[Music]
town meeting member precinct 4. Let's go. Aaron. Aaron. Aaron. We weren't called to order, so you didn't really have to add the precinct. Okay. All right, folks. And I'm going to I'm going to explain the delay in a minute,
but the uh the town clerk has notified me that we have a quorum present. So, I declare the meeting is open for business. Uh let me explain the delay. Uh I think as you know we're under an unusual circumstance where we have uh two articles five and six uh uh similar
approach to be if they were passed to be filed with the state but with a very different uh minimum circumstances of the 10% versus the 25%. There has been a move today among some of the uh parties, the planning board and the select board
and town council etc. to see if in fact and I think we had Richard Wells uh make a a suggestion about this the other night to see if in fact we could merge those two articles. If in fact we could uh I know just as a town meeting member
and your interim moderator I think that would have saved us a lot of time and might have made things uh more simple. we have just concluded it's we're not going to be able to do it. So my apologies for the delay. It was a worthwhile effort. I think I think it would have been helpful. So now we are
back uh considering article six. And before we start I want to recognize the chair of the select board for a couple of comments and then I'm going to explain how we get this uh discussion going again. Thank you Mr. Moderator and thank you everyone for your patience.
Uh, I, as you may remember, cut my remarks very short yesterday in the perhaps naive hope that we could be done in one night. So, I want to take a few moments to just recognize some of the people that make everything possible. I want to start with the warrant committee under the leadership of Tom Caldwell,
Karen Bosworth, the whole team. We're really grateful for their work. They uh did really above and beyond on this one, as you know, from the green sheets. Uh, but we're very grateful for their support. Um, yeah, please give them a round of applause.
[Applause] I also want to thank our our moderators. I don't know if we've ever had a situation where we can thank both of them, but uh Liz and Brian, you guys have been doing a great job. Thank you. I know that we'll um I'm not going to jinx anything about how we're going to do tonight, but um we really appreciate
um Brian, you stepping in and and Liz, all your work. Um I want to acknowledge uh I want to acknowledge all of our town staff, Nick Milano, uh everybody there. I want to acknowledge Sue Galvin and her fantastic team at the clerk's office
[Applause] and of course Rob and our IT team without whom we would not be able to you know to vote and we're very grateful for that. Milton Access TV and Elaine Kushman Carol your very last maybe day uh
covering a town meeting in Milton. Um, we're we we've really I've enjoyed personally getting to know Elaine uh very much over the course of my time on the select board. She's a real asset and she will be missed. Um, and finally, I want to acknowledge Judy Whan and the janitorial staff who will be cleaning up
uh all all of the things. And I hope that they're not cleaning up too much. I hope everyone's keeping everything really neat. [Music] The last thing, and I I promise I won't I won't make a big thing of this, but today is the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, which is one of
the most important thing conflicts that have has ever happened, certainly in Massachusetts, possibly in the in the entire country. Uh, and at that battle, uh, Dr. Joseph Warren was killed. Uh, if you had don't know about him, I'm not going to belabor the point, but I would
insist that you look him up. He was one of the people that, you know, if not for George Washington, he he was kind of picked to potentially be the first president of this country. He was killed at Bunker Hill bravely at the end of the fight. And I felt it would be fitting on the 250th anniversary of his death um to
read this quote, which I find to be highly relevant to our town meeting. That man is formed for social life is an observation which upon our first inquiry presents itself immediately to our view. And our reason approves that wise and generous principle which actuated the
first founders of civil government. An institution which hath its origin in the weakness of individuals and hath its for its end its strength and security of all. And so long as the means of affecting this important end are thoroughly known and religiously
attended to, government is one of the richest blessings of mankind and ought to be held in the highest veneration. Dr. Joseph Warren. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you folks. A couple of quick remarks. I want
to thank you all. Uh, as we started debate article 5, I made a a plea that you remember we're all neighbors. We may have strong opinions that aren't necessarily in sync on this issue, but certainly could be on the very next issue. I thought the decorum was
generally speaking uh good last night. I want to encourage you to even step it up a little bit more. We're gonna we're going to have some potentially testy moments. And also I want to remind the speakers uh they don't have to repeat
what other speakers have said and today that was one of the complaints I heard uh from town meeting members. [Applause] I think we have agreement on that. Uh and so at anyway let's not we're started late. Let's let's uh get this in gear.
The uh I'm going to do this. I'm going to recognize the original proponents of article uh six because they have some amendments they want to do. Then I'm going to ask the town meeting members that were previously waiting, there about seven of them on both sides to come down. I think they should have the preference. And before we do all that,
we have to make sure our equipment works. So we're going to do just a quick test of your clickers. I'm confused. It's very confirmed [Laughter] It's possible, folks, that that won't be
the closest vote of the night. One other uh just a a housekeeping thing. I um as I was nominated to be interim moderator, the rules and laws require me to be sworn in. I just want to inform the body that the town clerk had sworn
me in earlier last night and it was witnessed and so we're all set. Okay. Do we have the proponents? Yes, we do. Miss Friedman Hannah, you're recognized. Thank you. Uh Karen Freriedman Hannah,
precinct 2. Uh in the presentation that um Dr. Johnson and I did last night, we referenced that there were three simple amendments that were um that we needed to bring forward. Uh we were told that
the green sheets don't get done for a petition like this. So that's why it's being done uh in this format. this. Um, if we could have the first, well, when this is through, we can have the first one up on the screen. That's how I was
told it gets done. And I'll just say while we're waiting, I love you all. Even if we don't agree all the time, you're my neighbors and I love you. [Applause] or at least like
[Laughter] in a little while it'll be uh you're okay. I could dance. I said I said one thing the I said no. Okay, Karen. Okay,
so this is the map that was submitted that you have in your warrant. The only difference is this is the color version because the warrant was printed in black and white and so this is the color version on the website there is the
color version and in the information that we've provided in our slides uh the um URL to be able to get to the presentation it's this color map because uh the grid in the um uh warrant was
only printed in different shades of gray. So, um the motion is to replace the black and white map, Milton 3A and MMU districts map with the attached
Milton 3A and MMU districts map in color. Okay, the motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? It's a motion to amend. We're considering. Seeing none, let's move to a vote.
Oh, pardon me. Let's try that. All those in favor uh with the motion to amend, please signify by saying I. I. Oppose. No. It the
motion carries. Thank you. We'll try to make up some of that time. Okay. If we could have the next amendment up. Um, that is it.
Okay. So, that one. Hold on. That's this one. Um, so this one was literally a typo in the warrant uh in in the when the planning board had done it and then um
it got printed up, it did not get uh the typo did not get corrected. So this is literally just changing the name of a couple of the streets that were supposed to be designated to how it is on the map. Um and so the motion is in section
M Fairmont Station subject district 2 applicability replace Elliot Street with Truman Parkway, Beacon Street Circle, Beacon Street, CA Carlson Road, and Smith Road such that the paragraph
reads, "An applicant may develop multifamily housing on certain parcels with frontage on Truman Parkway, Beacon Street Circle, Beacon Street, Carlson Road, and Smith Road in accordance with
the provisions of this subsection. Again, it's not a change in any way other than that it was not transferred into the um when it was typed in, it was not changed to what it was supposed to be according to the map. Okay. So, we have a motion to amend in front of the
body. Has that been seconded? It's been seconded. Does anyone wish to speak to the motion to avent? Yes, ma'am. You're recognized. Yes. I I just had one question. Um uh are the res Oh, Denny Swinsson, town meeting member, precinct 5. Are the residents of those streets aware of
this? They when it was all of the information that has been presented in the maps are that was what was conveyed. This information is not new in any way. It's what was conveyed in the maps all along
the the time. So anybody who has um had access to that which is the whole town um they have had the correct information. So the mistake was actually in in the motion to present it here to the article. Right.
Yes. Miss MTO, you're you're recognized. Thank you. Roxan Mto, town meeting member precinct 5. I have a question regarding Smith Road. Several residents had reached out to me that live on Smith Road. I would like to have some clarity. If you could bring it up, please show us
where on Smith Road that goes to and to which number um household on Smith Road. These residents wanted to know. I believe some of them were at a um pl a hearing on this, but I would like some clarity for them. Thank you.
Yeah. Can you bring up that map? We You have the maps in Can I def I'm going to ask uh Dr. Johnson to speak on this if that's okay. Moderator. Yes. Mr. Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you. um Kyle Johnson,
uh town meeting member, precinct 10. If it's not too difficult, we could pull back my presentation, um which has a close-up map of that subdist. I would make the case that this might not be in scope for the this particular motion. It might be better to discuss back when
we're discussing the full article. I apologize. I was trying to fix my clock. Is that a question to the moderator? Um, I would make the argument that this is out of scope for the motion and we could, this is something we could discuss with back when discussing the article as a whole. Um, but with permission I could bring up the subdist
map back from my presentation from yesterday. It's in there. Let's let's do that. Okay. So this is a closeup of that subd district that shows um all of those streets. You'll see Smith Road is there and then so those parcels starting in
the yellow. So the first one is 90 90 Smith Road is the um I believe southernmost of this is in the right direction. Thank you. I'm sorry. Roxan must preing five. Just a quick question. So 90 and the numbers go up from there. Is that
correct? It should. That should be correct. Yeah, it is. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion to amend? Karen, did you want to address it again or you all set? No, I'm all set. Okay,
seeing none, let's do another voice vote. All those uh accept the motion to amend uh say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. No. The motion carries. Thank you. We have one more motion to amend.
If we could get the third motion up, that would be wonderful. It has nothing to do with pajamas. Okay, this one um uh is because HLC um came back with a number that was
not correct and they said it had to just be changed from uh 40 to 44. So the motion is I move to amend the motion as follows. In section K, Milton station, Central Avenue station, subdis
subdistrict 5, table of dimensional standards, change the maximum units per acre in east from 40 to 44 such that the table reads um and the one that's changed is under east towards the bottom
instead of the uh 40 it's 44. They said that was just the number um that is the correct number. So that was what we are asking for that to be changed. Okay, the motion's been made and seconded. Does anyone wish to discuss
this motion? Seeing none, we'll do another voice vote. All those in favor say I. Oppose? No. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, folks. So now we're back to where we were last night. I've asked those speakers that
were waiting, there were about se seven speakers that were waiting to join us down the front. I want them to have preference to make their comments, remind you uh to be considerate of of everyone else here and and also to try not to repeat any of the points that
have been made so that we can get uh things moving more quickly. All right, ma'am, you're recognized. I'm sorry. Someone point of order. Yes, sir. What's your point of order? Question. Since we are extending from
last night, is the motion to move still in play? I I can't hear you. Oh, sorry. Travis Gregory, uh, town meeting member precinct 9. Since we are an extension of last night, is the three minute motion to move the
question still in in play? I mean the five minute and five minute. Five minutes per per five minutes per speaker and people with approved presentations can have up to 20 minutes. So yes sir that's correct. I would encourage them to be much briefer than that.
Hi. Hi. I'm gonna Hold on. Oh no, I just All right, folks. Keep in mind I'm kind of a rookie. Uh we actually did not take the vote. There was a discussion about that uh the other night. Uh limiting in
in so without a motion to red to limit the discussions to five minutes. We don't have that, but I would be happy to. It sounds like that's been moved. Has it been seconded? Is there any discussion? Uh yes. I just had a question. So I asked for
permission for 10 minutes last week. Has that just been changed on me because my presentation is already drafted. You have a No. So you have a presentation. You're not intercepting the remarks. So that your 10 minutes is is good. This is for people that come up and make comments. You'll be limited to five minutes to make your comments. Some
people have submitted presentations. In our bylaws, we allow up to 20 minutes. Just so you know, if they have a presentation because there are delays in and putting it up, etc. All right. So we have a vote. We have a motion and it's been made and seconded in front of the body uh to limit anyone that can make
comments to five minutes. No more than five minutes. Does anyone wish to discuss that? Seeing none, we'll do a voice vote. All those in favor say I. I oppose. No. No. It passes. Okay. Thank you, madam. You are recognized for your
10-minute presentation. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Denny Swinson, town meeting member, precinct 5. Um, I just wanted to share this chart with you, um, to see the number of units that would be going into each district. Um, this 25% plan
passes. In a town where we can't find a place for a new sports field or to put a new school that is not on conservation land, the planning board was tasked with creating three zoning plans. 2500 units of zoning for the 25% plan, 10,00 units
for a 10% plan, and 500 units of zoning for the statute compliant plan. Took a long time because it's not easy. It's hard because the number of units is extreme. The assignment was backwards. Zoning or development usually starts
with looking at a site and figuring out what can go where and what works with the topography, the infrastructure, the development around it. This assignment was look at a map and jam 2500 units in. In planning, open space, amenities, a
park, a place to walk the dog, a playground are all things to consider. But in this case, there was no time for that. Just jam it in. No time for the long game. Where will some trees go for sustainability? No time for that. Sure.
Can you hear me now? But the planning board members would drive to the neighborhoods and see the impacts and keep trying to find better solutions. They withdrew the 2500 unit plan because there are outstanding questions and issues. Basically 2500 units on top of
what we have is too much. Fact check. The 25% plan article 6 is a citizen article, not the planning board plan. The planning board explained in their public hearings, it is not complete and putting it forward would undermine the efforts of our senator and
representative. The 25% citizen plan creates an option for the Falcone project to have more units and significantly less parking than the current Falcone 40B plan. The citizen plan differs from the planning board's original plan because it added a severability clause that makes it harder
for changes to be made going forward. The planning board stressed that there were unanswered legal and legislative questions that would be impactful to which we need answers to to do this plan well. The idea that every unit of housing means more money for the schools do not
does not make sense to me. The tax revenue on rental units or small housing units is much less than the revenue from a single family house. Town service costs increase as our population grows and our town needs increase and get more complex. At a recent select board
meeting, I heard a member say, "We can make Elliot Street like Commonwealth Avenue, and the developers will pay for the infrastructure." The regulation, however, says developers, the municipality or the Commonwealth will provide funding for infrastructure
upgrades. The key word there is or. The developers are not required to pay for the infrastructure. The state is not required to pay for the infrastructure. Yet the municipality cannot say no to the developers because this is as of right zoning for them. What I witnessed
when I sat on the planning board was that a developer on let's say Elliot Street says my 80 unit development is not what's causing the water man to be over capacity and each developer along the way says they're not individually responsible. So the expense falls on the
town and the town has no way to make the developer pay for this because it's not required for them to pay for this. It's as of right zoning. The affordability issue under 7204. The regulation says MGL 4A3A does not include any express
requirement or authorization for an MBTA community to require affordable units in multif family housing. They will allow us to require not more than 10% of the units in a project to be affordable units unless we do a feasibility study with the state required consultants for
approximately $100,000. Other towns have done this and been told that individual developments under 10 units cannot require any percentage to be affordable. As a town, we fall under 10%. If we fall under 10% affordable in our housing
inventory, a developer can threaten 40B to get whatever waiverss and variances they want in any neighborhood in town. The 25% plan means we will have more 40bs, not less. We are stripping our local zoning control and giving it away to the
developers left, right, and center. And we are not even getting enough affordability out of it. We are like a dog trying to catch our tail to get the 10% affordable. The way to get there is to have every multif family zoning project include 15% affordable units.
The land is so expensive in Milton. The only way to create affordable units is to include them in any multif family that gets built. Otherwise, it just won't happen. I've been door knocking on and off since 2016. Every neighborhood is upset about
the traffic. Our residents describe multiple hours every day when they can't move. When it takes them an hour to run a simple errand in town and in every neighborhood, I meet people who tell me they saved up everything they had to move out of the city to live in Milton,
a suburb of Boston. Many left the city and stress the importance and the value they place on having their own driveway, that tree by the sidewalk, that stitch of land in their backyard. They pay dearly to live in their neighborhood that is zoned as it is. This zoning
article is changing that on them. Please be sensitive to that. When someone tells me they're afraid of losing grants, I hear them. The threats from the state are real and they are very scary. I feel that fear, too. I don't align with the state while they are threatening us. I
align with the residents who want thoughtful zoning. I care about our seniors and others who are on a fixed income and can't afford to live here if the taxes go too high. I care about the average citizen who bought into a neighborhood and paid for that single family zoning and is getting the rug
ripped out from under them. I care about the fact that there is no plan to pay for this. The RKG analysis did not include capital costs or even an assessment for town department heads and they couldn't answer basic questions at at the time two years ago. There's no
plan for traffic mitigation. The medical capacity, we're 400 beds short in this region. There's no plan to address that for our current residents, let alone our new ones. I've been to the hospital with a loved one where they align the patients in beds in the hallways going
20 20 patients down the way. Parking is a real issue with the 25% plan. Number of years ago when I was on the planning board over by Conquered Avenue and those side streets, we saw a lot of family houses getting turned into two and three condos. There wasn't enough parking for
the new usage. It was a mess. There were multiple cars parked on the street overnight. Snow plows couldn't get through in the morning. People were struggling to get to work, get their kids to school. If snowplows can't get through, what about a fire truck or an ambulance? Are we taking away minutes from someone getting the care that they
need? If we don't require enough parking on site, do we as a town need to widen all the roads for public safety? Widening the roads takes away part of people's front yards. The residents will pay for that road widening, not the developers. It is as of right zoning
without enough parking. In the meantime, we will need new staff of enforcement officers out there every day doing tickets. But that never works. It's just a band-aid to poor planning. The new staffing and the new benefits, the new road costs take away the revenue for that school money that you have been
promised. There is a cascading effect to issue after issue when it comes to the finances. I support the planning board. The r the drum beat chant has been hurry up ram this through. I am thankful that the planning board explored every option they did. I asked different members
about different spots and there were issues and that they explored each. They had to choose between bad and awful on a number of occasions, but they did their homework. And when they say time ran out, they need more information. They need legal questions answered. And this
plan has real flaws. I agree with them. They said, "Start with 10%. Give the law system a chance to work through the unknowns. We can always add more zoning units later." Our representatives are advocating for us and asking us to vote for the 10% plan. I support the 10% plan
to do our part. in creating housing. The town can stay the deadline and hold off on penalties by seeking a declaratory judgment on what I think we all know in our hearts was a mistaken classification. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
And I'm going to again with these the speakers that were waiting, I'm going to go back and forth the size. Mr. Mang, you're you're recognized. All right. Thank you very much. Uh Matt Morang, uh town member town meeting member uh from precinct 2. Um I'm here to talk about one of my favorite things,
uh rapid transit. And I'm here to talk about what we can do because we just heard a lot about what we can't do. Um for those of you who don't know, I'm I've made a career out of rapid transit. Um I'm an architect who designs rail and transit facilities. I make stations and buildings for transit agencies for a
living. Um and I'm currently working for the MBTA as I stand in front of you. Um, I'm lucky enough to do a job where I get to work on something that I'm passionate about, something that I believe in, and public transit is that thing for me. But enough about me. Um, it turns out that there's a lot of of passion about public
transit that has developed in this town over the past few years. Um, but I'm concerned about the direction it's taking. There's a lot of discussion about what doesn't work. Um, but I'm here to discuss what does work and what could work if we have the will. I'll start out by saying I'm not here to argue about whether the Madapan line is
rapid transit. As someone who works in the transit industry, I can tell you straight out um it is rapid transit. The MBTA has produced rapid transit system maps since at least 1967 and every one of these has had the Matipan line printed on it. Um I saw today actually
on the side of one of the old Matipan line cars um a historic map of the the MBTA or it was before the MBTA the a historic map of the system. It has the Matipan line on there with the rapid transit lines. Um, just as the sun rises in the east and 1 plus one is two, uh,
the Matipan line is rapid transit. Um, there's an argument that the Matipan line is different, that our service isn't like other rapid transit service on the MBTA. And I will agree. Um, it should be better than it is. Uh, the people of Madapan and Milton and Dorchester all deserve better. But
rather than bemooon our circumstances, I urge us not to give up and say that we can't do what's asked of us because of the state of our trolley. Let's celebrate the fact that we have this infrastructure and push to make it better. I find it disappointing that the people who we have elected to lead us at the state level don't focus their fight
on this um but rather use this argument that this is substandard as see and that act like seemingly nothing can be do done about it. This can't be farther from the truth. To them I say don't throw up your hands. Let's fund the tea. Let's use the power and clout that you have to realize the capital plan which
recommends funding the Matipan line transformation project. I wish that our leaders would be as vocal about this as they are about stopping housing in Milton. I say this because if our town's public transit worked better, Milton would work better. We love to talk about traffic and that
concern is real, but the only solution the only solution that works involves reducing the impulse to get people out of their cars in the first place. And how is that done? With reliable public transit infrastructure that gets you where you need to be in a safe and timely manner. With walkable amenities that don't require you to get in a car
to go to the grocery store. With bike and pedestrian infrastructure that make moving under our own power the best option because they are easy and safe. This can happen even in Milton. And the MBTA communities law can be a starting point for this. Our region is in crisis and Milton has a critical role to play
in alleviating this crisis. We need more housing. We need more types of housing. and we need all of this in large numbers. We have buried our heads in the sand as a town for decades. It's time to work with the state and legalize more housing in Milton. The question about reclassification has been raised and I
want to address four points um about other communities that have been reclassified. First of all, no other community received a reclassification based on claims similar to Milton's. No other community has a subway station as defined by the MBTA and HLC that has
received reclassification. Final guidelines editor requirement. Um there were a lot of this discussion has to do with the draft guidelines that were released by HLC. The final guidelines added a requirement of 100 acres of developable developable land uh
associated with a subway station in an adjacent community which we classified many communities like Arlington, Melrose, Welssley, Weston and Winthrop. Final guidelines elimined eliminated bus communities as rapid transit which we classified many communities such as Belmont, Dham, Pingham, and Lexington.
In closing, going back to the original topic, I believe in the trolley. A lot of people who I've never seen ride it like to insult it, but it's hard to underestimate what a useful resource it is and with investment what it could become. We should harness this opportunity to assure that the trolley's
potential is met by using it as a tool in development in our town. We are a rapid transit community and I ask you to join me in voting yes on article 6 for our future as a vibrant rapid transit community together. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you. Mrs. Bastau, you're
recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Roxan MTO, town meeting member, precinct 5, chair of the board of health. The board of health cares about the health of the health of Milton residents. Although no official vote was
taken on articles five and six before us before uh us tonight by our board, it is important to bring to your attention relevant factors for consideration in your decision-making process. First, how many have you been an inpatient or know
someone who's recently been admitted to our local hospital? The staff provides excellent care, especially given the current hospital bed capacity limitations. And it's really great news that BI Milton is opening and expanding its ER shortly. So, congratulations to
the hospital for that. But ER beds or urgent care clinics do not replace the need for inpatient hospital beds. For example, and this is for everybody watching at home, everybody in the audience here, think about your mother,
your grandmother, your child, yourself. What if you needed to be admitted to the hospital because you had a stroke, maybe you have a heart attack, bleeding ulcer, or needed IV antibiotics or monitoring for some kind of a serious infection. Some think we're just one catastrophe
away from not being able to care for our Milton residents if large numbers of residents need to be admitted to the hospital. Increasingly, the patients are lined up in the hallways and stretchers at many of the hospitals for many hours or even for a day or two waiting for someone to be discharged from the
hospital so that they can be admitted. The board of health is very concerned about this current hospital bed capacity crisis. So much so that back in January of this year, we sent a letter requesting an immediate healthc care capacity audit of the Southshore in
Northfar County region to Governor Mara Healey, Attorney General Andrea Campbell, the Mass Health Policy Commission, the Mass Department of Public Health Commissioner, and the Public Health Council. It is on our website, but I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to put it up for
people to see. So, we we sent this letter um as I said in January. It's signed by our um chair of the um board of health at the time, Laura Richards, and our health department um manager um
director um Caroline Canella, who's here tonight. The first paragraph of the letter that was sent requests an immediate healthc care capacity audit of the Southshore in Norfolk County protect to protect the health and welfare of its residents in
the remaining hospitals BI Milton and Southshore Hospital which serve our area. Recent hospital closures including Quinsey, Norwood and Carney have put significant strain on the remaining hospitals in the area. When Quinsey
closed, Quinsey had 196 beds. These are inpatient hospital beds. 159 were inpatient beds. 70 of those were were for psychiatric care. And
Norwood had 215 hospital inpatient beds. Uh and as I said, Quinsey had 196. And the total of all of those were 570 beds. Those are inpatient hospital beds that were lost in this area. What if you needed to be transferred to another
hospital in Boston? How long is it going to take you to get there? Considering the traffic on our major roadways now, how many of you have been on route 28, 138, or granted during peak hours, peak traffic hours, and I would argue that almost every hour is a peak traffic hour
in any of those roadways. With these hospital closures, we stated in our letter that the that the health care crisis will further be exacerbated by increased populations in our area. We ended the letter requesting community forum so that we could all discuss this
and a call for a study that shows a plan for increased populations right now today in the next 5, 10, and 20 years to determine how these increases will affect the delivery of health care and provide adequate hospital capacity all
the residents. On April 2nd, nearly four months later, we received a response from Robbie Goldstein, and if you could kindly put that up there, he is the commissioner of public health. His opening statement said in part, in quote, I recognize that
closures coupled with population growth in Milton and the surrounding communities are of critical concern. He went on to say, "As you note, the hospitals nearest to Milton, including BI Milton and Southshore Hospital, had been experiencing significant capacity
strains." He also said, "Additionally, there are no current plans for a community forum or populationbased study." They concluded the letter saying that the commissioner and the regional director are available to connect and discuss any
additional concerns. So, we care about the health of our residents in this town. So, we reached out to them. And shortly thereafters, guess what? We've heard back from the state. We've heard nothing. Our letters and the response letters are
on the board of health website. They're here before you tonight. And what I have outlined to you here should be of great concern to everybody that sits in this audience or is watching from home. Now, I'm going to shift gears a little bit and I'm going to say as as a town
meeting member and speaking as a nurse practitioner, I'd like all of you to consider what I just presented to you. I urge all of my fellow town meeting members, some who work in the medical field, some who work in public health,
to support the 10% plan at this point and reject the 25% plan. Our current population in Milton is growing. We have several 140B housing units in the pipeline already and the recently enacted ADU law which will bring additional housing to Milton. We have
absolutely no idea what the population impact of this will be to the town nor the traffic implications or the infrastructure costs and the state has no plan to do a health capacity audit and plan accordingly. We also have a memory care facility that's going to be
built soon and we have elderly housing developments in town including Phil Village which is in my precinct. I'm concerned that these residents as well as many others will be delayed in getting inpatient beds at our local hospital. I respect those that want to
do our part regarding housing. Some say this is just zoning. So don't worry don't worry that we will add uh 2461 units anytime soon. It could take years. But developers, they develop. That's what they do. Develop. It's an illusion
to believe or say that this is solely just zoning. Must if you could wrap up in a minute. Our state legislators recognize that we have a trolley, not a subway in Milton, and that's important. Our select board should have voted to go forward with a declaratory judgment on this issue. This would have cost the
taxpayers nothing to have done that. We had it ready to go and it was ready by a very talented attorney to submit this with our town council. This classification is the difference between 924 units and 2461 housing units. And
knowing what the board of health has been advocating for, as I described earlier, we know that there is absolutely no plan by the state to add hospital beds in the region. And I'll leave you with this. Should we be pushing a 25% plan which will result in
a significant increase in the population of Milton but yet not be able to provide hospital level inpatient care for people? I urge a yes on article five and a no on article six. Thank you.
Thank you. No, ma'am. We had a waiting order here. Uh Mr. I asked if I could just Oh, okay. All right. I will be All right, ma'am. You recognize your name and your precinct, please. Maryanne Dak, precinct 10.
I am an inpatient doctor at Boston Medical Center. I worked six months of the COVID unit nights. I lived there in the urology room because the urologists weren't there. I am trained at UC California San Francisco Medical Center and my public
health degree comes from Harvard. None of those things actually matter when I was on the co floors. We know that 90% of our health outcomes come from what happens in the community and have nothing to do what happens in hospital beds. 90% of our health
outcomes happen in getting people safe housing, a good education, safe space to play in green space, and actually having access to public transportation. all the studies in DC, all the studies in Boston that
show that the communities that don't have access to public transportation have worse health outcomes. The health crisis is huge. I am fighting it every day. Boston Medical Center is really struggling right now and you can
ask my husband. I am struggling with it every single day. So, I get the health crisis. I live it every day with my patients. It is incredibly frustrating. But voting to actually decrease what creates 90% of people's health outcomes
for the sake of talking about hospital beds as somebody who has a degree in medicine and public health doesn't save anybody's life and actually puts many people at risk. We aren't pushing a 25% plan. We are
trying to abide by the law. We are very very fortunate to have any type of public transportation. We should want to make our communities healthier by doing the 25% plan which is the law and making sure that our
communities are safe and healthy. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you. Yes, sir. You're recognized. I' I've been keeping next. You're next, sir. Yep. If I knew your name, I' I'd
say it, but I'm an old guy. Thank you, Mr. Yeah. All right. Hold on, folks. So, first of all, if we made a motion to remove the question and took a vote, that would limit everybody for speaking once until everyone's had a chance to
speak. We haven't done that, so there isn't a limit. And this gentleman was waiting since last night, and I said to the whole town meeting, we'd pick up with them tonight. Sir, you're recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Um, Brian
O'Halerin, uh, town meeting member, precinct 3. Um, last Wednesday, I made a request with the planning department for a list of the parcels in the 20 10% and 25% plan. After a couple of iterations with the planning department this morning, I received a final draft
worksheet that contains all the parcels and the 10% and 25% plans. I want to thank the planning department uh for this data. And to summarize, the 10% plan contains a total of 211 parcels
spread across six districts and 25% plan contains 425 parcels spread across 12 districts. Now, I may be the only resident in Milton who has seen this list and so it's only appropriate
for the planning department that the town meeting members also get a chance to see this data. Mr. Moderator, I have a request for the planning department to have 10% and 25% planned parcel data displayed so that we
can see all the addresses for each of the parcels. And then I do have some follow-up questions. All right, hold on one second. Sir, I'd recognize the chair of the planning board. Is that something that we can present? That is something to be provided by the
planning department. Um, I believe Nick Milano has that information. Okay. So, So, just so everyone understands, the rules of town meeting questions come up and we'll always do our best to get an answer to the question at town meeting, but it's not
always possible. And unless Oh, I see I see our town manager. Hold on. So, our town administrator, town manager has a map. He can't uh provide all the streets, etc., but the a visual to help
you with the both plans. So, I I'll just for um on the town meeting page uh for the June for this special town meeting, we did post a link to a GIS map that um our GIS department and our um administrator Alan Bishop prepared using
the shape files from both the 10% and the 25% plan. So, there's a link on the special town meeting uh page which will bring you to our MA online mapper and you can toggle different layers on. You can toggle the 10% layer on. you can see an outline of exactly all the parcels that are included. You can click on
individual parcels uh just as I did earlier when there's a question about where on Smith Road that um district started. So, it's on the special town meeting page. It's a link to our online mapper and you can turn on either the the 25% citizens petition uh limits or the 10% uh adjacent community from the
planning board's limits to see exactly which parcels are in or which parcels are out. And that'll remain. It's it's available. it it's not something we would take down. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. And so questions I was going
to ask Mr. Moderator. Yeah. Yeah. Did you have some? Y I do. Um uh were any of the owners of these parcels notified that the property was being reszoned multif family by Wright? H
I'm anxiously looking to see if someone looks like they can answer that. I I assume the planning board didn't there's no notification to residents. Yes. Well, I think sir, were you referencing both article six and five?
Yeah. Were residents notified that there there was this new zoning that could impact them? I'm going to I'm going to assume the answer is no. Is there anybody here at the meeting that would disagree with that? Mr. Mullen, you're recognized.
Peter Mullen, precinct 2. Um, zoning requires the publishing of a public notice of a meeting that's coming up and what's under consideration. Um they'll be those notices make reference to the plans that are on file at town
hall if you want to go look at them. Nobody got an individual notice but there was certainly a huge amount of public notice um on these parcels. Thank you. Sir, do you have more? Uh yes. Um by the
same token, I assume that I'll have the same answer, which is were any of the butters notified that these parcels were reszone. Yeah, I would assume the same answer. Same answer. Um, was this data presented at the June 12th public
forum? You reference a June 12th public forum. The chair of our planning board, you're recognized to respond. I will say all of the maps were presented for both the 10% and the 25%. Um, we held public hearing because it's
zoning for both articles and the maps were presented. Thank you. Thank you. Um, uh, typically zoning, uh, changes require written notice to be sent to all the direct buyers impacting allowing their concerns
to the scheduled meeting before an implementation change to the zoning regulations. A zoning change of this magnitude of the MBTA communities act should be at a minimum require the same process to be followed for all parcels
affected including all those that debut such parcels. However, the scope of this zone change goes well beyond the direct uh uh the direct abuting parcels as clearly it will have consequential impact on the entire town. Excuse me,
you have a minute left. This matter requires full disclosure to all the residents of Milton, not just a small subset of town meeting meners. Everything else is reckless. And finally, how can we as town members vote on an article when we only when we have
not seen any parcel data and gotten input from uh individual owners and abuters? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chicello. recognized. Thank you. Uh Tony Chicello, precinct
for town meeting member. Um I'm a big fan of uh the movie The Princess Bride. If you remember when um Wesley has been almost dead all day, he's outside the castle with uh Fezzic
and Indigo and he's starting to wake up and he says, "You know what happened? What's going on?" And Indigo says, "Let me explain, no, there's too much. Let me sum up." So
that's what I'll try to do here. I'm urging people to support the 25% plan. The plan was developed and voted to be presented to town meeting by the planning board. It's the only compliant option that we
have at this point. If we don't do it, the state will do it for us. So let's do it. We've spent a lot of time talking about housing. Housing is a critical issue.
It's an emotional issue. We heard it's essential to health and safety. Housing, we have a housing crisis. There's no question. You know, if my kids want to buy my house at they have to pay six times what
I bought it for 30 years ago. inflation would make it if it followed regular inflation a little over two times what it costs. We've got we've got all sorts of issues with housing. But that's not what this issue really is. That's not
the issue in front of us. The MBTA communities act is an effort by the legislature and folks to try to address that housing issue. It's not going to fix the problem. It might make a dent in the problem, but it's not going to fix
it. But it's a step and it's the law. We don't like it. A lot of people think there's a lot more effective ways we can create housing that we think we want and need, but it's the law that is in front of us
now, and it's what we've got to respond to. You know, the statute was passed in 2021. The regs came out in 2022, were revised in 2023. We've been at this a long time.
The guidelines have now been promuggated in regulations. They're binding. We have had years to come up to a plan with a plan. And we have one option that's compliant. We've spent thousands
and thousands of dollars coming up with plans, compliant plans, non-compliant plans. I actually hearing last night how much we've actually foregone in grants eight more than $800,000 so far. How much
we've spent in legal fees, more than $300,000 so far in fighting this. And I heard last night there's another $500,000 grant we won't even have a shot for. another couple hundred grand that we won't have a shot for in the next year
if we don't get into compliance. One minute, Mr. Chico. The law is constitutional. It's now promulgated in res in regulations per state law. It's binding. There is a last gasp effort of people to
try to get us reclassified. I don't I don't think it's likely to be successful. If it is, we can change the zoning and be compliant. The plan's not perfect. People may not like it, but it's what what we what we need to do. I
do want to address just quickly a couple points. Um, in my spare time, I'm board chair at B Milton. I thank Miss Musto for talking about all of the challenges that we've had at the hospital and the great work that the folks there do. It's
a phenomenal community asset and it it has really been stressed with COVID with all sorts of things and since then that we've had the closure of Quinsey, we've had the closure uh of Carney
Milton Hospital can and will meet your needs. We're in the process of doubling our ER cap ED capacity and among the things we're doing is creating a whole bunch of observation beds to that people that need to be stay
in observation won't have to go up and be admitted. We're busy. There's no question. But our capacity to handle the needs of the town is going to be substantially better. And as much as it hurts the hospital to do it,
when we need to slow down surgeries and delay them, elective surgeries, we do that so that we can get people in. The biggest problem creating capacity issues at the hospital is an inability to get
people out of the hospital, to get them into nursing homes, to get them home the nursing at home we need. It's it's not that we don't have enough beds, it's we can't get people out of those beds. We're working hard to address those issues. I will say it's a great
community resource. I think you all know that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Coming back to this, I would ask you to vote to support the 25% plan. Thank you. [Applause] [Music]
Yes, ma'am. You're recognized. Hello. Good evening. I'm Joan F, town meeting member for precinct 7. And I come here before you tonight wearing my heart on my sleeve. I came away from last night's meeting completely discouraged and
stunned by the ranker in the room from those in support of the rapid transit plan. The disrespect shown to some of the presenters was shocking. We are certainly a town divided and I see no end in sight to that division. How did
we get here? Certainly, it began with what many of us see as a mclassification of Milton as rapid transit. That mclassification resulted in a plan being put forward that has pitted neighbor against neighbor. And that fight
continues. Despite a referendum vote where a 54% majority voted no on article one a mere 16 months ago, some of our leaders have decided that those voters are either wrong, didn't mean it, or have changed
their minds without a vote to prove that to be true. Personally, I became involved because I did not believe the classification was based in facts. And um that at that time the entirety of the zoning being proposed that was not
within the halfmile trolley ended up in East Milton and on Granite A. I felt that was unfair to myself and my neighbors. When I raised concerns at that time I was told it's only about zoning. Nothing was will be built. H
thought this was about building housing. Then I heard it was about affordable housing. Once again, hm, where was the language to support that? All I could find was that we could include up to 10% affordable if we choose. So, I got
involved. I attended both the SJC hearing in January and the superior court hearing that was held just last week as one of the 16 cit taxable citizens of Milton. During the SAG
um hearing, the judges indicated that they had enough information to support the MBTA Communities Act guidelines had not been properly promulgated. Because of that, they chose not to um address
the MBTA rapid um transit question that was included in Milton's case. Unless Judge Gild Day has made his final rule ruling on the security court case heard just last week, then the rapid transit
classification still has not been adjudicated in a court of law. Sorry. Democracy can be messy. Yes, we have laws and we have the right to challenge those laws in the court of law. I do not consider our seeking the
judgment of the courts is breaking the law. I consider that to be our democratic right. So where do we go from here? I have no doubt that I sit in the minority of town meeting members here tonight, but in the majority of the people of Milton as I speak out against
the 25% plan. This town will remain divided. Some will be angry. How do we minimize that that division? Here are a couple of my thoughts. Number one, I I call on the select board to join in the
citizens in supporting the seeking a final court judgment on a classification. I have heard rumors that people are concerned about the cost. Um, I wonder also if they are concerned about the financial impact on our town for the 25% plan and about the quality
of life for the residents. I also call on the select board to to take up Mr. Darity um up on his offer to seek a declaratory judgment for the town pro bono. What an offer. I am not sure why the town does not move
forward with the clar the classification and declaratory judgement. I feel that after these have been ruled on by a court, the voters will have closure. No matter if they agree with the decisions or not, the voters will have proof that
their leaders represented the will of the people, no matter what their own personal views were. Thank you for your time and please be kind and tolerant to each other and especially to others who don't have the same opinion as you. Each of us should be treated with respect. I
thank you. Good evening. Thank you. Mr. Zulus, you're recognized. And that was an excellent point, madam. Thank you, Mr. Interodderator, Mike Zulus, precinct 3. Um, Mr. Moderator,
just a as a clarification, do I have the I have a pre-approved presentation, so do I have 10 minutes? If I want it, I won't use it. I will only use it for dramatic pauses but not additional words. Okay. Can we get Mr. Zulus's
presentation? But you don't I don't need the I don't need the slide yet. I have four points and the and the slide is on point two. So the first point has to do with all the great work that has been done in this town by legal professionals
and non-legal professionals to create great arguments about different aspects of this law and different aspects of classification. And um that is why there's been a lot of great effort, a lot of great work. And that is why I
take no great pleasure in saying that I don't think any of those claims are viable. And here's why. So one thing that we haven't talked about is something that's known in the legal
field as the Chevron doctrine. And the Chevron doctrine was a federal court rule that stood for the proposition that when you challenge an agency in court, the court will not supplant its judgment for the judgment of the agency because
the agency according to the courts are the quote subject matter experts. Now remember that because that's going to come back in a minute. Subject matter experts. Now, some of the legal professionals will tell you that the Chevron doctrine was overturned in the federal courts a
year ago, and I'm I'm going to get past this legal stuff really quick, but it was overturned. So, Chevron no longer applies in the federal courts. The Supreme Court that we have overturned Chevron, so agencies no longer have difference in federal courts.
Dramatic pause. We're not in federal court. We're in state court and we're going to be in state court. And in state court in Massachusetts, the state court analog to the Chevron doctrine is arguably stronger, has been
in place longer, and continues and continues continued after Chevron was overturned um last summer to the degree that during an oral argument in the Supreme Judicial Court last
October in the same month the Milton case was was heard, Justice S Sergey Georgees, one of the seven Supreme Judicial Court justices, stated from the bench, the Chevron doctrine is alive and well in Massachusetts.
Okay? And it's since been applied by the courts in Massachusetts. What it means is when we go to court, unless there's something incredibly unreasonable, nine times out of 10, the agency is going to win.
And before you go all Lloyd Christmas on me and say, "So, you're telling me there's a chance?" Okay. The decision in the attorney general versus Milton last January contained within it a big neon
sign. There was a big neon sign in that decision where Justice Bud wrote that the housing HLC, housing and livable communities in conjunction with the other agencies are the subject
matter experts in this area. And that has been and will be cited in every brief and it'll be cited in every decision for the proposition that unless there's something incredibly unreasonable with
respect to classification with respect to whether it's a subway the the um interpretation of the agency will rule. So, I appreciate all the work that's been
done. I just don't see those claims as being viable. Maybe we need a final judgment on it, but we've seen the handwriting on the wall on this four years. That's point number one. Point number two, uh, this is where my pre-approved lonely little slide is
applicable. Um, back in the fall of 2023 when this issue was prominent, many people wanted an expert impact a fiscal
impact analysis to be done and the planning board commissioned an expert fiscal impact analysis to be done. And we waited all fall for it. And people said, "We got to wait for that e fiscal imper fiscal impact analysis. We got to
wait for that fiscal impact analysis because I think most of us thought it was going to show that we would lose money." Lo and behold, the fiscal impact analysis, the expert report that was commissioned by the planning board,
showed up in in early December of 2023. And it showed that there was actually a net plus if there was a full build out of 25%. It was a surprise. And those that commission the report and all those that
were waiting for that said, "Well, that's good news. That's good news. That issue is off the table. We don't need to worry about that." That's not what they said. What they said was it's all wrong
because it doesn't agree with what we thought it was and it doesn't agree with our our argument. So, it's all wrong and here's where it's wrong and here's where it's wrong and here's where it's wrong. But in a year and a half, and I can tell you, I'm a lawyer. If you want to find an expert, you can find an expert to say
just about anything if you pay him enough money. And it's been a year and a half and there has been no expert who has stepped forward to say that this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong. And also if as you can see in the handy
dandy little uh slide the report that RKG which is the the expert that that the planning board hired is consistent with the analyses that were done in other commu the analyses that were done in other communities. some by RKG, one
by another consultant, some by local town officials. You can see that all of those are consistent. Um, usually net plus SACE refers to the ratio of school age children because that was that was uh delineated in a few of those reports.
So, um, that's where we are, I think, on on RKG. Point number three. How am I doing on time, Mr. Interodderate? Uh, you have two minutes left. Oh my. Okay. All right. So, uh, you could keep it to one.
No, I Well, I'll try. Uh, to my friends who represent, um, article, article six, precinct 6 and precinct 7 and East Milton. Uh, there was a lot of work done back in uh, early 2024 to defeat that
25% plan. and your constituents told us in that election, no way, no how. We don't want that plan and that was clear and it was a lot of work went into that. That plan is now in a coma. It is not dead. It is in a coma. It comes back to
life in February of 2026. If we have court cases and we have continued issues about this, that plan comes back to life. Maybe for a special master, who knows? There is one way, one way to kill that plan that is now in a coma. The one
way to do it is to support this plan and make sure this 25% plan goes through and then that plan will never come back. It'll be dead. That's point three. Point four, and I don't know if I'll get through this, but I'll do it real quick.
Um there was a lot of talk there's been a lot of very um eloquent talk about the divisions and the and the and the difficulties in our community and the divisions and the previous speaker spoke to that. It is my hope that that most of
the people in this community on they're they're not totally uniform but most of the people in this community share the goal of solving the problem with as little impact on this community as possible. And I understand people who
think that if we do this 25% plan we're not going to be able to recognize recognize our homes. I totally understand that. But if we just say no, then we don't manage the problem. And I am more optimistic
that we have the the ability to manage and control the project, control this issue and this problem if we comply with the law and adopt this plan. And there are two um experiences that this town has had that temper my thoughts on this.
Number one, for 30 years we did not comply with the affordable housing requirements. Mr. Zulus, a half a minute. A half a minute. And a few years ago, we got overloaded with 700 units because we hadn't complied with the law for 30 years.
Uh about seven years ago up in East Milton, we had a 52 unit project with parking and with um commercial, but we said no to that project. It's now a 92 unit project with no commercial and no
parking. We need to manage this. We need to take control of that. The this the only way to do it is to pass a compliant plan. Pass a 25% plan and then we can manage it and then we can control it. Thank you, Mr. Interodderator. Thank you.
[Applause] Choose a the chair of our planning board. You'd like to be recognized. Thank you. If you could just pull back that slide um one more time, Karen, if you don't mind the f the last slide. Yes, please.
Because as I've stood here, I just have wanted the town meeting to have all of the information, not just partial information. So, I'm going to read from the RKG study right here and the number that you have been given at uh at town
meeting tonight by uh Mr. Zulus. That is the full buildout act. Do you know what that means? The full buildout and I will go forward and and read to you on this. That is if every single building in all
of the districts are torn down, completely rebuilt and brand new. That's is this this number is an assumption that everything will be torn down and all new construction. What he did not include are the next two columns on the
RKG study and I'd be happy to share this with anybody is not only the net fiscal impact from the full buildout analysis but in the change model the net fiscal impact is given for scenarios where some units are new construction which is
likely what we'll see but in Milton Village those mill buildings are likely not to be all be torn down 88 Warf is likely to not all be torn down. So it takes into consideration, it gives a number that takes into account that some
buildings will be new but some buildings will be left and that tax base will continue. There is a scenario with if there is no parking required in those new parking in those new buildings and there's also a financial net fiscal
impact number for the change model with parking. And I'll read what the the note on the bottom and then I'll tell you the actual real numbers of what we would expect. The full buildout scenario assumes all modeled parcels are subject to redevelopment slashnew development
over time resulting in a total of 2586 this is why that data is old newly built units across the districts. The change model scenarios assume only a portion of those new units are built resulting in a lower net fiscal impact to the town. It
is worth noting that in the change model scenarios, some existing development will remain and continue to generate property taxes and municipal costs as they do today. These scenarios are intended to show the fiscal impact of all new development in each district
under these three scenarios. So Mr. Zulus has provided you with the first everything gets demolished and everything gets rebuilt. But however, if you look at the calculations. It is a total of uh net new 971 units for a
total revenue of 389,542 if there's no parking. And if there is parking in those new buildings, the total revenue will be 351,145. the most likely scenario, not the scenario of a 175838
number. So, I just wanted to share that data and the RKG study that was given. Thank you. Yes, sir. You're recognized. Hello, my name is Justin Herren, uh, precinct 2 resident. Uh we have a
serious town meeting member process problem in precinct 2 that you need to address today. Right now precinct 2 has 29 town meeting members. 29 out of the 29 TMM are either on record for
approving a 25% MCA plan back in December 2023 and or are recognized or organized to vote yes on the 25% plan tonight. This is utterly disgraceful.
The citizens plan, the citizens petition's 25% plan is literally a fasttrack blueprint for developers for certain neighborhoods such as the so-called Elliot Street corridor for the potential of wiping out this whole neighborhood. Supporters of this 25%
plan say the chances of this happening are unl unlikely. I completely disagree. You can never underestimate the will and power of developers and wealthy investors. And by handing them literally a fasttrack blueprint of a neighborhood
is irresponsible. Here's the real problem going on precinct 2. Sadly, not enough residents are paying attention or speaking up against this 25% plan. There is a silent majority,
but my hats off to the yes campaign folks for leading this charge. You own the registered voters and constituents in precinct 2. But here are a few points I want to like for you to highlight tonight. 1,800
1,081 registered voters in precinct 2 voted on February 14, 2024. While the yes voters in precinct 2 clearly won back in February 14th, 2024, approximately 1,443
registered voters in precinct 2 didn't show up to vote on that day. That's 50% of registered voters in precinct 2. Some yes voters argue that the registered voters that didn't vote on that day, as well as residents who were not registered to vote, would have been in
the yes camp. That couldn't be farther from the truth and they know it. I have kids in the Milton public schools. I'm on multiple sports fields all around all around the seasons. I speak with many of my precinct 2
residents about this matter. I rarely run into anyone that supports this 25% plan and they're all shocked when they hear this news about the properties that will be reszoned without their consent of the homeowners and the neighborhood.
It's the It's the handful of the yes campaign leaders that are for this. People against this 25% plan are not against housing developments or affordable housing. They are against this intentional overclassification of Milton where we've
not had a fair fight to present all the facts and circumstances to justify why Milton was incorrectly classified. MBTA conducted a ridership audit back in spring of 2023 and the percentage of Milton residents using the Capen Street
and Valley Road Matipan trolley stops that go to Mount that go to Ashmont Station and then re-enter into Ashmont Station and hop onto the Red Line subway for their daily commute is 0.06%. Okay. Yes, the decimal point is in the
right spot. And if you include Milton and Central Abatipan trolley stops, roughly 80% of those ridership figures from the spring 2023 MBTA audit are from the Boston side. And I'm being extremely generous
here. If you add those all up, we've heard numbers about 2% or 1.5%. This comes out to about 0.5% of Milt residents using the Madapan trolley stops to
Excuse me. You have one minute. Well, the strongest supporters of the 25% plan know this and as you can see, they never bring this up. They don't talk about this. So, you might ask, what do I have against the Matipan trolley? The answer is nothing. My biggest concern is that we that everyone everyone's concerned
that we're in the wrong MCA transit category. If you do some homework and you look at all the materials posted on Milton's town website pertain to the MCA, you can clearly see that our previous town planner was not acting in the best interest of Milton and it was progressively pushing his mass density
upzoning agenda on us. Yeah, it's true. So, from the start, Milton had a missed missed a crucial opportunity to present our case. Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me, folks. You're out of order yelling all over from the So, let's let's stop
that, sir. continue and wrap up to present our case to get reclassified into the adjacent community MCA category and our initial reclassification letters were watered down in the end, but we don't need to get into that. So now at this point we turn to a political theater where the only way Milton can
win this battle is the will of the people to state what's right and have a superior court judge declare Milton's transit category distinction. So, I'm asking all my precinct 2 town meeting members, just because you previously voted yes for the 25% plan or
if you won your TMM seat because you were on the approved yes campaign TMM list, do what's right for Milton Precinct 2, its residents, and don't vote on what's the best interest for this governor. Thank you.
Miss O'Donnell, you're recognized. Yes, sir. What's the point of order? Good point. So, I'm concerned that previous speaker, uh, Tom Callahan, precinct 2. Uh,
precinct four. When I moved here, it was precinct two. Precinct 4. Um I'm concerned the previous speaker um really disparaged a former town employee. I know Tim
Zerwinsky is a former town employee, but I don't think that was appropriate. I just am concerned that we nipped that in the bud. [Applause] [Music] Thank you. And to the members, no sir. No sir, you're not recognized. Thank
you. You're not recognized. Go on the website and look. Did you have another point of honor, sir? I do have another point of order. I've noticed um the first two rows starting to be populated with people that I don't remember
um in those rows last night. So, I was just asking the moderator um for Yeah. Are we allowing that? Are we not allowing that? Yeah. So, I'm sorry. Basically, what happened? We had seven members that were waiting since
last night and I assured them they could hold those positions and I would uh start recognizing them. I did not then limit other town meeting members from coming up and getting line. Uh this is I mean this is what we do at town meeting. People were waiting to speak but the
people that were waiting last night were getting preference. So uh anyway that's that's the situation. Yes sir. Brian Kelly, precinct 7. I totally disagree with Tom Kalahan's comments.
And if you were aware of the law, and I'll make everyone aware of it now, on March 7th, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a public comment policy or civility restraint used by the town of Southboro violates
the free speech rights codified in the Massachusetts Constitution. We are allowed to say anything we want as long as we are not violent. So, and we can name people. It is our right. And if he feels that Tim Suinsky was in favor of
the state and le and loading the state documents on the town website, he had a perfect right to say that. All right. So, hold on. Hold on. Thank you. I'm just going to I'm not asking you to hold on to continue speaking. Okay. But I'm going to town meeting is governed by a
set of rules and procedures most notably for our town meeting and town meeting time. And it's also governed by practice and tradition. And it has been and it all changed on March 7th. You can look it up right now and anyone in the room can Google it. Okay. So, thank you very
much. And town council can um check on March 7th. March 7th. Miss O'Donnell. No, no, ma'am. I apologize. Could you just wait one minute? I want to uh recognize our town administrator for quick for quick comment. Thank you. Um
staff are put through a lot every day. I would just ask politely that if folks disagree with um actions that arose from directions set by the select board. Tim Zerwinsk's actions were directed by the select board all throughout the
development of the 2023 Warren article. He is not even here. He's not an employee of the town anymore. Um, we face challenges in recruitment and um, to have town staff attacked for actions
that they carried out at the policy direction of the elected officials in this town makes that lift even harder. Um, I won't get into what you are legally allowed to say and not. I would just ask that you take that into consideration. Um, and just recognize
the efforts that staff put in every day. Thank you. [Applause] Okay, folks. I think you I think your point was made. Miss O'Donnell, you recognized. No. No.
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. and I have permission from the moderator to speak as I'm no longer a town meeting member, but I'm Kathleen O'Donnell from precinct 7 and a registered voter and a registered voter and and actually vote. Um, so I would um actually like to take
the temperature down a little bit in here and just to sort of go back to supporting article five or six, whichever article we were doing, article six. Um, I just would like to remind people that, you know, many people have
said last night that this is the most significant change to Milton zoning in over a hundred years. And that's actually true because in 1928 when the Massachusetts allowed zoning, Milton used that opportunity to ban two and
three families except for they were already constructed, to ban commercial uses except for where they were already built, and ban industrial uses in the town that has the first factories in the United States. And that's what we
decided to do. And it's interesting because I just read a history of Milton written by a committee led by Dr. Teal in 1887 and the pride that he expressed in that book about the granite being um being
finished and finishing sheds in East Milton. A rail line that was built to move the granite to help build the Bunker Hill monument. Going back to Ben's comment about Dr. Warren and the rail the um uh paper mills on the
deposit one of which is proposed in the districts for the 25% plan and also the ship building on the neonit a issue strong in my heart as a sailor but we've spent the last hundred years making sure
none of that ever happens and we have decided that we don't like that kind of activity and we want to insist as many people said in past meetings about the fact that it's the job of town meeting, the planning board, the zoning board of which I'm the chair
to preserve the rural character of Milton, a town that is surrounded by city of Boston, a river, two highways, and a rail line or a trolley line, whoever you want to call it. And so I asked myself, since when did be decide
to become sherkers? people who sherk a responsibility to address the deep crisis of housing in our town and in our our families, our friends, our neighbors looking for housing that we don't provide. And we
say that it's too much, it's too expensive, it's too hard, there's too much traffic when all we are being asked to provide is the opportunity for housing. And if you don't want to sell your house to a developer to put up a
duplex, you don't have to sell your house. So gets me to my last point, not using up 10 minutes, but much has been said in this town meeting and on social media about many town meetings fail meeting
members failing to represent the wishes and desires of their precincts. It was said about me and to a certain extent might be somewhat true because I live in precinct 7. But town meetings are convened for town meeting members to
manage the affairs of the town, not to manage the affairs of my street. That's just not right. And since when do we get to pick and choose which laws we want to follow? This SJC says that this statute
is legal, that the state has the ability and the right to do it. And so just because I don't like the no turn on red sign on Bassid Street at 7:15 in the morning on a Sunday, I still stop there because that's the law. And so all I'm
asking to do tonight is to support Article 6 so that we can comply with the law. And if in some random fashion we get reclassified by some way or some manner, we can come back to town meeting
and do our job and do a different zoning plan. But let's comply with the law. Let's do our best to support the common good of the people in our commonwealth. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, folks.
I'm getting strong sense that people are anxious to move to a vote. We have we have three members who have been patiently waiting on this side to speak and three on that side. We're going to listen to those six members and then we're going to move to a vote. Thank
you. And yes, sir, you're recognized. I shrunk. Mark Croninger, Precinct 7, town meeting member. Um, I had a problem for a long time because I was seeing it in the media. Understanding what the term gaslighting meant. Gaslighting I
came to know means that you see something with your eyes but somebody tries to convince you what you're seeing is not true. I know from riding my bike all the time along the uh Matipan trolley and from the excellent presentation by Mark
Kristo last night despite what was said that the Matipan trolley is not rapid transit. I'm sorry. Anybody who hasn't seen it, go ahead. It's a thousandfold different from some of the other uh rapid actual rapid transit um lines. So,
that's gaslighting in my definition. I also take issue, and I'm going to explore this as I go forward with people who might be leading causes that might be on the payroll of the MBTA or other uh other organizations that have an
interest in this. um as town officials that are voting on things or whatnot. I I that doesn't pass my smell test, quite frankly. But lastly, last night I asked for an equal distribution of the remaining uh housing across the 10
precincts as an amendment. I know that won't pass, so I'm not going to uh exercise futility here. And finally, I've been a town meeting member now for about a year and a half. I sit over here on this side and we know we have people that sit over there on that side and
there seems to be somewhat of a divide. But I will say this, the people who sit on this side of the room, myself included, don't hiss and make cat calls at speakers who they don't agree with. We might applaud the speakers that we agree with, but we certainly don't interrupt people like I saw happen to
Brian Kelly last night. I've never interrupted anybody. Many of you disagree with the things I say when I'm up here. All right. Yeah, let's let's can keep the tone down. Okay. I'm just asking for more civility, Aaron. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody.
[Applause] Yes, sir. You're recognized. Oh, yes, ma'am. You're recognized. I was just taking the order of the seating, that's all. Hi, my name is Maggie Oldfield and I'm a
town meeting member from precinct 5 and I'm a planning board member. I would first like to thank my fellow planning board members, Cheryl, Sean, Jim, and especially Meredith, our chair, for showing up and having hard
conversations. It's okay that we have different views. Having a difference of opinion does not mean there is disrespect or a lack of decorum. It just means we have a different perspective.
We teach our children it is okay to be different and have a different opinion. We raise them to challenge authority and we encourage them to be instruments of change and we applaud them for speaking up when they see something that is not
right and that has the potential to cause harm. We teach them it's okay to change to challenge ideas but to look for solutions and compromise. And that is what we the planning board have been doing for the past three years.
We have had public meetings analyzing different scenarios. We've listened to residents, each with different perspectives and suggestions. We've done a good job representing the residents of the town. We've worked hard to find
alternative solutions. It in in our determination, article 5 is the best plan. It's a solid compromise. Zoning should be slow and steady and should evolve over time. It should allow
towns to evaluate what works and what doesn't. The statute passed by our legislators bypasses and ignores local authorities and our knowledge of what works best for us. I hope our legislators
goes back go back to Beacon Hill and make amendments to 3A and find a compromise. And I hopefully and hopefully they'll do it sooner rather than later. Self-government and individual rights
are important at every level, but it is most important at our local level. Our very foundation is based on wanting something better for ourselves, our children, and our future. And MBTA Communities Act can be better.
It takes a lot of courage and requires bravery to be a lone voice. And we as a town should be proud of ourselves. I know I am proud of us. And I know our kids are proud of us as we stepped up and are advocating for their future.
I want town meeting members to know that article six is not the planning board's plan. We re we reviewed but never endorsed. We did the work and discovered it was not right. Our consultants
publicly noted that we are the only town where so many districts have been studied. The advocates for article six state that the main reason for putting forth an article is because it's the law. Question one I have for the sponsors of
article six. How come this law takes precedence over all the other many laws that get ignored every day? For example, how many of you violate the speed limit of 25 miles per hour? How many of you violate the no overnight on street
parking law? How many trees are being cut down in our public ways? How many students attend our schools when they don't reside here? How come our Raleigh stations do not meet ADA standards? I could go on. It is frustrating that we
randomly pick which laws we want to enforce and which ones we choose not to. Article six does not include any analysis of the increased density that will be coming from the as of right ADU law. Question two I have. With over
9,000 housing units, excuse me, one minute left, ma'am. How many ADUs are expected? What studies have the sponsors of article 6 done to see what type of impact they'll have? My understanding that it's difficult to repeal by right zoning. So, I am wondering what um
studies have been done by the sponsors to confirm that zoning can be amended at any time. Also, can the sponsors of article six speak to question to section Q, the severability clause? What does that mean? I don't understand it. And
lastly, please remember the history of the MBTA zoning in Milton. The planning board has worked hard. And the last question I have is why do we need a planning board? The five of us here all have jobs, families, and friends. We all
have better ways of spending our time. And how can you vote on a plan that was determined not to be a good one by the elected board who spent the most time on this? We are needed. We Why are we needed if our work is not valued and
respected? The select board is viewed as the financial policy makers of the town. The school committee makes decisions for the education of our children and the planning board is responsible for the zoning policies. When did this change? Thank you. you could wrap up. What was
the reason? Please respect our time and please do not support article six. Thank you. Yes, sir. You're recognized. Yeah, if if you could I'm sorry. Uh Molly, could you could you just come and repeat the question about the severability clause? And I apologize.
Track a few things. I missed it. So I had a couple questions. Um my question one um what analysis did um what was done on
the increased density from the ADUs because there'll be over we have 9,000 housing units in Milton. So, how are um what type of analysis did the sponsors do on the fiscal analysis? Excuse me, if I could just interrupt if if the
proponents could be listening to her questions so that you'd be able to respond. Thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead, ma'am. So, that was my first question. The second question is um section Q, the severability clause. What does it mean? I'm not a lawyer, thankfully.
Um, and um, why do we need a planning board? I'm I'm I'm going to guess that you you're not really looking for an answer for that. Well, I kind of am. I am, actually.
And what um what um what zone what case law have the sponsor studied that supports their argument that zoning can be amended any time with regards as of right zoning? My understanding it's really difficult to
overturn as of right zoning. Okay. Thank you ma'am. I' I'd like to recognize the proponents. Mr. Kyle to respond to the questions. Sure. Kyle Johnson, town meeting member, precinct 10. Um, do my best. Um, uh, on the severability clause, my understanding
that that is standard zoning language. I believe it is also in article 5. Um, I'd be glad for um Okay. I'd be glad for um town council or town administrator to if somebody at the uh planning board,
excuse me, at the select board's table can check to see if that they're challenging that it's not in article 5 or perhaps the planning board could respond. Is that 42? It is page 42. Okay. Page 42 of your warrant. It's on article five. It's just
uh has a different num uh different letter because it's all right. Thank you. All right. So that's a severability question. Um in terms of um what does it mean? Um I believe my understanding is that it means that if
anything within the law is not legal or binding, it is considered inert. That's my understanding. I but I would be happy to defer that to a lawyer who can speak to it. um regarding um repealing that is um explicit in town bylaws and state law
that zoning can be changed by town meeting. Um that's my understanding. Again, I can defer that to a lawyer. Um, in terms of the planning board, um, I, um, am happy to I I'm glad we have many
boards in our town that work hard, um, and I believe all those boards should work together to pass policy that makes sense um, for everyone. If I could just add and and routinely there are a lot of issues that our boards and committees consider like the
planning board that just don't get this attention but they put the hard work in to dig into those details and and make the appropriate decisions for the town. Yes. Um and I'll answer as far as well the um planning board did the work on
both the 10 and 25% plans. So any studies that are had or the ones that they did or did not commission um and they chose to vote to approve both plans unanimously one time in one case with an abstension um based upon the research that they had completed
and I believe and let's let's wrap this up. I believe the only question that you might not have addressed was what analysis occurred as you as you took this on um in ter well that's what I I think that's what I just attempted to answer that any studies were just the study
that the planning board completed on both plans. Okay. Thank you sir. Yes sir. You're recognized and it's been a long wait. It's been a long time. Hi, my name is Mike Kelly, uh, precinct
9, town meeting member for many years, a former member of the, uh, planning board. Uh, my background is I'm a civil engineer, but I work in construction management. The company I work for has done a tremendous amount of work for the MBTA. I I might believe that they have
done more than any other local contractor. I also worked uh, for a couple years on a Metro North line down in New York, so I kind of know the railroad a bit. Uh, one person's suggesting the MBTA is an expert. In reality, they're not the expert. Uh,
there's Fed Federal Transportation Authority and there's also regulatory boards for the railroad. One being the biggest one being ARMA. ARMA makes decisions that all railroads, whether they're San Francisco or New York or Boston, have to live by. What with that
said, somebody had an opinion on rapid transit earlier and they suggested it is rapid transit. I have an opinion that it's not, but ra kind of know what opinions are worth. So, I'm going to I'm going to read from a a definition that is
referenced by ARM and other railroad associations that govern the railroads. Rapid transit or mass rapid transit or heavy rail commonly referred to as metro is a type of highcapacity public transport that is generally built in
urban areas. A grade separated rapid transit line below grade surface through a tunnel can be regionally called a subway tube metro underground. They are sometimes grade separated on elevated railways in which case some are referred
to as L trains short for elevated. Rapid transit unlike buses or trams operate on an exclusive right away which cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles. So you can immediately see,
you know, it's kind of kind of ambiguous uh in the fact that it says high capacity. You know, mo I think most of us would agree 38 people is not high capacity, but we certainly have to agree that it's not on an exclusive right away
because I can cross the tracks on my car. You can cross them on your bicycle. They have to stop at red lights. So it by definition it is not rapid transit. With that said, uh, one of my neighbors who was, uh, I'm sure not here and I don't think he lives in Milton anymore,
but, uh, he was named super lawyer a couple times, and I guess that's probably a good thing. He knowing that I worked a lot in construction contracts, told me one time, he said, "If you have a problem with a contract in this in ambiguity, meaning I say it's rapid
transit, you say it's not. The judge has to decide, well, this expert says it ain't. That expert says it isn't, even though I defined it for you by the experts, that's ambiguity. He said to me, whoever wrote the contract is wrong because they had the opportunity to be
very specific on what they meant. And if they didn't take that opportunity properly, they immediately by the courts are see. With that said, I suggest to you that a law is basically a contract between our government and the people.
And the law by the uh MBTA, which they're trying to instill, says it's rapid transit. And I'm sure a judge like we heard the judge speaking, one of the people brought up, the judge had some questions. And it's ambiguous if it's
rapid transit. And I believe it not only is ambiguous, it's by definition is not rapid transit. So point being, I suggest we let this play out and let the courts tell us that yes, you know something, Milton is unique.
And that's why I moved to Milton because it is unique. I I've seen things up there, towns that are way out, you know, I seen one town, oh, needm. I I drove through Needm today. There's a commuter rail that runs right through the middle of downtown Needle with about six rail
cars on it. That's rapid transit. That's commuter line. But so for that reason, I suggest at very least like the people from the planning board said, we respect the time that they put into it and we let this process play out before we put
into law for the people of Milton something that isn't necessarily correct. Thank you. Thank Mr. Cohane, you're recognized. And just to remind the body, we have only two more speakers. Just go ahead,
sir. Um, hi, my name is John Cohane, husband, father, grandfather, um, select board member, town meeting member. Um, I'd like to thank everybody for being here. I have discovered what a init amount of time this takes. And
thank you all. As a Democrat, I'm struggling with what I've been witnessing. Who are we when we do things in order to stop people from expressing their opinions? We're preaching, working together while we attack each other for expressing
opinions that don't reflect our own. This morning, I read a very timely Globe article which stated, "If one party is banning books and the other is banning debate, that's not a good place for democracy." The Democratic Party has historically been the party of
open-mindedness, tolerance, and intellectual discussion. That doesn't mean cancelling people you disagree with. A lot of Americans feel that Democrats go around preaching down their fellow Americans. If you disagree with me, you're not only wrong, but you're a
bad person. Who have we become? So from what most of what I've heard, it comes down to obeying the law. Yes, 25% does that without challenge. And the 10% plan can do that also by legally
challenging the law. But just like last week, the select board refused to do that by way of a declaratory judgment prepared for free by town resident and attorney. Challenging laws is an everyday occurrence that has been
happening since our country was founded. Let's not confuse challenging the accurate interpretation of the MBTA Communities Act with outright ignoring it, which we are not advocating and which would be breaking the law.
Challenge. It's been an internal struggle to do just that. And so far, we haven't. aside from defending against the AG's lawsuit that resulted from the referendum supported by a majority of the town in which the court left open
many challenges that were never followed through once once our action plan is approved all the short-term problems will go away and the long-term problems will begin and will be with us forever. We've been hearing opinions on a lot of things that will be
impacted by this act. Will it be just zoning or with or will developers seize the opportunity and start building for this act to be successful? That's exactly what needs to happen. We'll find out. Will this ease
party as it has been claimed or worsen it? Will it increase our housing count with less than 10% being affordable? We'll find out. Surely the problem if the problem is not solved the zoned areas required by this act will expand
as time goes on and our housing count grows thereby increasing our required zone. Would we rather be increasing from a 25% plan or a 10% plan? We'll find out. Will this not result in more students
from time from my time on the SBC? have learned that state agencies involved have formulas for calculating students as a percentage of bedrooms. Added, this will increase our bedroom count and increase our student population, thereby worsening our temporary temporarily
override solved school funding problem. We'll find out. Just this week, our town administrator notified us of the possible deficit for the current year. Truth is, we'll probably find the funds somewhere to avoid it, but tight days
are ahead. Will this likely help or hinder that? Excuse me, sir. One more minute. We'll find out. As I said, knowledgeable town attorney volunteered his time and prepared prepared a declaratory judgment brief free of charge, ready to present to the superior
court to argue the fairness of our plan. And the last select board meeting, it was decided not to go forward with, which could have been a strong case. So, I guess we'll never know which is more likely to surprise us more when we find the final answer to all these issues, a
10% or a 25% plan. I urge you to support what's best for Milton within the rule of law and vote no on yes and yes on five. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Augustino. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. And Dulio
Agdino, precinct 9, also chair of the Commission on Disability, which might explain why I have presented to you last night so much about the law on the American with Disabilities Act and how it relates to these both article 5 and
Article 7. I'd like to just thank the moderator. Um, as we had discussed, I did step aside last night while I was g after I was or when I was asking the questions in order to provide them to
town council. So, the questions that I had all pertain to it is the law and has to follow the law. Milton, the MBTA, everyone. And we've heard a lot of legal
opinions and that was a fascinating interpretation about what an opinion is. Um the ADA law has been around since 1990 and that is the reason why I did vote no on the amendment tonight. Um
there are far more disabled people in Milton than you may realize and you may think everyone can just open up a computer and look at a map. And so when you look at the warrant that is um not specifically identifying which homes or
which addresses on Smith, that was the reason for voting no. So I'm just explaining where I'm coming from and why I stand here to try to speak up for those who may not be able to speak up. So uh the moderator or well to get it to
the moderator, it was submitted to the town administrator to get it to town council. So I will read what I had started to ask last night and it these are critical questions because if 25% if
either article was passed what position is Milton then put in legally let me just try to see this clearer. If a court ruling comes out
it's not D. Yes. Did you print it? Okay. Thanks. Um, appreciate it. And these questions came up because of two statements that were made and the
two statements were all attempts have failed and all were shot down. So, I contacted the original lawyer who filed the first lawsuit. Uh, attorney Michael Walsh was actually going to present to Milton um a couple of years ago when this first came up. Unfortunately, the
timing didn't work out. It's all about timing, right, Mr. Martina? And attorney Walsh represents residents of Rockport. He has also now filed a federal court case pertaining to this. The residents of Rockport have a strong case about
this MBTA communities law. And part of the questions to town council were the familiarity with these other um lawsuits. Uh Rock Winfrey has three lawsuits including two exemption cases and one challenge to wipe out the
regulations entirely. Um while there were 13 towns that sued for unfunded mandates, only nine of them were dismissed. So five remain. And then we have the Milton case which was which would pertain to my second question after we hear town council explain how
he sees Milton would respond and then how our town meeting member and the attorney who has filed the Milton case on behalf of 16 taxable residents um how he might address that. So upon town council's answers to these questions
that would be the followup. I do note that the regulations have been identified. So I've listed I think 10 or 11 lawsuits that are still in the courts and those were just quickly found today by speaking to a few
lawyers. Um town council might be familiar with more which was one of my questions I think. So the Milton case though did specifically note and argue or debate at the hearing that legislation never used the term rapid transit. it used the term subway
station. So that you know we're not going to get into a whole discussion on that but I found that interesting when um fellow town meeting member Paul Hogan pointed it out and that the argument also the secondary argument I did provide to town council and I'm sure he
already has it that full complaint. Um these are the terms I didn't understand but uh arbitration and capriccious meaning outside of authority. So I appreciate town council addressing what would happen if we approve this citizens
article at 25% and then say tomorrow the judge finally comes down with a ruling or any of these future court hearings what Milton how we would address it how we would handle it and then after that Mr. moderator if we can um have the Paul
Hogan address his complaint too. Thank you. recognize town council. Thank you. Uh good evening, Peter Melo, town council. Um so the question of the interplay between the the pending
lawsuits or the and more specifically the Milton taxpayer lawsuit and the bylaw is they're um in my view completely independent of one another. If town meeting were to pass article 6 or article 5, that zoning would exist and the only way it could be changed
would be via future town meeting action. So if if the bylaw were adopted and ultimately approved by the attorney general's office, um it would be a valid bylaw, that zoning would exist. And if in the meantime a court ruled that
um the Milton's classification was invalid or exceeded the the legislative the legislaturator's authorization to uh to the agencies then the bylaw would still remain valid unless and until town meeting changed it. Um so I that's the
short answer on that question. I with respect to the other cases I am generally familiar I know there are um uh there remain pending cases. I'm familiar with the Rockport case. I believe that the federal case was dismissed. Um I think the notice of
appeal was filed. Um so it's it still remains pending I think on appeal. Um and I I know that there are certain cases that um because of their procedural posture or the posture or the
time of the filing um still remain to be adjudicated before Judge Gil Day. But I believe all the section 3A related cases in superior court have been specially assigned to Judge Gild Day. Um who was obviously the judge who issued the decision on June 6th.
Thank you. Miss Augustine, you're recognized for just a quick followup and then we have to move to the next speaker. So the followup had to do with attorney Paul Hogan following up. But I do have So I'm not going to recognize attorney Paul Hogan. He's a town meeting member. He's been sitting here. I've announced three
or four times. How many more uh members are ready to speak? It's it's on tape that I brought it up last night. I said that was one more speaker after you and you need to wrap up. I stepped aside specifically to provide you the opportunity and I specifically on tape
requested that after town council and you would like you no you would like him to to address in these issues. Yeah. And the moderator is telling you he's not going to be recognized. Let's just agree. We're going to disagree. Do you have any followup to the town council? I most certainly do and it does not appear
to be an objective ruling. I will as a point of order. Um the town council just mentioned it would have to come back to town meeting and that might go back to the question that was raised previously about the language severability that paragraph or that sentence appeared to
state if there was a court ruling then it would change the zoning bylaw. So, I've made my point order definitely on tape last night. I would suggest you watch it. Thank you. We we have a we have another zoning article that's very much the same thing. If
perhaps Mr. Hogan could wait and address it there. I am going to now recognize our last speaker of the evening. Oh, excuse me. Maybe I'm not. Maybe I am.
Sean, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Sean Fehee, Tom meeting member member precinct 9 and um also member of the planning board and I did request um on
Friday additional time to speak and I was afforded that time by uh moderator Walsh. That's correct. Um I've been a town meeting member now for 15 years. I guess I'm in my next term. So, 15 years completed and um I'm
hopeful that my conduct as a town meeting member over the last 15 years will afford me um your respectful consideration of my comments tonight. Um I know there are plenty here in the body that have a different point of view than
I have. Um however I think in my 15 years I've conducted myself myself with respect for everybody even the point of views that I didn't agree with and u that's all I ask of the body here tonight. Um thank you in advance for
that. Um my practice at town meeting is to generally only speak on topics that I have some knowledge or experience with. Um, I think to speak on topics that I don't have knowledge or experience with
is not considerate of people's time. Um, I've been working on this issue for years. Uh, as you know, since I'm a town, since I'm a planning board member, um, first I want to say I'm a proponent
of development. Uh my career of the past 39 years um in construction management is really dependent on development and growth and um if I wasn't a proponent of development I probably wouldn't have an opportunity for the career that I've
had. Um but I am also a believer in responsible and manageable growth. Um, tonight I rise to urge you to vote no on the Citizens Article 6. And I feel compelled to remind everyone
here tonight, the last time Milton encountered a change as consequential as this MBTA zoning issue is when the Southeast Expressway Yes, the Southeast Expressway divided Milton
approximately 70 years ago. Um, this is of that magnitude and there's nothing that we've done since the Southeast Expressway was built that is as consequential as this. So, who's responsible for the future of the town of Milton?
Um, the elected officials uh include not only the select board in terms of governance. Um, was all of us. Town meeting members are elected and are also responsible for the future of the town of Milton.
Our votes on each and every article make us all all of us responsible for the outcomes of any article that we approve. Residents of Milton came to live in Milton and they bought homes in Milton
because they like Milton as it exists, not because they hoped Milton would evolve to be something different. Uh it's our responsibility to preserve Milton as it exists to the greatest extent possible. By doing so, we're honoring the
commitment made by the many residents that have invested in Milton and that are annually relied upon to support Milton financially by paying the taxes. So, what are the current feelings in
Milton? And I expressed this at a recent planning board meeting. We're truly a divided town. I I've been here, as many know, for 60 years, my entire life. I I should say I lived in Franklin for four years with Janice when we bought our first house.
Um, but you know, in this room tonight, we have some people that have fear. We have other people that have excitement. This is over a 25% uh citizens article plan. We have some people that have concern. We have the
opposing point which is optimism. We have some people that view and encourage us that this will be financially successful for Milton. We have other people that's have the opinion that this will be financially detrimental for Milton. And we have some people that feel this development is complimentary
to Milton. And we have other people that feel that this development is potentially destructive to Milton. It's quite a range. So if you had the opportunity to resolve
this passionate yearslong debate that has evolved into a heated conflict. That's how I see it now. It is a heated conflict u which has inflamed the town. What would you do?
What would you do? Would you ignore the concerns of those that view our rapid transit classification as incorrect? Would you do everything within your power as a leader to provide fair due process and adjudication of this
debate even if your own personal opinion and interest was different? It's my opinion and my expectation of our leaders that they should do so and give full consideration to those opposed to our rapid transit classification by
adjudicating this conflict to the fullest extent possible. You saw the presentation yesterday that shows what rapid transit ridership looks like comparing Quinsey's red line to the Milton trolley. It's clear what rapid transit looks like. The discrepancy
outlined yesterday by one of our members demonstrated the overwhelming difference between Quinsey, a true rapid transit community in Milton, which is not thousands of daily boardings, thousands,
compared to less than a hundred at any of our trolley stops. Yes, the classification is unreasonable. A speaker tonight said that a court would recognize reasonleness or
unreasonleness. I propose that classification of Milton as rapid transit is not reasonable. Quinsey has had significant development over the recent past years because they
knew they knew they had a transit asset that was capable of moving the volume of people that they were developing residential units for. That's why Quincy's developing at the pace it's developing. That was the intention of the transit
oriented development initiative. build housing where the train and rail assets existed that could be utilized by the residents of the housing that that was built for. That's existed for decades. This idea
that this happened four years ago, that's incorrect. I was building multi-unit residential 20 years ago on a transit line. The whole idea was take advantage of transit and build on transit lines.
It was said last night that we've made multiple attempts uh to adjudicate this. Um the classification has not been adjudicated. And I'll repeat it again. It has not been adjudicated. We have not lost.
Supporters of the 25% plan continue to mislead our residents by stating we have lost. This is factually false. The SJC decided not to take the argument up and referred Milton to a lower court for adjudication. That's a fact.
Mr. May, if you would be able to wrap it in a minute. One more minute. Sorry. Would you be able to wrap it up in one more minute? I thought I had 15. 15? You You gave me 15. I I apologize. I wrote 10 down. I think he's right. 15. You have five minutes, sir. Thank you, sir.
So, and we'll get to a vote. Relax and hear them all for five minutes, please. The SJC ruled on January 8th that the law is a mandate that also led to the unfunded mandate uh question. The SJC ruled that the
guidelines created by HLC were legally ineffective and must be reprogated. The SJC ruled the administrative procedure act was not properly undertaken by the state. The SJC ruled that 3A is enforcable. The
SJC did not rule on classification. This notion we lost is incorrect. Milton did not lose. We have an opportunity to pursue adjudication of our classification. We just have to do so.
I believe responsible town management would be demonstrated by resolving the classification question of rapid transit. We have a resident who has come forward and not only prepared a complete legal brief requesting declaratory judgment on a classification. This resident has offered to provide all
legal services to see this matter through its judicial process at zero cost to the town. This resident has been entrusted by our town in the past on other legal matters. He is a proven and trusted legal mind
and a very accomplished attorney. Accepting the services of this attorney avoids all legal costs and is consistent with what we have done in the past. This resident has eliminated legal cost as a reason to not pursue adjudication.
If we do not resolve this question at this time, we will have divided town for many many years as many residents will feel that their interests were ignored. The financial future of Milton has to not only be considered but should be the
guiding principle for this decision. Affordability for our residents must include managing the costs of all of our services because otherwise we will increase property tax annually to make living in Milton unaffordable for many if not most. The idea the property tax
from new residential units will offset town services cost is absolutely not proven. This is a trap to win your support. To make this assumption is reckless without a detailed analysis prepared by Milton financial officials, Milton staff
that are accountable to Milton and Milton only. Every single community is unique unto itself. You saw on the screen one town that is said to generate $9 million annually and other towns that generate hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Every single town is unique. RKG's analysis of cost impact includes zero dollars of capital cost. That means anything that we need to we may need to build has not been included. The calculation is that the zoning plan for
25% would add 275 school age children 275. Most importantly, their analysis acknowledges they acknowledge they do not include any calculation for the impact of additional school age children generated by homes sold that would become occupied by families with school
age children. What I call the empty neester impact zero that's written into their report they have calculated zero. Their reasoning when questioned was we don't have a model to use to calculate that. And I said to them at the time,
"So how could you just calculate zero?" That is not reasonable. We're under pressure to build a new school at a cost of somewhere between 170 and 200 million. So I ask you, if we need to build another new school as a result of increase in our need for
school space and we encounter another 200 million, the dollars you're hearing that we have foregone will pale in comparison to the cost we will incur. The detrimental impacts of this 25%
zoning play are unmeasured and unknown and Milton has not done anything to perform its own financial analysis. Trusting RKG is not responsible financial management. RKG is not accountable to Milton. When it doesn't
work, RKG is going to be nowhere. this idea that this is only zoning. This is a common statement of some that support 25% zoning. They say this is only zoning. It's not a building mandate. This is a misleading statement because it can lead to a consideration that maybe it won't be
built. If you create zoning, be prepared that it will be built. And to suggest otherwise is to pacify the concerns of voters. We should all recognize this is market rate housing. Unless a building has eight units or greater.
Just one more minute, please. Thank you, Brian. Develop. Thank you for smart developers and profit will determine what gets built. That's it. Milton is lucrative for developers. If it wasn't, the Tamposie companies would not have initiated this series of 40B projects. The projects at Randolph A wouldn't be
built. The ice house wouldn't have been built. Granted, A and the East project with 92 units wouldn't be underway. This is a lucrative town. Developers for years have sought ways to redevelop Milton Properties. And when they found opportunities, they did so. And they
will. And in my 40 years, 39, I guess, in my professional career, I've yet to meet a developer that wasn't motivated by profit. If there's money to be made, believe me, they'll be here. I do believe that Milton and our leadership in Milton should adjudicate
this issue. Um, it is the only way to provide for those that are opposed to this an opportunity for their interest to be heard. I thank you for your consideration and I urge a no vote on Citizens Article 6.
Thank you. Thank you. All right, folks. We have uh just two more quick things. I'm going to recognize town council for responding to one of Mrs. Agustinino's questions. When he's done, I'm going to recognize the chair of the uh Warren Committee who
will give you the recommendation of the Warren Committee of this now amended motion and then we will move to the vote. Yes, sir. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Peter Melo, Town Council. So I believe there was a follow-up question about the meaning or effect of the severability clause and I
think there might have been some confusion about the relationship between that clause and the um and decision on the pending superior court cases. So, a se severability clause and and the language in the articles basically means
that if one provision within the bylaw is deemed uh invalid or legally uninforceable, it doesn't uh render the remainder of the bylaw uninforceable or invalid. So, it's like a standalone, you
know, this this singular provision is invalid. It doesn't affect the um effectiveness or validity of the remaining portions of the bylaw. To be clear, the the pending cases are challenging the validity of um the
statute or the associated regulations. There's no challenge obviously in so far as these bylaws don't exist. They're not challenging the terms of the bylaw. So, the pending cases wouldn't result in a judicial determination that anything in
in article six or article 5 uh itself is invalid. It's if if this zoning passes, it exists. If the bylaw that this zoning was created to address is deemed invalid, this zoning would still remain
unless and until town meeting um changes it. Thank you. Thank you. Recognize the chair of our warrant committee for the position of the war committee on the motion before the body. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
Good evening everybody. Tom Caldwell, town meeting member of precinct 6 and chair of your warrant committee. Um, ladies and gentlemen of town meeting, uh, I cannot and I will not attempt to be any more
articulate than the speaker from the planning board that we just heard from. Everything stated here tonight over the past two nights, the warrant committee has heard three times.
The discussions of the warrant committee were very difficult, prolonged, and to a degree split. Many members of our unelected committee love the town of Milton. And Milton is
again, like a broken record, it is a special place. and it is a gem for everyone. That's why we live here. It's proximity to Boston makes it that much more special.
So, all that being said, you've had the opportunity, I know by listening to many speakers on both sides of this issue that you've had and you you have read our comment. The warrant committee stands by that comment and asks that you
consider a no vote on article six, the citizens petition. We had two citizens who were down here before you speaking who presented to us and I thank those two citizens for their
thoughtful comments, their analysis and their time. However, the warrant committee for all the reasons stated by the speaker from the planning board asks that you vote yes on article 5. Thank
you for your time. Thank you Tom meeting. Thank you Tom Milton. Thank you sir and thank you members for patience. It's been a long night. I know that. We're going to move to the vote on article six. And please, if you will, I'm urging
you not to all get up once the results are pasted and get ready to leave. We have a brief we have a brief couple of comments just to make before you walk out the door that are important. I I there's so many voices.
So, well, that that's I'm that's one of my comments to see if you want to start engaging article 5 tonight or reconvene this. My sense would be it's currently 10:20 that it would be really difficult to get this vote done and then get
article five done in in 20 minutes or 40 minutes. And that's long been the history. It's been the history the entire time I've been here. You look at at 11:00 as a let's stop. So let's concentrate on this vote and then give you a couple of minutes to get your
sense about article 5. One minute, please. Somebody Oh, thank you. All right, hold up folks. John position. Uh, thank you folks. Two quick things I'm going to explain. Typically, well,
let me explain it right now. Typically, a motion in front of you is a motion is recommended by the warrant committee. Um, in some cases, the warrant committee recommends a no vote and that's what they've done here. So, if you are in favor, and this is in our rules, and I
believe our moderator covered it uh on the annual town meeting, in our rules, if you're in support of article six, you will vote yes. If you are against article six, you'll vote with the warrant committed by voting no. Now, before we take it to a vote, Mr. Cohane, you want to represent the position of
the select board. Um, hi, John Cohane. uh vice chair select board um due to um recusal reasons the board could didn't have a quorum and therefore we could not vote
on this and make a recommendation. Okay. Thank you. So now we are ready to vote on article six as amended. Look for the time. The timer has started. Pardon me. Pause the clock, please.
Yeah, I'll I'll I'm going to do I'm going to do it one more time. Okay. And I and and you're right. We need to be clear on this. If you are in support of article six, you will vote yes. If you are not in support of article 6, you'll be voting along with the warrant committee's recommendation of no. And
that's part of our rules. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Let's discuss that after we finish this vote, ma'am. We're going to discuss that after we finish this vote. Let's let's take that vote.
Please open for the voting. [Applause] Okay. Um, article six as amended. Hold on. Yes. What is somebody raising a Oh, I'm sorry. You're standing to
challenge the vote. It's it's it's an electronic vote. And so I'm not sure what you could be challenging. All right. What can someone explain to me what you're expecting to happen as you're standing?
I'm sorry. My apologies. You're not going to invite me back. I know. And and for the folks again, and that was my fault, legitimate request. They wanted to see the results of the vote.
Okay. And since we've gone through that display, I just want to explain something very briefly. I am a an elected town meeting member from precinct 8, but as an interim moderator, I think it's inappropriate for me to take a position. I had to be neutral here. So, I abstained on that vote, but
did vote abstain to show my residence in precinct date that I am actually here at the meeting. All right. Thank you. So, folks, here we are. It's if give me give me a minute, please. Uh, here we are. It's 10:30 and again, our target typically is to
conclude our business by 11:00. I think the odds are extremely slim that we could, but I am willing to stay and do it. But we could consider uh article five and conclude it tonight.
But or or the alternative is that we we will return Monday evening uh at 7:30 to take up article 5. I've checked with the I've checked with the uh planning board and they are willing and able to uh come here on Monday night. So would you what
what's your preference? Would you like to take a vote on considering I make a motion to continue it. Okay, hold on. There's about two people yelling for. What did you What did you say, sir? It might be the same thing. Okay. Okay.
All right. I I I understand, sir. Let me hold on. So I believe the motion is that we that we basically disband of article five because we have passed article six. Um is that is it let's let's slow down. Let's slow down. Is that what you're
asking sir? Yes. It is okay. So folks we could do that. Our planning board has put a lot of work, time, and effort into presenting another article. the the order got changed and so now they're laying out there and if for some
reason in the not in the future there should be a legal position made that would change our classification so that the 10% would be adequate. It would be certainly good I think for the town to have that vote on record and not
have to reconvene and deal with that. So that's a perspective, but um you know that's it's not my decision to decide. I will I'll go through a a vote on basically you're asking to dismiss
article 5. I have to check on one legal thing and Brian, please wait. I'm not ready for you. Just wait. I'm waiting. Then he thinks back literally done that.
It's Okay, folks. We're in an unusual situation. I understand uh the intent of the member. Uh but frankly, we cannot just take no action and ignore an article. It's been in the
warrant. It's been in the town. What we could do, and I'm not recommending we do this. I hope the planning board understands that. The only thing we could do, we got two options. basically come back and debate article five and make a determination or we
could entertain a motion to send it back to the planning board for pl for further study. If that's moved, let me explain it first. If it's moved and it's seconded, uh we'll we certainly will allow the planning board to to speak to that. Uh and if that's the vote, then
that would be the action. Okay. All right, we have a motion made and seconded. Would the planning board like to address that as a submitting body? That's the reasonable thing and we will look for we will look for the position of the warrant committee also.
And just for anyone that's newer to town meeting, that is an action that happens here. It's really the only thing you can do when you don't really want to act on a motion that's before the body, an article before the body. Okay. I actually Yes, you're recognized. Thank you very much. I just had to I just
wanted to give one um clarifying question which I had discussed with town council prior to um um accepting this motion. Um and after I over obviously with you all um but the words in the statute are
clear. The word the statute itself states a community an states that an MBTA community must have at least one district of reasonable size located not more than 0.5 miles from a subway
station, commuter rail station, ferry terminal or bus station. if applicable. The question for town council is just if you could just address for clarification under the express wording of chapter 4A
section 3A of Massachusetts general laws and its regulations 760 CMR 72.081C. The town of Milton has the legal right to choose to adopt a multifamily zoning plan that provides for a district in
which multifamily housing is permitted as of right without age restrictions and suitable for families with children having a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre based upon the fact that Milton has developable land located not
more than.5 miles from a commuter rail station. And if just Peter Melo could just address that just for clarification. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Um, Peter Melo Town Council. So, um, the regulations
explicitly classify Milton as a rapid transit community. Um, in my opinion, 7 section 72081C can't reasonably be determined to confer upon the town unilateral authority to change its classification.
Um, and you know, so I I don't and if you read 72081C fully, it actually reflects I think it its meaning, its intended meaning. It gives an example to illustrate its meaning and it basically says that
municipalities with u transit station areas within proximity of multiple types of uh transit stations can locate their zoning in either or both. It doesn't
mean that um it assumes that it doesn't mean you can change your classification or change the amount of multif family housing you have to zone for. Um and it's my view pretty clear from the full text of 72081C.
Um so that's my opinion. Thank you Meredith. You're recognized for a followup. Thank you very much. I just want to confer with that to accept that motion. So folks, what we're doing now, we're just waiting to hear the the position of
the planning board and the motion to refer it back for further study. And then we'll also hear from the chair of the W committee. And I just want to recognize Sean Beehey to make one comment and then we'll be ready to vote. I'd like to ask the board while we're
waiting to please, I know it's very very tempting to please resist leaving until we take this vote. And technically, I'd like to turn it back to our elected moderator to to uh entertain the motion to adjourn.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't do that. Thank you for your patient folks. We are We are going to get this done. should have We might just little used to ride all the I don't think I rode a bike for
doing a great job. Keep it up. Let me know and I'll talk to you. She was so kind of weird. You know, I've been to I have very simp You know what I like when I go? Oh yeah. Same back. You know what? You should
really grab Yes, Miss Hall. I just wanted to recognize Sean Fehee and then we will um Okay. make our decision on the motion. Sorry, Mr. Fe. You're recognized. As soon as Loy leaves, you go, you're recognized.
Loy is going to speak conditionally, I guess, on what I say. Um that's just what he told me. Uh Sean Fehee, town meeting member and uh member of the planning board. Um, we've had some discussion before the meeting and again here at the table with Ben and Nick and
and Peter Meredith and the planning board members and this is just a piece of information. Um, if by chance our classification changes, we have passed a 25% plan, right? If our classification changes as a result of the case that's
before Judge Gild Day that the residents have brought forth. If our classification changes, we have z no zoning plan. We will have no zoning plan to guide zoning in Milton on this issue until
town meeting would approve a 10% plan. So, I just I just want the body to understand that we cannot use a 25% plan. Um, we we will and and I'm going to ask town council to speak to this. We
would not be out of compliance if our classification changed because we'd have a 25% plan, but in terms of utilizing that 25% plan to guide our zoning, we can't do that. So, Mr. F if I could make an
interpretation for the members. I believe what I'm hearing you say there's a motion to send it back to the planning board. I believe what I'm hearing you say is you would you would probably prefer that we reconvene and consider the the motion rather than sending it back. Brian, I'm not uh Mr. Moderator.
I'm not saying that. I just want the body to understand if we think as a group that because we have a 25% plan we can utilize that if our classification changes, that's an incorrect assumption. We can't do that. Please come down. And since there's
still discussion going here, I will entertain the member to ask the moderator for a question. And and we have two moderators right now. Uh, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Um, Doug Hine, precinct 2. I think I had the same question that I think a lot of
people had right now about the comment that was just made. 25 is more than 10. So, if we pass 25% plan, aren't we by definition have a plan that's more than 10% so we are in compliance? And I guess my follow
question would be how fast could we if our categorization changed how fast could we get a 10% plan before town meeting which I would absolutely support as would a lot of people here I think right [Applause]
because there's a lot of us just voting for the 25% plan because that's what the law calls for 10% though we'd be on board with right okay so that's my question Thank you sir. So it wasn't bad enough
that we delayed you a half an hour before we started tonight. Now we're teasing you by hanging up before we kind of can adjourn. It's not intentional. Sometimes it happens this way. Yes, town council, you're recognized.
And I hope you have good news for us, sir. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Peter Melo, town council. So I the bottom line is that if if the classification were changed so that the amount of multif family housing that Milton was required
to have was reduced from 25% down to some lesser number 10% for example and the the 25% plan still remain applicable and we we'd remain compliant. I think that uh Mr. Fehee said that. Um, so I think that that's the bottom line.
Bottom line is that we remain in compliance. We just have way more um uh zoning than we'd be required to have at that point. Way more multif family zone, which obviously town meeting can amend a
zoning bylaw when it wants to amend it. So, um, in that scenario, town meeting could modify the the bylaw to reduce the amount of multif family housing that the bylaw allowed as of right, but it would Meredith, you're recognized. Thank you.
The planning board accepts the motion to defer back for further study. [Applause] Okay, folks. Refer back. Did I say defer? Refer back for further study. Correct. To be clear, I'm going to need just a minute while
the the warranting committee and this is required. We get the position of the water committee on the motion to refer back. and their position may be changing now that the planning board has supported that. But our warrant committee chair is
taking his poll. Okay. If you're ready, sir, uh if you're ready, we'll take your position. Uh chair chairman of the select board, you're recognized. Thank you, Benzel. Uh chair of the Milton Select Board, town meeting member precinct 5. Uh the select
board also, uh recommends a yes vote on referring back. [Applause] I'll just I'll get right the heck out of Chairman of our warrant committee, you're recognized for the position of the warrant committee. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Tom Caldwell, town member
piecing six, chair of the warrant committee. The warrant committee is unanimous his recommendation to send the matter back to the planning board for further study. [Applause] Okay, folks. So that's the we have a motion that's been made and seconded and that's the vote that we'll be taking which is to refer article five back to
the warrant I back to the planning board for further study. Can we put the vote up and please I know you're all anxious to leave folks. Can you can you please not leave? Give us just three to four more minutes.
That's all. Please. Never mind. Ah there we go folks. The motion to refer it back overwhelmingly is supported. And now uh before I entertain before we entertain any emotion journ which is what everyone wants to I am going to
step down to my uh role as interim moderator and turn it back over to our elected top moderator Liz. Don't leave. This is how tall I really am. I stand on a thing. Okay. So, our next town meeting
is October 27th. Please everybody be there. This concludes the business of the June 2025 special town meeting. With that, I'll entertain a motion to dissolve.
Do I hear a second? All those in favor? I. All those opposed? It's unanimous. The motion carries. We're dissolved. See you October 27th, 7:30 here in the high school auditorium. Thank you. Thank you.
And thank you very much to Brian Walsh. Thank you. [Music]
Rip it. Rip.