 It's a part of reference, we got the little timer on the center lectern to work. It will show you a green light when you can speak, yellow light when you have two minutes left and a red light that makes noise when your time is done. When that goes off and you're up speaking, be a courteous and stop speaking. Everyone please take your seat, Mr. Cook is going to begin. Hey, get out of Gordon's way, you. Sit down, get out of the way. Sit down, O'Connor. Sit down, Gordon. You big guy, get out of the way, sit down. All right, Mr. Cook. Kevin Cook, precinct 16. I just want to point out that something to consider with regard to trying to not be stigmatizing and worrying about what's in your particular backyard is that if you draw a 500 foot circle around Arlington Catholic High School and Fidelity House, you're going to wipe out almost all of Arlington Center. And if you are going to consider anything other than the three villages that were mentioned, anything near the high school gets wiped out too. So I just wanted to point that out. It kind of significantly reduces the amount of places that are actually available for this. Okay, thank you. This woman right here, yeah. Molly Flickinger, precinct 14. I'm sorry, four. A few things. I'm glad that the town is considering this issue so carefully, and I understand that they feel the working group feels that they need to make a proposal. From what I understand about this issue, an RMD is not going to come into this town without a lot of attention and without a lot of opportunity for public input. I believe that community support is one of the qualification criteria for the state permitting process. It looks for the nonprofits who might be brave enough to try to attempt to open one in Arlington to have had some community support and do some relationship building. And if that isn't present, I don't believe a permit will be granted. My ideal solution would be to take a wait and see attitude, which we may or may not be able to based on the pressure from the state. I think it's very unlikely that we're going to see this become an issue any time soon. This is an experimental issue for the state. The state has very thorough regulations. It's taking it quite slowly. I'd like to see someone again who's brave enough to come together with a proposal and then let the community decide, because I believe we will have an opportunity to decide if it ever becomes a relevant issue. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Harrington. Sean. Sean Harrington, precinct 15. Just I talked to town council during the break. I just wanted to clarify that if we were to vote no, this wouldn't be in a residential zoning area if I'm correct. Mr. Heim. By the way, I want to apologize. Doug Heim, town council. I want to apologize if people couldn't hear me before. You said it. You said it. Oh, I hear it. Good night. Can we turn the volume up a little bit? The mic. Close it to the mic. I want to apologize if people couldn't hear me before. I'm trying to lean down a little bit here to get into the microphone. But with respect to the idea of whether or not not zoning it anywhere would necessarily mean that you couldn't zone it in a residential district. I have to say it's unlikely that it would be going to residential district. But I can't say with an absolute certainty that it wouldn't happen in the sense that our zoning, you'd have to basically be relying on all the other laws of the town to basically tell you whether or not you could place that type of business in that area. So I just want to make it clear that it is a somewhat nuanced point. All right. And the other question, I don't know if you'd be able to help me out with this. I saw that there's a 500 foot buffer zone by the state. If I'm correct. That's correct. Is it possible that after this town meeting as a hypothetical that we could increase or decrease that buffer zone? It's possible under the regulations that you could either increase or decrease the buffer zone. All right. So we could, so another hypothetical. So we could vote no on this if it spreads out to the town we could increase the buffer zone after that does. No, I think that it depends on your question. If your question is if we vote no, can we just increase the buffer zone? You have to have some sort of zoning regulation that would increase the buffer zone. That would be your avenue to do it. The other thing that I'd like to make sure is clear is that with respect to zoning regulations, part of the purpose of the regulation is to be flexible over time so that you're not just dealing with where a daycare center is at the very moment as time proceeds and you probably know this. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. Over time you would want to make sure that there's flexibility. That 500 foot buffer would, as currently under the current state of the law, that's in place. You could make it smaller or bigger, but it would change as those congregational areas change. All right. It would have been, thank you very much. Thank you. Looking at the screen, it was kind of hard to see the map that was given out. It would have been nice if we had been given a map to look at. But from what I saw, the main area is Arlington Center. As someone who works in Arlington Center, is there almost every day. Kids are there all the time. Whether it's out of school or during school, you have two schools there. I would have liked to see, and if we could have made this a lot broader under what Mr. Ruderman was saying, that make this a bigger zoning area. And because I didn't see that, because I don't think that we were properly, we weren't given enough tools to look at this because we weren't given a map. I'm going to have to vote no on this, simply for the fact that from what I'm seeing currently, it's in one area where currently it is huge concentration of kids. And I'm talking from personal experience, seeing this day by day by day. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Schlickman, Mr. Jamison. Thank you, Mr. Moderator Gordon Jamison, precinct 12. First off, I want to thank the redevelopment board and the committee for their hard work. I know they've spent hours, endless hours in this issue, both last year and this year. And sometimes the body doesn't trust you or take your thoughts on face value. I apologize for the body, at least from my perspective. First off, I want to talk about a couple things that were, I think, suggested. One of the previous speakers, Mr. Moderator, suggested that specific addresses be determined. If I understand, if I understood that person's suggestion correctly, that would suggest we have specific addresses where things could be done and not other places. I believe spot zoning is illegal under mass general law. Next, an individual discussed the State of Colorado's program, which I think is not a medical marijuana program but a complete de-legalization of marijuana. We don't have that law in our state, it's only for medical uses. An overriding interest for the people who might wish to transit into Arlington, should one of these dispensaries be opened, was access. The spines of, I believe, Mass Avenue and perhaps Broadway, I forget the map, are all accessible, my vast transit, from both in town and from other towns surrounding us, so that people can get, you know, we are a spot on the MBTA map on Route 77, so we're sort of a central transit area that we can hopefully develop in a variety of different mechanisms, but not going off-subject. And also there was the concerns of our Public Safety Department into that regard. I would request, Mr. Moderator, we might hear a few words from our eminable Chief Ryan on this issue. Do you have a question of him? I would like to hear opinions on marijuana. No, I would like to have the committee commented that there was, the monitoring of the site would be best performed if it was in these districts and the rationale from Chief Ryan in that regard would be most appreciated in my regard. Chief, can you liken us on that? Versus in some back alley. Good evening, Frederick Ryan, Chief of Police. Good evening, Mr. Moderator. Good evening, sir. I think if history repeats itself, from what we've seen when Colorado was a medical marijuana state, you're correct, Mr. Jameson, it's now fully lawful, but it was medical marijuana only. California and a number of other states, we saw a lot of these doctor's notes going to people between the ages of 18 and 24 for conditions such as athlete's foot and other nonsense. And a lot of this marijuana was being diverted to unlawful use. So my concern when I met with the committee and my concern remains that this activity goes on in the retail areas where other business people can exercise peer pressure to maintain the quality of life in our wonderful community. And I think in order to do that, what we've proposed makes the most sense. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. So I would urge a vote in favor and thank you for listening to my comments. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Fisher? Mr. Varaglou? Staff of Varaglou, precinct 10. I have a question. I didn't catch your name. I'm sorry. During your slide presentation, you spoke of the special permit subject to the EDR. And most of the criteria under the EDR were fairly self-explanatory. But number eight, special features. Can you explain what criteria are generally considered under special features? And if you foresee them being involved in this situation. Okay. Special features on my care, chairman of the ARB. That would be my care, chairman of the ARB. Special features would be with respect to, could be air conditioning, could be ventilation, antennas. So it's things like ventilation and that type of thing, which would quite possibly be important here. So more on infrastructure, essentially. Yeah, can be. Okay. And then I guess we've heard a lot of opinions and I certainly respect Chief Ryan's comments on diversion. The one person I know using medical marijuana is in their 70s. They are not in this state. They are suffering from chronic pain. They have had every treatment they can possibly get. They have had Botox to get in the entire area. They have had, so I'm speaking to the article. Okay. Okay. And so while I understand that there may be diversion, I do believe that there will be always marijuana available for anybody that really wants it legally or illegally. And I would support this person is in a state where it's not legal to have medical marijuana. And so for the first time in her 70s, she has had to start breaking the law. She has never, to my knowledge, ever broken the law before, at least not intentionally. And so I do hope we reflect what is it, the 60-something percent of Arlington that voted in support of this and ease the passage of this in and then monitor it like crazy, crack down, enforce, regulate the whole deal, but let it in smoothly. And I do support this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Sir. Peter, if you're a precinct two, more of a comment than a question. Those of you that were here back in 96 may remember that when Congress passed the Federal Telecommunications Act to allow cell phone companies to build out their networks, a lot of communities didn't want towers or antennas. And they made their zoning so restrictive that the companies couldn't locate. And the courts came in and said, well, your zoning's so restrictive that these companies can't locate, so they don't have to pay any attention to zoning regulations. They can put those antennas anywhere they want. So my concern is, if we vote no to this, is that in fact that could happen to communities in Massachusetts, that if you don't have zoning for these dispensaries, then the court may rule, you know what? That dispensary can go anywhere it wants to. So please vote for this. I don't want dispensaries in Arlington either, but better they be, we know where they are than where they may be. Thanks. Thank you, Sir. Mr. Wagner. Thank you, Carl Wagner, precinct 11. I move the question and all associated matters. Okay. We have a motion to terminate debate on all associated matters under the article. It requires a two-thirds vote. Let's test our clickers out. Mr. Flynn. Mr. Flynn, are you ready? Yeah, I'm not ready. I'm asking him if he's ready. Okay. Ready? Vote. Motion to terminate debate requires two-thirds vote. On the votes cast. Not in the two-fifty-two and the votes that have clicked. So time's up. Let's see what we have. We have 157 to terminate debate, 49. That is a two-thirds vote. And it's passed over here behind my chair. We haven't figured out how to make that feel better. So the debate is terminated. So we have before us a recommended vote. Hey, our first vote went successfully. Congratulations, Mr. Helmuth. We have before us a recommended vote of the armed through redevelopment board as printed in your report. Again, we're going to take, excuse me, that's going to reset when we get ready. I don't have to do anything. It's them. They do all of this behind the scene. We don't have to do anything about re-setting. That's Mr. Lynch's, Mr. Flynn's job. Just change your name to Lynch, will you? Okay. Repeat. All right. So voting clock is now open. Huh? We're voting on the article. If you want it, vote yes. If you don't want it, vote no. You have five seconds. And stop. Let's see our returns. It is a two-third vote. But what I want to do is go through the screen so we can see it. So can we show us the screens? It does pass 160 to 49. That is a two-third vote. So look at your precincts and look at your names. You can look over here. So this is what's going to be on the website tomorrow. These screens. We can also see who's not here. Okay. Okay. So the article carries. Motion passes and I so declare it. That brings us to article seven. We have a recommended vote of the zoning. By-law comprehensive permit application. Does anyone have a substitute motion? Seeing none. All in favor of no action, please say yes. All opposed. It's unanimous vote for no action. I so declare it. That brings us to article eight. We have zoning by-law amendment regulations of outside lighting dark skies by-law. We have a recommended vote of the ARB. Selectment? Oh, we're onto the selectment already? Oh, that's right. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Okay. Then we go back to you. Is one of you guys going to get up and talk about this? No, no, not you. I got Paul. I got Mr. Bear. Thank you, Mr. Verne. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Steve Byrne, chairman of the Board of Selectment. And as a board, we voted to support this article. It's really an incremental change to our current dark skies by-law. And it was the changes will protect our current dark skies by-law. And the changes will protect those residents who are neighbors to commercial and industrial property to make sure there are no that their neighbors' lights aren't a nuisance to them by shunning onto their property. It will be enforced on a, you know, you have to call in to the town to have it enforced. But I think it's a great opportunity to make this policy more equitable for all town residents. And I hope you all join us in supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bear. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Paul Bear, precinct 13. I stand to propose a small amendment to this in section 2 part a, replacing the words adjacent or abutting residential property and the reason I propose this is to handle the situation where the light from some commercial establishment shines not just on the adjacent property, but maybe two properties away and maybe the intervening property is a commercial property. So as it's worded as I read it, the person two properties away would not have standing to make a complaint about the bright but with this change I think they would be able to make such a complaint. Thank you. Okay, we have Mr. Bear's amendment. Do you all have it? That would have been on your seats today. I saw him put it down. Okay, Mr. Schlickman, you're next. Paul Schlickman, precinct 9 and proponent to this article. First, I'd like to say I very appreciative to Mr. Bear for an amendment which strengthens it and I urge your support on that. Next slide, please. What we're looking to do here is to adjust the current by-law. It's not a very major change, but it fixes a couple of things. Next slide, please. Currently the regulation only exists to regulate lights that are on residential properties not lights that shine on two residential properties. Next slide, please. And the by-law basically as it's currently stated use of residential outdoor lighting in all residential neighborhoods. The problem of the current by-law which isn't printed in your handout is that it limits the by-law to lights that are in residential properties. Next slide. So this light which impacts residential properties is not covered under the existing by-law because it is not on a residential property. Now under the current by-law if you put 100 watt light bulb on your house and it shines into your neighbor's bedroom you can call up and have a complaint but if somebody puts 940 watts of spotlight high pressure sodium vapor next to your house and it's not on a residential property it's not covered by the by-law. Next. And you can see this particular light has a significant impact on many residential properties. This by-law is not about the quality of street lights in town, it's about the brightness of the street lights, it's nothing to do with that but it's the quality of certain lights which certainly can impact the town. Next slide. It's about fixing things that make it harder to see in a less desirable place when you live. In that this light shining in your eyes is the equivalent of a car driving at you with bright lights or hitting sun glare. Next slide. And of course the light trespass is an issue when it comes on to residential properties when it's not desired and all we're trying to do is slip the by-law a little so that it applies to situations such as this. Next slide. And you can see that the change in the by-law is minimal so that what you're doing is removing residential from the source of light and next slide. And pointing the light to the residential areas. Next slide. Adding and you'll see this in the text of the by-law you are adding some restrictions on the by-law so that there are exemptions that aren't currently needed because the light source is now on to residential properties. Next slide. Enforcement does not change next slide. And the fines and fees schedule doesn't change so it's not a major change in the by-law but what it is doing is changing the orientation of the law from lights on residential property to basically lights shining on to residential property which is an important fix. Next slide. The Board of Selectment of Endorses and I urge you to do so as well. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hainer. Thank you Mr. Moderator. Bill Hainer, precinct 2. I would ask through the Chair Town Council the term nearby as being vague and how it would be enforced interpreted. Town Council. Dugheim Town Council. I think that there's it has to be recognized that the term nearby when you say nearby it's not as crisp as an adjacent or budding property that may have been part of the rationale for the initial by-law. However I think it would basically be left into the discretion of the enforcing officer in this case our zoning officer to determine our building inspector to determine what is reasonably nearby or not nearby. Thank you. Mr. Hainer. I would suggest that the consistency of interpreting nearby and how that would be done. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Cacovaro. How would this affect our parks like summer street, and we have these houses across the street and around them? Mr. Burns going to address that. They are exempt from this by-law and the laws will stay the same for those fields. Thank you. Thank you. Sir, right back there. Second row from the end. Two chairs in. Yep. You. I forget your name. I'm sorry. Oh, Elsie, I got you up there. Christian Klein. Mr. Klein. That's it. Christian Klein, Precinct 10. I serve on the Board of Directors for the Friends of Robins Farm Park. We host lots of events throughout the summer that involve lighting in public places. A question that I had submitted to the Board of Selectmen before they had initially discussed this article was a question on Part B4 which is an exemption for lighting during special events such as Ferris concerts, celebrations sponsored by the Town of Arlington, or approved by the Board of Selectmen. And the question is where events that occur on property and recreation department are not approved by the Board of Selectmen, but rather by the Park and Recreation Commission is this an issue? Council. Mr. Smith. Steven Byrne, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen. Thank you, Mr. Klein. I don't see that being an issue. I don't think that how this is currently written because as it says such Ferris concerts or celebrations that we can still take care of that. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Carmen, did you wish to speak? Trembling? At Trembling, Princy 19. I note that once again government has has exempted themselves from another regulation that they're trying to instill on the rest of us. But Mr. Moderator, I have a question for the proponents of this article. Give us your question. I'd like to know if the proponents have gone and approached the offending business owners that control this light to see if they would try to do something about the way the light shines. Was there a particular light, Mr. Schlickman, that bothered you and did you approach the owner of that light? Paul Schlickman, Princy 9. I live on the eighth floor of a condo building two blocks from the light in the presentation. I do not need a light, I do not need a light in my bedroom. So I referred it to the building inspector under the present by-law and nothing can be done about it because it doesn't qualify. And I'm not sure who owns the thing. So, the answer. Thank you, Mr. Moderator, I guess I'll make a comment. In general, I tend not to like things like this because if you'll remember the original lighting ordinance that we had was based on a neighborhood fight. And I don't think good legislation is made out of neighborhood fights. And I understand Mr. Schlickman's concern and so I am sensitive to that. However, we regulate ourselves on everything we do and my personal preference would be just to go talk to somebody rather than make a law out of it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Harrington, Sean. Sean Harrington, producing 15 motion to move the question and all matters before it. We have a motion to terminate debate on all that matters before the article. Mr. Flynn, you ready? We're going to vote by clicker. Okay, voting. This motion terminates debate. It's a two-third vote. Yeah, it's on 20 seconds, right? Aren't it just in clearing? That'll clear when I tell the voting thing just like on your clicker. It's going to all clear and become empty. Ready? Vote. Look at that, it cleared. All right, now's your time to vote. Motion to terminate debate carries by two-thirds. I'll vote now. Okay, voting window is closed. 159 to 49 debate is terminated. That brings us to the recommended vote of the Board of Selection and Mr. Baer's amendment. So, hey, quiet. I'm talking. People have to hear me, not you. We're going to first vote on Mr. Baer's amendment. He wants to replace words in the next to the last line of Section A, adjacent or budding residential properties with the words nearby residential properties. After we vote on Mr. Baer's amendment, we'll vote on the regular proposed article of the Board of Selection as it is or is not amended. So, Flynn. Ready? Okay. Mr. Baer's amendment. Whether or not we're going to amend the main motion. So, go ahead and vote. This just has to carry by a majority vote. Five seconds. Voting is closed. 145 in the affirmative. 63, the motion is amended. Yes, sir. I could hear. I have good hearing. Can you go see one of the voting staff members in the back? Even if it did or didn't, it still carries. So, it's 145 to 63. The article is amended. Now we're going to vote on the regular article as amended. Yes, sir. Can you give me a, what how many votes did you receive? 208. And what's 145? 63. 208 the last time I counted. And you got 208 votes? Okay. Mr. Furrier cleared up. Okay. So, now we're going to vote on the main article. Madam. Sure. Is it have to do with voting or the article? Too late. They terminated debate, Mrs. Furrier. It was on the article and all matters before it. They terminated debate. I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. We're going to vote on the regular article as amended. Okay. Mr. Flynn. Okay. Go. Vote. This is a vote. It's not a zoning by-law. It's a regular by-law. So, it's by a majority vote. The computer may be programmed or on to think it's a two-thirds vote because we thought it was zoning, but it's not. It's a regular majority vote. Okay. Okay. Time's up. 211 people have voted. And we have 159 in the affirmative. 52 in the negative. The vote carries. 159. It's an affirmative vote and I so declare that closes article eight. That brings us to article nine. Zoning by-law amendment restaurant outdoor seating recommended vote of no action. Do we have a substitute motion? Seeing none. All in favor of no action please say yes. All in favor say no. If you vote of no action that clears on article nine. That brings us to article ten. Home rule legislation cemetery commission. We have a recommended vote of no action. Mr. Harrington. I'll want to have to recognize you. Mr. Harrington has raised his hand so I've recognized him. He can now take the floor. Stephen Harrington, precinct 13. I would like to ask your favor to postpone to time certain until next Monday. Article ten. It's rather complicated. You only got the substitute motion tonight. You'll see it's two pages long. And what I'm asking is a courtesy to your fellow town meeting members. Do they have a chance to actually read it and understand it? And I think that, you know, if I had put together one I would have put 12 before ten anyhow. So if you would make, I'm making a motion to postpone to time certain. Article ten. Okay, we have a motion to postpone. Motion to postpone. Let's get our handy sheet. They are debatable and we have Mr. Mar who wants to debate it. Mr. Mar, did you have your hand up to debate postponement? Okay, well. Well, we take, no, that's that's debate, sir. We have a motion to postpone. No one else wants to debate. It's a motion to postpone. Please say yes. Opposed? The chair is unclear. We're going to use our clickers. Mr. Flynn. Come on, dude. Give me a chance. I'm not going to press the 20 seconds until he says he's ready. Okay, this is a motion to postpone. It's a majority vote. Three seconds. Okay, time's up. 145 in the affirmative. 147 in the affirmative. Okay, until next Monday, the fifth. Okay, it is postponed to Monday the fifth. Okay, that brings us to article 11. Bylaw amendment town meeting electronic voting. We have an issue with the way we count our votes and have to display them. We discovered a major faux pas and we want to fix it. Is the is the Byron wants to address this? Yes. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Steve Byron, chairman of the board of selectmen. The board voted unanimously to support this article. It's really just a a simple or not a simple, but it's an adjustment to our vote from last year's warrant. So it will ensure that a close vote now means the same on all votes taken. So for a two thirds simple majority, et cetera, whereas in under the prior language, there was some variants. So I hope that you will join us in voting for this article. Thank you. Mr. Oster. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Adam Oster, priest electronic voting study committee. The the language of the vote is in the selections report. There's also a representation of the effect of the vote in the report of the committee with crossed out and new material in italics. It's come to my attention tonight that there is what I assume is an error in the selection. The selections motion refers to the last sentence of the section of the article of title one. It should refer to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the section of the article of title one. Otherwise, we're replacing the wrong sentence. So I hope that is a change that can be made, Mr. Oster. Yes, that can be made. That's been straight of what you want to pencil in. So right before in the selections motion, right before it says title one, it should say the first paragraph of. So it will be the first paragraph of. And with that change the representation in our report will be the same as the result of adopting the selections motion. Okay. Go ahead and tell us what this is going to do for us. The this is the provision in the bylaw that says when the votes really close, we will automatically treat it as if it were a roll call. We'll show the individual votes the way that we've seen earlier before. So what we want to do is to guard against error or even fraud. You're there not just to verify that your vote is reported correctly, but also that your neighbors' votes are reported correctly. If you see someone's vote who you don't think is there, please rise and say something. If someone rises and asks if you are really there, please rise. This isn't going to happen very often. But what we're changing is the definition of what a close vote is. What we're after is really the six votes that are clustered around the very closest votes. If it was a hundred votes 50-50 or 49-51 would be the two closest possible votes that you could get. So that's the definition that we're proposing. The definition that we've got what's wrong with it is that it tries to achieve the same result, but the definition is flawed. So starting with that and within two of that you get a spread of the six closest possible votes. That's the definition that the result of the definition is flawed. It tries to achieve the result by subtracting the yays from the nays and seeing whether or not it's close. Works great with a simple majority, does not work with a two-thirds majority. To use that example again, if you had a hundred legal votes the close vote would be around 67-33 or 66-34 those would be close, but the bylaw says that doesn't count if the vote's 50-50 you'd have to go through this exercise, which would be pointless because the vote isn't close at all. So that's the purpose of this change. We're not trying to change any policy. We're trying to perfect an error. And I'd be happy to take that into account. I hope that explanation has been clear enough and that the report of the committee has been clear enough and if you agree that you'll support the change. Thank you. Mr. Jamison. Mr. O'Connor. James O'Connor, precinct 19, your assistant moderator. And I ask the question, Mr. Moderator, the report of the town meeting, electronic voting committee, it was not received, but there's not a recommended vote in it, so it doesn't have to be received. It could just be submitted. Okay. Just a question. The town meeting procedures committee did not meet on this issue, but I as a member of that fully support the article. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions on this article? Oh, sir. I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you're saying, but I did notice on one of the votes when we did a display that in precinct 21 there was a vacancy that voted yes. So I was a little puzzled by that. That vacancy was elected tonight by the other precinct members. So that clicker is still registered vacant, but Mr. Jan. Paul Beer, precinct13. Thank you, mr. moderator, pardon my mathematical exactitude here, but it seems to me that if you have the situation where let's say 150 people were voting and it was a two thirds required, so That means you need 100 votes to be the smallest number needed to prevail. If the actual number of prevailing votes, well, I guess that's the actual number of Would you prevail? You need 101 to prevail if there's 151 people voting. We're just trying to beat the spread here. Yeah, I know. I'm just not sure that this mathematically says that, but I can't come up with the full thing out of the top of my head. The way the old bylaw was written, if it was more than six apart, we had to show it. And if it was 101 to 50, well, that's more than six apart, so we didn't have to show it, but it really only carried by one. So what we've done is we put a spread in. If the difference between what needs to win and what is more than three votes, we've just kind of calculated it differently. And that's all we're really trying to do is make it so we're not showing it when it's 50 votes apart and we don't have to because it's lost. So we're trying to refine the display. Mr. Schlickman. One last question on ambiguity, and I know this sounds a little silly, but I was wondering about this. On the last vote we displayed, Robert Tozzi voted yes and Robert Tozzi voted no. Can we differentiate the Tozzi's on the list? Oh, I guess we should. One should be junior, huh? Now senior's probably not legally senior. So, Eric, you take care of that over the week, over the few days with OTI. Thank you. All right. Anyone else want to debate this article? Seeing none. We have, of course, a recommended vote of the Board of Selection as administratively amended by Mr. Oster. So it reads that, the first paragraph of our Title I Article I, et cetera, et cetera. Let's use our clickers on the clicker vote. Seconds. Nope. This isn't the two-third vote. So, simple majority. Ready? Okay. Let's vote. That looks like 104 people have voted. Five seconds. One, and, and. 208 to one. And two abstains. Excellent. You know it works. It is a majority vote and I so declare it. So that is Article 11. Thank you very much for helping us clarify that. That's 20 of. No way. That brings us to Article 12. Bylaw amendment moan pleasant cemetery parking restrictions. Recommend a vote of no action. Mr. Harrington's rising with a Mr. Harrington. You have the floor. Stephen Harrington precinct 13. I'm not going to move to postpone this one. So tonight we're going to talk about restrictions in Mount Pleasant Cemetery and parking. You make that a little larger. So I always like to ask myself three questions. You know, what's the problem? Why do we care? And what can we do about it? And in this case, the problem is that there's vehicles, out-of-state workers, construction vehicles, public employees, all sorts of people are parking in Mount Pleasant Cemetery. And really, I can cut to the chase and get through this in three words. This isn't a temporary situation. This is creating a great amount of damage and it's very disrespectful to the living. So with that said, let me show you why I believe that. Why do we care about this? Well, you know, long term it's created extensive damage in the cemetery that we're going to have to pay for. It's also difficult for residents to pay respects to the dead. They want to go in and visit the cemetery without having all sorts of vehicles parked in the way. And we also should care because it really does violate the state of science. Right now, there is no by-law that restricts parking in the cemetery. There might be a sign, but the police have no way to enforce it because there's no by-law. Alls I'm asking for is a by-law to give a tool so that we can enforce this stated regulation. So that's what we can do. We can make a by-law. It's very simple. So let me go to the next. First of all, it's not temporary. These are the official records from the Cemetery Commission. Back in 2007, they talked about parking in the cemetery being a long-standing problem. In 2008, they were talking about the cars were parking on graves. In 2010, sorry, in 2010, 2011, parking is still a problem. They talked about parking being a problem in the cemetery since 2007 and it's a long-standing problem. This is not a temporary problem. This has been a problem that's been ongoing for at least seven years and it looks like there's no end in sight. So I want to show you some photographic evidence. This is from the town's GIS system. It's not very easy to see here. But this is Sachemav from our GIS system looking down. It's from the 2008 image overlay. So this is an image that was taken before 2008. And you can count 19 cars and this is not a funeral procession. There's no grave open. There's no mourners. This is 19 cars parked on Sachemav before 2008. This is 2010. This is the first picture I ever took of Sachemav. This is during the winter. There's no construction going on. You can count eight or nine cars here that are parked in the cemetery. This is 2011. This person was a resident of the QSAC building, the elderly housing behind the police station. They parked there 24 hours a day, seven days a week for over a year. Now why did I care? Because this is the site of my family's grave site. My mom, my dad, two aunts, two cousins are buried in four grave sites along this area. And those cars that had been parked in there had been actually driving over those graves. And they had driven over them so much that the road surface was completely compromised. And you'll see soon throughout the whole cemetery the road surface is a bit compromised. And the ditch filled with water. And you can see in this picture that in July of 2011 we were going to intern my brother who had died suddenly. And his remains were going to be placed there. You can see the small pile of dirt. So we had 100 family members go into the cemetery and have to cross through a ditch dressed in church clothes. I mean, it was extremely disrespectful. But this isn't about me. This isn't about my parents. This is about everyone who's buried in the cemetery. And you know something? One thing that's certain, we're all going to die. And when we die, we're not going to care where we're buried. But the people we leave behind will care. This is a car that's been there. It was there today. It has an enhanced license plates. This is a series of photos from May and then December of 2013, just last year. I have 500 photos. I didn't pick a very good sample. I didn't pick representative. But I picked some that I wanted to make a couple points. The construction last year on Mystic Street ended November 24. The two bottom photos are actually from December of 2013. So there was no construction going on on Mystic Street. They were gone. The top photo is from May. And when you see it in May, it's the same three cars that are there. 43 cars. The next day another 30 cars. Construction vehicles. Winchester Police parked two wheels well up on the grass. Night time, 8 o'clock at night. Here's 91 Mystic Street. They do not have any parking at 91 Mystic Street. That commercial building has been using the cemetery to park its cars in for the past 10 years. That car there uses a cemetery as its private parking lot. It has Vermont plates on it. You can see that it's actually backed up. That road that looks like a driveway into 91 Mystic Street, the small brick building, isn't a road. It's actually part of the cemetery. This is the municipal parking lot. Friday, noon time, it's empty. If you see the top photo, we'll show Mystic Street packed with cars. And the one on the left is Sacha Mav, full of cars. The bottom one, again it's hard to see, there is so much parking that is within 500 feet of the community safety building that there's no need to be parking in the cemetery. Within 500 feet, we have over a thousand spots of parking. There's parking all along Summer Street that's not restricted. There's no need. Guess where this is? St. Paul's Cemetery. Looks really nice, doesn't it? It's in Ellington. This is Ellington, Mount Pleasant. Not so nice. Guess which one? St. Paul's. Ellington, Mount Pleasant. So thank you very much, I hope you vote for us. Not the English Parliament, no clapping. Mr. Berkowitz. I see you, Sean. Adam. Mr. Berkowitz, did you have a hand up? Oh, the guy next to you then. Someone back there did it. Yeah, all right. Janice, okay. Sean. Harrington. Adam Chapterling. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Adam Chapterling, Town Manager. Just a few points. Myself and the article proponent and some of the other members of the town staff department had been discussing this issue for some time. And I know, again, the article proponent has discussed this issue even before my tenure as town manager with the Board of Selectmen that resulted in the placement of some of the stones you saw adjacent to St. Jamab where some of the cars were parked to protect cars from cars that might park there for any use from parking on the grass. This is obviously an incredibly challenging issue for us. But by choice, no one would want to be parking for any use other than a cemetery use in the cemetery. But it's a challenge of density. And the Mystic Street area in that area where the community safety building has had a great deal of construction for really more than the past several years, both construction at the community safety building as well as national grid construction and some water work on Mystic Street. And the national grid construction is ongoing now. There's actually a detour starting tomorrow with that entire portion of the roadway closed off for several weeks. So I'll read to you from a communication I recently had with the article proponent leading up to tonight's discussion. Speaking about parking on St. Jamab and I said, we appreciate this concern as well in regards to some other concerns that were raised. As has always been the case, we continually work to minimize the amount of town related parking that occurs on St. Jamab. National grid work on Mystic Street continues and correspondingly this dramatically limits the amount of curbside space available. Chief Jefferson remains concerned that his crews need quick and unimpeded access to fire apparatus if conducting training at the community safety building. Parking on St. Jamab never has been and never will be a first resort. But until construction on Mystic Street is complete, it may occur from time to time. Now I don't enjoy saying that. I didn't enjoy typing it and sending it to Mr. Harrington. But it is a result again of the density of the area and the high level of construction that's been happening the past couple of years. I also just want to address a few of the other points that were raised in regards to the road condition in general in the cemetery as well as the curbsides or the site where the grass meets the asphalt. So in the capital plan last year was $400,000 for water system improvements in the Mount Pleasant Cemetery. So that work is undergoing, is underway right now. And then in the budget that you'll vote on, the capital budget you'll vote on this year, there is a proposed $230,000 for roadway upgrades or roadway replacement throughout the entire cemetery. So there is a planned investment in upgrading all of those roadways. And as part of that roadway improvement we'll be considering the placement of berms along the roadways where appropriate. So an asphalt berm that would take the shape of a curb to protect people parking again for any use from going up in the grass. And also as part of that roadway reconstruction we'll do improvements to the grass to improve those conditions that have been described. And this again has been part of an ongoing conversation that I've had with DPW director Mr. Harrington and others involved. So happy to answer any questions about my statements but that's what I wanted to offer. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Weaver. Janice Weaver, precinct 21. I just, I am a proponent of this article along with Mr. Harrington but I was just wondering having four plots down at Mount Pleasant one waiting for me. I do go down there and sit in my car and read sometimes I find it very relaxing and I walk around there and I was just wondering and I do agree with you but some of the areas are completely a mess and it shouldn't be like that at all but I was just wondering if there'd be a repercussion on people that would do that in rather than. Chief Ryan, how would you, how would you handle that people visiting the cemetery short term basis just to visit or to read? Frederick Ryan, chief of police. I don't know Mr. moderator. Mr. Harrington never approached me on this issue. I've never discussed parking with Mr. Harrington on SageMav and he's never asked my opinion on it so I don't know the answer. Okay. Thank you. So, okay. Mr. Derocha. Michelle Derocha, precinct 19. Listening to the presentation I found that I'm certainly sympathetic to some of the issues that were raised but the wording of the substitute motion is very restrictive stating cemetery business. As an associate member of the conservation commission, I go to the cemetery every year for a cleanup of Meadowbrook Park, sometimes twice a year as do many other members of the community to care for an adjacent area of natural beauty that I believe complements the goals of people visiting the cemetery. So, I would like to see if this is past some limitation on its sweep. There are, I think, some other legitimate uses of parking in the cemetery for reasons that are sympathetic to visitors of the cemetery. Thank you. Mr. Kaplan, did you have a hand up? Bill? Bill Kaplan, precinct six. I'm not sure. It may not be a perfect amendment but I do think it's a real problem and I think there's a danger of minimizing the complaints of certain residents. Not everyone is the most popular person in town but they still have loved ones that they want to visit at the cemetery and other people have loved ones there and I think that treating people with a certain level of respect is probably a good thing and I'm not sure that that's been happening so far so I'm going to be voting for this. Thank you, sir, Mr. Jamison. Thank you, Mr. Moderator Gordon Jamison, precinct 12. I want to get clarification on one thing and then I want to ask two questions, maybe more. Mr. Harrington on the proponent suggested that there is no ability to enforce any parking restrictions in the cemetery as our bylaws, our state law now provide. Is that correct? Maybe the town council can confirm or refute that. Can you answer that question, Torse? Doug Heim, town council. My understanding is that currently there are signs that say that you're not supposed to be parking in the cemetery. I believe that's correct and undisputed. So it's really a question of enforcement of this issue. I don't know that the bylaw, I'm sorry, that this placing in the bylaw will change that other than to say that it's now also a part of our bylaws that you cannot park there, but currently under the signage that's posted there, you're not supposed to park there and I believe that's a cemetery commission decision as well as well. So if so directed by the chief of police, the parking enforcement officer could ticket those cars? There's not a mechanism to ticket them. Mr. Harrington's motion has created a specific mechanism for financial penalty, but that has to, that does have to be authorized by the town bylaws. So I'm confused and I'm glad I asked the question. So there is no parking signs and there is, but there is no enforcement mechanism. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Mr. Harrington is imposed a fine base scheme, but there are lots of areas in town, schools and other things like that that have a specific fine associated with parking there, but it doesn't mean that you can park there. The vehicles might be subject to towing if they were parking in the cemetery against the signage and regulations, for example. So if I park in an area of town outside of the cemetery and it says no parking, what are the current things that could be done to me? I think that's kind of a broad question in terms of if you're well, I think it's applicable because it sounds like those are the things that are going to apply in the cemetery. I want to make sure I understand if you're parking in some other area of the town that doesn't have a specific town bylaw that's town property that says you can't park there. Yeah. The top of the top of the hill at Park Avenue. Parking in a no parking zone. You're going to get towed or a ticket. Yeah. I mean, the fire guys sometimes park on Park Avenue on the inside because they have a shift change, but I don't like that. But on the inside of Park Circle, there is no parking. Sure. Under traffic rule. There are parks there. What are the current revenues? You guys are having a colic. We ask a question. So for example, under traffic rules in order 7a, any violation of rules and regulations can result in towing. If somebody reports that something's parked in a no parking area where it shouldn't be. As an example. Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you. So I am sympathetic to Mr. Harrington's concerns. Echoing Mr. Trembly's comments earlier, I don't know if this is something we need to legislate. I have a question for the whoever does traffic, which I think is the board of Selectman or through the town manager. Just ask a question and I decide who gets the answer. Okay. I'm trying to figure out how to ask the question. So that's why I was rambling. I'm sorry, Mr. moderator. Okay. Is it possible to change the signage there so that it has an hour limit versus just a no parking sign. So we would be able to have people visit right now. Technically, the people like Mr. Harrington coming to visit their relatives grave sites can't park in front of that because there's a no parking sign. Correct? No. Okay. Chapter lane is the Selectman is the board of parking commissioners. Can they go ahead and change a sign like that? Or change it to cemetery business only or something. Adam chapterling town manager. So the current signs say no parking cemetery business only as authorized by the cemetery commission. The inferences or all this along this. I believe in various points in Sage Avenue. Okay. So, so then the next question is why are we not enforcing that? I guess that's the root of Mr. Harrington's question. So I know enforcement mechanism. So I think, I think Mr. Harrington laid out some of it in what he provided from the discussions at the cemetery commission. The cemetery commission has very much acknowledged the problem, but has worked with both the police and fire departments and coming to an accommodation during the construction periods. Okay. And my last question for the town manager, I believe is so if this is a known problem and there are contractors, why don't we make the contracts? Contractors like to park right next, they'll park on your anything to be close so they don't have to walk. And I'm, I'm, that's a personal opinion, but it's based upon observation. They'll park on your mothers and grandmothers grave if it gets them closer to the work site. And they do. Wait a second. Is there a question in that? So the question is, is there a way to have the contracting process for the town when there are places close to the cemetery, require them to park in the central parking and the town could provide them with that parking in the central, in the central lot that Mr. Harrington noted. So. And that could be for all the other people that park there. So, so if I may clarify your question in the request for proposal to the contractor, you want to put, you can't park on Sage Mav, you got to park up in, in, in Russell field. Can we do that, Mr. chapter lane? So I think there's, I think there's a, I'm sorry that I can't say yes or no to this. I think there's a misunderstanding of the issue. Most of the con, most of the work that has created no parking on, on Mystic Street has been national grid work. The work that's going on in the building has also created some no parking. And while I can't say that contractors may have not been on Sage Mav Avenue, they were for a long time taking up parking on Mystic Street, which then is what created some of these parking issues on Sage Mav. They, they were very close to their work side being the community safety building. Yeah. Then they parked their car all day there and, and do the work. I understand that, but they, they could have been put somewhere else and walk to the site. You got 10 seconds. Okay. Um, I don't know what I'm going to do with this one. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. We got a motion to adjourn. Second wave. Second, we're going to vote with the clicker to adjourn. We're going to see who's still here, but first we have any motions for reconsiderations on any of the articles we've heard tonight. No articles for reconsideration. All right. All in favor of adjourning. Mr. Flynn, are we ready? Stop that noise. Okay. This is how we're going to tell if you're still here. We got a green card. So let's vote to adjourn. All in favor. Please press one. All opposed. Please press two. Times up. Motion to adjourn. 164. In a favor. 38. The motion does carry. We will continue on Monday. We'll pick up the list exactly where we left off. So formulate your questions so that we have some nice, concise debate.