Good. >> Hey Tony, you're you guys are muted. I can't hear anything. >> Can you hear us now? >> I can hear you now. you got you guys dropped off um and we totally lost you for a second there and when you came
back you guys were on mute so >> all right thanks Wayne >> no >> no problem there'll be a little bit of a hole in the notes but >> the now in talking with residents of the district you know yesterday and a little
bit today because I'm busy doing the work that should have been done by you the proponents of this change. You know, one was very curious to ask that to mention that about a year and a half ago, you sent them a mailing telling
them about the rules, you know, please follow the rules, but you have not sent them a mailing inviting them to participate on this. >> We haven't done that, Anna. >> Well, someone told me that they received it. So, you know, I'll give their address. Yeah. >> So, I I have really big issues with you
blur that line. You you talk historic preservation and architectural preservation as one thing and they're not. And that is the reason why the APDC was created is because that is a difference. And the intention of the bylaw was to have that that line to
exist. It's the two things are not the same. I worry a lot the the in order to challenge any historical commission decision, you have to go to superior court. >> So any any if you decide to do to a
resident what you did to the rider building when the town wanted to replace windows, any resident will have to write a $10,000 check in order to get that heard in in Superior airport just to change the windows. then you deny the town to do it and then they had to come
back they had to hire new new architect and that went on. So the these two things are not the same. Um the failing to notify residents is really my biggest issue. It's that's not how we do things
in Littleberg. We really we tried we the Mr. Carl Luck had a heart attack in the workshop that they were having with slapboard. It's true. >> True. >> And >> Paul saved him. >> Yeah. That there was a heart attack on
town hall many years ago from a workshop that was happening of the Slack board with other members. So um furthermore, you know, as I learned, you've been discussing these changes with town council and you have been requesting for
him to do the work outside open meeting. Many times town council have joined public meetings to discuss proposal bylaw changes and new bylaws and that's done in public meeting. You have been doing that with town council outside the
public's view. I don't know what's been said. I don't know what your intention is but you know hopefully I'll be getting that because I did request a a record public records request and and that's the thing. This is the first time I believe that these two bodies are
discussing your proposed change in a open meeting and that's shameful that you have not invited the the residents of this district to participate. So I think this needs to be pulled. I think we need to engage in a process that
involves the residents and I shouldn't be the one responsible for that. You should. You are the government, not me. I shouldn't be spending my Sunday knocking on my neighbor's door to tell them about what you're doing because this is the first one the first open
meeting that you're having that where you're actually discussing the language. So this is this is >> that's true that part is true though and >> everything I have said >> so I haven't had any language to discuss public meeting >> and you have not engaged the public to see what is the if the public the
residents of this district what they would like to do so this this needs to be pulled they this needs to go through a process takes public input period thank you >> I want to hear from the commission
that Um yeah, I guess I'll just keep my comments brief as well, but um you know, having watched this over the last, you know, over a year or so, I watching the meetings, I did see the issue come up and it it came up organically
and I think it did seem like a very simple process. It made sense similar as as you explained earlier tonight. It's just it seems the the the simplicity is, you know, the simple concept appears to
be a much more complex implementation. Uh, like for example, it just popped into my head like it seemed like it was going to be a find and replace like search search for APDC replaced with historical commission and I was and and the the efficiencies I was like yeah of
course but to the point that it needs more public input. The public input I have received since that you know simple review in my mind has made me realize again that it is a very complex uh
situation. So my primary concern is with process and you know and I can see that we are in fact having public discussions now and um I just think proponents and opponents alike both need more time. I
do think it's it's a disservice to all citizens involved uh that the process is what it is. It's and it's and I I know it is well intentioned having watched having watched the previous meetings and
knowing in uh Mr. Scullen and I holding him in the highest regard the town is very fortunate to have his engagement with this in other issues in town. It's just um like I said, it's it's the process. And the and the the irony is
not lost on me that on tomorrow night's agenda for the planning board, there are two separate public I'm sorry, for the slackboard, the uh there's two separate public hearings for uh poll placement, telephone poll placement. So,
the irony is not lost on me and I do think there needs more time. It's a flawed process and I know there's no ill uh regard or effort, but that's my concern basically.
>> Hold on. We're having technical problems here. Can you Are we now unfrozen, William? >> Yeah, you guys are good right now. >> Okay. All right, Caesar. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Let's say >> I I just want to say my my biggest
concern here is if you go back and you watch the meeting where the select board was considering the APDC being created in the first place, what was sold to them. It wasn't so much about the types of materials that were being used. was
the look and the feel and about maintain give this to the historical commission to enforce that the line's just going to be blurred and especially when the appeals process is for residents to go to court. I think some of these I know >> it's much higher
>> these decisions have a serious impact on residents and they need to be really taken seriously. So, I don't know. I just see that it's possible for the scope of the actual bylaw, the architectural preservation district
bylaw to be enforced in a way that's much stronger than it should be, than it was intended to be and for it to have a serious impact on residents. So, that's my concern. And I'm also I'm concerned too about the reasons, you know, we were told it's for a forum. It's easier to
accomplish with a small group of volunteers. I just want to point out you guys have a forum tonight. The historical commission does it. >> That was that was mis that was misconstrued and and I'll say it now.
Hold on. Mrs. Richard, are you um can you join by Zoom? Okay. All right. Do that. Yeah. All right. He's on his way. >> Um, okay. Anything else?
>> No, you were saying something. >> Wait, it was miscon. This is about the efficient use of volunteer time. And I and the more that I think about efficient use of volunteer time, it's like that's what this was supposed to be. All right. Anything
else? >> No. >> Um, anybody online that would like to make a comment? Uh, anybody else? No one else online wants to make a comment. All right. So, that's not up to you there. And then we'll come to Richard's comment. So then when we
convene our meeting, that make more sense for me. >> It'd be great to hear the historical. I haven't heard from the historical. >> Let them we'll do that as part of the the joint meeting. >> We're going to have a joint meeting. >> Okay. >> Which was in his way. >> All right. Well, yeah. So, um I you know, thank everybody from the public
for coming out. I think uh couple things. So this merger of the historical commission and the APBC is kind of one initiative amongst several we've talked about over the last I don't know couple years. >> Yeah.
>> Public meetings. >> Yeah. Public meeting not public hearings though where people are you know flagged and you know specifically invited for this kind of magnitude of decision. Um, I think it's been really useful to to
get other people's opinions on this. And I think what for me it's reinforced is that it was also good by the way to see what a bylaw would look like and to get confirmation that it's not that is like legally feasible. And it was also
valuable to learn you know what some of the implications beyond this the find and replace are like sup uh superior court rather than land court like these if we you know if we didn't take it another step we wouldn't ruin these things but um I think what I'm hearing loud and clear and makes total sense is
we do need a robust public process with a public hearing um you know Anna has suggested and I think it's a good idea that is the genesis of the APDC was in the planning board is sort of part of the overall architecture of planning in
Ludenberg that that might be a good and there's a somewhat more broader you know committee than the APC that they might be a good place to host the the public hearing you know with the APC or otherwise kind of lead that process but I I think we need to we
don't want to rush this I I also think that the kind of feedback we're getting kind of hearkens back to conversations we had which is that um I think there so first of all you know I was involved in the creation of the
original APD bylaw um it was part of the formation of the work's district just for the record in case anyone it was uh you know it's a good bylaw overall it's pretty special in a way in terms of um
what it gives the town government broadly the ability to to do um and what it allows to do in terms in terms of the village district was confidently open up the the uses of the district to a much broader range of commercial and
retail uses with um with a feeling of comfort that the opportunities that might at some time present by that ability um lead to the you know destruction of
that town's historic heritage because of commercial or commercial commercial expedience or interest or whatnot. So it allowed us to do that. I think and as as uh Caesar was saying, I think he really accurately captured the sentiment of the conversations with the
select board, with the planning board, with the historical commission and I think Rebecca Lantry was leading it at the time and then with town meeting which was you know um there are many people on the planning board when that the plane board introduced us who are
yeah deeply committed to uh historical preservation and interested. I think well I don't think I know we were also however as uh Anthony was saying understanding the difference Phil sorry Phil how >> my problem is
>> understanding the difference between conquered and Lunenburgg you know and part of it is you know the the wealth you know how much these houses sold for and the wealth of the people who live in them and what they're capable or not capable of. Um and so that that bylaw
was not easy to pass and it was passed by balancing these interests of making sure that um the scope of what the bylaw did was not going to create undue difficulty or cost or hardship on the
residents or even on the town for that matter is because our town isn't exactly loaded you know as far as like uh is preserving these buildings. So, I think that where I'm at is totally agree. Number one, what what's been said about getting a public process and getting
input cuz it probably won't pass town meeting anyways if people don't feel like they're being heard and that'll just create arguments that nobody needs to have and people do need to be heard because we're going to learn stuff. And secondly, my personal feeling is that um
if we are able to address some of the I think we've learned a lot operating the APDC operating the AP yeah operating the APDC over the last several years in terms of what works well in the bylaw and what is causing causes problems or
disagreements uh and in and I think we have a pretty good opportunity to fix that. I I took on the responsibility of uh drafting some changes. I have not done that yet. So that that that bad is on me as I was reviewing this bylaw change yesterday.
I was kind of doing that in my head made some notes. And I actually think the changes might be quite small that are needed to imps that folks have off the table and uh and you know address things about the
expediency and and whatnot of the bylaw. So, I think that's doable, but I think we have to do those things. And I also think I I think if we can do that and continue to continue to show that this committee works really well and that and improve it well show it that it can work
that it's working good and that that we're committed to making it better. I think then then this issue could be revisited. I do think the concern I mean I'm very proud of the number historical committee. Um, none of the stuff we have would be here if it wasn't for the dedication of the
historical committee. It would have gotten taken down for for one reason at some not everything, but they've done a lot of good good work. I also think though that it's fair to be concerned that, you know, you want people on the historical committee who are passionate about advocating for that for a
historical preservation perspective. And as Anna was saying, this this the APD, although it certainly has a kinship with historical preservation by preventing buildings from historical buildings from being demolished, um it's not it's a much uh more balanced
process with other considerations in the town. At the same time, weirdly, it's probably the most powerful to powerful or more powerful than any tool the historical preservation committee has. And I think there's legitimate concern that if you take the the valuable passion of the historical committee and
combine that with the potential power of the APDC, we could be in a place that is not a good comfortable fit for sort of something that approaches consensus both in the village center and the rest of Lunenburgg for kind of managing this process. So, the last thing I would want
to happen is see this this change pass under the cover of night and people find out and be unhappy or have it not work out. And the next thing that would happen is people want to repeal that APD bylaw because that we wouldn't have
passed it without balancing the interests of residents and you know making their lives livable with the also important interests of preserving the you know the character of
the of the town. Um, so long and short to sum up, I appreciate your efforts to move this forward because I don't think you get to this level of discussion without somebody carrying the ball forward. And thank you so much for doing that, Anthony. But I think the responsible thing to do right now is to
uh begin planning a process with the select board and the planning board to uh have robust public discussion leading into May meeting. >> You done? >> Yeah. First of all, I take great offense to the comments, Anna, that you've made
that I've been deceitful because as far as I know that this has been a publicly discussed item in both the select board format and it has been a part of the agenda for the
APDC for the last two years. The second thing that I will say is that the bylaw doesn't change folk and the bylaw for the architectural preservation district commission is actually more restrictive than the authority that
a historic commission has and if we and if we didn't have a APD and a and a bylaw associated with architectural preservation district you will be dealing with the commission, the historic commission,
but they would be having to follow the rules that the state governs historic districts by. So, you know, from a standpoint of the mechanics of what the amendment was, this bylaw, the architectural preservation district bylaw, for
example, can allow the architectural preservation district to tell a property owner he can't tear his building down if he wants to, whereas outside of this part architectural preservation district, a historic commission can't do that.
um you know so there and and that's what we've tried to maintain is that you know there there needs to be a sense of reasonleness. We need to have a sense of bringing the volunteers in this town who care about historic preservation to the table to
discuss about issues that take place within the district as well as outside the district. And then lastly, I look at the select board and say there's if there's been some some failure on communication with the residents, it
hasn't been with the architecture preservation district commission because when Anna sent that email to you all at the architecture or at the select board, I said, "Are you going to address this?" And had the select board embraced that
email from her as well as the email from me, the town wouldn't have spent an extraordinary amount of money with town council to come up with a bylaw that's probably now not going to go before the citizens for a vote. And that's a
failure on the part of the select board. >> So, I'm just going to say we pay town council a flat rate. No extra money has been. >> Okay. Well, I'm I I am I am glad to hear that, but the but there still has been that failure. And in fact, when we met
with town council, when I met with town council, which is part of the process, >> which I have discussed at a public forum at these meetings every month, Anna, I have not tried to hide the fact that >> council is usually invited to the public
meeting. You messed up. >> No, I I follow I follow the town's prescribed. In fact, the town council was not allowed to move out on this until we voted and the historic commission voted last fall that said
we'd like to pursue a a merger and and that's a public meeting. That was a public discussion. There are meetings that reflect that and I I don't know how else I can proceed to communicate public information. And once again, that's the
reason why I take offense at your comments that I have been I have been deceitful. >> But perhaps you'd like to explain them then under the purpose the very first paragraph for the purpose of this bylaw, the ABDC bylaw. This bylaw is enacted
under the home rule amendment of Massachusetts constitution for the purpose of as it currently reads. It reads preserving, restoring, protecting groups of of architectural significant buildings.
Your proposed change eliminates architectural and adds the words historical. >> I I >> And hold on, I'm not done. Okay. So So I need So when I look at the changes that you were making, which outside the
process again, I am against this because it blurs the line. Phil who has experience in Lunberg. He's an architect has experience in Lunberg and conquered. He sees that difference. He spoke of those difference. So when you eliminate the word architect and leave
historically there, that has nothing to do with the merger than increase the oversight. So you take it offense, you know, I I'm not even sorry. It's part of life. People get offended, you know. So all I can ask you
is do better because I have been asking for public input from that very first email that I sent which was in April and you never replied to me and said >> I've always >> I've always replied to you Anna >> can I finish my sentence because if you
do you you will hear what I said. >> Okay. >> You never replied to me and said Anna how can we do this public engagement? I would have been help happy to help you. That never help. So I don't I cannot reconcile what you say your actions. I
seen public town council in public meetings advising committees on how to do things. I have not seen town council here to do that. You you I believe you have had him here when there was a change that Carter wanted to do but not
to discuss this and what the purpose what the consequences are on the residents. So if you're interested on engaging the the community, let me know. I'll help you with that. I was knocking on doors yesterday. Did a little bit today. Might go to do more tomorrow. >> Okay. Anything else?
>> No, but if you're going to address me, I will address you back. >> All right. I I just want to say we don't have to all point fingers at one another. Okay. Like we can we can do this respectfully. I truly disagree with you on the substance of this bylaw
change, but I do not believe that you have acted deceitfully in any way. Okay, Tony. I believe that you're trying to do what you believe is best for the work that you do in town. >> Thank you, sir. >> Hold on. And I also want to say it's not
the select board's role to hold public hearings on all of this. And I think you got the draft at a time where it was unfortunate where that probably wouldn't happen soon enough for certain people of the public to be happy with it. That's just kind of the reality. You only got
it a couple weeks ago. I want to go back to what Nathan said because I think especially now with the bylaw review committee, you do have a pretty good opportunity here to address some of these concerns because Anna has kind of drum up a lot of support. And I'll say
there's a lot of concern and fear that residents in the district have about what this might potentially do. And I don't think it's so much in substance. I think people just don't really have good feelings about APDC right now. So, I think you really need to address some of
these concerns and listen to the public more about what they feel about the bylaw overall, not just about the merger. So, I I voted and I made the motion to put this on the warrant because I do believe that if you want to propose it and you want to bring it to
town meeting, it deserves to have an opportunity to go to town meeting. But at the same time, I don't think this is a healthy conversation and this is just going to be what's going to happen on town meeting. I I I I agree with that and I think that you know the one thing that's that is most unfortunate and I
tried to prevent this from happening Caesar is that we got the change less than 3 weeks ago. It came it came from town council to the to the town manager on October 3rd. I did not see it
until October 4th. I did not have a chance to talk with time counsel and the time manager and you until I think October 5th or 6th, you know. So, while I would I would agree that we should have had more time to discuss this issue
and and in fact that's one of the reasons why I didn't want to participate in a discussion at the select board last week because we have not had a chance to discuss this in public. you know, public hearing, public
meetings, which this is, you know, there's there's a I don't I think that some issues clearly warrant a public hearing. You know, does the school committee have a public hearing every time there's something that's controversial? No. They have their public meeting. And I think that we have
been open and honest in discussing this item for almost two years. and and for us to, you know, for it to be perceived that we haven't embraced public input is not true. I mean, and once again, Anna,
I didn't see that. And if you and and once again, this is a this is a Democrat. Listen, I didn't see the change in the amendment until October 4th or 5th, you know. So, and that's one of the reasons why we're having this discussion
>> and we don't know the conversations. See, this is the diff the problem. We don't know the conversations leading to that. >> Anna, the conversations that that led to that are the public conversations we've had in this in this group for the last year and a half.
>> I'll just add to that. You know, I' I've really been reminded this past week that when you are so involved in town government, you forget that there are people who probably they vote, maybe they tune in every now and then, but they really just want to say, "I elected
these people. They're doing their job. I don't have to pay attention to everything. I will know when something really important comes up." And we didn't mean there is some merit to, you know, potentially notifying residents of of changes like this. So now they're
finding out and you know people are panicking because they didn't know. They weren't paying attention. So I don't know. I I think sometimes maybe you do really need to just send out a notification like that. >> So now I have to understand when we have a public hearing versus a public maybe I
and I'll I'll I'll look at the requirements for public hearings and public. >> Well sometimes like I will sometimes say you know public hearing and I know there's a legal definition to that. you have to publish a notification. >> But I mean, I think sometimes it kind of the lines get blurred. Like if you did
send out notices to everyone in the town informally and put it in the the Lunberg ledger letting people know that at this meeting this is what will be discussed. It may not fit the parameters as defined by law, but you're still engaging the you know directly engaging the public.
So sometimes where I'm new to this whole game, I say that public hearing. I really probably should say seeking public input or something. a little more informal. >> The best place to get public input is especially with time that meeting because that's where it really counts. >> Well, that's see and that gets back to what's exactly happening here. One of
the fundamental concerns is that's why I think the proponents as well as opponents want more time is because sometimes I feel government does pit all of us against each other and that that is exactly what's playing out here and we could potentially after having
effective communications with one another in theory we could all agree or come up with a compromise. So I think sometimes in government's rash movements causes unnecessary conversations just like is happening here and I would just
hate for that to happen when we're predicting that it will happen at town meeting floor and it's no benefit for the proponents. >> Okay. Um do we have to close this discussion in order to have a joint meeting?
>> No, you can give you're already called to order. They will need to >> Okay. So, cuz I want to get the historic commission perspective. Should I meet Should I take minutes for the historical commission for this? >> Yeah. We will have to do it separately. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> So, call to order historical commission meeting. This seems to be a lot more complicated to me than than what we intended. We were just going to have a trying to streamline uh the commissions. Um
the historic commission has over the last uh 15 years has had a lot of trouble getting a quorum. Um so we've missed a lot of meetings and it's really slowed down the work of the commission. Um by merging with the APDC we thought
that um we would have plenty of people to staff the commissions and uh and the work would be able to get done maybe even have more than the uh we used to have seven members but we could never get a quorum with seven through the winters. It was
really difficult. So, we cut it down to five members, um, which made it a lot easier to have three people show up than than, um, four. Um, so, uh, that was our purpose for,
uh, the merger. Um, they pretty much do the same, uh, work. Um and we thought that it would be um beneficial to the town to have uh have the uh two commissions join together. Um
that that was simply that was that was my intention and uh and from my discussions with Tony that was his intention too. Um didn't need to be a compliment complicated thing. Mr. Laxo, did you have any comments?
>> Well, not really. Uh, except uh I've heard quite a bit about the public being not in not informed and so forth, but I also agree that uh the information has been out there. Um,
they just don't read it and uh don't absorb it. But uh in so far as the historical commission is uh involved, we go by the book. We prepare our minutes for every meeting. They're submitted to town clerk and uh you know
from there they posted uh online for anyone to see. We're wide open. Nothing's done behind the doors. >> No further comments. Can I ask a question of the historical commission? >> Yeah. >> So, if this were to pass, you guys would be responsible for enforcing the
architectural preservation bylaw. You guys reviewed that and really familiarized yourself with it and what's contained in it. >> The architect? Yes. I'm uh the historical commission appoints a a member to the APDC. So, right. >> Um it's reported back all the time. Yes.
>> And other members. Kevin, do you know um are you familiar with the APDC bylaw? >> Um I could probably take another look at it. I I would I would take another look at it. >> Yeah, it's not something we deal with.
So, it's not uh current. Becky Lantry, the former chair of the historical commission, myself were appointed to the uh planning board uh during the decision of the uh um uh forming the village bylaw
and the APC uh bylaw. So, we were instrumental in helping forming that with the historical perspective on it. >> Okay. and they developed the uh nomination for the national historic
district which is the divine line of the architectural preservation district. So they have a lot of familiarity with that process. >> So it's extremely important to preserve um the bylaw pretty much as it is in order to protect
the National Historic District. That's why it was formed. That's why the APDC was formed to protect the uh architectural preservation district, the National Historic District um from development
or wise development. >> Richard made a comment about quorum and that was one of the things that was driving his organization's you know desire for more. That's not mine. Yeah, I understand that one. And you know, and like I'm I'm an engineer, you know, and
I like to do things in the most efficient way possible. And I thought, you know, you got a group of people over here that know about historic preservation and they're very familiar with assets within the architectural preservation district. And then you have, you know, people like myself who've had some experience with
architectural or with historic preservation um before I came here. And it's kind of like, well, you know, they got a porn problem. You know, I I want to see us operate more efficiently. Let's bring the talents together to do the work under the bylaw that doesn't
change with a consolidated group. You know, one of the undercurrents that I have sensed, and this is this is an opinion comment, is that there's this fear that somehow the historic commission is going to create a
miserable life for property owners within the architectural preservation district. And if you if we continue to follow the bylaw, that shouldn't be the case. Now
individuals can always gum up the works you know but I also believe that the group of people who are involved in historic preservation on the historic commission side and those of us who've been involved on the architectural preservation district side I think that
we sense that there are limitations to enforcing historic preservation with property owners. I mean, property rights are pretty pretty sacred in this country, and I don't sense that's anything different for the historical commission as it's been for us as
members of the architectural preservation district commission. You know, I don't have I like I really like I we thought that this was something that made good business sense for the government of the town of Lunberg. If
people feel like it doesn't, so what? you know, we'll just not present the warrant and we'll continue to operate in a stove fight fashion with a historic commission trying to meet their their their required charter and the architecture preservation district
commission trying to meet reach our charter. I think it's silly, but if that's what the town wants, then you know, let the votes be what they are. The select board can choose not to put the warrant before the uh before the town. If it does, people like Anna, Mr. Rogers, you all can vote against it cuz
that's the democratic way of operating in small >> to vote here first because you know >> No, we are we're going to get to that. Yeah, we are going to get to that. >> This has not been again. >> Yeah, we're going to get to that. But I but it's just like you know that was I want to make it perfectly clear that
there were pretty good reasons why we thought this made sense. But if people don't think it does, then you know, let the votes be counted. >> Yes, Mr. practice. >> Um, if I could, I respectfully disagree
um with some of the things that you've said and I'm going to be as subtle as a train wreck. I feel that it's in your eyes easier to sell this concept
um by adding the uh historical district because who doesn't like the historical perspective and it's they do good things. Okay. So I I looked at it from that perspective and if I've offended somebody, I'm sorry, but that's how I
feel. And um having having uh gone through this and having the the last house in the district, uh it just uh you know um it does not abode very
well with me. Okay. And anybody that wants to drive by and see, you know, my wife does a good job. I don't do squat, okay? But she does a nice job. Okay? So now you don't have to rest. >> Okay. Um
>> I have one more comment. Um, I I've uh been on the commission for uh maybe 25 years now and a lot of times I've been holding it together, not necessarily wanting to be on the commission that long. Um,
but for lack of members, um, I thought the commission was important for the town and to and to hold it together. Um but I think that without the merger that it um the historical commission might be in danger of um uh not being not being
able to function and that would be a shame >> because the assets that we have in this time they're worthy of being monitored and managed and uh you know I think that's a legitimate concern that the historic commission has. What I'm saying
is is I'd like to uh retire from it at some point in the not too distant future and uh I don't know that it'll function well if I am at all. >> And I agree that's a real concern and we definitely need to recruit people so
that the commission can keep going. Um, but you know, I think there's so much more involved with this merger being the solution to your quorum issues that maybe at least in my opinion, I don't know. I mean, we certainly shouldn't do this because the authority commission
needs help with a quorum, right? >> Well, no, it's just one reason, >> right? Yeah. >> Okay. Um, can we have a joint vote? >> Yeah, we can have a joint vote. All right. So, um, we have an amendment
that's been submitted. Um and uh I I will make the motion and then look for a second that we move to approve the amendment as been presented by um the town council through the the town
manager and that um the uh that we would ask the select board to include it in the warrant booklet and that it would recom and that he would reflect that the joint meeting of
the historic commission and the ABDC recommend approval of the warrant. That's the motion. Is there a second? >> I seconded. >> Okay. Any further discussion from the historic commission members? >> I have um I'm sorry. I apologize. I was
late to the meeting. Um what was the uh reasoning the town council had uh for changing architectural to historical? So I will just say that the historical commission is defined by statute by
state law. What you can do and what you can't do as a historical commission is heavily influenced by what is in that state law. Architecture does not explicitly fall under that. So this is my understanding of it. So that word was
struck so that you could potentially know again this is going to have to go to the AG for review and we could potentially pass this and then the attorney general's office says no that's not what a historical commission does you can't do that that's a possibility but the way that it was drafted was to
give you guys the ability to enforce the architectural preservation district bylaw as it's currently written in a way that also aligns with your statute. Yeah, thank you. >> I'm not an attorney, so I try to explain that to the best of my ability, but
understanding of it. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Any other comments from historic commission? >> Okay. >> Uh comments from the Architectural Preservation District Commission. William, I'll go to you first since you're not here. >> Sorry, I had to find the mute button.
Uh, no, no comments to to before we vote. Um, I'll save any other comments for later. >> Yeah, I mean, I don't, you know, given the the pretty extensive feedback we've received
on on this today that, you know, doesn't say no, never, but let's have public discussion, you know, a more engaged public process before we take it to town meeting. I I'm a little baffled why after this conversation the first thing
you do is board a motion to advance it to to town meeting anyways like that seems really tonedeaf honestly and yeah so I I I I strongly if I were to make a motion it would be that we move to
>> you can't make a motion while we have on >> I said yeah if hypothetically I were to make a motion it would be to um and what I will make if we vote this down, which I think we should if we want to look, you know, like we care about public input at all or that we're listening at
all, is that um yeah, that we will ask the select board to remove it from the warrant for this session. That will and then we can begin planning uh a more robust process for as early as May to uh to, you know, engage with the public,
evaluate the proposal. just tonight in this last hour like we've learned some things that we didn't know before including the comment that was just made about you know why did they change from architectural to historical well it turns out the historical committee
doesn't legally necessarily have jurisdiction over architectural what Anna found about well you know these will be adjudicated in the supreme the superior court not in the land court like this is it's good that we're getting this input out now but it's also very clear it. We probably haven't
learned the last thing. We certainly haven't gotten all the public input and uh and I just I don't you know it's do I don't we can either proceed and have tremendous acrimony and people be really upset that you just that we're making
that we'd be making a motion to ram this down people's throats or we can respect the input we've had and understand that we need to deliberate a bit more get people's input and get it to a place where there's greater consensus. So you yourself know like Tony, you just got
this thing from the lawyer's hands two weeks ago and this is like the first substantial conversation about it with the public. So and it's not even the whole public. It's a you know it's a important but small cross-section of it. So I I just think it's madness to
advance this to town meetings especially after the conversation we just had. Seems like kind of a slap in the public's face. >> What was town council's >> Yeah. What did what did he say about it? >> About what? About the issue of architectural?
>> No, about uh about having this merger. >> Um >> right. It was legal. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and he you know his he said I I'm going to try and keep this as simple as possible. >> Yeah. >> You know I'll keep as in fact one of the questions that I had for him was well is
the demo you know prohibition of demolitions still intact? And he says yes it is. and he he read the section to me. I didn't have it in front of me when we had our conversation >> and uh you know so he was trying to make it simple, direct, straightforward.
>> Did he express an opinion about it? >> No, he didn't. >> So you asked him. >> Yeah. I did not ask him for whether he thought this was something we should do or not. >> Right. You asked him if it was it was legal or >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I asked a procedural question.
>> Yes. Yeah. Um maybe I'm wrong, but uh I I I don't think that we have enough You have enough time uh to get this ready for uh the next special town. Is that what you're talking about?
>> Yes. >> Right. It is. Yeah. Yeah. >> It It's okay. There's enough time to get this done. Enough time to put it on the war and bring it to a vote on town meeting. I >> No, no. Special time meeting. Yeah, that's what I mean. >> Yeah. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. I stand correct >> whether or not people are going to think it was properly vetted or that there was enough public input. Yeah, that's totally separate. >> Okay. I I was of the impression uh that that time we had certain time constraints. >> Yeah. And we're still we could still
meet the requirements within the time constraint. >> So I stand correct that I was wrong. >> But it's tight for sure the last week. Please don't tell my wife that I agreed that >> just for reference, we have received five that I know of emails in you with
expressing, you know, concerns about this bylaw moving forward. You know, five five emails uh and I realize, you know, we still have a month a month to go, but that's and what one of which I received while sitting here. >> Where did what did they say?
>> Uh generally not in favor. >> For what reason? I could read them if >> No, just just a general concern. >> It goes back to what I said earlier, which maybe was happening when you weren't here. It's the lack of notice. People feel really surprised by this and there's also a lot of concern about what
it'll mean for their properties if it changes to the historical commission. So, I think there's a lot of unknowns and that people are are just really concerned and anxious about that. >> So, there there isn't any changes if it goes to the historical commission.
It's the same pretty much >> by law. Yeah. Okay. >> That's how that's how Adam led us. That's how we described. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other comments? >> You know, I So, you took issue with me
saying it was deceit, but here you are getting public and pushing this and it's mindboggling. But thanks for allowing me to >> I'm I'm not I'm not pushing this Anna. I'm trying to clear a motion. >> I get that's ex I I want to have a vote
so that we can get input on the table that would lead us to a guiding to a point where we can step off to some place to the next step. >> They need to decide if they're going to move forward. >> Yeah. I mean, we we we voted, you know, almost two years ago to to pursue the
merger and apparently no one was paying attention to us then, even though those were all public meetings. Even though that was re, you know, referenced in in meetings we had in a larger forum. >> All right. So, any other comments or questions? All right. So, we have to
make one. >> So, we're we're voting on this tonight. >> We're voting to bring this to the special town meeting which is coming up >> and then that will be presented >> uh to what the select board and then or the people there and
>> everyone will have a chance to make have discussion there about it. Correct. >> And it won't necessarily pass there, but >> it'll just give us another chance to >> um >> get some input. >> Get some more input. Okay. >> So, so if I vote no on this, then it will
disappear and we'll go back to our favorite ways and we'll either work on it or we don't. And if I vote yes for this, assuming we have a yes vote, then we'll go to that and then it won't necessarily pass if if enough people aren't in favor of it, we'll just
receive input. >> Yeah. The thing to keep in mind, it's not quite that that simple is if you vote no. >> Yeah. It means that if we want to move this forward, we can engage in a confidence inspiring public process where there's more extensive
notification of the public >> so that we can have a more engaged discussion of it. >> Ultimately, whatever path it goes, it's going to have to go to town meeting. >> If we go to town meeting, which we know the attendance of is not I mean, some people just can't carve out four hours of their life exactly
>> to sit through town meeting. So, it's not necessarily the best form, especially for people in in Town Center. >> Yeah. >> Uh I mean that that's that's I mean I I I mean fun fact, I mean Americans care a lot about cost of living and expenses right now. People are squeezed including
people in the town center district. And so the idea of you know, you know, I just I would not plow forward to to town meeting thinking, oh, you know, they can just come there if if what you know, whatever. I think I think based on the
feedback we've had and the fact that people I mean I don't think the lead port has a ton of email from residents. So getting getting five in one day and probably all from the district which is maybe >> a few hundred people
is worth noticing about people. It's you know very small percentage of people take time to engage. So that's a big deal when we see something like that. So I think the right message if we want people to trust the APC, we want people to trust the bylaw is to say no on this
and then say yes on a less rushed, more open and engaging process. Like that is what people who want to be respected by people in the district they are governing would do. >> Okay. Any other comments? have to do a
roll call vote. Richard, >> oh I do have one more comment. It you know we haven't had a discussion about the language of the changes uh except for broad strokes. So I you know that would need to be discussed as well but Richard >> I
you need to do you need to do separate votes. Okay. >> Are you taking a vote for the APDC or >> Go ahead. >> Richard historical commission vote for this amendment. Do I have to make a separate motion? >> Yes, I would do this separately. So, the MPDC make a motion. Seconded. You do a
roll call. >> All right. Then I'll since I since I did my motion, I will call for a vote. Richard, >> I >> Nathan, >> no. >> William, >> I for myself. So the APDC
recommends that this merger move forward as a recommended approval for special town meeting on November 18th. Okay. Now you have to do a motion for the >> There's a motion. Can I simplify that? >> Sure.
>> Um I make a motion that uh we approve the uh warrant for the merger of the APDC and historical commission. Is that covered? >> Yes, that's fine. There used to be a second.
>> Is there a second there? >> Well, in favor for uh Kevin. >> Um, >> sorry. I I I don't know. we have done. >> Okay. Uh >> free. >> Yeah. Um
>> I mean, originally I was going to vote yes, but I mean after hearing the public uh input tonight, I'm not sure if uh I'm going to have to go in for right now. >> Okay. Just just relax. I'm sorry. You're a vote.
I'm in favor. Yeah. >> Two eyes, one nay. Passes. >> Okay. All right. Um let's conclude our joint meeting. >> We have to do a roll call to get out. >> I have to have a motion and >> motion to adjourn. Um this commission
meeting. All in favor? >> I. >> And then uh I need a motion for ABDC to adjourn the joint meeting. And then um I don't believe >> you don't need to adjourn >> adjourn a joint meeting. >> No, you're in your own meeting.
>> Okay. All right. So um >> if you're have any other >> is I was going to say is there is there any other public comment about APDC meeting uh uh business this evening? >> Any any >> was that on your agenda?
>> Yep. Public comment. Sorry. >> Um, >> I I guess um I believe you're all working constructively. >> Thank you. >> I believe you're all working in good faith. I believe you've heard um
I haven't been, but you're hearing things that are of concern to you and I I think it's it's instructive that you respect this. Um I I I believe you're working with good faith. Thank you, Phil. Okay. Any other
public comment? >> Yeah, I am baffled that you moved and you voted yes despite all the concerns you heard today and you keep pushing. So, so your actions don't match what you tell me your intentions are. It is hard
for me to trust that. So, >> okay. Um, our next meeting, our next is there any other comments? Go ahead. >> I I just would like to thank everybody. It's just amazing getting involved with local government like that and seeing the anguish in people's faces making
these very difficult votes. And I really, you know, being in that same situation myself, you know, recently, I really appreciate everybody volunteering and subjecting yourselves to this, you know, essentially anguish. And I think, you know, Mr. Lwood made the most sense
in his presentation. And I commend him for you know having the the uh this the minority opinion and uh but really you know I do hold you in the highest regard Mr. Scaldry and all of you and you know thank you for the input and you know
moving forward this we'll we'll make this better somehow. I just I do appreciate everybody you know putting the time in on on this issue as much as we don't but may agree. >> Okay. Um, our next meeting is the 13th
of November. Is that anyone have a anyone have a problem with the 13th of November? Good. >> William, you have a problem with the 13th of November? >> I don't believe so. I think I should be all right. >> All right. Great. Um, anything else needs to come before us? I'm looking for
a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. Thank you, Richard. Second. >> All right. Um, all those in favor? Uh, Richard? Hi >> uh Nathan. >> Hi >> William. >> Hi. >> And myself says hi. We're good.
>> To do with the volume for example. Do you want to adjust it? Send it to >> All right. Thank you very much for everybody for participating. We do >> what?