00:00:00,520	S1:
Thank you. All right. Good evening and welcome. This is the one time Select Board meeting of May 12th, 2026. It is 6:30 p.m. and we will get started. Okay, so I will have a call to order. If you could just say that you are present myself. Deirdre Peretti.

Present. 00:00:24,039	S2:
Ginsburg. Present. Peter Clay, present you.

00:00:28,440	S1:
Everyone is here this evening. We will first have public input. If there is anyone from the public who wishes to comment to the select board on items that are not on the agenda this evening. Let me see. No hands in the room. Anything on zoom?

00:00:44,799	S3:
No there's not.

00:00:46,399	S1:
Okay, we will move on to town administrator's update.

Steve. 00:00:52,840	S4:
I have a few updates, but I'm going to cut them short. I know we've got a lot to do before seven, so I really Just two. One. I just want to remind folks that our annual Memorial Day celebration will take place on May 25th at 1015. The Cheeseman Memorial moved to the Veterans Memorial at 11 and finally 1130 at the Main Street Cemetery. Additional details will be shared via the website and social media. I also wanted to remind the Selectboard and residents who are interested in serving their community, and also existing board members, that a select board adopted a new policy last year for the appointment of boards and committee members, and that the incumbents of the person currently in the seat, whose term is up this year has to formally express interest. And the seat, you know, is not going to be directly reappointed as and as in past years. To allow, you know, all folks who wish to, you know, serve on a particular seat to have the chance to, you know, at least voice their, um, their willingness to participate and let the select board, uh, review all candidates interested in that particular seat. And that's all I have.

00:02:11,830	S1:
Thank you. All right. I have a brief chair's report this evening. And the first thing is something that I neglected to say at the last meeting. So I apologize for that. But very importantly, I want to thank Ben Timon for serving as our chair over the past year. Ben did a tremendous job, really set a high bar, and was instrumental in steering us through the whole three a situation, and we couldn't have done it as well without his expertise. So thank you, Ben. Very appreciative.

00:02:45,669	S5:
Thank you Deirdre. I'm blushing and I have nothing to say. Excellent for my report.

00:02:53,229	S1:
Okay, I have two more things. So before we go on, I would like to say thank you to Lori Hale as Lori is a welcome resident. She identified a need at West Windom Park to have bathroom facilities. She approached the Selectboard and we agreed with her. Of course, she actually launched a GoFundMe fundraiser and was able to fund the installation of porta potties for the season. While we work on how to figure out how to fund them in the long term. But we're very appreciative to Lori for taking that initiative and to getting it done in such quick fashion. And lastly, I want to acknowledge the passing of Bob Hicks, who is a longtime Wenham resident and unfortunately passed away just in the last few weeks. Bob was really a wonderful contributor to the town. He most recently did a lovely study on the historical artifacts of Town Hall presented to us. I believe it was last year and that is available for people to enjoy. Bob also served on the advisory committee to the Beverly Airport from 1983 to 1994, and was also part of the 375th Committee from 2017 to 2019, and we send our deepest condolences to Bob's family. He will be missed. He also raised with me a lot of issues about Birley Street that we're going to try to fix in his honor as well. All right. Anything to add? Ben?

00:04:27,620	S5:
Not for me.

No. 00:04:28,699	S1:
Fin.

00:04:30,540	S5:
Uh.

00:04:31,420	S2:
Uh, just so, uh, Gary and I had an opportunity to participate in the Little League parade, uh, this past weekend, which was a great fun. And, uh, it's kind of amazing to think. I think they said that they've got the most kids involved ever in their history. Something like 350 Little Leaguers and 100 softball, uh, kids involved. And that's a huge percentage of the, uh, the kids, um, in the town. So I thought that was pretty great. Um, I, uh, I was listening to the radio on the drive home a little while ago, and I heard about a $400,000 grant to, uh, Hamilton Wind and Water District for, uh, to kind of address PFAS. And I think we're going to see that on the agenda. So I thought that was really great. And I'm glad to see the grant. And I'm wondering whether or not that was one of those grants that we might have lost if we hadn't complied with three, eh. So I'm really glad to to see that. And then, um, finally, you know, a couple of the select board members, I got to go over to Cherry Street, um, this past weekend and take a look at that. So, um, got to walk that in person and was glad to do so. So that's it for me.

Thanks. 00:05:34,639	S1:
Excellent. Thank you.

Fin. 00:05:36,800	S6:
All right. Um, two things. So last Friday, yeah, I participated in a handball. And Sally, Karen's and Joanne. Lovely. Um, put together a Beverly focused review of the Transportation department. And we started, naturally at a brewery, uh, of course. And then we walked from there over to the where they're doing the Bridge Street, um, reconstruction and, um, temporary, uh, State of Transportation administrator, uh, Phil Ng was there. I don't know if you guys know about Phil Lang, but he actually did fix the MBTA in a lot of ways. And so he got promoted to higher levels. It's it's the point about that Bridge Street, um, failure was it it went from it's fine. And 48 hours later it's not fine and it's going to take two years to to fix that. And Phil's comment was that we need to we need to be better in terms of proper maintenance, or at least when you know a bridge is going to be out of date to start working on replacing it. And what they've actually done is pretty cool. Is half of the temporary bridge is also going to be the permanent bridge, but it's going to take another two years to finish it. The other thing we did is we went over and went to the airport and um, Gabriel Hannifin, who's the head of the airport, um, took us through a great presentation on what's going on at the airport. And, um, a couple of funny things about the airport. So, uh, they're very sensitive about complaints. And the vast majority of the complaints are from Danvers and Beverly. And like, just five, there were five complaints from one of them. And so I said, so what is the problem? Is it? Are they complaining about the jets? And 95% of the complaints are about prop planes. And Sally Karens, our state rep, um, said it's like this happened like just an annoying fly going around. And where it's the Jets are boom. Done. But I just thought that was interesting. And, um, the thing about the expansion of the airport, it's it's actually getting back to code, FAA code. It's it's. So that's because I think you've probably been down that road.

00:08:32,759	S5:
It's not quite getting back to code, but they're trying to get there.

00:08:36,879	S6:
Yeah. And evidently they're replacing they're displacing some wetlands and they're trying to create new wetlands.

00:08:45,779	S5:
Will sit down when they come in front of us for a permit.

00:08:48,220	S6:
Yes, that's that's what. That's the plan. Um, but anyway, that was really interesting. Um, and felling just, just sort of fascinating guy. And the last thing I would say is if you're not following the generals baseball team or the female lacrosse team, girls lacrosse team, you're making a big mistake. The generals baseball teams undefeated and girls lacrosse has only lost one game. And they have this amazing girl who was literally on the front page of the Sunday Globe sports page, like a month ago. And I've never, ever seen a Hamilton, one of them athlete ever even pictured anywhere in the globe sports page.

So. 00:09:40,139	S6:
And she's a senior. She's going to Penn. She's all academic. That was the other thing. Um, at the, um, Little League parade. Which parade? That is my favorite day of the year, by the way. But they have the, um, the senior on the, uh, on the baseball team lined up and also the softball seniors from, um, the the baseball guys are on third home and the softball girls are home to first. They went down and they talked about each one of those. Those seniors, they're all they're all going to great schools. They're all like honorable people. And same with the same with the softball players. It's just really kind of very impressive when you see the athletes, the act, um, scholar athletes that the high school is generating. So that's.

00:10:36,830	S1:
It. Thank you. All right. Um, Just so everyone is aware. So we do have a joint meeting with the Water Commission at 7 p.m.. So we're going to get as far through the other items as we can, but we may need to pause to have that joint meeting and then continue where we leave off. So we're going to take the consent agenda separately. Actually, as fin was not present for the meeting minutes. So unless there is any discussion on the meeting minutes, could we have a motion?

00:11:10,929	S5:
I'll move to approve.

00:11:11,850	S6:
The seven sets of.

00:11:12,730	S5:
Meeting minutes that are listed in the agenda.

00:11:14,850	S6:
Second.

00:11:16,090	S1:
Okay. All in favor? Aye, aye. Oh, yes. Ben abstains. Sorry, I'm looking at fin. Fin is abstaining. Okay. And if there's no discussion, can we have a motion for the election officer appointment of Renee LaForce? McDonald and Barrett? Correct. If I said that correctly.

00:11:37,889	S6:
For a term effective May 12th, 2026 through August 31st, 2026.

Seconded. 00:11:46,460	S1:
All those in favor?

00:11:48,139	S5:
Aye.

00:11:48,899	S6:
Yes.

00:11:49,460	S1:
All right. Passes. Unanimously.

Okay. 00:11:55,460	S1:
So we will move now to the discussion on 24 Cherry Street with abutting residents. So, I believe is there a person who wishes to speak or multiple people or a presentation? Yes. I'm not clear on.

00:12:15,379	S4:
Yes. I could just give you a quick update. Well, we met on Thursday, but I believe this was a request from the residents to address the Selectboard more in depth, I believe, was the was the term. So I asked the chair and the chair offered this time.

00:12:31,740	S5:
Would that be me?

00:12:33,539	S4:
Yeah, I think it was Dennis who wrote the wrote the email.

00:12:36,620	S5:
Yeah.

00:12:36,899	S7:
So Dennis Hurley, 26 Cherry Street. Um, I'm really not sure. Like, we're all here because we're concerned about the vacant, uh, property. 24 Cherry Street that's been in existing as a single family home since the 1870s. Um, we had met, I think, at the last select board meeting. There is some, um, overly enthusiastic passion from many of us because we felt like we got last minute updates about the property. Um, you had suggested that we put together a working group, which we did. We then met on after that meeting, and then we met on Friday and Saturday at one of the neighbors house. And I think we have a better understanding of where we were two weeks, but not a I think we're probably like 76, 82%, but not 100%. So I'm hoping that there's still time to have discussion, but I feel like that might not be the case. And if that is true, then I'd like that to be open for discussion. We then submitted a RFP or a proposal for that property, which we were hoping that we could work together with before we got to the damn meeting to make sure our verbs and adjectives and language were helpful. And we did submit that to you guys. I think I sent it to Kate. I sent it to you, Steve, I think I sent it to you, Ben. Um, both Phineus and Ben came out to the property, and I think now I hope I don't want to speak for either of you, but I think you have a better understanding of the legal, ethical, moral dilemma. Um, I'm not sure if those are the right words, but you get where I'm coming from. So I think we're all a little bit, um, uh, deeply concerned about where it's headed. One of my questions is, has the select board already kind of given decision making power over to De Cam, and now we're only operating in an advisory way. Um, so now we're just at the mercy of our suggestions. So I guess I don't fully understand what, like, the RFP goes there. You know, there's also things that are in the paper right now regarding Wellesley, and I hope that doesn't affect us. But when you read that article, I'm not sure if any of you read that today regarding state surplus land. I hope that doesn't apply to a small little parcel like this, comparatively. But I'm not a lawyer. I'm not that smart. But I think it does. And I hope that we recognize that, that this is a very different and unique situation.

00:15:19,269	S7:
Did you have time to look over the RFP?

00:15:21,950	S4:
No. We just I just got it this morning and distributed. I don't think anybody's had time to fully digest it.

00:15:27,149	S7:
So then so we if we, we work like As fast as I think we possibly could to respond to the board. And there's a camp meeting tomorrow night like.

00:15:39,759	S5:
And could I, could I? So. Sure. So, um, I've read it and I got sort of an advance draft of it as a member of our informal working group. So I appreciate having had the opportunity to get it. So I think, um, I mean, I think there's probably enough of us on the board who have already looked at it, but I thought the part of the, um, programme tonight would be that you or someone from your, from the neighbourhood group would present that to us. Is that not your planner?

00:16:15,320	S7:
Sure. Do you have it? Do you want to pull it up? I think I sent it to you. I don't have my. I don't have my laptop.

00:16:20,039	S5:
Yeah. Just so that we. Everyone understands the priorities that you've listed. And then I. I have a small slide deck that I put together, um, that reports to the board and the community on just the facts as I understand them to date with respect to one of the issues, which is the boundary discrepancy. But that but I think to to have an overview by you or, you know, uh, of, of this document, which we do all have is probably the right place to start.

00:16:59,500	S7:
Sure, I can do that. Um, but keep in mind, I don't know what I'm talking about. Like, I only know what I'm talking about based upon.

Like. 00:17:11,579	S5:
Maybe David should present because I saw some action in the back. Yeah, nominating him to present it, if that's if that's the right representative to present it.

00:17:20,940	S7:
Okay. But prior to date. Thank you, Dave. And prior to him doing that.

00:17:26,980	S7:
It's okay. I kind of want everyone to understand that the timetable of this presentation is like six days, and I felt pressure from to meet your goal of next Tuesday, which I still don't understand. If that's like you want to have this wrapped up by Tuesday before Memorial Day, but I don't understand the why, and I feel like there might be more cooperation or collegiality in this because it's a it's it's a preliminary moving towards the final, but I'm not sure it's final. But do you know what I mean?

00:17:57,200	S2:
I think I think part of it is that we haven't had the the meeting with de camp, which is tomorrow. I think we'd all hoped to have that ahead of this meeting so that we could all be better informed and from, you know, their understanding of the process. But I'm really looking forward to that, that meeting tomorrow with the working group, where we're going to probably be able to to kind of address.

00:18:17,480	S7:
Them before we get there and before they present the D. What is the D cam meeting like? Is this to give Damn this and say, here you go and damn and go do anything you wish with it. Or is it no more to it?

00:18:31,089	S4:
No. It's the least. The intention that I've understood of the meeting is to understand how prescriptive we can get in our requests for restrictions. So, you know, to kind of pose some what ifs. Let him speak on behalf of the state and how these disposal processes work. And, you know, so we have kind of an understanding of what we need to submit to them and in what form to help us get the project that we want.

00:19:04,569	S7:
Okay. So that the tomorrow night's meeting is a initial step in a relationship, in the next step in the relationship with the town. And it's not a final.

00:19:14,009	S2:
No, it's a working group. Right. So it's nothing's on. Nothing is okay is going to be well.

00:19:20,450	S7:
Well.

00:19:20,930	S4:
I just want to remind the board. The board on two weeks ago. Said that they would form a working group to look into this, and they would like the working groups summary back before them on prior to Memorial Day. So that is the target if the board wishes to change that, they can. But that is where this timeline is coming from.

00:19:44,509	S7:
So then that's the clarification. Why I seem confused is I want to make sure that there's still a window of opportunity to massage, nurture, change if necessary. And this isn't like here you go tomorrow. This is our.

00:19:57,710	S4:
And I understand that this is this is your feedback to the select okay. In the select board decides what goes to camp okay. So like this draft isn't what goes to decamp. It's advice to the select board of what the residents would like to see happen so that the Select board can, if they wish, incorporate that feedback into their submission to decamp.

00:20:19,549	S7:
Okay, I think that's helpful for all of us to hear and thank you. I appreciate that, Steve.

00:20:23,759	S1:
So thank you for working on a short timeline. We appreciate that. I found the memo to be very helpful, and we're going to let you go through it in a moment. I mean, the the objective, however, is to get to a decision, right? Because that's what the state is looking for. So that is the there is time pressure. At some point we do need to move to a decision. That's what's.

00:20:45,200	S7:
Right. And I'm cautious due to the, you know, recent nature of things that Tuesday next might be a little too quick.

00:20:52,839	S1:
So but I think there'll be more information after the working group meets with cam tomorrow. As far as timeline and as Steve said, what they're looking for. Thank you.

Okay. 00:21:02,200	S7:
Do you want to give it a go? You want to? Okay.

00:21:08,400	S6:
Scott, file 25 monuments.

00:21:10,839	S1:
Right.

00:21:11,079	S5:
Thank you. Um, so, anyways.

00:21:14,160	S7:
You.

00:21:14,240	S6:
Know, I have a couple of things. One of the things is that, you know, I've lived on Monument Street for 18 years. Some of us have actually lived there longer. And in that about 20 years.

00:21:24,900	S5:
There's.

00:21:25,220	S6:
Been a change in the UN neighborhood. There's been millions of dollars worth of investments. Millions. My house was the original Arthur Trout house. He ran the general store on Main Street at the turn of the century. I poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars. So with my neighbors. So we have a lot to lose if this is built. There's potential. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of loss in value, in property value. So we came up with this plan. I agreed to it with the density, with the three units. Um, turns out my neighbor, who hasn't been available, is a principal architect at the Smith Group. And I met with him this morning and we went over the site in the plans, and he made it clear to me that site is only suitable for one house due to the septic system issues ten bedrooms, multi-unit mass title five tank size, leaching areas. Reserve areas. Setbacks, environmental reviews. Has anybody gone to the Board of Health to see what can be done? To see if this is feasible and begin with?

00:22:43,829	S4:
Yes.

00:22:44,910	S6:
And what was the result.

00:22:46,869	S4:
That the expectation is you could probably likely fit 12 to 14 bedroom septic system on that site.

00:22:53,509	S6:
And when I looked up everything because I think it needs to go through this before this is presented, is that it can even be. I needed a reserve area that's 100% of the leaching area to protect if there's a failure. How? And they went and they did the park test and everything.

00:23:13,789	S4:
No, we didn't park the site. I mean, it's not ours to park. We couldn't be entering the site would be trespassing. But the, um, the our septic inspector inspected the soil map in the likelihood of what the probability would be of the soil and how.

00:23:32,410	S7:
And it.

00:23:32,690	S6:
Would.

Yeah. 00:23:33,529	S4:
Okay. So that's, you know, he did some due diligence, right? Doesn't replace you have to remember that the buyer, you know, the burden is on the buyer. Right. To get it once they purchase it.

00:23:46,210	S6:
It's it's on the buyer.

00:23:47,529	S4:
Right to that limit. You know in theory.

00:23:49,250	S6:
Go to the Board of Health I call the Board of Health this morning I spoke with them. They're very easy to get in touch with. And they told me that we can present this, but they have to go through and pass mass as well as the when and board of Health. Um, and based on what I learned over the last day, this isn't going to meet. And I and I don't know why we didn't present that with this. To see if we can somehow put a stop to it before it even happens. I mean, it's it's going to devastate the neighborhood. I mean, what happens to us that invested all this money just goes out the window? I mean, I listen, I, I, I'm emotional about this thing because I have a lot to lose. I'm the one that put in the money. So did my neighbors. And then what ends up happening? And then we find out that this, you know, we never thought we never knew this happened, that the town had, you know, a chance to buy the property and and maybe handle it themselves. I think it's very disappointing. What's going on here?

00:25:04,460	S1:
Thank you. So just to reiterate, any any activity that happens on the site would have to still follow all bylaws, the regulations, setbacks, septic, everything. So it can't just be done without following the same rules and laws that everyone else has to do on a site. Okay, so we are. Oh, I guess we have five minutes. How long? I don't want to rush you, but, uh, we do have. The water commission is present, so I don't want to keep them too long.

00:25:41,079	S7:
Uh, David Hunt.

00:25:42,079	S2:
21 Cherry Street, across the street.

00:25:44,799	S7:
Um.

00:25:47,519	S2:
I can run through this. And will. I just think one thing that's important.

00:25:51,319	S7:
For.

00:25:51,880	S2:
Us.

00:25:53,240	S7:
You know, we don't want to be a little small town guy.

00:25:55,480	S2:
Tomorrow night with.

00:25:56,359	S7:
Cam asking them what we can put in the RFP. I think we need to have the select board, the town and the neighbors all aligned. And tomorrow night we have that discussion. We say, hey, here's the list of stuff. And whether it's this list or whether you guys want to change it a little bit. But I think that's what we go in with tomorrow night to say, hey, we actually instead of fighting with you, we're going to align with all of your requirements and which, you know, are applicable on parcels that are way larger than this, not in very residential wooded areas. And with the underlying zoning that is way more significant than ours. So I think that like, that's what tomorrow night we should go do. And I think there might be some work on the select board to kind of get prepared for that meeting tomorrow, but like let's go. Let's say this is, you know, we're ready. We're going to align with your four units per acre minimum. But we just would like to have these six things in there. So like we work together, you know as a group over the last, you know kind of a lot of hours like probably 20 hours over the last ten days to kind of put this together here, everyone's opinion kind of come together. And and this is what it is. It's not perfect. You know, we we built it for you guys so that you could use this and try to, you know, go to decon with some firepower. On what what the town and the neighbors want. So just the density. You know, three units that meets the eight guidelines. Right. I think more than three units. I think, Peter, you said that five there. You know, that's a lot. You know, it could be. It could be five.

00:27:25,029	S6:
I'm all over the three.

00:27:26,269	S7:
Yeah, exactly. No, I'm.

00:27:28,750	S5:
Disagreeing with.

00:27:29,509	S7:
That. Yeah, exactly. So, you know, three ex the underlying zoning that's been in town for years. 20 years, maybe 30. Right. That's why most of us moved here to have some space, to have the trees, the wildlife, raise our families in an unbelievable place. And we're still giving up three ex the underlying zoning. Um, typology for sale. I think that's important. I'm kind of all fronts. Um, you have people that want to live here, plant roots here, you know, potentially for affordable housing, provide affordable, long standing affordable housing for someone to own and and build their lives around on the historic side. You know, Lauren's unbelievable job with the with the historic commission. I think we encourage preservation. There's a lot going on there that, you know, doesn't necessarily meet the eye with the current condition, but it is a pretty remarkable building. I think it will add a little bit of cost, but like, maybe we can, you know, work to.

00:28:31,279	S7:
Encourage the preservation. And I think it helps with kind of laying out the buildings on site as well. Development location. You know, we met a lot internally about this. You just want to scroll down a little bit. So, um, there's a purple area which we believe gives the right amount of acreage to put their square feet to put in a couple of units and the necessary septic system. Um, so I think that this tries to maintain the tree canopy in the rear. Um, and, and then obviously, I think, you know, Deirdre, you said all the existing, all the current setback limitations are still going to be, you know, maintained. We don't have to say that, um, there is an existing encroachment. I think, uh, Ben might talk about that later today. Um, from 26 Cherry Street onto 24 Cherry Street. I think, um, at the end of the day, that existing encroachment is within any required setback for any new development. Um, so I think just, you know, making sure that that gets, uh, you know, respected into the future by the new developer. It's he's not going to use it for anything. Um, so or her um, and then kind of moving down as we go. I think landscaping screening is important. Um, you know, there is, you know, there will be a site plan review process associated with this development. And, um, you know, I think that having the neighbors in the town look at the landscape plan is an important piece of this. Um, you know, last but not least, our affordable and senior housing. Um, you know, we are we are pro affordable housing. Um, you know, I think that we need to be realistic about how many units are there, but the market's going to dictate that. And um, and also senior housing is is wonderful. Um, so if that if the combination of affordable and senior is a is a, you know, desirable outcome for everybody, you know we are we are for that. Um, you know, I think what we've tried to do is be reasonable and practical and hope that the select board can take this and, you know, represent the.

00:30:29,710	S2:
The people.

00:30:30,109	S7:
That do live here. Um, to cam tomorrow and we'll be there. And your support.

00:30:35,789	S1:
Thank you. So just one clarification at the meeting tomorrow is a meeting of the working group. So it's not the full select board. I just want to make sure everybody understands it's not a decision making meeting. It's not a posted meeting of the select board. It's the working group where Ben and Phin had volunteered to be members of the working group with the residents. Okay, so it's a conversation with the state to move this forward.

00:31:01,390	S7:
100%. Get that Like. Just want to be representing the town. Right. You guys are. Correct. So when you're asking questions like, we can be like, well, you know, I think the town should ask the questions based on these recommendations. And we're there in support. But like it's.

00:31:18,650	S5:
So I think so part of part of the program for tonight. Once again we're going to take a pause I think, and have the the water hearing. But once we come back to this, um, there'll be a discussion of the full select board to help inform fin and me on what the Select board sees as the priorities to put forward to, uh, to come tomorrow in the discussion. Again, not the decision making meeting, but the feeling out of De Cam on its willingness to, uh, as Steve was putting it, allow the kinds of restrictions that that we'll talk about. And it's unlikely to be everything on this list. Um, but it'll be some things on the list, presumably. And that's going to be part of the discussion, as I understand it. Um, of the select board tonight to talk through what the Select Board sees as the priorities. Aided significantly by the process that you've all gone through, which we appreciate.

00:32:24,420	S1:
Okay. We're going to take a pause for a moment, and we'll have Ben's slides after we meet with the water Commission.

Earnest. 00:32:34,660	S6:
Thank you. Earnest. Ashley nine Foster Street. And I am the chair of the Water Commission. And we are in a joint session because we have myself and, um, Commissioner Chuck dam and then Eric Mansfield as a superintendent in attendance. And thank you for the opportunity. We have been dealing with a requirement from EPA for a lower maximum contaminant level for Pur and poly fluorinated compound substances, or PFAS, and we do have some PFAS in our well supply. We are in compliance with the current level of 20 for the total of six compounds, but we anticipate by 2029 a requirement to go down to four, and we are above that level. There may be some change in that date, but nonetheless, we have been in discussion on how to address the requirements for compliance with that lower concentration by 2029. And we have several options that we have looked at, and they have different costs associated with them. One would be for us to move forward with our own treatment system, which typically involves activated carbon to absorb the compounds that we are concerned with, plus some filtration for iron and manganese that we have naturally occurring in our water. And then the other option is to potentially combine with Hamilton, who has an existing treatment system that includes activated carbon. And therefore we would provide some water towards Hamilton's treatment system. And that that combined system would be something that we would have as a more regionalized system. Um, but as I say, we have looked at these options. There are some differences in cost. And, um, Eric has more information. Uh, one of the benefits. Chuck, one of our commissioners is also the DPW director for, um, Manchester by the sea. So they have both been participating in some of the regional ization, uh, conferences that Bruce Tarr has initiated. And so we would like to use this opportunity to bring the select board information about what options we have been looking at, and start to get some discussion on what your thoughts are. Um, obviously, if we were to perform, uh, a design build, we could meet a 2029 deadline if we were to engage in a regionalization where we would have to coordinate with Hamilton and be able to deal with that, that would be a more complicated project. And so we would have a concern about meeting a 2029 deadline. Now, as I mentioned, as I start, there may be some grace on that 2029 to 2031. We've heard that, but we can't rely on it at this point. So I'd like Eric to provide the select board with some information on what options we've been looking at.

00:35:55,130	S1:
Thank you.

00:35:57,530	S3:
Eric.

00:36:03,210	S2:
Um, so back.

00:36:06,250	S8:
When we started testing for PFAS. Um, we we did find that we were below the state level. Um, and I know back in 23, we provided some information to residents through mailings. And then also at a 2024 town meeting, we had, uh, more information given out at the town meeting. Uh, we we crested. We moved some money from our reserves in anticipation of design of a new treatment plant. Um, we've also been working with Hamilton. Uh, three years now on different grant options from the Ipswich River basin. Grant. Uh, first year in 2024, we received $232,000 from SDP, and that was looking at a hydraulic model of Wadhams water system.

00:37:00,500	S8:
Permitting for a possible pump station to bring water in from Salem, Beverley to Hamilton and Wenham. Uh, preliminary design, um, of that pipeline and analysis of a design of a PFAS removal plant for us. Um, and then in 2025, we were awarded. We applied for the same grant. We awarded $256,000. Um, looking at, um, a pilot study for our wells to see what kind of, uh, treatment we'd need to remove PFAS.

Um. 00:37:43,980	S8:
Also looks at Hamilton. Has a school, uh, well, on School Street in Hamilton that has a small amount of PFAS, which needs to be removed. It's a it's a it's not in service anymore. And then uh, modifications to the our connections with Hamilton, uh, to be able to get water between the two towns. And then we have just this year, we just we just received on Friday, uh, information that we were awarded, um, $447,000 out of 900,000 that was available to continue our work to look at, um, a design of a raw water transmission line from our from our wells to Hamilton's treatment plant. Um, finishing completing the pilot study, part two of the pilot study, um, to look at further treatment options and then, um.

00:38:45,519	S8:
That's about it then. Uh, so we were happy to be awarded that money. Um, so I guess going forward, we've been we've been in discussions with Hamilton as far as whether we could combine systems. And obviously, that's not just a decision that's made from the water department, because it's going to have to be municipal agreements in place. So I think we wanted the select board to start considering whether.

00:39:20,969	S8:
A regional system is something that we would all be on board with. Um, that would give us a better direction. On whether we continue looking at a raw water transmission line to Hamilton or are we just we do build our own treatment plant. So I think this is why we wanted to meet. And at this point, we'll have more information on after July, which is when this grant has to be completed by, um, whether we can actually do a transmission line to Hamilton's treatment plant.

00:39:54,269	S1:
Do you have a sense of the difference in cost between the two options, or at least the first magnitude?

00:40:00,829	S8:
Yeah, the first one to build the treatment plant originally three years ago was around $12 million. Um, and an estimate on maybe a transmission line at that time was around maybe $8 million. Um, but once we have after July, we should have a better idea of an exact cost of putting in this transmission line. Um, so we could be have a better idea of what we're looking at.

00:40:27,550	S1:
So you're not yet certain of the feasibility of the transmission line?

00:40:31,070	S8:
No, that's what this grant is paying for.

00:40:34,909	S1:
Because I'm just curious of the wise distance. How much has to be dug up. Like, what's the what does the feasibility look at?

00:40:43,309	S8:
So our our wells are on one side of Pleasant Pond and Hamilton's wells are on the opposite side. Um, so it's just a matter of getting a pipe from there. Maybe down Pleasant Street to the to the back side of their plant. Or it may have to go up, uh, through either Main Street and back over to, uh, Lake Drive. So. And that's all. Those are all the things we need to look at.

00:41:07,039	S1:
And where would we cite a treatment plant? A hypothetical.

00:41:10,760	S8:
It would be at our web site right.

00:41:12,039	S7:
Now.

00:41:12,239	S1:
At the well site. Yeah. See, there is adequate space.

00:41:15,079	S3:
Yes.

00:41:15,559	S1:
Okay. Other questions.

00:41:19,360	S2:
One of the things that you mentioned when you were talking about grants had to do with sourcing water from Beverley, I think you said that is not relevant to this particular problem. Right. That that that line is not going to is not going to be cleaning any water or filtering any water. So it's it's not a potential solution or even like a law off valve to kind of push this off.

00:41:39,360	S8:
It's a possible future Solution to to our area. Um, we can't supply enough water during the summer sometimes, so we would need to maybe take some water from Salem Beverly to supplement our water, um, just so we can meet peak demand.

00:42:01,860	S3:
So, Eric.

00:42:03,260	S9:
Uh, one of them, lake, is Beverly Town.

00:42:07,059	S7:
Yeah.

00:42:07,820	S9:
So, I mean, we could just pull it from one of them. Lake, right?

00:42:10,539	S8:
No.

00:42:12,900	S1:
Sadly, no.

00:42:13,820	S3:
No.

00:42:16,139	S9:
Why not?

00:42:17,260	S8:
Well, we we gave up those rights a long time ago. Plus, that's a whole nother treatment process.

00:42:23,219	S9:
And maybe I'm not. I'm not being clear. You said one of the things you're looking at is trying to get money from Beverly Salem water.

00:42:31,579	S8:
No, we're not getting money from them.

00:42:34,420	S9:
Not not money. I thought you said you were looking at if if it would be possible to get water from.

00:42:42,510	S1:
Drawing excess capacity.

00:42:44,389	S8:
In there. In the in the charter for sale and Beverley water supply we they they they are allowed to give us water. Austin Hamilton as part of the original agreement. Um on an emergency basis.

00:42:58,389	S9:
On an emergency basis.

00:42:59,510	S8:
Yes.

00:43:00,710	S4:
And they basically said no otherwise.

Right. 00:43:03,949	S2:
And there is no connection right now.

00:43:06,429	S8:
We have a we have a small connection.

00:43:07,869	S2:
A small connection. Okay. But the, the, the grants that you were talking about in the possibilities would expand that connection. Is that what it is.

00:43:16,030	S8:
It would create a, it would put it in a pump station to be able to add a metering station. So we know what how much water is going.

00:43:22,550	S7:
Okay.

00:43:23,550	S2:
Um, you know, I've, I've heard and this is maybe complete speculation that, you know, we basically have room for about something like 70 more units in the town when it comes to the amount of water that we, we can get out of the existing watershed. um. And so I'm not looking for it to nail you down, but it's not a huge number of houses. Um, and so this capacity increase that you're talking about bringing in possibly. Does that would that materially increase this or is that not a material increase in.

00:43:57,130	S8:
Um.

00:43:57,929	S2:
Capacity?

00:43:59,250	S8:
Well, no.

00:44:00,090	S2:
Um, and this might be a little off topic too. So I apologize if you want to return chair for chairperson, but.

00:44:07,929	S8:
So if we combined with Hamilton, we we could ask master EP if to combine our withdrawals from, from the groundwater source, which would free up some capacity. Um, and not the the water from Salem Beverley is only because during summertime peak demands, we just wouldn't be able to treat enough water at at times when the water is being used the most. Um, so it's so like I said, it's for emergency basis.

00:44:38,940	S2:
So it's a different problem. Okay. Thank you.

00:44:40,860	S3:
So.

00:44:44,500	S9:
So, um, we should really wait till July to make a final decision.

00:44:48,739	S8:
Yeah, but we wanted to get you thinking about it, about the possibility, and maybe talk to residents and see, you know, how people feel about maybe creating a regional water system with Hamilton. Um, you know, in the future, we're probably going to be there's probably going to be either MW IRA or Salem Beverley water Supply as a supplier for this region. Um, because it's a service water supply.

Um. 00:45:13,539	S1:
So the horizon that you are thinking about as far as these two options is roughly, is there any way to project? It's it's sort of like medium term and the long term is hopefully the MW or the reservoir additions, like what's the time horizon.

00:45:31,940	S8:
It's roughly 15, 30 years.

00:45:34,059	S3:
Okay.

00:45:34,699	S8:
Um, before unless. MW eight MW IRA was willing to put in some, uh, some new connections and we could. And other cities and towns, we have to actually allow that water to come through. Um, so.

00:45:50,800	S2:
The funding methodology here, what would that be like? So right now, most of the the water department kind of operates under its own budget. Right. And can, you know, redeem, uh, you know, get to kind of a net zero by charging more for the water. But when you add 8 or $12 million of, of funding, is this something that's going to come up in like a next year's town meeting as either having to fund a hundreds of thousands of dollars kind of full study and analysis? Um, and then, you know, based off of that, you know, a another kind of decision on a major kind of debt for the water department.

00:46:30,920	S8:
So right now, we last year we transferred 500,000 from our reserves specifically for PFAS design treatment options, and we also received over $500,000 with. We were part of a class action suit against three other companies. So basically, we have around $1 million right now to be able to pay for design in those things. But yes, the 12, whatever the cost of the treatment plant or the connection will have to be bonded and paid for by the water users only.

00:47:03,369	S2:
Water users only not. It's not going to be something that's going to be on a property tax or okay.

00:47:09,969	S1:
And there's not grant funding available for that to offset that.

00:47:14,050	S8:
There are some. The state has offered 0% loans to the state revolving fund. Um, but right now there is all a lot of funding is dried up. Um, so we'll obviously look at any grants we could get or any, any types of funding that, you know, that we could get.

00:47:38,389	S2:
So the mechanism would be that, um, the, uh, the water uh, commission would basically has the authorization right now to kind of commit to a, you know, a $12 million loan. And then the all the water users would see a some sort of significant, probably significant increase in their their quarterly water charge to kind of cover the annual bill.

00:48:02,110	S8:
It would be a town meeting vote to. It would still be all that money.

Yes. 00:48:09,989	S2:
And so you're coming to us saying, what do you like? You're looking for guidance from us on like, on trying to create a mechanism to get the temperature of the of the residents or, I mean, we we've in the past, you know, when it came to the, to the school or three a we have created a working group that that encourages participation of residents participation of like say the finance the Pinkham right and members of the the board to kind of do an analysis. I mean you've given us two options here. So I don't know if you guys are still in sort of the brainstorming stage, but those seem to be the only two that you've got, you know, to propose to us right now.

00:48:50,440	S8:
So if we do a treatment plan, it basically would be water Commission would take the information and go to town meeting, say, this is what this is what we come up with. This is what we've designed. We need to we need to borrow for it. If we look at an interconnection with Hamilton to bring our raw water to their treatment plant and then back to us is going to there's going to be agreements, intermunicipal agreements that are going to be done through the select board, not through the Water Commission. So we just want to make sure that you guys have it on your radar, that that's something that to think about, because if there's no appetite from the board to even consider that. I mean, we really just have to start looking right towards building our own treatment plan.

00:49:35,340	S1:
So thank you. So it sounds like the information in July, whether it's actually feasible to run the pipe from Hamilton to Wyndham is critical information. And then we come back to this at that point, once that is known and go from there and potentially create a working group, if that makes sense. Working towards the next town meeting. Is that the time frame, do you think?

00:50:03,539	S8:
I don't know. I mean, we too soon.

00:50:06,739	S3:
Eric, what communication has happened with Hamilton at this time through Dewberry?

00:50:12,099	S8:
Uh, through. Well, just part of the grant and also through the North Shore Water Resiliency Task Force. We've been in discussion. You know, part of that is looking at creating regional systems. And that is one of the things that we've looked at there too, is if we could go by with Hamilton and basically start the regional process, that's going to happen anyways. So once. Yeah, I don't know what the timeline would be to get to town meeting on it, but I mean, if if they do give us a 2031, we're still 29 or 31. We still need to get the process rolling probably within the year, you know, within the next year.

00:50:48,590	S1:
Okay. All right. That's helpful. All right. There is a question, Phil, I'm going to ask you to come to the microphone, if you would.

00:50:59,230	S4:
I actually have two questions. One, do we know what the PFAS.

00:51:02,829	S6:
Level in Wyndham Lake is?

00:51:04,150	S4:
So that's question one. And two. Could you speak about the maintenance costs. Because once you use the activated carbon you need to replace it and get rid of it. Um, and could you talk about what those expenses are on an annual basis?

00:51:20,429	S8:
I don't have an answer on the cost of The disposing of their carbon. We don't use we. We don't have any treatment right now. So, um. So I don't have that answer for you. Um, and I don't know what the PFAS level is and what I'm like. That would be tested by Salem Beverly. So, um, not something we test for.

00:51:43,090	S3:
But it may be. It may not be as simple as just taking one or from one. And then we have to treat that as well. Potentially it is treated now.

00:51:52,570	S8:
Yeah. Yeah. We'd be getting if we get water from Salem Beverly it would be there treated water. It wouldn't be from the lake itself. Um, so that's. Yeah, that's not an option for us.

00:52:05,769	S2:
I think it would be helpful. Uh, you know, as a result of the work you're doing, you know, you're saying, you know, $12 million and this is a few years old data for a plant, right? And the the run. The plant is not going to be free. So it'll be important as part of the analysis to say. Right. And, you know, once we have the plant, it's, you know likely to be ex millions of dollars in you know, labor and you know teams and repairs and removal of, you know, contaminated, you know, filter and filtration, you know, stuff.

00:52:33,230	S8:
So it will be part of the design process. And also when you're looking at if we combine with Hamilton, it would be only one treatment plant to maintain instead of one in Hamilton, one in Wenham.

00:52:44,829	S3:
Right.

00:52:45,150	S4:
So I can.

00:52:45,750	S10:
Speak to this a little bit because this is similar to a project that we're doing in Manchester to where we have same PFAS in our. Well, we have a similar, you know, gallons per minute. We've done actually all the pilot testing that Eric was talking about. And we'll continue to do that. Um, but so like round number, it all depends on how much PFAS you have, how much iron or manganese you have, which is all going to contribute to your operating costs. So we've looked at that. I would say we're in the ballpark around 50,000 a year additional operating. That probably doesn't include the energy. That's just the the GAC and the green sand for the iron and manganese removal. So like, you know, it's significant. You know, if we go it alone and we do that. So splitting those operational costs. You know, it might not be a true 50/50 like, you know, just because we do twice the water in Hamilton, you know, there might be different amount that, you know, it needs to be backwash. We need to, you know, get rid of spend media because we're combining the two. So that's part of this work that still needs to be done. But if we go alone, like we've already kind of done that lifecycle cost. And that is part of the study that we've done. And you know, speaking from experience in Manchester, it's you know, it's significant. Um, so I think that's kind of why this is important to discuss in terms of future planning for, you know, combining the systems or, um, you know, going it alone.

00:54:02,760	S1:
Okay. Thank you. Ernest, did you have anything to add?

00:54:07,360	S6:
Uh, yeah. Thank you. I have one more order of business. As the commission is in session, we need to approve the water ban as we have moved into a more significant drought. So that means no sprinklers during the day and hand watering only from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. we have approval. I grew and so moved. And then I believe that concludes the business of the Water Commission today. We are adjourned.

00:54:37,539	S1:
Thank you very much for being here and for this update. It is a lot of food for thought.

00:54:45,420	S1:
All right. So if we could, um, could we just. Do you want to stick your head out and and ask them to come back in the room? We will return to the discussion on 24 Cherry Street. And, Ben, do you want to present next?

00:55:03,699	S5:
Sure. Thank you. So, Michelle, if you could pull up that PowerPoint.

00:55:15,940	S3:
There we go.

00:55:21,670	S5:
Great. And then just hit the slideshow on the top there between animations and record. There we go. Great. All right, so I put together a very rudimentary slide deck on PowerPoint. Um, sort of vintage 2007. I would say it's not very fancy. Um, but I appreciate the information that, um, the Hurley is in particular are able to gather for me on short notice. And I just wanted to, um, present sort of the preliminary factual findings that our working group has come up with with respect to this. Um, I'll just call it a boundary discrepancy. Um, and these are just really facts. Um, even though land use law is sort of my day job. I'm not providing any legal conclusions, advice to anybody. These are just the facts that I wanted people to be aware of and to be able to discuss. And the Hurley's can correct anything in here that's not quite right. But so starting with the ownership history of the subject property, the 24 Cherry Street property. So as others have said, it was constructed somewhere around 1850. It's eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, um, through 1989. So for, you know, about 140 years or so, it was owned privately. Um, I took a look at some of the past deeds, and there are two families that seem to own it for significant stretches of time during that long period the Eatons, the Lionesses, but other people as well. And then in May 1989, it was sold by, I think, maybe by developers. The last private owners were three distinct individuals who seemed to maybe buy it in order to develop it. I'm not exactly sure, but but they sold it to the Commonwealth in 1989, and as we know, it was administered by the Department of Mental Health for most of that period up until a few years ago when it was vacated. And now it's controlled by DXM, as we know. Next slide. And then taking a look at the owner, the more recent ownership history of the Hurley's House 26, which is the directly abutting property to the west. This lists some of the families that lived there, according to the Registry of Deeds. And as you can see, the Hurley's have owned the property for 23 years, roughly. And they're here this evening. Next slide please. This is a picture that Mrs. Hurley provided to me that was taken at the time that they purchased the property in 2003. And this is the side yard. Let's call it boundary discrepancy area that we're talking about and the fence that is depicted there. Um, to the best of our understanding, is in the same location as the current fence. And so as you can see, when the Hurley's purchased this property, they bought a property that by all appearances and, you know, by all sort of reasonable belief, um, included this piece of property to their side of the of the fence. Next slide.

00:58:50,679	S5:
Uh, what's the fence there? Earlier than 2003? Probably. Um, but I believe that the Hurley's and maybe others in the neighborhood are gathering additional information to try to date. Um, when a fence in that same location was first put there. So more evidence is needed in that regard. Um, but it certainly seems like it was there well before 2003. Whether it was there before 1989 when the state bought it, I don't know, maybe you guys do, but that's part of the information gathering process. And there's probably aerial records and, you know, various records as well as people's recollection, including your, your the gentleman who lives near you, who I think has lived there at least that far back. That might be informative in that regard. Um, and then according to the Hurley's sometime, I think in the 20 tens I may have the, the, the decade off. But when your children were younger, as I understand it, um, um, the state put up a new fence and they put it at the same location as what we're talking about. So there's some evidence that the state regarded that as a, as some kind of a boundary line. Next slide. So this is from 2005. This is another photograph that the Hurley's provided. This is just to show You saw in the earlier photo where the driveway started. Um, you saw that it curved to the to the right in that fashion. And so somewhere around 2005, the Hercules paved the driveway, built the shed that still stands there today. The driveway is there. And again, this was all in what appears to me to be very reasonable reliance upon what the Hurley's and prior owners understood to be the where their property was next.

01:00:40,070	S5:
Thank you. So this is today. Um, this is the a picture of the side yard, you know, that matches what we saw in the 2003 photo. But from the front, as you can see, there's a garden there. Um, there's a discussion in what the butter's put together. Uh, what the neighbors put together that amplifies some of this describes the garden, but there's a garden there. The shed you saw before, it's sort of obstructed by the tree, but the shed is sort of directly, you know, in a line behind the garden and there's a patio there as well, and you see the fence, which is, we believe in the same location as it's always been. Next. This is the same. Same area. Just a better shot of the shed and the patio. Next slide. All right. So one of the reasons why I think we as a select board, would benefit from having a survey done and getting more information is that there's there's varying data that I've looked at as to exactly what the length of the 26 cherry front boundary is or its frontage. And this is obviously critically important to the issues we're talking about. You know how much of that front boundary actually belongs to 26. So I'll work going from the bottom up. So according to the GIS, which I, which is I think the aerial that was put on a prior slide and maybe is what the state is roughly operating under now. Um, it says 67ft. It, it actually first I thought it said 60 because it has 60, but then it has a seven foot stretch next to it as well. So I believe that the GIS is representing 67ft, although it may be that it's representing 60ft, but that seems to be not the correct number, which is not too surprising because we don't take our official measurements off of GIS. You know, they're not going to be precise every time, you know, they take the best shot that they can. And, um, but according to the Hurley's deed and every deed going back as far as, um, the registry deeds has it, the front boundary of this property is listed as four rods, seven links, which is kind of an odd thing to see, even in the 19 of the 2003 deed that the Hurley's took, that it hadn't converted it into feet. It's still using the, you know, ancient surveying language, but at least according to a conversion table that I looked at, that's around 71ft, which is obviously, you know, wider than what GIS states. Now, interestingly, there are two plans that are in the town hall files, stamped engineering plans that were used to obtain a septic permit, I believe, in 2000, and a building permit for work that I don't believe was completed. If I'm if I'm mistaken about that. I think the plan talked about it in the apartment, but in any event, a 2018 plan that was submitted. And these are both again stamped plans by by engineers or architects. And those plans listed, the front frontage is 97.7ft, which is clearly not correct. But again, it's it shows that there's some confusion over the actual dimensions. Yes, sir.

01:04:03,090	S11:
Yeah, the 2018. We did have a full renovation. Okay. Um. Project done. Um. All right.

Cool. 01:04:12,650	S5:
Okay, so that was that was completed.

01:04:14,449	S11:
Completed.

01:04:15,010	S5:
Okay. I wasn't sure if it had actually been completed, but.

01:04:17,289	S3:
Sort.

01:04:17,449	S11:
Of reused those plans. That's why they were done in 2018.

01:04:21,250	S5:
Great. Thank you. I knew that the building permit was issued, as was. I wasn't sure if everything was was built. Okay. Next slide.

01:04:32,090	S5:
All right. So that arrow depicts very very roughly. And again this is underscores, I think, the importance of actually having a survey done of both properties to understand better what the boundary really is. Um, but that arrow is set at roughly 71ft based on a measurement that Mr. Hurley took yesterday. And so if 71ft was enforced, Um, and notwithstanding what David and others have said about the 15 foot setback and so on, which is a valid point. But if that were enforced as the property line, it would, I think it would work. A pretty dramatic reduction in the side yard of of the Hurley's. Next slide.

01:05:22,019	S5:
So this is the GIS. You can see where it's a 60 and seven. So I'm interpreting that as as both being frontage measurements. And so 67. Um, so there's a question that I think we need to better understand as to where that eastern boundary, the three, 380 that's running vertically, where that actually is. Um, you know, it's probably it probably ought to be shifted to some degree east, just based on the actual survey. Uh, why, you know, again. Is it accurate? We have the frontage discrepancy. We also have in one of the plans, the 2000 plan. It lists the lot as being 22,008 78ft². Where that says 22,000. That discrepancy may align, perhaps with the frontage discrepancy. It's hard to say. Um, but my my feeling is that it would be helpful to have surveys done so that we could really understand what is the difference between the official deeded boundary lines and what's on the ground to try to really be able to pinpoint, let's call it the subject area or the disputed area and what that what what that would mean for the Hurley's if the actual and true boundary lines were enforced. Um, the hurley certainly would have certain rights that they could look into in the area of adverse possession, even though it's not a something that can really be directed to the state, but there's a lot of other things in the mix and that would be up to them to, you know, obtain legal advice as to what their rights might be. But my feeling anyway is one select, remember, is that we should, before we move forward with something that we understand could have an outcome that seems unjust to me, that we should have surveys done so we can really fully understand the facts of the boundary issue. So that's what I wanted to present. And I guess if board members have questions or if the hurley is there, any members of the public have comments or questions that maybe could follow?

01:07:43,650	S7:
So thank you for.

01:07:46,010	S8:
That.

01:07:46,449	S7:
Awesome 1997 presentation.

01:07:48,250	S8:
That was.

01:07:48,610	S7:
Unbelievable. The um, so we're basing this whole thing on a math equation, right? Ultimately, four units per acre. Minimum density. If that 34,500 drops to something else. We're talking about an entirely different project. Maybe we wait.

01:08:13,949	S5:
Well, I think that's right, in my view, that we want the facts, because it could be that it could be that we get facts that do drop that number below a certain threshold that could cut in various directions. Because I mean, this, you know, this is all going to end up being probably some kind of a compromise with the state. The state's not just going to say, yeah, well, we'll give up as much square footage as you say we should. The state's probably going to say we're not giving up more than what will lose us an affordable unit. They may they may take that position. I think we just we just want the information to know what we're dealing with. That's at least my feeling on that. On that issue, on how you know where it would, where the numbers would end up.

01:08:59,050	S1:
And what is the cost of a survey, roughly?

01:09:03,210	S5:
Um, I think I mean, in my experience, it's like $2,000 or less. Okay. Although if we're talking about two properties. So it's hard to say for sure, but.

01:09:17,010	S9:
So it's not going to be 2000.

01:09:18,649	S5:
Yeah. Yeah. You use a lot of the same, you know, um, monuments and so on.

Yeah. 01:09:26,130	S9:
Oh, we should definitely do it. Do the survey.

01:09:29,609	S3:
Okay.

Well. 01:09:31,250	S5:
I agree with you. Looks like that Mr. Hurley maybe wants to.

01:09:34,770	S1:
Yeah. I don't disagree, necessarily. I'm trying to to process this. Um, but I think it does cut both ways. I think that's the important thing.

01:09:46,729	S2:
It might be interesting to find out at the working group meeting tomorrow, whether or not the state has already done a survey, which would obviously.

01:09:53,699	S5:
Steve learned today, they haven't yet. Okay. They usually leave that to the buyer. The buyer.

01:09:59,779	S3:
Yeah.

01:10:03,260	S2:
The buyer. So the RFP is going to go out there and say good luck to the developer. And then they buy it and then they discover.

01:10:09,659	S4:
What they have. It's like any other parcel you sell it at a buyer beware and do your due diligence before you buy it.

01:10:17,779	S2:
Interesting.

Okay. 01:10:20,859	S8:
And to follow.

01:10:22,260	S3:
Up on that.

01:10:24,380	S12:
There's a sentiment here that you know. And thank you, Ben, for doing all that. It looks like, uh, I'm not a land use lawyer. We went for potentially from 22,807 to 22,000 to less, possibly. Correct. And I want the folks on the board to know that.

01:10:48,000	S8:
The.

01:10:48,359	S12:
State. And these. It's like, I don't want to say it's esoteric, but it's this thing. But we are the people, and I want you to please know that we have lived here for a very long time and raised our kids. And if you have the ability or power to be our voice to the state, to protect the people who have been paying the taxes and raising their kids, which is really like, let's look at the people who are currently here, and not for the potential people who might sort of come here. So please protect the here and now before we do whatever happens here. And I'd like you to not worry about the cost of a but the people and my children and my, my mother lives with me in in-law apartment, which is one of the reasons we all of our, all of us have aging parents who are looking to downsize and go into a smaller place. So I know that the administration is pushing housing, housing, housing, and it seems to be affordable, but we also could be creative and smart and get ahead of the curve and say, mixed use. Keep the line where it is and it's a win win win and keep it as simple as possible. So I just please think about where we've been and how much dramatic impact you'll have to us that if I lose my driveway, my shed and my patio that we have thought has been ours for 25 years? It has an impact. So, Ben, thank you and Ben for coming out and doing this. And I'm not sure what happens now, but thank you.

01:12:13,010	S3:
Scott 525. I have a question. Is, is this.

01:12:16,090	S12:
A.

01:12:16,529	S6:
Standalone.

01:12:17,050	S13:
Project for the state or is it being combined with something else? How is it being subsidized so it can be affordable housing?

01:12:26,489	S4:
The town would be subsidizing it and with through the Affordable Housing Trust. And the state has said that, um, they would be willing to sell the property for a dollar.

01:12:37,210	S13:
I know that I'm aware of that. So they're willing to give away the property, and the town is willing to put in 300,000. Um, that is not going to be enough subsidy to build. I don't know what they're going to build for affordable housing. Where the. When you look at the percentages for medium income, and only 30% of that can go to rent plus utilities. The math doesn't add up.

01:13:08,189	S4:
And that's the importance of the, you know, the grid that we're trying to get at, right. So that's why we're going to meet with them tomorrow. I don't think it should be a negotiation. This is not a senior member there. He has people to report with. This is an informational gathering session, right, that was offered and discussed at the prior meeting, that we would invite a representative to our initial meeting to help the residents who had a number of questions that wanted to speak to a representative of the state. So we invited him to be there, and he will be there to address us and get us, you know, help educate us as to the state's perspective and the types of things we can work to integrate into this RFP. And then the working group will continue its work with the residents in Ben and Finn, and we will come together and, you know, be able to bring back to the select board a package that you know, is, I'm guessing, a recommendation through the the working group. If we can come to that for the select board to look at and adopt or not. And ultimately they will be the ones that are the ones to communicate with. Cam the preferred project, you know, not the residents, not the working group, but the select board themselves.

01:14:18,680	S13:
Can you convey to them, I know we're going back to the investment that we made into those two, that neighborhood, which looks spectacular from in 20 years, that's changed if you could change the time and that in this project went in there. How do you think those two streets would look today?

01:14:36,319	S6:
Do you think I would have made that investment with all my neighbors? It would be a different community. I think that needs to be conveyed to DeCamp.

01:14:44,340	S3:
This is.

01:14:44,819	S5:
This.

01:14:45,060	S3:
Is.

01:14:45,300	S6:
Really upending the town. And it's in the heart of.

01:14:48,659	S3:
I think you're.

01:14:49,140	S5:
I think you're drastically overstated.

01:14:51,140	S6:
I don't think I am.

01:14:51,939	S5:
Well, you know, you're you're making. You're making statements about what the what you believe the market will and won't support. I think that's that's the, the, the the RFP process, as you well understand, right, is a market based process. And so if there are developers who think that they can make a profit, um, under the conditions in the RFP, then they'll put in a bid. Why is it if there isn't then they'll change the conditions that they can get.

01:15:19,659	S6:
Why is the town putting in 300,000? Help them. I'm confused by that.

01:15:24,579	S1:
Because it is part of the goals of the town, as stated in our master plan to try to create affordable housing. That is. That is the reason for the 300,000.

01:15:34,340	S6:
I just want to go on record. You think that's best for the community over there?

01:15:38,300	S1:
That is what we voted for to endorse trying to create affordable housing. I do believe that is an important goal. Yes. I do believe, however, that we are taking into account the concerns of the neighbors. That's why we are engaged in this entire conversation and have created this working group and are engaged in this process, right. We're trying to get to an end point that everyone can have at least some satisfaction with. Okay, so I think we are trying to move forward in good faith with all of you to do the best we can to try to arrive at the best endpoint possible. Okay. But I am going to ask that we move the discussion along. I think that this has been very helpful, although I don't fully grasp all of this. Joe. Did you.

01:16:25,590	S3:
Sorry, ma'am. There is a zoom hand. Raise this point out.

Okay. 01:16:28,989	S1:
Um, I just want to finish the thought because I'm having a hard enough time formulating it. I am not a land use lawyer either. My. And it is our responsibility. Mr. Hurley, I just want to clarify. We do have to take into account costs to the town. That is part of our responsibility of being on the Select board. Just to clarify that, not at the expense of people, but we have to answer for what we spend. Okay. My comment about this could cut both ways, because it seems to me if the survey is done and it is, the boundary is found to be how do I say it? Not where you think it is, right? You've been operating as if that is your property. So if it does not turn out that way, that seems disadvantageous for you. So I guess that's what I'm trying to sort of process in my head.

01:17:22,050	S3:
Do you think about it? In 2018 we did pay to have it done.

01:17:25,850	S7:
And that's where the 97.

01:17:27,050	S1:
That's where.

01:17:27,529	S11:
They.

01:17:28,090	S1:
Yeah. Okay.

Correct. 01:17:29,130	S14:
And Michelle Hurley 26 Cherry Street. Up until nine days ago My understanding was the fence was the property line. Okay. And why wouldn't I not think it wouldn't be?

01:17:43,539	S1:
It appears logical from the pictures we just saw. I don't disagree. Just trying to understand all of this.

01:17:50,220	S5:
So I think, I mean, I think a likely outcome of a survey is that it's going to show that the fence is not the property line. I think that's probably what it will show. Um, but it will help us understand that the difference between where the actual property line is and where the things on the ground, like the garden and the shed and the patio are, that creates kind of the the zone of conflict, the zone of dispute that we could then say, okay, that's a pretty big, big swath of land, that if we were to not say anything to the state about wanting to deal with, it would be lost. So to me, it just sort of it helps identify the scope of the problem. If it's a tiny sliver, um, then it's less of a problem. Um, but I don't think it's going to be. I think I think a survey will show that the that the fence is technically on the land of 24. Um, though, again, private, if these were private parties, the Hurley's could probably go in front of a judge and have a judge say, oh, you have more than 20 years of this fence being here. The other adverse possession criteria met. It's actually your land Hurley's. You know, a judge might say that if it were private parties involved in the states involved, it's different. But I think in my mind, it's just to try to identify the scope of the harm that could befall the Hurley's if it were to go forward with no restrictions on this issue, so that we can then understand it, decide how to prioritize it. figure out what the state solutions for it. Maybe it's as simple a solution as what has been conveyed about. Okay. It's essentially a no build zone. So, you know, that's all it needs to be worried about. Or some commitment that just the fence be allowed to stay. There's different ways to tackle it, but I think the survey would just help us understand like where, you know, where are the actual boundaries.

01:19:57,409	S1:
Okay. Thank you. Let's take the comment on zoom.

01:20:06,050	S3:
Lisa go ahead.

01:20:07,569	S15:
Yes. Lisa. Bill, 25 Monument Street. Um, it's actually a twofold question. Um, if the Commonwealth decides that it cannot dispose of this parcel for the purpose for which it thinks it can. What would be the next step? That's question one. Question two. Is it too late for the town to petition the Commonwealth to have that parcel purchased by the town and sold as private property? And I would like to understand if that would not work.

Why? 01:20:52,149	S4:
The first question is, I mean, I'm not sure what would happen if there is no proposal that comes in. But this the state, you know, understands the market and surpluses property quite frequently. So the RFP will have, you know, and that's why I stress the importance of having this grid of, you know, even the least favorable, you know, project needs to be marketable, be, um, you know, marketable in, in the marketplace. So that means that, you know, if the property was to say you can put three units, a density of three units on that 35,000ft² full market rate housing. And, you know, the state would have no problem set no problem selling it at that. The reason why the community, you know, kind of moved away from trying to acquire it themselves was one you had to petition the legislature for special legislation to allow the state to dispose it directly to the town. Additionally, the state would require the town to pay fair market value for the property. Selectboard waited, as they've discussed earlier, the importance of affordable housing in the community. So in order for that to be economically feasible, the property, you know, we could not pay a fair market value for the property because that would force it to be a single family, marketable home. So the, you know, they took the path of allowing the state to dispose of it through reduction in the land value and also the affordable housing Trust to partner and make affordability component worth it, whether it were whether $300,000 in the land going for nothing is going to allow three affordable housing units there. Um, you know, remains to be seen. Maybe not. So then, you know, the grid has to outline is that, you know, I'm just speculating, but is it the most, most important three affordable units, you know, and then in Damir is two affordable units, one market and then, you know, two market, one affordable and then ultimately three market, um, homes. So, you know, I don't think you have to worry about it not being sold. It's just, you know, we want to be able to define what goes there, um, in a sense, and something that works for both the towns schools and the butter schools.

01:23:22,859	S15:
Can you still hear me?

01:23:24,750	S1:
Yes.

01:23:25,829	S15:
Okay. So. I'm sorry. I might have been lost somewhere there. Was there ever a price quoted for the state to sell that parcel to the town?

01:23:35,350	S4:
We have to get an appraisal done and pay fair market. Full fair market value.

01:23:39,590	S15:
What was the cost?

01:23:40,989	S4:
We never had the appraisal done.

01:23:42,670	S15:
You never had it done. Okay. So could have been under 300,000.

01:23:46,069	S4:
I have no.

01:23:46,789	S15:
Doubt the town was willing to pay for that to give away.

01:23:53,829	S4:
I'm not sure.

01:23:54,470	S15:
We don't know. We don't know. So that's something we haven't done. So that's another piece of due diligence that has not been done.

01:24:04,069	S5:
Well.

01:24:04,390	S15:
Correct.

01:24:05,590	S4:
300.

01:24:07,029	S5:
Yeah. I mean, it wouldn't be different sources. Yeah. I don't think it would be anywhere close to 300,000. But, um, you know, we I mean, we had a pretty comprehensive discussion about this. I don't recall when it was, um, on a, you know, I will just add a publicly posted meeting with an agenda that lists the things we talk about. Um, and Steve accurately just recapped all the, you know, the various equities that we discussed as to why we didn't feel, on balance, it was prudent to be to get the town and the development business. We don't have the expertise for it. We don't have the staff bandwidth for it. Um, it's doubtful that that the taxpayers of the town at large would be so enthused about, um, funding a purchase in a particular neighborhood, just like there may be people in this neighborhood who wouldn't be so enthused about that across town. So there's there were a number of things we talked about, and I feel like we're in a place now where we are able to, um, you know, balance all these things, work with the state, raise the issues that we've raised already, raised maybe a couple of other issues and try to come up with as much of a win win as as possible.

01:25:29,229	S1:
Thank you. All right. I want to try to move us forward, because we do have other things on the agenda that we need to get to. So would you like to make a motion about a survey?

01:25:42,270	S3:
Sure.

01:25:43,310	S5:
I'll make a motion that, um, we, uh, designate the town administrator to obtain, um, a survey of the 24 and 26 Cherry Street property lines.

01:26:02,869	S3:
Not to exceed that. You'd be.

01:26:05,390	S5:
Uh, we could could do that.

01:26:10,989	S4:
Just do, like, five grand.

01:26:12,189	S1:
5000.

01:26:12,909	S4:
Yeah. I want to make sure we can get it done.

01:26:14,909	S5:
Not to exceed $5,000.

01:26:18,319	S9:
Second.

01:26:21,000	S1:
Any comments before we vote?

01:26:26,520	S1:
You good, Peter. All right. We'll do individual votes.

01:26:29,760	S3:
Fin vote I.

01:26:31,680	S1:
Ben.

01:26:32,239	S5:
I.

01:26:33,000	S1:
Peter.

01:26:33,720	S3:
Yes.

01:26:34,560	S1:
Deirdre. Yes. Okay. We'll proceed with the survey. Thank you Steve. And now if we just circle back as the last thing to the memo that was submitted from the Buttars, from the community. So which is where we started the discussion this evening. Are there any comments from the board on that that would help you for the meeting tomorrow? I think is where I'm going.

01:26:59,439	S3:
I appreciate any, any kind of questions or comments you have since we're going to be participating in the in the discussion. You know, it's it's definitely informational gathering. We're looking.

01:27:08,680	S2:
For insights.

01:27:09,399	S3:
From.

01:27:10,079	S2:
The people that are attending there, especially the folks.

01:27:12,119	S3:
From.

01:27:13,039	S2:
Um, from the state to kind of understand their process and, you know, avoid any sort of surprises on our end.

01:27:19,220	S3:
Um, but.

01:27:20,260	S2:
You know, I'm looking for any kind of questions you guys have to that you want to see.

01:27:25,659	S3:
Um.

01:27:26,460	S2:
Otherwise, you know, we're going to be there. So we're going to ask those questions.

01:27:29,060	S1:
Yes. Are you able to put it back up quickly? Michelle?

01:27:34,060	S11:
From the residence?

01:27:35,020	S1:
Yes.

01:27:35,739	S11:
Um, this is.

01:27:38,180	S3:
The.

01:27:39,260	S8:
Number.

01:27:40,180	S3:
It depends on.

01:27:45,460	S5:
Could I just say something that I think might, um, expedite some of the issues there? So, as we all know, we have site plan review in the town. I'm just looking at the the site plan review portion of our zoning bylaws, and it covers, you know, eight different considerations, including minimized volume of cut and fill a number of removed trees. It talks about scenic views. It talks about building placement, talks about minimizing glare. Um, so I think that the the helpful memo that the neighborhood put together, it lists two things that I think kind of go to go together, which is building placement and vegetative buffering. And to me, if we were to say to the state, you know, this needs to go through site plan review, which I think is very doable and Margaret can correct me, but I think that it's site plan review as we know, is a by right process. So it's not a discretionary thing, but it allows the Planning Board to impose some of these things that we're talking about. I think that's I think that's how the buffering and placement of buildings should be handled would be through site plan review. Um, so anyway, that's I think that site plan review may take care of a couple of those things.

01:29:15,170	S1:
Peter. Any comments? Okay. Could you scroll down just a little?

01:29:23,409	S1:
I mean, I don't have any issues with the vast majority of these suggestions. I think that it's reasonable. I appreciate the thinking behind it. The only place where I disagree is adding the age restriction, because I do believe we have a lot of age restricted housing in the town already. There is very little affordable housing available for families. And I think, as you know, we have agreed that this we none of us want this to be five units, but that's the only piece that I, as one select board member, would disagree with is adding another restriction that is age restriction.

Okay. 01:30:06,729	S9:
I would agree with that. I missed that.

01:30:11,979	S3:
I appreciate your.

01:30:12,779	S2:
Feedback. We'll make sure to bring it all up as we go through all these documents in our next meeting. The working.

01:30:18,100	S1:
Group. Thank you for participating.

01:30:20,619	S5:
Can I attempt to sort of recap where I think we are? Just so that it's, you know, clear to that. So I think I think what we have a consensus on is, is three units. Um, part of this is sort of where we were before, three units. Um, historic preservation to the extent feasible, which may end up being the facade. So that would be a value that we've already conveyed and would continue to convey. Site plan review, which I believe is the appropriate way to capture some of the buffering and building placement issues that have been raised. Um, I don't think that we should or that the state would ever accept kind of a no build zone in the in the back half of the property. I think that's a nonstarter with the state. But but site plan review again is a way to, um, to balance issues of buffering and issues of building placement. And then it sounds like there's a consensus that that the board would like to see, um, three affordable units. It may be that the state in the RFP process realizes that it that that isn't economically feasible, and that there has to be a market unit to subsidize the, you know, the cost of the affordable units. But that would be something that the state would have expertise on. Are there any other things on the list that we haven't dealt with?

01:31:44,000	S2:
I've heard from the agency that they've had, uh, when you put in affordable houses, one of the kind of long term concerns is maintenance of those houses. Um, you know, that folks that might be eligible for affordable housing might have, um, uh, less resources to maintain the property afterwards. And so I've heard from members on the tee that rental is a way of, uh, of controlling that. Right? You, you it's still owned by a relatively affluent developer or, you know, entity that can maintain the property to the to the levels that we might hope or expect in the neighborhood. Um, and that that's one of the reasons that they aged. He has said that, you know, a rental option or preference is actually better for, you know, maintaining the character in the neighborhood. So I'm interested in kind of hearing from, uh, you know, DXM about rental and whether or not that's something that they typically put in or can't put in or won't put in, um, in at the working group.

01:32:54,409	S11:
Okay.

01:32:55,369	S14:
Thank you.

01:32:56,409	S5:
Then I'm sorry. Then the the the other issue is the boundary issue. So yes, that's something that I think we can report to deacon that we're going to have a survey done, that it's a concern that we think might need to be resolved, but we're gathering more information about the boundary issue.

01:33:09,590	S1:
Okay. With that?

01:33:13,390	S11:
I promise.

01:33:15,189	S1:
Okay. Come where we can hear you.

01:33:18,909	S16:
Laura Lazio, 22. Ah, cherry. Um, I guess I want to first say that I'm sorry if we come across as adversarial. That's not our intention. It's, um. It's a very emotional thing for all of us. I know that Mr. Biles spoken about our financial investment, but it's clearly more than that. Sorry. I didn't expect to get like this.

01:33:49,590	S15:
But I would like.

01:33:50,630	S17:
To ask that whoever's speaking with the GKM tomorrow.

01:33:58,869	S17:
Um, asked him about the timeline. Because we have to make real decisions about where we're going to live. Okay. And I'm not being trying to be dramatic. And what I'm saying is that I chose to live there, as Dave so nicely said. I chose to live in that home for a reason. If I wanted to live in a home with rentals, which makes me want to spit daggers, um, and several homes and driveways and not a tree in sight, I would not be paying the highest tax rate in the state, and I would be living in another area. And to stand here and feel like you're just deciding by a bunch of numbers, though. Ben, I truly appreciate the effort that you've put in. That's like the sliver of hope that feels like someone's hearing us. Okay? And I know it's not your backyard, but it's truly our backyard. We raise our children there, and my husband is home right now searching for homes to live in. I'm a realtor, and I'm going to spend my time looking for a new house. Okay? For real, because it's not going to be the same place anymore. And it's not about affordable housing, it's about they're just a wipeout of the place that we've called home for a really long time. So I'd like to ask if we can find out what the timeline is, to know when they're going to agree or disagree to these things, because I need to know whether I'm telling my house in a week or I'm selling my house in three months, or if I'm going to try to stick it out and live through this misery that we've been dealing with for the last ten days. Okay, so if somebody with more say than just me because I'm going to be driving during this meeting tomorrow could ask that question, I would truly appreciate it.

01:35:39,619	S1:
Thank you. Yes, we will certainly ask that question. And I appreciate the emotion, I understand it, I am also attached to my house. Okay, so I'm here in good faith trying to work with you. I we do have responsibilities as select board members, but we are trying to be sensitive to the neighborhood. We are trying to hear and work with everything that you're asking for. Okay, I'm going to ask you to try to have faith that we are hearing you and that we are trying to do the best for all involved. I said this before at the last meeting. I'm going to say it again. I hope that we can get to an end point that none of you feel that you have to sell your houses to get away from. I think Finn is raising the idea of rental. That's not a decision. That's just a comment. At this point.

01:36:33,829	S11:
I was listening. They wouldn't raise that. It wouldn't be.

01:36:36,750	S1:
Ready, I think. So the discussion needs to be robust and everyone, everyone has a right to raise what they want to say. Okay. But that's not a decision at this point. It's we don't know, all right. But it's within his rights to raise that as a question. We are trying to be considerate. We are trying to hear you. We also do need to get to a conclusion. Okay. I appreciate all of you coming tonight. We appreciate the work that you have put in, and we appreciate those of you who are coming tomorrow to the meeting. This is to be continued. All right. With that, we're going to move on because we do have other agenda items and we have other people waiting. Okay. Thank you. All right. So next is Martha, by any chance, in the zoom?

01:37:29,010	S18:
Yes. Right now.

01:37:45,449	S19:
I'm Martha Brennan. I'm the one I'm meeting. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to join tonight to do our annual request for money to support our Juneteenth celebration. As in past years, we partner with the Juneteenth Short Juneteenth Association to put on a really dynamic and, um, presentation that goes into the history and other elements of the Juneteenth celebration. And if you've attended it, you know, it's really great. Um, and the cost is $150. It's the only money that we ask for during the year. So we're happy to answer any questions about it. Um, hoping to get support of the board.

01:38:35,020	S1:
Thank you. Martha. I think this is one we can move expeditiously.

01:38:40,939	S9:
Yeah, we're totally supportive, so go ahead. I moved to approve $450 for the funding of the North Shore Juneteenth celebrations.

01:38:50,979	S2:
I'll second.

01:38:52,140	S1:
All right. We'll do voice vote. All those in favor, I.

01:38:56,000	S9:
Yes.

01:38:56,920	S1:
Martha. Thank you for your patience. We appreciate it. I apologize for the wait. And thank you for the grave.

01:39:03,319	S19:
No worries. Keep up the good work. Thank you.

01:39:05,399	S1:
Thank you. Okay. See if I can see. All right. What's this?

01:39:12,000	S20:
Can we take the conservation?

01:39:13,479	S1:
Conservation? So, Kate and sorry. My apologies. I was going in order. Okay. So we're going to move to item J, which is discussion and potential vote to approve the conservation restrictions and purchase and sale agreement for nine and 51 Maple Street. And I'm going to turn it over to Kate to explain it to us.

01:39:36,119	S21:
All right. So today I'm going to ask you guys to please sign the conservation restrictions for nine and 51 Maple Street and the purchase and sale agreement for the purchase of the conservation restrictions. So, as you may recall, this project has been going on. I think we started conceiving this during the first open space plan in 2019. So Margaret was part of that. Um, this parcel was picked as one of the most important parcels in town to preserve. And so the last 3 or 4 years, we really started to think about funding for it. And then, um, finally in 2024, the Conservation Commission had a brilliant idea to go to the CPC and ask for funds to transfer over from the CPC to the conservation fund. Um, and that was overwhelmingly voted for at town meeting. Actually, the first year, the Conservation Commission received $1.7 million over the asking amount, um, for for the purchase of this conservation restriction for this property and for 212 Topsfield Road. So there were two of them. Um, so today, how did we get this purchase price, this $2.425 $5 million. The appraisal of this property, this conservation restriction, is actually over the $2.425 million we negotiated with Greenbelt to get it to the $2.425 million. So $2 million will be taken from the Conservation Fund, and then the $425,000 was a grant we received from the state, the land grant. Um, so the reason why there are two conservation restrictions is what they're doing on the property is the part that's in green is going to be owned by Greenbelt. The part that's at the top that's kind of in that pinky orange color and the white underneath it will be owned by their LLC. The reason why they do that is they keep their, um, the land that they use for their recreational purposes under greenbelt and any sort of purchase that they are going to do where they're then going to sell that property they put under their LLC. And so eventually this property that's in the white and the little the pinkie area will be sold off. So the main home is was already contingent. There's already a buyer for that main home and that property that will be about 15 acres. And that will be under a historical preservation, which means that, um, the it's it's just as good as a conservation preservation where they are not going to be able to change the house, but also the character of the lands around there. And then the other top corner where that conservation restriction is, and three acres around there will hopefully, we're hoping, go to habitat for humanity to make the current carriage house there. They'll renovate that. And we've done perc testing where they believe that two more houses could be built over there. So that's the goal. Um, so tonight, what we need is, uh. Last. Well, I'll say last night we had a meeting and the Conservation Commission overwhelmingly said yes to this, and they have all signed the conservation restrictions. And we're hoping tonight that you guys will motion to do the same. And then also you have an extra piece where you will be, um, hopefully motioning to approve the purchase and sale agreement. I think that's all I have.

01:43:16,380	S1:
Thank you Kate.

01:43:17,260	S18:
Yeah, that's really great.

01:43:18,420	S1:
Yeah, it is really great.

01:43:20,140	S21:
Well, I actually, um, Chris Lapointe and I have talked about this because this has been a labor of love, and he said that we're going to be doing talks about this because it has got everything in it. It's got the historical, it's got the affordable housing and it's got the conservation. So it's really a landmark project for Wenham. It's wonderful.

01:43:39,500	S1:
It is.

Absolutely. 01:43:41,420	S5:
And is it right that nine Maple has a buyer? I saw that it went on the market and then it went off the market.

01:43:46,600	S21:
Yep. It's already contingent.

01:43:48,000	S18:
Yeah.

Yes. 01:43:48,680	S4:
Did they put it on for 1.6?

01:43:51,520	S5:
Yeah. What a beautiful house and property that looked to be from the listing anyway.

01:43:56,880	S21:
It's absolutely stunning.

01:43:58,279	S5:
That's just like a just a private party somewhere.

01:44:01,760	S18:
Mhm.

Yeah. 01:44:03,439	S5:
Yeah.

01:44:03,720	S1:
Yeah. Okay. The carriage house. That's the white House near the corner. Right. So they're the project. They can put three units, three houses of that size.

01:44:14,479	S21:
Um so it would be the carriage house and then two additional homes that they think that.

01:44:19,399	S18:
Like going down the road.

01:44:21,600	S21:
Yes. If you're if you go, if you're at the corner of Maple and Topsfield, if you go behind. Yep. And you go behind the white House.

01:44:28,720	S18:
Yep.

01:44:29,039	S21:
It would be the there is like a hill and it goes kind of down like that. And it would be kind of halfway to the bottom of the hill. And then next to there are some isolated wetlands. And that's where that conservation restriction is. So we're protecting all those isolated wetlands, although. And when they're already protected under our.

Regulations. 01:44:49,489	S1:
Wonderful.

01:44:50,729	S18:
Yes. Yeah. Great. Really cool.

01:44:52,890	S1:
Anything, fin?

01:44:54,609	S2:
No. Looks great. I'm really excited to see it happen.

01:44:58,689	S18:
Yeah. Ready for a motion?

01:44:59,689	S1:
Likewise. I am.

01:45:02,210	S18:
Uh.

01:45:02,930	S9:
I moved to accept the conservation restriction for the 1.4 acre lot at nine Maple Street, as written.

Second. 01:45:12,770	S1:
All right. This is important. We'll do an individual vote.

01:45:15,729	S2:
Fin in votes I.

01:45:17,369	S1:
Ben.

01:45:17,890	S5:
Ben I.

01:45:18,609	S1:
Peter.

01:45:19,210	S18:
Yes.

01:45:19,810	S1:
And Deirdre is. Yes. And Kate I want to say thank you. You've done tremendous work on this. Thank you. This is really an amazing thing for the town of Wenham.

Yes. 01:45:33,970	S21:
And thank you to Phil Russo because without him at town meeting, I don't know if this could have happened. We got a lot of gray hairs at that first town meeting.

01:45:43,390	S1:
Always thank you to fill Caruso for sharing our Conservation Commission as well on all the work.

01:45:49,710	S18:
Good stuff.

01:45:50,710	S9:
Are you.

01:45:51,029	S18:
Ready?

01:45:52,350	S9:
I move to accept the conservation restriction for the 115.5 acre lot at nine and 51 Maple Street, as written.

Second. 01:46:03,350	S1:
Okay, I think now we'll do a voice vote. Voice vote. All in favor? I.

01:46:11,270	S9:
One more move to accept the purchase and sale agreement. For the purchase of the conservation restriction for the two parcels of land containing approximately 115.5 acre lot and a 1.4 acre lot at nine and 51 Maple Street. As written.

Second. 01:46:32,270	S1:
All right. One more time. All in favor?

01:46:34,710	S18:
Aye.

Yes. 01:46:36,390	S1:
All right. Thank you very much.

01:46:38,189	S21:
We do need wet signatures. So if you could sign this right now.

01:46:41,880	S11:
Wonderful.

01:46:42,680	S2:
I think I need to sign with it.

01:46:43,880	S18:
Let's go.

01:46:45,560	S1:
Is this what needs to be notarized?

01:46:48,079	S4:
Yeah. So Diane said that she can notarize by.

01:46:51,800	S18:
The watching booth.

01:46:53,039	S4:
And watching.

01:46:53,840	S18:
Oh.

01:46:54,760	S1:
Excellent.

01:47:00,279	S18:
Don't do that.

01:47:02,199	S11:
Also, Margaret, the notary. And she's here as well.

Oh. 01:47:05,560	S1:
Wonderful.

01:47:12,800	S1:
I'll figure out where we are. Well, you can do that.

01:47:16,319	S18:
This one too. Here we go. Okay, thanks.

01:47:23,560	S9:
Um, what are we going up to?

01:47:26,520	S18:
Sheesh.

01:47:28,000	S9:
Do you want to do f.

01:47:30,399	S1:
Yes. Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Okay. So while the signatures are happening, we will move on to F discussion and potential vote to amend or withdraw on route 97, specifically the speed reduction to 25mph. The application that was submitted to the Department of Transportation. I do.

01:47:53,380	S18:
I appreciate.

01:47:54,260	S2:
Just a little.

01:47:54,739	S18:
Bit about.

01:47:55,060	S1:
It.

Yes. 01:47:55,659	S18:
Why why we.

01:47:58,100	S2:
Applied and then.

01:47:58,939	S18:
Why.

01:48:00,460	S1:
Why we're reconsidering. So I don't I was at some point last year that we decided to thank you. Um, lower the speed limit across a town wide to 25mph. The state roads. We do not have the authority to lower the speed limit. So the decision was made to request it of the state for route 97 to lower the speed limit in the time since it's been implemented. I think some of us have heard mixed reactions from the public on the opinions about the 25mph,

01:48:43,029	S1:
which has given me pause. And I also drive route 97 on almost a daily basis, and I've thought a lot about what it would mean to reduce the speed there, which is most of the stretch of road is 40mph. As you come up to the intersection with the set of lights, it reduces to 30. But to have 25mph on the entirety of route 97 in Wenham, I think could potentially be a dangerous situation trying to slow the traffic to that extent, which is why I wanted to put it back on the agenda for us to rethink it a bit.

01:49:27,630	S4:
They did communicate with the the police chief and, you know, he believes that 25 miles an hour on 97 specifically is too low, and he believes that the current posted speed limit is suitable and appropriate for that road.

01:49:48,010	S5:
I just have a question. Um, or one A and 22. Um, I'll set or have we did we ask the state to revisit?

01:49:58,729	S18:
022.

01:50:00,010	S4:
The only reason why we can do it on 9722 and one A are out completely.

01:50:07,930	S18:
Okay.

01:50:09,050	S4:
97. It's I'm not sure. I don't I don't know the entire history, but the state like quasi disposed of the land or the, the right of way to the town and that we have to maintain it, but they still have control over like the flow of traffic. So they still set the speed limit. But because we maintain it, I guess we get there's an application process we can go through, and that's the process we're in now.

01:50:34,619	S5:
So 97 was the only one where we made that.

01:50:36,579	S9:
Can I.

01:50:37,460	S2:
Say something.

01:50:38,579	S9:
That, uh, Deirdre was being kind when.

01:50:46,100	S9:
Moving to 25mph. I got it. It's, um, very unpopular. I get chewed out by my wife. My wife? My wife says, well, I should not say this.

01:51:00,060	S5:
But we are in a public meeting.

01:51:01,260	S1:
We hired a public.

01:51:03,460	S9:
Um, on Grapevine Road. And people.

01:51:08,180	S9:
Making very unkind gestures at. Yeah. So. And I think Deirdre said that to me earlier, um, that we said we checked this out for a year. Do we know when we did it?

01:51:23,899	S4:
No. We got to look up the date. But all the.

01:51:27,340	S1:
So at the time that we decided to reduce the speed limit town wide. We did agree that we would basically revisit it. See how it's working roughly a year from the point at which it was implemented. So we need to refresh our memories as to when that was. And of course, the police chief will be collecting data and assessing how this goes. There are, I think, mixed opinions in town, so we will definitely be considering the larger town wide speed limit again at some point in time, or at least looking how it's looking at how it's working at a minimum. But the discussion tonight is specific to the request to D.O.T. regarding lowering the speed limit on route 97, but I will say that I have been informed by some of the concerns that people have raised about aggressive driving with the lowered speed limit and what that would look like on route 97, which is a highway, a small highway, but a highway. Nevertheless. And where that could create more danger than the current speed actually does.

01:52:39,210	S9:
And just so you guys know that.

01:52:41,810	S1:
Let him.

01:52:42,170	S9:
Let him.

Okay. 01:52:43,050	S2:
I'm just going to say this. This is a this is at our prerogative to to make this request and withdraw the request. And and if we decided to put it back in, you know, in a reasonably short period of time, there's no restriction on that. So this is this is just, um, we're not closing the door on, on making a request for ten years or something like that with this. So this this seems like a fairly easy and low impact to, to delay or or to to pull back.

01:53:13,770	S20:
Go ahead.

01:53:14,449	S9:
Uh, just so you guys know, the history on that light at, uh, on Topsfield Road in Maple. Um, that was erected because, um, prior to that, there was no light there and somebody got killed in the car accident there. And that's why they put the light there.

And. 01:53:36,789	S9:
As crazy as the sounds, there were a lot of people who are like, we don't have any lights in the town of one. Why? You know, I don't care if somebody died there in an accident. We just didn't have lights. So it was actually very contentious at town meeting.

01:53:54,069	S20:
Oh, gosh.

01:53:55,590	S9:
So, anyway.

01:53:56,310	S1:
It's hard to imagine that intersection without lights. It would be chaos. I'd be afraid to drive through it. Which I do repeatedly all day. Okay, sure.

01:54:09,710	S5:
So I'll move that the town of Wenham withdraw any request made to the state to change the current speed limits on route 97, Topsfield Road in Wenham.

01:54:23,869	S9:
Second.

01:54:25,359	S1:
Okay. I think we can do a voice vote. All in favor? Yeah, I am opposed. Nope. Okay, Steve, you'll relay that.

01:54:34,840	S20:
I will do that.

01:54:35,920	S1:
To the chief and take the applicable action. Okay. Item G discussion and potential vote to amend the Pleasant Pond policy. I believe we're just amending the rules that we came up with last time.

01:54:51,760	S4:
Yes. That's right. Um, so we didn't bring up the whole policy. But basically, just to add to the list of rules the Selectboard adopted last time to add the additional rule of using the grounds water or woods as bathroom facilities is strictly prohibited.

01:55:11,239	S1:
Which was at my request, because we have had reports from residents that before porta potty, when porta potties are not available at the site at least, and possibly when they are. But in any case that the woods have been used as bathroom facilities and we want to do anything we can, that is a watershed. There are all kinds of health issues with that occurring at that site, and we want to do whatever we can to prevent that. So at a minimum, we can at least put it on the sign and publish it so that it has been said things that you don't think need to be said, but nevertheless.

01:55:53,260	S9:
You want a motion.

01:55:54,220	S1:
Yes.

01:55:55,739	S9:
I moved to amend Pleasant Pond policy to add using the grounds water or woods as bathroom facilities is strictly prohibited.

01:56:06,100	S1:
Do we have a second?

01:56:07,619	S2:
I'll second.

01:56:09,819	S1:
Okay. All in favor? Voice vote.

Aye. 01:56:12,659	S20:
Yes.

01:56:13,539	S1:
Okay. I'll set. Okay, Steve. The next one, I believe, is yours. Yes. Item h.

01:56:20,979	S20:
Discussion on.

01:56:22,229	S4:
Yeah, quick update. The auction never happened.

01:56:24,829	S1:
So sorry for the public's benefit. This is the update on parcel 17, Dash 38, a 18 Longfellow Road auction of the property. Go ahead.

01:56:36,590	S4:
Yeah. So I just this all took place last week outside of a select board meeting. So I just wanted to update the Selectboard, although I have their email, but just do it again in a public meeting. The Longfellow Road 18 Longfellow Road parcel was scheduled to be auctioned off last Thursday, on Monday or Tuesday. I, I was made aware of some easement rights that went with this parcel that allowed for, um, the owner of this parcel to, um, pass either by foot or motor vehicle across a number of parcels up on the Longfellow area, which included one parcel that you know is now was vacant, I believe, probably at the time when these was granted, but now has a house there. And knowing that the intent of cleaning up the parcels up there was to eliminate the already existing easements up there that caused, you know, some a butter conflict and concerns and encroachments. So I, um, we tried to work a way to work it in that the easement could be dissolved by the new owner. However, giving advertising requirements, we could not change the terms of the sale. So I made the call to cancel that advice of tax taking counsel. Um, the auction on Thursday and it would be reposted in approximately three weeks. Unfortunately, council has not been able to get us the, um, the additional wording that we're going to use at this time. So the select board will have the vote on that at their next meeting.

01:58:09,289	S20:
That's all.

01:58:09,890	S1:
Okay. So no action at this point.

01:58:11,569	S20:
No action.

01:58:12,210	S1:
All right. Thank you for that update. And then I think that brings us perhaps to the last item Discussion and potential vote to sign the Sustainable Purchasing Policy in partnership with Recycle Smart.

01:58:24,979	S4:
So this Recycle Smart is with DEP as well. Right. Yeah. So mass DEP and it's their program Recycle Smart. There's a grant program that we participate in. We get awarded about $6,000 every year. And we use that money to purchase the recycling the like the green recycling plastic bins that everybody has and also the compost. Um, they call them wheeling carts. But the things that you can put your food scraps in. So we buy those and maintain an inventory of them. So when they break or wear out, we can replace them with that $6,000 requirement by the state to be able to receive that grant. Is that prior to this, the Select Board's office and this has been going on for probably ten plus years. Um, I send early Michelle sends a letter to all boards and departments that says that we encourage and, um, through our purchasing that we seek out and buy where we're appropriate and available materials that use utilize recycled materials to, to manufacture them. This policy if you can pull it up on the this policy. They change their um they change their policy I guess this year by a little bit. And they, they sent out this as basically a, um, this is just, you know, take their draft and start a town of Wenham. This they want all executive bodies to adopt this policy, which is again, um, it's echoing the, the recyclability component in our procurement, but also looking to eliminate, um, waste and minimize environmental pollution impacts. So looking at, you know, things like more buying like hazardous materials, if there's an alternative, you know, at least having the discussion of, um, you know, buying trash bags, carrying carry out in your parks, like things like that. So you're not buying, you know, single use trash bags, single use doggy waste bags, like different ways of, um, trying to eliminate that type of waste in our, you know, this is a policy that we'll look into it, but also our purchasing habits when we're looking to purchase. So, uh, by adopting this, it allows the town to continue to participate in that grant program. Our expectation is we would continue to receive that $6,000.

02:00:51,500	S9:
Very good.

02:00:52,899	S20:
All right.

02:00:53,739	S1:
Seems pretty straightforward. Any comments?

02:00:57,899	S2:
I think the, um, the language of the reading here is, is laudable, and it kind of gives us a goal and something to attempt to, but it doesn't seem to be locking us into absolute behavior. So I think it's a good signaling device and, you know, signaling, you know where we stand and to the rest of the town's organization to be doing its best to achieve these. But it's not going to. Doesn't appear to be locking us into behavior that would, you know, things would cost us significant amount of money.

02:01:27,989	S9:
And that's kind of an interesting question. It's like how many people in town actually recycle? Do we know meaning?

02:01:37,029	S2:
I mean, if you every Monday, you know, I can see on my street that they have both the trash and the recycling bins out, but I have no concept about.

02:01:45,869	S9:
You know, I live on Arbor, too. I've noticed that.

02:01:50,829	S9:
Um.

02:01:53,869	S1:
Comments on the policy.

02:01:57,310	S20:
Then? No.

02:01:58,350	S1:
All right. Do we have a motion?

02:02:01,350	S5:
I'll move to approve and sign the one on sustainable purchasing policy.

02:02:06,109	S9:
Second.

02:02:07,310	S1:
All right. Voice vote. All in favor?

02:02:09,390	S20:
Aye.

02:02:10,430	S9:
Yup.

02:02:11,409	S1:
Okay. I believe that concludes our business for this evening. Our next meeting is two weeks.

02:02:20,810	S20:
Yes.

02:02:23,609	S20:
26. 20. 20. 26.

Yep. 02:02:29,210	S1:
Not good with dates. May 26th. Thank you. All right. With that?

02:02:36,649	S9:
So I moved. We adjourned the Selectboard meet May 12th. Meeting 2026 at um, 8:32 p.m..

02:02:50,409	S2:
I'll second.

02:02:51,369	S1:
All right. All in favor? Aye aye.

02:02:53,369	S20:
Aye.

02:02:53,810	S1:
Thank you.

02:02:54,729	S20:
Thank you. Good evening.