[Music] 39. I will call this uh meeting of the uh select board uh to October 27th, 2025 to order. Um I'm going to uh unless
there's a um complaint, I'd like to move item four, which is Warf Park renovation project up to the front as we're joined by Mr. McCay and that will allow him to claim a comfortable seat for town meeting. >> Does that work for you? >> I actually no longer meet. >> Oh, that's right.
>> So, well then you can sit and wait like the rest of us, I guess. Do you want to get started? Okay. >> Come up. Yeah. One shot so that we can capture your audio. >> Um, >> so thank you for asking me to come
tonight. Um, this is is simply an update for the board and I'm also going to add for an affirmation of a vote that was held back in September of 2024. Um, regarding Warf Park and
rehabilitation process that we've been trying to do down there. Um, by way of introduction, Scott McKay was a a former town meeting member to former park commissioner. Um and I currently sit on the board of the Milton Farmers Market
and Friends of Milton Recreation. So in those roles, um so so starting back, this this project kind of conceptually started back in 2022. Um, and it was at a a Milton Farmers Market board meeting and we were looking
at the park and with the root system, um, the uneven grounds, um, really unsafe conditions, um, for for folks who were just able-bodied, but certainly not accessible for folks who have any sort of other abilities. So,
um, we started talking about whether this was a viable space for the Milton Farmers Market to continue long term. Um, and right about that same time, the town approved um, Community Preservation Act. And so, we thought this was a great
opportunity to kind of step forward and take a possibly rehabilitating this park. So, back in 22, we put in an application to CPC for $25,000 to publicly study this the park and open it
up to the wider community and say, "What is it that folks want to see out of this park?" Um, currently now it's used by the farmers market. There's there's kind of inactive passive use by, you know, passerbys, folks with dogs, that type of
thing. there's some storage there for um the rowing club and we wanted to not only continue the space for the Milton farmers market but create a space that is inviting down at the public waterfront. So that's where this thing
was born. We put in a $25,000 application to study it. Uh we hired we went through a lengthy process. Nick was involved to bring on a landscape architect. Um and they held a series of six meetings um over about a year and a
half of process and we we came up with three kind of general concept designs for what it could be and those are delineated in here and from those public meetings kind of synthesized additional things amenities that folks wanted in the park.
Um we spent some time with the planning board. Um we spent some time um with neighboring businesses, the select boards for Milton Landing Committee we had a meeting with and we always thought this would be a great space for either
fonts or you know theater or something like that. So we also invited the arts community to participate in giving us some feedback. So through that year and a half process, this is the conceptual designs that were um um developed. And I
just want to point out on page four looks like this. Watching it um you can see in the in the top right corner it says Neponet Riverwalk. That's an existing park that's already down on
the waterfront now. Um, and if you look in the the bottom left hand corner, there's a set of stairs that comes down from Adam Street. So, those were kind of a a few contextual things that in the neighborhood that we wanted to continue
into this park. So, if you see the stairway, it kind of comes across and then there's a set of stairs that comes down into Warf Park. Those were intentionally made to be consistent with the walkway that's coming from Adam Street and kind of the circular pattern that's on Warf Park mirrors what's
already down in the poner of the walk. So based on feedback and and the orientation of this park, they wanted the majority of the slope to face towards the water. It's a beautiful view down there and kind of bring that into to being in the neighborhood. Um again
that's all all those things were considered in the design process. Um and I mentioned before on September 10th of 24 we came to the select board and presented this design um for approval by the board and also consent to move
forward to solicit funds for the park itself. Um so we went ahead and put in another a second application to the community preservation committee um for the funding of the construction engineering
costs and construction. Um and through a few meetings with those folks, they they told us that it's it's better if you split it up, figure out the engineering piece of it first and also get a a good cost estimate for what this thing is going to going to cost the towns. Um so
that's what we did. We we we went in last year the budget for just the engineering services was 157,000. Um community preservation commission they committee they awarded us 73,500 for the study. Um and our steering
committee raised the additional 83,500 for engineering and cost estimating. It's not the the the sexiest way to raise money is for engineering costs that nobody's ever going to see. So, it was kind of a slog to get there, but we did. Um, and to date, we have 75%
construction documents on on the site. Um, and the cost estimate, it's still super conservative from our from our independent estimator, it's coming in at about 1.5 million. But as our steering our steering committee is committed to getting this, you know, using
alternatives um for, you know, the surface of the walkway, those types of things to to save additional funding, additional money. So, we're hoping to get this down to about 1.2 million. So, the reason why we're here today again is to to ask for a vote from you
guys um affirming it. But I also wanted to to kind of give you the lay of land what we're up against for these next several weeks and months. On November 5th, uh we've already submitted that application, the third application to to community preservation commission
committee for $750,000 and then we also submitted a $250,000 application to the town's capital committee. So, we the steering committee views this park, it's a municipal park. It is under
the the um guidelines in custody, care, and control. I'm sure you know those words, of the select board. Um and so it's our feeling that the bulk of the funding for the infrastructure of this project should come from the town. the
infrastructure um corrections to this park are going to last long after the amenities on this park have have passed by. So, we're talking dirt work, um moving the earth, retaining wall, a
walkway, making it accessible. Those things are the things that we're asking the town to cover. In the additional men's, I want to list some of the other things that that folks came up with. We're going to and it's going to be privately funded um by either donations, foundations, or inind work. Going to
include uh two sets of entry stairs into the park, a children's play area, park benches, a pollinator garden, um plantings, a permanent bic bicycle rack, lighting, and a sun canopy. And I I
always love this. And and again, it goes back to what what else can this park be used for? There's some pictures up here of what it could look like on market day. Um, but this last picture kind of we we're we're hoping to get lighting
for this that also can withhold a canopy to provide some some shade. Um, and here is a concert that's happening in the park. And if you're you're sitting on the kind of burm around or the wall that's going to be around the park, you'll be able to look past that
and see the water, see the theater, see a m some musical show um and just people just generally gathering in the space. That's really the intent behind this was to create a space that um was inviting for folks to to use the waterfront and
and be accessible and usable for for a much larger population than it currently can. So, that's what I'm asking you guys for is just to affirm the vote that was taken in September. And um they're going to be considering applications over the next weeks and months. And if we can
get, you know, a letter signed by the board or a letter signed by the the chair that just supports this project, I think that will go a long way in helping them make their funding decisions. >> Yeah. And if I may, uh Mr. Okay, just to add a little context. So, um, he he
wrote to me about this and then, um, I didn't get it on our last agenda and then realized that the CPC application was going to be due before our next regular comm uh, our next regular meeting. >> So, I thought it would be best for Scott to come in now so that at least the
majority of the board could hear uh, what we were being asked to do, which is really to just submit a letter of support for the project. We're not committing ourselves to funding at this point. It's just this is a good idea. We like it. We want to see it continue to move forward.
>> We never want to see this project as, you know, a farmers market project or a Friends of Milton Recreation project. This is still outboard land. We came forward with a plan to use the land. I think we we tried to get as much community support as possible for it. Um, and kind of touch on a lot of the
things that people wanted, but ultimately the decision for this park and whether it's going to move forward or not lies within the town with the select. >> So, uh, questions from the members. >> When do you anticipate having 100% design? >> Uh, by January 1st.
>> Okay. and the lion share of this 70% of the the project we're looking to have funded by municipal sources will know far before that January 1 time whether or not um CPC and or the the capital committee
will admit funding to it. So >> Sure. Okay. Is there any estimate of the operating costs for the for a park of this size? So, one of the members on our board on our steering committee is Brian Pasonio. He's a landscape
contractor in town. We also have our landscape architect. We had a meeting two weeks ago to talk about that. >> Um, based on spring cleanup, fall cleanup, additional plannings that are needed, any damages to that need to be fixed. Um, the operating budget is
probably 12 to $15,000 a year just for maintenance. >> Okay. Um, and again, we can we can tackle that in a lot of ways. It was the intention of the committee was to raise additional funding to to set aside some funds for the first five to six years for for that.
>> But also, it's a great opportunity for for other folks in town who want to make some income donations, >> right? Um and and one other thing I just want to mention, are are landscape architects committed to using um plantings that are hardy that can
withstand any sort of I mean flooding isn't that high, but there's certainly a salt content that's down there. So So choosing plantings that that make sense in that space >> and maybe native plants, >> correct? >> Cool. >> Other questions from the members?
>> Uh no questions for me on this. Do we have uh design or to Elliot >> or to Elliot? The Bank of America renovation. >> Yep. I'm thinking about if this is going to happen, those are very close together that we should be thinking about those as sort of in conjunction with the
change. >> I know JD is part of the the small steering group, right? >> So JD Wild, who owns Muscle and Flow building and also the Bank of America building. I think he just purchased the building that's to the west of the park. um is on our se committee and
>> the LA King building. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, um he really envisions the park, you know, bringing that and and he he um and several other developers, contractors in
town are going to also write a support letter for us. um without saying it, what what they're going to they're going to contribute a significant amount to to make this happen. Um they're really looking forward to kind of using this as a
>> kind of a I don't know an example for private private public partnerships to get projects like this done. Um and there's definitely some energy to to to go that way. So >> do you have anybody from 88 Warf on the group too? There is a board member from
88 warf on the committee as well. >> And then I know I remember when last time we met there was the tree debate. Y >> keep both remove the oak or remove both. >> Um the beach tree is staying. >> Beach is the one that's to closest to the train station.
>> Yeah. >> Um >> and the oak was kind of a lost cause anyways I think. >> Well uh probably a third of the limbs have already fallen down. Um when I was on the board of park commissioners, a huge limb fell and he splintered a um
picnic table that was there. So >> we're still we were asked by one of the members of the CPC to have an arborist come out and study that tree. >> Um and it was right middle of summer, so
they were booked out. We we went to Bartlett Tree Welsley and now we're Doug Hunt is actually going to be doing the work in the next week and he'll give us a written report. >> Okay. >> Little cooler in here. Mr. Wells. >> How are you?
>> And Rich's been to so many meetings, he could probably do this presentation himself. So, >> yes, we're just talking about the uh uh the park uh the Wararf Park design. Um, well, that's timely. So, we've just finished asking Mr. Mcwip questions, I
think, unless there was on anything else from the board. >> Um, so what we're looking for is a motion to draft a letter of support for this project. >> Motion's been made by Mr. Walls, seconded by Mr. Daly. Um, any further
discussion on that? I think we are all in person, so we can just do this the oldfashioned way. All in favor? I >> question. >> Oh yes. >> Yeah. [Music] >> I got >> Okay, that that will pass then. Uh
>> thank you very much. Sorry we had to find you in here. >> Uh so then let's go back to uh item number two uh the special town uh warrant articles. Um, Mr. Mill, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
believe that we have voted on any of these yet as a board about whether to uh to to to support or not. Um, so maybe the best way to do this is to just go through one by one. If we decide we want to vote now, we can. If we decide we
want to vote on the floor, we can do that. Um, and if there's any updates in terms of I know there's uh some amendments and things kicking around on a couple of them, uh, that we can also discuss that. Does that make sense to everyone? Okay. Um, so starting with the first one, uh, article one, amend fiscal
year 2026 general government appropriations. That's the the money for the special election. Um, I don't believe there's any amendments to this one. >> Correct. >> Um, I would entertain a motion to um, Mr. Wells makes a motion to support. >> Second, >> seconded by Miss Hegerty. All any
further discussion? >> I. >> All in favor? I. >> That's okay. All in favor? I. >> Okay. Um, so then article number two, uh, accept MGL chapter 40 section 57 and amend the general bylaws. I don't
believe there are any articles or changes to this one, so I'd entertain a motion. >> Um, motion's been made by Mr. Wells. >> Second. >> Seconded by Miss Hagerty. Uh, all in favor? >> I. >> Uh, our item three is accept Mass
General Law Chapter 60 section 3D. Uh, and again, I don't I don't believe this one is uh has anything floating around it. >> So, I'll take a motion on that unless somebody wants to discuss. >> Uh, motion's been made by by Mr. Wells. Uh, seconded,
>> second >> by Miss Hagerty. Uh, all in favor? >> I. Uh, okay. Item four is our communitywide greenhouse gas emissions article. Um and this we had been presented to this is submitted by the
climate action planning committee who had presented to the select board previously where we had asked questions. Um I don't believe that there's anything amended to this one either. Uh unless uh if folks want to talk about it we can discuss otherwise I would take a motion.
>> I just have one question. Yeah, >> question involves the sleep. I mean still the diesel engines are still existing DBWs. I just saw the
cross forward type electric firing but the radar. Does this allow you to just direct or is this you see the word direct director or directors like we hope you'll do this until you like
>> that's my only question the word directors can have a lot of interpretations. >> No guarantee >> I think Alex Tasha will speak to that but um his point was to make it as more of a sense of the town meeting. I'll let Darren speak to that as well. something binding in this article
>> through the chair. Exactly. That it's a directory. I know that that word, but it's it's not binding. I mean, it's more of a sense of meaning advisory. >> Right. So, the town would prefer if you could buy an electric firetruck. If it costs a billion dollars, then we probably would consider an alternative.
>> I like the motion. >> Okay. Motion's been made by Mr. Wells. >> Second. >> Seconded by Miss Hagerty. Uh, all in favor? >> I >> uh Okay. Article five. Um, this is the EPIC. Um, and Mr. Milano, maybe you you
and I have been on some emails around this. I'll may may turn this to you to to bring us up to speed on the latest amendments. So, as of I just checked. I don't have any updates, but some of the conversation prior to this meeting was that Meredith Hall would speak with the
planning board this evening about amending the recommendation from the warrant committee to extend this term with Empic rather than establishing this new committee at this town meeting. Um, what she had asked um to draft was to have the Empic term extend for another
year from now. And then in the meantime, planning board and Empic and others can work together an article in a committee to replace Empic. But to essentially kick the decision point to a future town meeting and extend everything as is today um for now. I don't know if that
obviously has been adopted by the planning board or not, but that is a sense of where that discussion was headed and and that follows a couple planning board meetings where they discussed it um in depth. >> Can I ask a quick question? Um when we met last there was the question about making recommendations regarding the
scope and key focus areas of future master plans to the se to the warrant committee and or not to the warrant committing board and select board. Um has that have those amendments been submitted? Do we >> you'll have a green sheet that reflects that? So it was a small change in in one
section that recommendations regarding the scope of ch focus series would be reported to the planning board on the select master plans under MGL are under the jurisdiction of the planning board anyway. So if uh >> well considering that the master plan and I I'm sorry I won't speak first on
this is do people have thoughts about the uh amendment? >> Yeah I mean the amendment itself is disappointing. um you know I don't understand the reason for it. The planning committee received
um the article I think at least back in September or had access to it. Um we had members of the planning board um attending EMPIC meetings um on Zoom and their concerns were never raised until
just the past couple of weeks. So um I am going to support um a successor committee. >> Mr. Wells different not on the amendment. I did one that that I arrived
here right after the Empre was really going up their sleeves and beginning their work and it was always the idea that it would sunset and I did both directly and indirectly from the two most seen. They've been there forever though. Brad Taber and Ly Ber the entire time and both of them feel that like
we've done what we were supposed to do and that's like you know committed to this either way. I don't care the amendment although I think it's fine for I mean Cheryl when she says the whole thing you said was a great one thing was great that almost even applied to which
I find it's disappointing well there. So to your point Mr. Wells. Um the and and this will be in Cheryl's presentation tonight. A tremendous amount of work has been done. >> A tremendous amount successfully
completed, but there's still more work to be done. There's still cards left on the table. So, um, and it's it's a I believe it's a it's a function that this town needs to
have continued implementation of that plan um, in potentially an evaluation of what comes next. >> So, I can live with that. My only other thing is and this is and this was back when I first arrived. Mr. Danny was
there was chair was I was supposed to have a budget the past few years probably w up giving it a budget and because you know every dollar is important I just don't know that I'm okay I'm okay with it as we're doing but
I just think we need to car let them coming let them come in and think I'll get rid of money. That's something we have to whether I'm near or not. We're going to have to talk about that because it sounded as like a one or
two year thing and now it's like >> I know you've only been here a short time but I think you already got >> Yeah. >> Okay. I >> Any other thoughts, Mr. Dandy? >> No, I should be clear. So, uh, Megan, your stance is that we should move
forward with, you'd prefer to move forward with the article. Yeah. >> The new committee, not the extension. >> And it's fine for it to report to the select board and the planning board. >> Yeah. I thought that that amendment was going to then alleviate the concerns that the planning board had, but um, so
and I think that was their original amendment. >> So, I think we could take a motion to support that. >> It doesn't call for money, does it? >> No. No, >> it well it says that existing money for Empic moves over, but there's nothing new. >> Um, okay. So the motion just to be clear
is uh to support article 5 as written with the exception of the amendment that had been proposed earlier by uh who did the warrant or the planning board proposed that >> the the to add the two >> have the warrant committee sheet is the revised recommendation I think
>> with the with the recommendation of the warrant with the amendment suggested by the warrant committee to um the item three that requires the um the board to the um committee to report to planning board and select board. So that's the motion made by Mr. Wells >> and seconded by Mr. Daly. Uh any further
discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> Okay, that's unanimous. Uh item six is our um oh the uh just changing the year on the uh the um
conservation land. I don't think that there's any amendments to this because it's one number. Um but I could be wrong. >> Nothing to our knowledge. Okay. Um, so any uh further discussion or I'll take a motion on that one.
>> I'll make a motion saying [Music] because this is going to be this going to line up. >> Okay. >> So >> motion to approve article six uh regarding the land transfers and potential school projects.
>> Okay. Motion's made by Mr. Dailyaly. >> Seconded. >> Seconded by Miss Hagerty. Uh Mr. Wells is recusing himself. Uh, all in favor? I >> I >> That's 300. Uh, okay. Article 7. Um, this is the general bylaws amendment. Alcohol and timeline. I know there are a
Did I skip one? >> No. >> Okay. I know there were a host of uh amendments made and I have a feeling you have some interested parties in the audience. Um, so uh Mr. Milano, knowing that we're going to be g Well, I guess
we've got 25 minutes. Um, do you want to review the the amendments that have been submitted so far? >> We did we input? >> I don't think we do. >> No. Okay. >> And actually before you do that, if I if I may, I just want to I just to so I was
curious about this one from a protocol perspective because we submitted this uh the warrant committee their recommendation has come back with some additional language. Um so my understanding after talking with the moderator who have also consulted town council is that the motion on the floor
is going to be the motion presented by the warrant committee. So we can um choose to support the motion made by the warrant committee. We can deal with the other uh amendments in a in a moment or we can just uh vote or or we can amend
we can make an a motion to amend which would just revert back to the language that we had originally submitted to the war committee. So those are those are kind of like our two options before we get into the other uh amendments that have been proposed. >> So is this what we have here?
The warrant committee's recommendation >> addition. >> Yeah, the warrant committees uh changed the wristband language to be for both seeking to purchase or consume alcohol beverage. Uh and then they also added and and ours originally just had a age
identifying non-transferable risk bands shall be provided to individuals seeking to purchase alcohol beverages. So their suggestion there which I think um you know is rather than just those who are purchasing it if you want to drink you should just have the bracelet. These are
these um paper bracelets that they just slap on you. So that's >> I'm just I'm just looking at the piece of paper in front of me. That's the that's been submitted by Mike Zulus. >> That's that's a separate one. Okay. >> The what the warrant committee is in the warrant itself. That's
>> um >> yeah, it's the >> this whole situation where there's a bunch of different things in front of us at the last minute like kind of gets me like >> welcome.
>> I know. But I'm just I have a voice, right? Just We really tried beginning o over the summer to get these things lined up, ducks in a row, similar to what's happening right now on the Empic issue.
People submitting stuff at the last minute feels a little bit like gamesmanship on some of this. And I think it's absolutely unprofessional and inappropriate. I don't care if I agree with it or not. I'm just going to state that,
you know, this is this is tricky and and we have to figure out how to how to make this work better next time. >> I don't know that there's going to be a better way for for something like this, but I I I hear what the member is saying. Um my suggestion might be that
rather than vote on additional amendments that are proposed on the floor that we just set out kind of what we would like to do with this existing language now and we can discuss on the floor if and when there almost certainly will be more amendments added and we can
address those as they come up. Um my uh and then I'll just give my feeling real real quick. Um, frankly, I think if the warrant committee had come back to us and just said here, like, can you make this change on the non-transferable wristband so that it's for whoever purchases or consumes, I would have been
fine with that. I think the um the requirement for a vendor to post product description price and alcohol by volume for each product is prohibitive because we don't ask anybody else to do that. And I mean I don't know how you would even require I mean you could do the
math I guess but to figure out how much alcohol is in a genonic or is in a you know whatever the cosmopolitan the cocktails are that they're drinking that's going to be I I think that would be ownorous on uh on like you know steel
and rye or um uh if they're if they're catering something like this they don't have that info nec necessarily off the top of their head and since they wouldn't be required to do it for something that is inter indoors I don't understand why you would have to be I understand the public health argument
for it generally but I also have to sort of take into consideration what's reasonable to request of people and I don't I don't know that it's reasonable to request something like that in uh you know just for specifically outdoor um uh
conversations >> on town property >> yeah on own property only, right? So that's not a requirement that's given to the use of estate or given to um you know anybody else. >> Yeah. >> No one. >> So for me
my my preference is that I feel like the our article that we originally created took some of the uh suggestions from our friends in the community. Um, and in our discussions at Select Board, we really had a discussion about whether or not we
wanted this article to be very prescriptive or not very prescriptive, right? Like how many rules did we want to put in on this versus how much can be left to the discretion of the select board when issuing uh and that that's goes to the uh the beer garden question and some of the other questions that
have come up. So my preference is not surprisingly for the work that we already did approved, but I'm No, that's that's pretty much it. That's all that's what I had to say. >> No, I'm just nodding on. >> So, I I concur with this. Look, I was
ask um how many other than probably Kevin Mer only showed you over a thousand decades and really I I helped them with 350 sit on the board of milit and when
the milit started 14 years ago we didn't sound like at all but people were bringing us home we said we need something and nothing against them is the most recent back of [Music] I'm counting soul cups on the they're
bringing it on the road which is you need the right I know for the past couple years the sports press has tried to come to us to for us to find a way for them to sell them and to me like now you could potentially have something shield part to set it up and and not any
of these fun all the fundraisers on the money they're trying to make money staying there and this is one way to do it >> and 14 years in adult music fest 5,000 people every weekend we never had a single jazz fest hall all the things in curry
build all and so you can go into any you come in here and write the data fields and and none of this so I mean we've only got one from one and to me you know I'm very protective I come from just a protective
nature I agree with you and I was I had initially thought there was going to go long three recommendations, but you I agree with you. You know, the posting of the percentages and the gets to the point that like who are you going to get to do this? There's a reason that
Massachusetts codified and created a statute for caterers licenses that kind of helped communities and not just communities but organizers to have a safe outline mandate for that's like you
know in this first proposal was let's follow the statute. Um, so I agree with Miss Hagy on uh I agree with her comments and I'll do either one. If you want to just go back to our develop recommendation, I support the
whatever. We're going to wait till vote on violent. >> Well, I think we could have like an overall vote now and then we could come back to the, you know, to the individual questions when we are on the floor. I have a feeling we'll have some time on this one to discuss. >> It's a supporter as we originally wrote. >> Yes. which would technically be a motion
to amend the the warrant committee's recommendation to the original text suggested by select board. I get that right, Darren. >> Yeah, the work >> submitted by the select board. Yeah, >> that motion submitted by >> Okay, motion's been made. Was there a
second? >> Second. >> Seconded by by Miss Hagerty. Uh any further discussion on this one? >> Okay. >> Well, we got a vote. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Um I can uh I told Jay that we I
would uh go and chat with them, let him know how that happened. Uh Okay. So item eight is the light trespass. The warrant committee has also made some additions here. I think probably most
substantively the change to uh not allowing uh this to basically the the distinction between the open uh the um dark skies and the light trespass. So as they correctly I
think labeled this as a light trespass article. They said that those provisions don't necessarily apply to places like uh federal parks, state parks, wilderness, conservation areas, etc. So somebody if they man if they wanted
to could still shine a spotlight on a piece of park property as long as they weren't somehow also shining light on privately owned land. It would still be okay. Um for this one we've gone through the hoops on this a whole bunch. I think
that there is room for starting up a Dark Skies um warn article if people are interested. But we've gone back and forth on this one a couple of times. I feel like this is as close as we've gotten to sort of consensus agreement around the language and my inclination is to agree with the
war committee. Um but that's just again I'm just kind of editorializing right off the top >> and the other Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Go ahead substantive change of the warrant to be made was work through an appeals process with KP. >> So I know I brought back that they were working through it and the way it would
work is it's it's laid out how an appeal would work. an appeal would be heard by a committee of three individuals who have to be appointed by the select board, which I know wasn't necessarily this board's preference. Um, it's where the warrant can be landed after kind of debating it for a while, but I think I just want to flag the other substantive
change was how to how the initial violation was handled, how it could be appealed and what the property. >> Thank you. That's important to know. So, we previously did not have an appeals process in here and I think that uh this it was a good addition by the um by the
committee. >> So, um any further discussion on this one? >> Just my own thought. I think if it does go >> it's dead dead. I think >> yeah, you have the press
to see the gone or stolen stuff like Yep. I totally agree with that. Um, so hearing that, I will take a motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> Okay, motion's been made. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Miss Hagerty. Uh, all all in
favor? I >> I >> That's unanimous. Um, and then article number nine. Um, I don't think that there was any substantive changes to this or amendments. Is that right, Mr. Emanuel? >> And this was submitted by the planning board. Um, so unless there's discussion,
I would take a motion on this one. >> Make a motion on that >> as submitted. Yeah. But as recommended by the war committee. >> Um, motion's made by Mr. Wells. I will second it for a change of pace.
Uh, and all in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Uh, that brings us then to item three, Mr. Milano. Select boards letter to M. Unless there's anything else from town meeting that we've we've heard. >> Uh so select board letter to MBTA. I saw
that you I saw that you pinged them on that. No response again because >> uh so when we had originally sent the letter um a staffer from NDA confirmed receipt called me just to say got it. I'll check in get back to you. when I
pinged them again uh last week, same thing. Confirmed receipt, gave me a call, spoke to him at a greater length today. Um didn't have anything concrete, but did say that that T would be making an announcement in several weeks and u
we hope to have more information before that >> about the Metapan line specifically. Okay. >> So that that's the gist of it. Not nothing real substantive, but he did say there should be more news coming out publicly in a few weeks and >> Okay. maybe um for our next meeting which was
in the middle of November if we have a date for that if they haven't yet released the news that would be helpful. >> Okay. >> Um other thoughts from the members on this one? >> They're not. >> Sorry, >> they are not. But you know, I feel like
we have the we have the good guy stick and we should use it for a bit. Um Warf Park renovation. Any any further discussion on the um MBTA? Okay. Uh we already talked about Warf Park uh EOZ uh for town of Milton home rule petition for additional alcohol
licenses. >> Thank you. Um and thanks to 7 week and select board representative Weld's office for um shephering this through. Uh so this bill is having a hearing um as we speak. It's open for testimony. Uh the feedback from
the committee has been that we submitted a map with 10 zones for up to five licenses. They would like for the number of zones to match the number of potential licenses. So um I printed the map again unless anybody had any um
substances issued. I will just expand zones to to little it down from 10 to five. Um unless there's any zones folks would like to throw. Um, I will just I asked if we could just make them bigger and they didn't say none. So, >> yeah. I mean, I think you could just
connect one, two, and three pretty easily. >> Yeah, that one was easy. >> And then I think six, sorry, eight, seven, and 10. You could probably connect eight and seven maybe.
>> Oh, seven is the paper mill. >> We could just ditch the paper mill because nothing's going in there anytime soon. Um, yeah, because you're not This is This is our This was We picked five. Yeah. Always go back. But I get where they're at. They want to match licenses
to still. >> So, if we had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. We'd still like I think you could connect eight and 10 just by going down um Blue Hill Parkway. And similarly, you could connect
six and nine by going down uh Randolph. >> Does that sound right to people? I'm just kind of eyeballing it here. >> Doesn't map those. It's probably the best way to get to five. >> That would get me to five with those changes. Combining one, two, and three, connecting six and nine, connecting
eight and 10, and dropping seven. >> Okay, >> as a standalone. And then as a reminder for folks, anybody who's and I'm just this is more for the folks that are are watching this in retrospect. This doesn't mean that there's going to be a line of bars down Blue Hill. There's
only five licenses and the select board has the ability to select where they go. It's just creating the zones that people could apply within >> and zoning will still apply. >> And zoning stills. Yeah. >> Okay. Um so does that you just have the instructions on that. You don't need a motion, right?
>> No, I can take that. Uh I we'll update it. We'll get it back to the board, but then we'll submit it into the committee. >> Okay. Um looking at the time, we're a little limited. Um fire station projects debt model. >> I can provide the board the next two updates via email. I would just ask that
you move on for sure when the license for 3:30 show um for the first Friday >> the first Friday Alex
and music >> I second >> made by Mr. Well seconded, Miss Hegery, I will just add I will be performing at this one. So >> no, people are going to need that liquor because of that. Um I uh so uh any other
discussion? I'll uh we've got a motion. All in favor? I >> Okay. Um and we adjourn, right? >> Yeah. So I'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> Seconded. I second. >> All in favor? I. >> All right. We are adjourned.
[Music]