All right, welcome to the select board meeting of Tuesday, October 7th, 2025. Um, before we begin, let's just do um a roll call. I don't see David on there. So, uh we'll come back to that. I'll run through the agenda and see if David
joins online. But, uh we're going to start with community input, then appointment and resignations. Um 7:15 we're going to begin discussion of the special town meeting article recommendations. recommendations to include articles to include in the warrant. Um, with the with the note that
the Bant Davis uh CPA article is not being brought forward because the funds are no longer needed. So, congratulations on that. Um, >> that's great. >> 8:45 we're scheduled to finalize and sign the special town meeting and special election warrants. Then we're
going to discuss and set the 2026 annual town meeting date because if you're not getting enough town meeting, we'll we'll start talking about the next one. Um we're going to discuss the uh draft residency policy that Christina has Christina has provided at 9:00 followed
by the TA report, warrant and minutes approvals, liaison reports, cemetery deeds, and lastly uh community input. Uh so with that, why don't we begin with uh the roll call. So again, we're expecting David Modell to join online. So let's do
a roll call of the people in attendance here. >> Arnold here, >> Snell here, >> Stevens here, >> Triola here, and David if you're out there. He's not out there. Okay. So David has yet to join, but we will
announce him when he arrives. So, with that, let's open it up to community input, and we'll begin with attendees in the room. Um, does anyone here have any input? I think you'll all have input a little bit later, but seeing none, we'll look to online. Does anyone online have
any community input? If so, you can raise your hand. Okay, seeing none, let's move on to appointments and resignations. So, in terms of appointments, I believe we just have the one appointment in front of us tonight. Correct. >> Okay. And that is uh the recommendation
to appoint uh Sylvia Willard. I'm not sure I recognize that name. Um as a member of the Conservation Commission um with a term to end June 30th, 2028. I see Sylvia is online. Welcome. Um is anyone from Conscom here that can speak
to the recommendation? None. I don't know, Barney, do you have any thoughts or comments? >> Well, u only as the leazison to the conservation commission, um I know they were very supportive of having Sylvia join the conservation commission with
her wealth of knowledge and and uh understanding of conservation lands in Carile. and they have they provided a um a letter of recommendation um that we've received in our packet.
One comment I'd like to make just given this is a bit of an unusual appointment in that as everyone knows Sylvia was the uh conservation administrator for for for so many years and is now um looking to be appointed to the uh conservation
commission which which the the conservation administrator reports to. Um I think initially we there were some uh questions about ethics that were we we vetted that um did not apply in this case. Um but I did want to point out
separating people from roles is that you know it is it is an interesting challenge at times when you change roles from from one to another. So, Silia, I don't know if you have any thoughts or or comments in terms of your approach to the the role as being a member of the
conservation commission and as it relates to um working with the new conservation administrator. Oh, first of all, I want to say that I believe that Megan Sullivan is doing a superb job and um I um was very happy to
be on a committee that sought her out and um I have um for the past few months been available to her when she's needed um when she's had questions that she thought I might be able to answer
answer. uh she is the administrator. The role of the administrator is different uh than um the this um the select the not the select but the conservation commission members. Um and why am I
twice on my screen? Um, at any rate, um, I I look forward to being able to continue, uh, providing assistance to her and to the commission, um, to the best of my ability. I I feel
like I still have, um, um, knowledge to help out wherever I can for conservation in Carlile. >> Sylvia, I have a a question for you. um what are your thoughts about the
challenges that you might face being a member as opposed to being the administrator? >> Well, it's an interesting question because one of the biggest jobs, believe it or not,
I felt all along that was different between being the conservation administrator and a member of the commission is the conservation commission. The conservation administrator does a lot of the leg work, background work, research for the
various projects. The commission members vote and I think sometimes the vote is one of the hardest parts. It's um you you go down in history with a vote. So um but that said, it's um I've been
there before. I was on the commission for a good four months uh back in 1999 and early 2000s and as you know I took 25 years off to be back. >> Sylvia I mean no one can deny you've got
a wealth of knowledge here and I really appreciate the legacy knowledge that you're going to bring to this position. What are the biggest challenges in front of consom right now and what will you do to address them? Well, first of all, I'm not the only one that can address them. It's a it's a
board. There's seven members and they it has to be addressed all together. Um the um I think one of the first things would be to
navigate a um revision to the bylaw, wetlands bylaw, which has been a goal since I was originally on the conservation commission back in the late 1990s. The one we have now is
essentially the one that was uh functioning in the around uh you know during the tall pines uh development back in the early 1990s very early and um so we need to
try to provide the town with the best that we can get. We almost did it once before and was it's time to try again. Um, another thing is, um, we have a lot of issues right now with land
management. We have the, uh, subcommittee of of the land stewardship and over the years since they were put together back in around n 2005 or six. Um, they've
done a a really nice job of documenting some of our lands, etc. But I think right now they're being challenged with um some more
um some tasks that involve sort of legal documents and signed documents. And I think at times things might be getting lost in the shuffle and I think it's an awfully large committee as well and it's
very hard to come to a consensus when you've got 10 11 12 people on a committee. Um I um so I you know I've been attending a lot of the land stewardship meetings over the years and anticipate continuing to do that so I
can keep uh keep an eye on what they're doing and maybe be of some assistance. I hope. >> Great. >> I'm just going to interrupt. >> I'm also >> sorry Sylvia I'm just going to interrupt and uh acknowledge David are I believe you've joined the meeting. Is that correct?
Sorry, >> he is here. >> Okay, >> David, when you when you have a moment, could you just announce yourself? Um, and we're currently talking with Sylvia regarding the conservation. >> I am I am joining the meeting. >> Okay. Thank you, David.
>> Apologies, Sylvia. >> Okay. Um, I've also, um, was the first town committee I was ever on was the conservation restriction advisory committee and, uh, although I wasn't the KNSCOM's representative to that when I
was the administrator, I still continue to go and it's it's a I really enjoy working with that group and um the the work that they do to help protect uh, a lot of the private lands. and also enjoy
um the work that the private citizens um do to help protect some of their land. Uh and thinking in terms of the town, how important it is to the town to have protected lands that aren't necessarily all ones that the town has to take care
of by going to make myself clear there. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you, Sylvia. David, did you have any questions for Sylvia? >> He's muted. >> Do you want me to move the motion?
>> If you choose it. I just have one other thing that I might want to add is that in most cases in towns the conservation administrator lives in other towns and when they move on they move on to their job in another
town and in in my case I live here and um it's it's very hard for me to just not do anything in conservation anymore. So, I just felt like I had a lot of knowledge and I wanted to continue to help give to the town.
>> Great. That's great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sylvia. >> I move then to appoint Sylvia Willard, 34 Bellowos Hill Road, as a member of the Conservation Commission with a term to end June 30th, 2028. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second that.
>> Any further discussion or deliberation? >> Seeing none, let's do a roll call vote. Arnold I >> Modell I >> Snell I >> Stevens I >> Triola I >> Welcome back Sylvia. >> Yes, welcome back.
>> Thank you very much >> and thank you >> and thank you for attending tonight and answering our questions. We appreciate that. >> Okay, let's move along. Um, we have uh an hour and a half of our agenda focused on topics each of which could probably
consume three hours. Um, as evidenced by the the hearing last night for the planning board. Um, but what we're going to focus on tonight is one um to get an update and additional information for um each of the articles being proposed for a special town meeting with the fire
station design article and the cost estimate. Um following the update and some deliberation, the first order of business will be for us to formally uh recommend an article for inclusion in the warrant. So by recommend in the in
the agenda, the the first priority is recommend for inclusion in the warrant. Um, and then as time allows for each articles, we can we can also discuss and deliberate the article u to see if we're in a position to make a to take a position on the article um that might be
printed in the warrant. But um that's not the primary goal. The main goal is to vote on the recommendation and as time allows we can we can deliberate. And if we can't take a position either because we're still deliberating or the bylaws are in process or there's open
questions, we'll take that up at the next meeting. Um, and the plan will be to again roughly allocate 30 minutes to each of the three articles recognizing the Bant Davis article will not be brought forward. Um, I'll keep an eye on
the clock and um around 25 minutes I'll we'll we'll check in and see if if we haven't already recommended for inclusion and we're deliberating we'll check in and see if we think we're close to taking a position or not at which point we'll we'll probably move on to the next one. So, I will time box these
discussions um to keep us on track. So, let's begin with the fire station design article. And Matt Salad from Tecton is here tonight to present the cost estimate. And for for those who've been following this project, um
the select board supported um a conceptual design that was discussed uh refined and discussed over the summer on on the our meeting on the 9th, I believe it was. we um kind of gave the not official approval but the consent to
continue to move forward. Um and in that time, Tecton has been working on the cost estimate uh based on the conceptual design and that was provided to us uh late last week is in the packet and Matt will be presenting the information that's included in the packet. So
present, we'll have some some Q&A and discussion and go from there. >> Excellent. Good evening everybody. Welcome back. >> Thank you. Glad to be here. >> Um so, uh yeah, since we last met, um last time we had met, we we talked about the scope, the project, the design
parameters, what the floor plan would consisted of in in sort of the architectural aesthetic that we were looking for. Uh since then, we worked with our uh independent cost estimator who did a a conceptual design cost estimate based on that. A total cost estimate package is is over 43 pages.
It's it's hundreds and hundreds of lines of of specific details in there. And I do want to point out that certainly you know the beginning of a project starts out with this conceptual design of of understanding the basic parameters but there's a lot of detail to fill in the blanks as we move on. And our estimator
at this stage they fill in a lot of the blanks within their estimate. So there's a lot of assumptions that are carried. So this is this is a first step in a refinement process from here to establish the base parameters. From here, we'll continue refining as we as we develop the project using this sort
of as our starting point. Um, so getting right into the project budget um, and where we landed. Um, just want to give you just a just a brief under a quick understanding of sort of what comprises a construction project. It's it's a it's a it's a large investment by the town
and I want to make sure that you guys understand sort of what you're getting with this package. And so a construction budget is is essentially formulated into three buckets of costs. The first one being the hard costs. Um the second soft
costs and the third are your contingencies. Um go to the next slide. So what are the hard hard costs? Uh these essentially are what constitute the building itself. What it takes to build the the the building the physical construction. So this involves
construction costs, site work development, uh design conting, um escalation, uh general conditions, the general requirements. Those are the the the basic um requirements that the general contractor needs to adhere to. Trailers, temporary heat, things like that, site
logistics, fencing. Um general contractor is going to have to bond uh their finances as well. So there's bonding fees. they have uh insurance requirements that that that are that are needed to be captured. They've got their fee which is profit and overhead. Um and
then and then certainly contingency within that. So those those are all sort of the the constituent components that formulate the construction cost of the building itself. Um all of those things added together that equals the number that you want to see on the bid day.
Right? So that's that's our what it takes to build the building. Our soft costs if you go to the next slide. Thank you. This comprises all the other things. So, um this is our designer service fees, um septic design, your
owner's project manager, um their clerk of the works who's on site during the process of construction to oversee it. Um energy modeling to comply with the latest uh addition to the energy code. Um materials testing, commissioning. So
this is um independent agencies that will come in and sort of stress test the building to make sure it's optimally performing. Um any of the radio equipment and infrastructure, IT equipment, TVs, monitors, cameras, things like that. Um appliances,
utility back charges, and legal fees. Those are sort of all the items that comprise the sort of soft costs. >> Matt, what does FFE stand for? >> Uh furniture, fixtures, and equipment. So if you take the roof off of the building and flip it upside down and shake it, everything that falls out.
>> Okay, good analogy. Thank you. >> Yep. Um and then uh one more slide. The third bucket is contingency, right? So there'll be contingencies on on all these things. There'll be one contingency bucket for your hard costs. Those deal with the unforeseen that
happen during the course of construction. That's how you fund things like change orders, um, owner requested changes, things that weren't necessarily understood or flushed out during the design that need to be modified during construction, things like that. Um, and then contingency will also apply to your
soft costs. So maybe there's some sort of engineering service that wasn't initially anticipated. Um, some other consultant that you may need to bring in. That's the contingency that that allows you to do some of those things. Can I ask a question? And I guess we
have the chief here and the deputy chief. The um is there going to be any stuff that's reused as far as some of the component parts of this >> and that's probably not hasn't been accounted for in what they do. So they just assume we're going to need an SCBA
system. They assume we're going to need whatever. Now is that rounding error money? Could be way we have to sharpen the pencil and figure that out. But yes, absolutely. Next slide, please. So, let's take a look at the hard costs. So, um this is
sort of a a summary of where we landed with the estimate. Um so, I've broken out some of those line items that that I described previously. Some of those are sort of combined. Um, so, uh, for the new addition, uh, for
that that 10 13 10 13,000 square foot addition that we're putting on the back of the building, um, that's running just under, uh, just over $7 billion, 7.355 million. Um, for the renovation component of the building, we're we're
estimating it at $650,000. Um majority of that is those those backup house spaces that are that are being you know so there's a lot of reconfiguration that that goes on with that. Um the pre-engineered metal out building um that's coming in just under $800,000.
Um we have $2.5 million in site work and I'll I'll get into a couple of the big ticket items there and where I think we can actually improve on that number. Um we included a hazardous materials abatement allowance. Um we don't anticipate there being much if any there
but um you know buildings that are constructed before 1990 you know we want to make sure that you know there's not there's not something hiding that we want we want to account for. Um we also have 10% uh contingency on our design right now. So that's saying that at this
point um we're carrying an additional allowance for 10% the value of construction because the estimator might have missed a few things. This is a complicated estimate. Um, and and we are going to do things as we develop the design that may inform changes to the
estimate. So, we want to make sure that we've got a little bit of of room for growth in there and that um we're not sort of saying that what we provided at conceptual design is the end- all beall. There's there's going to be some things as we bring in engineers and as we further develop the details that they're
going to change the estimate and we want to have some cushion in there to to accommodate that. Um we're also showing a 3.2% escalation. Uh so that is capturing an assumption based on what the market is going to do between now and the time of construction
starts. Um we've seen in past months for the past 10 or so months that the construction market has been showing signs of softening. Um on a on a typical year we might see four to 5% per year in escalation. Um, right
now we're we're we're carrying 3.2% is sort of a conservative uh estimate on that. Um, we're sort of seeing a flattening market there. So, that may hopefully bode well for us. That may end up being uh more than we need, but I don't know what's
going to happen in the next three, four, five months. None of us do. So, we need to we need to have some contingency in there to plan for changes to the market conditions >> because of the timing of this. It's really two years out. So is that >> that's for the completion of construction. >> Yeah.
>> So um we're so previous school of thought before this past year when the market wasn't softening uh what you would do is you would escalate to the midpoint of construction that gives you enough of of a buffer. Um
right now the estimators are sort of across the board estimating escalation to the start of construction. So that's kind of how they're dealing with that softening of the market. Um, contractors, general contractors buy a lot of their scope over the first few months of construction. So, you don't
need to escalate out to the end of the job. The last few months of construction, everything's already been bought. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um, and then we have contractor markup. So, all those bonds, insurance, fees, all all that is rolled up into that $1.8
million uh on the on the bottom line there. Is that a percentage calculation just based on the >> It's a series. It's a series of lines. Each one has sort of a percentage aligned to it. Some of them build on the previous lines. Some of them are based on that $7.3 million number. I should
say the the three individual construction numbers. Uh next slide. Uh through our review of the initial estimate, we also identified some uh some assumptions that were sort of above
and beyond what we would what we were anticipating. So we worked with our estimator to sort of redline those. Those comprised about $900,000 in value engineering that didn't affect the building. They were just sort of more robust assumptions that our estimator had carried. So, you'll see on on this
slide a $92,000 markup uh estimate adjustment. So, >> mark up or mark down? >> Mark down. >> Okay. >> Mark down. >> Thanks. >> So, when you add all those costs together, subtract out the $92,000, we're looking at a $13.6 million
construction budget. And can you sorry Matt can you say just a little bit more about the difference between the estimator and and then the reason you put in that estimate adjustment? >> Yeah. So in their in their estimate they
they there was you know there's there's a lot of assumptions they're carrying. They're saying at a fire station of this quality for this town, we've done 30 other fire stations similarly and and this is sort of what we would see in those buildings that may not be captured
in the documents thus far. >> And we go through line by line and work with our estimator and say, well, I think you're I think you're a little strong on on this. I don't think we need that system. Those sort of things. >> And those are the four itemized there on
the right. Um, nope. So, >> I'll I'll I'll keep going. That that's that's beyond that. >> Okay. >> So, so all of those together formulate where where we see the construction budget being. >> Okay. >> Throughout the process as we develop the
project. So, now that we have this estimate, we have a quantifiable takeoff on all building systems that comprise the construction. Right? So I can go and work with my design team and say I feel like this system is a little higher than
we would want it costwise. Now that we see that number we can work with our estimator say what was what was your assumption that informed the value of this system. >> Okay let's look for some ways to make it less expensive. Let's look for ways to value engineer it not reduce the quality but maybe we can look at other ways to
to engineer these systems so that they're less expensive. And and we have an example I have several examples of how we're going to look at that on the right. Um the one on the bottom at conceptual design, we can always get 5% out of the building square footage without affecting the program just in
refining the the the wall assemblies, the way the corridor sizes, the way rooms arrange are arranged. Once we put now that we have the furniture and everything put in there, we're going to just kind of tighten everything up. We always give it another pass. Um, another one, one of the biggest ticket items, uh, two biggest ticket
items that comprise that two and a half million in site work is the, uh, septic system in the leeching field. Um, had some other projects recently where we've done a septic system that were a lot less than what the estimator is carrying. We have an existing leech
field out here that is performing and is okay. So, I think through some additional engineering, some additional investigations that we can probably refine that system. The fire protection system as a standalone item, 60,000galon pre-cast concrete tank,
$780,000. That's a considerable portion of that $2.5 million in site development costs. I think that's I think that's very high. I think we can get a significant several hundred,000 out of that, if not more.
Can you speak to why that would come through as so high via >> our estimator? It's it's it's a very large single sistn tank and it's not something that gets bought by contractors often. >> A lot of times you're piecing together 10,000galon sistns which are a more
offtheshelf assembly, but we had it estimated as one big single unit. >> The other part of it is if they hit ledge and they were doing that, you can hit a lot of money if we know we're putting it somewhere that's all filled, but we know they're not going to hit ledge.
But they the estimator doesn't know that, right? That's not their estimated world. They just know there's this big thing and they put it in the ground. So, >> do we know from Carlile experience generally what a sistern of this size would generally cost?
>> Less than this. I a general rule of thumb is they're they're in the range of like three to six bucks per gallon that they hold. So if you say it's five five bucks per gallon, 60,000 gallons, that's a third the cost that that we're showing here. So >> and do we have any extra sistns that we
can >> I think I So I just want to put these up here as examples of these are these are how we're going to identify specific systems in and strategically target ways to reduce the cost without reducing the
quality. Um this isn't the last estimate we're going to do. We're going to do several more of these throughout the process that'll that'll show that continual refinement. And every time we get that estimate, we'll look at it. We'll adjust, react, and and the building will adapt um in a way to make
sure that we're aligning with this budget. This is sort of this is the back stop. This is the the threshold that we're that we're going to be targeting. >> And maybe you'll address it. Sorry. Go ahead, David. Um, so are those items on the right the elements that make up the
900,000 or is that after you've already taken out the 900,000? >> After the 900,000. So these are these are additional targeted savings that we're going to be looking for, >> but you weren't at a point where you could make adjustments correct at this
stage. Yeah. >> Whereas the other ones, you're confident and you can stand behind the adjustments that you made. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> And I think like for example on site work, there was there's some other lines in there like our our estimator not
knowing exactly what we're doing with the parking area around the building is assuming we're taking that down to subgrade, putting in a new gravel base, binder course, and and asphalt for the whole site. I don't think we're going to have to do that. I think we might mill and overlay some pieces, but I think for the most part, you know, a lot of it's
in reasonable condition and we can maintain some of that. So, I mean, there's a lot of cost associated with that as well. Just I can rattle off a hundred different examples that we're going to be digging into. Do you see um and may and you can get to this at the end. I don't mean to bring
it up prematurely, but you're going to talk about soft costs. Soft cost, some of the soft costs come from the hard costs. um you typically, you know, you're you're talking about some of your experience. What's a reasonable expectation or what are some examples of the delta between
the total hard cost andor total hard plus soft costs at this stage of the estimate versus down the line? I mean typically does it do the numbers budget items just shift shift around but you end up kind of where you thought or are do you see a
general reduction in the range of a certain percentage or does it vary? So the the soft costs um predominantly are budget holds I I would say those are those are your allowances um so those will get refined as scope gets fought as
as as things get fought. Um, a majority of them are going to, you know, so some of those things like testing agencies like that's going to that's going to be a result of how much testing is conducted during the course of construction. You you sort of pay as
you use it. Um, the furniture the FFN budget, we don't know exactly what furniture we're going to be buying at this point, but sort of a reasonable rule of thumb that we use is a is a general percentage based on the square footage of the building, right? X number of square feet typically requires X
amount of furniture and and that sort of establishes a reasonable budget for that and and this is a fairly conservative uh furniture budget on this one assuming that we're going to be reusing some things and some equipment and the like. Um in terms of the construction that
will those will those will slightly change as we as we develop it. Um we're going to get the subsequent estimates back. They may be below what we're showing. They may be a little bit above what we're showing. And and depending on what that tells us depends on how we're going to
react to that, right? If we're if the next estimate shows we're one or two million dollars under budget, we either discuss that as a as a savings to the c to the town and and hurray, we did a great job. Um or we say, what are we missing from the from the project that we might want to put back in? And that
would certainly be a decision for the building committee sub subsequently to make. Um but for the most part a lot of the a lot of the soft costs those are those are going to be fairly fixed. Um they're based on they're based on the project parameters as we see them today.
So when you look at the kind of lesser known or unknown or more risk in this it's really the site work is where you think that the greatest variability could be. Yeah, I think when we when we look at what the cost per square foot, so if I was to
take the the new addition, divide that by the square footage, that's a very reasonable cost per it's like $800 a square foot, which is right around where we expect a fire station to come in at. Um, same thing with the out building. It's like 450 bucks a square foot or 550
bucks a square foot. Um, for for a project like this, that's where we would expect it to be. So, I think our building costs are reasonable. Um, our site development costs are fairly high and a lot, like I said, a lot of that comes down to the sistn and the septic,
which comprise nearly half of that number when you when you add them all together. Um, a reasonable kind of rule of thumb is like a million bucks per acre of site development. Um, we're not developing two and a half acres, so it is it is higher than than we would
anticipate. Um, but that big that large budget for that scope of work means there's a lot of refinement that we can do and that's going to be one of the areas that we're going to target aggressively >> and that's something that once we've are
a go on the actual construction, you learn that fairly quickly at the on the front end. >> Well, that'll be that'll be that'll be flushed out before we get to construction. Yeah. So once my civil engineer is fully on board in in the design portion of this, they've they've
been there for the investigatory work, but once they're engaged for designing it in working with the other boards and committees that have jurisdiction over that site, we'll start to refine that quite a bit. >> Okay, >> great. Let's keep moving because I'm conscious
of the time. >> So this is a summary of the total project costs. So those hard costs that we just talked about was 13.6 million. um would recommend a 5% construction contingency to accompany that at 680,000. That's to deal with your unforeseen.
Um soft costs, all the fees, all those other line items that we that we talked about is is just under 2.4 million. Um we'd suggest also a 5% contingency on that, which is another 119,000. Um which brings us to a total projected
project cost of 16.75 million. And um and if we were to suggest a a a range just to just as a sort of a back check, I' I' I'd add a up to 17.2 just based on where we are today. But I'll tell you right now that
our fees um and our target for the construction budget, we're going to we're going to tow the line on that 17 or 16.75 million. That's that's that's our goal is to keep it under there. If for whatever reason the project does come up a little bit higher in the
construction costs, our fees aren't going to change. We're we're locked in at that. Um so this is the last slide. So um just summarizing that. So this is looking at our phase two costs what we're looking at for this appropriation. Um so design
and permitting. So these are all the architectural and engineering fees. This is architectural um mechanical electrical plumbing technology fire protection security um audiovisisual um structural site civil landscape
engineering energy modeling all rolled up into that $1.18 million that's through bidding. Um your owner's project manager uh is is $105,000 uh and that's also through bidding. Um,
we'd recommend uh carrying your soft cost contingency uh because a lot of it is gonna is gonna if you if you need it, it would be during the design phase for the most part. Um, so we're recommending 115,000 in in soft cost contingency. Um,
that's a recommendation. You can say yes, yes or no on that one. U, but that that that comprises that that summarizes into a total of phase two at just just around 1.4 million. So this is what would be the next stage for going to
town meeting to request >> in in that >> was that that's the >> that's the proposed article right in November. >> Just to clarify for for folks um back at the last town meeting uh funding was approved to essentially uh continue the
conceptual design work and do some site investigation costs. That's the money and the effort that's been ongoing since town meeting and we're coming to the end of that. Um the next phase of this project we and why we need the cost estimate would be to fund the uh
schematic design construction documents and and get the bids in so that we would know the total project costs and that's what we would go back to town uh for full funding approval in. That's the the really big number. But to be clear, this
1.4 for whatever the ask is a town meeting is is not something you embark on um unless you're supportive of the project. So this is specifically design work that informs the conceptual design we're talking about. It doesn't and you
don't come to the end of that with multiple options and and more parameters. So, I just want to make that point clear where this is a small portion of the the total budget, but it's an important step and it's it's it's a sunk cost essentially once you head down that path.
>> So, for examining ledge and stuff like that, which sound like they're the most unknown components, you do that during this next phase. >> We already did that >> for the most part. So, we we Yeah, we did it. We did geotechnical borings earlier this year. >> It's good news. We paid for that
already. >> Yeah. Is any of this the money we spent included in this budget or is this all net new? >> Net new. >> This is new. >> Okay. Yeah. >> But you know some of the work that we did kind of help inform the the cost estimate.
>> Had you not done it previously the number would be higher. >> Okay. Yeah. Gotcha. >> Okay. >> That's it. >> So high level question for you. Um obviously you refine the cost estimate as we go. You come up with uh the
documents required for bids. Bids come in that actually sets the actual project budget the bids. Um what are you seeing in the in the overall uh marketplace right now? Um again this we don't know and this we don't want to
speculate on this project. I'm just curious what you're seeing >> overall among other projects that you're working on or >> or other municipalities are working on. Yeah. >> With regard to the the climate for bids and cost escalations.
>> It's a that's a great question. Um so, >> um economic uncertainty leads to favorable construction right now. And so we're certainly we're certainly in a in a in a struggling time especially post with with the the on again offagain tariffs
that cause a lot of uncertainty especially in the construction market. New home build startups are are slowing architectural building indexes down which is a metric that talks about how much architects are doing work. So the market the market is slowing um today.
What that's creating is uh softening um the bid market. Um we're sort of seeing that across the board that bids are coming in below estimated value. Uh in fact uh the estimator that took off this project informed me that on the whole throughout the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts public safety buildings on average have bid 8% below their estimated value. I have some examples uh towards more towards Worcester County uh where some public safety bu buildings have bid this year between 10 to 20% below their
estimated value. This is sort of unheard of and a lot of it is having to do with contractors being uneasy and unaware of what the future holds and they're making sure that they have enough work to keep their people busy in the in you know over the next few years. Um,
so I think right now we're seeing a really favorable market um, as far as bidding goes. Over the past hundred or so years, there's been retractions. They sort of line up with recessions. The the last
one being at the beginning of COVID, 2008, you know, there's there's been a series of those. Um, I gave a presentation the past two years in a row at the station design conference on construction costs in particular. And one thing that we analyzed is whenever there's a retractionary pressure on
construction costs, as soon as that is over, as soon as the market starts to turn itself around, it makes up for the it makes up for that suppression really really quickly. And so like what you saw coming out of COVID where we had a year or two of of sort of
a suppressed market in 2020 and 2021 then we saw that 15 to 20% escalation rate in line with the inflation we were seeing and and that's sort of a cyclical cycle that we that we see every time there's there's sort of this downward pressure on the on the construction
market. So there's a window in order to take advantage of this. And I and I'm not here saying that let's rely on that value savings. We need to rely on the estimate as the as the number, but we can be hopeful that we might see some of that value realized when we when it
comes down to uh to the bids. Okay. There's a lot of information here. Um I want to allow time for that. However, I do want to be conscious of our agenda and um the question at hand, which is the first one of um a do we
have any additional questions we need to ask right now with regard to what Matt's presenting um as we consider do we include this article in the special town meeting warrant? Does anyone have any comments or suggestions on that?
David. >> Uh, no. It's great presentation. I think we should move forward. >> What do we have to do actually? Do we have to >> We need a vote. >> We have to make the motion. >> We have We need a motion for every article. Correct. >> No.
>> No. You need a motion to approve the warrant >> the page. >> We need a motion to So, should we just do that at the end after we've heard? >> Oh, you mean we can do all of them at once? Ah, because the okay because we had this motion in here that was
recommend to move article number whatever whatever but we don't have to do it one by one. >> Yeah, I mean assuming they're all going to be part of one, you could approve the whole thing or you could approve each one individually. That's fine, too. >> Why don't we just do it on mass at the end? >> Okay. Um,
one comment I want to make is that um, it's obviously um, a large budget item and a large ask for the town. Um, I'll be meeting with FinCom on Thursday. they've been provided these materials and I'll be meeting with them um because
it's important that that they engage on this and you know we look at the the corresponding debt schedule for based on the cost estimate and and can articulate to the taxpayer um what this would require in terms of uh their individual contributions and the contributions
overall. So um they have this information. I'll be meeting with them and obviously their assessment and and recommendation will be important to the project. Um but again I support moving this forward. I think it's important um a lot of
vetting has been done in terms of working with the fire department um the assessment committee the apparatus assessment committee to really ask the questions of what is needed to maintain the current uh on call fire department
and the current operations. And um I'm confident that this proposal meets the minimum requirements of what we need to maintain our on call department and and the on call piece of it is very important. We'll get into that later, not for tonight. Um but I think it's
important that we pres present this information to the town for their approval and um go from there. So I certainly support including it in the special town meeting warrant. >> Great. >> Two quick things on that. just make a pitch for when is the um public presentation.
>> Thank you. >> Oh, right. >> October 14th. >> October 14th. >> So, next week, um we're getting the word out. Continue to to to get the word out. There'll be a uh a fire station tour at 6 PM hosted by uh Chief Soros
>> on the same night. >> On the same night, Tuesday, October uh 14th, fire station 6 pm for a tour. Um, at 7:00 p.m. here in this room, uh, Matt will be back to give a a more in-depth presentation of the conceptual design
for the fire station and be on hand to, um, take comments, answer questions for the public. Um, there there is a video tour that is being posted imminently of the station that uh, Chief Sorrows was good enough to cooperate with me with and creating. That'll be available for
people who can't attend a tour. Um, the presentation that Matt will be making will be recorded and posted as well on the uh project website, which um I don't I wish I had the QR code I could put up, but it's on the town website under select board. There's information out there. So, we're pushing out as much
information as we can. Um, please attend the tour. Please attend the presentation. If you can't make either or both, you'll be able to to view both online at your convenience. And the other thing maybe to point out is that also this is will require a
twothirds vote at town meeting >> and that there will be a subsequent election a ballot vote >> two weeks later. >> Yeah. If if this if this >> 13th of November >> if this achieves a twothirds vote at special town meeting there will be an election on November 13th for the the
debt exclusion. >> Um and that will be November 13th and we'll have more on that as well publicizing that. So, both of those have to be approved to move forward. >> Both have to be approved to move forward. >> And this is just for the design cost. >> This is just for the >> right now set at 1.4 million.
>> Correct. >> And that's it. >> Um, a question, Ryan. Does the uh the vote if it makes two-thirds of town meeting, what does it also have to do? Two/3s at the ballot box? >> Majority at the ballot box. So, town meeting sets the budget, the 1.4
million. The election only authorizes the exclusion of that cost from Prop Two and a half. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Um, and if anyone has any u additional follow-on questions, please send them to
me. And uh Matt has been kind enough to offer his time to respond um because I know there's a lot of information uh to digest, assimilate, and communicate. So, thank you. Appreciate you. No, >> you didn't vote. And are you going to recommend the article?
>> Well, we were going to do them all together. >> All together. >> Well, the So, do we want to take a position on the article tonight or do we want to um >> Are you What What are you asking, Ryan about voting to put it on the warrant? >> I thought Scott said if you're going to vote, if you're going to do it all at once,
>> we're going to do the vote to include it on the warrant all together at the end. >> You could decide individual articles that you want to recommend or you could take those all off and just do them in the motions. The benefit of having it on the warrant book is it's more exposure and time. It's not required by law. >> And when you say recommend, you mean
take our position on the included article. >> Yeah. >> Which which I would suggest if we were comfortable doing that it would be worthwhile to make that vote tonight. So it does get printed in the war. >> We'll do that vote later is what you're saying. >> Well, we can do Well, yeah, let's do
that later because it doesn't make sense to >> after we vote to put the article on the warrant. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah, but I I don't think you need to stick around for that piece of it. >> I'm trying. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Sorry, we recommend has too many meetings in this in this meeting.
>> All right, let's move on to um MBTA communities. Um Julie and Sarah. Um and I know uh Travis and I were in attendance at the public hearing last night. Um, so there was uh much discussion and deliberation
and some some decisions on terms of site removal. So I'm hoping you can provide the select board with kind of a brief status update of of where we are um coming out of that last public hearing um and where we are going and and need
to be in advance of and and into special town meeting which um is November 2nd. And I know um questions and concerns are raised about timeline and and getting all the work that needs to still be done done in terms of the bylaw itself and
and >> focusing down the site. So I'll let you take it away with >> with an update on where we're at and next steps. >> Yep. So um based on uh the sort of pre the application for pre-approval that Julie submitted in
what is it August 13th? Um we received feedback from from the state um that we you probably already know this were down to the the one-site option, right? Um further discussions that town council well we and town council had with HLC in
addition to the attorney general general's office have further narrowed that option to really um limiting this to minimal sites. So um based on his discussion with the attorney general um
we we don't have much of ability or very limited ability to um designate open space. So really if we're if we're pick a site for seven acres it's whatever 15* 7 is and we have to zone that full seven acres for allow for 7* 15. So
>> can I just just I'll give the layman interpretation because it's like I'm >> is so >> so because we need to to allow for at least 95 units at a density of 15 units per acre, >> right? and council. Tom was there last night and had spoken with the um AG's
office and there's a whole host of questions around what the AG is approving or not approving, but his recommendation based on his conversations and knowledge at this point is that assume they want to see the 15 acres
>> per unit per 15 units per acre to be in compliance. even though that might depart a little bit from what HLC may approve. There's kind of a dueling approvals. And so his his council and recommendation was that assume
they want 15 units per acre. So that's informing a strategy to minimal sites, meaning minimal acreage >> and you can only choose one site. Is that what I'm >> correct? If we choose two sites because they need to at least be five acres, we would then by default be zoning for at
least 150 units. 75 plus 75 >> each one has to allow. >> Exactly. So >> and the development approach where you take a portion of a larger parcel I think I may be explaining it wrong is basically don't assume that's the case. So if you have a 10acre parcel and you
want to use 6.3 for this, assume they're going to say 10 acres 150 units. Huh? >> How do they account for it? >> I I remember reading, you know, the April, you know, the written document and it said, you know, well, in septic, there were some contingencies like you
we you may not have to zone for the whole. So we don't have to account for like for example if we pick a site and and you could assume that it could get um wellwater I'm sorry assume that it could get pipe water and a wastewater
treatment plant or you know town septic even or sorry town sewer even though we know that's not the case we don't have to like account for that. We can't actually say in the zoning that we we can't regulate that or we can't you know we can't that cannot be
part of zoning. It's up to the developer to either bring that in from you know another town or provide well water on site or you know build a large septic system or build a wastewater treatment facility. So that that the burden of that is on the developer >> or the partial owner to do that and so
so we can you know you can kind of make some assumptions that if somebody somebody might not want to build a wastewater treatment plant but we've been really sort of I I think the thing to assume is um I think we need to assume that if we zone for 95 units that at some point 95 units
may very well get built. It might be 30 years out but at some point that very well may happen. So, but we're trying to be cautious about where we where we put that. >> So, based on that feedback and additional perspective, you essentially are looking at the
single site options and last night uh took some off the table. >> We took all the larger sites off off the table. >> So, you want to just run down just briefly run down the list of the sites and a brief explanation for why they were taken off the table. >> Oh, why they were taken off? I don't have >> well there basically it was not
>> is the list we have in the packet under article one which is one two three four five six is that the current list or is that before >> that's the current list um and just to go into a little bit of detail
Irene's is a little over six acres the congregational church on school street is is a little under six acres old north the two old north roads uh vary um 75 West Street is 17.9 acres, but the strategy is because it's already um it's
already parcels have already been uh what's the word? >> Sorry, Ryan, can you show slide four? >> Oh, sorry. I'm looking at Julie slides. >> It's not Yeah, these are the remaining sites. >> So, um 75 West Street, the the full parcel is 17.2 acres, but because he's
already submitted his subdivision plan and that's been recorded, it's actually a bunch. like six twoacre sites. So our strategy would be to only if we went with that site, we would only select three of those twoacre parcels. So it
would actually just be six acres that >> Sorry. >> Sorry. I was page 30. >> It's right here. >> It's right here. >> Okay. No, I'm looking at >> the article. >> Hey Sarah, can I ask you a question? >> Sure. >> I apologize for the noise. Um, so you
know, if I go back in time, like you guys were trying to pursue a year ago maybe a single option and you know, got this citizen petition that basically said, "Don't give the voters a single choice. That's no fair. Give them multiple choice." It sounds like uh
Commonwealth is forcing you now to go back to a single choice. Is that correct? Um well >> that so I think so we were asked to present the town with options one of which being a minimal site option. Our original
strategy was to do that and a couple other approaches maybe a scattered site approach and a clustered approach. Um we could still and I believe plan on giving the site a couple options but they will all be one site options. So, I think it
makes sense still because we've heard different things from different people in town um to still, you know, I think um there's a couple that I well, there's at least one that I think we're probably likely to put on the table. Um we probably want to land on one or two more. I still think it would be wise to
give the town a choice. Um you know, one of which might be uh very unlikely to be developed. If you look at K's Walk, it they're high value homes. They're just developed. They're on 9.42 acres of land. So, um, you know, somebody could someday bring in water from Bedford,
which would not be a bad thing and it would be on probably the best road in town to put a larger multif family development. Um, and so, you know, that seems to make sense to all of us. Um, but that's probably a far out time frame
in, you know, or or may never happen. It might just exist as it is. Um, and then I do think there's a decent number of people who might want to see an option that does produce some new housing in the short term. So I think we might look at two other options that um produce
some housing in the short term. >> So let me clarify my question. Sorry. So it sounds like I guess I misunderstood. So you still plan to present more than a single site, but the goal is we can only vote one site because if we vote more
than one site, >> correct? >> The construct is it'll be all available to have like the Lexington problem of you know 200 units. >> Yes, that's that's definitely not the strategy. >> Okay, >> with K's walk,
>> let me see if I understand this. So, somebody might purchase the entire um the entire uh development and somehow find a way to
put additional units on it >> or demolish them or this is kind of the very very unlikely to happen scenario. And you were saying, did I hear you correctly? And maybe I don't know if you're speaking for the planning board or just yourself, but saying
>> that might be a good option. >> I I was kind of hearing that last night. We have not voted on that >> from other from the um planning board, not the community people. >> Correct. Barney, one of the things that um from a very high level that was discussed at the end or toward the end
was uh some of the member or some of the members had said that they changed their philosophy in in the recent days and weeks from looking at this MBTA as being an opportunity to um diversify housing
and and essentially push us into some growth. um and that at this point uh the sentiment is this is not an effective law to do that for Carlile and so there is support for um approaches that
essentially are compliant but are not likely to be developed and I'm not saying that's all the planning board members but that was a sentiment that was expressed >> and I'm sure I don't know how it stacks out among the community but I'm sure there's you know a portion of the community that's also um it's the paper
compliance right? It's compliant. Um, but >> we like this option because it's got the most barriers was the word being used to development. And unfortunately, >> um, the law is a blunt instrument and it's it's not really >> and the attorney general and HLC's model
are not seemingly, at least to this point, being flexible in terms of uh, how it's implemented. They're kind of a check the box, hit the hit the mark, and move on. >> Yeah. I think we we a lot of us feel like we would like to see another
housing type in Carlilele. I just don't think this is how we're going to get there. Personally, I think we we want to have a little bit more control or a lot more control over, you know, whether it's a cottage cluster or, you know, we can't control a a unit size. We can't control there's just so much we can't
control. Um, so you know, hopefully we get something passed that's compliant and we come up for air and maybe we regroup and and at some point in the near future propose something that we think might be more appropriate for Carlile. Um, so I don't think any of us
have lost that sort of commitment to to trying to find sort of a missing needle housing, whether it's for, you know, younger families or um empty nesters or whoever. But this this just gives us so little flexibility in how we get there.
>> And and a resident I I forget her name, but made that point toward the end of um just because if just because MBTA isn't the vehicle to generate that housing, we still have control over all the other
zoning possibilities that we as a town can pursue. Um and we should >> we if not MBTA if that doesn't get us accomplish its goal here um we should we should not give up we should continue to pursue those other options that are more
in our control. Yeah. Just can I So do you think there's a um a sense of the planning board that um among members of the planning board that
a they want to pursue um a different way of of u having Carla be able to um build sort of that kind of housing we're looking for? and and two, are they do you think everybody on the planning
board is willing to continue? >> You mean when when I'm gonna say when this passes? >> Yeah. >> I I think we all need to this has been a marathon. I think we need to get through this month and come up for air. But I I do feel that there's that sentiment
>> that we would like to >> to work on something. Yeah. Um but so I guess along those lines we also would like to present the town with a range of you know options for this. So
>> so be as options for MBTA sites. >> Yeah. Two another two other questions about what they're both about the churches. >> So tell me the thinking behind having those two listed. Um,
particularly I don't know much about the congregational church's plans, but at the parish, >> my understanding is they they have no interest in selling their either their church or the land, but they might do something with the land themselves.
>> Yeah. I I mean, >> so is that is that on here because again, it's kind of a way to comply uh but unlikely to happen. It's It's on there honestly because it's 6.24 acres there. I think if we you know way back a long time ago.
>> Yeah. >> You know, we found some sites. I think you you might have I forget who actually did this. There's been so many people involved, but >> it's the perfect acreage. It's on a major street. If the the church did decide they wanted to sell, it would
give them the opportunity to do that. Um so again, it's zoning. It doesn't It doesn't require >> force anything. It's it's an option for a an parcel owner. >> Um so that's really why they're both on their congregational church is what 5.5
acres. >> And the C town council was also reminded them that anything you don't put on this list tonight, it can cannot be considered after tonight, >> right? >> So if you're not on this list, you you can't be debated or considered at town meeting. This sets the scope. >> Okay. So,
some of these parcels I think they were discussing prioritization, but they weren't ready to take them off just yet because we're still waiting for additional information or compliance modeling. And so, it's well, let's keep it on here because if we take it off, you can't put it back on. >> Consider it. Yeah. >> Right.
>> So, can I ask let me ask about let's discard those. I understand you're putting things on just so they can't be g. If you take the 6 acre plus sites and to build on the comment like St. Irene is an unwilling participant. Let's say
Reichenbach is a willing participant. I want to go back to what Scott said. If you have a guy like John and he seems interested in actually doing this in your mind, Sarah, and the planning board, that makes it less desirable because it's more probable that he
actually would take that zoning and build. And is that something you would present? Can you even present that at town meeting? I think we would present it as something that's very likely to get built at to some extent not knowing exactly what the unit yield would be. Um
I don't know that we're actually taking a view. I think it's telling the town >> if you would like to enable more housing production, this is where this is the site that would be the most likely to produce. you and and so let's say that's
a site you you said he doesn't or not he it's not really he if if a developer took that site they don't have to build all 95 >> correct >> they can build any number of them they want but they can't be larger than like the density has to be maintain I I want
to understand like what flexibility do they then have once it's zoned that way >> they have they we limit this we can you can put a a lower minimum on density we could limit I mean, can you put one McMansion on three different of those twoacre plots >> or no? I mean, what what's the bottom?
>> You can do that today. Yeah, you can do that now. He would >> you can do it now, but let's say we pass this. Let's say we pick that spot. >> Three three twoacre parcels and a builder comes in and he's got the right to build 95, but he decides to build three mansions. Is that okay?
>> Well, he can do that right now. They're already divided into three parcels. >> I know. But what does that do to compliance? He can he can decide to not build anything, David. We could >> Okay. >> So, there's no >> and and we're still in compliance. >> And we're still in compliance. >> Compliance does not care what is
actually built there. >> Okay. So, once we vote it yes, >> it decouples what we actually do from compliance >> is what you're saying, right? >> Yes. >> If you vote a site that passes that other alphabet soup agency, then you're
in compliance. You need the AG's approval as well. >> Well, okay. But to get all those approvals and Okay. So, I guess I'm still at town meeting and how it's shaped. If you present two or three, is your plan is the planning board's plan
to make at least one of those a likely to be built site? Because there are people who believe, yeah, why not? You know, we should have 95 lower cost units. David, my and correct me if I'm wrong, my interpretation was that one of the addition in in addition to looking
at the scorecards and everything, these might be selected based on most likely to develop to least likely to develop and it might be framed that way in terms of like high, medium, low. >> I'm okay with that. >> But I think the intent was to present a a range of options among >> Okay, so that's what I that's what I'm
trying to get at. The range of options would all the range would not only be three sites but maybe a likely to not likely be developed >> option uh characterization. >> Is that true Sarah? I don't want to. >> Yeah. I mean, again, always with the
caveat that we really can't predict the future, right? So, >> of course not. But I mean, we got to be honest. I mean, I'm, you know, I follow the city in the woods debate, which rambles around, right? But, but I mean, there are reasonable number of people who say, okay, you know, it's a crappy law. It's a blunt instrument, but, you
know, the intention is we need more housing, so let's build more housing. So, I mean, I'm sensitive to that as an option. And I'm also, of course, sensitive to the people say, "Oh, the sky will fall down. It would be terrible. Blah blah blah. So, okay. I think I got my question answered. Thank you.
>> Can you go? Sorry. >> For my clarification, I just I had a question. I thought I saw or heard Sarah say a moment ago that we're still looking at one or two more options, but then Scott said this is it after tonight. This is >> everything that you see is it is Yeah. No more than this. >> Okay. >> We took a bunch of last night. Right.
>> So I think it's critical that any of the options presented at town special town meeting >> are compliant and we have confidence they will be compliant if approved. >> Yeah. >> I know there was discussion last night about sites need to be run through the compliance model with HLC. Then there's
a bit of an unknown around the AG but we have a good sense of that. What needs to happen between now and your next public hearing special town meeting? um the discussion of funding to uh needed to potentially run some of these models through compliance. Um because I want to
make sure we have confidence that a we get to town meeting, special town meeting with with the bylaw language and the the site information and that two we can provide confidence to the community that if we do approve an option, it's we're as sure as we can be that it will be compliant. >> Do you want to take this one?
>> Sure. Yeah. Ryan, can you show slide two, please? Um, so there were six sites. The planning board narrowed down to six sites that we just talked about last night. Only one of them's gone through the compliance model. So we have five that we need to model. >> Which one's gone through compliance
model? >> The 67 Old North Road. Okay. >> It was the one that I submitted to the state. Um, >> okay. >> The other five have not been modeled. So we had a meeting today with our compliance consultant and I sent them the information and they're going to get started. We um we need to figure out the
funding piece, but they are going to get started because they understand our time frame constraints. >> I spoke to Fincom, so do your due diligence. Um there is a placeholder on the agenda Thursday if if
there's a need discussion for um potential funding. >> Okay, that's great. I I did reach out to Mass Housing Partnership today to ask them for a status update. They're the they're the entity that gives the grant funds for this >> because the timing of that might be challenging.
>> So, I don't know if I'm going to know by Thursday, >> but um that is in the works. I have applied. >> I just my perspective is at this stage in the game, it's important that we it's spend the money on the remaining sites. That that should not be an obstacle to
the process. >> Just order of magnitude. How much is this? >> It's like it's a few grand per site for modeling. That's the number I've been given. >> $10,000. >> Yeah, maybe 15. >> Yeah, I've asked for 20. I've asked for the max just in case there's like
>> last minute stuff that comes up. >> If it's a timing issue, if we were to fund something, could the still could the grant still come through and we could you know what I mean? Like if it's because the concern with the with the grant is just how long will this take, right? And do we need to move forward sooner?
>> So, I would use the finance committee reserve as a backup. >> Yeah. Um, I would also, if I was select for a day, be pushing on our legislative delegation and these grant funders for support
>> as in the mass housing partnership >> and our legis. Well, while an ally has has put us in a situation where this is an this is an expensive investigation and expensive effort and time, I think I think we can push hard for their help to
bring something to town meeting that people can feel confident voting on. >> And if it was expressed by town officials and elected people, I think it would have a lot of weight. >> Send us contact info. >> I don't know if you want to do that. Well, and maybe we should do um
>> maybe we should uh just authorize something to come officially from the select board, too. >> Sounds good. You want a motion or we just do it? >> Anyone oppose? >> No, I think we can do it. And um I can sign it on behalf of the select board
>> and we should also put out the word. Yeah. Individuals >> to contact the legislators, >> the individual select board members. >> No. Well, that too, but I No, I was thinking just residents in town or people that, you know, would respond to something like that. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Am I right that a lot of towns actually have >> past be like kind of passed in town meeting and not had things sort of appropriately vetted, right? >> Many towns. Yes. >> We do not want that. >> Totally understand. And nerracking
probably no one more than you. >> No, very true. Um, and just to explain the model a little bit, it's not a risk that they're going to just throw a site out and say, "No, this site work, this site won't work." I sat in the meeting today and sort of it's it's adjusting the parameters. So, for example, if you
have a 5.5 acre site, it's going to have to be more dense. So, we have to get the minimum density right. So, it would have to be higher, right? it would have to be higher than 15 units per acre because the acreage smaller, but we might have to go up to three stories instead of 2.5 to make it all fit on the site. Right?
So, if there's different constraints, you you need to adjust the site parameters to make it compliant. It's not like they're going to say the site's not compliant because of some inherent property that that it has, right? So, not to say that we don't need
to be really careful about it, but it's it pro might sound a little bit more complicated than, you know, if we get the math right, it it they should work. Am I right? It's on slide three, Ryan. And just like a little overview where where we're starting, right? What we
would hope for, um, similar zoning parameters that we have in our current zoning bylaw. And then if those don't work, if 95 units can't fit on a site with those parameters, then do we need to increase the height? do we need to increase the density? Um, and that the compliance consultant is
aware that this is what we need them to figure out for us. >> But does the state put it through that compliance model itself too? >> No, >> because I thought they didn't. They don't. >> They don't. Our compliance consultant does and we that's submit the whole model to the state.
>> But I thought you didn't need to. All you had to do is zone it for the compliance of 15 units. >> No. 6.2. No. The application package requires a compliance model. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Right. Someone's making money. >> It's >> Yeah.
>> Right. >> So, yeah. So, this is where we're hoping to start and we'll see where we end up. >> And so, could you go Did you have the timeline on the previous one? >> Um, yeah. So, so slide two, Ryan. Sorry. >> So, you are your next public hearing is
do you and so your next public are do you have any meetings before the next public hearing? >> We do not. And do you plan on winnowing down the sites prior to the public meeting or after? >> Well, we can't do that. That would be a violation of open meeting law. So, >> you could have it in a planning board meeting, >> but she said they're not going to be
before the 20th. >> Yeah, we don't I think we have to have I think we need to do that in in a >> as part of the public hearing. Public hearing is open. >> Yeah, that has to We had set the public hearing dates a while ago so we could >> You can't You can't make any decisions in a planning board meeting. That's not a public hearing.
>> Now that the public hearing is open. Yeah, correct. >> We took five off the table last night. We can take three. Um, no. And we do have our um we do have the scorecards that we've been working on which are
really helpful. Um, again, I I we showed you this last night or last time, but you know, um, with >> just me, don't worry about me. input from, you know, ESC, Conscom, Traffic and Safety, uh, Historic, um, board of
health, like everybody that seemed appropriate to provide input gave input. And so, you know, we need to tweak the 75 West Street one. >> Um, but, you know, this is this is also one way to to decide is so after the 20th public
hearing, then the planning board's going to meet to decide the >> No, at the public hearing. Oh, it'll happen there. Okay. Okay. Gotcha. >> Yes. >> And then the zoning bylaw language, how contingent is that language on the sites or the sites just kind of a plug
>> into a bylaw? Because we're meeting on the 21st is our next meeting. >> Um, and that'll be our occasion to take a position um >> if we deem to, but it would be good to know in that meeting what >> Yeah. >> I don't know how close the bylaw will be
to final at that point or what what remaining items be left. The bub was actually the language is still mostly what you've submitted with and Tom is writing it and taking out all the all the he's editing it based on the input that he received from the attorney
general's office and HLC. So he's we've got a lot of input on that. >> Yeah. >> And that's the article that the language that we're seeing here in this article in our packet. >> That's different. >> I think you're seeing the warrant article. >> Oh yeah. Sorry. You were talking about the Oh, sorry. You were talking about the whole bylaw. Got it.
>> Yeah. The whole zoning language. Yeah. Yeah. Y >> and I will be meeting with Tom tomorrow. I've walked to like just go through the zoning in detail >> and we have discussed that in several of the previous hearings. >> Yep. And that'll be discussed at the next >> and my last question is um the
compliance models. Do you think if assuming you find the funding, do you think you'll have the compliance information prior to the 20th? >> We hope so. I >> to give you any >> So, they're they're going to try to turn it around for us. They're not actually
waiting for us to get the funding. >> Oh, good. >> Yeah. Um, >> good. >> So, they would start for us to pay. >> Well, actually, we never if we get the funding, we never see it. It's all like through Mass Housing Partnership and Bowler directly. We don't
>> I just think it's important and even if you think it's a formality, it's important to know when you winnow down that last list that there >> Yeah. there's a kind of at least whatever the stamp is the compliance model. Um >> yeah, >> and it might just also mean like we could take a site off because we decide
it's not the appropriate site, right? >> And get some input on the compliance model and tweak the zoning language a little bit, right? That's what would actually change. It would the site itself wouldn't necessarily change, but the zoning language might change a little if the parameters put Exactly. >> It doesn't have to be universal zoning
language. It could be specific to that site. Yeah. >> Hey Sarah, I want to circle back to my point. So the scorecard here is agnostic as to probability of being built, right? >> Correct. >> Or it doesn't mention it. Um are you
going to present let's say you wow it to three? Are are you going to present a stoplight chart like this for the three? >> Are you going to wait it or Okay. So you would need to add that criteria then. Correct.
Like right now, if you were to pick the top three based on raw score, it would be three lots that are likely not buildable at all, right? I mean, presently notable because we don't understand the location. >> Not necessarily. I mean, again, it's it's zoning and this is up to the
partial owner. I don't I >> Well, of course it is. I You're giving me kind of a you know, stock answer. I'm saying like if you say St. Irene's no interest in selling currently, you'd have to say unlikely that they would do it at the present time. The future's the future, right? No, but again, I'm saying
like if you take a Reichenbach column and he's not on this chart, so I don't know what is he scoreless. >> He's on there. >> Oh, he's on West Street. Okay. So, he scores lower, but he's more likely to actually build it. What are you going to do with that? I'm just trying to make sure. >> That's the debate. That's what we're
having. That's kind of what we're having trouble narrowing this down, right? So, >> yeah. Okay. So I mean I would suggest without biasing it if I again that buildability has to I don't know if it's positive or negative but it has to have
a crit it has to be a line item criterion right or I don't know what to do with it. I I'm giving you a problem. >> I think that's I think it's a different matrix. >> Okay. Maybe it's a different matrix. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. >> Okay. Conscious of the time. Um, one
last point and then if if someone wants to make a comment uh from the public, we'll allow that. Keep it brief. But one one thing to consider, the articles in flux, the site options are in flux. One question I had to Ryan today is if we wanted to print something in the warrant to the effect of the select board
supports compliance with the MBA communities law, but is yet has not yet taken a position on this article given the site options and bylaw language are not yet final as of October 7th. we can put a statement like that in there that basically affirms our >> commitment to MBTA
compliance without endorsing an article and it's as you said it's >> you can kind of do what you want if we want to make a statement like that in the warrant without >> without a formal recommendation on the article right >> so we we'll we'll talk about that >> when we when we come back to this >> okay
>> um and if you know if the select board has input on which you know we I think we're looking for input from other boards and and committees too. So if you have input for us, I'm happy to take that back to the planning board. >> I think it's a process. It's played out. You know, it's messy, but I actually
think it's actually kind of come up with a, you know, a fair process where we've had the public involved. I mean, it's what democracy should be and and I think you've you've actually done a good job at that. So with with it now you know if you narrow it down to maybe three
options and as you know David keeps asking but you know and really they're categorized as the you know in order of likelihood of being built and and then the public can decide at town meeting what's >> the best option for Carlile I think would be
>> one approach but I don't know anyone else has that. I know it's a little bit who's gonna who's going to um decide the likelihood of being built. You know what I mean? >> Well, if you were there last night, they
have all sorts of these criteria and they talk about, you know, the ownership and and the the constraints, site constraints. It's >> a little bit subjective and speculative, but there are differences, right? There are differences. >> One that has an owner that is advocating
to build. >> No, I know. definitely I think have one on either end of the scale. It's picking one in the middle and the ones in the middle might become more much more of an unknown. You you know, >> right? >> Somebody could a developer could acquire a property and and if they could afford
to put in a wastewater treatment facility and figure out wellwater that's that's a lot of money. So I it we want to be really careful about certainty of of likelihood, right? But as you said and I think it was really well articulated last night that there
have been some changed opinions in this process where it started as something and then you know now it's feeling like wow we're really being forced upon and maybe this isn't the right time or right vehicle >> well vehicle to to it's a blunt
instrument that's being >> to diversify housing right >> and create housing right >> so and you're talking to the housing trust on Is it Thursday, Thursday? >> I think Chris gets >> Yeah, we have a we've got >> we've got board members scheduled to go
to all the different um boards and committees for for um for input and um to ask for support. Um >> but they if I saw the list correctly though, you haven't had a formal >> haven't had formal input from the CHT.
Uh we actually have they um yes but it was their preference was the cluster sites or well actually cluster sites be in in units of >> 10 so that one could be so 10% would be one unit could one or would be
affordable right so if you had 20 units it could be two um we could still specify that 10% of 95 units which would be nine units could be affordable um but their preference was the cluster Got it. >> So, it's sort of more dispersed and integrated into the community. Things
have changed. >> They might have a different >> Yeah. >> Got it. >> Yep. Um, >> thank you. Um, if anyone from the public I I want to keep this fairly narrowly scoped just given we have to move on and I know I believe Ben and Chrissy are there from the historical commission,
but if you have a comment regarding the inclusion of the article in the warrant um andor um I I don't anticipate we'll be taking a position on the article tonight. We'll talk about it later other than we support compliance with MBTA, but if someone has a comment on either
of those points, I'd be happy to hear that. Yes. >> I just want to say I think that >> please. Yeah. Introduce yourself please. >> Sorry the substrate. Yep. >> The scorecard's been great and I've been following this through all from the
beginning but all of a sudden last night it didn't work for me anymore >> because there was different information. Um, we were all saying that >> like I know for a fact we're never going to build on St.
>> but maybe that's what people want. >> But you have to say that and West Street we could build tomorrow if you let them. >> We need to say that. Um, >> and I I think that speaks to what they need to address at the next public hearing. >> Yeah, I think we need to come up with
another way to present that. But yeah, I heard those comments and >> thanks. >> Yeah, but so far it's been really helpful, >> right? >> It's just changed all of a sudden last night. >> Okay, >> understood. >> You want to Okay, great. Can
>> I ask one quick question? I've asked Julie, town counselor. So, your assessment of how many people do you think are going to show up to town meetings? >> I'm not going to hold you to it, but you still expect a high a big crowd based on the feedback you're getting? I'm just assessing risk and cost for
>> I have no idea >> scope of town meeting. >> I have no idea. I thought we'd have more people at hearings. >> Um >> has the Do you have a sense that the >> sort of the temperature of the debate has >> um >> I think so
>> gone down a little calmer that not >> or no >> I I don't know >> the hearings have been the tone of the hearings has been I thought very good. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I asked because the the gym, >> right, >> overflows, >> right? It's going to cost a lot. >> Tens of thousands.
>> It's hard to say. I mean, we definitely had pretty good survey in like I it's just hard to know. There's definitely a big group of people that is very involved and and interested, which is great. Um I think there's a lot of people who, you know, friends that I I talked to, they're like, "Okay, well,
what whatever the planning board recommends, that's that seems fine. I know you spent a lot." So, it's just hard to gauge the general public that's that's not as engaged in going on in town for whatever reason. >> Having watched this, I think a little
there's been a change since we went to the single site. Now that you're defined on that, when you've spread it out over town, there was a lot more community engagement because so many more people and homes were affected in this. >> Sure. Um, and not that people don't care, and I'm sure there will be a lot
of people showing up, but I think that that may mitigate it a little bit. >> Yeah, this this approach does have fewer, which is which is potentially easier or >> who knows? >> This is more for you and maybe Wayne.
Um, so I've been reaching out for a lot of people both email and in person to talk all the different sites and the changes last night and the questions I think are going to be asked which I keep saying to people those aren't up for
discussion I found is where would the road be and where would the driveways be and all these things that somehow someone has to make it clear up front that's not what we're voting on >> yes there's a plan to address that they're going to agree on pre-agreed
facts and and that I think will really aim aim at focusing the debate and discussion on this the relevant pertinent points versus a lot of the questions that may not be relevant >> what street it's on if it's white all those things aren't part of the discussion >> so I think they're going to work to do
that and publish that and and Wayne I think is a moderator looks to enforce that in town meeting so more on that though Wayne's going to he's got his own >> thing going >> okay with that um >> now let's we'll we'll move on um so
thank you very much >> thank you Thank you. >> Appreciate you coming for another night meeting. >> We're moving on to the demolition review bylaw. Um, which I also know is listed as a historical demolition delay bylaw. So, I'm
>> in the in the article. So, we'll probably have to change that. Right. We're still calling it review bylaw, right? >> That's That's correct, Scott. >> Okay. >> Just demolition review bylaw. That's what we want for title. >> What's the name of it?
>> Demolition review bylaw. >> Demolition review bylaw. >> But are we still Okay. But we're going to Are we including historical demolition as part of it? Review bylaw. I'm just looking at article two. The >> It's just demolition review bylaw. Article two.
>> Demolition review bylaw. >> Go. Say nothing about historical. Okay. Well, it's in the it's in the body of the uh the summary, the body of the bylaw. >> Okay. >> So, um just as a quick update, what
since we last uh spoke with you, I know you had your meeting to review the bylaw, uh both uh Barney and I attended um a portion of that. Um so, if you could bring the select board up to speed, we we received the the bylaw with the edits. if you could just walk us
through uh some of the key changes and uh any open questions and work remaining between now and special town meeting. >> Sure. Uh yeah, thanks for uh attending our special meeting on the 2nd. Um we
scheduled that with the commission to uh really drill down on some of the uh um the parameters of the bylaw that have um kind of come to the foreground uh for the commission. Um those questions being
the age of the house in question or the the threshold that triggers the bylaw. um the review period length that's being suggested in the bylaw um and clarifying
what historical significance means. Um and um so we have modified and advanced uh the thinking on u all three of those facets. Um
and so talking about the threshold, uh previously um the bylaw was drafted, um with a threshold of a 50-year rolling clock and um I think that was a uh challenging
for uh community members to um understand and um so we have changed that to a fixed date um to pre-1970. Um the review period and we can talk more about that. The review period we
have changed from 18 months um down to 12 months and historical significance we have uh I think done a good job of clarifying this in the bylaw. Um but we have also uh
crafted a companion document um for the bylaw called the historical significance checklist. And this would be used by the uh commission and the community members um uh that are coming before the historical commission to
clarify um what the criteria are for historical significance. And I think uh one other item that uh we think was uh particularly helpful in clarifying um historical significance
was adding in um an opportunity for homeowners uh to gain a determination of applicability prior to submitting for a uh an application for demolition.
>> And that's 19.4 for in the revision. So that that would you would not have to get the file for the demolition permit to initiate that or >> correct. >> So
>> and you and you could get a determination of applicability whether historically significant or not that would be good for uh five years. So, if I'm thinking of selling my house built in 1965 next year, I could there's a mechanism
that I could put this request in. >> Yeah. And we felt like this was a helpful planning tool for people in that position. >> Okay. Do you know how many how like again roughly by changing the criteria? I mean
it's 55 years instead of 50. Um again roughly how much of the town that encompasses. I'm getting to like workload and >> I haven't tabulated that number yet Scott but um we could get you that information.
>> Is that a moving date then? I mean, would 1970 it would just stay at 1970 forever and ever. Okay. >> It would it would stay at 1970 unless the town decided to amend it the bylaw. Correct. >> Is something driving the 1970 date
>> disco? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It was a good year. >> Yeah. So um we all know 1962 uh when zoning was enacted and um there was a lot of you know there was a flurry
of development that happened after 1962. Um uh we have tabulated that you know within that decade there were 340 houses constructed in Carlile >> and uh roughly 30% of those houses that
were built were contemporaries and deck houses. Mhm. >> Um and uh 56 or roughly 56% of the contemporaries and deck homes uh that we
do have in town in the housing stock were built prior to 1970. So, and to add on to that, you know, these were not just standalone, you know, contemporaries and deck houses and other
homes being built at this time. These were communities that were being built. These were developments that were going up. So, you know, we talk about Wolf Rockck Road and East Riding Drive, Heel Road and Indian Hill, you know, just to name a few. Um, these were actually
neighborhoods that still stand today. >> Right. And so that there's a sense that they're they are part of um sort of the cultural history of Carlile. Is that why? >> Uhhuh. Yeah, correct.
>> Can I go back to uh to the question or point that uh Scott was asking on 19.4.1, which was the determination of applicability. I noticed that at the end it says the determination shall be non-transferable from one owner to
another. It's a five-year, you know, thing. Why why is that in there? So, we talked about this uh as a commission and um and and Chrissy and I have been back and forth on this item in
particular and um we're feeling that after this draft was uh created that um that non-transferable clause there um doesn't need to be there. So, I'm glad you brought that up because
I think that's something that um isn't necessary. You know, I think it it doesn't help the homeowner plan for um their future as much if that is included. >> Is is there anything else that maybe
didn't get picked up that you're thinking might that was it? >> No, that's that that was that was the one thing that we discussed last night actually. I wasn't there. And then um Ben, I I
sent my question to you and Chrissy um before earlier today, but uh the the question that I think actually Travis you had raised before was um uh the determination of like if you're
doing a part of a building that and you want to demolish it sort of how what's the what's the what what's the criteria for when the that
that project crosses the line into being a demolition of the structure or are you saying any change to the exterior of any um structure that's pre1970
um would have to go through the uh this process. Um, hold on a second. >> It's demolition is the in the definitions. It's an act of pulling down, destroying, removing, dismantling, or raising a building or commencing the
work of >> total or substantial destruction with the intent of completing the same. >> So, >> so do you think that eliminates question like if somebody's >> tearing down their garage and going to build a new one or taking off a part of
the, >> you know, the the barn that's attached to the house or something. >> Dismantling. I don't know. How much dismantling do you do? >> Well, that was my that was sort of who how does that get determined >> or is that >> So, if the Sorry, I'm going to just jump
in. Um if the build if the demolition permit is needs to be filed with the building commissioner, that would be um sort of trigger that definition of demolition. and and who and the and where is that defined? I mean, where how
does a homeowner know if they if what they want to do it should be he that they need to request a demolition permit >> through the building department. >> And so it would be up to our building inspector >> to determine if pardon
>> and it currently is. So, you have to you have to get a demolition permit. Now, >> if if you're making any change to the exterior of your home, I know you if you're going to do an interior renovation project, the builder typically has to come in and get a
permit, right? But >> yeah, so I'm saying that the definition or the process is already it's already an existing process. So, we can we can get that answered for you. >> Oh, okay. I see what you're saying. Not that we don't >> you can add a new process. The trigger
is this permit has been pulled. >> Got it. But the So, a homeowner would be deciding whether or not they think they need to pull a permit, a demolition permit. >> Yeah, we encourage them to ask if if it's >> if they should or not. Right. But that's
just an encouragement. So, like I could pull down the I could pull down the shed that you know on the back of the barn and not ask for a demolition permit or if I need one. >> It's a structure. So, isn't a shed doesn't a shed fall in this
>> or not? It would, right? It's a structure. No, I'm just saying though it's a little honestly we've pulled down a shed, you know, probably 15 years ago on our property and I it never occurred to me to come ask for a permit to pull it down because it was falling apart.
>> What was the daily fine on that? >> Really? >> $300. >> We just paid for our fire station. >> We'll send you the billing. >> Yeah. Okay. But it's it's Yeah, that might be something we want to make sure people understand in town.
10,000 days. >> Okay. >> Ben and Chrissy, I I when I went to the hearing or your your outreach on this, I I asked a question or I was making a point about 19.3.11, which is just more it's a really
technical thing, but I just was questioning it. It says, "Upon a determination by the commission that a building is preferably preserved, no building permit for new construction or alterations to the subject building will be issued for a period of up to 12
months from the date of the determination unless otherwise agreed to by the commission and applicant. So again, if the commission decided that this was a very historic structure and
said, "We really want to uh pro, you know, work with you to preserve it." But the applicant decided, you know, I just want to do something different and I'm not I'm going to not do that and I'm going to withdraw that. It doesn't say
anything about withdrawal in there. Maybe it's somewhere else and I haven't picked it up. But I just wanted to make sure that's technically in there so that there's no ambiguity that you know if you if you withdraw you can still do it because it says you're you can't do it
for 12 months >> if you building program for new construction or alterations. So, Travis, are you asking if uh a homeowner can just opt out of this
process? >> Well, it says it it's so broad. It says new construction or alterations to the subject. Well, alterations could be I'm going to put in I don't know. Again, I'm just trying to come up with these
hypotheticals because I don't want everyone else to get caught up in this 10 years down the road and have some ambiguity. But I was thinking about, well, you you've blanketed everything. And if someone were to to cause say to that whole paragraph, gosh, I don't want
to do this anymore, but then the building inspector says, "Sorry, you got to wait for 12 months because I can't allow you to alter the inside of your kitchen because it says alterations to the subject." You know, now in in good practice, you'd say, "Oh, well, I've
dropped the application, so that shouldn't apply." But it doesn't say that anywhere that it shouldn't apply. I think the clause otherwise agreed upon in writing is the there would be an agreement between the homeowner and the commission that the project was not
going to proceed as presented. >> Which is the last you know phrase >> was otherwise agreed to. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, yeah. I just want >> that could be elaborated on to include language like Chrissy was mentioning >> and certainly we can run that.
>> That's not clear. Yeah. Just council just just to make sure it's clear. I don't know. Maybe it's too too in the weeds here. >> Yeah, we'll flag we'll flag it with town council for sure and see what their feedback is. >> Right. >> All right. I have a question. So, I know
you reached out to the building commissioner and and he provided some feedback and concerns. um what was the outcome of of that conversation and and those concerns in terms of um I know he had you know I won't go through them all but I know he
like one section he was uh is ripe for abuse it was in section I don't know if these are even relevant to the current numbering but um have those been reviewed discussed has he has okay >> yeah we have we have discussed these um
it is on us to go speak with uh John in person about these, but we have we have reviewed these and uh have responded to them and folded them into the bylaw um as best we can at this point in time. Um
and uh uh >> we've also had some back and forth with town council on some of his points as well, just to make sure that everything's aligned. >> Yeah. So, Ethan and Tom have have looked at this as well.
>> Okay. So, you're are you saying that um our building inspector has seen this new draft? >> This was based on the previous draft. >> No, that's why I'm asking. Has he seen the latest draft? >> No. >> No, he hasn't seen it yet. We just sent
you the latest. >> Yeah. >> Early this morning. >> Hot off the presses. >> Um >> but will you review this with him just as >> Most definitely. Okay. Y great. >> Great. So, where are you at in the I mean, my impression was you were working
through the the bylaw in your meeting, making some pretty substantive changes as a commission that would need again legal review, all that stuff. Um, can you just outline the the remaining steps to special town meeting? I I believe
you're having another public hearing. Um, can you just outline the the work remaining to get to special town meeting? here. So, we're meeting with um well, we're meeting with affordable housing
trust on Thursday. We're meeting with the planning board again on the 20th. Um we we are going to meet with John Mativier as well. Um and
um we have our open house on the 15th, another open house uh right before our regularly scheduled uh historical commission meeting. Um Ryan has reached out about podcast and
video and we are considering that. Um so Ryan, expect a response from us on that. >> Great. Um and uh we are, you know, drafting a letter for the mosquito as well. Um they've reached out and we're we will be
responding to that as well. >> And based on your schedule as a commission, you you feel like you have time to validate the changes, socialize the changes. Um I don't know if there's any additional remaining feedback you need
to incorporate. I just want to make sure the cycle times are such that um the timeline works for special town meeting. >> Yeah. Since our last meeting, Scott, we have revised the bylaw, the one that's in front of you today, and this has
already been reviewed by town council. So, if there are any further developments, which should be minor at this point in time, uh we will certainly be sending them to town council for final review. Basically, the the meetings at this
point are socializing the bylaw versus asking for input at this stage. Sir, >> yep. Additional questions, comments? Um, >> is David?
>> David, are you out there? >> He's supposed to be here at some point, but >> 8:30 he said. >> Yeah, I'm here. I'm here. I'm listening. >> Okay. >> So, I'm Yeah, I mean I have questions, but I'm not going to tie people up.
>> I'm sorry, David. You're breaking up on our end. >> We're hearing muttering, but not exactly what you're muttering. >> I think your connection is is breaking up. Yeah, you're good. Okay,
>> maybe mute David. I think he's I think the gist of what he says is he has thoughts but he doesn't need to share them at this point. Um in terms of inclusion at town meeting um comments I mean it seems like your
timeline is such that I would you know just say um you know given you know given you're still making edits it's important that you lock down this bylaw and socialize it um so that you know the
public has time to digest and process and ask questions you can answer questions so I encourage you to do the the podcast and the outreach. Um because if David was here, he'd say, as you say, you have whatever the term is, one shot at the what is it?
>> The king. >> The king. You better hit hit the hit the king, not miss. So, um yeah, that's my advice on that one. >> I mean, it seems like I what I heard Ben say was though that >> there if there were any changes, they
would be minor edits. Okay. and the and town council has signed off with >> Scott's point about just socializing and getting people getting absolutely everyone aware because that's key to this because there's some of this there's some big substantive changes in this draft right like the
>> last but I I appreciate the feedback like the the loop that you've gone through you know the efforts that you've gone to you've taken feedback you've thought about it I mean >> I think it's up to the voters at this point or the town meeting to figure out
Okay. And then with regard to the warrant, we have the correct title and the text was provided by historical commission >> summary. >> Okay. Right. >> All right. Um, thank you. Appreciate it.
I think with that we can move to discuss or take a vote on >> inclusion of the the three nothing to do with we don't have to talk about Bant at all. Right. >> Byebye. >> Byebye bant. Hello. All right, great. So, with regard to um recommending
inclusion of the three articles at special town meeting, um we've discussed all I believe we we support including all three. So, if there's a motion that someone can >> Yeah, I think >> formulate >> page uh Oh, wait. This is the wrong
>> I have the >> page 23 I think is where it is >> here. I have the the previous version which was No, that's not it. It was number >> maybe Barney pardon >> 26 of 160. >> Is it on page 26 of 16? >> There was this one moved to recommend
article title for including >> do we need do we so we just list all three titles? >> Um I would say to approve the warrant as presented tonight and let me briefly present it to you. >> Okay. >> And is there anything in the wording we need to review? So I have
>> I'd like to just y >> quickly go over the language summaries >> the overall look and then the order which is important. So >> um from feedback article one would be MBTA community zoning bylaw. This language is straight from council. You
see the chart here that was discussed tonight. As Scott said that limits the scope. We also have listed that the bylaw will be available on the town meeting website right here on the warrant so people can see it whenever whenever it's published. And then this
summary was also written today by council based off the conversations last night. So we feel like number one is in is in good order. Hopefully your motion includes any administrative or logistical changes. Article two would be
the demolition review bylaw. Same thing about the bylaw being available. The summary was um written written by me and then perfected by the historical commission. You'll see in both of these you have these will or will not make
recommendations that can completely leave or you can put we'll do it at town meeting or any language you want. >> But just to go back for a minute. So on the MBTA one though, we we have we decided or do we need to vote on including language that says we support
compliance? Okay, >> we'll do inclusion first and then we'll talk about that specific. >> Okay. >> Okay. For fire station renovation design, >> uh it talks about everything that's necessary to pay for the things that were discussed tonight. The twothirds vote.
Um this is a summary that Scott and I worked on together. So it takes what a yes boat would be and incorporates the project goals or aims >> and then um links to the fire station renovation expansion website which provides a tremendous amount of
information. We'll also list with the articles the presentation tonight and all the different different items including videos and podcasts. So that, believe it or not, is a two-day town meeting despite annual town meeting having 10 times more articles
for your signatures. >> And we don't specify that's not specified. All that this is is the order. It's not days. >> No. No. And that that can change. But um >> so you want to be comfortable with these as they're presented, all the ancillary
information, and then the order of the articles is >> what we want to question. >> Yeah. What's the order of? >> Well, META should be first. >> But the question is, do we go with the fire station first and then the demolition? You
>> I don't know. >> I don't know that it matters. >> I don't I mean, if there if it is a second, you know, meeting time, >> there's plenty of time, I think. >> Yeah. I don't
>> I don't know what you're thinking, Travis. I don't really have a thought. I think the fire Well, I don't know. I guess I was the I think the I don't know. The fire station is we've we've that's a multi-year effort to get us where we are
today. And I want to make sure we get people's attention, you know, early and having it the last article >> seems like we've relegated it to less important. >> Whereas the, you know, >> demolition review bylaw something brand
new that's still being drafted as of today. >> So, I don't know. >> Okay, good point. >> Want to flip the order? >> I go with that. >> I'm fine with changing it. >> Let's do that. Fire station will be article two.
>> Do you have anything? >> No voice. >> I think he's um >> Well, there he is. >> Let's vote. Hey, >> here he comes. >> Time. >> I do have a time.
>> Whoa. Ping me. >> Ping me. >> I was good. I was good. >> I was good all the way till I got to Carla. >> Of course. >> And of course, you couldn't hear me there. So, >> first of all, I think we ought to take
each article separately. And I don't think historical is right. the the um >> Yeah. >> Oh, the select board. Okay. >> Yeah. And I think now given the limited choices and I believe the air has gone out of the room because some people were
mostly I know Julie correct me if I'm wrong but people were like well we can't just see things like we got to have scattered you know I mean they were like all these multi-dimensional chests that they were like talking about and now that the commonwealth took the air out of that whole process and said oh no no
guys just this people all right whatever you know because the people who are really anti the the high density cluster. What are they gonna say? It was very emotional like, well, we can't have high density. We have to have low density. But they weren't against
compliance necessarily. They just didn't want high density. >> Commonwealth said, all you got is high density. They're going, all right, whatever. I don't I don't know that it's going to be >> Now we're going to have two or three. Like, >> right. But it's all the same thing, right? >> It's the same thing. It's just do you see development or you don't? >> What I'm leading to is
>> all on >> I like what I heard. fire station first MBTA >> and you're done. >> Call one after. >> Oh, no. You didn't hear quite the same. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. And I don't think historical's ready. And if they miss, it's a long time. >> Grenade goes in.
>> The fact that they're tweaking this thing the 11th hour, they ain't ready. >> I That's my belief. I just wanted to express. I didn't want to get on the phone on that. But >> I mean, I think >> why not? >> I I Well, >> that would have been helpful with them here. >> You know, that was a bad time. It wasn't
it wasn't a good system. >> It wasn't >> I've told them that. >> Yeah. >> They went back and they retoled it. But there's so many questions. Well, what's about like 1970? Okay. There's some reason. But is that true like 50 years from now? Is it still 1970? I mean, >> yes. Yeah. They fixed the date. They
decided that >> I don't know. They just >> I'd say let it go, David. >> I think the historical commission is as ready as they're going to be. I don't think there's going to be any more specificity around >> Okay. Okay. Well, but then it it does tee back to managing town meeting because that will be that will become
the longer debate. >> I believe now >> you think historical commission will be now >> longer than MBTA. >> Wow. >> Possibly. Possibly because it really affects people directly. MBTA now they're like, "All right, whatever. We can only do high density. Okay, fine. There's three identities. We'll pick the
high density." No, >> you don't think >> I think MBTA >> people are still very passionate about >> are you advocating multi- Ryan had asked a question about number of attendees and last and we don't need to get into that. >> I don't have any way of handicapping that actually. I mean I think >> but do you think it's
>> Do you still think it two nights? >> I'm questioning that. >> Or do we just lay it out and we put a cut off date where we don't start new articles after >> 3:30? >> Well, >> or 3:00 >> and then people can >> three o'clock. Uh 3:00's pretty short if you >> No, I don't know what the time is, but
we you can you can give people >> Okay. I like I like that what I think Travis just said a few minutes ago. I like Let's do Fire Station. Like we need Fire Station. It's well thought out. We should get that done, right? Is that
That's kind of what you said. That is >> I said we were talking about day two. >> Day two. So it would be the >> I think we got to lead with MBTA. That's all right. We have to biggest thing in our community right now. >> Yeah. It's all one. >> But but the argument was that we could do Fire Station
>> then demo. >> I mean, you can call an audible at 4 p.m. or whatever. I mean, if if we're pleasantly surprised and MBTA sails through, then sure, keep going, right? Everybody would keep going. But >> well, but we we need to make sure we we
don't tell people Sunday is just MBTA, come back Monday. It just it chang and we can do that. >> We could do a drop drop drop dead time if MBTA is an hour discussion and it's two o'clock and everyone's there. >> It's gonna be an hour discussion.
>> I Wayne's Wayne's leadup isn't going to be an hour. >> His rules. >> His rules will be >> That's an important point. >> That's true. >> Yeah. There's there's going to be >> Yeah. Well, we we've seen just these planning board
>> meetings could could go four. Like there's a lot of >> watched it last night. >> Yeah. >> How long did it go? >> I left at 11. Just about 11. That started at 8 that portion of it. >> Well, boy. Yeah. I mean I I hope their
presentation is really sharp and cons as concise as it can be. >> The MBTA. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, let's go back to the >> So, we do have to approve
>> the warrant the or the the order and the inclusion, >> right? >> And so, we have MTA >> fire station demo. >> Okay. Good. >> And we have the thing. So, do we want to take a motion on this and then we can >> Sure. >> I want to keep to agenda, but this is important. So, do you need a half hour
for TA report? >> No, but this is more important than the residency discussion even though >> Well, David showed up. >> Let me make a motion discussion. That's right. >> Okay. I move that we uh include on the
warrant for the special town meeting November in November uh article one MBTA community zoning bylaw as written in the packet and
article two the historic >> presented tonight sorry Barney as presented tonight >> as presented tonight >> two will be fire station >> and uh article Two is the fire station renovation design >> as presented tonight. And article three,
the demolition review bylaw as presented tonight. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any more discussion or deliberation? >> Seeing none, um let's do a roll call. >> I modelli.
I >> Stevens I >> Triola I The next piece is do we want to take any positions on the included articles andor do a statement on the MBTA if we're not taking a position on
the article so we can take them one at a time. MBTA. >> Yes, we should put the statement in. >> Just on the last thing we just did, Ryan had mentioned. Did you need flexibility in that for language changes? Did you say, "Oh, I hope we could >> in the motion."
>> In the motion, >> um for any legal or administrative changes, >> including Well, okay. I guess we should vote again then, huh? So, uh, I'll amend the motion to add the phrase, um, and
with approval for any legal or >> administrative changes. >> Administrative changes. >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, we can do a voice vote since we're all present. All in favor?
>> I >> opposed. for for >> now you got to vote again because we just voted to accept the amendment. Now we got to vote on the >> All right, we will now. >> Now we'll take a vote on the motion as
amended. We don't need a second. Correct. Or do we? >> Sure. >> Second. >> Any discussion, deliberation? Seeing none, voice vote. All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. >> Amendments are going to be an interesting thing, too, by the way. Yeah. Although at least any
>> Okay. Okay. >> Sorry. >> No, no, thank you for catching that. Um, so let's go through these. The first one, MBTA. >> Um, >> I'm not ready to necessarily I think given where the bylaw is, taking a position on the article is >> Well, when you say take a position on the
>> like the select board recommends passage of article one, >> but the article is not which which cluster we pick, right? No, it's going to be the it's going to be passing of the bylaw with whichever article is selected. >> Whichever parcel is selected,
>> whichever parcel is selected, >> we don't approve that. We're we we leave open the possibility of non-compliance. >> No, I want to >> No, that's why we we don't want to we're not ready to take a position on >> which of the um >> No, that's what I'm asking. sites, but
we do want to take it says we are in favor of compliance with the MBTA. >> So the article is just about >> do you support I guess I should >> it's going to be the zoning bylaw, >> right? Do we support the zoning bylaw, but it doesn't pick which parcel?
>> Not which of the >> you support the article? >> We don't but we don't even know the parcels yet. >> Who cares? It's a >> Scott. I think I mean as a position as a board should be we support compliance. I >> which means you have to support the art. >> I don't know that I'm ready to line up behind anyone site.
>> No, no, this wouldn't this wouldn't Okay, so on this one support I correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure how this is going to be executed, >> but the there'll be one final updown vote on the article. >> Yes. >> Based on whatever mechanic Wayne uses to
>> to get to a site. So the the article we don't know which sites are going to be proposed or all that what's going to be picked but the final article one will be the site that sound town meeting has selected to be the up or down >> right but what's your alternative >> like >> we will support it
>> you're going to support it so support the >> you want to take a so >> I think we should support the article okay >> and then let the town decide which part >> specific in our narrative of support saying we support article one which is for compliance of the MBTA communities
but the select board agnostic as position on IG the right which of the >> I agree with that sites sites will be selected >> that >> well in fact we really can't right because >> we don't know which of them will be on
the will be discussed and also >> we can just choose right >> say we like all six >> any of the six are fine with us >> one no we just pick one right now >> a big wheel let's spin the Spin the wheel. There you go. >> Oh my god. Please do that.
>> Get Wayne on the line. We're going to turn to make this fun. >> Right. >> All right. So, >> all right. So, the lang. So, what we are saying, let's see. Do you want to take a crack at it, Travis, or you up? >> Sure. >> I think what he said was good. I move
that we support article or I move that we have a language that says that we support the passage of article one of the MBTA community zoning bylaw to comply with the
MBTA communities acts GLC 4A 3A76 CMR 72.00 00 >> um >> and I don't even know if we want if we want to add yeah if we want to add in
more about the overlay multifamily overlay but well that whole language is in there but we support that >> um >> with the um >> are you period the select board does not take a position >> period the select board does not take a
position on the site selection ction required for compliance. >> Yeah. Are the sites I don't know. It says one site minimum area and then at least the parcels. So does the select board does not current or does not take
a position on the prospective site. Anyone >> on any specific site? >> On any specific site site. >> Yeah. >> Period. >> Period. >> Is that Ryan just typed it out?
back. That's fast. Should have dictated it. >> Supports the passage of article one to comply with the MBTA community's stuff. Select board does not take a position on any specific site. >> Perfect. >> Okay.
>> On any specific site? >> Yeah. >> On any >> specific Yeah. Okay. else. >> It's fine. I mean, again, this isn't like a legally binding document. It's just expressing our No, but it's like how we feel about it. >> It's accurate.
>> Yeah. I think people will know what that means. >> Yeah. >> And we can tell them if >> or do we want to say that this that we the select board? I think that's fine. Okay. >> Is that is that pass the muster from your standpoint in terms of >> seems good to me. >> Okay. >> The other boards are asking similar
questions >> and site is the right term. Do you think >> site would be the right term? >> Okay. They'll be called here are the different sites versus parcels or Okay. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> All right. Is there a second? Hey, excuse me. Excuse me. I'm all you.
>> Second, Barney. Okay. Any further debate or deliberation? >> Oh, boy. Further. No one in the corner. Into the corner. >> Not I have no position. >> All right. Any further discussion, deliberation? Seeing none, let's do a roll call vote on this. >> Arnold, I
>> Snell I. >> Stevens I. Triola I Okay, moving on. Let's article two, the fire station renovation design costs. Um, this does not include the uh the specific number, but the expectation is that it's going
to be the $1.4 million that was presented. I don't that will not change. Correct. >> Only you could change it. >> So So do we want to take a position on this one? >> Yes, >> I I do. I want to um I believe as I've
said before that we should include in the maybe it's not in the warrant but in the whatever materials go ahead of time the budgetary impact of the full project
we should have total clarity on I mean we we support it for lots of reasons right >> some are mentioned here like on call department blah blah blah but at the end of the day we owe the voters like a clear idea understand the context >> and we also parenthetically have to add
some placeholder for a DPW project. So does that bake into >> I don't think it bakes >> motions handbook or where does that show up? >> So David my plan next meeting is to present and agree on a set of assumptions that would allow that math to happen right >> and then that would be included in the
motions booklet and handouts and the presentation >> people would have that available to them ahead of time so they could >> assuming we can all >> then that's fine. I'm fine with that. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, we would have a motion here that is
um the >> select board supports or have we said it in the past? >> Supports the >> supports fine. The select board supports the fire station renovation. >> Supports article three.
>> Fire station renovation design >> two. >> Oh, sorry. The select board supports article two. the fire station renovation design costs. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second.
>> Any further discussion or deliberation? Do a roll call vote? >> Arnold I. >> Modell I. >> Snell. I >> Stevens I. >> Triola I. Demo review bylaw.
Um, do fe do people feel ready to take a position on this? I personally don't particularly. Um, I still have questions and concerns that I want to see. Um, one, I want to see the final bylaw
language. Um, two, I want to make sure that some of the feedback particularly from the building commissioner or any other recommendations that are relevant are are made and included. Um because I I do have reservations about this just as a
as a resident some aspects of this. I I support a demolition review bylaw. I want to make sure we have the right one. Um, and to me there's I haven't had time to really review and process and >> well, one way we could do this is kind
of the way we did the MBTA, which is we could say the select board supports >> uh the principle of a demolition review bylaw, but we are not taking a specific position on this article.
It seems a week that >> is I think for this one we either we either say we'll make a recommendation at town meeting or we could put it in the motion handbook or if people want to >> what I don't like about that first option is >> I mean can we straw poll like it's not
good form we've done it before but it wasn't very good like we put the article in and then we at the 11th hour we say we don't support it that's >> it's not a good look I I'd like to know where we stand >> at at least at least informally. >> The the opposing view to that, David, is
that I I was saying tonight, I mean, I I'm not I have some reservations about it, but I think if if a board wants to put something forward to the voters, you know, generally, unless I think there's some disaster with it, I think we have a duty to
>> I can accept that town and let the town, >> but then I also say don't kick the can down the road. Like for us, like if we feel that way, if we feel >> you could say >> if we're three to two against it, for example. Okay. >> Yeah. >> We should get that on record as soon as
we can. I mean, people need to know this. I wouldn't let it sway in the breeze and then we suddenly decide we're not for it. >> Well, is it too uh >> we have a companion duty to make our >> Yeah. >> Is it too um I don't know, weak need on
our part to say the select board will not taking a position >> on the on this article. >> I think it's >> I think we just for this we can just say >> article we could say in the motions handbook or
town meeting because there is another opport next meeting we have the opportunity to get a recommendation in the motions handbook >> but not in the warrant. >> Not in the warrant. >> Yeah. >> I mean can we take a straw poll now or not? I want to see the final bylaw language
>> means what? I mean, it's okay, but what are you going to learn that you don't know today? >> Well, I'd want to know like what the the building commissioner if that if that's all been sorted out and they they support it now versus have concerns about it. >> That would make you support it if the building commissioner supports it.
>> That would make me more inclined to support it. Would it put me over the top? I don't know. But I'm I don't know. If people are What do people think, Christine? >> Barney, >> I'm not in support of it. >> I'm And I I'll give my justification
while Barney thinks of her wording. I just feel like there's an awful lot of parties in this town who want to have dibs on all of our property. We've got the bylaw that didn't make it on to the special town meeting that's coming up in the spring. The consom is going to have an awful lot of say over
Travis, you say something? I'm I'm not. >> And then you got the HC saying they want a 12-month, you know, waiting period and uh it feels like an awful lot of stuff has not been said in terms of disclosure. Um I'm not in favor of it
and I don't think waiting around is going to sway me by the way. >> Okay. So, it's made me rethink even should we should we have not put it on the warrant? a prudent I take your point that if a board wants it we have some but there's also the shooting at the
king and missing theory right >> if it goes down if it goes down >> it'll be a long time before it comes I'm not opposed to a wellthought I read all I read all the city in the woods and things but the fact is there are no set
really they've done a better job now but there's really no set criteria this idea of historical context and a architect of historical significance like that's not quantitative and it is you know to quote Eric Adams it's sticks and bricks right at the end of
the day it's sticks and bricks it's 50 years ago versus yes 200 years ago okay but you know we are kind of overlegislating and the fact that other towns have overwhelmed you know a lot of towns have chosen it is not a compelling
argument in my opinion so I don't I'm not like what's the word um you know u like emotionally against it like it it's not like it's a freedom of property issue with me like it's not it's just
it's not it's just not thought through enough. It needs to be much more to be effective and to be accepted. I think it should be much more prescriptive and clear and maybe they just have to bite the bullet and find some funding to assess
or anybody that raises their hand gets an assessment of whether they qualify or don't qualify or there has to be other things besides just you decide to pull a permit and then you you go into this like weird process. So all of which is to say to me as you know someone who has
a fairly significant amount of legislative experience in town >> like I know it's a hard lesson but you're not ready. I know you think you're ready but you're not ready. >> That's really my >> Well, the the other thing is and I wish I'd asked them about this because I had
talked >> to still here. They're still >> Oh, they're still on. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh, >> bring them on. >> Um yeah, great. Ben and Chrissy, the the thing I forgot to ask, which is >> something that I think really would make
sense to do first. Oh, they're not. >> Never mind. >> Okay. Is um >> the historical inventory, >> right? I mean, that would make >> Well, that's what But I'm saying I didn't have a chance to ask them
>> why because I did make a case for Yeah, but it's a >> I know. No, I know. I'm supporting you. I agree with you. That's right. And uh that's what other towns that I looked at. >> Um that's what they did first. >> So maybe that would be I mean that would be good. That would be okay because then
you kind of know. >> You want me to text them to get that? >> Well, so you guys have been on the select board longer with regard to not putting something choosing not to put something on the warrant. >> Right. Um we you know we've asked about the
readiness and then they are like no and you know last town meeting they wanted to put it on the warrant. We pushed them to this town meeting they want to put it on the warrant. So they're saying they're ready. I don't again to to Travis's point like they're doing the work. What is the philosophy? If we
don't agree with a warrant we don't put it we don't we don't agree in the article. We don't put it on the warrant. >> It's not philosophical. I just said it's not we don't like it like we don't we do you know we're you know opposed to the theory of it. It's we don't think you're like there's a standard and you haven't
met it yet. >> I think they're ready then dude. >> I think they're ready David. There's they've done I mean it would be awesome if they had this list of you know >> just to be clear you're opposed to the article but you're in favor of including it special. >> Yes I am. That's correct because I think they're done. I think they've actually
done a lot of work. It's just a lot of people making dibs on our property >> and I don't think it's going to evolve much between now and >> No, it won't. That's why I'm challenging you in your position. >> I'm just saying, okay, >> look, if we decide for the reason that Travis articulated that we owe them the
article, >> opportunity, >> then okay, I'll go with that. >> Yeah. >> But I'm saying if three of us, and I think there's two already, do not support the article, we should get that out in the book early on. It should be a known thing. We shouldn't waffle on
that. >> I'm not supportive of it. So there three. >> There you go. So now the question is, do we want to put an article out that we don't support? Maybe we do. It's okay. It's okay to do that. >> Maybe they have the votes. They seem to think they've got a uh and there is a
strong contingency in town who believes in the historical nature of things. I I do not support it. >> Right. Well, I I I believe it's an important thing for a town, particularly like
ours, where we do have a lot of history, um that we we ought to be protecting, you know, the historic uh both structures and the you know, associated um history of of what's happened in
Carlile. But um I don't think if uh let's say it gets it it's on the warrant and it gets voted down then they could decide the commission
could put in for doing this historic inventory. Um and the town meeting would have to approve that next spring. Um, >> you wouldn't have a demo bylaw though next spring. >> No, would not be. >> No, they do that. Well, I could try
again, but I that's where I would not. >> But did you So, this is the first that I >> maybe I didn't pay attention to it that I heard that CPA >> could fund this. Is this the first you've said it or is it saying >> what has been their reaction to that?
>> Uh, you know, well, that's a good idea. Uh, but we're really concerned. We really want to get something in place now that um uh prohibits demolition without this review.
>> And I provided that feedback as well. And do you put put it in the bylaw like other and other towns? >> I sent them that as well. Neighboring towns, how significant is defined and >> Yeah. Right. >> I know that
>> registers and stuff and that was an active Chrissy. >> All right. >> And is she it? >> Yeah. >> Both of them. >> Okay. So, Chrissy, we're having a we're we're going through the warrant. Um and
we had voted to include the the three articles, a special town meeting. Right now, we're discussing um select board taking a position on the um demo review bylaw. Um, and I think right now we have at least three that are opposed to the
bylaw. Um, and that's where we're at. >> Okay. Um, >> I don't know if someone wants to articulate the kind of core reasons. >> Okay. Well, I think the core reasons for being well, the debate, Chrissy, is
>> do we put something we don't believe the select board should block a warrant article just because we don't support it. So, we should give boards like your board who have worked hard the opportunity to present it to the town. We shouldn't stand in the way
of that. But if we don't as a select board support it, we should make that known early because that's a piece of information that you and others need to know. The reason though, at least for me personally, that I'm against it is not
because I'm philosophically against it. It's because I still don't think you're ready even with the changes. And I know that there's a rush to say we've got to do it before these houses get demoed. But you heard it from, maybe you didn't, but we heard it from the fire station Tekin guy. The building climate is not
robust right now. I don't think, you know, maybe there are some houses that are at risk, but by and large, a delay to get it more properly structured, in my opinion, would serve both you and the town better. And and Barney, do you want to ask your question about CPA? Yeah, I
I forgot to ask you and Ben about the um doing the historical inventory um and putting in a uh application for CPA funds to do that inventory um before uh putting this bylaw on the warrant so
that you actually had data that said these are the historic properties and and then you were then you you craft the bylaw to address the inventory. Sure. Um, can I go back to David's point for
just a minute? Um, David, can you just elaborate a bit on why you don't think the bylaw is ready? >> Well, because I think you've done a good job at tightening up some of the things like the date and the some and the checklist that I read, but the the terms
are still pretty qualitative, like an architect of historical significance, a neighborhood of historical significance, u you know, some other things like that. So, um, if you're if you're
you're fooling around, I mean, not to be too blown about it, but you're sort of fooling around with people's many people's single largest asset. And if we're going to do that, and we have reasons why that might be a good idea. But if we're going to do that, I
think we need real clarity of process, real quantitative, not qualitative criteria against which we one makes that decision. And I still feel like I mean there were some of the questions in the Q&A and I was not in a good reception
spot so I didn't weigh in with my own set of questions, but I mean there are a lot of questions still. I mean for example when Alan Lewis was sit standing here in the little what was it the >> forum >> forum whatever we had you know he said well everybody should everybody with a
house before 1970 I mean we didn't know that at the time then should just pull a building permit on day two just immediately pull a building permit to force the process of their house so that they would know you know these are the kind of things that
um I believe need to be addressed and button down in language that you just aren't there yet. And and I really like the idea and I hadn't connected it per previously putting CPA funds to work to get a real
list of the houses that whether they're in the neighborhood, whatever the criteria, these houses have like like the historical register, you know it going in that that house is going to have restrictions on it. Okay. Um, I just I'm going to speak
quickly to the point about the language. So, the language for the determination of historical significance, is that what you're asking about for specificity? >> I mean, that was I you now I have to go read, you know, line by line, but I think yes, the the historical
significance andor the architect significance andor the its place in the neighborhood. I mean, it's a lot of qualitative criteria that you're alluding to that your board would use to determine whether an applicant can or
cannot do a certain project. >> It gives a lot of leeway to the board. Yeah. At this point, I also think that the age of the structure, I really do appreciate the change to 1970 from, you
know, 50 years from a rolling thing. Um, I think that that's a good, you know, step, but I I'm just not convinced that I I think like you could you could do a range and I think I mentioned this at that forum where if you said every house
from that was a witness house to the revol or the revolution, you know, that was here in the 1700s, I think you'd have a lot of support within the town. But as you move that age, you know, closer to, you know, modern times and
then 50 years or essentially, um, you know, 50, what, five years now, I I think you start to lose some of that support and we won't know until you go to town meeting and find that out. But I just think that that's those are some of the things that maybe there should have
been more. And I guess you you tried your outreach, you haven't gotten that feedback. But again, then tonight we were we were talking and I asked the question about the five-year time period and that was the response I think was
that that was eliminated today, right? Um or when was that eliminated because it was in our thing but Ben said no that's not going to be in there. Was that just eliminated today? >> The non-transferable >> the non-transferable piece. Yes. >> Yeah. That was So was that eliminated
during a meeting? Did the did the historical committee vote on that removal or was that just done today by the drafter and not reviewed by the historic commission? >> So that will be reviewed with the
commission on the 15th. >> Okay. But that was discussed. We discussed this with the commission back on the 2nd and uh and we'll be uh reviewing that again with them on the 15th, but that
was struck today. >> Yeah. >> Correct. Well, again, I just think that those are the types of things that leading up to a town meeting, you should kind of have this thing so like much tighter um bound so that it can go out
in that form because in some sense until it's voted on by the historic commission saying this is what we're doing then, you know, you you can't you know get it out to everyone. I guess you still can in in a unfinished form, but it just it
just leads to this process where and I think that's what David was trying to articulate too is just this is a process when you put a bylaw forward and believe me I know firsthand because I did the TA bylaw and you know it had its own message to it
>> you know and it it takes a lot of effort and I just I I think you've put in effort. I'm not saying you haven't, but I just think it's probably not hasn't gelled yet. But as I said in the meeting earlier, I'm supportive of if you've done this effort and you want to
go and go to the town meeting, I'm not going to hold that up. But I but I am coming out and saying I'm not as in support because I just don't think it is. I think some of these things need to be better vetted. >> This is the way they've determined. >> Is there anyone else significance?
Please go ahead, Chrissy. >> No, I just was wondering if you have to take a position this evening. I I believe you were saying that you were going to take a position for MBTA on the 21st. Well, we discussed that um because it's a it's currently in draft and I think
the comment was from from uh some of the other members of uh based on the you know the changes in the draft and and any other additional changes they don't support it and they won't support it and so we
should to David's point if the select board isn't going to be in support of the article we should get that out um sooner rather than later. I think she was Chrissy was asking about MBTA. We actually took a position on that today. Tonight? >> Yeah, we did take a position on NB. We took a position on the other two
articles tonight. >> Okay. No, that's fair. I just didn't know if there was any requirement that you voted on it. >> There's no requirement. the deadline to get in the warm book and precipitated this discussion too is should we take a position on this and there were mixed views on the select
board whether we should you know take that position to you know help or or potentially harm the how this moves forward and and I think the select board may be coming out towards a you know taking a position tonight on this we haven't formally voted yet but
>> right >> okay um I again if we can help with any other questions at the moment. I I just want to go back one more time to David's point. I think the um language about the historical significance is pretty much verbatim.
>> Yeah, I saw that actually. Barney pointed that out to me. So that one that one that one and 1970 are now uh you know quantitative, let's say, or they're not ambiguous. But then all the other I guess going by your little well the
checklist and the bylaw don't 100% line up. But I'll go to the checklist just cuz it's easier to read. So 1970 bingo historical events. Yes. But then the the next, you
know, item three, four, five, and six are contextual. They're they're they're ambiguous to the homeowner. So,
you know, I guess I'm not against you using those criteria, but I would go back to >> Barney's proposal that CPA funding be used to go do that work and go pick the houses that would count towards that. >> David, I don't know if you heard the uh
comment about the addition of the determination for applicability prior to anybody looking to uh submit an application for demolition. um near that was something that was recently added into the bylaw
to help people plan >> this one. Yeah. Where you can go in advance and >> Right. But >> Right. So you can go in advance but >> correct. >> So you have to do it but then Okay. But then again that's another question. So I go in advance and I get a determination
that my house is of historical significance. Now I'm pretty much stuck, right, >> of what I can do. >> Yeah. You didn't you didn't buy the house with that understanding. Yeah. And that does change things. >> But I mean, that would be the case no matter what, even if they did the checklist. So that's a fair point. It's
a fair point. Um, can I ask a question of and just for Ben and Chrissy, if if the select board were to vote were to oppose the article, vote to oppose the article or not recommend the article, um, does that color your view on if you
would proceed to special town meeting with it? >> Well, certainly we would love the select board's support. Um, but I think we've also heard a lot of pos positive responses from the community as well. Um, and we don't want
to dismiss those positive responses that we have heard. Um, at this point I think I don't know Chrissy jump in, but I I think uh talking with the commission to make a final determination on on on
this would be needed. >> Yep. Yeah, I agree. I also think that I think Ben brings up a great point. We have gotten really good feedback at this point through the survey specifically um that I would say is,
>> you know, it's not a hard it's not a no vote from people. I think that there are a lot of people in town that are in support of this. I will also say that this is not something that's reinventing the wheel. This is language that pretty much every surrounding town has in place. um most of the surrounding towns
have, you know, even have maybe gone through it with less of a fine tooth comb at this point. Um and that, you know, Carile is sort of the outlier at this point. And I and I respect that that is potentially where the town would
like to be, but I think it would be a miss not to not to hear a vote at town meeting. But I think again, as Ben said, that this is also something that we need to discuss with the commission. Okay. >> Yeah, >> go for it. >> I'm convinced
>> in terms of Yeah. In terms of including it in the warrant. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, do we want to take a position on it as a select board at at this meeting? >> There's no fiscal impact. Correct. >> Negligible. >> I negligible. >> Yeah. I don't not not to be not
calculable, >> right? not maybe not negligible if you can't build new big mansions that >> I mean generate a lot more. >> We've also actually seen some data points that show that historic preservation has a a good financial benefit for the town.
>> Yeah, you're restricting. >> There's no like clear spreadsheet, >> but it's not a financial issue. >> No, it's not a financial cultural issue, >> but I'm just trying to, you know, Barney had previously categorized it as weak need. I don't think it's weak need to not take a position. You could just say
there's no this is everyone vote their conscience. There's no um >> well or finances or policy or and what policy is >> I mean you could say and and there's there's tonight and the the point I'm
making is or the I was making earlier is I agree with David's point. We need to get our positions out as soon as possible. Um the unknown question for me is the bylaw going to change very much? No. I don't I I don't know what the recommendation from the building
>> the building commission is or the or the relevant boards and and so lacking that information >> you know if it's on the warrant or the handout it probably doesn't make that much difference but >> well let me sort of look at it from the
other side which is um if this is a bylaw that we feel residents should determine whether or not we're going to have it or not. That us taking a position now
that's against it makes that harder for for residents to hear it and decide for themselves. Um, and part of this for me is that um, you know, I I would that's why I keep
pushing this historic inventory because I'd feel a lot more comfortable based on some on a group of people that really understand all of this and are experts in the field, you know, doing that survey in our town and saying, "Yes,
these are historic structures, you know, uh, that deserve preserving then I would be fully supportive. The problem for me is that this you know this is uh
the cut off of 1970 is somewhat arbitrary. It's reactionary, >> right? And it's also I until tonight I didn't realize that there was some discussion about like a neighborhood that had been built since 19 uh before 1970
>> being considered a um historic >> uh part of the Carile culture. And so it could, you know, it could qualify as historic. And that makes me that is really a whole new
that's a whole new >> there's a litigation aspect too, right? I mean the town could get sued. >> Yeah. So >> for imposing something that is considered unreasonable by the homeowner as >> Christine points out people bought houses without that understanding. So
there is a there is a potential uh financial impact and negative financial impact but >> and for me there's a burden of proof in terms of enacting a new bylaw like you it's not like >> to me that you have to there's a to me there's a lot of unknowns in here I
don't quite grasp all the implications so you need >> the age cut off is good right in other words if your house >> but I don't know if it's the right age I don't >> no whether it's a right or wrong if this were the bylaw and you have a house that was built in the 60s you know you have to go own front. There's no ambiguity about that. Right.
>> But my point is as as a voter, as a resident, >> yeah, >> I support the idea of a demo bylaw. I don't like you're Travis is raising points that I don't I haven't thought of. You're raising points. There's a lot in here that I don't know all the implications of, right or wrong, good or bad, >> and I I won't vote in favor of a new
bylaw unless I fully understand. >> Okay. So, let's get So, that's a very good point. One strain says, you know, a a group that's committed to it would like to propose a bylaw and you know that we as the gatekeepers of the bylaws should not
be unduly restrictive about that. We should be open to people wanting to present things if they do so in a thoughtful manner and nobody would say they haven't done it in a thoughtful manner. Okay. The second thing is, you know, could such a bylaw create some unknown havoc in our town
and therefore if we we could either block it. I mean, if it was a really terrible like if somebody said bylaw that, you know, no Chinese can live in Carla, like okay, you know, it's constitutionally wrong, like we wouldn't let that bylaw go. But
these are things that may create some confusion and litigation and who knows what. So knowing that I go back to more maybe the select board's reason for making its opinion known. We need to tell the town the town looks
to us for certain aspects. We need to let them know what the other implications are of doing this if we don't think it's ready. I'm not sure how, but I mean I don't think we can just say, "Okay, everybody choose for yourselves." I mean, sure,
why have a select board? Just everybody choose for themselves, right? >> What's your MBTA position? >> Well, I'm for compliance. >> I'm for compliance. >> All right. >> So, it's getting it's getting late.
>> Do we want to take a position on this article tonight? >> Maybe not. or do we want to um take a position on our next meeting on the 21st, in which case it would be in the motions handbook. Correct? >> Yeah, I'm okay. >> And in that time, maybe we can aggregate
some of our questions and concerns, get them to historical commission and at least give them a chance to respond um >> and and get some of these other opinions in. >> Yep, I'm okay with that. And I would say, and I've told you this, Chrissy, I think we told you this maybe a time or
two ago, that um I mean Wayne, when when we think about how to organize collateral material, Wayne's suggestion was, you know, find the most articulate people you can who are against your motion
and listen to them and prepare your arguments against them. And so I would say they should do that. So, I'm okay voting it in and then leaving it at that point. >> Okay. So, for the for the warrant, do we
>> already did vote the warrant? >> We've already voted the warrant, >> but I mean the for in the warrant, we're just going to say we'll make a recommendation at town meeting. >> No, we're going to vote next week. We're going to have a next meeting. >> No, but we have to put So, we won't put anything in the We have to put >> Well, you can leave it that way. If it's
early, it's early, right? Yep. >> That's what I mean. We we're going with that language. >> We'll make a recommendation at town meeting or we'll make >> a recommendation >> or remove it completely from the warrant. You can remove that language at
completely >> you mean just not put anything in there from the select board for for now? >> Yeah, you could delete it. >> Delete the whole say we'll present it. Just leave it. I think we just leave it as it is. Well, then why were you saying that we vote next time? >> You can put
>> No, that's different than saying the select board does not support this article with the vote. >> Do you know this is just saying we'll make a recommendation. >> This is what gets printed, right? >> Yeah. >> Make a recommendation at tell me or >> meeting. It could still be printed if we in the motions. In the motions,
you could say in the motions handbook or at town meeting. >> Okay, got it. Yep. >> And that people will receive when >> motions at town meeting. >> Yeah. >> And we'll have the position at our next meeting and we'll socialize it. I mean, and I do think we should take a position.
>> Okay. All right. Good. Got it. >> All right. All right. We're running. >> Thank you, Chrissy and Ben. >> Yep. >> Thank you for rejoining. >> Thanks. Appreciate it. >> All right. The next piece of the puzzle is to final sign the special town meeting and special election warrants.
Correct. Yes. >> Is there is there any adjustment needed to what's in the packet? >> Not for the election warrant. And what you're signing is the warrant as presented to me. >> Ah, so this has to be moved.
>> Yes. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> Okay. Uh why don't shall I do that? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I uh move to approve the special town election warrant with ballot questions for the special town election scheduled for November 13, 2025
in the Clark room of town hall 66 Westford Street Carile Mass 01741. Can we do both of them together? >> What's the second? >> Well, oh, we've already we need to have
we already approved this. >> You already approved the warrant. You just need to prove the >> Okay. I just didn't get great language there, but Okay. >> So, the first motion was made. Does someone want to second it? >> Second. >> Second. >> Let's do a any discussion. We'll do a
voice vote. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Okay. And do you want to move the second make the second one? >> Yeah. Do you want us to do the second one as well, Ryan? It's it >> the Cyr. >> This is approving the entire warrant, right? So I move to approve the warrant
for the special town meeting scheduled for November 2nd, 2025 in the Corey Auditorium, Cafe and Gymnasium of the Carile Public School, 83 School Street, Carlile, Mass 01741. >> Seconded tonight.
>> As presented tonight >> as as presented tonight. >> Those are the article number changes. >> Yeah. Um do we have to add Benfield in here? They've got since you've got the ca auditorium, cafe and gym. Cafe
>> cafe. >> You want to put cafeteria? >> So people won't look at cafe and say, "Oh, we really spruce things up around here." >> I think we're good. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, we need a second for that.
>> Second. >> Anyone? No, I'm asking for second. Second. Second. >> All right. Any discussion? Voice vote. All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. >> All right. >> I just got to give you a quick so what we mean by legal and administrative
changes which you did approve. Um I believe that a demolition review bylaw is a general bylaw and this is written to say it's a zoning bylaw. So I have to check that with council cuz if it was zoning it would be 2/3. So I'm I'm like
95% sure it's >> okay. >> We would just make that change. you're signing that it doesn't have any substantive change to the article. >> Showing you what we might do with it. >> Yeah. >> All right. The next agenda item was to set the 2026 annual town meeting date.
>> Yes. >> Um we should do that. >> Do we have a proposed date? >> The proposed >> May 18th, >> which is a Sunday. If we want to continue with that. >> I mean, we we we failed at running some traps last time. >> It's Monday. >> Oh, it's Monday. May >> 18th is Monday. We we are recommending a
range of dates from May 17th to May 19th to allow you to either do a Sunday or a Monday but to reserve those three days. Right. >> So is that Sunday, Monday, Tuesday? >> Okay. >> Okay. But we did a poor job last time of fully vetting conflicts like college
graduations which wasn't on my radar screen but it is you know I mean >> have we done a full calendar vetting of all conflicts here? So the vetting we did here was the college is traditionally the last >> okay >> in May. >> Uh so is Memorial Day
>> and the high schools are >> June >> two weeks later >> right and >> Mother's Day is the week before. >> It's the week before. It's not that Sunday. >> No, it's the week before. But the problem is every other weekend you start to get locked out. >> Then you've done your due diligence. Right. Okay. >> Process of elimination.
>> And we wanted to say um the range being 17 18 19. >> Yes. Okay, >> we're good. >> But I would say I think we spoke um let me just >> it's on the agenda. >> Yeah, >> I believe Wayne brought this we brought
this up at a point when >> town meeting committee came here. There's some >> counter uh veiling opinion that you shouldn't actually do it in the nice weather
>> on a Sunday afternoon >> like a May >> but go back to the rainy go Monday night you're saying no April >> oh April >> I mean we talked about that at some point >> David that's that's a good point so what we're trying to do is have a chance to
get the fire station design as possible. However, we did I did discuss this with the OPM and the architect >> and it is unlikely that we bid this project >> for town meeting. So, we >> it wouldn't make it anyways what you're saying, >> but the more time the better for a more
accurate cost estimate. >> I I don't mind it. I'm just saying when when we the town meeting study committee as we dive into the data and the reasons why people do or don't show up, it's pretty nice out in late May and people
have things to do. That's all. And uh if it's a Sunday, our feeling in retrospect was crappier weather is better. That's all. >> It's going to rain cats and dogs. >> Well, and and it's a late school break this year. It's like the 20 to 20. So
there's like two weekends in the back half of April that are not good. So it's like >> very good and the first beginning of May is >> Mother's Day is the 10th. So that >> No, there's there's the first weekend or whatever. >> But how different is the weather going to be? >> I don't know. >> Now we're getting into like
>> you know I don't I'm okay with it. I'm just pointing out that that's >> we had a good turnout at this same time frame last year and I didn't hear any meeting. >> It's okay. I I'm okay. Don't we want to have it? >> All right. Do you want me to move this? Uh, I move that we set the date of the
2026 annual town meeting >> uh to to fall in the range of May 17, 18, or 19, 2026. >> Is there a second? >> I second that. >> Okay. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll
do a voice vote. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Great. All right. We are only 55 minutes behind. We can blame the chair. >> Um so looking at the rest of the meeting, do we want to spend a few minutes on the residency policy?
>> Yeah, we can punt that for now. >> Okay. >> I have some comments, but I think we can >> um they're mostly related to Gretchen's feedback and making sure um we have clear criteria. Otherwise, I think it's >> bring it on. >> We we and we'll see if we can move on to
the next meeting. >> I I say punt it. It's not, you know, I was not expecting as many comments as I got from Gretchen, which they were all value ads, so I have no problem with that. And she's included it in here with all the sausage making off to the side and everything, which is awesome, >> but there's there's some sausage being made. So,
>> we're not ready. >> So, maybe the rescul but I have one. So one comment for you that I didn't want to make in the email obviously is >> schools spent a lot of time determining residency for the purpose of children.
>> Y >> some of this I would leave schools out of this because it's a >> leave it out point them to the school's policy but yes >> I think our policy should just relate to the appointment our plan >> because the kids don't it's different right parents and stepparents and foster
parents and you get in a whole mishmash and I wouldn't go there. Let's do a cycle with Gretchen's feedback and then we'll we'll let's we'll revisit it um in all the time we have when we're sitting around going what do we talk about tonight right >> after special town meeting or maybe prior to school.
>> All right. Uh >> well like we like >> could be >> 20 the 21st we just have as David said we could be out in an hour. >> Um >> TA >> we're going to move on to the the TA report. So Ryan the floor is yours. >> Take it away.
>> All right. Great. Next, this is my town administrator report for October 7th. I'm going to get that right this time. So, the next town administrator coffee hour will be Tuesday after the holiday, October 14th at Clark Farm Market. Looking for residents who are looking to
talk about town meeting issues, different logistics, and anything else that's going on in town. However, the majority of my time has been spent on town meetings. So, I expect it to be mostly that. In terms of HR reports and appointments, we have selected a finalist for our finance and human
resources assistant position. As you remember, we filled this and then it was immediately vacant. This is important position as it frees up a lot of our finance and HR staff to do to do other things. So, we're excited. We anticipate this person to start on October 20th and we will appoint them in between the
meetings and then bring you that name at your next meeting. We did have an offer in place for a police officer, but it was not a successful negotiation. >> We're just showing you that we don't always take every offer and every position. We have ranges and we try to
maintain fiscal responsibilities. So, we will we will send that back out to bid as they say and interview some more candidates. >> And we're still recruiting heavily for uh van drivers. If anybody knows anybody who wants to drive a van and is good at
it, we'd be happy to talk to them. For department updates and information, thanks to our safety committee volunteers, we have been awarded a $500,000 grant for the connected Carile project. This adds to the shared services grant and would extend
sidewalks from School Street to Stern Street, which I know you all know is the Kimble Farms ice cream stand. So, you can get all your exercise and then have some ice cream. The last piece for this is we applied for a LEAP grant which is a new grant for rural communities which would allow us to pay for some of the
design. The project is more than we have in terms of grant funding. So we want to see if this design grant will go through and then we will bring it to you for your consideration on how much scope to do and what the costs would be and the impacts on chapter 90 and other capital funds.
Attached to this report is our annual OPED other post-employment benefits report. This was reviewed by the finance team and my working group which David is a part of and our financial consultants. We performed strongly this year and exceeded expectations and are now
approximately 30% funded. This is better than the statewide average of 5.9% funded and is approaching the group of 40% funded communities which have there are only 15 in Massachusetts. So just proving that we're doing well with OPED. We are not
in that top 15, but we are well ahead of the state average with the spending that we have. >> And we also have the region which is >> even better than >> even better. >> Conquer is one of those 15 and >> but that's part of our obligation. >> All right, >> for the Ottabon Lane engineering study,
this is finalized. I went through it today with Nich and Jim Hall. We're going to present you two options and the findings of that report for addressing the residents concern who came in here during your community feedback form. So that that is one thing that that is on our plate besides town meeting stuff. A
really important update on the cranberry bog. So Megan and the conservation commission are working to expedite the repair project. As many of you know, it's been closed because of sink holes. We did some investigation with an engineer and found that there's significant burring on the dam to include beavers and other rodents. So we
closed the pathways. We have quoted out emergency repairs, which would be taking concrete and sand and filling those holes. And we're also removing the the Beaver Lodge in in the Beaver and then expediting the first phase of the repair project for
the Cranberry Bog Dam, which is not informed by the hydrarology studies to get that out to bid. And then once the hydraology study is finalized, the second phase of the repair, as you remember, was was a welltalked about topic not so long ago. It was the MBTA
communities before the MBTA communities. Then uh the commission is going to consider all of these things. So I'm just keeping you up to speed on on significant conversations that are happening with the dam with your conservation commission. We talked tonight about the annual town meeting date and you took our recommendation for
May 17th and 19th for the annual town meeting for select board scheduling and you received this from your chair and based off your feedback and giving you a tiny tiny bit of a break. There's only one meeting in November scheduled right now, November 18th. And we've adjusted your
December schedule for the holidays on the 1st and third Tuesdays, assuming there's no additional feedback. This allows us to continue to meet key reporting dates like your tax classification hearing and the budget draft without um without overloading you based on a heavy town meeting season.
>> There's no 11th and there's no 25th. >> Correct. >> Okay. I'm also recommending that town hall be closed on December 24th, 26th, and January 2nd. These are two half days and a full day for um two holiday days. We have assessed that there would not be
enough staff here to provide ade adequate services on those dates, nor would we have the foot traffic to justify it. So, we're recommending this as the select board's holiday gift. Uh usually you give a day or something. So, this was the this is what we're recommending to you for this year. Do we
need to vote on that, Ryan, or >> you just need to say that you're not going to be mad at me for doing it? >> I think we I've already given that feedback. Um, >> letting you know we're doing it, and if you have an issue, we can certainly talk about it. >> Okay. >> Arm wrestle. >> Uh, our elevator modernization project
is out to bid. We've already we've already received feedback on filed sub bids. We're we're still right on budget. The final bids are due on the 17th and we'll make sure to let you know promptly and start that project promptly once we can. We have scheduled dates for the brick
building HVAC installation with Boston Mechanical who won the bid for that project and they're working closely with our facilities department which is good. the all bathroom renovation um IFB is out for bid currently and will be considered at the end of the month and
that's important because of some of the the flooding as you remember which seems like a long time ago. It was only a couple weeks. The cemetery commission is working working great on the mapping for SIMS and other cemetery investigations. So that's ongoing
and I drove all of the supplemental road maintenance that happened. Berry Corner Lane is mil. Feeasant Hill Lane is mil and graded. Just waiting for binder coats on all those. We're just waiting for the top coats. And then Actton Street will be the next mill and mill
and fill as they say. That'll happen in the next two weeks. So those will be finalized. We've gotten signs and communicated with the schools to make sure people know people know that's coming. For CPA projects, the Bant Davis track rehabilitation, as you know, came in under bid and is almost complete.
Just finalizing some work there that was being done today, finishing the fence and filling in gravel around around the new asphalt. I'm working with the Diamond Park study group to finalize contracts. This would give us a design for potential ask on the rehabilitation of Diamond Park.
No new information on several of our studies. And we talked about the the uh building projects, the fire station renovation tonight, which you received your revised cost estimate, and that'll be a significant part of our town meeting agenda. While there's no update on the DPW
building, you did say that you wanted to include something about the DPW project in your presentation. So, that should be a discussion point at your next meeting, what what to discuss there. You know, the upcoming topics because we've been discussing them a lot. personnel policies, tax classification
hearing, and starting the FY27 budget, which seems like a lot when you're dealing with a special town meeting, but we'll get there, I promise. And then you have to evaluate me on all this work. We've approved some some signs. You'll see them in the Rotary. Uh, one I have to talk about tonight, which was in the
packet, is >> Tim Downing. >> Tim Downing's request, right? He's asking for for dates that would allow for one week three signs in the Rotary which violates your policy. >> So, we're asking you whether or not you would like to violate your policy and
allow three signs for that week or if we're limiting to just two. >> Is that because >> two others have already been approved? >> No, but he the idea is he he thinks some people won't see the sign if there only
two out there. >> There's already two out there. He wants to add a sign. Allow two signs in there. >> I I understand that part, but Oh, he wants to add one just for that week >> just for this um the week of November 3rd. >> Is that right? >> One of the weeks that he wants signs out
would create a third sign. So if we we either limit when he can go out, his group can go out, not him. >> We'd already approved two other groups to go out, Ronnie. >> Oh, that same week. >> That same weekh. So it's just, you know,
>> Got it. So it's allowing them to to keep their sign out there even though there are other groups. >> Yes. >> Well, the upside. >> I guess it's more safety, right? I mean, is it >> that's the downside is >> fine with the police department or um
>> it's it's your call. >> It's I don't see >> I don't see it as a problem. >> It's a pretty small sign, too, the one they have out there. >> 18 by 24 or something like that. So >> I I would move >> Yeah. Can I make a motion? >> Yeah, it's right here. >> Sure can. Oh, I didn't see it. >> Yeah, here.
>> Oh, thank you. >> Page 40. >> I move to approve the request of Timothy Downing on behalf of the Carile Conquered Carile Foundation to place two signs around the Rotary the week of November 3rd. >> Second.
>> So, he's placing Sorry, uh, quick discussions. He's placing two signs or one sign? one sign which makes three signs because there's three groups. But >> it said two signs two in the motion. >> Oh, two. Yeah. His two signs would add to the other signs that are out there.
>> So there'll be five signs out there. >> Yeah. Three other groups, you mean? Or two other groups? >> All right. So there's three spots, three islands in the Rotary, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Um people put different numbers of signs >> and we can do two at each post. >> Two organizations at once as long as
they don't go crazy >> at each point. >> Yeah. So, six total signs and he wants to use two of those three sign. Okay. >> So, there'd be three in two of the items. >> Okay. Got it. >> Got it. Okay. >> This is why you delegated this. It's tedious. We tried. >> And this is Yeah. Okay. That's my discussion point. All right. Do you want
to take a vote? >> We need a second, right? >> We had a second. >> Oh, we did. Okay. >> Any further discussion? Let's do a voice vote. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Great. Hey, let me just raise one thing on this, but are we going to put a sign
out out there before town meeting like we usually do >> to say town meeting is November 2nd? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that won't be a problem to add yet another sign. >> No, we we can violate our own policy. Okay. >> And just put his sign behind our sign.
>> There you go. Okay. >> Let's say where they're going to go. >> We we'll move it around the rotary so it's not in the rotary. >> Yeah. Okay. Digital billboard. Here's >> some staff recognition. Oh, please roofing looted around town. And you >> So, I'd like to recognize Jen Gier for
um and I'm just going to read her fellow employees recognition that was sent to me. So, Jen is always willing and ready to step in whenever an issue arises. During the town hall plumbing emergency, she immediately ran to the fire station for towels, helping to contain the water damage. She assisted with a uh employee
empowerment event by relocating into another room so a land use meeting could continue uninterrupted. When asked to send a message to a group email, something that hadn't been done before, she quickly figured it out, ensuring it was done correctly and even remove recipients who no longer wish to receive. So, these are all examples of
how Jen goes above and beyond. This isn't in her job description. She's team player. She works downstairs. So, she's exposed to a lot more um issues because people go to the first face and and we're lucky to have her be one of the first faces because of the way she helps our residents and sets a nice warm tone
for the delivery of services here. And also like they wanted to remain anonymous, so I can't say their names, but there was a group of people who helped clean up the conquered river with other towns. Uh one of the greatest parts working here is that that people volunteer this way. So, this group was not only on land, but sea in kayaks. uh
cleaning up the river. Just want to recognize them for their efforts. A lot of this stuff gets done without people noticing. It was a lot of people. I said, "I'm going to put your names out there and they said no." And they do it every year. So, that's pretty cool. And uh there's an agenda for you to review and we put a list of your
upcoming meetings in the report as well. And that is my succinct report. >> Great. >> Okay. >> Um >> thanks for catching us up. Warrant and minutes approval. >> Yes,
>> we had um minutes of September 16th, 22nd, and 23rd. Someone want to make a motion to approve? >> I move to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion remain seconded. Any discussion?
All in favor of approving those minutes from the 16th, 22nd, and 23rd. >> I voice vote. Thank you. >> Okay, this is the secret last. >> Uh, leison reports. Does anyone have any mission critical liaison reports that we haven't covered off on tonight?
>> If they do, I can't remember. >> Okay. Um, cemetery deeds. We have our very own Gordon Means. Um, so we have two we have a couple deeds. I don't know if we want to make a motion on >> yet. Is one of these the correction?
Yeah. Here. Okay. That's a different one. >> Do we have anything to sign? >> All right. >> I don't if it's not in there. I don't. >> Should we do these then or should we just wait till we sign them? >> We can approve them and then sign them. >> Let's do the motion. >> I move to transfer land in the public
burial ground at the Green Cemetery described as follows. Deed 857 to William Gordon Means and Lee Means. Lot D357. Graves 1 2 3 and 4. And deed 858 to
Charles and Barbara Shippa. Lot D351 graves 1 2 3 and 4. >> Okay. So, let's do that motion. Uh, we got a second. >> Second. >> We'll do a voice vote. All in favor? I >> opposed.
Now we have one administration. >> So there's a correction, you know, which um Gretchen I mean uh yeah, Gretchen told us about or wrote about >> the last time. Um so I move that we accept the return of deed 562 for lot
D177 graves 1 and two from Parkman How made retroactively effective from May 25, 2021. >> Second. Second. >> We'll do a voice vote. All in favor? >> I
>> opposed. Great. And lastly, we'll offer uh any community input. It's late. No. Thank you for staying on, Christina, Eric, Mary Lynn, Ryan.
Um do we take a motion to adjurnn? So moved. >> All in favor? Voice vote. I opposed. Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Excellent.