[Music] Good evening everyone. Today is October 2nd, 2025. The time is 6:01 and this is
the Kushnet Planning Board. Uh this meeting is being recorded for future viewing on the town's YouTube page uh cable channel and we are also live via via teams.
>> Can I get a motion to open the planning board meeting? >> I'll make a motion to open board meeting. >> Second. All in favor? I. >> Can we all introduce ourselves, please? Victoria Alvaro, Tom Planner, >> Peter G, a member, Steve Bush, member,
Mark Franis, chairman, Ryan Dishamps, member, Rick Ellis, vice chairman. Uh, we have a full board tonight, which is nice. Um, gentlemen, uh, we were all set. The minutes from, uh, September 18th,
uh, myself, Brian, and Steve were the only ones in attendance. Um, did anybody have any issues with the minutes? >> I looked them over and I thought they were pretty detailed.
>> Pretty well done. Yep. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I September 17th, uh, 18th, excuse me. >> I second that. >> We got a motion. We got a second. All in favor? I >> abstain.
All right, moving right along. Public hearing. Do I have to make a motion to open a public hearing? No, it's been open, right? >> Yeah. Just call it back. >> Call back to order. Uh site plan review and special permit for 1094 Main Street,
Clem's Way, Map 7, Lot 15. Applicant is Clemway Solar LLC Wild Renewables. uh owner is Brookside Realy Trust representative is Bales and Thomas Inc. The scope of the work is a proposed 5
megawatt AC solar array. Now this proponent has been in front of us for an informal meeting uh three or so months ago. Um they have uh
made their plans and um we have had um GAF engineering uh look them over. Um and um the floor is yours my friend. Please introduce yourself for the viewers out
there. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um, for the record, Zachary Farcus, Rew Wild Renewables, representing the applicant, uh, with B, Greg Samson, attorney with Sullivan and Worcester. Thank you for letting me rearrange your furniture a little bit. Hopefully, we can see
cameras and, uh, >> I think Great. >> Um, so, as you know, um, I've been in front of this board a number of times before. This will be the third solar project we have of a series of three that we've been working on in a cushion it for quite a while now. Um, so we're
quite familiar with the process with the boards and whatnot. So my um my goal tonight is to introduce you guys to the site, talk about what we've done from a development and a diligence standpoint, talk about what we've done from a permitting standpoint, uh, review the letter that you have in front of you
from GAF Engineering and then um, talk a little bit about some of the details as you guys want to get involved or as the public wants to get involved. Um the site we're talking about, we're proposing a solar project on an approximately 6060 acre parcel at the intersection of
Clem's Way and Main Street showed on the plan in front of you. This is a uh a rendering of some of the details of the plan set. The heavy red being the parcel line and then the three solar arrays shown on the fields and the back lot. Uh
the official address is 1094 Main Street and the property is owned by Brookside Realy Trust as the chairman opened. The site is bordered on the west which will be the left side of the plan you're looking at by the Long Plain Cemetery
and it's the landowner frontage which currently hosts a two family house and a landscaping and contractor's bank. Uh to the north there are four residential lots. um we've been in contact and we've met at some other public hearings, the
four land owners to the north. Um that area to the north is heavily wooded and then as you can see as you move over toward the right of the plan set or as you move east you'll see that kind of fourth lot to the north um is a fully cleared construction lot right now used
for construction materials, landscaping materials, etc. On the east there's another construction yard just off what would be um I think it's Cushing Drive is the road that runs perpendicular to um to the project's eastern property
line. Um there's a solar project on Cushing Road right at the corner and then there's another solar project I believe proposed at the very bottom of Cushing. So we're kind of in this area close to the substation where there's a fair amount of solar being being proposed. Um to the south there's a
single lot that's largely undeveloped, wooded. It is a residential lot with a home um off Main Street, but as you can see um can you point through that for me? >> Southern lot right here. And so there is a home right on the corner down here. Um
but we haven't been in contact. Here's the construction layown area. the construction lots up here, the four wooded lots to the north, and we've got the Long Plains Cemetery, um, and one, uh, neighbor that I've been in touch with a fair amount who's not here tonight, Deb Perry. She's probably been
in contact with, uh, with the board. We've been working together a lot through the conservation commission process. Um, so along with the landscaping yard and the two family home at the westernmost portion of the property, um, the property also hosts
about 50 trailer homes, mobile homes that are off Clem's Way, which is the the private driveway you see running just along the south of the property line here. Um, these buildings you see here are the plus or minus 50 units. Um, our area for development are the two
hayfields. Um, kind of affectionately known here as the West Hayfield, the center hayfield, and then to the east there's a back wood lot that's been partially cleared um about two years ago, maybe two and a half years ago now. It's taken a while to get kind of through the diligence development
process, but um there's been about three two or three acres cleared in that back wood lot, but other than that, you could see some real new growth um right down the middle of it, that kind of heavy green. Um the reason for the shapes is because the wetlands are quite rampant on this site. There's wetlands that are
coming in and out around and the majority of the wooded area to the north and the south is wet as well. The wetlands kind of extend off property north and south. Um so it's it's at those two hay fields in the back lot that we're focusing um our solar development and really
focusing tonight on kind of what we would call the impacted areas from development standpoint. Um I'm going to start at the top level. So there's many many authorities with jurisdiction as you all know when you develop a solar project. So, I've been working at the federal level with uh the FAA, um
Federal Aviation Administration, to make sure there's no hazard to the introduction of a solar project in this area. Um so, we've got our confirmation of no hazard there. Um we've been in communication with FEMA to confirm flood planes and make sure we're not working in any flood plane areas. So, all of our
development areas in that zone X. Um and then finally, at the federal level with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service where we evaluate rare endangered species. um animal, plant, etc. that could be in the area or on the site. Um we end up reviewing the
reviewing their documents, finding out what species could be in the area and then coordinating with them to make sure any proposed construction will have no effect are the key terms on those species. At the state level, we work with what's
called NHSP, the natural heritage, that does a very similar review of plant and animal species that are endangered or threatened. At the state level, we go through a very similar process and we receive what's called a no effect determination from natural heritage as well. Um, also at the state level is
Massachusetts Historical where we communicate with them. You can imagine um there's a lot of history in New England and we make sure that the development of our property will not have any negative impact on valuable areas from a historic standpoint whether they be colonial or Native American.
Um so we've proceeded all clear from at the state level and the federal level and we get finally down to the local level town of a Kushnet where we have where there are two boards with jurisdiction on this project. The first being the conservation commission and the second being this board. Um, at the
conservation level, we we've made a ton of progress. It was very important for me to get conservation work and conservation commission work, wetlands protection act work done ahead of coming to this board because of how tricky the wetlands were. So, we've actually gone through three rounds with conservation
commission in um in early 2024. In March, we submitted our ANRAD and completed the ANRAD process in June of 2024. So, ANRAD is when we delineate the wetlands. We present them to the town to the conservation commission. GF
engineering again went out to the site, walked our weapon lines and approved our lines. After that, we went through a determination process. We issued a request for determination to the conservation commission with respect to a small intermittent stream to confirm
it was not perennial. Um so in October of 2024 the conservation commission opined that it was not perennial and thus we had our setback set from edge of bank and edge of wetlands so that we could end up understanding exactly what
upland area we had a available to to develop. That's when we iterated this kind of final or first iteration I should say final with concom first with planning board and we came and met um with the planning board. Prior to that, we did have a staff meeting in March of
2025 where we met with Victoria. We met with her counterpart at conservation. We also also met with police, fire, board of health, building inspector to get kind of general comments and whatnot. As you guys are aware, I've been in front of this board and in this town many times, so there were no surprises. We
know about ring roads, about all the all the details that town staff requires um in the projects, and those have all been worked into the plants that you guys see. Um, after that, as the chairman mentioned, I was before you guys for the informal meeting where I had just a
simple plan set, let you guys know this was coming, let you know what we were doing, um, and got your general feedback. We submitted finally to this board in June of 2025, so June of this year. So, we're finally up to the present. Um throughout this process um
the town does a great job of coordinating with a peer review who can review for all AHAs at the town level. So Bill Madden and his team at GAF Engineering have been per performing a peer review of this project since it kicked off with Conscom um which was
back in June July time frame. So we've made a lot of progress with Bill. He issued his first peer review letter to us that was supplemented a couple days later with some more information. We responded in early September with kind of a full response package and then we
received his second peer response letter, peerreview response letter today. Um, and that should be the letter that you guys have in front of you. Um, and that kind of finally brings us to today's planning board meeting. Obviously, we've been trying to have this introductory or this first meeting
for a couple a couple weeks now. Um, which is why there's a little bit of lag. I can't imagine this board's used to seeing a fully written out peerreview letter, let alone the second iteration of it on a first presentation. But all in all, it's a good thing. We've made a lot of progress with with bill and I think it's it's it's really nice when a
town works with a peerreview engineer who can look at things from multiple perspectives. Some jurisdictions hire three different peer reviewers for three different boards and you can imagine the conflict that Greg and I have to uh have to work through. So, that brings us up to today. Introduces you to the
property, the project, um, and gives you a little bit of development history. I'm going to pause there, um, to answer any questions before I do kind of a rundown of the peerreview letter itself. Um, is there anything kind of at the upper level from the board that that you guys
would like me to provide a little bit more clarity on from maybe your notes from your review of the play set? >> There you go. And the answer doesn't have to be yes. We can certainly go through the peer review as well. >> Um setbacks. >> Yep. So there's as as I'll get to at the
at the end of the peerreview letter, you know, I guess jumping jumping to the the punchline. Um the peer review letter is effectively signing off on the project. Um GF Engineering looked at kind of three elements of the project. It looked at it from a notice of intent standpoint, from
a storm water control standpoint, and it looked at it from a site plan review special permit standpoint. Um, looking at my notes, there's about 10 comments on each. There were 10 NOI related comments, there were 10 storm water related comments, and there were nine, we'll call them planning board related
comments. Of the 10 NOI comments, three of them were very technical, very small items. Add a call out to the plan set, etc. Um for storm water again three very small technical requirements that ask us to add some detail to the plan set
provide a little bit of context tie things up with the soil samples that um we had out there with the geotechnical review we had out there etc. So very very technical based. Um at the planning board section that kind of opening section where he reviews site plan review and special permit there are nine
comments. Almost everyone is either everyone but one is either closed or deferred to the board. Um the one open item has to do with sound and sound attenuation fences. And that's one item I'd like to talk about the board in detail. Um but the big one from my
perspective is setbacks. We comply completely with the bylaws. We comply completely with the memo or we've had almost full sign off from the peer reviewer. The one item that is material is we are asking this board for a
reduction in setbacks from property lines. The town bylaw sets 150 ft 300 ft from a public way which we meet or exceed. So, we're not asking for any reduction from the 300 ft setback. We are asking >> Let me stop you there.
>> Sure. >> The public way >> is >> Main Street. >> Main Street. >> We're not considering Clem's Way >> the public way. >> No, we've provided pretty detailed feedback from a legal standpoint that defines Clem's Way as a private way and
not under the 300 ft requirement. So, Clem uh excuse me, Main Street on the left side of this plan on the west side of the plan is the public way per the bylaw. And so, if you think about if you just walk I'll point it out. >> Yep.
>> If we move here, 300 ft is is just inside here where when we get to the solar modules, which aren't shown here because it just gets a little busy. Um we're well over 300 ft. So, what we are asking for relief from is the 150 ft
setback. And I'm going to flip to a plan set that I marked up to show a little bit of what the impact is of what we're asking for. All right, we've got some details I can flip to as we move from array to array. But
ultimately, with help from my six-year-old daughter, we colored pink the racks or modules that are inside the 150 ft solar setback as defined in the town of a Kushnet bylaw. And so I think
there's three points that I'd like to make before certainly hearing your responses. The first is just making very clear that the board can reduce the setback if you guys so choose. I don't need a variance with a capital V. I don't need to go or we don't need to go
to the ZBA etc. It's fully within the board's right to reduce it or not reduce it. Um the second point is we're only talking about the solar modules. It's very clear from Mass General law, from precedent in town, and from the recent
clarifications made in the town of Kushnet's zoning bylaws that that 150 ft stepback applies to the module, which is important because it means it doesn't apply to the road. It doesn't apply to the fence. It doesn't apply to any screening. It doesn't apply to any storm
water features. So, that's where we that's where things get nuanced here. And I'm of the opinion that these bylaws cover 80 or 90% of sites. They certainly cover undeveloped sites, but when you're approaching a previously disturbed site like this, sometimes these rules get a
little tricky. So basically, the array if our request is reduced, the development footprint does not change at all. We just remove the pink panels
and what's left is simply the existing open field. So the reason why I'm asking for relief and I feel comfortable asking for relief, I feel like it's a reasonable request is that if we take the west field as the first example, probably the most egregious, if we take
that western field to your left, it's ex it's already cleared. We're we're clearing no trees. So basically the only difference would be instead of having that I'm looking at the numbers it's exactly 75 ft. There's just another 75 ft of
open space. It doesn't to me my opinion it doesn't change anything with the project. It doesn't make the view any different and ultimately there's not a material impact of improvement to applying that setback in this case. That's why I feel like it's reasonable
for me to ask. In order for us to try to balance things a little bit, if you could check if you could see the the yellow highlight, instead of a typical solar fence, that's a stockade wood fence that will match up with the panels. An an opaque fence. So, if there
is any changing of seasons or if there is any impact from a viewshed standpoint, that should make things feel make things feel a lot better. I'm going to interrupt you, please. The closest neighbor
to that back fence that you're talking about, the norly. >> The northerly is pretty far. So, there's a lot of woods in between. So, exactly. That's why we went ahead and we added this sheet to kind of bring
Sorry, I'm standing in front of the camera. >> That's okay. There's no one on team. >> Okay. bring a little context to the ask. And I totally understand if this was a wooded site with tons of residents who were built right up to the lot line. I mean, we just went through this on middle road, right? I wasn't asking for
150 ft reduction to 150 ft because there's so many people there that would simply wouldn't let us build that firm and screen it. In this case, we've got four what I call sensitive receptors, right? Four residential homes. The first one is Miss Perry's who I met with in
person at her site to really talk it through. Um each one of these stations is 100 ft. So the only difference is we're either 450 ft away or 500 ft away through open field. There's no tree clearing here. Similarly with the two
northern properties um Brcidio and Burns. This Burns >> these are effectively 750 ft roughly away from the property
through all fully forested woodland and then from the other it is a little bit more than 950 ft. So considerable setbacks make me feel comfortable to ask the board for some relief there. And again, there's no tree clearing. So when
you think about I'm going to flip back. When you think about this middle field as being there's only a couple panels that are removed. So we're talking, you know, a very very minimal reduction. I think just so I can couch it properly. We're
asking for the western field and this is important. We're not asking for a a total red a total um waiver from that requirement. We're asking for a specific reduction for each field. I think I'm really sensitive to the fact that if I was on a board, I wouldn't want to create any precedent for a
future project. So, we make it very specific to the site. For the western field, I'm asking for a reduction from 150 ft to 75 ft. For the northern field, I'm asking for a
reduction of 150 ft to 115 ft. And then this is the least contentious of the three from my perspective because of the construction use to the north and the construction used to the west. Trees have already been cleared all the way up to my property line. There's a, you
know, I don't know if you guys have been at this property. I imagine you have from the other work over here, but very heavy construction use over here. And so we're asking for reduction on the eastern field from 150 ft to 40 ft. So I hope it puts a little bit of
perspective. We've really kind of engineered these things to to really minimize, but I hope that puts a little bit of perspective on on our request. And I'm just going to leave it at this screen as I as I know Miss Miss Burns is here. And again, the um not only will
there be um you know, a very little reduction, we've got this opaque stockade fence, which and from my opin from my my standpoint removes any doubt of any visual impact even if the landowner was to clear all the way to the property line, which we know we
can't cuz to the north it's riddled with wetlands in a similar manner that that our site was. >> So, I guess I'll stop there. What's this? What's this construction area over here? >> Yeah, that's residential. Oh, this is all residential people over here.
>> Yeah, but the use I was I was over there today. Um, >> one's a farm and the other one >> one's an active farm and then the uh the area to the northeast corner. You can only see the bottom half of it. It keeps going. You've got tons of landscaping materials. Uh tractor, not
tractor trailer, but uh trailers are there. um storage trailers. They do have a residential use back here, but they use this back area for a lot of storage. And this is the farm. This is the barn. And there's often often uh livestock grazing over there.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> But yeah, that's exactly why we wanted to put together this um viewshed plan just to understand the context of what we're asking. And I think we don't want to kind of defer to kind of the legality
of the request. I'd like to try to follow the logic of the request. But from a legal standpoint, there is a balance between reasonable um reasonable we'll call it entitlement of a project
and not reasonable. And obviously the state makes sure that any conditions or any requirements of design have to be reasonable. And from my standpoint, especially with the case of these are already open fields, the difference between granting >> Well, two are open fields.
>> Two are open fields. >> The third one cut down a lot of a lot of extra trees. >> Totally. I'm I'm focusing mainly on the two middle the two fields because those are the neighbors that I've been working with um out of the meeting.
No. You have any questions? Can I can I can I say something on the way or >> Yeah. My question is still about to set back. >> Yeah. Hold on a second. Just so you know how this works. He went through his spiel. >> We'll ask our questions. Okay. >> Once we're just about done, we'll go to
you and whoever else is here. >> Oh, thank you. >> I definitely want to hear from you. So, don't worry. I won't forget. >> My question is still about the setback. I mean, you're showing that this is what's going to be cut off if we do that. It doesn't seem like it's a whole lot that's going to be cut off and to me
holding the se you're the second person through on these new bylaws and we're already being asked to wave them. I don't know the context of the first request and that's why I'm focusing so much on this on the context. Um, but it is a material amount from where I stand.
Ultimately, from a project standpoint, it's about 20% of the project module standpoint. So, it's enough for me to care. If it was a smaller, I I totally agree. I wouldn't create a fight for something small. >> And I'm not arguing the point that it's enough for you to care. It's just in in
my eyes. It just it seems like if we wave this, the next guy come through is going to be asking the same thing. >> It's tough. I mean, these these setbacks, right? These what would be called, you know, considerable setbacks in a bylaw, it's tricky. And as I said,
when we had a site that we didn't have to ask for any relief, we didn't ask for that relief. In this case, I need to ask for the relief because it's a material impact to the project to enforce a setback which I believe is unreasonable for this site. I don't believe it's
reasonable or unreasonable for every site. I just simply believe it's unreasonable for this site. >> I just think everybody else could come in with the same argument and say, well, this is unreasonable or that's reasonable. >> Maybe. But I think like the point is certainly for the fields, is there a
difference between 150 ft of space and 75 ft of clear space? And I I don't know the answer to that right now. We're kind of at the opening part of that discussion, but you obviously see where I'm coming down on and you see where my request is. And the the the real tricky
part is the setback only applies to the solar modules. For a site like this that's incredibly space constrained from an upland standpoint. We've, you know, through all the peer review with GAF, they have very very high standards in this town to make sure
my storm water is above and beyond the requirements. And that obviously comes from some poor development in the past. But so much space is taken up from our storm water features that we're just we're really pressed for acres. And so a
solar project like this, that 20% of the extra space that I can get for what I don't feel like is a is a material and negative impact to the neighbors, you know, I'm it would be really easy for me not to ask for it and I could almost almost guarantee an approval very
quickly, right? But it is important to me, very important to me. If I may, please. Um, I still I got um with Brian. I got an issue with the setback um request
today. It looks like this. Could be next year, could be 5 years, could be 10 years down the road. Yep. >> There's a lot. Looks like there's a lot of land that basically could be opened up wet to put a development back is wet.
But I your point's taken >> and and that's you know and and that's how I look at this right about now. It's not granted if you this was never going to get developed be one thing but there's private property here that people have the if they at some point
have the opportunity to get the break price for it they're they're not going to have the 150 ft set back from their property line. I mean this is this is truly the property line right here. anybody else want it. It's they're going to be um that that's just how I look at
it right now. >> Yeah. >> Back to it. And we we were again we did this um current bylaw. Um it was all about setbacks. >> Totally.
>> Um you know, and the new one hasn't hit that this is that doesn't sit the new one. The new one is going to actually be defense. >> Yes. So, so the new bylaw is going to be there. Um, right now we have it to the array. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Not to interrupt you, but we have
some people in this town that are extremely against solar. >> Yeah. >> Um, and you have those that are not >> both sides. Uh there are people that actually wanted those extra 20 ft
the for the setback to be from the fence. >> Yeah. >> And not the actual array, which that isn't in effect yet. >> Yep. >> But it will be. >> Y >> um and again, Steve, I didn't mean to cut you off, but
you had mentioned precedents. >> Yeah. Uh my biggest fear is precedence. >> Totally. >> Uh and you come in and you say, and I agree if there's ever going to be a place where there's going to be a solid field, a farm should be in an empty field with no trees.
>> I I like that. I don't much care clearing that, but it is what it is. >> If there's ever going to be a place where there's going to be a solar farm, it should be an empty field. But the next guy is going to come in and he's going to be, you know, he's going to have his reasons for his setbacks and
and again, I'm going to I'm going to One of the issues with me right now is um the setbacks. >> Yep. >> It's and it's challenging for me too, right? like it's it's not often where I have a site where there's one singular
issue and if that one singular issue wasn't as painful to me as it is, I would I would try to make everyone's lives a little bit easier and and acquies and not ask. And so because of what's already going to happen on the site, that's where I just feel like, you
know, to to the gentleman's point, if if the future land owners somehow are able to get relief from wetlands requirements and whatnot and do want to clear cut and development and develop down to this property line. If if my request is rejected, the only
difference is an extra 50 ft of open space on the field. And that's and that's just where like fundamentally I feel like there is some good precedent here. Um the addition of the of the stockade fence. I know on Maran Road I gave you
guys an example, excuse me, of the Burman fence right a project we did in Rochester a couple years ago. We showed the photo driving in today. I drove past a project on Maran Road in Rochester which is right on the street which has the the stockade fence. It's not big enough. It's a 6ft stockade fence so you
can see a strip of the modules on top and that's why we've got the eight or the 10 here to make sure you can't see anything. But again, that's going to be there. That was what I felt like a reasonable trade in that scenario where the project's already there. If there is a future development, the project's
already there. Everyone's understanding exactly what they're clearing or developing to. And we do have on our property the visual buffers that would would render the would render the project invisible even if this was all cleared. And I think the context of it
not being cleared in the context of it being wet and being almost impossible to develop helps me feel better about the ask. But it doesn't have to do that to you guys. Now that you brought up the visual, um, the 50 or so trailers that are out
front here, what do we have preventing them from seeing the fuel? >> They can see it. Um, I think the the landowner and I at this board's request really worked hard to to share with everyone at the informal meeting. That was the number one item that I took away
from that meeting was you guys wanting to make sure there was coordination with the folks on that are already at the site and not and so our land owners done a really nice job posting plans. Um I don't know exactly what he's done but it's been communicated to me that he's had meetings and presented to that group
to understand exactly what's happening. So basically, you're telling me that nobody, not one of these trailer parks have an issue with waking up in the morning, looking out their window, seeing a solar field. >> I think that's probably too strong a statement. I can't speak English people, and it's probably not true, but I think
I think I I I paraphrase it by saying the folks know that they're on the property, they're renting on the property, nothing's forcing them to stay on that property. It is mobile homes that could be moved. So, >> it's been communicated. So, One one of my issues sorry one of my issues of of
of continuing uh special permits we continued under your request I think at least once possibly twice and we had to continue once because we didn't have uh a full for quum one of my
one of the reasons why I hate constantly moving these public hearings for a permit is the first day we had a room full of people a room full of people. A lot of them, I'm assuming, were from the solar park or a butter. >> Not for not for this project. This is
the first meeting. >> No, it's been postponed. >> Yeah, we had a couple uh a butters come in thinking that you guys were going to be here, but it had >> Right. And they didn't see they didn't see that it had gotten postponed. >> And I sat in on a couple of the
conservation meetings. Rooms full. >> Um >> there's one person here. I'm glad you're here. I wasn't going to. I just I I learned at the last moment. So look at me. I came like this. But >> but that's one of the reasons why that I I I and again I'm not putting blame on
you because I know sometimes we need time and we had to postpone it ourselves because we didn't have a full quorum. I totally understand. Um I have a hard time believing that nobody in that trailer park is going to be upset about waking up and looking at a at a at a solar field when they wake up in the
morning. I have a hard time accepting that. Um, and like Steve had mentioned, one of the main reasons why we redid the solar bylaw, one of them, and the biggest issue was the setbacks. And two,
was the visual. Uh there's a lot in the new bylaw that uh um prevents a butters from people don't want to people don't like to look at soul farms and and a lot of the things that we try
to enforce is you know not affecting people's um sight. So not having any type of screening on this entire run I'll tell you bothers me.
Just one follow question to your your comment. You you referred to a new bylaw. So it's my understanding that this is the second project under the new bylaw. When you say new, you mean the new new coming. That's >> new isn't the latest one that we just redid a year or two ago. This
>> middle road, not the not the one from this past town meeting. >> Totally. Okay. I just want to make sure. I just want to be clear that this and the middle roads project. >> Only two. The first two. >> Yep. the first two and you know as I said the only thing in that bylaw that we're not meeting or exceeding.
>> Yeah. It's a it's a good set of plans. Um one more question and you had brought it up at the first meeting which was the well that they had to move. >> I mean I've got a few comments here. >> Oh you do go right ahead. >> The wells are the wells are are are one.
Have have you well while we're talking about wells um have has there been any approach to the division of water supply about relocating or creating two new source wells? >> There has. So the existing there's an existing
>> I know where the existing ones are just for the benefit. Okay. So an existing well is in this field and so the well has to be repaired. It's it's well beyond its useful life. Mhm. >> And so we the land owner has the option to repair it or relocate it. >> Mhm.
>> And so it's going to cost roughly the same amount of money, a little bit more obviously to relocate because you have to repipe. But the preference is to relocate it here. >> Mhm. and he's been in contact and it's essentially we're waiting on basically this board and this process once this is
approved then the efforts to to introduce a new well um supplying the >> I mean at at the very least the the approval would have to be contingent upon relocating the wells in the spot indicated on the plans.
>> Absolutely. I think that's very reasonable. So if you if you have to shift them, you know, 50 ft either way, 100 ft either way, you got to come back to the board. >> I think that's reasonable. >> And um the I mean the the comment that people
are just renting and can just go somewhere else. Unfortunately, >> that's not that's not a very valid uh comment. >> Um they >> to my knowledge, the people own mobile homes and they rent the spot. >> Excuse me.
If you can find another place in eastern Massachusetts to locate a mobile home in a mobile home park uh that isn't already filled up, uh that's a surprise to me. Um I don't think they're out there. >> Okay. >> Um so
they are unless they abandon the home, uh they're pretty much stuck there. They can't move to anywhere. Um just a comment. Uh, and and like I said, the the comment that they can just go ahead and move it
somewhere else, that that's not a valid that's not a valid response. >> That's not I would be glad if you guys could find a place to locate all the homes along that property line, along that edge of your
your solar array, uh, and then commit to pay the cost to move the homes in that new location. I mean, that's one thing, but you we're not even we're not even there. >> Uh I I do have some >> I don't have any financial interests
there, but I do have some uh sympathy for somebody uh just looking out over a field of of solar panels that are actually facing in their direction. It's going to be quite a visual impact to uh the people that
are there. Um, my opinion, the setbacks, I I'm not going to talk about the setbacks yet. I think the whole board I'm going to make an assumption on the whole board that we're not ready to just say yes, the setbacks are okay. I think it's going to require some some further
discussion uh between members of the board and what to do in the future. Um, when I'm looking, you know, I'm I'm always one that's kind of looking at whose land is going to get flooded if there's a problem with the uh with the
ponds that are proposed out there. Um, I can't speak to that part of the property, but I think the rest the front part, uh, I'm not so sure that you can count on any of infiltration on the ponds. If there were ponds in the front
part of the the first two sections, this back section, I have no knowledge of that. Have there been any percolation tests or test pits done in the area of those ponds to determine if
they actually will percolate any water? And is there any seasonal high groundwater level back there that would just make them year round ponds? We have one project in town that's exactly like that. I know
>> and and I especially looking for setback relief and infiltration ponds that may or may not infiltrate uh two of them in particular will go onto other people's properties uh not an adjacent wetland.
Those to me are critical. Um and if you're again this is just my personal opinion. If you're looking for setbacks in those areas, uh I'm going to want to make darn sure that those ponds are going to be empty in normal
circumstances and that they will percolate groundwater all through the spring. Uh it's just created too many problems in other sections of town in terrain very similar to this.
>> Yes, sir. Uh so I I want to see more more proof that the things are going to work period with or without the 150 ft setback. Again, that's just my personal opinion. Um the two that are that will
overflow into wetlands if they don't work very well, well at least it's not really going to impact people's property, their backyards or other areas that they're planning on uh utilizing right now. Um, so I for one
want to see more discussion and more a more serious look at what how those two pawns on the easterly side Yeah. are going to uh perform during the spring.
>> It's a great comment. Um, obviously I I keep going back to the other project, but when I came in for the other project, I made it very clear that I understood the the worries in the town that have resulted from a a poorly constructed project and ultimately what
was a poorly designed project. Um, beyond that, we understood that and storm water has been the absolute priority. stormwater control and viewshed have been the two absolute priorities for me on both projects I brought before this board. The previous and now this one. Um, as
you get through, I know you just got the peer review letter today, but you'll find that we've done full uh soil testing with a I can't remember the title of the person, but a a certified soil scientist, maybe something like that. Um, who's done the full test pitting test pits in each of the
locations where a a storm water feature is proposed. Those test pits were um were viewed by I think GF Engineering and the Board of Health. Um so we didn't just go out there and dig a hole in the middle of the night. >> What What kind of soils are back there on that on that easterly property line?
>> I'd have to look at the report. >> I I'm somebody's going to have to put that right in front of my face. >> I will make sure I get you the >> If it's C and D soils, I'm not convinced that those uh ponds are going to work well. >> Yeah. I don't want to get over my skis
on storm water details. GF engineering, our engineers at Bills and Thomas have done a great work, but I'll make sure I get into Victoria's hands. The >> somebody's going to have to convince me of that. >> Very good. >> Okay. I'm not convinced right now, especially looking at I mean, if there's a 150 ft setback along the northerly
property line and the back property line, well, there's plenty of room to make those ponds three or four times as big if they need to be. so that it does there's no discharge onto adjacent properties. >> Fair enough. But yeah, we'll definitely get you that information. I'm depending
on GAF to hold the bar as high as they possibly can on behalf of the town and meeting. So, I'm going to let GF. >> I've got to face people in town if it doesn't work right. >> Yes, sir. >> 100%. >> Okay. And and I've got to say, uh, you
know, I I let it go to peer review last time and I was satisfied with that and they did not work well at all. There were other construction problems related to that, but basically
that whole ridge in town, most of it comprises of CN soils that do not percolate. And if it doesn't percolate, it's going to be wet all year long, if not at least in the springtime when is when it is most important that there be
enough storage in there so that they work without overflowing into adjacent properties. >> Yes, sir. >> Um that's that's just that's just me. But I'm I've got to be convinced of that. And and part of that is going to go into how I view the setbacks on those
two on those on that easterly property line and along that section of this rear field on the northerly property line. That's that's my comment on the the storm drainage and the setbacks.
>> There you go. >> Well, so far so far So, so all the other thing I'd like to, you know, back to, you know, the comment of these people that are living over here, um, they require a septic system. What kind of
condition is that current septic system in? Okay, that may that may have to be moved at some point in the near future that these panels would potentially impact of putting in a in a new system.
I'm I'm going I'm going to I'll I can speak to that a little bit. Uh original landowner built in a stupid place. Okay. Along with my father >> and I've known
his son uh for quite some number of years. the believe me they have looked every place on that lot for a place that would percolate uh well enough to put a septic system on and it's all down near the stream in the front everything up on
the slopes the the water practically runs on the not quite on the surface but it goes down through the initial layer of soil and then it hits what's underneath which is tight as a drum and doesn't percolate anything
>> top of the cruise. >> Um, so the answer is the only the only other place they could even think about putting a septic system is out front next to the street. >> And just to point it out for the for the board and anyone who's going to watch the video um down in this area, the
landowner owns another parcel here on which you'll you'll see you can see it driving on Main Street. It's the grass. Yeah. >> Do you know where the septic system is for that that Oh, >> there's a big mount still there. That's where it Yep. Yep. Anybody
else questions, comments, concerns? I just have concerns on the uh eastern end of the project. It seems like we're really kind of uh especially on this eastern boundary. Seems like we're really getting close to
some residences here. Uh was it 21 pushing? Wasn't that one of the people that came in? Believe it for the other project with the fence with the fencing. Was in that >> ANR?
>> No, there was one we had a the fencing on this project up here. There were people a couple people came in and were complaining. Where is the other? >> Oh, that's one
back right. >> This is This is a road corner, >> right? There was two going here. One that was it's actually got a Main Street address. >> Okay. And then the other one's at the end of Cushion Lane. There's two of them
going there. Two other ones. >> Very beginning of the property. That's the end of >> Cushion Lane comes all the way back. This is that's the one when you're going down basically on the left hand side at the bottom cushion when you hit the end of cushion lane you run >> then you got the one that had to go
around gentleman's >> I don't know that one which is >> you can see >> the address can't really access the address >> which is pretty much all that same >> it could be
and I know I know in the back over here it's very wet Right. So this is where the other challenges overcome that and that's where the other I mean I can definitely understand on the northern you got the one right there >> on the northern side with all this with
all this uh forestry and with putting the fences up. I can understand that. I just I have do have a few concerns about maybe uh some at least I don't know what's for screening on that east end.
So, I can show you maybe a little >> so a little more detail right here. But I I hear your concern. >> Is there something preventing you from I mean right now you obviously have you're going to be do some you got tree clearing doing this east. Yes.
>> What's stopping you from going what? It's >> so that that was kind of my point here. This area is all wet. >> Okay, >> that's where See the wetland line right here. >> Yep. >> Basically, everything back here is is wet and undevelopable. That's why we
have these odd shapes. If I could build here and push that way of wood, but that's wet and that's wet. And we're we're relying on an existing um an existing crossing road, kind of almost an ancient road that's there. We're not doing any wetland impact, but there's a very thin strip of upland for the road.
But this is wet. This is wet. This is wet. This is wet. And then down here is spotty. >> And like you said, I haven't had a chance to read through uh the peer review, but this road that goes around meets fire code. >> Yes, sir.
>> For all all the roads. Correct. >> Yes. There's a lot of I mean part of the challenge we have the reason why the basins are so extreme but Kushnet does have a very challenging bylaw from the fire department which requires what we call ring roads as a developer I don't
love it number one because it introduces it's it's very complicated you can see with especially with these tricky sites but it introduces a ton of impervious surface and so that's what is our kind of trigger from a post construction standpoint when we try to balance post construction storm water with
preconstruction production this site with the ex and the previous site like basically we're we're we're not doing any grading right the only grading is to create some of the basins or the storm water features but we're lucky in that we're not doing a lot of tree clearing and a lot of grading there's about the 6
acres or so to the east is the area we're clearing but obviously on the two c the central array and the main street array there's not a single tree coming down no grading etc so all the water is going to continue continue to flow today
very similarly post construction there. The conditions don't change much but long way of saying yes meets fire code requirements. >> Anybody else? >> So that's pretty much a 5 megawatt. Is that what it is? >> It's 5 megawws AC and it's about six
megawws DC. >> Okay. So you're saying that reduces it by 20%. So you can be down to a 4 megawatt. You're saying >> about that. >> Would it help the board if I was able to
communicate with with these land owners and get some feedback from them to make sure that they're here? >> To be honest with you, I don't know how the rest of the board feels, but that doesn't really >> Yeah. At least on the storm drainage, it wouldn't make any difference to me. Okay.
>> I' I've got to be convinced that the not only the current residents, but future residents, uh, I'm not going to have a problem with runoff from. >> Thank you. >> All right. The board's ask their questions. Anybody out there, please, if
you could please just stand and and uh for the record, let us know your name and address. >> Yep. My name is Kathy Barnes. I'm from uh 76 Robinson Road. I don't know where I am on the map. Um, >> let me let me show you just to get you oriented. >> Right in the middle.
>> Do you have the bigger map you had before? The bigger map. >> The other side. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> So, you're you're not shown on this map. You're >> No, I am. >> Oh, excuse me. Right here. >> So, I'm right here. Do you know where my
septic tank is? I asked you this last time. >> Um, it's on your property, so obviously I haven't had it located, but you've explained it to me that your septic tank is in this area right here >> north of the field. >> My septic tank is So, is this where you're asking for that? Um,
>> yes, ma'am. We're asking for >> my septic tank is on that line. Okay. Because of the wetland, I have to have clean outs, manholes. That septic system cost me a small fortune to put in. It runs all the way literally down here
to this one spot that would park. Nothing on this land parks. This is wet whale. So >> that's what I'm saying. So I'm the >> Is there a field there or is it wooded? >> It's all wooded. And then I have an opening that >> Oh, you do have an opening.
>> There's an opening where the where the >> septic field >> septic is. Yep. And we literally just walked back there and >> Yeah. So, I'm concerned that that's going to get flooded out. I can't afford to use that system. It's literally right there at the at the at
the law. It's 600. So, you like that's what you were saying. You have 700 ft. You were saying in front of the property. Clearly not. My house might be 700 ft away, but I own all the way to this line. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> We have 35 acres, me and my brother. My brother couldn't be here >> and he was here every time he came even when it was cancelled. >> He got stuck in traffic up in his job. So he definitely would like to be here. But he is over here and he owns all
this. So between us, we have 35 acres and we own this whole boundary right up to this project. But all I hear is what's reasonable. It's reasonable that we bought 35 acres of land and you know we knew that those
were fields. There was a cemetery that in the future most likely nothing would be developed. So that's reasonable when you buy a piece of land like that that you reasonably can expect but that's not going to happen. So not only do we would we have this we're surrounded we have a
L we're going to have solar farms all the way around our property. You know we have it down here. Now they're gonna It's basically an ounce, >> you know. It's It's just not reasonable. That's not reasonable to a homeowner.
It's not reasonable to the wildlife that's going to get misplaced. There's coyotes down there. Every night I hear them. They're they're down there. They're going to get relocated probably onto our property. That's going to change my life. You know what I'm saying? Because I now have to watch my
dogs. The deer are rapid out there. now they're going to have less place to go. So, they're going to be more on our land, which was fine. I don't mind them being on my land, but I'm just saying you're you make it sound like this is no big deal. This is a big deal. We live here,
you know. Um, you know, I >> I have a huge skepticism out there. My brother who built there, when he built there with those 20 acres, he promised to tell him he would preserve the land and never ever Yeah.
>> developed the land because >> his wetland, >> you know, when he got his perk, it was a slower perk, but they let it go because he promised they would only build one home on that land. So, we lived up to our hands. You know what I mean? We
didn't ask for special things. Well, I've been there for over 20 years now. >> I I don't mean to cut you off and I totally understand and totally agree with everything you're saying. The one thing you have to take into consideration is this is private property. >> Oh, I understand that.
>> And whether they get the permission to put in a soul field >> or not, they can throw houses on there. They can develop. There's a lot that can be done on that property that will abide your office. >> But the houses would have been not been a solar farm. The houses would have had to have clear. There was a minimal
acres. It has to have frontage. So even that's fine. I'd rather see houses there. as long as you >> Oh, yeah. I understand. Someone owns that land and they're trying to They can't It's all about a profit. But >> I I I think that
>> there's just too many solar funds in that area. >> You know, and I do I'm worried about my septic system >> this way. This way. >> We are too. >> It's it's it's been there for a while and like we have like >> the town said they never put another one in. It was like so long that I had to
have a clean out station like it was huge. I you know I had to have special plans designed. You >> tell me what page the retention ponds are on. >> Okay. C2 point specific field C2.1 2.2.
>> Thank you. >> And so those parks are already done on that land. We already had the park. I >> I didn't say we had it perked. >> Oh, we had the soil samples done and we have the storm water designed. >> Oh. >> Such that it meets the standard. Oh,
>> the only um basin >> you guys have it. >> Uh >> that's in the next page. >> So you have one here. >> And this and this is the middle one. >> Is there another one for this part? it.
Just trying to get an idea of where they're located at >> right here. >> There's no storm water featur >> there's no storm water features to the north. >> There's no grading to the north. Simply the fence because they're on that wetland line. The storm water features
this this land. >> Yep. >> The water will flow this way. Not will flow this way. So here's the feature. >> Oh again. So there's so this one and this one's both on the west side. Is that where it is? Yes, sir. West side of the
west right now. >> Yep. >> Yeah. So I see where going from that. If the water does go this way, it's going to hit all that or if it does go that way. >> Yeah. It's I'm I'm more on the the back
piece that that whole that whole field just kind of drains all the way down to the stream. If you guys um sorry to there's uh this is the per this intermittent stream that runs here that all the water tends to move toward Main
Street but hits that stream and never gets to Main Street. So I'm sure at some points that this was dug out when Main Street was built 100 years ago. We got all the water continues to go this way. So there's no storm water features north. We have this swale that'll carry any excess water that might want to push
north back down into this basin. And we have a similar construction. This is the western. We have a similar construction on the eastern field here with everything moving this way. Nothing up here. Nothing close to the septic system um
for miss birds. And that could >> could we get that subject system spotted on that on that plan? >> If if I have permission >> as long as the land owner's got to let you on the property to locate >> we exchanged contact information prior to the meeting so I can reach. >> Yeah, I had asked that months ago.
>> It would clarify things a little bit for us. >> Yeah, >> that stream that the one closest to me is that's not an annual stream. That's just is >> that I I know I was talking a lot in the beginning, but um >> I know you went back and forth with conservation regarding is it
>> conservation commission via their what's called a a uh request for determination issued the determination that the stream is I want to say this right intermittent >> intermittent >> not perennial. >> That's the one that's closest to Main Street. >> Main Street runs all the way up to Quaker Lane.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> And it runs down past Leonard. >> They they made that determination. >> Yes. The conservation's been on this site. Sidewalks for the NRA, sidewalks for the RDA, and sidewalks for the north.
>> If they made that, if they made that all that's the driveway right there. >> That's this one right here. >> That's for this one. >> That's for this one. Then this one. And then this is cushion right here. So then there's one here. And then one here,
right? >> And then this one. These are the three from that other site. And the issue that we had with the water was right here. >> Mhm. Gentlemen, anything else? So, next we vote or we don't vote. But
what do we do? >> That's up to the board, of course. Um, but the peer review, um, there's still open comments. Um, and also, if the board isn't comfortable, I know Mr. Ellis made a comment not being comfortable voting on the setbacks
tonight if you want to think about it till the next meeting while they finalize some other comments. Um, yeah. >> Thank >> what I'm gonna say, um, and I think the board is behind me on
this. Um, and I and and when you guys came in on your preliminary, I thought I tried to make it as clear as possible in my opinion and please gentlemen interject if I am not speaking for
everybody. Uh my opinion is those setbacks are too much. Um again, we have people in town that have come to me and they really
um want me to hold the line. And I and I'm not even really that with them. I again I'm going to go back to the setting of precedents because
this is the second one. Um and the main reason why we one of the main reasons why we revamped the solar bylaw was because of the setbacks. Um, I'm not
going to give you grief, which I guess on a legal way I really can't being 300 ft off Clem's Way. Um, I will say that I don't like the fact that there's no screening uh from those trailers, from all those
homes. When they wake up, they're going to look at a solar field that's staring straight at them. I don't like that fact. Yeah. >> Um, I appreciate you wanting to put the the the stockade fence in the back, but that's really not going to help anybody.
Nobody's going to see that. >> Uh, I agree with Mr. Ellis that we definitely need to see as much proof as possible regarding storm water. I mean, I'm not questioning your engineers. I'm
not questioning GAF. Uh, I haven't read through the entire uh peer review. Um, as somebody who's gone through a storm water uh um bylaw and and and had one
built, I know it's very very detailed. Uh, but again, to make Mr. Ellis and the rest of the board happy. We definitely need uh what soils they are, what the percolation rates are. We need definitely more uh information regarding
those um potential plants. Uh I just do not think that this board is ready to give up that much of the setback. >> It's fair. Um, if you came to me with some kind of
major hardship with the residents and this and that, I take some of that into consideration, but the only thing that you want is more panels. >> Correct. >> Um, unfortunately, that doesn't phase this board. Whether it's a 5 megawatt or 4 megawatt or whatever, that doesn't phase
us. I understand you want to make as much money as possible and I don't I totally understand that and you and you're better off going to here and coming back because you just don't know what we're going to say when we when you come in front of us. So that's what you did. You just went to the outer limits
and say this is what we want and then you're going to kind of creep it back. Um I can't give you the outer limits right now. Uh we can't. It's just way too much. I'm going to and I I thought I made it clear and I'm going to try to make it as clear as I can. When it comes to the setbacks, you're going to get
very little what's the word I'm looking for? Sympathy >> from us. I appreciate the clarity. Um, one clarification, we did communicate that setbacks. We have pulled back from the iteration that I provided you guys at
the informal review. Didn't pull back as far as you guys wanted. I tried to find the balance between what I thought I could defend and what I can't. And I hear what you guys are saying very clearly. So, I appreciate that. Um, >> I can add screening
>> and improve your concerns with the residents along Clem's Way. I can I can do a couple things, but my instinct is to extend the socket fence in place of the typical security fence so that we have a solid screen um around the array.
And then we can obviously touch up what is a pretty strong visual image of a big wooden fence with some plantings and whatnot where we have space. It's a very space constraint site. That's the that's where a lot of these this heartache is coming from. So I hear you on screening
the cles or the residents along Clems. I hear you on the setbacks or my request to setback. I hear you sir on the storm water. Um, I would like to locate that um feature that's off property just so we
all >> if you could just let her know let us know on the on the map where her septic system exactly falls and how far away it is. It would definitely help us. >> My my instinct is simply we'll dig up the plants and we'll we'll plot we'll plot it. If we can't find the plans,
>> I have the plants. >> If we can't the border health should have >> it shouldn't be a big deal to do that. should not at all and we talked about this in consom and apologies for not locating it but it was off property and we're not doing any grading up there so
I you know we talked about it with the engineers who said stay away from that area we don't want anything close so I'm happy to to clarify it >> um those are the items that I can come back with >> um
>> well I mean you've heard our concerns Yeah. >> Um, we'll continue this meeting. One thing I will ask, um, they don't have to be certified, but I'd like you to reach out to all the residents on the
original list. A regular mailed letter would be would be sufficient. Um, like I said, I've seen this room full, whether it's conservation or the earlier meetings, and to just have one person here, nobody on Zoom means that nobody
knew that this meeting was taking place. >> They didn't know. >> Yeah. So, I would appreciate if you sent out a letter uh just letting everybody know what date we're postponing this to. >> Continuing. >> Continuing to date. >> Yes, sir.
Uh, my next question is, how much time are you going to need? And give yourself plenty cuz that date's going to be on the letter. How much time are you going to need to come back with whatever changes you're going to make? >> I don't want to answer right now. Um, I
know I have to for the date. >> I said I don't want to answer. I didn't say I wasn't. Um, >> so we're we're every other. >> We're every other right now. Yes. >> First and third. Sorry. First and third. So, it'd be the 16th and then we
wouldn't meet again until the 6th. >> Any special um plans for November or December for the You know what I'm thinking about is if there are two more meetings. I just Do you guys have any special plans for the 20th or canceling the 20th of November due it's kind of
getting close? Actually, Thanksgiving's late this year, so there'll be a meeting on the 20th and the 6th of November. >> Mhm. 20. >> What do you think? >> 20th. >> Just to make sure.
>> Okay. All right. Why don't we >> Yeah. Why don't we say we'll continue this to the 20th, >> November 20th, >> just because the next question would be I I imagine the board. Have you guys been joined a sidewalk yet for this property? >> We have not. >> Okay.
>> So, we probably want to schedule a sidewalk as well. question. >> We can >> um >> the main reason is if we're I don't want the sitewalk to be too close to the date we pick so that if we if if we get any
feedback at the sidewalk, I don't want to show up two days later and not have incorporated it. So that's why I'm thinking >> delay to the 20th. Let's get the sitewalk scheduled in October >> so that we can have a time period to make any re revisions we might need. Um,
it gives me time to clean up the two or three technical items that GIF GAF engineering is asking for. So I can do that for the boards. So we can say November 20. So
>> okay. Um, >> you're not going to build anything this year anyway. So >> no, >> hopefully not. No, I >> we don't need another project that rips open the the the forest uh at the end of the year. >> Only build the two arrays in the middle.
>> My biggest issue is again I asked them to send out letters to the abuters. I don't want to set up for the 20th and they're not going to have enough time and then we're going to have to postpone them. They're going to send more letters and I just want people to know when the meeting date is if they think they can get all this done in 30 days. Well,
>> it's more than that. That's right. >> Yeah, it's a little over 30 days. >> It's a lot of days. That's why my instinct was the 6th, >> but now you're going about a month and a half. >> But if we want to do a sitew walk, I want to give you guys time. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> I think that this the 20th gives us the
ability to get a lot of the responses from the information tonight to the board have the sitewalk and then peer review and yeah. So that that's our rationale for that. >> Okay.
I'll entertain a motion to postpone. >> Continue. >> Continue. Thank you. This hearing till November 20th. >> I will motion to continue the public hearing to November 20th. >> I have a motion. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Um, now Victoria, I just have a question. Does that prevent us from having a discussion between us at interim meetings >> or does that have to be open to public?
>> Yes. You can't discuss the hearing in in the in between meetings. >> I mean I I the reason I say that is I I think we need to further continue the talks about the setbacks. That's all. Um I if you don't
feel it's necessary then that's fine. we can just hold it till the 20th and make our decisions. Then >> I would say if you want to talk about setbacks in a general sense, what you'd be willing to >> We don't have to be talking about Okay.
We can just talk about the solar setbacks in general. Correct. >> Outside of >> I wouldn't mention project specifics or anything like that because that would constitute >> We'll put that on the next meeting. >> Okay. Yeah, let's do that. We'll put that on the next meeting where we discuss
>> general setbacks. >> Okay. >> Um, as far as I'd like to personally do a sitewalk as early as possible to give you as much time as possible. Um, how does the board feel about October
18th? How do you feel about October 18th? Saturday, October 18th. Sorry. >> Can we oppose to do it before that? It was a gorgeous Saturday. We do this Saturday.
It' be a good weather. You know what I mean? I be doing that in the rain. But >> this Saturday might be a little close. Uh and next Saturday I'm I'm unavailable. That's why I went right to the 18th. >> I'm unavailable on the 11th as well. So that's convenient. I mean, there's nothing
>> I need to do, right? We can get there on Saturday if you're available. Like there's not This Saturday or the 18th? >> Either. But to the gentleman's point, >> this Saturday is what you guys >> You want to do this Saturday as in two days from now? >> This Saturday?
>> No, I can't do it then. Okay. 18th >> 18th. >> 18th for the >> sidewalk. Jack, that works out. That way we can get >> that would give you enough time. You think >> there's nothing we need to do, right? Per se. >> We're just going to walk around and we're going to point things out. You're
going to point things out. We're going to see the site and >> can't do much discussion. Anyways, I think we will we'll I'll likely provide Victoria with some supplemental information just that's you guys already have, but just I'll I'll bubble it to the top specifically the the um
soil testing reports. So, you can see the 100 pages of the reporting that we did on all the different test pits. Like I said, when when the potters come and tell me that they've got water running all over their property that they never had before, uh I'm still in
town, but they know where I live. I'm hopeful and stubborn, but not that stubborn. That's why I'm not asking for any storm water relief, especially in this town. So, I understand. >> Um 8 a.m., is that what we usually done? Is 8 too early?
I think >> I'm up at six. >> All right. >> Okay. We uh we made a motion. We've continued. You've got uh your bullet points. We got to send this on the 18th. We are going to send out letters,
letters letting them know about November 20th. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. Okay. Next. Next on the agenda, uh, discussions. Continued discussions on
amending the business village district. Victoria, you want to leave this one off? >> Yes. Share my screen. >> I don't know why I'm in here twice, but Have a good night.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> Is it possible to get a full size plan at the meeting that shows the water and and the sewer system? I looked at the thing on my computer, but I've got to be
honest with you, I had >> it's too small and then when I try to blow it up, I can't seem to move the view around. Yeah. >> So, it really >> You're not the only one. >> I meant I meant to print it. I'm sorry about that. I can share it on the screen as well. But um
>> you're you're talking about the old school person who used to have a light table and put one plant on top of another and and then it was easy to figure out what went where and what areas uh >> had water potential and what areas had
storage potential and where they came together. >> Okay. Did so since you brought that up did you want to look at that first about the water and sewer and the location? >> Whatever you want. Go for it. >> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. as long as
>> there's a way to uh you have to look at both of them and you know obviously where to me where water and sewer is available that's like a prime place to go look at higher density commercial higher density residential you know
multif family all of that stuff but without the soore is so tough in this town you know without the ability to provide storage uh high density development isn't an option.
I'm going to argue that uh and there there are other uh DP regulations that put even more constraints on higher density developments on one piece of
property. over 10,000 gallons a day you've got to put in a sage treatment plant. That's essentially the way the regulations are written. So even a a high dens and that's going to make
virtually everything cost prohibitive. >> So it used to be 15 now it's 10. comes down to that but even water and sewer um what is the capacity of our sewer system that we have now
that's I mean that's another issue but at at least there are there usually are ways to improve capacity if necessary you know that a developer can look at but if you don't have the soil
>> you don't have a project and and even like three three-bedroom houses is close to 1,000 gallons a day. So that's that's 30 that's 30 houses. That's it. All you can if you have to put in a a m a common
treatment plant uh you're you're stuck to about 30 houses on that site. >> But what what I was getting at though was that the capacity of a current sewer system. We talk about the business district. We talk about water and sewer. the actual capacity of how much we can
expand with the side with with the pipes that we have in the ground. >> And and and to your point, >> I'm not I'm not discounting that, but >> decades ago when I was
a practicing engineer. Uh we ran a a force man a mile and a half from the Whites family restaurant in Westport to the city of Fall River. to sewar that place uh with city sewer. They've gone
through like three septic systems in 10 or 12 years. Uh but my point is that I can't tell you that there's a way to do it. But if somebody has got a piece of property and they have the the potential,
uh they'll and there's a possibility they'll figure out a way. >> I I I got you. But again, I think part of this is even working with the current infrastructure we have and the property sizes that we have here in town. >> Okay. Is just to want to know what the
how much capacity we get to expand um on what we have. >> I'll probably tell you nothing. >> No. >> Um so I'm not sure if this directly answering your question. It sounds like you're asking about like maybe the age of the the >> the size the volume. Yeah.
>> We got 8 inch mains. We got 6 in mains. We got whatever we got around. >> I don't have the details on that specifically, but as far as capacity to expand for either New Bedford or Fair Haven to take the capacity to process at their systems, there is room there. And
I think at this point I don't think we should be worried too much about that capacity because if it needs to change or be upgraded and we need to try to secure funding to do that, we need to show that we're zoned for um you know an increased flow,
right? We need to show that development is possible. Otherwise, it's a really tough cell to to secure funding >> and and if it's a developer, then it's just his cost to upgrade the system so that it's got enough capacity. Yeah. >> You know, >> so let's just put sewer aside for now.
>> Uh, >> okay. >> And and like like Victoria said, even if we go and zone it that way, I always had the idea I never I never went at this with the thought of having um and it's
possible maybe in the future a what's the word you just used? Um, a lot of 30 houses. I I I'm I'm >> Well, one thing she's mentioned before is a cottage house type of development. >> Oh, yeah.
>> But and and if if you don't, for one thing, any kind of housing, >> it's got to be a a a builder has to be able to make more money on cottage housing than what's being built right now. So, he's got to
have smaller lots. He's got to have the ability to make money on that acre, >> you know, and if or acre and a half if if he can make x number of dollars on an acre and a half zoning uh size lot, then
he's got to be able to make more with cottage type of development or it's not going to happen, you I mean that's uh that's that's unfortunately fortunately or unfortunately that's the economics of the situation that uh you
have to you have to deal with. There's got to be a way to make I mean why would you build 10 houses and make the same money that you could make if you could only build three? >> Okay, I'm going to interrupt you. Yeah, I'm sorry. Um >> we need clarification. I need
clarification. So, we have continued discussion on amending the business village district. We've had discussions about making main street commercial property so people can put commercial buildings on Main Street.
That's what we've been discussing is continuing. So, I'm assuming we're continuing the business village district to make uh Leonard expansion to Leonard or Lake as far as Lake. Now, when discussing business village
district, I take it as businesses. I don't take it as residential. I take it as businesses. Whether it's a hair salon, a liquor store, a t-shirt shop, whatever it is, a business that wants to continue down
Main Street, they can put a small business, maybe two apartments above. That's what I envision for this town. Um I do not know if um sewage is necessary. I don't know how
much I don't know what the requirements are for a hair salon, a uh t-shirt shop, a liquor store, whatever the store may be as far as putting a septic, which we don't have um uh sewage going down Main
Street. So, the way I'm I'm picturing this in my head, um, is extending the business village district to Lake Street for business. I'm not taking sewage into consideration. I'm not taking
residential into consideration. I'm just going with commercial. >> Mhm. The next discussion we're going to have is amending the resident resident a district. Uh which we've had discussions
on. We have 60,000 square foot lots in this town. Um there are areas which Victoria will bring up a map in a second cuz she and I were looking at it earlier today. There are pockets which you can see in this town
neighborhoods that are not 60,000 square feet. And if there's any land available in those pockets of hypothetically 15,000 ft, 20,000 ft, whatever the square footage is of those lots, I think we should,
I guess we don't want to say spot zone, but they should have different zoning in those >> areas, those neighborhoods. So with that being said, just so I'm not confused and anybody watching this video is not confused.
Discussion on amending the business village district means continuing Main Street right now. That's where we're going to go with this cuz then we can always go uh middle road. Uh but right now we want to continue Main Street to Lake Street and make it by
right somebody can open up a business. Now, once that person or developer comes in and wants to open up a business, it's their issue to decide whether or not they can do it with a septic or >> y >> or or they need sewage. That's not what we're going to discuss right now cuz we
know this town does not have the money to extend the sewage. And if it's in a sewage district area that is does have sewage, then great, let that developer worry about that. But we, like Victoria said, before we
can look or get any funding from the state, it has to be zoned that way. >> So, let's discuss that one first so we get everybody that's watching this on the same page. Let's discuss extending
the business village district all the way to Lake Street. So, if somebody wants to open up a business, like we have a lot of them there now, it's by right and not by special permit. I'm sorry. You said to Lake Street for Lake. >> Okay.
>> Yes. Because originally I was going to go to Leonard, but then I was kind of informed that there's probably more businesses between Leonard and Lake than there are between uh >> here and Leonard. >> So, let's instead of stopping at Leonard, let's just go to Lake >> because there's a lot of uh businesses
there. Now, >> again, I just think if if somebody wants to open up, again, I'm just throwing things out there. t-shirt shop, dog grooming, whatever it is, and then they can throw two apartments above and get some rent from that or live there themselves, uh, open up a garage or or
or whatnot. I think it should be by right and not by special permit. And I think that's what we should discuss and that's what we should try to get >> and then then we can look at middle road. That's another busy road um to to
to look at. But um, let's start with that discussion first. Does anybody have anything they'd like to have Victoria put on the article uh when we come this spring? What are your concerns regarding that? Uh your your your thoughts about
that before we move on to residents? >> Um like were you think were you thinking about like 300 ft back from the road, 100 ft back from you know Main Street, 200 ft back from Main Street? any property that has the potential to have
frontage on Main Street. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, I we have a zoning map and we do have that. >> It's just got to be lines on the zoning map. That's all. I >> Yeah. Well, we have it zoned right now to where in the business village district we can
go back. So, if it's 100 ft or 300 300 300 ft. Okay. Well, looking at the map, why why do we do it 300 ft? >> If it's got frontage on Main Street in
its commercial district and the lot goes back 1,000 ft. >> Mhm. >> That's why I asked the question. >> I say, in my opinion, get rid of the 300 ft. If you're zoned again, it it'll see you look at the map. Everything that's
red is where they can build. >> Mhm. >> But if you look at certain lots, there's red, but it goes and again, I don't know what's on those lots. I'm just going by empty emptiness here. I'm just throwing throwing things up against
the wall right now. But if you look Yes. Perfect. Victoria, I'm going to get up. Rick, let me get by here just so I can kind of make a point here. >> You're going to leave the point. >> All right. So, if we're, let's just say, here,
this lot, which goes way back here, I don't know what's on that lot, but why should they stop there? Why should it only stop to the 300 ft, why can't that entire lot be zoned commercial? Why is I I'm just wondering it was put there. What's the reasoning for it?
>> Well, I mean, generally, it's just a matter of having a number, you know, if you want everything that fronts on >> Well, yeah. Well, yeah. Let's look at >> So, so basically, I think the number was pertaining to the fact that the side streets >> I don't know. I don't know what's on
this lot. Could be all wetland, could be I don't know what's on that lot, >> but if it's zoned commercial to here, why couldn't the whole thing be zoned? >> So, that's Roseland right there. >> Rosland nursery. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, let's just say
hypothetically the owners of Rosland wanted to sell and then a developer wanted to come in and say, "Hey, this is a commercial piece of property." And if they wanted to blow in a road and build things back, again, there's a lot of variables there. I'm just throwing a lot out there. >> Why do we have to have it to where it's
only 300 ft? >> Only only because the only thing that comes with that is again, you get side roads. Okay. So, where is that 300 ft? We just couch block the whole center of town. >> Well, yeah. I mean that's the that's the alternative is you just say well the rest of the town is or this whole area
you have to define a line on the zoning map you could go back to the river and say it can all be yes >> it can all be uh commercial >> what we could do is you know >> doesn't have to be tiny piece of property that's all that's what that 300 >> you're not supposed to spot zone
>> I know correct I'm with you when it comes to the fact okay why can't you go back say you got an extra 200 ft behind you on on on Main Street if that's what you're trying to define as as the business district. Okay. >> But now as soon as you turn down Garfield Street, you turn down um
Pemrook. Okay. So if you just keep going back, where does it stop? Does it go? We can That's that's part of reason. >> Yes. >> You got to have you got to have some kind of defined line on a zoning map. You actually brought that up today.
>> Yeah. I was Yeah, >> you were trying to get that through my thick skull earlier today. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Sorry. Yeah. But essentially, so whether 300 ft or whatever the number the board wants to see, um you will need to address what we call splitzoned lots, which is exactly what what um chair
chair Francois was talking about. Um is you know, having that a larger parcel, but only a portion of it is zoned. Um you know, business village. So you either way, you are going to want something that takes away that ambiguity. Um, so you could either have it this way and say I've seen some I
think there might even be one in the in the packet I gave you. Um, some uh bylaws will say, "Oh, you can go back an additional x amount of feet." Some will say you can use your whole parcel for whatever zone that you're it lies in. Um, so that's something the board should
think about as we move forward um with this. >> So I think that's the answer to your question, Mark. you know, you the first I'm I'm not I'm not stuck on any 300 feet, but the first 300 ft is the commercial zoning.
If you own additional land in a residential zone, what she's saying is you can address that in the zoning bylaw to allow a commercial use >> uh back on the whole lot, back on another 300 ft, however you want to
define it. I' I'd like to be able to get that defined to where again if that happens to be Roseland and it's a big piece of property and let's just say hypothetically it's all upland we would take a butters into consideration there would be a lot more of a process I I
hate that puts that that does put the board on the spot to to pit the abutters against the developer as the decider and you know you can do that um I don't know how many It's not to me that's not a
pleasant process but you know if that's what you got to go through that's what you got to go through to get more commercial you know property in town. >> So what I need clarity on what is the difference between commercially zoned property and business owned property
>> however the zoning bylaw reads period. >> Period. Okay. because that you know commercial to me allows certain amount of manufacturing um not just putting in a t-shirt shop or a bob shop um or any other type of
>> it's all it's all in how it's written in the in the zoning >> bylaw how we're going to define that that's that that's you know one minute we're calling it the business district and then then we're calling it commercial property what is >> like like what Mark was saying too about having the small business on the near
the street and having a couple uh dwelling units up above. That has to be written in the zoning that you can do that. That's all. >> Yes. And that's exactly what we're talking that's. That's what we're talking about. That's what she's taking notes on. And that's what I want to do.
>> And and in my opinion, it makes sense. If somebody wants to open up a small business and and have apartments above it, >> I mean, they have it already. >> You go to the Bourne Rotary, they're putting up all kinds of storefronts with apartments above it. It's like it's everywhere. And it should be by right.
It shouldn't be a special permit. Shouldn't be uh somebody having to go through all kinds of red tape for it. It should be come in. This is what I want to do. Go for it. >> We already have it right here in town. >> We got we got we got the corner lot over here.
>> So it's not it's by right right now. The way it's set up, >> it's it's it's not it's already it's existing condition, right? So I I don't say you want to do by right cuz things have changed. But we already have that condition. We get right there on the corner of of Sloan Maine. That building right there. We got we got a restaurant,
we got a bar room, and we got apartments over overhead. You go right down the street over here. >> If I wanted to go down Main Street and buy a piece of property. >> I'm not I'm not saying it's not there, but that's what I'm just saying. It it it should should be a big deal cuz we already what I was getting at is we
already have those situations. You've got all the the package store. You got the apartment above which was Mary's package store that upstairs. You got apartments above that one. So it's you got the captain's place, you got an apartment up above the restaurant. It it's not >> like we don't have
>> like we don't have it. It's the point I'm trying to get. >> I I hear you. And I want to make it to where >> Yes, >> we can have more of that without any issue. >> Those are grandfathered. So if somebody else wanted to do that today, they could not. >> Correct. >> Right now. Right. Yeah. you would have
to come in for a special permit to do so. >> And I get it. It It's just there, but I'm just just trying to make the point. It's like it's it it's not totally new other than we don't have it by right now. >> Right. Right. >> It's, you know, people can say it. We >> But I do agree with you. Sorry to cut
you off. I do agree with you though that I think that >> it should be by right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think you should have to go through it. They already everything everything that everybody does has to be there's so much involved in it already. So that >> I'm not saying that you could should be
able to do it on every single piece of property, but I mean if you're zone for it, then you should should be buy right >> and you have set I mean I'm not saying change setbacks. I'm not trying to encroach on neighbors, but if you have the setbacks and you have a piece of land and I don't know what the septic
rules are, but if you have enough property and perable property in the back to put in a septic system that allows for two apartments and >> a small business, it should be by right. It should we should make it as easy as possible for somebody to come into this town,
>> put in a small business >> and and and live above it or rent above it and and >> brings more income into the town. That I'm just that's what I think one of the main things we should do. And again, we'll never have Route 6 in Fair Haven
or Dartmouth. We will never have that ever. >> I want the town to know that's not what we're looking at. Uh we're just looking to small businesses, small mom and pop businesses, small apartment buildings, and then once we get into the resident
part of it, I have opinions on that as well, but we should definitely uh make it easier. And then once we're zone that way, we can start looking for uh state uh grants to help us with uh sewage to
make it even better. Uh, but right now I just think whatever they can get away with with what we have, we should make it as easy as possible. >> Mhm. >> Um, so I know I gave you guys a lot of information and I it's all in the yellow
folder so you guys can review it and make notes, but I made a quick little quick little graphic just to share and I wanted to highlight some of the differences. Um I'll run through it quickly from what our existing district is and what I have done some research on
some other surrounding communities and what what they're what's seen in theirs. Um so right now we allow all residential uses and everything that's allowed in the residents a district is allowed in the business village district. We do allow by write up to 3,000 square feet
and then anything greater than that needs a special permit and there are v various uses allowed retail office bank that sort of thing. Um and other communities I know we're talking a lot about having a business and residences above which is called mixed use um for
those that aren't familiar. Um so other communities have either you know they require the entire first um ground floor to be commercial or they'll have like a percentage to sort of encourage that. You know what what what we're talking about when we're talking about our our
village center or the core of the town, right? You want to encourage um you know a walkable area. You want businesses along so people can stop in and shop, right? So this is one of the ways um we can help achieve that. Um,
additionally, some even have um if they do have a they do allow it on the first floor, they'll require in the rear of the building. So that way the commercial is is kind of front and center. Um, so another thing the board should should be looking at when you're reviewing um all this information is the dimensional
standards and such as like the lot size setbacks, um, lot coverage and especially the height um to see what if >> there's usually parking requirements in there, too. Correct. Yep. So, I have that on here as well. So, actually,
we're kind of opposite of what promotes kind of that sense of like placemaking in a walkable area. So, in our bylaw, it says that no parking um is allowed in the side or rear yards. So, obviously that means the parking has to be in the
front, which means the building is further set back. So, it's not as easily accessible to people walking on the street. Um, so if you're trying to create kind of a cohesive area, it's better to have it in the um have the building closer to the front, closer to the street and the parking in the rear.
Um, so that's consistent with what I've seen. Um, and the other bylaws I've been reviewing. And um, lastly, I know we've talked a lot about like water sewer connections and the requirement for that. Um, you know, some towns require
the tie-in if the street already has it or if it's within a certain distance that they can kind of like economically afford the tie in. Um, but I haven't seen any that requires it. Um, you know, as far as if like for example, we don't
have a lot of sewer, right? So, if there was no sewer there and saying uh it's required, you're kind of eliminating that as as an option um to build on. So that's that's a consideration too and I think a developer wouldn't build on what's not. >> Well, they should have the if somebody's
going to spend all that money, if they can develop storage somehow that the board of health is satisfied with, they should be able to do. >> Exactly. >> You know, whether it's on-site or offsite. Correct. It's just when it comes to higher density things, it gets more difficult to do with on-site
systems. That's all. or or and you know high density residential the grocery store and not grocery stores but the restaurants are tough for storage. They're very they're very high high users there and actually to some degree
grocery stores are too but not >> like Gagnons down there are you know >> right >> which is just a little convenience store plus I guess. >> Yeah. So, that was my quick little spiel on that. Just so you guys can kind of, >> you know, what do we limit it to?
>> Something, you know, footprint wise. You know, I'm looking at that at 3,000 square feet. But that could be that. Just let me finish that. That 3,000 square feet could could mean,500 square ft times 2, you get a second floor, you get 3,000 square feet. >> So, do we limit it to the footprint of
the building? Because at some point do we just what without just by right somebody can come come in and put a strip mall in okay and just say yeah this is what we're going to do at some point we need to have some oversight on what's going because we got traffic
patterns to worry about we got a lot of things to worry about when it gets if the building starts coming in too big >> um and parking >> probably don't have a problem with that in this town but that's >> yeah if I >> parking is always a huge thing here they got shut down at time cuz he didn't have the
>> Again, that's that's that's always handled in the the wording of the zoning bylaw. The the building coverage, you know, if it's multiflo, you know, that can be part of the coverage requirement, too. So, you can only cover so much of
the lot with building uh and and then with parking requirements that that further puts another constraint on it. Parking a lot of times is the biggest user of land. >> Yes. But I I kind of agree with what Victoria said on this on this little
chart that she has here is I would prefer to see the storefront closer to the road and if they're required to have x amount of parking spots if they built a 10-ft road that goes behind and they have room to put parking spots in the
back. If that's not allowed now, I think it should be. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That doesn't make any sense. >> Parking is parking. if it's in the back of the side of the on top of the roof. I don't care where it is. It's as far as parking now. I would prefer them being able to put it in the back
>> and um and and bring the storefront closer. It doesn't have to be >> right in the front. >> But would you require it to be in the back >> or would you say whatever works for the >> most most retailers want the parking in the front. You drive by the front of a
building and you see a full parking lot and nothing out in the back. drive by see just driving >> right >> but there are a lot of other uses other than retail you know that >> that can deal with parking in the back >> one thing I just wanted to add cuz I
know Steve had brought up traffic and there's other things we'd have to look at >> the use being by right does not mean the board won't see it just as a point of clarification um if they are large enough to trigger our site plan review bylaw then they would have to come in front of the board for that we would
look at traffic we would, you know, they would be looking at storm water, you know, under con and things like that. So, it doesn't mean that those things won't get reviewed, make sure it's safe and sight circulation. Um, it just means that the use can't be denied. >> And and that's another thing that needs to be in the bylaw. You need to really
sit down and say, >> how big of something do you think we should have until it triggers site plan review? >> I I think I don't think it should be very big. it. It should have site plan
review. If it's a commercial building, >> that should trigger it. >> That should trigger it. Oh, just about right there. It's a commercial building >> pretty much. >> It should come in front of us, tell us what you want to do. >> Just give us the lay down. If you meet all the standards and it and it's conforming to the bylaw and to the town,
but we should all be, you know, >> that should be an automatic. >> It should be an automatic. Yeah. In my opinion, >> I don't see a gazillion of them coming in to where we're going to be inundated. Even though I don't either it's there but again you know to to you know when
is that review you know what triggers that review the size of it or anything like our existing one I don't know whether it's number of parking spaces or size of building because it got triggered for the little convenience store up here. >> It's actually both. So I just pulled it
up. So this is what triggers it for site plan review. Any non-residential development that results in an increase in on-site parking of more than 10 spaces, all new or modified non-residential development that increases gross gross floor area more
than 3,000 square ft. Or all new or modified non-resident residential development that increases imperous surface coverage more than 5,000 square ft. So those are the >> that's all small businesses. >> Yeah. I mean, in 10 parking spaces,
uh, you don't have to have too big of a building to trigger a requirement for 10 parking spaces. So, you need to think about that, too. No, it's I'm just saying that that if the idea is to make it to make it as easy as possible for the smaller businesses, then you've got to
just carefully design design what you have consider a small business in the zoning bylaw so people don't come in with triggered site plan reviews and things like that that make it difficult to put it in. I >> mean, what do we have anything in there
for restaurants? particularly >> as far as parking spaces go >> minimal parking spots for bit. So there >> there's got to be some kind of laws. >> I think there's there is I know you got the sushi place got basically got pretty
much got shut down because they didn't have the parking spot. >> Right. Yeah. >> Since it was there a long time but >> so why did it even why was it even allowed to get open without zero parking spots? I don't think that's something that somebody didn't pick up on it apparently. Then somebody picked up on
it because it what what the funny part about that lot. Okay. It is not much bigger than the building. Okay. What used to be the parking spot in the back. I used to spend a lot of time park back there at one point in my life. Okay. Was not what was
>> belong to which actually belongs to Frank Knox. >> It belongs to that the the the old car lot right there. Yeah, >> his place right there that strip go belongs to >> to him over there. >> So, actually, um, spoiler for the next
meeting, but we're actually going to have an ANR on that the adjacent parcel to that. So, um, somebody is going to be purchasing the property from Mr. Knox and they're want to do an ANR to carve out um, a piece of another lot Mr. Knox owns for parking.
>> Okay. So, just so since we're on the topic that's abandoned garage and all that would be excellent downtown parking. >> I know that they've discussed it. >> Excellent. >> I know the select board has even
discussed uh um I guess there's there's issues with the soils and whatnot, but I know that that's always been a consideration to turn that into a parking lot. And I still think it's on some people's minds to try to get that as a parking lot because a lot of times
the best option for contaminated soil just to cap it. >> Put a cap put a parking >> put a parking lot over it. >> You know what? You know what that's all about. Captain Star. >> We know a lot about that. But uh uh that I know that again I I've just
heard discussion on it. I'm sure it's on the on the forefront of a lot of people's minds regarding that and I know some people have reached out to the owners and whatnot. So, I don't know the the results of that, but yes, that would be perfect to put, you know, as many parking lots parks parts as you could. It would benefit the restaurants in the
area. It would benefit the the storefronts a little bit further down. It would benefit a lot. >> Absolutely. >> It would benefit a lot. Absolutely. But again, I know that's been in the process and might still be in the process of of of discussion.
Um, okay. Just so we can keep moving or else we we'll keep BSing all night long. Um, anything else? I know she's been uh typing away over there. Is there anything else you guys want to add to what this discussion? I know we've added more to this. Uh, Victoria's
accumulating all of this into something that she will put together later on. All right. Uh, moving right along. Discussion to on amending the resident residents aid district. Um, Victoria and I are actually discussing
today. So, we have we have um, and correct me if I say anything incorrect. We have 60,000 square feet >> as a requirement for a lot right now. There's a lot of uh areas in this town and Victoria's got them highlighted in
purple that are older and are less than 60,000 ft. >> Mhm. Now, I haven't done all the research to see if there's any available lots in
those clusters, but again, hypothetically, if there's a cluster there that the existing lots are 15,000 square ft, and if there happens to be an unbuilt
15,000 ft lot within those other 15,000 ft lots they should be able to build in my opinion >> but nothing would stop them now from building in it would they are they able to not necessarily they've done it already intended it can be it can be
difficult I mean if somebody bought two 15,000 foot lots with the idea of separating the other one off uh there it it can be difficult there's been some recent state zoning changes that would make it easier but I'm not sure that all the people that fought those lives. No.
>> So, you're telling me that the if the if if the name is 15,000, this one's 15,000. Everybody around that lot is 15,000 and that lot is 15,000. They can build on it right now today. >> If it's not at 60,000 ft, >> they still should be able to build on it.
>> Well, they should be, but that's not how we're zoned. >> They would have to go to ZBA, right? So, they're legally they can't build on it. What was it? What's the I you know it's a it's the new state law on on
grandfathering that basically does does away with combining of lots that are owned in common. >> Right. So that's very specific to lots that were merged. So like if there's other lots there that weren't merged or
you know whatever the case may be there's some single lots out there >> um then that might not apply to them. You you certainly could do something like that. I I don't know. I don't know if you can do it on a just on a lot by lot basis type of
thing. No, you know, >> yeah, there's got to be something in the zoning bylaw that allows for it to happen either by area defined or something written in the bylaw. Um, I I don't know how you
>> I mean, you know, the ZBA for the most part, you know, they've got a good head on on their shoulders. I mean, they had some other stuff come up down Main Street that they had to turn down because, you know, there was a 5,000 foot lot right across to over there that somebody wanted to uh basically turn into a house lot. And, you know, they
looked at it and they there was no sewage there. There was nothing there. And um you know they had to make a you know assessment on your budding properties and everything else around how you going to get a septic system inside of here you know so I think you know they basically denied it because of that and there's been people in front of
the ZBA trying to take some you know cut their properties up to again to make small lots out of them. Um it's not that it can't be done, okay, in in that case, especially in the the areas when when you get up, you know, off a loss bar, a
lot of small lots inside of there. >> There are >> um you know, and again, there there's a lot of there's a lot of constraints right there. Just trying to put a talk about place trying to get a septic system in, try to get one in down over down in that area, especially on a small lot that it's not easy to do. Um it's um
is you know do we have to go that far down um the rabbit hole um you know and just say okay which ones can we make smaller or is it just does that fall underneath the jurisdiction of the ZBA and say okay yeah we'll we'll let that go cuz it's
yeah it's >> it's surrounded by these so this is what we got >> right >> the ZBA is tough because you send out the notices and then the whole neighborhood shows up And the ZBA says no. >> Yeah. Not all the time though. >> That That's kind of my point. Let me get
up again. That's kind of my point is is if this area again, I don't know if it does, but let's just say hypothetically this right here. Okay. That little cluster of of 80 houses or whatever it is. Uh thank you. Let's just say that
there's a lot in there that doesn't have a house on it. And let's just say again for argument sake these are all 15,000 ft lots of 10,000 whatever whatever the >> they're 30s. So let's just say they're 30s. >> Let's just say but right now by town
rags you need 60,000 ft to build a house or you go in front of ZVA and ask for permission and say hey um um you know I own this lot. It's 30,000 ft. Everything else around me is 30,000 ft. Like you said, every town person, every every resident around there is going to
come in and say, "Oh, my I see deer in there and I I see turtle and whatever. I don't want nobody to build." And then the ZBA says, "No, I don't think that person should have to go to ZBA." If you own a 30,000t lot in this area and everything else is 30,000 ft, it should
be by right. It should be an ANR. Come in. I have 30,000. It's a zone for 30,000 by right. >> Shouldn't even Shouldn't even be an ANR at that point. It should be a grandfather cl if it's truly a separate lot. >> The thing is what where it comes down to is when when you start cutting lots up that's when you start
>> No. >> You know what I'm saying? Cuz it far as I know it's a grandfathered lot. If you if it stayed as a separate lot the whole time, right? Okay. It it it is technically it was a buildable lot when they bought it and it didn't change. If you didn't if you didn't own this
property and you didn't own the property on either side of it, okay, and you own this lot in in there, as long as you got the frontage over there, okay, you should be able to build over. That's my understanding. That's basically grandfathered in
that case. We're always talking about um >> affordable homes. We're always talking about, you know, when you have a system >> I'm with you. I get what you're saying, but I don't know if there's something that we really need to go to the to to the extent of of putting
>> Maybe I just need to I just need to do a little bit more research. Maybe >> find out talk to talk to um uh the video. >> No, Mr. and ask him what is he they he'll tell you right there what what is technically if it's if it's as far as I
know if it was always a buildable lot and you got a 50 and you neither property on either side of it >> never owned in common >> never owned in common that lot is buildable is >> well now that new law that new law says if it was owned in common you can go
back to the original >> you can unmmerge it >> you can unmmerge it yes if it's if it if it's not less than 10,000 square ft >> Mhm. >> Yeah. And then there's certain like 50 ft of frontage. I forget I forget what it was. 75 75 ft of frontage, right? There was there's a whole thing that went with it. But um if you try to merge
lots and that's that becomes something a little bit different. >> That becomes a little different. I'm just I'm just looking at the argument that we want to make um we want to make it easier for beginner homeowners to be able to put up a
>> one in June Street. You don't have 60,000 square feet down over here on Gene Street. You just put a brand new house right there. >> Yeah. So that's what I'm saying. This stuff is a lot was right >> was there, >> right? >> So >> well that Well, that's different because that's a different zone that Jean
Street's over here in the orange. So I believe that's 10,000 and that's a I live over there. >> So they they put on the bottom they're putting up in the bottom. >> Yeah. They actually did an ANR a few years ago. That's a that was a true buildable law for that district. That's not non-conforming.
>> That I didn't that's what I'm saying. I didn't say it wasn't non-conforming, but it it goes to my point where if the surrounding things were this size, that lawn was either standalone or they were able to divide it at that maybe subdivide it way back when they did a little different. The residential
village district allows for that size. So, exactly. So, that wasn't non-conforming. That wasn't grand. >> So, everything outside of the residential district, which is yellow, is required to be 60,000 square feet. Correct. >> I mean, you can zone more of the town like the yellow is is zoned and you can
get smaller lots that way. >> I >> that might even allow you to take your depending where the house is, I guess, take your 60,000 square foot lot and divide it up. But you've just got to create the zoning. >> Well, you'd need to have frontage. You'd
still I mean I mean >> it's a tough It's a tough one. I don't I don't have a I don't have an answer for it either way. >> Doesn't sound like it's a boil, you know, a boil thing. That's what I'm kind of what I'm getting at. It's there. But
I'm with you. I mean, if it's if it believe me, I get especially where is this water? Especially with this sewage. >> Especially with this sewage, it it's almost brain. But we right now we got to and we got 10,000 square feet in the village district, right? basically so. >> Yeah.
>> Make it five if you want. And I mean it it's there's there's ways to >> in certain areas you could go down to that. You can go down to 5,000, but 5,000 is pretty small lot, but you can you can it is >> you you can do it. >> I'm just again I'm just looking at what Victoria has in purple.
>> All of those lots are >> it's different that you go to you can put you can take those lots and go down in up in that area. go down to 30,000 ft like it used to be like it was back before 1996. It was 30,000 ft. >> You could shrink though. You could
shrink those the size of that, >> you know, and go go from 60,000, go down to 45,000, go down to to to 30,000, you know, incrementally at at what point um do you do this, you know, um or do you just come in and go drop it in at 30,000
square feet and say this is this is what you're allowed to do. somebody >> for the whole town or for certain areas? >> I still think it should be for certain areas. Um there's certain areas I think we still want to m try to maintain that you know a rural >> aspect of it but drop it down to 30,000
>> 30,000 ft is good size lot. >> I mean there's a lot of houses around >> and pushing it. >> Oh yeah. >> Before 1996 >> they're 30,000 foot lots. Um, when you get down on off of Persian
Avenue down at all that all that opened up in the back, those are all those are all smaller lots. I think those are all 30,000 ft. That's been those have been in for a long time. >> So, in the board's opinion, is this something we should uh pursue? Is this
something that you think there is a uh need for uh for us to look at rezoning certain areas of this town uh down to what is existing or down to
30,000 square ft and elim not elim excuse me not not eliminate the 60,000 ft cuz you're right there's a lot of farmland up parts of town that I don't want to just all of a sudden turn into 30,00 000 foot lot, >> right? >> Um, but the zones that Victoria has
highlighted here, which let's just say they're all 30,000 do >> 10,00 We got a lot of 10,000 foot lots in town, right? You go down, you go down warm avenue, those are all small lots. that it's my guess would those are 10,000 square foot lots when you go down
warm avenue Frank uh you know Park Drive all that uh uh >> Park Street all that area right through there going down by Pope Park >> those are all those are all small that I I believe those are probably 10,000 foot lots >> split those back in the day
>> so they're all 10,000 foot lots and there's an existing unbuilt 10,000 foot lot right now that person can come into the ZBA and get uh a permit to build on that 10,000 foot lot. >> Well, it's a special permit, so they have the right to deny. It's not guaranteed.
>> That's >> however, but I think if you if you if it if it's >> So, how do we make that by right? >> I guess my question do you do you have to make it by right? If it's if it's already owned, the difference would be okay. Now, there's a difference between
is it is it an existing lot or somebody going to be cutting off a check chunk chunk of their property to to create a lot. But if it's in there, >> there's two those are two different that's >> absolutely that's two different things. >> That's but so what I'm getting at if you already if you have an existing lot, okay, and you got it's 10,000 square
feet. These guys I don't care what they're 30,000 ft on each side of them. But if this was already a buildable lot at 10,000 square ft is it and it shows as a buildable lot far as I know it's grandfathered in, especially if it's not owned by this guy and this guy or the guy behind him. >> But there are lots that are not
grandfathered in. I think is is the point here that there are residents going to ZBA to try and build on their lots and it's you know financially it's a burden on them and it's also not guaranteed. So not every right it's a special permit they have the right to be
denied. So >> but those are the ones that people cutting their lots up trying to cut their lots up. That's that's a different scenario. So let's let's say we're looking at that scenario and this is a lot >> because if you if you own 20,000 square feet and one of those lots was already
10,000 you by right you've got the right to do that the way the new mass law is written >> you can unmmerge those laws >> correct if they were merged for common ownership but the lot was already 20,000 and that's the way it's been you cannot do that by right >> right
>> so the law doesn't apply but if the my exa exactly so If there's a 10,000, let's say 10,000 foot lot in a neighborhood of 5,000 square foot lots, in theory, you know, that person should
be able to divide their lot and and make it two 5,000. That's within the character of the neighborhood. I think that's the point here. >> That's the point. She might have articulated that better than I did, but that's the point is if whether it's 5,000 square feet, whether it's 10,000
square feet, whether it's whatever the square footage is of all the houses in that purple area. If that person if if somebody if again go to 10 if they're 10,000 foot lots and this person owns 20,000 ft, they should
be able to cut that in half and have two lots that this lot's 10, this lot's 10, this lot's 10, and he's got 20. He should be able to cut that in half and have two tens. >> Yeah. >> By right, not having to come in and have the whole neighborhood come in and and
and influence the decision. >> But you're still going to turn it's it becomes an ANR. No matter how you look at it, it's still coming in front of us. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. But that's just we're just in good >> looking we're just looking at making sure that that 10,000 is surrounded by
10,000 and he's got the frontage that this that these people have then we say yeah go for it go to town. >> It's when they don't and then they have to go to ZBA and then again everybody in town comes every neighbor surrounding them comes in oh my kid plays baseball on that field and this guy does this and
before you know it everybody's saying no and now that person who owns the property >> can't do anything with it. >> Mhm. Uh, it should be by right. If this 10,000 foot head right, this 10,000 square, then this 20 should cut it and have two tens. If everybody in the town is 10,
>> okay, if you got the if you've got the road forage to do so, yes, >> right, it should be about right. But right now, it's not. That's where I'm kind of getting at. And again, we're just using 10,000 as a kind of a general discussion whether it's 20,000 or it's 30,000.
In my opinion, that's what it should be. And if we do, you know, again, we don't spot zone, but if you did developments at that size, it would benefit a lot of people. I
think I don't know if I'm just climbing up the wrong tree here or or or I'm getting my point across or if it's even worth uh uh running down this road. some it's something it's I'm with you. It's just something that's just got to be
thought about just to be calculated a little bit to see what you know where where it ends up. But I I know what you're saying. It's there. I mean >> we 60,000 square foot lots which is a nice size lot. Don't get me wrong and I like keeping the town nice and rural and especially out in the outskirt but >> I think that's what we should be working
on for >> is there. But if you want growth in the town, >> you're going to have to do something with housing. I mean, >> small small houses are I mean, >> good for me, but houses. >> Yeah. And they cost it's costing a
fortune now. >> And if you're going to if you want growth, you're going to have to attract somebody some none of them cheap. I mean, we had the master plan. >> Mr. Gasper said he looked over at Mr.
Sullivan and said, "Then what's the house sold up the street?" Was like $500,000. They're all little ranch houses,000 9,000 10,000 foot lots. >> So what is affordable? >> You know what I mean? So affordable, but it's I'm with you. >> Because they're selling for that doesn't
mean it would cost you to build that. So uh I if you're putting, you know, a,000 foot home on on a on a 5,000t lot, a lot of beginner people can afford to put in a smaller ranch nowadays. Yes, you're
absolutely right. I'm I'm I'm with you because I'm I'm all about that. You know, somebody wants to put that ranch on. I've been saying that for a while is, you know, if somebody puts in and it goes back to the conversation we had the last time last last meeting about allowing >> conservation
development, >> conservation subdivision, >> subdivision, right? where you get you cluster the houses and you save and you save and you still and you end up with open space. >> You know, that's that's one of the ways to to accomplish it. >> I'm all for that as well.
>> But I think the bigger I think the bigger picture on some of the other things is to to work on do we drop down some of these other areas go from 60,000 >> that's part down 30,000. >> That's part of this conversation. Yes. I think we should look at that in certain
areas. And I also think we should look at some of the clusters that we have now. And again, I I don't know if I can where I can get that information. I even know if there's any available lots in those clusters. There might not even be any available lots in those clusters. I don't even know. >> But but I think so we need to we need
still need to try to maintain so some sort of minimum lot size. So I still think >> again if you have a cluster of everybody being 10 and somebody owns a piece that's 20. >> Yep. >> Just for argument sake. What if you had
a development here and everything here was this development was 30,000 foot lots but the development that's next to it is 60,000 square foot lots. >> Yeah. Do you think that that's going to
become an issue? Because now you're going to what if there's an open lot in here? I mean, I know this whole thing is 60,000 square ft, but are you going to be are we just going to be giving people a reason to come in >> and ask for waivers
>> and ask for waivers or >> I think that goes into the beginning of our discussion tonight about having that fine line, you know, cuz you don't want a spot zone. You don't want to have have things like that. So when we think about um how we're going to reszone, right,
you're going to need to have those fine lines. So if somebody's not in that, then they either have to go to ZVA, but they have to be careful because that's can be considered spot zoning. So that's why when we take a look at this, we need to, you know, you know, carefully consider these these areas and what the
existing lots are now to make sure we're being fair and kind, >> right? cuz that would be I mean >> if you were able even if that lot was right here you know on this even though this was 60,000 square ft and for whatever reason there was one piece of
property that was carved out touching this development can is it is that going to be with this development is that going to be in this zone or this >> it's when when you do it it's again it's I guess it's how it's how you draw it's how you draw the line >> how you draw the line it's how you draw
a line, but I don't think I I I still don't think 30,000 square ft is unreasonable. >> Um, you know, in in a lot of areas cuz the other thing is everything's going to it's that if we start shredding them too small, you got school, fire, police.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, you're right. >> Those the other things we got to watch watch for the quick potentially quick expansion. >> Okay. I think we beat this horse up pretty bad. >> Can't even walk. I make a motion.
>> Our next meeting is Thursday, October 16th. Um, I think I'll entertain a motion. Does anybody have anything they want to throw into the pile? >> Nope. Make a motion that we adjourn. >> I second it. All
>> in favor? I. [Music] [Music] Hey,
hey, hey. [Music]