[Music] So we're not live so we can start whenever we start. So we are starting. We have a quorum. Uh well Karen can you call roll? I can. You have Jay Funling, Elaine
Craighead, James Dassley, Lorraine D, Larry Johnson, Andrew Co, Julia Maxwell is on Zoom, Brian Maguire, uh Lee Michael Mlan is on Zoom. You have Nicholas Tangney and Cecil Yang. You
have a quorum. Okay, great. Welcome everyone to the warrant committee meeting. It's September 24th. Uh I've got a couple of news items to start out the night. First of all, one
of the articles on the town on the fall town meeting was going to be a sign bylaw. On Monday night, the planning board pulled that back proposing to instead bring it forward at the following town meeting. So that is not going to be on the
warrant for this town meeting. So it's not something we have to discuss. Uh oh, another thing. Did you tell everyone what Wi-Fi to get on if you're in the room? Sorry. It's the meeting house um not the public Wi-Fi. Uh
meeting house_ublic. Yeah. Otherwise, you might be trying to connect to the town hall, which is not nearly as strong as meeting house, which is where we are. Uh one other thing I want to bring up to the group. I don't know if we have to
act on it. I was discussing with one of the members about somehow to be determined hopefully in the near future sharing publicly summaries of the meetings sort of like a just the facts thing like we met this day and here's a time stamp of here we discussed article
one here's a time stamp of here we discussed article two. uh like that and then even in the leadup to town meeting share sort of the opposite like if you're interested in article one look at this meeting at this time stamp and that meeting at that time stamp so people can see when we discuss different issues
um still trying to work out the logistics of when and how that would happen but I want unless there's a general uprising against that I think that's a good thing to share with town and you know I might want someone who's more techsavvy than me to help me figure out how to share it was talking with
Shane from MATV uh just a minute ago and uh might be easier than I thought but somehow whether it's a warrant committee Facebook account that doesn't say anything controversial just says here's
what we did at this meetings somehow way to fil to share with the town here's we discussed here's an easy way to see our discussions of these articles thoughts questions comments is that is not what the minutes are
Um I this sounds a lot the minutes can function as that but uh I can certainly imagine a lot of town meeting members who want to know oh what did the warrant committee say about article 7. Oh you click on this video and go to this time stamp and click on that video and go to that time.
Yeah that's the more more information the better. I don't know how many people would use it. Uh what else? Comments. I ask you for comments. I got comments from two groups or one group covering two articles. Let
me share that if I can. Uh share my screen. I apologize for not sharing them beforehand. Uh we're working with the town to figure out a way to share it on sort of like a public bulletin board. It's like what the select board does before their meetings.
They post what they're going to talk about before their meetings. It's public. Nothing's private. And uh that was Nick Milano's suggestion for how to share things among this group that's not breaking open meeting laws because anyone can say it see it. Um I haven't figured that out yet.
Just do like a Google doc where that's shared. Yeah, we want something that literally anybody can look at so that it's not we've got the website set up. I just don't know how to use it yet. So I will share my screen. You know, if I share my
screen briefly, then it's officially in the record and I can email it to all of you. Share request. Sharing's not turn. Karen, it says sharing is not turned on. Uh Karen. Ah, here we go. Set.
Yes. Draft comment for article one. I'll share this. Can you see it behind me? I don't What I want to do for comments this year is send it out to everybody so everybody not that we're going to have 15 different editors on
every comment or any comment, but just so everybody can sort of look at it and say, "Uh, yep, that's pretty much what we talked about or no, you made a big mistake. This is not what we talked about or here's something to add." Uh, I think the it'll run through me,
Julia, and Macy. We'll be compiling them at the end, but I want everybody to have the option to see this and to see my comment at the beginning, which is, hey town, here's the general report signed the warrant committee. I want those all to be before everybody before they get
um printed. So, I've shared this in a public meeting. Now, I can email it to you. Similar comment for article two. share. Um, yeah, I'm not going to ask you to read them and comment on them now, but I'll send it around and we can comment through email.
Uh, so that's a little bit of business. I apologize I didn't get out before this meeting. Um, one other bit of business. I would like to apologize. I think the the subcommittee thing, experts thing, I think that's been working really well. I
was told by several people that I was stepping on their toes because I was reaching out to people about things I was interested in and sometimes I would copy them, sometimes I wouldn't. And you know, they were legitimately asking people are going to be asking me who's in charge. I thought you were in charge
and then Jay is contacting. I apologize to anybody I did that to. Um, since then I've tried to work more proactively with people in various committees say I'd like to reach out. What can I do? Uh I did say from the beginning we're having experts. That doesn't prevent any other
member from any other, you know, all 15 of us are on the warrant committee. It doesn't prevent anybody else from digging into something. But yeah, I wasn't good about going through the experts. I apologize. If somebody wants to speak to this, you're free to
still working it out. Okay. Can I ask when are the comments due? What date? Um, let's see. Going to print on the 3, I believe, but I So, we've got a meeting today and a meeting on Monday. If I can
predict the future, I hope we get everything but one done today. I hope we get the final one done on Monday. Um, so then Monday would also be a good time to chat about comments. Okay. So, they're not going to be due yet. Okay. They're not due yet. I would like them
by Monday. is a long way of saying I'd like them by Monday. If you can't quite get them by Monday, it's not the end of the world. And as always, you can't do some things. We should um try to have them earlier though, right? Just so we can review them before the meeting or
Yeah. So when I say Monday, I mean Sunday. Yeah. Well, by Monday, it's before Monday, maybe. Uh so I think we can move right on to our business. We have by my count four
outstanding articles um that we have not acted upon. Uh I'll call them you know well the first two I think we want to there are two that I think won't take very long tonight. One that I think will take more time tonight and we might wrap it up. Another one will take more time
tonight and I don't think we will wrap it up. Uh so can I ask the people that worked on the traffic bylaw to speak to that? Julia is remote. James Lee is here. Yeah. You're talking about the traffic mitigation one.
Yes. Thank you. Julia, you want to take it? Yeah. Um I'm feel like I'm breaking or at least you guys are breaking up a bit for me. So let me know if I become pro my connection becomes problematic. You sound good.
Okay. So, James Lee and I worked on Okay, great. I have a little bit of a delay. It's becoming clear, which is fine. Um, James Lee and I worked on uh this one together. And um we
we dove deep to sort of realize that we probably didn't need to dive that deep. And so hopefully you all don't have to. Um, we ended up being uh pointed in the direction of Cheryl Tagias uh who's a planning board
member and we met with her and um were able to speak with her about this one. Um, you know, long story short, this is um this already this Bible already exists. So these are amendments
um that the main purpose is to incorporate uh building uh sorry I'm trying to like pull up my uh there we go. Um
so the way it was written originally uh would you like me to share my screen? uh business districts, excuse me, business. I just I finally was able to pull up um what I've been trying to um Are you going to share the article or would you like me to?
Oh, no, actually, yeah, Jay, if you wouldn't mind. Sorry. Yes, please. Okay. Oh, okay. I finally got it. Um so the way that it was written um
originally there was an oversight where um business districts were not uh included in this. So they were not subject to traffic impact uh mitigation
based on the you know the the size of the project or any of the other criteria that are um in the article already. So part of the purpose of this article is to correct that original oversight and make sure that we are um including business
districts. And then um the other part of it was to change some of the language to ensure that um now whether people you know things are getting built via um as
of right or um uh special permits or uh it's basically incorporating you know the all the changes that were made to the the site plan article in um gosh, what
was that? Was that the annual town meeting um last May or it was June? I can't remember. So, um yeah, it's basically like I said, closing that um oversight and then um ensuring that whether people are um have special
permits or are building as of right that they will be subject to the criteria of uh when you need to incorporate traffic uh the traffic mitigation um like
analysis into for um plans. James Lee, what I've anything to add? That covers it. Questions, comments, concerns? I I Go ahead. I guess I'll just sort of
add, my understanding is when it was first written, it said, "All right, here's what we're going to do. We're going to, you know, add business district any place that's needed. We're going to replace the word inhabitants as residents. We're going to do this. We're going to do that." To sort of make it clear what was changed. And my
understanding is that our new town council said, "Yeah, I see what you're doing there, guys, but no, you just need to like do the whole thing and show the additions and subtractions." So that's why it looks sort of funny, but in the initial version at least we could see
what was easily see was being added or subtracted. Um Brian and I saw Brian had a question. Someone else um well that's my question is what's changed from this versus the previous one? Like what are the highlights I guess?
Joy, can you speak to that? Jos Ansley. Yeah, I mean what's what's helpful is that this is you know this is the it's redlined. So um you know you can you can see for yourself but those are the two um primary you know those were
our primary takeaways I think me and Jamesley was that it was incorporating the business districts and it was incorporating um the fact that people could be coming at this with a um having a special permit um or having site plan
approval um which you know with ADUs and MBTA and all that um may become more more relevant now Um, we learned some interesting things um that I don't know need to like go into the comment but uh
we learned that the traffic uh um impact mitigation the fund that is talked about in this article uh there because of the oversight previously of not including business districts um there were have only been two
contributions to the fund uh since its existence. And only one of those was mandatory based on the criteria in this article. The other one was voluntary. So, um I think and I can look it up. I think Nick said there's like what was it
James Lee? Like $35,000 in there currently. U 33. Um and the idea is that 33. Thank you. The idea um behind that is, you know, that money could be used to um make some
of the the the changes recommended. It could also sort of be pulled to um uh to address changes that are uh this is how Cheryl explains it to us that are like cumulative from multiple different
smaller projects. Um, so like I said, that was just sort of something interesting that we learned. Um, but I don't know that it's necessarily relevant for the comment just because um I think the main
takeaways are the business including the business districts and including the um site plan approval process. you know, acknowledging that someone could be coming through that process and not get a special permit. So, we're forcing
more sites, depending on what it is, to have a traffic mitigation study. Is that the essence of this? uh if they if they meet the criteria um then yes there would be uh in theory there would be more projects that would
be subject to to this. Yes. And that criteria is mainly around the larger commercial or larger residential projects that may get missed and without this wording change. So you have 141 unit apartment building going up.
It might not qualify for this. So the new wording will make it so that it's it's caught, right? Which is it's happening. So yeah, that's good. Did I see someone else with their hands up? Can I just get clarification? Julia, you
had mentioned something about ADUs. Um, were there any instances where an ADU might be subject to this? I don't think so based on the criteria. Uh um
but again this is obviously not my area of expertise but I I wouldn't imagine based on the yeah unless it qualifies you know 7500 ft and all that kind of stuff. Yeah. I I just wanted to make sure that there are any there were no unintended consequences and only and I only bring
it up because you had brought up ADUs earlier. Yeah. The idea is that if you're going through the special um special permit granting process, you could potentially be presenting an ADU, but if you're not meeting the other criteria that's already presented, then fall out.
Thank you. The only um sort of outstanding question that James Lee and I have that um we're still waiting on answers to um from the town administrator andor the town
treasurer are is the um the fee structure that is outlined in here um which is on in section uh 275. 520 uh.6 the mitigation payments we um we
confirm that these are the payments or these are the figures that have been in there since this was originally written in 2018. Um and so the question uh that we asked was you know are there any other
fee structures that are currently be being used in town that tie to something external like you know the consumer price index that would allow these prices to keep up with the rate of inflation without having to go back and
amend this bylaw every time. um you know, we want to increase the the pricing. So, I have not really gotten um a straight answer on that yet. Uh James Lee and I talked about that. I don't know that that's a reason to not, you know, pass this by any means. Um I think
it might be more of a general townwide thing we might want to look into. And I, you know, my minimal Google searching tells me that there are towns that do um tie their fees to uh like the CPI. So, you know, something to maybe think about
more broadly, but I don't think it needs to prevent us from Okay. having a, you know, forming an opinion on the way it's written currently. Is there would someone like to make a motion? uh we can discuss after the
motion is made, but would someone like to make a motion regarding this as is currently marked up by our new town council memo? All right, I'll make a motion to adopt the the
comments as written. All right. As amended by as amended by council by town council. Okay, great. We have a motion by Andrew. Second. Second. Okay, great. Second by Cecil. Uh, we have one remote member. So,
Karen, would you call a roll call vote, please? I will. Uh, Elaine, yes. Jamesley, yes. Lorraine, yes.
Larry, yes. Andrew, yes. Julia, yes. Brian, yes. Lee Michael, yes.
Uh, Ron, yes. Uh, Nicholas, yes. Cecile, yes. Jay, abstain. The motion carries.
Okay. Uh that did bring up one thing that I want to raise publicly. So at our last meeting, we passed four articles. Two of them had recently be been amended by town council. We got those new town council. We got those amendments
about 3 p.m. before our meeting last time. I want to clarify that when people made motions like I move we adopt this as written, I interpret that to mean we are adopting the the article as written and amended by the new town council that
we had received several hours earlier. That's mostly relevant to uh article one and article two I believe. Does anyone have any concerns or agit about that? I just want to be clear what we approved.
Didn't think so. I just wanted to be very clear about it. Okay. Who makes the judgment call about whether that's a material edit or not from them in terms of what we voted on. Uh I mean I get your point that we voted on what was, you know, currently available to us. Most of us probably didn't have a chance to read it before
that. So is there some sort of level of materiality? Is there a judgment call by you or somebody else about what kind of materiality might have been applied between what we probably read in advance and what got submitted by town council at the last second? Uh, that's a good
question. I I would say I would go so far as to say that any one of you can raise that. Any one of you can look at I'm not trying to defer responsibility here, but you can look at it and say, "Oh man, I didn't think we were voting on that. I thought we were voting on something else." come
back to us and say, "I'd like to reopen this article." Great. Great. Thank you. Uh, so next article, Impic. Uh, I'm looking at you, Ryan. Do it. Okay. Do you want to put it up? The new one? Yeah. You want me to wear?
Okay. And I got Yes, I have your version. So, Grace isn't on, right? Grace is not on. I don't think she's even on remote now. New York. Um, I talked about it last week, so I'll bring it up. They had a meeting last Wednesday and they have made a number of
final changes. They did add um that the committee is going to report annually to the warrant committee and to the town meeting. They're going to report it and include it in the town annual report. So, those were added that we asked for. They are going to meet um no less than
quarterly which is something else we asked for. Um they made a couple it looks like I don't know if these were other changes like the blue changes. Um I mean certainly those first two were there last time. Oh okay. Um the one about transfer the remaining
balance appropriation. I don't remember if that was there last time or not but and that's it. And that is seems to be um what we asked for. And there were a couple other things we asked for, but we agreed with them that there were issues like we asked for longer limits, but then we realized that we might
discourage people from serving. We was no need for a quorum in the language apparently. So, I'm satisfied with this. Yeah, we as a body discussed this a week and a half ago. I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm just saying we discussed it a week and a half ago. I think we uh got to a good
place and the IMPIC changed their language to match what we liked. So again, we discussed this a week and a half ago. Is there any discussion now or would someone like to make a motion? Could we just Sorry. Then can we just see the additional language?
Transfer the remaining balance. The appropriation approved for the year I guess from the old committee to the new committee. Angel great. Someone like to make a motion. Brian, you're the star here.
I'll make the motion to accept it. The changes as written. Okay. Seconded. All right. Motion made by Brian, seconded by Larry. Is there any discussion on the motion before us? Okay. Uh Karen, can you do a vote?
Blaine? Yes. Yes. James, yes. Lorraine, yes. Larry, yes. Andrew, yes. Yes.
Julia. Julia. Yes. Brian. Yes. Lee Michael. Yes. Ron. Yes. Nicholas.
Yes. Cecile. Yes. Jay, abstain. The motion carries. Okay. The next article in front of us is what I'll call the alcohol on town land
bylaw. Um I'll sort of repeat myself from last week. We've gotten some input. Our our experts have gotten input from various people in town. Uh the question has been raised to me. are town meeting members welcome to come and address the
the warrant committee in general and in this specific case the answer is no appropriate form for town meeting members to make their public case whatever is town meeting uh but we do appreciate you know I think the subcommittee on this did a excellent job
of collecting information and uh I have some things to say I know y'all have some things to say I would like are y'all fine going first do you have something. I'll stop sharing my screen. What do you have to say? Oh, I was just going to sort of go over some of the history and how we got here
and maybe structure how this discussion might go. Um, oh, I I was hoping you all go first. You Okay. So, Nick and I uh spoke with uh
various folks we had split up or who we had conversations with. I spoke with uh um Caroline Canelo, the both the member of the board of health as well as Milton Co. Coalition.
Uh and I also spoke with Joe Parlocio, the head of the chamber of commerce. Uh Nick, yeah, I spoke with Kevin Drach, who's the Milton Art Center, Caroline Canella, Roxan Mus, Nick Milano, Richard Wells, a
group of citizens that are interested in the article. And u yeah, that was my list. And I should say I think over here in the back of the room, a lot of these people that I spoke with on the concern of citizens are in the back of the room here, which is great.
And I have a draft of the comments that uh had a little bit of word smmithing this morning that I can share right now. And there weren't real material changes.
Uh there was uh reordering of words at the beginning of uh so you're saying this is like a proposed comment that we might this is a proposed modified comment. Okay. Um I didn't share your previous comment with the rest of the group.
Okay. And uh the only material change from a most recent draft is that uh added a note that the um chamber of commerce had noted that there had been a historical track record of safe and successful
events at held at the Milton Arts Center. Can we pause for a second because nobody else has seen what you originally said. I don't know if you two want to sort of give the overview of of where you think things stand or well summarize essentially the conversation. Hey Jay, it's me Michael.
Um I feel like we're jumping the gun by going to the comment. Can we discuss the article first? Yeah. Yeah. I I I I Yeah, the comment is sort of I I agree it's one and the same which is sort of your view of the article. the conversations that we had. Uh Nick and I
I think we're on the same page that um we agree that uh as long as there are adequate safeguards put in place and that the select board uh
uh adheres to their their current stance which is that there's they only intend to issue a limited number of permits um which would amount to a few discreet event number of events per here that uh
it is a reasonable the article as written is is a reasonable proposal. Um I know Nick had a phone call or a Zoom call on Sunday. I don't know if you want
to share the uh that conversation. Sure. I spoke with a group of people that are you know like I said mostly in the back of the room here. um really uh impressive backgrounds in public health. I think they have a bunch of concerns about the article. Um I think you know I
think the first thing that's interesting is you know they view the the the language that they favor u which they proposed to the select board and to the extent that select board reflected those comments in the drafted article you know they they definitely look at that as a compromise from their preferred position which is there's no alcohol on t land or
public buildings. Um, and I think their concern is based on uh public health issues of reducing exposure and influence on alcohol on youth. Um, and that that's a negative public health uh issue. Um they prefer um that if this is going to move forward, they would prefer
tighter guidelines than what's listed in the article today as a means to mitigate uh the exposure and support by their public health and role modeling uh and in mitigate the negative influence that alcohol can have on youth and resulting public health um uh negative effects. Uh
they're concerned, you know, that the discretion that's provided to the select board in the article is not sufficiently strong. uh and they believe the article is poorly written with too much flexibility and I think they're concerned that the flexibility uh won't be applied strongly. Um they'd prefer to
have the um the the uh the guidelines more strictly written right from the get-go rather than give the discretion to the board of selectmen. I think the board of selectmen believe that there is uh sufficient guidelines written in the article and uh flexibility to tailor the guidelines as the permits are issued
based on um the the the size of the event and the location of the event. They think that that is a more appropriate application of the guidelines and that you know some of the key aspects of um of the protections in terms of having to have licensed bartenders and identifications of people
of age or not are already explicitly written into the bylaw and the other details are going to be left to the discretion of the board as the permits are issued. So I think those are kind of the two sides. I think the the in terms of the details of the article, I think the other perspective of it is the
community aspect of it. whether it's um the uh the art center themselves uh whether it's the select board or whether it's the chamber of commerce they all kind of had the same aspect of things which in my mind which was that there the community benefits of enhanced
participation um the likelihood of in their view that there'll be enhanced uh diversification of activities that are made available um and the participation of those activities and the the community bonding um and just the benefits to the community of coming
together and celebrating each other and participating in the community that that's a really positive effect. They think that uh creating this extra flexibility with what's uh proposed in the bylaw will will support that and have community benefit. So I think those are the two sides. It's the community
benefit versus concerns about negative effects on public health. And um I think those are the uh two sides of this issue. And then uh when we think about the historically what we've done with regards to things that involve
regulation from the select board, I think as a committee we've opted towards uh defaulting towards providing uh different town committees or boards uh the flexibility to uh a little bit more
discretion and u again as I noted earlier the u chamber for commerce did note that there had been a historical track record of safely conducted events at the Milton Art Center. And so with that in mind, uh it seems like a fair
compromise to uh allow a degree of flexibility and support the article unless proven otherwise at which point we'll just revisit the article again. And really um there there are concerns that uh the health professionals have
and there are desires that the town wants and ultimately it we need to let town town meeting members make a decision rather rather than dictate um which to support uh firmly in one one
way or the other. And so yeah I'm sorry I didn't follow that last part. meaning instead of hardlining one way or the other um really we should be u come to a compromise and then allow uh town
meeting members to decide whether or not that is a reasonable compromise or meaning we as a warrant committee you make no recommendation I'm no no no that I have I I have drafted recommendation okay
um and so I might add one more thing right which is that you know we did reach out to the board of health and the Milton coalition and I get to some degree they're one and the same I know they're different u but we talked to both Caroline Canella who's the health director and Roxan Mosto who's the
chairman of the or chairwoman of the board of health and you know unfortunately they're not able to provide a formal perspective on this issue because of the way their meeting schedule falls and when the warrant is going to go to print. Um, so I do believe it's their intention to be
present at town meeting and if asked for their opinion at town meeting, I think they'll be in a position to to provide that opinion hopefully from an official perspective. But, you know, we did ask them and I would say we might have even tried to lean on them to say, "Hey, this issue is coming up. you got like two and a half or three weeks, you know, could
you come together and come up with a viewpoint that feels like it would be, you know, supportive of um a better input into the article and the concept and the debate and uh they are unable to get those meetings organized, which I thought was, you know, I understand, but I found it to be a little bit
unfortunate. But it's not like we um you know, didn't try really hard. I think um I think between Caroline and Roxanne, they were probably called between Jay and Andrew and myself like five times in total. So we worked pretty hard at trying to reach out to them. Um so you
know I feel feel good about that activity and you know it's unfortunate but that's the truth of the matter today. There are two things that came out of that conversation. uh one is that the coalition falls under the opices of the board of health and that uh they
coalition can't take an official stance that the board of health does not um itself uh provide uh and they noted that even after the last town meeting the original article vote on vote on alcohol
and townland uh board of health did not take a position even after that had happened. So it's not as if there's a time window or time constraint that they have not had the opportunity to to review it. They just have not taken an
official stance on it. Now uh Nick is correct in that they did not um have not they were actually not even aware uh that this article okay uh until I reached out to them initially. They are now aware and they
as Nick mentioned they haven't had an opportunity due to scheduling scheduling issues to meet and come to a formal formal uh official stance as as as a town board.
Well, do you think they'll be able to get together before town meeting? Definitely not. Before town meeting. Oh, before town meeting. I think yes, before town meeting. It's unclear whether they will actually be able to get it on their agenda though. So I don't know that they will discuss it before town meeting.
Um that's surprising to hear. It may or may not happen. Okay. But that that's out of our control. When I spoke spoke to Caroline, she did not seem to think that they were going to be able to have schedule a meeting before town
meeting. Right. That that was what she had told me or at least what I had heard. Okay. Um, and it conflicting schedules on their part. Okay. I can I can use the power vested in me
as the chair of the warrant committee to try to get a different answer, but uh I don't know if I'll get a different answer. Okay. Do they meet like quarterly or something? I I did not ask I did not ask that question. I don't I mean I think you've asked the
question, we've gotten the answer. I don't necessarily know if we want if it would help us to go down that rabbit hole. Um I'm interested that you said you have a recommendation. I just have a little more back little bit of background to get structure. I'll
repeat some of what you gave, but I'd like to share my screen that. Okay. I think you have to stop sharing your screen. Jay, did I hear you? You're going to approach them and see if they can come in here possibly to discuss it with us. Come in here. No, not coming here. Just
yeah. A warrant committee member has sort of asked, can you have an opinion before town meeting? And the answer was probably not. You could. They there might be a different answer if the warrant committee chair asks. I do not know. Sort of got that answer today, too. That email that you sent to them,
but I thought that was in reference to in the next week. Nope. That was uh Okay. uh because they deleted when we drafted language for them that said um and uh we'll be available at town meeting to um offer views if asked. They
deleted that from what they sent back to you. You're right. You're right. So I think it's questionable whether they'll have an official position at town meeting. Okay. It sounds kind of like they don't want to take a position and we should just move forward. Um we don't know that. We don't even put
words in their mouth. We don't know that. I don't think we should assume that. I'm sorry. I mean, I think it's beneficial to we I think it would be to tell you what to do, but maybe to ask them if they would weigh in on this. Yeah, I think they would be hand up for some time.
Oh, that again people people remote. I'm sorry to like just talk just talk at us. People remote just talk just talk. I'll talk. Um
uh yeah, I um I find it hugely problematic that we are not able to get our own board of health to weigh in on an issue of public health. I mean it it
is mindboggling to me that they can't meet before town meeting. Can Can I I'm sorry to do this, but can I interrupt? Provide an opinion by Julia, I'm sorry to do this. Can I interrupt? I sort of, you know, with the theme of the
year of staying focused on what's in front of us. I think we need to we have asked them for their opinion. They have not had an opinion. We are going to put in our written comments. We asked them for an opinion. They did not have an opinion. Um, I hear what you're saying.
I am going I am going somewhere with this. I promise. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. So, um I mean I also, you know, to hear that they weren't aware of this until the warrant committee approached them is um concerning to me given that
the major criticism of the last version of this was that no public health um experts were consulted. So, I'm not sure where this revised version comes from, who came up with it, how they came up with it, but it continues to be
problematic for me that it sounds like no public health experts were involved in the writing of this. I know the coalition cannot weigh in officially since they are under the board of health. So given that we don't have a recommendation from the board of health,
the coalition cannot make an official recommendation, then I feel like our the next best thing we've got here is this group of concerned citizens who are public health experts who I thought brought some really um important and
thought-provoking concerns in their letter um backed by uh extensive references, although I'm I'm not sure why we weren't given those um exhibits with the references in them. And in my opinion, the devil's in the detail. Like
we have kicked the lighting by by law back how many times because of the the details and the execution or or the lack thereof. But now we're saying, "Oh, we just, you know, we leave it up to the boards." And I I just I don't know that I agree. I think the project manager in
me is immediately thinking about the execution of something like this. And I I think the points that the uh body of concerned public health you know experts who residents of Milton they made a lot of valid points and I think they I think
they are I don't know that their opinion is that that we shouldn't have alcohol um at all. I think they are working you know they are also looking to work towards a compromise and I think the suggestions they have given are just that. So I I'm you know not surprisingly
as a public health person myself I am I weigh their input. Um I give it a lot of weight especially in the lack of with the lack of any recommendation from our town boards who
are supposed to specialize in these issues. Thank you. Uh Larry. Yeah. I just have a quick clarification like procedural. So the uh the exhibit that you sent out this morning, was that a proposed article? I mean, this afternoon
which one that I sent out? I sent out several things. One was like had a big red line with like 10 different Yeah. I'll get Okay. I'm just wondering what we're vote on tonight. Yeah. I think that'll help everybody's discussion. Yeah. Uh if it's okay with people, I'm going
to share a few slides that I think will help give some structure to this discussion. Um sharing going to switch to slidhow so it looks good.
Okay. It's not my best looking slides, but deal with it. So where are we? How do we get here? May it's possible not everyone in this room knows and just want to bring everybody together. Also, I'm sort of testing out this might be something I present at town meeting on
behalf of the warrant committee. So, eight months ago, six months ago, math is hard. Um, uh, February 2025, there was an article to pros to allow alcohol on town property. And town property meaning indoors and
outdoors. There were some town meeting members got up, discussed, they cited public health concerns largely and proposed a few amendments including amending to restrict the alcohol to indoors and not allow it to outdoors. That amendment passed town meeting and the article passed. So when that passed
in February, alcohol was allowed in town buildings but not on town land. Now I'm leaving out a lot of details. is allowed in town owned buildings with the approval of the select board with the approval of whoever is in charge of that building. I'm leaving out a lot of the details. I assume you have familiarity
with this article. You can fill in the details on your own. The end of that was it's allowed in town buildings but not on town land. Then there was a forum which I listened to today on the handydandy podcast that was in April. It was held I believe at
the Milton Arts Center. Uh sounded like it had a good turnout. couldn't tell from the podcast. Uh, and one of the main items they talked about was the alcohol and town land issue. People got up, they spoke for it, they spoke against it, there are two public health professionals. Any errors I have in this
are, of course, mine. I was scratching down notes while on a walk, while listening to a podcast. This is my attempt to summarize what the public health professional said. My apologies if I get it wrong. Uh the first one said we should have some restrictions like
limit the area that the alcohol is served in, have wristbands, have identifiable cups for the alcohol, limit advertising, limit drinks to one at a limit how many drinks you can give at one time, notify the neighbors that it's going to happen, and after it collect the data to see, you know, from the
police, were there incidents at this event or not. Uh so this was I believe these two speakers are in the room. uh they can throw things at me if I misquote them. So that was Miss Kofaser. Miss Carol's said very similar things.
It should be have delimited areas, should have wristbands, cups that you can identify. This is a cup of alcohol. Limit advertising. Limit how many drinks you could have at a time. Limit the alcohol by volume percent and limit it to adult events. Uh so those are my
notes of what they suggested. Then let's move ahead. We have a proposed article. This article officially was proposed by select board. I think unofficially someone asked earlier who wrote it. My understanding is that the town administrator wrote it. This is just what I pick up from
listening select board meetings. The town administrator wrote it and then the select board discussed it, made maybe one or two small changes and passed it on to us. It has four requirements for outdoor events which were not in the February 2025 article. So February 2025
time meeting considered one thing. Time meeting said, "Nope, shouldn't have that outdoors." These are changes made to that article. One is use entity possessing a caterer's license for alcohol sales. Someone asked me earlier what that meant. I I thought everybody else knew. I don't know. It means it
seems to mean I don't know that you have some sort of training for alcohol. Yeah, that's what it means. A licensed bartender who's been trained in tips. Tips knows how to serve people. Thank you. So that's one. Two, age identifying non-transferable wristbands provided to people seeking to purchase
alcoholic beverages. There's a catch there. We'll talk about that. Number three, submit a sketch plan for the townland. And number four, the select board may require that alcohol sales and consumption take place only in a certain location. Okay, so that's what we got.
So my first question is, does that reflect what the experts suggested in that April meeting? Well, some yes and some no. Uh, and and there's, you know, there's the the devil's in the details as a member
just said, but big picture, delimited areas, yes, depending on the select board. Wristbands, yes, limit drinks to one at a time. That's part of having a caterer's license. You're going to do things like that. Hey Jay, it's limited to two drinks at
one time. It's just a limit at one time. It's not one drink at a time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, yeah, I'm being sort of sloppy with the notes I took, but there is a limit. Um, so they took some of the suggestions from that was made at the April meeting. They
did not take some of the suggestions made at the April meeting. And then where else are we? So, the select board at the same time considered a and I hope I'm hope I'm categorizing this right. the I believe it was the same residents
who have public health background made a suggested article and they said we want these 10 things to be required for an outdoor event and so I've broken up those 10 things and said are they covered you might notice I have 1 2 3 4 10 up here because I wanted this page to
have things that are covered or at least partially covered by thisboard article um you have to have a caterer's license yes non-trans transferable wristbands. They said people who seek alcoholic beverages. The select article says purchase. I think we as a warrant
committee can maybe fiddle with that wording. Purchase. Obviously, obviously the intent is not just purchase, but also consume. There might be a little wording fiddling that we can do there as a Yes. Um I I researched that because I thought
that that was weird. Um apparently it's assumed to be purchased at a zero price or something like that. They really just use the word purchase. They don't ever say in mass general laws, give away alcohol or consume alcohol. It's they say purchase and they mean uh and it can be free or an open bar. Even if it says
purchase. Well, but what if my wife buys two drinks and she hands one to me? I didn't purchase it. It was purchased by somebody else. Your wife purchased it. But you want me to have a risk? That's a different topic. That's a different topic.
Yeah, that's what I think. Um, yeah, that's what I think we're doing. Turn off my phone. My phone is buzzing. Um, that that's I think the issue. My wife buys two drinks, she hands one to me. I'm going to need a wristband. Uh, even though I didn't purchase it. Um, the
sketch plan, the proposed article from the uh had just had more details. Said it should talk about the alcohol storage service and consumption. The select bar article didn't have detail. It said just select put submit a sketch plan. Okay, I'm just pointing out differences. Um,
and limited to two alcohol beverages at a time. That's covered by the sleart article. So, these are basically covered by the sleart article. The next five are less. So, uh, there's the big issue of, and this may be the biggest issue is
do you require alcohol to be in a constrained area? The select board articles said the select board will have the art have the option of requiring alcohol to be contained in a certain area. Also, the public health experts asked, you know, that I'll call it a
beer garden. That beer garden should not only be contained area. People under 21 are not allowed in. The select board doesn't seem to address that. So, that's a maybe. Does the select board article address that? It does to an extent. The four that it doesn't approach are
advertising for alcohol products shall be limited to a certain area and shall have certain descriptions. The article in front of us doesn't contain that. No one day licenses for playgrounds and play space areas. This article doesn't approach address that. You have to have food and non-alcoholic beverages and
provide a menu ahead of time. This article doesn't address that. Cups for alcoholic beverages should be distinguished from cups from non-alcoholic beverages. this article does not discuss that. So that's sort of the background I wanted to give and I
thought it might set up a good framework for the discussion that we're going to have if I don't know if we want to maybe I should share that again. I don't know if we want to focus on those individual things like well I'll I'll
I'll rephrase it actually. I will say that I think in my opinion all of these are worth all of these are worth discussing and especially if they're going to get brought up at town meeting. If a town
meeting town meeting is you know I just said the venue for town meeting members to get up and give their opinion is not here at town meeting. If town meeting is going to have to address these five issues and decide what to do with them, we should talk about it first and we should come to a decision of what we think is right about these so we can
give town meeting a full and complete opinion. Even if it's not part of the proposed bylaw, we're going to discuss what we think might come up. Well, we want to be prepared even in the comment. Want to be okay. Sure. Could be short discussion. Yeah, I think so.
When I think about playground number seven, playground or children's play play spaces, I would assume that the select board discretion would automatically exclude that if if it needs to be in the language. I don't
think it would be problematic. Can Can I pause you? I'm just trying to think of how the meeting tonight is going to work. And I sort of wanna like maybe want to go through these one at a time. Um or maybe I was going to look at you. You said you had a proposed amendment. I don't know if our proposed it didn't address it didn't address
those. Okay. Okay. Additional comments in there. Do you want to say what your propos proposal is? Well, I think we should we're talking about two different things. One is the art the comments in the article and if
we need to expand the comments in the article to address these things then we could put either a generalized statement and considered some of the additional requests that were made and decided they were either not
necessary or we can line item by line address the additional ones. I I think it's worth having a conversation on each of those five before we address the the comments
written if we're going to amend them. I guess I'm not thinking about comments. I'm thinking about the article. And I was thinking that we could consider any one of these five as an amendment. We we don't have to necessarily have a motion and an amendment and a vote, yes
or no, but any of these. I'm wondering if we're I'm I'm just wondering language-wise like Andrew keeps talking about the comment and I think that feels like we're jumping the gun since we have not not yet discussed and voted on this
article. So, I'm not sure how we're drafting a comment yet when we don't know what the warrant committees on this article. I said it that's why I think it makes sense to discuss the the items that the
five items that were not in the article itself before we go to even get into discussion about the comment. Okay. Yeah. I think we don't want to discuss the Yeah, I wasn't intending to discuss the comment.
Jay, do you know that these are going to be presented as articles? I don't know anything. Okay. Nope. You don't know? But I do I do you know we always want to be as prepared as possible to give give the warrant give town meeting our full opinion and if
town meeting is going to spend an hour discussing these I don't know if they are how much better is it for us to spend an hour discussing these walk up town meeting and say hey town meeting we thought about these things that were raised publicly here's what we think about them so I think that you know when we had our
training session a week or two ago one of the things we talked about was trying to be aligned with the board of selectmen where we find that to be appropriate. So, it's my understanding that the select board considered all of those provisions and has decided that um that
those all fall under the discretion of the select board as they issue the one-day licenses. And in my view, I think that's an appropriate discretion to allocate to the select board. And um and so I I think we should um you know
adopt the language that the select board has proposed. I think it's appropriate. I think it addresses the issues that have been raised and the concerns that have been raised. And um that's what I think. Can I have a
I agree with Nick here. I think it's tough to look at just these five because the select board would have weighed out all proposals I would think and they would have a agreed with some and you know maybe not taken up other ones. It's
hard to just look at these five and think we're going to go opine on these five without factoring into the select board already kind of made a call weighing out which ones they think are reasonable. Elaine. Um, well, to address what Ron just said, I'm pretty sure these are going to come
up because I know that, uh, at least several of the citizens who sent the letter, our town meeting members who are quite likely to bring it up as they did last time. So, um, I think we can anticipate them and I think it's smart to anticipate them. Um,
I I agree with that, by the way. Pardon me? I agree with that. Oh, great. Um um just to address what Nick just said um and this gets back to piggyback on what Julia said earlier um about the select board being the ones to have
considered this and left out the ones that they wanted to leave out. But it does go back to the fact that the the U board of public health has not weighed in on this. And I'm I'm not in any way uh trying to take away from the the members of the select board, but I don't
think that they are experts in public health. Um so given that I I would really it it concerns me that there's a sense in this letter as well. Whether it's accurate or not, I do not know. But that there's a
sense in this letter that that this group of citizens who had put things forward to the to the uh town administrator to the select board um and it had worked on developing things and then um it says
uh that their hope was to work with them. And then hearing nothing further, we were surprised to learn several months later that article 7 had been sent to the warrant committee. So it feels like what kind of um
what kind of um I don't know collaboration was there was there any collaboration um or was it simply the town administrator and the select board working on this and leaving out you know
the consideration of what um these these um public health experts with some um wickedly impressive of credentials uh were saying and and I I really would like to know because you mentioned um
like all the things that the select board probably considered. I'd like to know what they did consider like what what did they decide who else did they hear from besides these people and how did they make their decision? Did
you hear from them any of that? I didn't hear that detail from the conversations I had. I understand that they had the um proposed language and went through it and uh chose to um craft the language that they've submitted in
the article. And and they believe that these other items are sufficiently uh open-ended that applying a strict policy regardless of the size or the location of the event is going to potentially lead to unforeseen circumstances. And so
they think having that uh be attached to the as conditions as they issue the one day licenses is a more appropriate way to go. And I I want to reiterate what I heard and and I'm fairly certain I heard
this correctly is that the board of health did declined to take an official stance after the last vote. Um and so this is not they forgot about it.
They just didn't take a stance on it. I mean on that note again I was listening to the April meeting today. So April is before May. At the April meeting they didn't think this was going to come up in the May meeting. They did think it was going to come up in the June meeting. Now the June meeting got
slimmed down at the last minute which is but yeah I I don't you know this was discussed in a public forum in April. I don't know why they wouldn't know. Also, I would like to sort of kind of sort of respond to you, not not directly, but I
guess one thing I'm thinking is is if the cons if the concern by some residents is that these five issues haven't been considered strongly enough, we're here tonight. I hope us tonight can consider these five issues in a sufficient way
with the information that we have from with the information we have. Um, now that's a little bit talking about the sub talking about talking about it instead of talking about it. Brian, what's up? Um, just to go back on the history of this, the pro the the
prohibition of alcohol sales on town land. We didn't get that proposal. The war committee didn't get that proposal until right before the same day, like an hour before the town meeting last year. So, we had no way to prep for it or ask
any questions. We just got it like that morning and or that afternoon, I'm sorry. And um when we asked if the board of health wanted to weigh in on it, their opinion, my recollection, so I don't think that was taped that meeting because I think it was down in the school. Was it down in the basement? Yeah, it was in the basement of the
school. So, it's not taped, but um my recollection was they asked the board of health to comment on it and they declined to weigh in on it like whether or not they declined to go ahead with the prohibition is my recollection. They didn't want to say no, we should
prohibit this. That was their opinion. They declined or they didn't want to say no, we don't want to say no prohibit it. I guess that's my recollection and that's in line with what I thought I heard in my initial call with Caroline.
Hey J. Right. I think yes. Go on. It's it's been quite a few number of minutes since I last said that we asked the board of health for an opinion and they didn't give it to us. So I really think we should move on from this discussion. Yeah. Yeah. Um I one more time. I don't
know if I understood you correctly, Andrew. Did you have a proposal for what we as the warrant committee recommend that is different than what the select okay? So I did misunderstand there just so in order to focus the discussion
one thing I might propose is that we do what we did last time in this room except for real this time uh have an article in front of us someone can make a motion you I think this would give some structure to the discussion someone can make a motion perhaps the person
will say you know I move we adopt it as the select board approved or maybe I move it we adopt it as a select board approved approved but change purchase to purchase or consume and then we consider one by one. Someone
can make an amendment or we can just talk one by one. Let's discuss this issue. What do we think about it? Should we have an amendment? Yes or no? Let's discuss the next issue. You can't see my hand gestures but you know what I'm doing. Um I think that would give some
structure to this discussion. So I propose we move to adopt the language that the select board proposed. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. So it's like we did in the practice. We have a main motion in front of us. Now we can discuss that motion
and discuss amendments. The first one I would throw out to the group if this is appropriate for the chair to do is where the select board says the wristbands say purchase alcohol. I would say purchase or consume.
Uh let me switch to the sorry let me stop sharing and switch to the article. Um, all right. I will share this screen. Can you see my You cannot. Okay. Um,
non-transferable wristbands, individuals seeking to purchase. Again, I don't know if I'm overstepping my position as chair, but if someone were to say make an amendment to change purchase to purchase or consume.
I'll make that motion. It's fine. Make a motion to change purchase to purchase consume. Second. I second. Okay. Do we understand what we're doing here? Yes, we do. We're amending this, saying you need a wristband if you want to purchase it or consume it. This goes to the comments, right? So, I understand this. Like, we can't change
the language, right? It goes in the comments. We do change the language recommendation. So in the recommendation, yeah, the um yeah, the article says one thing. Our recommendation will be slightly different. Just being clear. What's the marked version you have above you? Uh what is this? I mean this is um this
is what we got from the original board and then the one we got today was from the concerned citizens, right? Okay. We have a motion to amend in front of us. Is there a discussion on this motion to amend?
I don't I don't think it matters. Like I don't think it changes. I'm just trying to do the procedure. Correct. That's what I'm Yeah, I understand. Karen, can you take a vote on the motion to amend wristbands individuals seeking to purchase to change it to purchase and consume? Did you say and or or
or purchase or consume? Okay, I think quick comment on it which is consume is the only thing that we actually need to put in there. It's not legal and the bartenders would not to actually purchase alcohol, but adding
both is I think not a problem. Okay. Okay, cool. Karen, can you take a roll call vote on this amendment? Elaine, yes. James, yes. Lorraine, yes.
Larry, yes. Andrew, yes. Julia, yes. Brian, yes. Lee Michael, no.
Ron, yes. Nicholas, yes. Cecile, yes. J abstain. The motion carries.
Okay, I'd like to share my screen again. Again, I think all five of these issues are deserving of discussion. Come up. We also we can't go back to any of the Oh, we can. Okay, we can
because number four, it is clear that the select board article has less detail on that sketch plan. And I think that the more specific one we might want to consider because in my experience when there's just a recommendation that people do things or
a suggestion, they don't do it. It doesn't get done. Yeah. I will say the language of the select boards article is they shall submit a sketch plan. So it's not optional. Yeah, they will submit a sketch plan just what's on it.
Right. That delineates the area for all of these things, right? Okay. I'm online and I'm jumping in. Um this Julia Yes. Julia. Yes. Um this
given that we are also not public health experts, I'm just and given our previous debates which I know remain I'd say unsettled. um like how much work are we supposed to
put into making this you know compromise between these two sort of entities that we've been hearing from this this level of sort of word smithing and whatever you want to call it seems um like not our role to me. Uh, I mean, if anything,
I would like why wouldn't we just vote to send this back like again like we sort of did with the lighting bylaw rather than go to these lengths as non-experts on this subject. Words smithing is definitely our role
based on prior experience on the warranty. Okay. I I guess I feel like this might be going beyond even wordsmithing. Julia, if uh you know my in my opinion, if we can submit a workable article to town meeting for town meeting to decide
yes or no on, if we can if if we're actually able to do it, some things are beyond our ability, but if we're able to do it and I think we can give it a good shot, I think we owe it to town meeting to try. And this this doesn't seem to me to be
beyond our ability. You know, I just did it with the MIPC. So, if we change language, maybe we get it back to the select board and they can vote on it. Who knows? Yeah, that's a whole other issue is will the select board agree with us or not? We're not going to get that answered
before the warrant goes to print and I'm okay with that. Um, okay. So, Elaine raised the issue of number four. I think some of these like so many things in front of us we could discuss all day or we could discuss it really really quickly and
come to a decision. Elaine raised the issue of number four. Is there Well, do we have an amendment? Does would someone like to make a motion to amend? I'd like to make a motion to amend to include the language proposed by the
residents in number four. So when I read the select board article, it says applicants shall submit a sketch plan. And I think Yeah. So pretty much it would be a sketch plan for the use of town land that delineates the area of alcohol
storage service and consumption. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's a motion. Before we get too deep into discussion around that, I do want to comment on one thing. Well, there's no second first of all. So is someone going to second that? Okay. Uh go ahead. But I I think this
can be a quick discussion one way or the other. Uh the obligation is to have a caterer's license. The caterer will be responsible for the alcohol storage service um portions of it. The consumption is
really what the sketch plan really lays out. And the select board proposal or the article as written says applicants shall submit a sketch plan for the use of townland as part of the application to select board. So sketch
plan meaning what is it is delineated zone or area I think but it doesn't say that I mean it's dup it's duplicative number four does right the next part of that the next
part of their statement the select board may depending on townland require that alcohol sales and consumption take place only in a location to be designated for the purpose of the cycle they don't have to It's the discretion of the select board about whether they think it's
appropriate for the size or this. Uh yeah, that's sort of a different I want to stay focused on this issue. What is a sketch issue? It's the same same because it's it's in this in this proposed article. It's number three and number four. They're one and the same. You know, they probably should just be one number, but they're not. Uh but they
one elaborates on the other. And I agree, one of the big differences that it says may and it's a question of whether we trust the discretion of the select board to to apply that or not. I for one do. I think that's their job. Uh and I think it gives them the flexibility to make appropriate
requirements and accommodations based on the location and size of the event. And ask I think that's the next topic we're going to talk about. This is just does this sketch plan require you to say where your alcohol is going to be or not? I'm I'm sorry to cut you off, but I think we're about to get to that option that you're talking about. But I think I
think we can vote article has that covered in the second part of the proposed article. I I I I don't know. Okay. Okay. So, we have some art arguments in favor
of this change and some arguments I guess. Yeah. I think are people okay with going to a vote on this amendment to add what to add the the to add the details requirements of the site plan. Yeah. Yeah.
I'm fine. Okay. All right. Uh Karen, can you call for a vote on this amendment? Elaine? Yes. James Lee? No. Lorine? Lorine?
Yes. Yes. Larry. Larry. Yes. Andrew. No. Julia. Yes. Ryan.
No. Lee. Michael. No. Ron. No. Nicholas, no. Cecile,
yes. Jay, it is not a tie, is it? You have five yes, six no. I will abstain. The motion does not carry.
Okay. Thank you for that, guys. Now, and I I'm sorry to shut you down, Nick. I'm just trying to be It's fine. So now I think we're going to be talking about what may be the biggest issue in my opinion. Um the select board option, the
select board article says uh let me just copy the Whoops. Um shoot. Um, let me just put that right here so we
can see the wording. Select board says a select board may come on may require that alcohol sales consumption take place only a location for the purpose. the wording submitted by the residents said
they will have let's call it a beer garden and people under 21 are not allowed in. So can we discuss this issue thoughts? Seems unworkable to me. I mean no in some cases it may be working but in
others I mean if an area is too small to begin with okay to create a separate designated area seems okay another thought is infants are people going to leave their kids and stroller outside the zone
and we don't have specific prohibitions on tobacco use or marijuana use outdoor on town land. We're not restricting that. Why are we making a differentiation for alcohol? Okay, I think those are both great points. Uh,
sorry, Michael. I think those are both great points and I just wanted to say by putting further restrictions on the select board, we may create these types of unintended consequences. So, I agree with the last two speakers. And so in in the event that there is an event or a
location um that makes it reasonable to have that I think giving again same way we give zoning boards and select board and other boards in the town flexibility and discretion. We have
to trust that they're going to make smart decisions and if they don't we revisit it and legislate around it. Um is the solution in my mind. Couldn't we include it as may require it already says that it's already it's
written that's land and so I think they've given intentionally given themselves flexibility around it and again we're not talking about town events at at every they're not going to
issue alcohol one day alcohol licenses for every outdoor event. They're talking about large festival type situation. Uh look around the table other thoughts I said that this this as a matter as a subjective matter this
might be the biggest issue. I I agree with every what everybody the previous three opinions. I think it's becomes unworkable in a lot of instances that I see and I think it's up to the select board that's their job of those things. Okay.
Hey Jay say I don't want to keep who's speaking. I I I actually can't see if somebody's hand is raised so just talk. Oh go ahead Larry. I'm sorry. I don't mean to monopolize the discussion, but you know, I um in my mind, you know, I the example that I
keep thinking of is the Milton Arts Center events, you know, concerts on the deck. I mean, there but there are other types of events that may be included here. I just I can't seem to think of any. I mean, I can't imagine that anything would be approved for like say, you know, the concerts at the gazebo or the home stroll to keep
the Milton Milton um Person Field. Yeah, it's not Townland. It's not Townland. It's not Townland. However, it's a good example. They have they do get they do get an discussion about the the tree lighting and stuff around the holiday.
Well, that's the thing is that was the big discussion at time being. So, it's good to bring that up because that was the the Halloween stroll and the tree lightings kept coming up. But, yeah, sorry. But but then everybody I talked to says, "Oh, it shouldn't be there." Including That's right. So, it never got approved.
Yeah. including, you know, I I had a conversation with Mr. Zul about this. He's like, "Oh, that no, it shouldn't be there." And I said, "But that's the example everyone gives." Yeah. So, the people I've spoken to also say what they carry around in their undisclosed cups.
Okay. And so, so I I agree they it shouldn't be like I personally don't think it should be licensed for events like like that. However, the reality and what we're trying to enforce are two very different
things. Yeah. And just for add to add to the conversation, in the conversation I had with um Richard Wells, the four places they think are most likely to have outdoor events are the backyard of the Milton Art Center, uh the Milton Wararf, which is, you know, getting work done on
it now, and they're excited about u activities there, the Manning Deck, and potentially the gazebo at town hall. Those are the four places I think are most likely to have events. So, I don't know if that helps in the conversation, but just to share that perspective. Ron Ron, did you were you was it you that was speaking up earlier?
Yeah, I just had one quick comment. Um, I I I agree with the comments that it's preferable to provide flexibility for the select board. Um, it's a little confusing to me the language because I can't tell if the
designated location is intended to be permanent or would it be, you know, flexible on a, you know, use by use case. So, so I I I think the select board should have flexibility. I would think it would be great if they consulted with the Department of Public Health
when they make these calls. I don't know if that's something that we need to tell them to do, but maybe that's in the comment that that we would hope that there's discussion between these these boards, but I don't know if we want to require that because I do think it should be the select board's discretion
if they feel they need to um require designation that that they can then speak to the the town, you know, officials who are experts on public health on where those should be. Well, I think one thing to consider and
it's not the public health that would be consulted, but whichever uh entity public body is responsible as it says in the article for the care, custody and control of the subjected town land would also uh render their approval in addition to the select board. So, they would be consulted. It's not the board
of health. It's different uh standard, but it's another entity that would, you know, have presumably more expertise about that location and be in a position to kind of support um or facilitate a discussion on that outcome. Any other thoughts about this issue?
Sounds like we're not going to make a motion on it. I was just going to say is Ron Does Ron want to make a motion about that? Um, no. I don't think it needs to be an amendment. I I would suggest that whoever writes the comment could include
that as a suggestion unless someone else wants to make a motion and they want to propose. I don't think I don't feel that strongly. So, um, and members can propose any amendment they want. I'd sort of rather us not wing it. And you know, we do this
or we do this. Um, not saying you have to, just saying things will go a lot smoother if we don't make up amendments on the fly. So, am I hearing anyone make a motion for an amendment on this issue? I am not hearing that. So it might be
appropriate to talk about the next issue on the list which is what? Advertising. Advertising. Advertising which several people mentioned at the April meeting. Uh does discuss or include information
about alcohol by volume? Does anyone uh have any comments or thoughts about this? Can I ask for some clarification on this? So it's just information about the alcohol by law. It's not limiting it to say like beer and wine license only. It
it's not it's this Mad Dog 2020 is 15% ABV and this it is normal wine. I you know that you learn a lot of things in high school. Sorry.
Um, do we have discussions about again I I think all of these are worth discussing and thinking about. So I would like to hear I my my opinion is I'll going to say I would say the same thing for the next four. I think all of the discussions
select they can make that decision if they issue a one day license. You know the advertising if they want to limit that. I could say talk about the playground and children which I'm not sure if they can like for number six. How much? Number six. I I can't imagine the select
board if it wasn't explicitly required of them in the bylaw. Like I can't imagine that they would ever do that. But that would even if they if they could like if the law doesn't say they can limit the advertising. The other three, you're right for sure. 7 8 N. But
I'm not even totally sure what advertising is. Is it like hey there's a bar in the corner if it's Kelly Field and the the and if there is a designated area and it's way over there and you have a poster saying I'll adult beverages that way this doesn't that proposed language
doesn't allow for that. It says limited to the alcohol service area. did not say anywhere anything about the alcohol beer garden being in the corner of Kellyfield or that it ex exists for that matter.
Again, as Ron mentioned, and I I I would rather see the select board have the discretion to figure out what specific requirements for a specific location and event that
requires certain things. And in my mind, if I were on there on there, I might think about it very differently if the expected attendee size is 25 people versus 500 people. In which case, 500
people in the middle of Andrews Park. I would think it would make sense. It's easy to have a designated area and put in more restrictive things than at the Milton Center for the Arts Art Arts Center, for example. Hey Jay.
Yeah. Yes. Uh it's Lee Michael. I'd like to make a motion. Um I move that we not make any changes to the proposed language based on items 6, 7, 8, and 9, but instead note these suggestions in the comment.
That is a motion. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Uh now we can discuss the motion before us. What what I said earlier, I think each of these may come up at town meeting. I
would like to discuss each of these now so that we are prepared to discuss it at town meeting numbers 7, 8, and nine. We have a motion. We have a second in front of us. Uh is there discussion? I would love to
have discussion about we had some discussion about six. I would love to have discussion about seven, eight, nine. Even if the discussion is we don't I I can't force people in this committee to discuss. I have a lot of powers. I don't have that power. But I would like to tell town meeting we discussed each
one of these. This is I'm sorry. Go ahead. Somebody say something um for number six in particular. Yeah, this is Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you.
Okay. Um I think that for number six, um it may make more sense to tease um these two things out. I I understand the concerns around the lack of specificity about like advertising. What does that
mean? What does that entail? Um I think the second part is um a really common sense public health measure. Um, and I think the the group of residents
brought this up in their letter that, you know, people might want to or rely on having this information like the ABV for each product, especially if they are going to be driving or if they've had drinks before they got there or they plan on having drinks after they leave. So, to me, that's a that's kind of a
no-brainer, and I think that would be uh an easy win for, you know, the public health uh side of this conversation. Uh and maybe we separate out the advertising issue because I think those
are different things. The um I mean, I agree with Julia to some degree. I mean, I I I always really welcome having that information, particularly when you go to a, you know, a brewery and that beers, you know, some of the beers are super high test. I just don't know if it's workable if if
somebody's serving mixed drinks. I I wonder that too. Yeah, you would do it. I would prefer to go along with Lee's Michael's suggestion with the
comment that we considered these. It is it within the discretion of the select board to require these on an event by event byevent basis and we recommend
that the select board whether it's ABV or issues that we feel really really strongly about should be in there we recommend but I I I I'm hesitant to force it into the language. Okay, I hear you. Um, I I would put an
asterisk there. We haven't discussed all these yet, so let's let's go through and discuss them. Um, any other comments about what what Julia just said about the ABV? Any comments, discussions about that? Thoughts about that? How would that actually be? Um, if we're
going to amend that particular statement, how would that I'll work on the mechanics. You leave the mechanics to me. Um, I mean, I'll I'll I'll guide I'll guide the warrant committee through the mechanics of of amending it. Just want to know sort of your sense. Sorry, I didn't mean to shut you down.
I just agree on separating. I just don't know what how how it would actually be separate. I'll work on them. I'll I'll guide you through the mechanics. Cecil. Yeah. Kind of echoing what Julia said. The second half of six, like if we leave that to the discretion of the select board, is that going to be an additional
significant burden? Because for every liquor license that they have to review, they have to then be like, "Oh, do we include ABV here? Do we do the description?" Okay. Like adding extra burden to them. Okay. So, I'm hearing I'm just sort of
thinking about how this will go process-wise. I'm hearing some support in the room for the ABV. Can we move the discussion to number seven, playground play space areas? I mean, that leaves out the town landing. Is it does it town is the town landing a play space area?
It has a play space area right now. I don't know if it will in the future. I'm sure it probably will. Okay. In your plans. I know you didn't mention it. Um um No, you mentioned the Nick as one of the the four places that were prominent, but Kelly Field, it totally leaves out
Kelly Field. Yeah. And Andrews. I think anything could be defined as a child's play space area. Yeah. Any grassy area, right? I mean, you could play soccer. Yeah. Okay. I also think a point that was brought up earlier was a good one, like what does
that mean for parents with infants or, you know, young kids? And I mean, I know breweries are super popular with young families because their kids can hang out and the parents can hang out and everybody wins. So, I I do agree that's that's a trickier one for me.
Okay. So, I'm hearing some sense about that. Thank you. Uh the next one, you must provide food and non-alcoholic beverages and submit the menu as part of the application. Thoughts about this?
I think that's tough to require people to serve food. I mean, exactly. Catering it it really would like sty the ability for for smaller groups to get together. And I don't like that part. Yeah, me too. But I think non-alcoholic
beverages make sense to to provide Oh, sure. something for somebody who doesn't want to drink. But they don't they don't have to drink anything at the event. The way it's either you drink alcohol or nothing though. But if you ever been since since you
were a teenager, have you ever been to an event that only had alcohol? I if they're if they're serving alcohol, likelyhood is that there are other vendors serving something. In my mind, the the reason why I prefer to leave this at the discretion of the select
board is that if it's a two-hour event, I would look at it very differently than a 5hour event with families and 500 people. And so, do I think food and non-alcoholic beverages are necessary to
be served by the bartender or the event host in a two-hour event at night in Milton Milton Warf? Probably not because I don't think kids are going to be playing at night. But that's besides the point sort of kids. I'm talking about people who are
alcoholics and who want to participate in the event. People who just don't like alcohol and want to participate in the event and non-alcoholic beverages would include bottled water. I mean, it's I don't I don't think it's hard. I actually agree with you, but I've never
been to a bar or any event that didn't have beverages. I don't think that's a tough one. I don't know about the food, though. I don't agree with that. I don't read that as requiring food to be served. If if there's food, then the food then I make No, I requiring
food. Yeah, this is Lee Michael. Can I break in? That food thing is required in some other bylaws and people get around it so easily. It's just it's not enforceable. The way that the way that I have seen it done is they sell they sell chips for a
dollar and that's it. So, um, it's I just that's the reason why I included it in my blanket, not making this change. It's just not doable. Okay. Any other discussion about this? There's also, you know, requires the menu to be
provided as part of the application. Um, any other discussion about this one? There was seem to be some back and forth about hamaco beverages. I don't know if we've resolved that. Okay, question mark. And the final one,
cups for alcoholic beverages should be equals easily distinguishable from cups from non-alcoholic beverages. I'll remind you this was that both of the public health professionals who spoke in April, more than two of them spoke, but both of them that had a list of things noted this as something that was desirable.
Do we have thoughts about this? I have thoughts about this, but I'll let you speak. Go ahead. Well, I think it's a great idea to have to be able to differentiate between them so that I don't mix my non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages while I was consuming both it um accidentally. But I think having the wristband clearly identifies me as a
potential for having an alcoholic drink. So why do I need a cup to also identify that I might have an alcoholic drink? Is there an explanation for the public professional? Uh, I don't think there's an explanation, but you know, if if all if all beverages are in red solo cups, I guess
I hand my 18-year-old my red solo cup and I take their red solo cup and who's to know? That was at my discretion, not the town's liability. Correct. Oh, that's true. That's you serving your I think it's also
I think it's also Sorry, I was gonna say Go ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I I've never even heard of this type of rule before in all my has anybody else heard of this different when you go someplace and they say oh yeah we you know you order a beer and
then they pour it into a cup and then hand you the cup separate cup like I've never heard of this separate cup for non-alcoholics I don't get the logic behind it looks different I and the police officers if there's a police officer there they see and I'm sorry I've been trying to withhold my opinion earlier
but I'm sharing my opinion now police officer sees the person with the wristband is holding the green cup. That's cool. The person without the wristband is not holding the green cup. That's cool. I I'll just say I think this is a good one. Yeah.
Um I spoke to the town administrator earlier today. I and I brought up this one specifically. I said, "Is there a problem with this?" And he said, "Well, one problem might be if you have one vendor serving alcohol and a totally different vendor serving the food, they have to coordinate that their cups are going to be distinguishable.
I think that can be worked out. Yeah. They just say, "Yeah, you're either holding a cup for alcohol or you're holding a bottle of Polen Springs that you bought from the other guy." Yeah. You know, it it's or like a Coca-Cola or whatever. Yeah, I I I think this is an Oh, I'm sharing
my opinion. I'm sorry. I think this is an easy one that can be added there. What do other people think? I agree, Jay. This to me is similar to the ABV one. Like, it's I think a easy win. Um, and it makes a lot of
sense to me just to make sure that, yeah, the the drinks and the wristbands match. Um, whether it's because, you know, you're worried about your 18-year-old or as someone else brought up, like maybe you are in recovery and don't want to accidentally, you know, take a drink out
of someone's alcoholic beverage. So, I think for many reasons, it makes sense and is not overly burdensome. So, can we make a motion to amend? Well, still on hold on a second. Yeah. So, one thing one way this might go
and I'm I'm trying to make my job as chair is to make the process go easily. Right now, we are currently considering a motion to not amend for the last four items. It is in front of us as a warrant committee to vote on that. Do we approve
or not approve Lee Michael's motion to not amend for any of these? If we vote that down, then we will have the option of voting as a warrant committee. Do we want to change it to put in, you know, half of this ABV language? Do we want to change it to put in the cups language?
So, trying to be an unbiased arbiter. Yes. I have a question for Julia. I don't understand the point about the ADV because if people are buying beers or they they generally put items on display
at a bar for instance and again we're not trying to cover every conceivable scenario here but the bottles clearly say what the alcohol by volume is if it's a bottle if it's a keg you generally know what you're getting. I just I think this is an unnecessary
restriction. I don't I don't understand um why it's necessary. Can Julia, could you explain your position again? Yeah, I think that um you know, there are situations where people might feel
um awkward about, you know, saying, "Hey, can can I look at the cans of all of your options so I can decide which of them I'm going to choose because, you know, I already had two beers before I got here." or um can you you know can I see that bottle of wine while there's uh 10 other people lined
up behind me waiting to get their drinks like I just think it is removing a barrier and giving more information for people to make informed decisions with. It's like having the calories listed on a menu. Like I think it just is uh
remove some barriers uh for people to be able to make more informed decisions. Thank you. Um my my thoughts on the cups is that um I just think that's unnecessary and I
I've never heard of it before and I bet it'll just get ignored in in reality. My opinion, I don't think it's going to change anything. I just think it's an unnecessary thing to put in there. My opinion. Okay. My preference again is going back
to u put it in the comment that we would prefer that the select board require these things but I I don't want to over legislate or require things.
Ron, you you had something to say? Yeah, just on Brian's comment, I think because these activities are planned for families and there will be minors and adults, then it makes sense to me to have different cups. If it was just purely adults, I agree with you.
Let let the adults figure it out. But because they're young, you know, younger participants, I do think for the enforcibility, so a police officer could determine who is allowed to have alcoholic beverage. You know, you need to be able police officers are not going to go sniff or take a sip of everyone's
cup, right? It's just easier for them to be able to tell which uh which type of drink they're people they're holding. I I I would I have a question. Uh Lee, Michael, would you consider a friendly to No, I wouldn't. Ron, I appreciate I appreciate the offer, but I'm not going to. I If you really want to get alcohol
from a different color cup into a cup that's designated for a non-alcoholic beverage, it's just not hard to pour it in. We don't we don't need to legislate this. The the wristband does this heavy lifting for us. That's it. That's true. I was gonna ask
I have a procedure question for Lee Michael. Can we restrict ourselves? So your motion was that we not amend based on these four issues, but that we put it in the comments. That's part of the question. But I'm but I'm sorry. But I'm I'm asking can we restrict ourselves and
then we're not allowed to amend it? I don't even I never wondered that before. Um, in the sake of going home tonight, should we just like have a vote on the ABV and have a vote on the cups? I mean, no. I'd like to take a vote on my
motion, Jay. Okay. Okay. All right. Does everyone what we're voting? If if you're voting yes, then you're saying we're not going to make any more amendments. If you vote no, you say the warrant committee has the right to consider certainly these
two amendments. Is everyone Does everyone understand we're voting? It's not no more. It's not no more amendments. It's those four that you had listed there. We're not going to add them into the bylaw. We're going to put them in the comment. I actually have something else I want to put into the bylaw in a different motion.
Okay. Thank you. Um, does everyone understand what we're voting on? Yes. Is everyone prepared to vote? Yes. Okay. You're voting yes. You're saying we're not going to consider these we're not going to consider more amendments on these four issues. If you're voting no,
we are going to consider more amendments. Karen, can you call the role? Elaine, no. Jamesley, no. Lorraine, no.
Larry, no. Andrew, yes. Uh, Julia. I believe Julia has left. Uh Brian,
yes. Sorry, Lee. Michael, yes. Ron, no. Uh Nicholas, yes. Cecil,
no. Jay, it's not a tie, is it? It is not a tie. You have four yes, six. Okay, the motion does not carry. Four yes, no, one abstension. So, these things we've talked about, I think there may be a couple of
amendments to be made. Um, since Julia suggested splitting this in half, I've taken a shot at writing what we might want as the amendment, which is the vendor shall post the product description, price, and ABV for each product.
Would someone like to make a motion to amend? I'll make a motion to amend. Okay. Second. Okay. Uh, I think we've discussed this. If there's no more discussion, we can put it to a vote. This is the ABV proposed amendment. Karen, can you call
roll? Karen, are you there? Karen too has left the meeting. No, I'm sorry. Was that allowed to use the bathroom? Karen, I may have already. Did Elaine make the
amendment and Lorraine seconded? That's correct. Okay. All right. Uh, now I'll call the role. Elaine, yes. Jamesley, yes. Lorraine, yes.
Larry, yes. Andrew, yes. Brian, yes. Lee Michael, yes. Ron.
Yes. Nicholas. I may not have heard that. Nicholas. No. Uh Cecile. Yes. And Jay. Abstain.
The motion carries. And finally, we discuss this issue. Would anyone like to make a motion for an amendment regarding this number nine? I'll make a motion to cut off that language.
Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. We've discussed this issue. If there's no more discussion, think we can go to a vote. Elaine. Yes.
Jamesley, no. Lorraine, yes. Larry, no. Andrew, no.
Um, who do we have next? Brian, no. Lee Michael. No Ron. Yes. Nicholas. No.
Cecile. Yes. Jay. It's not a tie, is it? It is not. Okay. I abstain. The motion does not carry. You had four
yes, six no, and one abstension. Okay. Um, Lee, Michael, you you previously said you might want to make a different amendment. Would you like to speak to that? Yeah. Could you put the language of the article back up, please?
Of the select board's article. Yes. The comment that I'm sorry, the uh the recommendation that you're working on. Put up the recommendation, please. Um, that was me. Oh. Oh, okay. Okay. A comment.
That was a comment. No, that was a the recommendation. Oh, J Jay's recommendation, Lee, Michael. Yeah. Yeah, we have to vote on a recommendation. Can you put the recommendation up on the board, please? Well, I don't have it with all the amendments. Is that Is that a trick question?
Oh, god. No, it's not a trick question. We just made two tiny amend We just made one amendment, right? What did you put up earlier? The thing with the box with the amendments. Yeah, the PowerPoint three the PowerPoint slide with the three amendments
the little box that you're just updating a second. Okay. The second page of the PowerPoint. Okay. Okay. Um you you change purchase or consume. Is this what you're asking? This thing is that what you're saying?
We should be able to see the language that we're voting on without all of these little changes that are off on the side somewhere. Put up the artic put up the recommendation and type in the changes as we see them so that we can say I vote for the language as displayed.
Is that something you're able to do, Karen? You're going to have to give me a minute. I have the uh I only have the redlinined one because that was the most recent one I was given. Um, if we can't come up with this, then we
can't have faith that we all know that we're voting on the same thing. I agree. So, anyway, the motion that I'm going to make once we're able to get the recommendation up on the board is age identifiable or something, those words
are don't make sense. We need to remove those and just have non-transferable uh wristbands because the wristbands should not be forced to say somebody's age on them. I
Does someone have a comment on that? If I to declare my age, I'm not drinking. I agree. Uh my comment is it's clear what it means. It does not mean my wristband would say 51. It means 21 year olds have
a wristband. Under 120 year olds, it's clear. I I I've heard someone else. It's even clearer now, Jay. It's even clearer now. Um I'm I'm sorry. So, what was the uh um what what was your proposal?
She's got it correct. Remove the words age identifying I mean it should say something like non-transferable wristband shall be provided to individuals seeking to above the age of 21. Hold on. Let me Oh. Oh. Great.
Legal drinking age. Legal drinking age. I just say I can see what Karen. Do we have a chat? Do you want me to the the I have the language of the ABV amendment?
Yeah. But how do I get it to you? Can you just email it to me quickly? I'm sorry. This has been fast and furious. Yes. If we're if we're editing live, I I do agree with Brian on that statement on on
portion on section two actually say legal drinking age, right? Because it just says non-ransferable shall be provided that age identifying was supposed to denote legal drinking age, but it was not clear state legal drinking age to clarify.
I mean, it is assumed that somebody that's we can't override state law that requires you to be 21 to buy alcohol. It's an unnecessary amendment. Can't you? Okay, thank you. That's what I wanted to do. Not with that attitude. We can't. Um I I emailed
I emailed the language to you, Karen. It's going through the pipes. Okay, this should go exactly where? Just I'm I've got it to paste. Well, that's a good question. I think after number four. Number five. It's number five.
No, of course not. Sorry. Okay. So that's so we're looking at except for the age identifying thing, we're looking at the article as we have made amendments to it. And Lee Michael is saying take out is
I'm sorry I was doing too many things at once. Lee Michael, you're saying take out the words age identifying. That's my motion. Yeah. Is there a second? Second. Do we need to discuss it or can we vote on it? All right. Karen, please call for a vote.
I'm sorry. Are we voting on all the changes? No. No. I'm sorry. We're voting on the amendment to take out the words age identifying. Okay. That's what we're voting on. I'm sorry. Give me one minute. Uh, we have a lane. Yes.
Do you want to take out the words number two? Okay. AJ strike the word page. Just number two. Yes. Yeah. Not the whole article. Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry, Karen. I already voted. Okay.
Jamesley. Yes. Lorraine. Yes. Larry. Yes. Andrew. Yes. Brian.
Yes. Le Michael. Yes. Ron. Yes. Nicholas. No. Cecile. Yes. Jay, abstain.
The motion carries. Okay. And I think we've safely exceeded the number of amendments that were in the previous three years warrant committees. So, good job, guys. Um, we've discussed this quite a bit. I
don't know if anyone has additional amendments to make or additional discussion. We have discussed this quite a bit. I'll make a motion, Jay. Well, we have a motion in front of us. The motion is
it's this. You know, someone moved the someone moved the motion as um as provided by the uh select board and then we've been amending that. I didn't hear anybody. Oh, fine. Okay. Who made that motion? I don't know. That was a long time ago. It's
Andrew, I think. So that is a motion we've been amending and discussing. Is there further discussion? Are people ready to vote on the article as amended which you see in your screen?
Yes, I think so. Okay. Karen, can you please call roll? Sure. Just for the record. Sorry. Hold on. Hold. Ask Hold on. Hold on. And then that I'm not in favor of this, but like you were gonna ask
the Milton Board of Health, right? If they want if they want to comment on this, should we wait on our vote or is this um is that should we vote on it and then if they come up with a comment, we vote again? I mean, all the information we have so far is that they're they're definitely
not going to have an opinion before, you know, the warrant goes to print. You can reopen. Um you could always reopen. Our two experts both reach out to them. I then reached out to them thinking maybe I'm the warrant committee chair. Maybe they'll give me a different answer. They did not give me a different answer. That was a question.
We also we have input from it's a perfectly good question. If it comes up, we'll reopen it. Okay. All right. I think we're ready to vote. Okay. Karen, thank you. Will you call roll? Blaine? Yes. Jamesley?
Yes. Lorraine? Yes. Larry, yes. Andrew, yes. Brian, yes. Lee Michael,
yes. Ron, yes. Nicholas, yes. Cecile, yes. Jay, abstain. The motion carries.
So, um The last remaining article we have decide before town meeting is the lighting bylaw which not only because of the hour but also because of uh I believe tonight uh the select board is discussing it discussing some feedback
that they got from our experts. Um we're not going to decide this tonight. Uh I mean you could surprise me if you could make a motion but we're not gonna surprise us tonight. Uh, what I would ask Ron and um Nick is poor Nick.
Everything fall fell on Nick. Uh, is there people are zipping up their bags already? I don't know why. Is there some discussion we could have tonight that will make Monday night go smoother? That's an open question, but are there issues that you think this board needs
to discuss, decide on? I could kind of recap where we are. Yes. Thank you. A few minutes. So when we talked about this uh I think in the last two sorry like one second um since we may have different people here on Monday
voting rather than today. I mean I personally prefer to keep votes and discussions in the same meeting. I agree. The recap isn't going to help the people that aren't here. They're going to want it again on Monday. There's a lot of people not here.
Yeah, there are a lot. just to keep the dis discussion fresh in mind. I mean like I don't it's not a big deal either way but I think it is far better to have a discussion and the vote in the same meeting because you
could have two different constituencies have a week where you forget about things. I guess I would phrase it this way. Um, are there members, you know, aside from Ron and Nick and me, I've been inserting myself into this and the Michael also
has expressed an interest. I have something I'd like to say, Jay. Um, okay. Yeah, I was going to say are, you know, members that have thoughts about this, please reach out to, you know, the assigned experts, Nick and Ron. Uh, Lee
Michael, what would you like to say? Um, as I've shared with you three, I think that 10 lux is too high. I would really like some sort of an explanation on Monday as to the difference between two, five, and 10 lux so that we understand what we're voting on and also maybe a
comparison to other towns to see what lux levels do they have. Um, my my research showed that most of them have five. And so for us to be twice as high, I'd like to know have a little more information on that before we vote on that. And I think that's a useful thing
for us to be discussing now because if we meet on Monday and we Michael had that question and we're surprised by it, that doesn't help anybody. But if some of you have questions or concern, you can bring them up now. You can bring them up in email to Nick and Ron.
Let's get some issues out now. So, thank you, Lee, Michael, for raising that. Um, I mean, if it's the only thing that we're discussing on Monday, then, yeah, I think we could probably all do a little bit of homework and, you know, really read the bylaw very closely and come up with sets of questions and email
them to you guys ahead of time. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But are there issues now that people want to raise that, you know, we would benefit from some research in the next few days? Are there any changes to the bylaw at
all? Has anybody made any changes from since when it was first printed? The one we got? Oh, I see. Couple weeks ago. No. Well, I I will say Well, I'll say it like this. Uh Nick and Ron shared their
suggestions and I think they included my suggestions also. Shared those with the town administrator and the select board chair and they are discussing them tonight. So they're going to look at our thoughts and maybe there might be changes on for Monday.
Yeah. So either either official changes or some sort of feedback from the select board I expect to come from tonight and uh we can delete Michael's comment. I actually wouldn't think it would be a bad idea to turn the lights out and see what 10 is, what five is, what 15 is.
I don't know if that'll be possible and I also don't know Yeah. Okay. I'm not experts. I'm not an expert. You're right. Because, you know, I'm I I'm, you know, well, I'm not going to vote on this, but y'all are going to vote on this really without knowing what
five bucks and 10 bucks are. That's That's That's a really good point. But then again, a very wise man once told me, "We're not supposed to be the experts. We're supposed to find out from the experts." Like a weird expert on this. Okay. Feel like a learning nerd. You'd be surprised. Um, useless knowledge I've crammed in my
head. I'm I'm really hoping Monday there will be discussion Monday. There will be back and forth Monday. I hope we come in as prepared as we can on Monday. And that is through, you know, people expressing their opinions to Ron and Nick
letting us all be prepared. Hey Jay. Yes. I think it's a great question by Lee Michael. I will ask Seanor if he can give us examples of the two five and 10. He he did give us a presentation a month ago
explaining his view as as an expertise. I don't know if he would call himself an expert but he has expertise in the area. He explained why he thought a higher lux would be preferable for where we are right now. I'll ask him if he can also provide some you know some kind of common sense examples of what two five
and 10 translate to for human beings. Okay. I don't think I don't think he needs to attend. He's used up a lot of his time. So, he's I'll ask you just give us an email and we can share it back. And I'm trying to remember six months ago, was he the one who came up with the
number 10? I I mean, that was the ancient Greek. I think the ear an earlier version of the article had a lower number and and likely for the same reason as what Lee Michael raised, but I think he he recommended we have a higher number because he was worried that too
uh low of a light could be could create a lot of disputes that we may not be ready for. Right. And I would also like to editorialize that, you know, this came up before the February town meeting. And I think there was a there was a sense on
the warrant committee at the time and throughout the town at the time that a light trespass article would be desirable, but it wasn't workable at the time. And then it came up again at the May town meeting. Again, people like the idea, people didn't like the execution. It was going to come up
at the June town meeting. It got cut. Now it's coming up again. Um I hope we can work towards an acceptable article that we can put in front of town meeting. That's my hope. Just do the article on town land. If we
can do that, we can do anything. Just Yeah. The article is going before town meeting no matter whatever it looks like, right? I mean, we don't get to choose. It's just can we make and
yeah, you're right. Let me go ahead. Quick research. Two lux lighting comparable to light from a full moon on a clear night. Just enough light for the human eye to perceive shapes. Minimum security lighting some park or recreational areas at night. Five looks
lighting is still very dim but brighter than a full moon. Often used for creating a low-risk moody ambient atmosphere. Examples include a quiet residential street, foot paths or walkways, low traffic car park areas. Penlux lighting. This level of
illumination is still very dim and often used for for creating mood lighting is approximate the equivalent of light from a single candle located 1 meter away. Examples include average side road lighting, medium traffic car park areas, ambient light around sunset, the
brightness level that trigger some light activated sensors such as those on outdoor wall lights. And I think that's 10 bucks. Yeah. And so I think we I think still think we should pose that question, but I think this gives us a frame of
reference and also a way to Yep. I found similar things today. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. Okay. Second. Second. All in favor? Okay. Thank you very much.
[Music]