Thank you. Welcome, everyone, to the April 28th, 2020 sixth meeting of the Wyndham Select Board. It is 631. Um, present this evening are all four of the sitting, uh, select board members. Uh, to my immediate left, Deirdre Perotti, then Peter Clay and our newest select board member, um, Phineas Sprague. And, um, extend both a welcome to, um,

Finn and a congratulations both to Finn and to Deirdre, who, um, were elected into these positions and Deirdre’s case reelected, um, a month or so ago by our fellow, uh, residents of Windham. So congrats. And it’s nice to have, um, this group together. Um, and before too long will be a

full board of five. Uh, again, once the special election occurs in June. All right. We start with public input. This is an opportunity for anyone who wishes to speak on any subject that isn’t otherwise specified on the agenda to do so during this public comment period. If you’re here, both in

person or virtually, to the extent that there are any zoom participants to speak to something that is a specific agenda item, such as Cherry Street, um, we’ll ask you to wait until we get to that agenda item, but is there anyone present who wishes to be heard on a matter of public

comment? Uh, at this time, I don’t see anyone, and I look like there was just one zoom participant. Yep. Hands that up. Okay. Thank you very much. That leads us to our town administrator’s update. Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just a couple quick updates tonight. First, I just want to thank Marty Lowry, who is a Windham

resident. And if you, you know, walking in the back main entrance here, the plantings on both sides of the door was she’s a member of the garden club. However, she did it under her own accord and she does so every year and every spring. She incurs the cost, um, and labor of doing those plantings

as you walk in, in the back to spruce up town hall for the spring. So thank you for her, uh, to her for her efforts. A quick update, uh, about two meetings ago, the Selectboard co-signed a letter of concern with the con com regarding, uh, work being done on the expansion of a runway, uh, into

the Wenham side at the Beverly airport. The, um, the MEP did respond to that letter with a very dense and technical packet that was reviewed and digested by the Conservation Commission. They did, uh, delay, um, the deadline to which we were invited to join a meeting both with Nepa and, uh, the airport

and, um, they did agree to, uh, a remediation, which was one of the concerns of the Conservation Commission. The other concern was, um, the intention to expand the airport. However, this, uh, is not an expansion in any way. This is an existing FAA regulation that, uh, the airport needs to comply with.

Is FAA funded, and it is not in any way an expansion of the airport. It’s simply existing regulations that are needed to support the safety of planes that are already accessing the airport. And the airport has a certain designation, I don’t know all the designations of the different airports, but the

designation is not moving up a designation. It’s an existing designation is to support the existing aircraft, and it is not intended to expand the size of the aircraft or traffic simply to support the existing traffic that the airport currently sees. Um, so the project will move forward is

that it’s an FAA, uh funded project through Nepa. Uh, the town’s really only recourse to, um, alter the project was through the wetland remediation. They have they have agreed to that. And, um, finally. So we have a special election. Today was the last day, uh, to get your signatures

in. And the election is for one vacant select board seat. She is only four of new folks here tonight. And, uh, the town clerk notified me that the ballot is fine. Final. And it is, uh, will be Gary Cheeseman. And Trudy Reed. The term will be for about ten months.

The election date will be on June 16th. Here in Town Hall from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.. Again? This, uh, for one vacant seat on the select board. Trudy Reed and Gary Cheeseman on the ballot. Gary, um, was recently on the select board and did not run. However, as expected, press expressed interest to to the

remainder of the vacant seats term. And that is all I have tonight. All right. Thank you. Um, I. Do not have any comments at the moment. Deirdre. I just wanted to mention, um, in the last couple of weeks, I attended the dark Sky presentation that was held at

the library, and there is a dark Sky committee in Hamilton, Wenham, which I think is great. And it was honestly a fascinating and fabulous presentation. The presenter was wonderful. So I encourage people to take a look at it. It is posted on the H.W. cam site and it was really interesting.

So. Well, last night I sat here, um, with uh, Phil Russo’s um, crew at the Conservation Commission. Yeah. And we went through the plans for the music hall at, um, at Gordon College. And one of the people that came in to talk about or just make sure that the plans for the music hall were going to deal

with the dark skies issue. Oh, really? Yeah. Nice. And they’re actually all over it. That’s great. Um, and the other thing is that, um, I forgot what the name of the lake is, or the pond behind Gordon. Um, but it’s actually. The pond. Oh, Koi pond that. They’re actually going to move.

Um, a new building back away from the pond. So they’re really being very smart. And then the second thing is, and I can’t believe I can’t remember this woman’s name, but any of those people who read the globe, like two weeks ago, there was a Hamilton Wenham female lacrosse player on the cover.

Nice. And, um, they’re really good. I mean, they’re undefeated. Um, the baseball team is doing pretty well, but I never in my lifetime would I ever expect to have, uh, Hamilton. One athlete on the front page of the Boston Globe sports page. Impressive. And evidently she not only is she really good in two sports,

but she’s also, like, academically brilliant and volunteers for everything. So if you go. To a very nice. All right. Fen, this is an opportunity to make any. Remarks that you wish. Nothing too complicated. I just want to thank everybody that voted for me. And I’m really excited to be here on the board

and work with the the administration of the town and my fellow board members. Um, you know, I’ve been volunteering for the town for a number of years now, and, um, I’m really excited to be able to help even further. And so I’m looking forward to, you know, reviewing all the items

for tonight’s, uh, agenda and all the other weighty matters that we’re going to be reviewing going forward. So thanks, everybody. Welcome, welcome. Thank you. So the key people you need to know are all sitting. Yes, they’re on the y axis. I um. All right. So that brings us to item C uh which states in the

agenda. Welcome to newly elected board members. We’ve sort of done that. So welcome again and very much looking forward to working with you as well as our newest member. Um, and then there’s a note about a discussion regarding select board policies and procedures, which, Steve, I think you’re going to, um, yeah.

So we have, um, we’ll send you we’ll putting together a packet of all the policies and procedures that the Select Board has put together. Um, and also one of those is an onboarding procedure that I know Diane Bucco worked on, um, a lot when she was on the select board. And Deirdre is

working, uh, to update. So some of the, some of the information is a little dated. It’s a few years old, but things change pretty quickly. Um, so but that will be coming to you as well. And then any questions? Obviously, they’re all public policy. There’s nothing, you know, nothing. We’re actually working to get them up on the

website so that, you know, it’s nothing, no secrets or anything, but just we have a packet that will give get over to you as soon as it’s ready. Great. Thank you very much. Yeah. Great. All right. That moves us to item D discussion and possible vote on the reorganization of select board

positions, including chair, vice chair, clerk and financial officer. So this is an opportunity to accept any nominations for those four positions. Okay. I’ll I’ll move to appoint Deirdre as chair of the select board. Second, we have a motion and a second to appoint Deirdre Berardi as chair of the Select Board. Any discussion? Okay,

we’ll take a roll call vote starting with fin. Uh, fin votes I. Peter. Yes. Deirdre. Yes. Thank you. Ben is. Yes. So congratulations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would you like to switch seats? No. Okay, good. I thought you get to now control the agenda. I need.

Some help. Yeah. I don’t have a gavel, a pass or anything, but. that’s what we get, your Rogers. We need. We need Roger’s gavel. Thank you. Much appreciated. I’m looking forward to a very productive year. It’s exciting to have a new member on the board and welcome. Very happy

to be back. And as Finn said, thank you to everyone who came out and voted in the elections. And congratulations to all the winners. I think it was a great turnout, wonderful election. New School Committee members, really excellent. Okay, on that note, uh, how about a vice chair? I will nominate Peter Clay for vice chair. I’ll second.

All right. We have a. Oh. That’s great. I’m not. Sir, I already forgot to. Water, so. All right, Peter Clay, do you accept the nomination? I do. Excellent. All right. Uh, we’ll take a vote. I think we can just do a voice vote. All those in favor? Aye, I any opposed? All right. Congratulations, Peter. Thank you.

All right. We’re not done, though. Okay. Next, we need a nomination for clerk, which involves working with Michelle. I. I nominate, uh. He’s going to be the financial officer of the Select board. Don’t you think? I think Ben just was clerk in the last. Yeah. I haven’t, and it’s a good way to. All right, so.

Finn, if you’re willing. Nominate Finn for clerk of Selectboard. Second. Finn, is that okay with you? Yes, yes. Thank you. Michelle does a fantastic job with the minutes, so there’s not a lot you need to do. Okay. All right. We moved and seconded. Uh, voice vote. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All right.

Congratulations, Finn. And that leaves our financial officer. My job to nominate Ben. Do I have a second? Second? All right, all those in favor? Aye, aye. All right. I guess we all have jobs. Now. We go. Excellent. All right. I’m going to backtrack. Um, for one moment to do the consent agenda. We have two items on

the consent agenda this evening. We have open session minutes from March 31st, 2026. And the appointment of Patrick Waddell to the Board of Assessors for a term effective April 28th, 2026. Madam chair. Sorry. Um, the request has been to delay the appointment of Patrick Waddell until he can get here, which might be slightly past seven tonight.

Yes. Oh, okay. So I. Want to take that all the minutes. Take the minutes and then we can do, I guess uh, Patrick, if, if the board’s willing after seven. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of March 31st? So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye, aye. Abstain, abstain.

One abstention. Minutes are approved. All right. We’ll come back to the appointment for Patrick. And then one. One more change. Is coming in person. The agenda is, uh. Yes. That’s my understanding. Is, um, g if you were to take them out of order, given that the hearing

isn’t until seven, uh, we will not be. The board won’t be asked to act on G, which is the conservation restriction for 951 Maple Street. Uh, um, Greenbelt requested some edits to the restriction over the weekend. Uh, council, but they’re really not not a big not nothing big. We don’t expect it to be any big deal.

But, um, uh, council was unable to arrive at an agreement. Therefore, Conservation Commission could not update their recommendation last night. So the Select board doesn’t have a recommendation on the new paperwork to act tonight. So there could potentially be a request for a depending on how the select board chooses to schedule, um

may for their meetings, there may be, uh, out of sequence quick meeting like a 5 or 10 minute zoom to vote on the conservation restriction. Uh, giving the timing and the need to get it submitted. Uh, other than that, those two, um, changes that we should be good to go.

Okay, so we’ll hold the poll hearing until seven. All right. So we’ll move to H discussion and potential vote on 24 Cherry Street matrix of potential development scenarios. Steve, introduce.. So at the last meeting, I believe we discussed um, the state is starting to move forward again with the with the

Cherry Street uh, 24 Cherry Street, which for folks that are unaware is a state owned property. It used to be a small group home that the state ran. However, it’s been, um, a dilapidated state for approximately the past ten years. And now the state is looking to dispose of it.

However, they have, um, invited the town of Windham to comment and participate in the drafting of the RFP to ensure that what does get there ends up being there through the disposal is something that, um, you know, the community wants and we believe fits. So at the discussion last, uh,

discussion, last meeting, there were a couple points brought up. One was um, was the appropriateness or the Select board’s appetite to increase? Uh, the minimum required count of three to allow for five units on that site of affordable housing, and also the need to determine how much or how many funds the

Affordable Housing Trust would be willing to commit. They had some concerns making any commitment, um, coming out of the last meeting, given the, uh, vagueness of information in that, you know, it’s a state project and we will unlikely actually be able to you know, we can’t present to the Affordable Housing Trust a, you know, architectural drawing of

what is actually going to go there in the bedroom count. Um, so the select board discussed coming up with a matrix that Kate Mallory worked on. And we can share here. And, um, you know, reading the, uh, going back to the tape and reviewing, it appears that, you know, this matrix is kind of to help the

state draft the RFP in a way, it kind of decision making guide in that, you know, starting from the top, working down to the bottom is, you know, most preferred to least preferred knowing that, you know, the state will dispose of the property and there will be a redevelopment there. But, you

know, what would we like to see? Um, we did have in our due diligence, we had Greg Bernard, our, uh, our septic system inspector, take a look at the site and the soil conditions. And he believes a likelihood of that there. It could support a 12 bedroom, uh, septic system.

So the septic system would likely be, um, the soil there could likely support any one of these, um, these developments proposed here. You can see that coming out of the select board meeting, counting up the bedrooms. It looked like a mix of, um, you know, if if five units was going to happen, that

the mix of bedroom counts was around ten, but it could support 12 knots and that’s what would go there. But, you know, the discussion was around ten. So we also sent this to the state, uh, for their feedback. They felt that it was extremely helpful and that it is something that they could

work with and incorporate into the RFP. And we did meet again, Margaret did with the Affordable Housing Trust. And although they are still concerned with the lack of knowing exactly what’s going to go there, they are comfortable in committing at least $300,000. Um, or more, depending on what happens. So that that’s definitely a good

start that we can put, you know, a minimum of $300,000 into the RFP so that the developers who are looking to, uh, build affordable housing there, which are going to need some incentivized, uh, funds to, um, make the project economically feasible, uh, given the the selling price would be significantly below market and the cost of

construction. So I believe what you have here in front of you is, um, you know, Affordable Housing Trust has committed to $300,000. We have a decision making tree or graph that reflects the Select board’s preferences. As discussed last time. And it is in a format that the state believes that

they can utilize in drafting the RFP. So, um, here tonight we’re looking for, uh, a vote of the select board to finalize this graph. Again, you know, not you don’t know what. So this is what would prefer to what we at least preferred, so that we can send to the state so they can draft the RFP.

And then the RFP will come back our way. Uh, you know, for another view and probably comment period. But before we actually share this with them in official capacity, we’re just looking for the Select Board support. So you’re looking for us to rank order this essentially. Yeah. So this is ranked okay. You can make changes for sure.

But this is ranked based on your discussion two weeks ago three weeks ago. So at the top is what. Yep. So basically what that says what what this says is you know, the affordability component. This you know, starting with the top the town prefers it to be affordable housing with a full preservation of the historic

nature of the of the existing structure in three units. Right. Because it state the state law that that the disposing this under requires a minimum of four units per acre. In this particular parcel is three quarters of an acre. So that’s the legal interpretation is they’ve never had one this small. But the legal interpretation is that that

would mean three units. So that’s our number one preference. And then you move down as to, you know, basically it’s the cost of construction begins to escalate. You know, it is most expensive when you’re fully preserving the historic structure. Uh, so as you, you know, you back off on

the full preservation and go to just the front facade to know preservation. The cost of construction gets less. Um, and then similarly, the state is actually the one that, uh, requested the consideration of five units. They took a look at the site and they believe five units and, you know, a

townhouse style would fit appropriately there. Uh, and, you know, with the economies of scale and the a little bit larger building that, you know, it, they think three might be a little small, even with $300,000. They’re not sure the money is going to work and they’re going to get any

interest. But, you know, as obviously if if a developer was to submit a proposal and said, well, you know, we’ll do three units with no present, no present, three affordable units with no preservation. And another one says, well, we’ll do. And according to this, we’ll do five units, but we will fully preserve the original structure. They would

choose the well unit, fully affordable three unit. No preservation would get the preference. And that’s an area. So the only one that I see mentioned on here with a bedroom count is, is the, uh, five units. One of the things that I remember from the last year of, of looking at

developments was that, you know, the, uh, you know, as soon as you have three bedrooms or more, you start to bring in more kids into the school system. Um, so if I look at that five unit, one that looks like mostly two bedrooms, um, if you if you’re with the three units, are you going to have

more bedrooms? Are they going to be three, three bedroom units? Yeah. We. I think. Through through talking to folks who are in this, this business of building affordable units. It sounds like it would be look, the first three would be, would be probably three bedrooms. Right. And. And then, you know, then the extra could

be like two, like some like a barn out back. It would be one. I think that the three bedrooms, because they’re looking to build things that are economically feasible. So you’d look for something, you know, a first time home buyer, small family, maybe with two kids. So that elevates the

median level of income that you can use. So that elevates the cost of the building structure that you can sell. So we’re kind of stuck with, you know, whatever. Um, whatever, uh, bedroom count. They, you know, they decide is, is, um, most advantageous to make the project work in this situation.

Question. Um, as far as the RFP process goes. So let’s say that the initial RFP that goes out is for three bedrooms. That and maybe with some kind of a I’m sorry, three units, um, with perhaps a bedroom cap of of whatever it might be, 9 or 10. Um, and there aren’t, uh, qualified bidders. Um, what the

thing that would happen next, I presume, is that the state would come back to us and say, well, that RFP didn’t get any qualified bidders. We need to do a new RFP, and the state might advocate that it be, um, a higher unit count. Is that. My understanding? Is that it would they would like with an

RFP, you have the ability to grade the proposals based on the, the, um, the different categories that are spelled out in the, uh, the scope. So like, they would put this, they would draft it probably differently than this, but they would put it all out there. So like that, the five, the five units can

buy can bid and then put in there. It’s like, well our five units are going to look like this and it’s going to be, you know, three one bedrooms and two two bedroom. Just making stuff up. Um, you know, and then the three units would say, you know, we’re looking like this. And then they would rate

which one is deemed to be most advantageous based on the grading matrix that was put forth in the RFP. Like the the plan is, I think in Margaret, I think in Cascadia, you guys have talked to the state, but I think that they want to avoid going out twice. That’s why they want this. They want to

just be able to do it once and then, you know, kind of rank, be able to rank and grade the responses. So I’m just trying to make sure I parse what you’re saying about the three versus five. Um, if we do three units, then they’re more likely to be, you know, larger bedrooms per unit.

And if it’s five units, then it’s going to be, you know, one and two bedroom units. Yeah. I think the concession was that, you know, would would allow the five units. But with the reduction of overall bedroom count. So, you know, to your point, it just wasn’t discussed last time. But I think it’s fair is um, you

know, that would be less theory, less strain on the education system because in theory it could be less children. Um, although you don’t have any ability to restrict who’s going to be buying, you know, these in if they have family. Um, because, you know, the five units, again, in theory through the state would makes it gives them

a little bit more margin to work with by building more units on the one lot. Um, is that what you are getting asked? That answer the question. Yeah, I think. So. At least the way it’s been proposed to us. And, you know, I don’t think I’ve heard differently, but it doesn’t

mean that the three units are going to be three bedrooms, but it’s always kind of been proposed to us that it would likely be like a three three bedroom, that the space is there. The three three bedroom units, um, that’s just the way it’s been proposed to us.

And the the highlighted row, I thought, is kind of where we ended up, maybe as a compromise position. But is that why it’s highlighted or. I don’t know why it’s highlighted? Okay. I thought that’s where we sort of ended the last discussion. Yeah. I mean, so the. Other compromise.

Yeah. The other well, I don’t know why it’s, I don’t remember. I mean the, the other wrinkle to the, to the historic preservation piece is that next week on Tuesday, the HDC is meeting, um, for two reasons. One, to discuss the, um, the traffic light improvement project here, but also the state’s historic. If I get this

wrong job, let me know. The state’s historic commission reached out to our local historic commission, who is also the historic. Um. Uh, the historic district committee. But to their. But they’re not acting through their. This is outside the jurisdiction of the HDC. And but they’re so they’ll be acting as the, um was it the historic.

historical commission? Historical commission. And they are looking for, again, all nonbinding. But yeah, the state is looking for feedback from our Wenham Historical Commission as to what they would like to see. In a perfect world result here from historic preservation. on this site, on this site. Oh, and the state, because the state’s historic

Commission wants to comment in an official capacity back to De Cam, who is disposing of the site. And our understanding is that it’s non-binding. It’s just simply an opinion comment, and opinion. Uh, so but that’s the that’s the other piece of the historical, you know, the historic aspect. And that’s why

it probably makes sense to maintain, you know, the full partial and no preservation, given that they may receive that comment from the state historic district and may want to incorporate, you know, some way to weight that to appease these state’s historic commission, I. Think the historical commission has to, um, draft a memorandum

of agreement with De Cam. But again, they said the suggestions will just be suggestions by the historical Commission as more as more of a courtesy. So. Good. Well, I was just about to say for me, I’m more concerned with the facade preservation than actually preserving the entire building. But I guess now that may change with other opinions.

What were you going to say, Peter? Well, I can pile on to that, but didn’t we talk about I mean, if you think about the neighborhood and the neighbors specifically, I don’t want I don’t want a five unit, uh, building in there. Yeah. And that’s. And you’re gonna have all those. I mean, you get a free

parking for all of them. I mean, it’s certainly a valid opinion. They did look at the site. They do believe there’s appropriate space for up to five units. Um. They’re not thinking about it in terms of the neighborhood and. And the neighbors. Yep. There may be. We did send. I mean, just just for your

information, we sent out, um, an a butters list. Was it 150 or 300ft. 300. 300ft surrounding the property? It looks like there’s a few folks here tonight to Madam Chair. Um, from the neighborhood to comment. Uh, to to alert them of this discussion tonight. Uh, and we also had some information on the web page and social medias

to also alert them in this discussion. So but no, definitely a valid, valid opinion. I think probably one that’s shared. Do we want to hear. All right. So yeah, that was my next question. But before we get to that because it is 705, do we need to pause this discussion and take the poll hearing.

I think can be a little bit later as long as it’s not before. But it’s up to the board. The, the the poll hearing. The National Grid rep is here I see. Yeah. Why don’t we just. Oh, it’s up to you. It’s up to you really. But we can be done with this. And above.

Patrick, we were going to come back to you, if that’s okay. Sure. Yeah. As long as it’s not prior to seven. But it’s up to the board. It could be. How many people are in the. Two? Yeah. Is anyone here for the poll? Hearing.? You’re from National Grid, right? Is it not? Oh. Don is no better.

Okay. I am okay. Why don’t we take the poll hearing as it is scheduled for 7:00, and we’ll come back to the discussion. Um, for Cherry Street. Okay. So it is 706, and we’re going to open the public hearing. The selectboard of town of Wenham, Massachusetts. We’ll hold a public hearing related to a petition by

Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as National Grid and Verizon New England of 1101 Turnpike Street, North Andover, Massachusetts, to consider a request to locate poles, wires and fixtures, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures along and across the following public way. School Street, National Grid to install one jail pole

on School Street, beginning at a point approximately 245ft eastern of the center line of the intersection of School Street and Arbor Street. Continuing approximately zero feet. Excuse me. The proposed installation of stub pole for 53, 84 and installation of pole to pole guy wire from pole 453 to pole 453. Dash 84 and

installation of an anchor and guy wire for pole 45384, in Wenham, Massachusetts. So if you could interpret all of that for us, that would be great. But put the picture explains it very well. Pictured. Yes, but let’s could you identify yourself? Um, please. And my name is John Jenkins. I’m a design engineer from National Grid. Thank you.

Um, so the proposed work began with that pole. 453, which is at the intersection of School Street and the school driveway. It’s, uh, junction three phase junction pole. So it has our primary overhead coming down School Street, down the school driveway, and diagonally to pole. 1012. And it’s in pretty

poor condition and is leaning really badly because of the tension coming this way and this way. So we’d want to install a pole. Um. Across the street in the right of way. And guy to that pole, and then have Guy and going, well, an anchor and guy going

down to the ground behind that pole just to decrease the tension on that junction pole overall. And this is all company work. So it would be on us and there would be no outage required. And we would schedule it around either a weekend or school vacation to not interrupt the school traffic.

Great. Thank you. Questions from the board. So the, uh, the stub pole is the one that you have is open circle in the diagram there. And it’s basically just to it’s going to be on the, uh, uh, on the other side of the road. And by stub pole, it’s, it’s not going to be carrying anything.

It’s, it’s just, uh, there for support of this whole that’s leaning. Yeah. It would just on our end would just have guy wire. So just a metal cable across. Um, if it’s joint. Oh, and I guess technically Verizon could add either dying or, um, their cables to it, but we wouldn’t have any secondary or primary on it.

I think this goes into the code building block. Is that right? Ken? Is the Koa building. , and I should mention that the drawing is a little bit off. It should be to the left of that black line going down the center, because I think that’s technically private. So it

would be. Like a few feet over to make sure it’s in the public right of way. To the left, about ten was the Koa. It is. that six is is a private residence. 26. Yeah. So maybe that is in the right place. It’s ten would be the town property then.

Yes. I guess that is the right place. Sorry. So can I ask you a question? I’m sorry. Your name. Is John. Peter. Um, John. Uh, that P 44, 53, 84. That looks like it’s right in the middle of School Street. That’s just because it’s that School Street section is the

whole right of way. So it’s not just the actual street lines, it’s the distance. Also after it to be okay, I just wanted to be able to accurately convey that there’s room for the pole and the back anchoring. Right? Okay. Because you would also have a sidewalk fixture. So it’s just going to be like five feet out.

I believe behind. It. I’m just looking at the the Google street views of this. So this is basically just it looks like that the pole, if you’re going to put it directly across the street from the existing pole, it’s it may be kind of right on the property line

between the two lots 26 and, and uh, ten. Um, there looks like there’s a small tree there that might be impacted. Um, but. We would, um, I know it wouldn’t be directly across. It would be kind of on the angle to catch the tension coming from this way and straight back.

So sorry. Would it go towards 26, towards, uh, 26 or would it go towards ten more into ten or more to 26? Here it would be. Probably, I guess probably right around the property line. Yeah. Okay. We have at least one about our. So let’s take some public comment. Don, did you want. To.

Yeah. Should I come up to the mic please? Don, if you could just give us your name. Also and location.. Definitely. I’m don t block. Um, I’m at seven School Street, so I’m at the, um. Number seven. We got it. Yeah, but in the poll that I’m concerned about is it is 453

because it is leaning significantly. And you mentioned that, but, um, in the last seven years I’ve seen, I’ve got this big drape of cable right now, it really is moving that pole. And every time somebody from National Grid comes, I mention it. So I just want to make sure that gets straightened because it’s it’s toppling.

John, do you know. What he. Sounds like? They sounds like they heard you because that’s the impetus, right? Yeah, we have that one written up to be replaced. And then I’m not sure if you notice, they added an inline poll after that because before it was a longer span. So this is pole 453.

And then they added this one okay. So that takes off some of the tension okay. But it was already leaning. Yeah. So that loosened the slack between the wires. So that probably yeah drifted. A. Little line between the Council on Aging and that pole. Is it really taught right now and past it. It’s it’s sagging.

There’s not much movement in it. So as long as that’s straightened out I’m happy. Yeah. That one’s going to be. Replaced. So that’ll be fixed for sure. Um, the pole that I’m petitioning for will just help keep it. Yeah. Straight. That’s so. I’m fine with that. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Don. Any other comments from the board? Any other public comments? Okay. I think then we can move to f discussion and potential vote to grant Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as National Grid and Verizon New England permission to conduct pole work. As discussed above. Do we have a motion? I’ll move to Grant Massachusetts Electric Company,

doing business as National Grid and Verizon New England permission to conduct pole work to install 1JO pole on School Street, beginning at a point approximately 245ft eastern of the center line of the intersection of School Street and Arbor Street, continuing approximately zero feet. The proposed installation of stub pole for five, three, eight for

the installation of pole to pole guy wire from pole five for 53 to pull for 53, dash 84 and installation of an anchor and guy wire for pole 45384. Second. All right, we’ll take it. Individual vote. For excuse. votes I Peter. Yep. Deirdre. Yes. Been. Yes. All right. Thank you very much John. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay. I’m going to back up momentarily. Um, to discuss the appointment of Patrick Waddell to the board of assessors for a term. Excuse me. Effective April 28th, 2026, through June 30th, two, 2028. Patrick, did you want to address the board at all? Um. Uh, Patrick Waddell.

Five Great Pond Road. I just want to say that the Board of Assessors has really stabilized, and I think we’ve done some really great work. We’ve eliminated all, um, undocumented adjustments to to property values, which has been fantastic. You can’t put an adjustment in without documenting why it’s there.

So and I want to say Terry has done an amazing job taking over as primary assessor. And I thank her for for taking on that role. Thank you. Thank you Patrick. Yes, thank you Terry. And also. Terry. First appointed assessor. History. Oh good point. Steve is pointing out that this will be the first appointed assessor in Wenham history.

Congratulations, Patrick. Thank you for serving. Already on the board of Assessors, and thank you for being willing to continue. And we are also big fans of Terry. So thank you, Terry, for all your hard work. So do we have to vote on this? Right we do. Can I have a motion please?

I move that we have a Patrick Waddell to the Board of Assessors for a term effective April 28th, 2026 through June 30th, 2028. Second. All right. All those in favor. I. Yes. All right. Congratulations. And thank you, Patrick. Thank you. Thanks for coming this evening. Okay. Let’s go back to Cherry Street. Could you Michelle,

could you put the matrix back up, please? All right. So I think it would be helpful at this point to hear from the public. So those of you who are here would like to speak to it, please come up to the mic and just identify yourselves. Good evening. Yeah. Scott. Bill 25 monument. So I’m in.

A butter. Okay. So I, I do have quite a few questions. Um, so I guess the the property is not going to be put up for sale by the state. The controlling it. Well. The, um, the stable dispose of it. So it’s not. So it’s not a public sale. Yeah. Well, it’s a public disposition. So the difference

is, is the, um, the state doesn’t have to sell it for any dollars, so, you know, it would be through an RFP request for proposal process. So it would the award would be based on what’s deemed to be the most advantageous given the scope of

the RFP. And that doesn’t have to be based on price. So it is in, you know, in theory, and I think the expectation is such that is if it was fully affordable and three units that the state would likely give it away for, you know, a dollar or zero, whatever. That’s the point, right? Yeah.

And um, so the alternative would be through a public auction, which you would have no control over what goes there. And it’s just simply sold to the highest bidder. Okay. So but this is considered a residential area, right? Sort of business district. That’s correct. Okay. So, um, in the affordable housing is something that the

state prefers. I’m assuming I. Don’t want to speak for the board, but I think it’s it’s both a preference of the state and a preference of the select board. But it doesn’t fall within three eight because we’re, we’re we’re outside of a half a mile distance from the train station, am I right?

This has nothing to do with three a. But so it does not involve three A at all. No, no. Okay. So are we going to follow um, all the dimensional bylaws of the, of the town. Yes. In article five. Where article? It’s the bylaws. And not the zoning. Yeah. Yes, yes. Yeah. There’s no there’s

no, um, variance or relief given to any of the building setbacks or anything like that. Okay. So the is there a plot plan that we could look at because there are requirements, uh, based on article five, you have to have so much frontage, you have to have 20ft in front,

you have to have 15ft on each side. You have to have room for a driveway coming down. How is this going to fit? Well, the the fact that there’s an existing structure there, I believe changes some of that. What you just mentioned. How does it do that? I you know, I believe me, I have to

do more study this. I’m kind of new to it. Um, and I please correct me if I’m wrong, but if you can build on an existing house footprint, if it’s in the setbacks, is that not correct? If this, uh, I’m not sure of. the size of this lot. It’s a pretty. There’s such a thing as pre-existing.

Non nonconforming. Take effect the. They could rebuild whatever is there regardless. Um, this this may be a little bit of a different animal depending on because the state has requirements for under the Affordable Homes Act. Correct. That you have to have at least three unit, uh, four

units per acre. So the town sort of has to adhere to that in these. But I think you’d have to meet setback requirements. But I think the property might do that now. 1515 on each side. No, it’s 20 on the front and 15 on each side. And there are requirements on a 40,000 square foot lot.

If I could just maybe I just pick up on what Margaret said. So, um, there is a concept in, in state law and zoning law of prior nonconforming, um structures or uses. So if, if this if the current structure there isn’t compliant with some of the setbacks and things that you mentioned, and I don’t know

whether that’s the case or not, but let’s say that it’s not that it that it’s front yard setback is too narrow. Let’s say then. Um. There’s no front yet. Okay. So but the prior nonconforming, the prior nonconforming, um, quote unquote grandfathering only applies if what’s going to

be built there is built on the same footprint, and that’s not going to be the case. This is going to be new construction. And so the new construction would as new construction, um, need to follow all of all aspects of the dimensional table in the zoning code, except that there’s there’s

40,000 square foot, almost one acre zoning in Wenham. But under the state law, um, there’s buy, right three units for this three quarter of an acre site because state law says in this particular situation that it’s not one acre zoning or 40,000 square foot zoning, but a quarter acre per unit zoning.

So you’re telling me they can bypass our bylaws? They have a right to. Do that with respect to the number of units on the site. That’s right. So it’s three quarters of an acre. And that’s why. I think that’s why it’s three. It’s three units by.

Right. And where does it state that I’d like can you publish that so we can read it. Sure. It’s in the Affordable Homes Act um, which is state law. But who can, uh, show that to us or pass it along? I’ll do it for you. Okay. That’d be fine. Now, I’m reading this about the, uh, it

says no building or structure shall be constructed, nor any existing building or structure being large. Altered except in conformance with the following table of dimensional requirements, which is our zoning laws. Right. So you’re saying they can bypass a zoning. Only with respect to two lot size, but with respect to the to the dimensional requirements, how much setback

a particular new structure has to have. Our bylaws apply. I you know, I listen I, I, you know, I’ve been I’m a resident of the town for 32 years. I’ve been living on 25 mine limit for 18 years. You know, some of the other neighbors. I’m not

sure what their failings are. I don’t want 3 or 4 buildings in my backyard. They’re going to. They’re going to chop down all the trees. Do we know exactly what the plans are? We’re going to have any control whatsoever. If this happens, I mean, I could I could have a 35 foot

wall within 15ft of, of my backyard. Is that possible? Well, the RFP process that was explained, you know, does does guide the state in terms of who the successful bidder is going to be. So it’s going to there won’t be any particular site plan of what is proposed to be built there until the RFP

process goes forward. This what we’re doing is to try to prioritize our input to the state. Um, to recommend to the state what we think it’s criteria for selecting the winning bid should be. But I think the the broader point, and I understand if, you know, if you aren’t happy with the

state legislature passing the this particular law regarding quarter acre zoning. But the reality is that if this whoever the state sells it to would have a right to build three units on the property regardless of anything we did or said. If it went up for public sale, wouldn’t it? And and someone

purchased at a developer and they were going to use it, they would have to follow whims, bylaws. Again, except for the quarter acre zoning, which is which is state law. I’m told. One unit per acre. So. When. I’m in, when I’m new construction for a single family home has to be on a lot.

That’s at least 40,000ft, which is just under an acre. Right? I know. Under state law, you can have a unit on a quarter acre. And that applies to this. But if it went up, if it went up for public sale and someone went in, local developer, it would be a different situation.

It wouldn’t be the state would not be involved in. And I know I understand the 300,000 might be gone, but, um. State’s going to dispose of the property. Um, under under the authority of the state statute, the Affordable Homes Act and the and the quarter acre zoning follows through that, um, procedure.

Okay. So that that would if it’s a quarter acre zoning, that means they have this three lots and not four, right? So so as far as five units, I’d be totally confused how anybody would suggest that because you don’t even have an acre. So it would already already be three.

Then the other thing is, is that, um, are all the frontage requirements and the side requirements and everything going to be followed according to our bylaws? Um, I think I’ve answered that a couple of times. The answer is yes. Okay, sir. So I’d like to ask if you could summarize your comments..

And are I think that in my opinion, I’m only one of the butters. I don’t think we should be sending to them a suggestion that we agree to put in 3 or 5 affordable housing units. That’s what I think. Okay, thank you for your comments. All right. Is there anyone. Else? Dennis Hurley uh, sure.

Come up to the mic, please, so. You can. So I’ve been at two. I’ve been. At two of these meetings, but I think most of the members of this board, but ten, 12 years ago, I came as well. At an address, please. Dennis Hurley, 26 Cherry Street. I bought the property

at 24 cherry. Got it when I came ten years ago. And none of you were involved. I was reassured by the folks here that it’s all good. Nothing’s going to happen. Nothing can happen. You’re all set. So we stayed in town. I’ve been here for 25 years. We raised our children here. We have. No one

has had more distress from that property. None of you have. I have lived with the most of it. And my wife and my kids, especially when the group home was there and everything was happening, um, public emergencies, calls to the house all the time, blah blah blah. Every single person here, uh, Dave, Tom, the council was

Lisa. We’ve all, like, lived with this property. And to here and when we came in the last two times to you guys, we left. I left with the understanding that you asked us what what what were our thoughts? We said we wanted the town to have control and ownership over it, because I thought that the

state was coming in and you guys didn’t know what you wanted to do and should, when them own and possess it and make the decisions with it. I thought that’s where we ended up. I could be wrong, but I felt like confident because I felt confident that the select board would have some control

and decision making. Kind of what Scott was saying and that we were okay. So 48 hours ago, I got a text saying, you have to come to town hall because it might be five units. I’m like, how did this what what changed? What happened? So I’m not as learned or as savvy about this

as you guys and land use, law and but I would like you guys to think that we have been here for a very long time, dealt with the house, and now I kind of feel like if that happens or goes in, I want I want to stay here. If you do that right, if

you come and look at my property, come and look at the sightlines. Look, it’s a whole wooded area. You’re going to change that. The whole Cherry Monument Street, I would argue, is quintessential Wenham. That that is a that’s that’s us. There’s pockets of our town that identify who we are.

When you change that whole thing on that whole everyone walks their dogs, they do that run. That’s the loop. You drive through it to get anywhere, you need to go. You have if you have the ability and the power to not make improvements this drastic, please take that control and do that for not just all of us,

but for Wenham. You will change the whole dynamic of that whole the Mass Audubon. When they came in and changed on Cherry Street, our street, that lot and access, we now have people coming into our wooded areas from Amesbury, from New Hampshire, because they’re promoting and marketing, and

it’s kind of it was kind of like our little sanctuary. It’s not anymore. The same thing might happen here. I would like us to have control over so we can do what we want with that land. Thank you. thank you, thanks. Brian Lazio, 22 hour Cherry Street, also on a butter.

So the entire rear property line that I own runs parallel up runs. You know, in common. Uh, plot lot line with this property. Um, it’s abandoned as we know. No one, no one goes back there, whatever. And it’s quiet and peaceful, and that’s all great. I’m not opposed to some sort of improvement to

this house because it’s an eyesore. Uh, there’s vermin, there’s raccoons living in there. I mean, it’s it’s disgusting. Nobody wants this the way it is. My question is, is there a scenario where this becomes a single residential family home that we could have neighbors where it doesn’t? And

I don’t want to sound. I don’t want to sound like I’m not a proponent of of of low income housing or affordable housing. But in this particular scenario, the way the property is, and I don’t believe, I mean, we can we can look at it,

but I, I think the frontage is going to be a problem. It’s a non-conforming house as it stands now on the left side and at the end of the curb, um, I don’t know how you build five units. That’s preposterous. To me. Three units is a stretch.

Um, and how you get a driveway in there and how I’m not going to have headlights just beaming through, you know, my house with cars coming and going for five units in there. Just none of this makes sense. This is not what this neighborhood is. But is there a scenario where a single family home could be put

there and that you would approve it, and that you would agree with it and not try to make something out of this property? That’s not like, yes, it’s a 30,000 square foot lot, three townhouses, five townhouses. Again, to Dennis’s point. Come on over and take a look. Do you think that that’s makes sense? Because I don’t.

And no, not only because I’m in a butter, but I’m just looking at it. I’m in construction as well. I look at this and I say, this lot’s going to suck when you’re done with it. It’s going be awful. You’re gonna be like this. And that’s not

conforming. So I can’t I don’t know how that works, but my point is, is there a scenario where a single family home could end up there, which again, I think most of us, if not, I don’t wanna speak for anybody, but would be a reasonable solution. Make a nice single family home, have a

nice property, have a nice neighborhood. Why do we have to do this? Why do we have to jam something in here that just doesn’t fit? I think it’s an awful lot of discussion about this. I don’t know, I don’t think that anybody in this room is in agreement with any of this. For what it’s worth.

So can anybody answer my question? Is there a scenario where a single home gets put there? And if not, why not? Got it. Yeah. I mean, I think the reality is that that it’s highly unlikely that there would be a single family home there. The only scenario I can envision where that would occur, given that

the state controls its disposition and the state is going to want to have a project that maximizes the buy right residential component, which is this quarter acre would be if there isn’t a proposal that can meet the other requirements of zoning, like setbacks, and still fit three units. Um, it

may be that three units that are small, a number of bedrooms can fit, but that three three bedroom units can’t fit. I mean, the engineering hasn’t been done because it’s no, you know, um, bitter yet to, you know, to propose exactly what the the plan would be. So if so, that in my mind, knowing a

little bit about this area, um, it would be only if other aspects of zoning couldn’t be met. Uh, to support three units. Excuse me. If that were the case, it’s at least theoretically possible that a bidder could come forward and say, okay, I still want to do the three units, but I know

that I need zoning relief for this setback or that setback, and then they might need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals or the planning Board and, and seek a special permit or a variance to achieve those things. And then that board would, you know, would decide whether to grant the local

relief. But the bottom line really is that the state is going to assume that it that that at least three units can be built there, just based on the quarter acre zoning. And what does the town say about that? I mean, I mean, Peter commented earlier, it’s, you know, look at the

neighborhood. It doesn’t seem like this is a popular choice. Are you advocating for a three unit? I you representing our neighborhood in a way that we don’t want to be represented? It seems a little convoluted to me. I, you know, not to take sides, but what side are you on here? You want to are you going

to get bullied from the state like they have all the say or is when I’m going to stand up and say, hey, hold on, let’s do this responsibly. Let’s keep the integrity of the neighborhood. Is anyone here going to help us out, or are we just on our own? Because this isn’t going to fly. If it’s

going to be that way, it’s going to get ugly. I can tell you that. That’s a great question. Where do each of you stand on this issue? I feel like you’re wishy washy and I feel like you’re just being dictated, like, what is the state going to do? I don’t

I don’t think that the state I mean, yeah, they own the property, but it’s our town. Let’s hear what they. I’m going to leave it at that. But I my level of disappointment is pretty high right now. Okay. Are there other comments from the public? I have. one other question. It’s quarter acre zoning. Three units.

Could you return to the microphone, please? Yeah. First of all, I agree with my neighbors completely. I think you know that anyways. But so it says quarter acre is only three units. So that’s two additional units because the existing unit would be one right. Right. There’s one there’s one house there now.

Yeah. So you’re saying two additional units if we ever did this. That’s the math right. Because the zoning is under the state statute, um, which is applicable because it’s a state owner. I understand. It’s a quarter acre. Yeah, it’s quarter. Acre, 10,000. Existing unit. Then there’s two others. I think the, uh,

Brian’s question is fair. We would like to understand how you guys feel. Okay, so we have had a few discussions on this. We are engaged in this process with the state. We do not have say over all of it. Okay. I mean, my recollection of the prior

discussions, which I think some of you were at, we did discuss the fact that this would be a three unit development. So I don’t think that that is new. What has been introduced since then is the question from the state about three versus five, in order to make this

financially viable. Right. So that is a lot of what we’re considering at this point. We’ve been asked to. All that. The town was still okay, fine. I’m going to ask please, that we not sort of dissolve into shouting comments. Okay. I would like to maintain the discourse. We’re happy to hear public comments, but at some

point we will close it and the board will deliberate. So now I lost the thread of what I was saying. So go ahead. Please identify yourself. 022 ah cherry, it would be really great if there was a plot plan up here, because I think maybe then you could see

the impact. But, um, like my husband said, literally our entire backyard looks at this lot. And for the Hurley’s, their entire backyard is on this lot. Um, and it’s not like just little fences back to back. It’s woods. But just to your point, the last time we were all here, which was when

we were notified the the city was still talking about buying the property. There was also talk about making it just available for someone to buy. And then there was a third option that I think we all voiced. Nobody was a fan of was the three units. So it’s escalated really quickly from the town buying it to five

units. And I know, of course, that nobody wants a million units in their backyard. But if you if we could see the plan and you could physically look at the lot to imagine three properties there and the driveway going all the way down, it’s a long, skinny lot. It doesn’t. Antiseptic system it it would completely change

the entire feel of the whole neighborhood. And I would dare to say we’d be impacted the worse because we would have lights just shining into our bedroom every single night. Um, right down the driveway, whatever that traffic is, I, I it would be terrific if somebody could put it up.

I know we have technology and you could really see what it looks like. Has anybody gone down there and looked at what this site is? There’s got to be other spaces in all of one of them to fit three units. That would be less impactful. That’s all. I guess. Thank you.

Madam Chair. There is someone online as well with their hand up, so. Okay. Go ahead. Peter. What’s going on? Joe? It’s an online comment. Go ahead. Make your comment though. Um, I think five is insane. Um. I will say this that if we do three and I appreciate what you’re saying about, um. Headlights.

But. I mean, that could be mitigated over time. But, you know, appropriate. Please come watch. Yeah, I can you okay. Let’s not get. Into walk the lot with us and look at it, because. It really is affecting. Not just okay, the whole corner. I’m going to ask you again, please, to try to refrain from

shouting comments from the room, okay. Because that’s not an effective discussion. All right. I would you like to comment, please identify yourself. I would love to. Michelle Hurley. 26 Cherry Street. We have been at a multitude of these meetings and I feel like to piggyback on what Lauren said, I’m a little confused

because I feel like the takeaway from previous discussions and meetings was we we lost. It sounds like the option for this to go to like auction or private sale. I feel like we just skipped over that and we’ve gone right to this proposal, did we? Was that ever like, addressed? Was that ever like put out there? Yeah.

Well the paper was. No. Am I saying is that so. The state we keep referring to this affordable Housing Act is a law that requires the minimum of four units per acre. So we’re deeming this three quarters of an acre. So three it would be that that law gives the state a

mechanism to dispose of the parcel. The state would have to petition the legislature for a special legislation to dispose of it with other zoning, which they they don’t want to do. They don’t want to do or we haven’t. No, we have, we have, they don’t. Their preference is to

use the existing legislation that gives them a pathway to disposition. This is you know, this is where the state lies. Housing is a big deal at the state right now. And this is all their marching orders, is to move in this direction. So this is their parcel. This is not the town’s parcel. And if.

We’ve negotiated with them to be as. Involved to the state, is there a point person like who have you been speaking with, like an. Independent. Probably your best would be probably the person most involved in this process that would be the best person would be Sally current. Who is your state rep?

And she’s been out here to look at the property. As far as I know. Yeah, she’s been pretty involved with it. Really good. Could I. Add something? Um, just because I, I totally appreciate what all of you have been saying about the message that you received the last time. I mean, we’ve had several, several times that

this has been on the agenda, but I think the last time that it was, you know, publicly kind of disseminated was it might have been my first year on the board, which I think was 20, 22. Um, and so I appreciate that the range of options that were discussed then, um, were different. But the Affordable

Homes Act, I just I knew it was somewhat recent, but I just looked it up. The Affordable Homes Act that that instituted this, um, four unit per acre signing, which is Steve said is obviously intended to from a state policy point of view, as everyone understands, is intended to, you know, try to

build housing stock in the Commonwealth was passed in August of 2024. So that’s when the quarter acre, um, zoning came into play. So just so that there’s an understanding of the timeline and why the, um, why the the ground has shifted. Um, in the, in that interim period. Okay. We do have a comment from zoom.

Yes. Um, Tom star, go ahead. Tom, if you could identify yourself once you’re unmuted. Right there. Tom. There it goes. Tom, can you hear us? It looks like he’s talking. But he’s he’s muted. Now. It looks unmuted. No he’s unmuted. Yeah. Sorry. Try again. How about now. Yes. Go ahead Tom.

Okay. Thank thank you. Um, so I was just, uh, just wanted to comment yourself. Please. I’m sorry. Your name and address, please. Yes. 41 Pleasant Street. So I’m in the the the neighborhood. I see that building every day. And, um, you know, I just wanted to say two things.

One is, you know, I’m. I feel it should be preserved. Um, I feel the only reason we wouldn’t preserve it is because the state has neglected it for so long that, you know, it’s expensive to preserve it, but nevertheless, you know, it has a house next door to it. It’s part of a, you know, it’s like

a twin situation. Um, the historic district Commission did evaluate it just for this kind of reason. Um, that it has historic value and the state report indicates that it’s it could be on the National Register, either as a, as a freestanding building or as part of a historic neighborhood. So I would just advocate for preserving as much

of it as possible. And as far as the number of units, I mean, it does seem like even three units would be kind of a lot for the neighborhood. I, the state, you know, are housing law notwithstanding. Are there any other properties in the in that neighborhood that have more than two units on them? There’s only one.

With two. Anyway, so that’s why I would say three sounds like the maximum if we could. And that’s one of the options, right? Three units, full preservation town support 300,000. All right. Thank you Tom. Okay. So I have two two. Just remind us of your name please. For the.

Record. Dennis Hurley, 26 Cherry Street. I bought the property 24 Cherry Street. Um, if my lot is right next door and is very similar, it’s almost the same size. Um, and it’s rectangular and goes all the way back. My house is not a it’s not an option to sell my property and put five units on it because

it’s not state owned. Is that accurate? Yes. Or three units. Or two units. So so it’s so it just seems a little. One sided. Yep. It does. Um, and then the other question, which is kind of weird. And I on the agenda, could you ex that out so I

could see the title of the agenda. Thank you. 24 Cherry Street Matrix for select board and resident discussion. Can you guys it doesn’t seem like this is discussion to make a decision. It sounds like it was an information session to have us come here to tell us there’s nothing you can do. Is that accurate?

We have to work within the parameters of the state, so we cannot basically throw all of this out and say something completely different. So we have to work within. What does that mean? So what Steve and Ben have been explaining that it is state owned parcel that they have the buy right ability to construct

three units on that lot. We they are looking to us to rank order our preferences as is on the screen. We are actually hearing your comments and taking them into consideration, but we do not have the ability to completely throw all of this out and say, we’re not doing any of it. That’s not part of

the solution. Set. And the goal overall is to rehabilitate this property, right? We have been fighting for a number of years to try to get the attention of the state to rehabilitate this property so that it does not continue to fall into disrepair and remain dilapidated in the neighborhood. But we do have to work within the constraints.

So can you give us a time, a ballpark timeline of your best guess on what or next steps? Someone here calls the state and you don’t tell them what you think. You’re just like, when do you think you’re coming to do this project? So we’re working together with the state, right? Is it a it’s

a collaborative process to a degree. So Steve, do you want to elaborate. Yeah. So the state it’s the state property. It’s the state’s disposition they have. And they don’t have to invite us into the process, but they have allowed us to participate in the process. So just just to educate me, because I’m more intrigued now

than I ever have been before. What do we, as the town like? What do they want us to participate like? But essentially it boils. Down to we go. We go, uh, two seven, eight, nine. Here you go. And they say thank you. And then they come in and do it the right essentially.

Well, I think the the expectation is going to be three units. And there has been a lot of concern about the historic nature of the building. So this ranks, you know, what the to what extent we preserve that historic nature. And it also ranks whether the preference lies in

affordable homes or market rate housing. So that is what the Select Board is working on tonight. Okay. So and then if you were to say all right this is going to move forward. When does shovels go in the ground. Uh, I mean I it’s I, I only smile because, you know, when,

when we got the timeline from the state, you know, I think they gave us an 18 month timeline. By the time the parcel would be disposed. And it’s probably been close to a year now. So. And we haven’t don’t even have a draft of the RFP yet. So, I mean, two, two years I mean, again, I’m just

I’m. That’s yeah. That’s guesstimate. So but is it safe to say and I don’t mean this doesn’t this is kind of real. This isn’t embellishing at all. Many of us have about 18 months to live there and then put our markets, our house on the property, on the market, like 18 months is

Dennis. In 18 months it probably nothing’s going to change. It’ll look exactly the same. I mean, I don’t think we can predict with any degree of certainty what we’re giving you is our best guess. Our shovels coming in 2026. We don’t know the answer to. That. It’s 3 or 4 years.

Yeah. I mean, likely it will take longer. As Steve was saying. Then whatever is predicting. And is this a fair question? And then to your point, prior to I can’t remember what you said, but. Prior to 2024. Prior to August 2024, there were options on the table. Those options were gone as of that timeline.

Yeah. And what happened in August of 2024, among other things, that were passed under the Affordable Homes Act, was giving the state the power to do exactly what it is doing now, which is to dispose of it and to do it as quarter acre by. Right. So is it accurate to say that had we made a decision,

meaning the town prior to then, we had more flexibility and now it’s more rigid? I think that’s probably true. Yeah. Yeah. Um. Deirdre and. Steve. Would it be helpful to just kind of write like a five year timeline on this and like, what’s changed over time? And then what are all the considerations? Um, especially

since the state is going to be selling this. What latitude do we really have? I mean, yeah, I mean, we could put together a timeline, pull the prior, uh, presentations together and maybe put them online for folks to view. I think that’d be helpful. Okay. We’re always talking about things, and it’s like I never

see anything up here, but I know I’ve seen it in the past. Hey, sir. Uh. My name is David Hunt. I live at 21 cherry, so across the street, um, and they’re for six years now. Um, I do similar stuff professionally for the last 20 years. Um, so I kind of

know what everyone’s talking about and know the rules. I think the Select board has done a really good job of presenting kind of the facts of where this sits. Um, in my opinion. Right. I echo all of my neighbors concerns. Um, you know, it’s really kind of two fights, right? We can. legally fight.

A law or try to work with them. And they did ask for our feedback. The feedback is this. Right now, I think that feedback could potentially look a lot differently for this RFP, right. They the state asked town of Wenham, what do you guys want to see in the RFP? I

think that is not right. I think that using everyone’s concerns, we work together, you know, and I think it’s going to take some time of a couple working sessions. Maybe we can get an architect to like draw up a couple schemes so we can look at it and be like, wow, this might work a lot better,

um, than just saying, here’s our favorite, you know, we want five units, blah, blah, blah. Um, you know, I think one question that I do have for, for the group here is, you know, like the state, I understand that it’s a minimum density of four units per acre.

Is that is that correct? So there’s no chance we can go below that. The I mean, if the state auctioned it off publicly and put if someone put a market rate house, you know that lots going to go for way more than a dollar, right? So the state

makes more money. I think that we as neighbors are interested in probably putting together a plan where, you know, I don’t think anyone is saying they don’t want affordable housing. I think that would be a piece of it. Although there are market rate options up here. Um, I think that to understand from the neighbors what they

think about the historic preservation would be interesting, because I think that that is a path that we could go down to potentially put this in our favor, where we want. to just build where the existing building is. And maybe there’s. Two. Units, maybe there’s three units, and we kind of work

together. But I think, I think just, you know, the town sending this off to the state tomorrow based on this discussion is is too quick. And there we could thoughtfully talk to the state about what we want in that RFP to kind of, you know, not put the deck in our put the cards in our favor,

but to, you know, respond to everyone’s feedback here, which would be, I think, a lot more helpful. So thanks for everyone working hard on it. This isn’t fun. People are passionate about it, but I think we can get together and potentially, you know, make an outcome that works for everybody because I

don’t think we’re changing the law from the state. So I think that, you know, we can do our best, but that’s not going to happen. So, um, I think working together is the best thing we can do. Thanks for your time. Thank you. So, should we have a working session on this? The small

group. Small group? A couple of them. A couple of us. We have a deadline. Do we have to worry about here with the state? I mean, there’s no hard deadline, but they’ve already sent us a letter. Uh, and this was a while ago. But, you know, expressing their, you know, desire to move forward, that

they’ve decided to dispose of it. Um, they’ve surplus this parcel and they’re going to move forward with the disposition, and they’re gonna, you know, allow us to comment on the process. So, you know, is there a hard deadline? No, but I think you do run the risk to particularly how granular

you get in the feedback of them just being like, you, this, you know, we’re just gonna go ahead and move forward with the disposition. Do we, um, do we know whether there’s somebody a d cam that we’ve been dealing with who? Um, would participate in a public.

Forum? I don’t know, I can get that answer. I don’t know their willingness to participate. It’s not. That’s another speaker. One Lisa. Bill. 25 Monument Street. Um, I just want to make clear. So the public auction option is officially off the table or it is not. Well. I mean, I don’t want to speak and give the wrong information.

My understanding is it’s that that is a disposition option. But you have zero control over what goes there. Because it goes to the highest bidder and it will likely be market rate, and it will be fully maximized. Um, you know, as far as profit. But they. So.

Right. Right. But then the new owner would not be the state, which means. The new owners are not the. State does not get to enjoy the quarter acre parcel benefit. Know the the the quarter acre is we’re stuck with the quarter acre zoning. But the the issue is, you know, do we want to try

to have some influence over a bad set of parameters? Um, or do we want to basically let the state just say, never mind, we’re gonna sell it or, you know, do a public auction? And then if that were the scenario would be much worse because a developer is going to absolutely maximize, you know,

the buy, right? Um, uh, construction isn’t going to, you know, to the to the extent that historic preservation is a concern to anybody that would go out the window. Um, and, um, this, this, this is an attempt to have some modicum of influence over things. Having said that, I, I do think

personally that it’s too it’s too early to to make a decision. Um, tonight. And one of the reasons why we wanted to make sure that notices went out was to get your feedback. And we’ve gotten it. And, you know, I very much appreciate all of your comments, and I completely understand why you’d be

concerned about, um, a change this dramatic. Um, at the site. So, I mean, I’d like to see, um, it would need to be on a fairly short time frame, but I would I’d certainly support a working group that maybe, um, you know, had some structure to it that had, you know, some set number of, uh, neighborhood, a

butter or neighborhood representatives on it. Um, and to ask them if they would send a representative to a meeting, I doubt they’re gonna do more than that, but who knows if it’s productive, maybe they’ll do more. Um, anyway, to me, that makes sense in terms of more discussion, more understanding of the options straight from the, you know,

from the state’s mouth, I think is is probably helpful as well. And maybe that also gives a sense of, um, of what some of the constraints might be on, you know, on site plan and setbacks and that sort of thing. And then I also think they should probably be a, uh, you know, a more formal

walkthrough of the of the property as well. I agree with that. Okay. Yeah, I’d agree. I, I’m looking at the lot. It’s long and it’s thin and I’m trying to figure out how you fit three structures in there. You know, if there were, you know, three

1 or 2 bedrooms, you know like the 55 plus and make it affordable for, for, you know, folks that are trying to move out of their large houses in the town to a smaller place in town, it’s more affordable for them, and they can still stay and be part of the community.

That seems valuable. But I understand also the, you know, the concerns about, you know, that that’s more people going through that lot than it have been before. So, um, I’m happy to, you know, to hear more and, and, um, you know, participate in, you know, the process you described. Ben. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Chiming at 36 Cherry Street. Can I ask. You Committee here. What’s the. Sense of this meeting. You ask us we give you a. This our. Our answers. And everything else. And then you sit there and you tell us. We can’t. Do anything. So it’s a. Waste of time. You could have done this all.

With a letter and said, this is what’s going to happen. We have no choice. We’ve been here now talking for over an hour and a half, and every time someone comes up here with a suggestion you give us, well, that’s the state. They have control of it.

So what are we doing? What are we doing? Wasting our time with this? When you could have wrote a letter and said, this is what they’re doing to that that lot, we don’t have a choice at all. Not a choice at all. And I’m further enough away that this

is not going to bother me, but it’s going to bother my neighbors and I like them. I think. So, you know, it’s just that it’s just like that castle they built up on Cherry Street on the left hand side, going up, and a nice little neighborhood with small houses. They built a house up there that there’s no

land around it to walk. And yet a permit was given for them. For what? In the neighborhood. That was so pretty, with little homes, bungalow. Now you go. You’re right there in the corner. There’s a castle. And if you can’t put 40 people in that house and still have room, they got they got a problem.

I’m sorry. I’m just, you know, letting off steam. I know you’re normal people, too, but I’m letting off steam, and I’m sorry. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I don’t think we’ve wasted our time this evening. We are trying to convey that we are working within constraints,

okay? We. Sir, I’m going to ask you to let me speak now, please. Okay. All right. I think we are taking on board all of the comments. We have heard you. We appreciate that. You all have come here this evening, and we appreciate the concerns that you have raised.

I think it is a good point. You mentioned the plot plan. That would be helpful. I do know the property from the street. I have not actually walked in there. I did not feel that was appropriate, but I do think a formal walkthrough would be helpful so that we can visually ourselves, experience the lot

and understand all the things that you’re referring to. So I’m sure that we can make that happen. I think the suggestion, from what I heard from my colleagues, is that there is agreement to attempt the working group, perhaps to try to draw this out. I mean, I do believe it has to be the three.

I don’t think we can do less than that in the solution set that we. I would. Agree, have talked about, okay. But what I hear is agreement that that is something we’re willing to do. Okay. So we’re not trying to simply impose our will on this. It is our job to do the best we can for the

town. You are part of the town. Keeping in mind that we also have town goals, which include trying to create affordable housing, trying to preserve the historic nature of the town. Those are also goals. Okay, we want to try to make the best decision we can, taking into account all of the factors.

We hope that we can arrive at something that you won’t feel like you have to sell your property to escape. I think that’s not a good outcome. We were willing to do what we can. Okay, but I think everyone needs to understand we are working within constraints. We do not control this entire

process. We do not just get to throw everything out. That’s just the reality. Okay, so I believe now we’ve agreed I don’t think we need a vote, but we’ve agreed for a working group. I did hear, I believe, two volunteers from the Select board. Is that correct? Then? Um, yeah. I was thinking about representatives from the

neighborhood and. Right. But we need some of. Us, you know. Certainly. Yes. Yeah. We can only have two. We can only have two. Correct. Are you comfortable with that? Sure. I’ll I’ll. Let me know. Are you comfortable with. That? Uh, with having to or being one of these? Being one of. The two? Um, yes. I’ll be one.

Time permitting. Right. Okay. All right. With that, I think. Do we have. Yeah. Butters, do we have? I mean, I think we do. but we need, uh. I think they should. Just. Reach out to Steve and volunteer for this thing. We don’t try to nominate people or get them on board right now.

Okay, so I think that’s a good suggestion. If some of you. I’m not sure we can accommodate everyone, but we want to have a group that can actually work rather expeditiously to get to an end point, because the state is waiting and we do not want to just lose control of the whole process. Okay, so perhaps

you could confirm on yourselves and determine a handful of people who would like to participate. All right. Um, Are there other folks who are a butters to the property or a butters to a butters? The property who aren’t here tonight? But you know, would have been or interested or because that may also be a factor.

Um. Yeah. Randy. Okay. I also think that just given that, given that state law under this circumstance and a lot of other circumstances, requires that the people who get notice of things and this is what occurred for tonight are, as I just mentioned, direct to Butters, to the subject site or a butters to a

butters of the subject site within 300ft of that site, which is probably all of the butters two butters. So I do think that we should we should make clear if if my colleagues agree that, um, no representative of the neighborhood should be someone who does not fit those

criteria, so it should be in a butter or in a butter two and a butter within 300ft. And I think we should maybe we want to even, you know, throw a number out there just so we have some, you know. Number of people. A number of people who would represent the neighborhood.

Is that something that. the only to try to move the ball forward that way. A butters is I’m sorry, I can’t remember your name. Yeah. David Hunt, you live. Across the. Street? Yeah. That counts. That that counts across the street is considered in the butter. Okay. Yeah. Yes. Given it was your solution, I think it might be

helpful if you were willing to volunteer. But if you could confer with your neighbors. Um, and reach out, I don’t know. I don’t have a particular number for ish. Yeah. So we’re talking about for two select board members, if we can get anybody from the state for one, uh, one meeting,

I guess they wouldn’t be part of the committee. They’d be some sort of guest or something like that. And. staff like it. And staff. So. Right. And then we keep climbing towards eight and ten people. So can we do that by the end of this week? I think we should try to. Yeah, we’ll. We’ll try.

To make a further suggestion. So and I think so we definitely need a, you know, planning department representation as well. So that’s great. Margaret. Um, and I think frankly, and I’m not I’m only saying this because I think it really would add value if there’s a if there’s a planning. board member

representative as well, because there’s a lot of expertise on that board that would supplement Margaret’s expertise and the expertise of everybody else. And the planning Board is, you know, charged with visioning these things as far as, you know, proper, uh, planning of uses in the town.

So maybe we should. Would it make sense if I make a motion that does just give more definition of the working group than at least we know what the working group is, how many people are on it? Sure. I think we just don’t want to wait for a full planning board meeting if we can expeditiously request.

Yeah, that could be done without or without a meeting of the planning. Board. Yeah, I just want to be careful about formalizing the group in its members. But how about the participate? Why don’t we just summarize it? Okay. Even the numbers. You mean. The numbers are fine, but they. You know.

Okay. So why don’t we. So why don’t I do it this way? So I’m going to move that we, um, delegate to Steve the creation of an informal working group that would include two select Board of Representatives who have already been identified as Finn Sprague and Ben Timon. One planning board member to be

identified, uh, Margaret Hoffman, uh, four members of the neighborhood, which is defined as property owners who abut or abut about to abut, um, the locus uh, and butters include, uh, properties that are across the street from the locus uh, and uh, uh, if accepted by damn a representative. of the state to participate in the working

group discussion. Uh, at the invitation of the town. Um, and I think that would be everything. The only thing I think I would add is the small working group there done by Memorial Day. Yeah, I think it should. It should be quick. It needs to be quick. Yes, but. Be quick. Affordable housing. Well, I guess.

Yeah. Historic commission, I would say no because I think there’s already an interest in, in that’s been identified as one of the equities here. And I just don’t want to make it too unwieldy. That’s my personal view. And they are they are already giving their opinion through this separate process with the state. So I think their views

will be represented. And the same with the Affordable Housing Trust. I think their views are represented. And we do need we do want to move expeditiously. So can I can we? There is a motion on the floor however. Can I second it. You can second it. Thank you. And there’s a member of the public.

And when you say a butter are you saying a household or an individual? Individual. Individual. Yes. Yeah. One representative from each of our household. Um, well my thought was that that okay. Yes. I’ll let you decide which one shows up. Yeah. The pool. Yeah. The pool. However many properties fit within the umbrella under the

umbrella of abutting properties or abutting to abutting properties, whatever that pool is there would be for individual people who up to for individual people. And I think and this is going beyond the the motion a little bit. So I apologize. But I think as has been stated, we would look to

your group to self-select those for people. If for some reason you can’t decide, then we would decide at our next meeting.. All right. Okay. All right. The motion is stands as it is. I don’t think we need to redo it. So. Correct. Yes. All right. I’m ready to move to. A vote. Finn. I’ll vote I.

Peter. Yes, Ben. Yes, Deirdre. Yes. Okay. Thank you all for coming this evening. We appreciate the input. All right. Thank you. Okay. We now have. Discussion and potential vote to update the Pleasant Pond policy. I’m just going to ask if you could have your conversations in the hallway because we’re not finished yet. Unfortunately. Thank you. Margaret. Thank you.

I see this got to. Run over with a. Blanket smoking. Help me out. Yeah. Yeah. Help me out. Good morning. Good. All right. Um, so, given the change from last year, where we staffed Pleasant Pond with two gatekeepers, uh, on the weekends starting, I believe it was May Memorial Day through

the end of school. And then seven days a week through school vacation, we now will have no, uh, parking attendants there. The plan, you know, as discussed, is to sell, continue to sell parking passes so that the parking lot usage requirements does not change. You have to be either a Hamilton or a Windham resident

and in possession and display a parking sticker on your car that’s purchased through the town clerk’s office. Um, the difference being this year is that there will be no parking lot attendance. That will either let you park in the lot or not. So it’s the honor system, but the police, like

they have, always have, have the ability to ticket or warn individuals that are parked there. So to that extent, the last time the Selectboard updated this was May 14th, 2024. So we’re proposing an additional amendment that adds the highlighted portion above that says parking stickers are required to park in the municipal audit. Pleasant pond

vehicles without valid parking sticker may be subject to a parking ticket. Uh, we added this in part to, uh, resident concerns down at Pleasant Pond that folks would be unaware that they could get ticketed. So we’re trying to make it clear by putting it on all our policies that are on the website. Additionally, we’ll be

purchasing signs, um, through the police and DPW that will be put up around the parking lot so that it’s very clear. I spoke with the police chief again today to double confirm that he does have the ability to issue tickets. They can do it both through civil process, which would be, um, like a

bylaw violation, like plastic bags, uh, where a bylaw requires two warnings and then a monetary ticket. Or they could go straight to a parking, a traditional parking ticket, as we’re most familiar with. Um, but in either scenario, he believes the best course of action is to issue a warning.

Initially, uh, so that the folks are aware of it. And then if it’s a reoccurring, uh, situation, then move to a to a parking ticket. If you want to go to the, um, the rules. So additionally, these are the rules that we have on the website. The proposal is to add all the yellow highlighted, um,

except for the last one that was already highlighted yellow. And it’ll stay highlighted yellow. The rest highlighting will be removed just to, um, you know, the swimming at your own wrist. There’s no, there’s no, um, lifeguards at Pleasant Pond, but just really all around the parking sticker and

just, uh, you know, making it clear that folks are aware that you need the sticker. Again, this doesn’t this doesn’t change. You’ve always needed the sticker to park there. You could always get a ticket for parking there. It’s just this is no gatekeeper, so to speak, in the park. Not reminding you

if you try to park there without a sticker. Um, with the Select board’s discussion and then, uh, approval, if you’re willing, uh, we can make these revisions permanent and update our website. Can you let me know? Steve, is has it always been parking only for Hamilton and and, uh, one of them residents? Yeah. A lot.

Okay. Yep. Okay. So, yeah, the backstory on on this just for context. I mean, it’s somewhat of like folklore because I’m not sure anyone has the real story, but the existence of, like, that small fishing pier and the dedicated fishing spots and also the, the, the town doesn’t have the ability to, um, prevent walk

ons, but it does have the ability because at some point, um, the town accepted grant funds to do something with the pond in which we had to given out, gave up our right to preclude the public from accessing the pond. But where the municipal lot is the only lot down there, and that’s on a

separate parcel. We do have the ability to sell parking passes, but it doesn’t prevent someone from, you know, parking down the street, assuming a parking is allowed and then walking down there. So that’s kind of the the thing we can’t just shut the, you know, the I think some of the residents would

prefer that we just would make the entire operation down there. Private, uh, resident stickers only. But that’s not that’s not an option. So my understanding is the actual water of the pond is owned by the state, and therefore they control the fish stocking and timing and so forth. And the land, the lot

per se is owned by the town, as you said. I guess what I’m wondering about because because part of the usage is driven by when they stock the pond with the fish, right? The fishermen have permits to fish the pond, correct through the state, but they do. But but how does their parking fit in with all of

this? So my understanding is that we have to provide and I don’t have all the facts, but we have to provide some number of spaces. I believe it’s three, 2 or 3 lots. The spaces that are dedicated and maintain the small little fishing, uh um, pier, pier. Sorry I say spear, but spearfishing. But uh, which

is really nothing more. That’s like the size of a pallet that you can fish off of, but you can still fish from the shoreline. You basically we can’t prevent. So the one of the rules here is that, you know, fishermen who who are actively fishing and people who come with them in their car, as

long as that fisherman is actively fishing, the rest of the folks that were in that person’s car can access the beach. But as soon as that person stops actively fishing, they no longer have the right to utilize that parking spot. So they need to move the car.

But the three parking spots are in the lot, or they’re sort of on the entrance. They’re separate. So it’s like sort of attached to the roadway. Yeah. The difference is that they have to be actively fishing. But there’s they need also stickers on their cars. Oh no, they need to have a fishing license to be actively fishing.

So the police can question. Yeah, basically where’s your fishing license if they’re parked the vehicles parked there. Yeah. If then there’s no one fishing. And we the chief did reach out to the mass fish and game and has requested, um, an increased presence down there because I don’t think they have

any presence. Um, so to the extent they’re willing or have the staffing, uh, our hope is that they’ll, you know, assist in at least monitoring who is fishing and if they have the proper licensing. That’s a little bit outside of our, you know, the the wheelhouse of a traditional police officer.

But that is helpful because we do not want it to become sort of a free for all by any means. I think the the wording of the first one, just to be completely explicit, I would say parking for Wenham and Hamilton sticker holders only resident sticker holders or something to that effect so that it doesn’t read residents

first. Do you know what I mean? Yep. Just to leave no wiggle room. I do think there are other issues to address in Pleasant Pond, but we can come back to those at a later meeting. I. Enjoyed pondering. I was just gonna say, I’m, uh, I’m pretty close to Pleasant

Pond. I brought my kids there all the time. Uh, saw turtles hatching out of the sand there one time, and it was a great place. It’s a fantastic place for for little kids. So encourage everybody to go and take advantage of it. And make sure you get a sticker. So any other questions? Yes.

Um. So just a couple more minutes. So the second bullet alcohol alcoholic beverage prohibited. That’s clear enough. It’s pretty categorical. Don’t show up with alcohol. And then further down where it gets to smoking. So this is no smoking on the beach or grass area. Um, are there any areas other than beach or grass where someone

could say, oh, I’m smoking here, but I’m not on the beach of the grass? Probably in their cars. In their cars. I mean. So maybe we should. I’m thinking maybe it should be alcoholic beverages and smoking of any kind. Prohibited. Okay, agreed. And vaping or just smoking? I would include vaping. Yeah, I agree.

I guess it could be separate bullets, could be alcoholic beverages prohibited in the next blow. It could be smoking and vaping prohibited. Stuff like. That. If you say smoking and vaping prohibited, that, does that get the point across clearly enough that that applies to tobacco or cannabis? I would think that it’s all encompassing. Yeah. So.

Okay. Anything else? I didn’t have anything else. Okay. Okay. Peter. I move that we update the Pleasant Farm policy. With the changes that were discussed at our meeting. Do we have a second? Finn will second. Thank you. We’ll take a vote. Finn. Finn votes aye. Peter. Yes. Ben.

Yes. Deirdre. Yes. All right. I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. Next meeting. Do we have dates? Well, actually, I have a great point. Um, so with town meeting, we in a couple of, uh, school vacation and a couple of five week months, the Selectboard has kind of gotten

off its first and third Tuesday meeting schedule. So this is the last Tuesday of April next week, obviously, is the first Tuesday of May, right? Yeah. May. So to get back on track, I guess the point is you want to get back on track or do you want to keep going every other week? Or do you.

Want just a week a month? What do you want to wait three weeks and then meet? You know what? I think we should meet in two weeks. We can’t meet next week. Right. June. June does have five weeks. So we could get. We could do stay with every other week. Meaning that we would

meet on the 12th and the 26th. The second and fourth Tuesdays of May, and then. And then get back on. Then we get back on. Right. We could do the third and the fifth Tuesdays in June, perhaps. Does that make sense now? We do the second and. Fourth, second and fourth then.

Right. Then we get back on track in July. I got you. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. Is everyone okay with that? Yes. Sounds good. To me. All right, so next meeting, May 12th. And. Go ahead. I move that the. Selectboard adjourn the April 28th, 2026 meeting at 8:24 p.m.. Second. All in favor?