Okay, let's get started. Uh, it being 7 o'clock on Wednesday, February 25th, I am calling the meeting of the Chsford Planning Board to order. My name is Chris Lavali and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight, we will be following the posted agenda. This meeting tonight is
both in person and via Zoom. If Zoom fails at any point during the meeting, we will continue in person. This meeting is being televised live and recorded uh by Chumps Teledia and will be available on their website and on YouTube for future viewing.
Um tonight we do have Mike Raybeck on Zoom. Um we do expect Deerra to join on Zoom uh and then in person uh but she is not on yet, right? >> No. >> Okay. Um so first item on the agenda is
public input. Public input is limited to statements from the public relating to any issues within our jurisdiction uh that are not currently the subject of a pending hearing uh before us. Um public comments during uh for public hearings will only be heard during those public
hearings. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak during public input? No one on Zoom. All right, next item on the agenda. We have no administrative reviews, no public hearings, uh, new
public hearings. We do have a continued public hearing for the citizens petition, uh, the article 29, um, for the town meeting. I have not heard from Brian. Um, I'm assuming he's not on
Zoom. So, at this point, I will take a motion to continue that until our next meeting, March 11th. >> Motion to continue until March sec um what? March 2nd. No, seventh. >> 11th 11th date. >> Motion by Marcy. Uh
>> seven days off. Okay. >> Hi, Anita. And we will have to do roll call tonight uh given people on Zoom. Um so, I'll start with Joel. >> I >> John. >> Hi. Anita >> I >> Marcy >> I >> uh SHA >> I
>> uh Mike >> I >> and I am an I. So we'll continue that to next meeting. Next item on the agenda is continued um definitive subdivision approval
uh hearing for 191 195 Riverneck Road. Uh yeah, we actually we will need to because Anita can't vote. She's not >> Do you need I mean do you like you don't need a full >> We can start um with just the review.
>> All right. Good evening members of the board. My name is Casey Ferrer with Howard Hudson here representing the applicant AJ from uh Commonwealth Construction Utilities and also Katie Enright also from Howard Hudson. Um we here before you on February 11th to
present to definitive subdivision at the properties of 191 and 195 Riverneck Road. Um and upon that presentation we were sent back uh with just a couple loose ends to tie up. One of them was on your end which was to coordinate with your town council and then one was on
our end to uh achieve the items uh requested on the DPW letter. Um so I will say we have submitted the plans to DPW and received a clean letter back that we addressed all of their comments that was received this afternoon. Um and
just briefly those those changes were uh we added a generator to the pump station for the sewer and then we reviewed um the area of construction within the Riverneck Road rightway to confirm that there were no trees existing in that
area to be removed. Uh we were able to confirm that and put a a note on the demolition plan. And then we added some notes to our operations and maintenance um and a couple snow storage signs at the pond to make sure nobody's trekking snow all the way back to the pond and
dumping it in there. Um so that really covers the changes that we made uh since the last time we were before you. >> Okay. Um, we did also attach the um citizen letters that we received uh from the
last meeting to the agenda. Um, and Joel, can you read the DPW clean letter? >> Uh, I mean, basically they're saying there are no concerns remaining, so >> that's fine. Thank you.
Um, did we need Evan? Do we need a clean letter from the fire department? They were pretty >> I don't believe so. >> Good, right? >> We got one from them originally. >> Their access was adequate. >> Yeah, let's try to talk. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
>> Um, and you'll be going before the board of health, >> correct? We'll be going for the groundwater protection zone through them. >> Okay. All right. Um I did reach out to town council um to get some clarification on
that. There is no connection or impact between this and their other projects. So no issues there. >> All right. Um is Deuteron yet? >> No. >> All right. Uh any questions
from board members? I have a couple of questions um regarding the ownership uh as far as the on andm uh given that the well both of these
questions are related to the timing of the construction of the subdivision road and the storm water and then the subsequent introduction of the tenants one or more tenants onto the other lots.
So, is that intended to occur at the same time or is the road and the storm water going to be constructed first and then potentially some time lag before the plans for the other things come before us? And the reason I'm asking is
because um one I'm concerned about that the storm water will be maintained during that time and also I'm concerned about the fact of constructing a road that hasn't a serious uh drop off down to the storm water area but not having
other things there yet so that it becomes an excellent place for somebody if they want to go dump something. And so if that's the case, then I would be interested in like a fence uh preventing potential dumping uh at least until such time as there are tenants there that can
more directly observe that. So >> So I guess the answer to that question is it's it's undetermined, right? We we have the ability to construct the road as soon as the mylars would be approved and and recorded. um but is unlikely to actually construct the road until there
is plans for development for the rear because spending the money on the road without actual reasons to build it uh wouldn't really be fiscally responsible, but they do have the ability to build it uh if they so chose to. >> Okay. Um then I'm wondering would you be
able to put a fence on the plans on these plans? uh basically a fencing around the culde-sac just to prevent anybody from having easy access to going and dumping into that area. >> So there's a guard rail there now. Um
>> we we could definitely if you want to make it a condition to add a fence around it. I don't really see an issue with that. Um the only issue might come when we do build out driveways to each of the lots. We'd have to tear back the fence obviously to open it, but then also to make sure there's sight distance on either end,
>> right? Um, but is with adding a fence now? >> Okay. Yeah, I think I'd like to. >> Are you referring to a a temporary construction fence or a permanent fence? >> I think you want something that's not >> just something that's going to prevent access. So, temporary >> during during construction? >> No. >> Between construction?
>> Between the construction of the road and storm water and the buildout of the lots because >> otherwise it's going to create this nice little avenue to go >> actually. Yeah, that's a good point. Joel, are you concerned with stuff getting in the basin or stuff just being
hidden back beyond the drop off? Because we could put a fence around the stormwater basin that, you know, may serve a dual purpose anyway and just preventing people from getting the storm water basin or we could put it up at the >> It is the basin, but it's also something that then is deposited there that if it
has any sort of a leaking whatever, then it would be going into >> it's not just isolated to the basin concern. It's just off that drop off for someone to hide something. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, it's it's primarily the basin, but it's also the other permeable area. >> So, the best I think the best course would be then just a fence around the
back side of the sidewalk potentially just to prevent access from getting back there. >> Yeah. >> Prevent dumping. >> Yeah, that's that's really the idea is just to prevent any dumping until such time as you actually have tenants there, cameras and whatnot, and people are not going to be as inclined to go on to
something like that. But if it's just like there's a road and you know potentially I'm assuming you're not clearing the other lots until you actually have plans for that. So you're going to create a little road down in some woods and then you're going to have a nice drop off. Anybody could just swing around, dump, leave. >> And the site plans for those future lots
would also have the ability to remove the fence as part of their project anyway. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. That's it. >> All right. Any other questions? Mike, any questions from you? >> Nothing from me. It all seems uh seems
pretty reasonable. >> All right. So, at this point, I think we'll not wait for Deerra and uh there'll be five, six of us voting. Um, so I think at this point
what I heard is a special condition around the culdeac until between construction of the culdeac and tenants um to prevent dumping and then um
any other special conditions that people could see on this one? >> Just to clarify language on that one. Should we say more until permitting for the other lots rather than tenants? Because I guess tenants is kind of vague and variable on when that might happen.
>> I guess we could we could have the condition say until permitting is completed for the additional lots. >> I think it'll be all right. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, fence around the culde-sac until permitting is completed for the other lots to prevent dumping.
All right. Um, so I will take a motion at this point. >> Do we want public? >> Oh, yeah. Thank you. Um, any members of the public wishing to speak? Guess not. All right. At this point, I will take a
motion. And >> I'll move to close the public hearing. Thank you. Move uh motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second by John. >> Mike snow days.
>> Wait. I There we go. >> Yeah. Sertha >> I. >> Marcy >> I. >> Uh John >> I. >> Joel. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I. All right. Public hearing is closed. We will first uh so this has two votes. The first is going to be the
special permit um for the um >> protection >> aquifer protection uh under 1957. I'll take a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the special permit under section 19575 for
aquifer protection for the project proposed the subdivision proposed at 191 to 195 riverneck road. Motion by John. >> I'll second. >> Second by Mike. Mike >> I. >> Sertha
>> I. >> Marcy >> I. >> John >> I. >> Joel >> I. >> And I'm an I. >> All right. That is six unanimous. Um I will now take a motion.
Actually, we do need that special permit. Um special condition on that one, too. Um so I'll take a motion to approve the definitive subdivision. >> I will move to approve the definitive subdivision.
>> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Marcy. Mike. I >> Serita. >> Hi, >> Marcy. >> Hi, >> John. >> Hi, >> Joel. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I. >> Unanimous. >> Thank you very much. Have a great night. >> You too.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Next item on the agenda is the community development director's report. >> Good evening. Just uh two quick items. Um on March 4th at 6 PM, the second
meeting of the manage growth strategy task force will take place. And then on um Tuesday, March 10th, uh is the citizens academy. The reason I'm mentioning this is that uh Chris is
presenting on behalf of the planning board. I'm presenting on behalf of community development. That same evening, conservation is presenting, zoning board, and the building department is presenting. That's all I have.
>> All right. Um Evan, I did want to follow up on the um liquor store. I noticed that their grand opening is coming up. on March 5th, I think. Um, will they have the the occupancy permit?
>> So, they're they're operating and will be operating under a uh temp certificate of occupancy. Um, they've um they've provided a um a cash bond to cover um incomplete
landscaping per the planning board approval. Um, and there's a a variety of other punch list items. Um, some of those will likely be done uh sooner than springtime. Um, they've also submitted
um interim um asbuilt to DPW. So, they've received um signoffs from from all the um relevant departments. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right. Leaison updates.
Anyone have leazison updates? Mercy. >> Uh, so, uh, tomorrow at the library at 6:30, Kelly from Nangkog is coming to do a community meeting on the proposed plans for, um, Chumps Street. Uh, so I went around last week, made sure all the
businesses in the neighborhood had the flyers so that they knew about it because that was the one group of people who were missing back in October for that meeting. So, if anybody wants to come in and listen and see what Nimco's couple uh two proposals are, um we'll be at the library at 6:30 and that's about it.
>> Okay. Anyone else? >> I'll just mention that um there's a NIM card council meeting actually going on this evening and because it coincided with the planning board. They had to adjust their schedule, they usually meet on opposite weeks from the planning board, but um but we're represented by
um Pat Wess and then Doug Bruce is the alter member. So, they're covering this evening's meeting. >> Okay. Anyone else? Concom met yesterday. Uh, it was a pretty light agenda. Um,
nothing really, um, significant to mention. Um, all right. Next item, uh, new business. Uh, so zoning article updates. Um,
we had some updates um after the uh legal review. Uh, minor updates that we had to uh most of the articles. Um, let me pull up my list of things.
Most of the changes were basic wording and formatting. Um for the SEAD overlay, uh we had a provision in there for a special permit of combination of uses.
Um based on the wording, it wasn't clear if that was going to be just in the overlay or overlay and underlying zoning. So we clarified the wording a little bit and removed in the SEAD and in underlying. So any combination of
uses related to those projects. We also um updated the performance standard wording. Um we removed in a part a general remove the references to the special permits since those were
more general guidelines that apply to any project. And then we updated the uh special permit wording in B based on town council suggestion
for boarding house. Town council noted that we referenced the state definition and mentioned something additional uh details about boarding houses locally um that didn't match the state definition.
So he suggested making it an and statement. So boarding house is how the state defines it and how in addition we define it. So it it includes both. Um for the lighting zoning um we made a few
minor changes. Uh we re added the enforcement details that were in there for violations and penalties uh that are in the current version. Um, we removed ownership change as a trigger um because town council felt that that was overly
broad. So if people move the property from um an elderly resident to a trust, that's technically a change in ownership. Um nothing really has changed with the property. Um the people haven't
changed, so it's it's a little bit uh too broad. So we did remove that. We kept in town preference. Um there was a comment from town council that uh it's uninforcable and um they suggested we
put in where feasible. Uh after some discussion with Kelly, we felt that town preference is preferred because we didn't really want it enforcable uh for the residential. We wanted it to be clear that it's a preference and we didn't want any um misunderstanding that
it is enforceable. We also felt that putting it too close to enforceable would not pass town meeting. So um and then we added an exception for public safety in the lighting um in
public way uh section um just to be clear that if there is a case where it needs to be brighter than recommended uh for public safety that that is an exception. So those are the changes we made um
based on town council review. Uh and then I'll be presenting that version to the select board and to um FinCom in the next few weeks. Any questions?
Okay. Um All right. Next item is prioritizing upcoming work. So, I've been compiling a list of things
that we have um wanted to take care of uh as noted in some of our meetings. So, I've got a list of eight things. I did remove the three that we decided not to move forward with. Um those are the ones down below on hold.
Um, so I guess the question is now that we are done with the zoning, um, what are the things we want to tackle next? Uh, I'm assuming we want to continue looking at the zoning conflicts in town. Um,
and keep that moving along. Uh we've got Riverneck Road as an area that we have said we've wanted to look at plus other locations on the map. We have uh number three is I would highly recommend we
tackle uh before the next town meeting. Those are the AG recommendations from the um AD uh from the last round of zoning review that they did. Uh number four is clarifications to our procedures and for special permits and
site plans. Uh this came from the last riverneck road contractors uh meetings where town council um suggested we clarify uh the process for uh special permits and site plans when they're voting on
together. Are these though is this clarification is this a process we is it a zoning pro process or is this an internal process guidelines right now it is in our bylaws and part of my question is does it need to be in the bylaws can we remove it from the bylaws and make it
more >> of our procedures or regulations I wasn't >> sure what are we referring to >> this is 10 195 104 where it talks about the
voting of special permits and site plans. Um, and it essentially deals with them separately. It doesn't talk about how they are handled in conjunction with each other. And town council's recommendation is that we try to address
that. >> Okay. >> But my question is I wasn't sure if it really belongs in um >> zoning bylaw. >> It's a Well, it's a good question for the council. >> Yeah. So regardless, we have to clarify it and
then either in the zoning or take it out and do it in the regulations and procedures. Uh then contractor yard definitions. Um we've had a lot of discussion about indoor and outdoor contractor yards.
So, I'm willing to do some homework and research and figure out if there are other ways to define them. >> Um, either by use or by uh >> size,
>> size or types of machinery, things like that, as opposed to indoor versus outdoor. >> Because it seems weird that you can take an heavy machinery and put it indoor and it's the same. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, it feels like it needs to be more
impact and use related as opposed to >> whether it's inside. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, we can look at that. Um I don't know if people want to do that sooner rather than later since we keep running into
that. >> Um we've talked about updating our pilot formula. >> What's that? >> We've we I mean we've tackled two big zoning districts. I think Riverneck certainly should be close to the top of the list, but I think this also should be close to the top of the list,
>> but I think like we can group these like you have two different like you have like zoning areas >> as one group, right? >> Like what do we want to change? What groups? Right. Yeah. Like that's I think one group and then what are we changing in the zoning? >> Right. Right. Right.
>> You're saying those are two definitely. But I think those >> but I think you can present both of them. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. But I I I think those two should be two high priority >> things on our list. >> And I think continuing that zoning
forward is very important because people are getting used to it, >> right? So if you stop, they'll forget. You just keep on driving at every meeting, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, ideally, I would like to see us bring one new area every town meeting. >> Town meeting. Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's a lot of work, but I think that it is needed in those areas. >> You have a good template now, though. >> I We do. Yes. >> I think once we get the first one done, the rest of them are just pretty easy. >> I don't know about that. I mean, different issues for say the village
districts as opposed to IA a budding residential, it presents very different conflicts. But I think if we continue in this to tackle similar conflict areas >> and then look at conflict areas that
might require a different solution. >> Yeah, I agree. Like I think like the CB light. >> Yeah. continue looking at areas where we can keep applying that and as part of the solution >> because I think the center village district
um also the north uh area north village district area I think those are two different types of areas that we might need to handle differently. >> Yeah. No, absolutely. >> Yeah. So, I'm not sure I'd want to tackle those yet with this. We would
continue moving the CV light. concept. >> Yep. >> Yeah. I think it's CB light then. >> Does anyone have a tissue? >> I do. >> I stabbed myself walking into the meeting. >> I don't know >> with this thing. >> This is Colleen.
>> Um, you stabbed yourself after the meeting. >> I was gathering my stuff in the car and the sharp edge of my zoning book does zoning my finger. >> Yeah, it's nasty. >> Yeah, that might be good because you've named three thing. I mean that may be
enough to depending on what other projects come before us. That might be it. >> Yeah. >> Not just with my bare skin. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> So do people want to propose their top three?
>> I have a question about the pilot. I thought we had updated the pilot formula. We did, but we did it first of all, we did it maintaining in theory our ability to continue using the pyo, but with an idea to
discourage it. Maybe except for in partial um unit increments, we could use it. Um, and we also did it quite conservatively in terms of the dollar amount that the pyo that if we did use it for the
partial units, we used it based on the old formula from I don't know over a decade ago. And so we did it saying we're going to put this as a placeholder that we're not going to we're going to try not to use the pilo, but we're also going to come back and look at these numbers again at sometime
in the notistant future. And that was probably at least two maybe three years ago. We haven't done that. >> Yeah, I think that one would be I mean I think continuing the CP light march or related stuff like that. Uh and the um
and I agree with the contractor yard, but I think the pilot too would be something I'd want to because I don't think that would be a heavy too heavy of a lift. No, I think that we could probably do a little research and come up with some more current and
appropriate numbers. And >> the question is how much time do we want to take at town meeting? >> I don't think it would take that much time. >> Some of these wouldn't require >> say does the pilot. >> Yeah, that's our guidelines. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. >> Oh, then yeah,
>> the formula is currently in the zoning bylaw. >> Oh, is it? >> Oh, it is. >> Oh, god. Is that why we didn't change it much? We didn't change it at all. >> We've never really had a conversation about the formula. We've talked about >> keeping it on the list to eventually get
to, >> um, but we've never had a a detailed conversation about updating the formula. >> Do we want to have it in the bylaw? >> It's a question for council. I think it may need to be in the bylaw, but I'm not positive on that.
>> Okay. Yeah, that would be good to know because it would be nice to not have it in the bylaw. >> If we don't have it in the bylaw, we still have to bring it to town meeting to remove it from the bylaw. >> No, I know that. So, >> but yeah. >> Yeah,
because that doesn't seem to me like one that's I guess you could get some some some uh it's just hard to see that one ending up in court, I guess. All right. So, >> I think we I my my preference for town
meeting would be to that obviously to add another zone to the CB light. Um, and then I'm wondering if we can group the child care facility and the contractor yard together like not on the same war article, separate articles, but talk
about definitions. Yeah, we >> do two like do two definitions, right? I think I think that would be reasonable. >> Wait, I'm sorry. I was chardy. Do do we get to define childcare facilities? Doesn't the state do that? >> So So the
So the AG recommendations is that we should not define it >> um because we actually have those in the use table. >> I see. Um it's the child care home and child daycare facility
in a residential area or the the home care is what we have in the the zoning table >> and those are state do uses. >> So the AG noticed that when we did the CB light zoning um and said you need to
take those out. >> Okay. So this is not a definition. This is pulling them out. >> Yeah, it's pulling them out. It's an easy. >> Yeah, >> that's an easy then I think we can do that one and then the contractor there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And then >> I don't know how much the pilot would
involve. >> It was a matter of pulling it out. That'd be easy to add. But then otherwise I think I think we we want to talk about it but I don't know if we would necessarily want to have it ready for >> town. Although if we're pulling it out of the
bylaw, we should have something >> Yeah. that's in place. >> In place. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's true. >> Because otherwise we won't have anything. >> Yeah. >> Um and the same thing with 195104. If we do pull it out of the zoning, then we
need to have it in the the um regulations and rules. All right. So, I'm hearing that we continue the CB light. We tackle the uh child care and contract yard. We tackle
the pilo. >> Um for the CB light, do we want to tackle Riverneck Road? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Do we add um >> Turnpike? That'd be two different areas.
>> I think they have two different areas. Okay. >> Yeah, I think I think NEMCOG had it as two different areas. >> Okay. I mean, another one that we I don't even remember going back to our original seven >> areas of conflict, but I've always
thought that strip of um uh 110 across the street from Kohl's and across the street from, you know, that's it's the Wlands >> on the one side of the street. It's all residential >> and then across the street it's all
commercial. And I think that residential strip is actually zoned commercial, >> but it's residential. Am I not correct, Evan? >> Um,
the the site opposite the Westlands is zoned commercial. Most of the properties are used commercially. Behind >> the opposite side is what I'm talking about. The opposite side is single family residential and it's zoned single family residential. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. I didn't think they identified that as a zoning conflict area. >> Okay. >> You know, um if we're doing riverneck, look at like I would add changing river to the CB light and then also looking at Mammoth and because that's zoned IIA.
>> Oh yeah. That >> and then changing. >> Yeah. Be part of that entire area. So, it's the entire stretch of Riverneck plus those side streets. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Riverneck. And I would also look at uh Apollo. >> Yeah. It's
>> like because the but behind like because they're also you've got the Apollo >> facility behind them. >> Yep. It's that whole area. >> Okay. >> All right. Um and then
go back to the agenda. Are you guys going to go after four or no? >> That number four, the 195 one. >> That was my question. Do we want to also tackle that one? Um >> because that seems like it will keep on
coming up as a future problem if you don't >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> I think that one's a fairly easy one to discuss and draft and then I can talk to um >> legal >> legal about whether or not it needs to
be in the bylaw. >> So in other words, how would we pri how would we prioritize the votes of those Like so so for instance if the if the special permit weren't granted then does it even
make sense to continue on to the site plan or other aspects of it. Okay. >> Yep. >> I think that's a good question. >> It's the exact issue we faced with the >> right right >> the contractor yard >> and looking at our looking at that bylaw
town council realized that it's not at all clear. Yep. >> Because they talk about the special permit votes and then they talk about the site plan votes, but they don't talk about what happens with their project >> each other >> with both of them. >> Right. >> So, it's almost like it was two
different processes. >> All right. Any other There are a couple of them in there in number eight that are easy changes. Uh 8A
is essentially um section 3.4 in our rules and regulations has um a mention of department reviews in letters. We had talked at one point about adding the commission on disabilities for some
projects. Um and then based on the riverneck, we also talked about adding DPW and traffic advisory committee um to review traffic mitigation recommendations and special conditions. Um so I'd like to formalize
those in that section 3.4. I mean, and so we would still have the traffic peer review and also have a committee on traffic. >> So, the way it ended up with the
Riverneck project was that the peer reviewer recommended um some traffic mitigation measures >> um and we ended up putting those as potential special conditions, >> right? Well, what I re what we realized
after is that DPW had no input into that and then the traffic committee had no input into that to see if those were realistic special conditions. >> So maybe have a ad hoc um committee comprised of those
stakeholders in >> it's not really a committee. It's just that when we get recommendations from the peer reviewer for mitigation measures send it on to them to see if those are reasonable for this area
>> based on their experience and then if we want to add them as special conditions make sure to get their input and feedback as to >> if it's a reasonable special condition what the timing might be. Um that also
is a potential um thing that could have happened with the um pedestrian bridge in the center >> um to get DPW input and timelines and stuff like that. >> Yeah. Just connect the dots better. >> Yeah. So it's more formalizing the
connection of the dots. >> This is just in our in our own >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So it would be drafting quick changes and then reviewing and voting on it. >> So there are a couple of them in there
for the rules and regulations. Um also J combining rules and regulations docs into one. We have as I was looking over the website we have a couple separate documents with rules and regulations. Um and so continuing the work that we
started um with the policies and procedures bringing everything together um making it more usable and >> we would still need to have a separate set for subdivision right >> because it's a >> have chapter one chapter two.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> But they they are separate. Yes. >> Yeah. Because it's a different >> different section. >> Yeah. So, but we could still bring them together, >> right, into one color >> document.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. >> So, where are these on the site? >> Good luck. >> It took me a while to dig around and find them. Um, I did also send while I was doing that,
I made some notes and sent Evan and Becky some recommendations for updates on the website to help clean it up >> because we do have a policies link. >> Yeah, except it's not all of them. >> There's only two. >> Yeah. And they're outdated
>> from 2014. >> Yeah, >> but that would be ideal. Like if you just >> Yeah, I know. That's one of the suggestions I made. >> Okay, >> great. Thank you. So all right. So I will start um working on bringing
those into the agenda um and uh drafting some things for us to review in those agenda items. >> I don't know if there's anything you want me to >> Oh, I will. All right. Once I look at what we need, I can ask
volunteers to pull some stuff together if needed >> or volunt. >> All right. Anything else on that? All right. Old business uh manage growth strategy. I think we covered that already.
>> Yeah. Evan gave a report on that. >> All right. Next item is meeting minutes um from January 28th. I saw an error on the meeting minutes. >> I did see an error on the meeting minutes. >> I did too. >> Okay. What What did you see?
>> Probably the same one you did. >> Okay. >> The um vote for Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> I figured you'd bring that one up. The lighting >> What? You guys know me so well. >> Yeah. What What was the edit?
>> The lighting bylaw. It was listed in here as unanimous 70 and Anita abstained. >> Here you obtained. Okay. >> She was here. She just abstained. >> First I wasn't sure if I was here that day.
>> Like was I hearing that day? I saw my name on it and I started reading and I'm like, "Yeah, I was." >> All right. So, I will entertain a motion for accepting those uh agenda or those minutes with that one edit.
>> I'll make a motion to accept the approve the meeting minutes from the January 28th, 2026 planning board meeting with those edits that have been previously discussed. >> Second. >> Motion by John. Second by Marcy. Uh Mike, >> it's Deedra. >> Dearra. >> Oh, sorry.
>> Go I >> Sorry. Second by Deerra. I by Mike. Uh Serita. >> I don't think I do. Do I? >> Yeah, you can. >> Meeting minutes. Yeah. >> Marcy. >> Hi. >> Deerra. >> Hi. >> Anita. >> Hi. >> John. >> I.
>> Joel. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I. >> Unanimous for approving the minutes. And next meeting is March 11th and then the 25th. um start thinking about April because I
think we will end up cancing the second meeting in April because of >> town meeting >> the town meeting prep night. Um >> I think we talked about that one last time. >> Uh so once we get into March, we'll see how much we have for the agenda and if
we need a second meeting, we may need one of the week before or after town meeting. >> Do we have a lot coming up? >> No. Oh, good. >> Yeah. And I think we only we talked about that. Dedra, you couldn't do the week after, I think. Right. There was one you couldn't do and there's one I couldn't do.
>> I can't remember because I couldn't do the 15th is the second one, right? Or the week after. >> Yeah, I think so. So, we'll probably talk about it at the March 25th meeting. >> So, maybe we can do some either work sessions or >> also try for the record of the shortest meeting ever.
>> Um, I think we're going now. No, no. I think there was one Mike said there was one that was 18 minutes or something. Anne Mcwigan. >> Yeah, that was uh it was uh Ann Mcwigan uh pulled one off. I think it was 17. >> But you did pretty good. Hey, by the
way, uh just a note, I mentioned it last time. I will almost certainly not be here uh for the March 11th meeting. >> That's right. >> Be here either. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So, I'll entertain a motion.
>> You've got it. >> Motion by Mike. All in favor? >> I thank you everyone.