Okay, thank you for warrant committee for gathering. This is the 24th of October. Uh and um this is a pre-town meeting. We do meet the night of town meeting. We meet in the basement. I wanted to meet today so that we could
take you know first of all have a little more time to consider some things are coming and also there have been some suggested amendments from the public and if we are favorably inclined to these amendments first first of all this gives us a little more time to discuss them and think about them and if we're
favorably inclined we can accept those amendments and then it'll all be done and known and handed out to the uh town meeting members on a piece of paper which is just a May I do a quick May I do a quick roll call so you can call to order?
>> Sure. >> Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. Uh we have Jay Funling, Ela Craighead, James Lee Dassi, excuse me, Grace Doherty, Andrew Co, Julia Maxwell, Brian Magcguire, Lee Michael Mlan, and Nicholas Tangnney. You have quorum.
>> Okay, great. Um I would like to share a screen. I've got some slides to help uh to help guide this discussion especially because I think you know some of us can only stay for
30 minutes so we'll have to be efficient which I hope you like to hear. Um so what I was saying is we've got some proposed amendments and there are sort of two choices like let's say we like this amendment. Uh if we don't act today
like slash do not oppose the amendment. If we don't act today, then here's what will happen. We'll go to town meeting. 250 of our best friends will be in a room. There will be an um if we amend it today, we'll we'll discuss whether the amendment is good or not. We'll if if
so, we vote yes. Then a green sheet is handed out to everyone. A piece of paper is handed out to everyone as they walk into town meeting so they know right from the start what they're voting on. Uh I don't know if this visual conveys what I was hoping to convey. My sort of idea is that if it go if it goes to the
floor of town meeting, it's just more stuff, more process, more more time wasted by more people. Whereas if we do it today, it's just quicker and more efficient for any amendments that we want to support.
So I will say there have been some that have come in through official or unofficial channels. Uh the first one is about the MPIC article and Brian and Grace, you're the experts on this. If you don't mind, I'd like to speak to it.
So, uh the impeic article, you might have seen in the paper some of you, that uh the planning board was sort of not happy that they weren't consulted about this article. They had a meeting last night where they discussed that further. And I watched the meeting and first of all, they did not vote on anything. The
entire planning board did not hold a vote to do anything. They did not vote to suggest the amendment that's on the screen in front of you. They did not vote to oppose the impic article. They talked about a lot of options. So, where does that leave us? Well, >> go ahead.
>> Can I I'll jump in. Um, and I assumed and I shouldn't have assumed because it's my fault that the planning board was you don't need to have a committee in Massachusetts, but the laws of Massachusetts state you have to have at least a policy.
So, um, that being said, I would be okay with the language you proposed on this Jay because they report to the planning board and I don't know if Meredith has seen this and if she's okay with it. This is merredous language. >> So, oh,
>> give to give people context, you know, but but respect your time. Yeah, the the planning board wasn't happy that they felt they hadn't been consulted or hadn't been consulted. Um, Julie, I'll get to you in just a second, but they ha again haven't taken steps to say and so
this shouldn't happen. The language you see in front of us was suggested by Meredith Hall. She suggested to the planning board. They didn't take action on it, but I strongly strongly suspect that if this goes to the Thor of Town meeting, Meredith Hall would uh or someone would make this amendment. Um,
and I I'll get to you in a second, Julia. I want to say some might say this wording is superfluous, and it may be superfluous, but either we deal with this superfluous language now, or 250 of our best friends will have to deal with the superfluous language. I'm not saying it is. on
Monday. Uh Julia, you're recognized. >> Um I have two questions. Um the first is my understanding and I don't know if anyone here knows this was that Cheryl was one of the original authors of this
article. Does that is that not accurate or does >> I know that's what we we thought. >> So then how was the planning board not involved? Well, we talked to her and I thought that they they were I mean Brian and I
both assumed that that was that was what happened. >> Yeah, the the other four member she didn't report back to the other four members and >> Okay. >> But she brought changes back to them. Jane, she did that we requested or >> that was to that was to the master plan implementation committee. >> Oh, not to the planning board. Okay. All
right. Okay. >> Yeah. Um, and then my other question is maybe just a process question like, uh, I understand the value of, you know, knowing this might be coming and sort of seeing it ahead of time and being able
to think on it, but I mean, can we vote on a possible amendment before there's an amendment in front of us? >> Yes, because this is something we are doing. It's not We're not responding to it. I mean, we sort of are. We're not responding to amendment from a town
meeting floor. This is us, the warrant committee, saying we want to make this amendment to our recommendation. We can do that. >> Thank you. >> So, >> and the reason we want to do it is to save time on town meeting floor. >> Um,
>> yes, James Lee. >> I am confused about what the difference between uh the item number one and item number three in this article. Item number one already says that they would uh make recommendations to the planning board as well as the select board
>> and then they wanted to state again that they'll make recommendations to the planning board on item three. >> Yeah. The the the master plan is a 300page document that was made 11 years ago >> and this is saying and it h by law we
have to have a master plan. This is saying if they want to change the master plan also by law the master plan is sort of under the planning board. This is saying if the master plan committee wants to make a change they go through the planning board. So for me it would be it would make more
sense to get rid of item three and reduce remove the confusion. Um well I think the reason to keep it is to say the master plan committee should make recommendations when the master plan should be changed and
but it doesn't say that just says regarding the scope and key focus areas of the future of the master plan. The the section on on number one says and to recommend you know and then the details to the to the planning board including implementation such plan including
timing resources responsibilities that's the detail of what they're recommending to the planning board. >> I think the difference is like let's say the master plan right now says we should have more parking at the library. So under item number one, this committee
will be recommend making recommendations to the town saying here's how we should have more parking at the library. That's number one. Number three is if we want to change the master plan, we want to change the master plan to say we should have less parking at the library. >> Okay. Okay. >> Right. But so they're just saying to add
to the planning board. >> Yeah. The words that are highlighted >> delineate the language as opposed to not directing it to anybody in particular. Right Jay? >> Yeah. Yeah, >> correct. >> But to James Le's point, wouldn't the
number two doesn't cover that? >> I don't have it in front of me. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, I know. >> Looking at it. Yeah. >> If we if we were to just look at one, two, and three, it it repeats. There's a lot of repetitive words that it could just be more concise with one statement of
>> these are the things that are covered and the recommendation shall be made to the planning board, select board, town meeting. And that would kind of like encompass everybody who it should be recommended to. But in this case, they're just saying number one goes to the planning board and select board. Number two goes to the planning board,
select board, town meeting. Number three goes to the planning board. >> Right. But I think your point, James Lee, is like if we take three and bring in to make recommendations regarding scope and key focus areas of future master plan to the point to those three or we combine them and then it would just be two. That's what you're saying?
Yeah, >> that seems to make sense to me and it's clearer. But >> yeah, I think >> I think I I agree with James Lee like either striking number three >> or making parallel structure by making the language in three match the language
in one and two. >> Yeah, I agree. >> But to just have number three be the planning board only just I I don't quite understand that and I think causes confusion with the way number two is written. >> I I hear what everybody is saying and I guess Maybe this shouldn't be, but my my
feeling is we are three days away from town meeting. >> Yeah. >> Um we've had this suggested. If it's not unreasonable, >> it's not. >> Then I mean, you're right. We could rewrite
these points. You're right. Maybe three is superfluous with two. Um I don't I don't know. >> Right. My only thing about this and maybe I'm beating a dead horse here. It's like to make recommendations to the planning board suggests that only recommendations go to planning board, not select board and town meeting.
>> And that's where I have an issue is that it's only one body. So, >> yep. And sorry to cut people off. That was raised last night and the confirmation came from town council and from town administrator. It doesn't prevent them from making recommendations on this topic to anyone else. It just
says it shall be the planning board. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. It's at least the planning board is is covered in that versus nobody. >> I'm just not sure why the argument that we're three days away from town meeting >> what matters >> means we need to accept this versus come
up with something that we think is more appropriate. We're three days away from town meeting. We're considering this. Why not consider something that we think is more in line with the rest of the way the article is written? >> Um,
if it's like get rid of number three, I I'm not sure why number three is there, but just because I'm not sure why number three is there, you know. >> Well, that was how the article was written originally, right? So, >> yeah, exactly. Yeah. >> So, we might be pulling a peg out of the Jingga tower if we remove them. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm of Julia's mind
that, you know, we succinct it, make it more succinct and combine them so that it makes more sense and addresses the issues. >> Or again, I would be perfectly happy with to the select board, comma, planning board, comma, in town meeting, just like the other ones are. That to me is if we don't know why item three is
there and we're worried about removing it, even though that is well within our right as a warrant committee, then why not make that >> again just make that language parallel to numbers one and two? >> This is Michael. I agree with Julia.
>> Okay. >> What I hear you saying. Oh man, sorry. I've got too many screens open or not enough screens open. Um Oh, hold on. I stop sharing. >> But to Julia's point, why not wait till Monday?
We're discussing it now, but Monday we vote when it if it if something else changes. >> The reason to not wait till Monday is so that we can have things printed and in front of town meeting members hands so it just sort of goes a lot more smoothly that they're they're voting on one
thing. >> Our proposed amendment, not the planning board's proposed amendment. So that's why we could do it now and vote on it now. >> Correct. >> All right. So let me share my screen.
What I think I hear people saying is planning board. What I think I hear people saying is this, right? >> Yes. >> You see my screen? Okay. Yeah. I mean, the the planning board
felt like, okay, by law, the the master plan is their baby. Um, but, you know, if if they want to if if Yeah. So that's why they wanted to say to the planning board, I I don't know how
they'll feel about this, but uh if this is what we think is right, then this is what we can do. >> And we think that is right because it's aligned with items one and two that are not on the screen there. >> That's correct. >> Yep.
which I can uh I think I'm sharing my screen and not just my >> Yes. >> See this? >> Yeah, we can see it. We can see it. >> Okay. >> So, it's small. I can make a little bigger. >> It does become a bit duplic duplicative, but if that's what they want all three,
at least it includes all the bodies. >> I mean, it's a little different with one there. There's no reference to the town meeting. Right. >> That's correct. >> Right. Right. It's it's very similar to the second one though. >> Should it just be planning board and
select board that? >> Yeah. Just planning board and select board might be good. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because then that's at least that's the minimum for all three. >> Okay. Uh, am I hearing a consensus and am I
hearing a uh a motion? >> I make a motion to accept as is >> as as shown on the screen. >> shown on the screen. Right. >> Second. Uh before we vote on that, just do
>> does town meeting Should should town meeting be part of three >> scope and key? >> Would you normally bring likeations to town meeting or would it just put you these bodies? >> Yeah, it's a little unwieldy. Yeah. Town
town meeting is >> a very large body. Presenting things to town meeting. Telling town meeting here's what's going on. That's one thing. But uh >> yeah like I don't know >> scope and key focus areas are pretty
narrow right but I'm just I'm not saying yes or no I'm just asking the question because I don't know the answer >> and again this doesn't prevent the master plan implementation committee from
>> presenting anything to anyone >> but these are mineral groups Okay. >> Any more discussion about this? >> No, I think we have a motion on the floor. >> Do you have a motion in a second? >> Yeah. So, I was asking for discussion on the motion in front of us. If no further
discussion, uh, can you do a roll call vote, Karen? >> Yes. Did I confirm a second? >> Yeah, >> Grace, I think. >> Okay, great. Uh, Elaine, >> abstain.
>> Jamesley, >> yes. >> Grace, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes. >> Julia, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Lee Michael, >> yes.
>> Nick, >> yes. >> Jay, >> abstain. >> Uh, the motion carries. >> Okay, great. Uh, I know we've got one member who has to drop off in 10 minutes. I don't think we're going to be done in 10 minutes. Will we still have a quorum if one
member drops? >> I believe you have. Hang on. No, I I think you may not. I'm sorry. Let me just double check. >> Do it quick. I could take it from the car if that works. >> No, you uh if one member drops, you will
still have a quorum. I'm sorry. You have nine right now. >> Okay. And can most other people stay for a little few little bit longer? >> Yeah, >> I have till one. >> So yeah, I wasn't imagining going past one. So, uh,
a town meeting member, the same, you know, same group of town meeting members have been involved with article 7 in the past have proposed this amendment to be, you know, to be brought in front of town meeting on Monday. And same logic that I said earlier applies. If there are any
parts of this that we I'll say agree with or maybe I'll say don't disagree with and we can get them taken care of today that's that much less work that burden of town meeting has to deal with on uh on Monday and because this will be
brought up. Now I don't know if you had the chance to look at the uh look at the slides it's pretty much making I would group them into three amendments. One is specifying that the wristbands will provided people 21 years and older. Uh
second one, I'll jump to the third one because that's easier. The third one is to say no one day liquor licenses with town land with a playground. And the second one is to give more information about what's on the site sketch and to say that it must have a
beer garden, so to speak, a place where the alcohol is limited to that. You remember we discussed this earlier. The language as we approved said the select board may choose to have a beer garden but don't have to. Um >> so c can can you back up for a second
and just talk about the sequence of how we got here? So these were proposed by who exactly? Not the select board. >> Uh it was correct. It was by town meeting members. It was specifically town meeting member Mike Zolas, >> right? >> Sent this to the the the moderator has requested amendments if at all possible
to be sent by yesterday. >> Yep. >> So he sent it to her yesterday. It's posted I believe it's posted on the town website. So saying you know we intend to make this motion amendment from the floor. >> So these are all substantially the same ones that have been proposed in the past that we reviewed and considered and voted on with the language that we came
up with. Correct. >> I think substantially the same is different than the same. So >> fair. >> There are there are things I think worth discussing. >> Yeah. Okay. Just making sure I understand where how we got to where we are. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, I'd like to leave the discussion starting with number one. Uh, I look at number one and I think it's very silly. Of course, the wristbands are for people 21 years or older. And then I think either the warrant committee can deal with this possibly silly amendment right now or town
meeting can deal with this on Monday. Uh, so that's >> it should just be legal drinking age. >> Legal drinking age. Right. >> Right. Because if that changes then we have to change everything else. Yeah, I agree. >> Oh, okay. I'll put a pen in this. It
sounds like there's consensus for, you know, consensus for that. Okay. Legal drinking age. I like it. Um, number two is interesting. And if I read number two, remember a key
part of their beer garden proposal previously was it can't people under 21 can't be in there. That language isn't here now. So, if I read this, what I what that says to me is there's
going to be a designated drinking area. That designated drinking area might be the entire park. If it something's going to happen on Manning Park, they might say all of Manning Park is a designated drinking area and there's no restrictions to people being under 21 there. It's just you can't take your
beer out of that area. So, when I read that last night, I thought, well, hey, if that's what they're suggesting, that sounds great, but I don't know if that's what they meant. That's what they say. I don't know if that's what they meant.
And then I wonder, okay, if we if we as a warrant committee take their language and say we're recommending it, then they say, no, no, that's not what we meant. We meant something else. If the whole goal of this Friday afternoon meeting is to reduce confusion at town meeting,
does does are we doing the opposite? If we adopt an amendment, and I don't know if this is what they mean. I don't know if this is not what they mean, but I worry that we'll if we adopt these this wording, they'll say, "Oh, we didn't mean that. Obviously, we meant
over 21 only and obviously we meant the beer garden can't be the entire park or whatever. >> So, Jay, what is what's making you think that you don't know what they mean? is just because this amendment came through or what's >> um
>> just because you know if I read it could say the entire park is the beer garden and that seems to defeat the purpose of having a beer garden but maybe not. Um I I can't read their mind but it seems
different enough from what they proposed earlier of the peer garden not allowing people under 21. Well, it's their idea. >> That that was that was my first reaction >> and give it to them. I mean the whole
thing is we got to give select and this goes for number six also number three or six dep depending on how you look at it >> if there give the select board the discretion and I don't think >> let let's I've always maintained that we
should maintain uh retain flexibility Okay. >> Hey, >> I agree too. >> So, >> which is why I have a problem with item three also. I know we're not there, but
>> yeah, that's that's fine. Uh, we can skip to item three. That that may be something we could just not the other >> playground includes Kelly Field, right? and many other venues and select board
would be kind of dumb to offer issue a one-day drinking license for a noon event where kids might be there. Uh 6:00 p.m. at Andrews, is that a problem with the designated area? I
don't think so. >> I agree. I think it limits a lot with that and I think it's the select board's determination. They should make that decision as to what's if it's if it's plausible or not. That's what their job is
>> and they're not going to end issue a one day license for the drinking in the Cunningham playground that >> Okay. Yeah. I um it was I mean as as Nick said it's substantially similar to what they put last time they suggested
playground or play area and we said well what is a play area? So I wanted to get your opinion again. I think I've you know I've heard from two members but I think I've heard the voice of the body and so I'll be able to speak to how we feel about this. So
sounds like um yeah sounds like I'm hearing a consensus on number three. here consensus on number one. Number two, I'm torn. Again, my suggestion is if the whole point of today's meeting is to
reduce confusion at town meeting, we might do the opposite if we adopt number two. And if this is what they mean, if they said what they meant and they bring it up on the floor of town meeting, we can agree to that amendment pretty quickly. Uh Lee Michael,
>> I'm going to recommend that we don't make any changes here based on what's on the screen. We've already discussed all these points and because they're not here to speak to us to clarify if what we're doing is actually going to make them happy or not, let's let them speak
for themselves at town meeting. Um as for the first one, it sounded like we had consensus that it could be legal drinking age. that is unnecessary because we can't make it 18 and make it younger than 21 if we want because state
law governs. So I I would I would suggest we just move on from this discussion. >> Second. >> Yeah, I agree. >> I agree. >> Okay. >> Um I'll I'll throw out what I said earlier that even if something is
superfluous, we can deal with a superolous thing now. our town meeting and deal with it on Monday. But if the consensus of the body is to make no change, >> I agree. >> I have to leave. Thank you. >> Okay. >> There's no vote coming up, right? Or is
it >> uh I I I I will want to take some sort of vote. I don't want to say, well, the two or three people who spoke up say we don't want to do anything. Well, I guess I'll I'll throw this out there. Is there a motion to amend this? >> Nope. Hearing none, we will take no
action on this. >> Okay. >> Uh is there anything else I wanted to talk about? Probably. Um yeah, that that's it. Thank you for your time. I will see you all. We have a
scheduled meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the basement of not the basement, but it feels like the basement, the first floor of the high school. Um motion to adjurnn. >> Yeah. Is there room for that? >> Is there room for that? >> Room 104.
>> Okay. That's the cafeteria. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, guys. Thanks. >> Thanks. >> Thanks. >> Thanks everyone.