Have a very strong license now and it's, you know, we basically want to just continue it. I want to applaud, uh, Bill Melville for emphasizing the importance of this kind of service. Uh, so, you know, we are careful about it. And to support that, we already have a commitment from Verizon in the negotiations and we'll have a, we have we have a working draft license, which should be available shortly. But we're tightening up the we're Verizon has again committed to the maximum funding allowed under the federal cable law, uh, for the annual operating budget. So we are in good shape. We're not taking it lightly, even though we're just trying to continue it. The maximum allowed is 5% of Horizon's gross revenues, and that's what they have in the existing license. It's what Comcast has in its license. And it's what, uh, Verizon will be doing again in the next renewal license. So we're in good shape in terms of the major financial components, in terms of the capital funding, which is the second bucket of money. There's an operating budget, the 5%, and there's an equipment and, uh, a capital budget. Verizon will only Match or somewhat exceed what Comcast is doing. And this time around, they are exceeding what Comcast is doing on a per subscriber proportional basis. Well, so that sounds well. That sounds good because we're getting a good package. You know, Bill Melville emphasized the you know, the the numbers are going down because when you're getting 5% of a shrinking subscriber base, 5% may be the maximum, but the pie is is reducing. So that's just my overview of the finances. We also have a commitment from Verizon to provide a high definition local channel, which is, um, you know, beyond what the usual local channels are just standard definition. So. So it is a strong package. And the last thing I just want to observe in terms of while on some levels it's easy legally to try to continue an existing license. And it may have sounded like, oh, it's not that important to me. It's more important than ever in the sense that, um, public access, these local channels. You know, we're in an age where you don't even know if the information you're getting on, on the internet or social media, half of it is from bots and it's or artificial intelligence and its people. It has very little credibility. But you know, your local channels. That's authentic, real Hamilton speech, whether it's a meeting or a sporting event. It's it's the real thing. So that gives it a value in this day and age that I think is, you know, something to really, uh, be aware of and see its role. That's all I wanted to say on those.

02:22:56,367	S1:
I appreciate that feedback and the work that was done. And I'll echo, you know, compliments Bill to you and your team here, you know, at all the meetings before and after and troubleshooting. And I really appreciate all that. That effort is behind the scenes behind the curtain. But it's noticed and it allows everything that happens to be there in the public. I so appreciate.

02:23:16,767	S15:
It.

02:23:16,901	S27:
And I get to get you back in the studio. Yeah, that's one of the things my goal is.

02:23:21,267	S15:
Yeah, that'd be good. That was yeah. Go way back.

02:23:24,167	S1:
All right. Any other comments or we just need.

02:23:26,467	S15:
To take.

02:23:27,167	S2:
A motion. Motion to close the hearing.

02:23:28,767	S1:
I move that, we close the hearing. Oh, good. Oh, do I need to.

02:23:32,267	S3:
I move that we close the hearing?

02:23:34,467	S15:
Yeah.

02:23:35,000	S1:
Is there a second?

02:23:35,667	S15:
Okay.

02:23:36,367	S26:
We'll have a recommended draft document for the license coming up pretty soon as I've been discussing with Joe. Joe town.

02:23:43,667	S15:
Manager.

02:23:44,267	S1:
Okay. Can I get a second to close the hearing?

02:23:46,501	S15:
Second.

02:23:47,367	S1:
Ben. Seconded. So we'll go around. Ben, do a roll call.

02:23:54,100	S14:
Roll call for. For what? Sorry, I didn't close the hearing. Yes, Ben. Close the eye.

02:24:01,000	S1:
Bill. Still on? No. Okay. Rosemary.

02:24:03,267	S3:
Rosie Kennedy.

02:24:04,067	S24:
I.

02:24:04,267	S1:
I am Bill Wilson. I so that's great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Don't mean to rush here on the end here. Thank you.

02:24:08,868	S27:
Um, to you Bill.

02:24:10,267	S26:
Good night folks.

02:24:11,868	S1:
All right.

02:24:12,167	S2:
So one change said the agenda, the, um, the item they're to approve the minutes of September 23rd. Your your document, your package did not include those minutes. It included October 6th. So we want to cut that out and we'll take that up at the next meeting. It's just two items on the consent agenda. Right.

02:24:28,067	S1:
All right. Do we want it. Let's go. Let's approve the consent agenda. So I'd like to get a motion to approve the consent agenda as edited, excluding September 23rd minutes motion by.

02:24:40,667	S3:
I move that we approve the consent agenda, um, with the two items minus the September 23rd minutes.

02:24:53,167	S1:
Can I get a second?

02:24:53,868	S14:
Second?

02:24:54,467	S1:
All right, I have a second. Uh, Ben. Roll call. Vote.

02:24:58,767	S14:
Ben.

02:24:59,367	S3:
I Rosey Kennedy, I.

02:25:01,701	S1:
Bill Wilson I so that passes. Um, and town manager evaluation. Joe. I know we went in detail, uh, back at our workshop at the Koa. Um, I had sent around as as promised, although later than I expected. You know, a recap of that meeting, uh, and laid it out of which you've you've replied to and signed. Dated, I believe, today. Um, I don't have any any other comments you want to make on that? Any other comments from the board? I just want to echo that, you know, I appreciate all you do. Um, I think we've got our goals for the next year laid out nicely, and, uh, I look forward to collaborating and working with you to accomplish and exceed all of them.

02:25:44,000	S2:
Yeah, I just, uh. Yeah. I don't think you need to. It says vote here on the agenda, but I don't think necessarily need to vote. I did sign the, uh.

02:25:50,267	S27:
The.

02:25:50,367	S2:
Evaluation earlier today. I would ask that you vote on the town manager and organization wide goals. Those were also in your packet and agreed to or developed during the workshop back in August.

02:26:03,567	S1:
Okay, good. So the evaluation were just, you know, signing and making it official, so no need to vote. We did review the 26 town manager.

02:26:12,267	S2:
We have somebody calling in. We have a caller raising his hand.

02:26:14,467	S1:
Okay.

02:26:16,267	S28:
Is there a public comment allowed on the. I know what you're trying to close the agenda item for the town manager evaluation. Or will you take a comment on that?

02:26:24,400	S1:
Uh, we didn't vote on anything. Typically, our policy only has us have public comment on an item we vote on. You're welcome to the next one, which is the town manager goals, if that relates. Okay.

02:26:36,367	S28:
Um, I guess it does in a sense, but I guess if technically you're approving the town manager report, I assume that's what you're doing. Or was it pre-approved? Because I would like to point out some, uh, some sort of errors in it that may be of interest to the public. This is Tosh Blake of Sidewalk Street, just for anyone listening, if you want to know. Um, my comment is that requesting the Selectboard does not accept the town manager evaluation as presented in the current meeting packet, which I reviewed just recently, because it has major errors, misleading to the public, and need to be corrected before endorsement by the board. Um, specifically in sections under General Management and communication, for example, two glaring falsehoods, among others, as is quote, Joe is a solid technical understanding of municipal law and does a great job of explaining the impact of the Selectboard, unquote, and quote, after a meeting violation, Joe consulted town council opinions and recommendations were provided to the Selectboard that allowed for a great deliberation on the topic, unquote, from the report. As most of you are likely aware, I made a detailed multi-point complaint at the August 18th Select Board meeting against Town Manager Daniel Oates, including time stamp citations of multiple on the record lies, Joe told the board and the public regarding various issues, including falsely denied public statements he made and giving false false counsel to the board on the legality of certain types of public comments, with Joe directly contradicting without citing material.

02:28:01,000	S1:
Provided there only because this isn't technically a public comment section. So effectively, you know, we're out of our policy right now. I mean, you're welcome to bring that up either in the next section or, um, certainly at public comment, a certain one, you know, that, um, any quotes and things were directly, you know, taking from, uh, select board members comments from their individual, uh, feedback that were given and those were referencing, uh, opinions, uh, and from the board members on how they worked and collaborated with Joe in each of the items, including the one you're calling out. So I'll, um, welcome to bring that up later. But this isn't the right time to do that. I know this wasn't a vote section. We did have lengthy discussions on the evaluation, uh, months ago. Um, which would have been a better time. But you're welcome to make a comment. Uh, you know, in a future public comment on that as well. Right.

02:28:49,501	S5:
I mean, I.

02:28:49,901	S7:
Did.

02:28:50,100	S21:
Make.

02:28:50,501	S8:
A.

02:28:50,567	S1:
Comment about.

02:28:51,767	S28:
These.

02:28:52,300	S1:
Goals, and I know we've gone through that already. They are in all your packets. Um, can I get first a motion to approve what we went through over the last couple of meetings on town wide goals that include those goals. Um, and then if there's further discussion after a motion, I'll entertain that.

02:29:10,501	S3:
Yep. I move that we accept these 25, 26 goals.

02:29:18,467	S14:
And second that.

02:29:19,701	S1:
All right. We got a second with Ben. Any further discussion? Um, I know we've gone through them in detail at the last meeting. Um, and they're in your packet now. I think they're really solid. Uh, and in line and give us a good roadmap to accomplish, you know, what's ahead of us, and also things that we're still in the planning phases to accomplish going forward and make our town, you know, efficient and optimize some of the, the services and things that we do. So with that, we'll do a roll call vote if there's no further discussion, starting with you. Ben.

02:29:54,567	S14:
Ben glue is a I.

02:29:56,367	S1:
Rosemary.

02:29:57,100	S3:
Rosie Kennedy I.

02:29:58,400	S1:
All right bill Wilson I.

02:30:02,167	S1:
So any any comments since we did vote on that from anybody on our town wide goals.

02:30:11,501	S1:
All right. Hearing none. Um. Budget calendar. Uh, we do have a tight deadline on a lot of things. So let's kind of assess our our dates and meetings going forward.

02:30:21,567	S2:
So we, um, you have in your practice, it's a little broken up the way it prints. Okay. Fortunately. But, um, this lays out the annual town meeting and budget calendar for the coming fiscal year and the annual the April 11th town meeting. Um, worked on this after last meeting when the board agreed to move the town meeting to April 11th and includes all the meeting dates of the principal committees. The. There are a couple that still have to be set. The Community Preservation Committee has not set its meeting schedule yet, and neither has the Capital Committee. But the known meetings of the Select Board, Finance and Advisory Committee and Planning Board are included here. Um, and that gets us to being able to release the warrant on time and, uh, have our town meeting on and have our time meeting and budget discussions as we annually do.

02:31:16,901	S1:
Okay. I'm just reading. So this has.

02:31:19,200	S2:
A certain draft. So you have some proposed changes.

02:31:21,100	S1:
Are there meetings with, uh, the schools in here and all that?

02:31:25,000	S2:
The five chairs meetings and the principal boards meetings are also included there. They've already been finalized on the school department side. So we added those dates in.

02:31:33,100	S1:
And those are already coordinated with their agendas and such. Okay.

02:31:37,567	S2:
And and are consistent with what we've been doing in the past, over the past three or 4 or 5 years.

02:31:44,167	S1:
That's good. I think this covers it all. I like the color coordination.

02:31:50,968	S1:
Any other comments or.

02:31:54,901	S1:
Suggestions or discussion on the calendar for town meeting and budget from the board.

02:32:01,601	S3:
I have none.

02:32:04,167	S14:
Well, Tom, that says TBD. I think next to the capital committee.

02:32:08,767	S2:
Yeah. They just they'll set their meeting calendar, both their public and their group meetings among the board to make decisions and or make this have discussions and make recommendations, but also their meetings with the department heads once the department heads have released their requests. So we have that in the calendar that the department heads are supposed to turn in their capital request to the town manager's office by November 3rd. And at that point, we'll share those with the Capital committee, the Capital Committee, understanding its deadline to make recommendations on the capital plan. We'll set a meeting. We'll set both meeting calendar for themselves and meetings with the department heads to discuss the various items. And then they make recommendations for both the long term five year capital plan, as well as what they recommend the town try to focus on in the coming fiscal year based on availability of funds.

02:33:03,200	S1:
Awesome. That was going to be my question. If they're doing a multi year view or current year and.

02:33:07,467	S2:
They've been working on this, I think they'll be more updating to the five year plan than there may have been last year, for instance. But they've they've been working on a five year plan and rolling priorities through the last couple of years. But there might be some different, um, reordering of things this year based on some recent, uh, some recent occurrences.

02:33:30,667	S1:
So yeah, it'll be interesting to see that spend curve, if you will, our numbers as we go out. And it'll help us prioritize, prioritize stuff going forward. So great. No, I'm good with Jamie.

02:33:42,567	S14:
I've already done this. But, um, the goals that were just approved as well. Another kind of more or less our goals. But I'm sure it touches a lot of these departments. Is it worth sharing sharing this to just kind of get that as an overlay in terms of what they're planning on doing?

02:33:59,567	S2:
Yeah, I'll be sharing that list with the with the department has not been voted on. That was my part of the reason I wanted it to be voted on tonight.

02:34:05,667	S24:
Yeah.

02:34:06,267	S14:
Okay. Great. Thank you.

02:34:08,367	S1:
On the goals. Right? Right. Yeah.

02:34:12,267	S1:
Excellent. Okay. Good discussion. Uh, that kind of, uh, actually, I should probably read openings. I didn't do that.

02:34:19,567	S2:
We could do openings.

02:34:20,567	S1:
Uh, board and committee openings for those that there's still many opportunities, if you will, for people to join all this fun, uh, affordable housing trust has one opening. The Conservation Commission has two. Community Preservation committee has one opening for a member of historic district Commission Finance and Advisory Committee has two openings, and those are nominated through the moderator. The Historic District Commission has two openings for three year terms, two openings for two year terms. One must be a resident of the historic district and one must be a resident realtor. And are those strict requirements, Joe?

02:34:58,267	S2:
Because I've heard the historic district does have requirements to have at least one member be a resident historic district and one member be a resident realtor. So those positions in that board are currently unfilled, I believe. Okay. We have had an applicant to fill one of the vacancies in that committee, and they've been directed to contact the chair of the historic district commission and get on to an upcoming agenda so they can move that nomination forward.

02:35:25,767	S1:
Yeah. Okay. That I probably heard from the same applicant. I think that's good with all these openings. I think, uh, that would be great, especially with the history, uh, this person has in town. Uh, And then the Human Rights Commission has two at large openings. So that concludes our board committee openings. That leaves us with one and only one item of new business. I know we have a lot on our plate, but does anybody have some new future agenda items they'd like to call out?

02:35:52,300	S3:
Um, I'm not sure if this is appropriate for future agenda item or if this is something else, but I'll mention it. Um, as the public may be aware, our Council on Aging director, Teresa Woodbury, has, um.

02:36:09,567	S2:
We have to be careful of.

02:36:10,467	S27:
What we.

02:36:10,868	S2:
Say. Uh, she's not currently working.

02:36:13,367	S3:
That's what I was going to say. She's out on an alleyway. And so my comment is, um, my my question is, um, is the town making plans to adequately cover her, her position while she's out? Because all we certainly have, um, a very Uh, capable, uh, assistant director who is very new. And I know that Teresa has worked for the entire time that she's been here to rebuild our CoA program. And I as a as the liaison to the CoA and as a member of the board of the CoA, I want to encourage us to to make sure that we are providing the services and fulfilling the needs of our seniors. Theresa Woodbury has worked extremely hard on that has once again made our CoA successful. And if there's anything that I can do to help with that, I'm very welcome to. But I think that should be a priority.

02:37:17,000	S2:
So it is my my goal is to meet with the Council on Aging. I'm hoping that the chair will entertain an extra meeting, uh, for just that topic, but I want to make sure I did go in and spend some time with Hannah this morning, uh, to make sure that she knew that we weren't just throwing her to the wolves. Yeah. Um, we'll be assisting as much as we can from town hall. And then I want to engage the Council on Aging to figure out what other resources we think we can use to support Hannah. There are other things, um, not necessarily CSA related, that Theresa was doing, that. We're also working to make sure get accomplished by other folks. Um, approval of various time sheets and things for other folks in that building, etc. so I've also already been working on making sure that stuff continues. Uh, going forward, we're in a little bit of, uh, it'll, it be difficult to make a long term decision right away, but we can but we can at least make sure that we're providing support to Hannah and the other people that work in that building and make sure that we're providing support for the local seniors.

02:38:16,267	S3:
So I want our seniors to know that we are not abandoning the, the, the Koa in any sense of the word. Not that I would think for a minute that we were I just wanted to bring it up as an important topic.

02:38:31,567	S1:
All right. Thank you. Um, I have, you know, as I mentioned before, and I know it's going down a path of regionalization. Uh, I think it's probably a good opportunity to kind of update this board as well as any public attendees on, you know, the items that are being discussed in there. Uh, so we can kind of give a point of view and feedback along with what's being discussed at the table. Um, I think, you know, laying out the goals as you got today, kind of a roadmap of things and how they might layer into future meetings might be a good opportunity. I think we've covered a lot of a lot of really good stuff in the in the items and the goals. You know, tonight we heard about the property on Old Cart Road. I'd like to follow up on kind of what's been done and what hasn't. There was some talk about fines and potentially monies to the town. I don't know the next steps if it's in pro debate or any type of, you know, monies that might come from proceeds from the town or movement of that property so the neighbors aren't caring for it. I think that we should probably address that sooner than later as well.

02:39:30,467	S3:
I don't know if you would know this, Joe, but are the taxes up to date on the property?

02:39:35,667	S2:
Yep. The taxes are up.

02:39:37,200	S1:
To date, so we'll come back on that one for sure. That's a good part of it, too. Hey, Ben, did you have any items?

02:39:44,467	S14:
Uh, no, that was it. It sounds like, uh, maybe, uh, Scott Madigan brought the issue on. Yeah, on that property that he's headed out, you know, then we'll save some time.

02:40:00,467	S1:
You will like a voice coming from the heavens all night to me.

02:40:03,267	S14:
So thanks for turning around. Yeah.

02:40:07,868	S1:
All right. I'll take the final motion of the night.

02:40:11,467	S3:
I move that, we adjourn.

02:40:14,300	S14:
Second.

02:40:15,267	S1:
Uh, roll call. Ben.

02:40:19,167	S14:
Engels, I.

02:40:20,567	S3:
Rosie Kennedy.

02:40:21,467	S24:
I.

02:40:21,701	S1:
And Bill Wilson, and I. I don't know if you got one bill dropped off. Well, for the minutes and.

02:40:26,901	S2:
It'll be it'll.