e e e we're missing a couple people anyone have any information about um John or Anita John's coming I just saw him downstairs oh you did yeah he said he on his
um so it's the March 26th meeting of the chumford planning board I'm deor Conley the chair and we are going to um start with General public input this meeting will be televised and recorded and later
available on Chum or tele media it's also available by Zoom but if the zoom should malfunction in any way and we're unable to continue on Zoom we will nevertheless continue the meeting the live component so starting first with public
input um which shall be limited to statements from the public um relating to issues within the jurisdiction of the planning board but that are not currently the subject of any pen public hear hearing um before the planning board and uh so is there anyone who'd
like to speak in public input seeing no one we're going to move we're going to go out of order slightly we're going to just take the an anr on Old Westford Road um which we think will be more on the
brief side of things before we take the Kate's Corner discussion which may not be quite so brief thank you thank you madam chair um and and good evening everybody attorney Jim dangor I'm from Shay dangor and Nelson in bill rer before you is what I hope to be a fairly
straightforward an anr the property itself is just about 4 Acres we're creating two two lots as uh as shown on the plan plenty of Frontage it fits your definition of uh uh not a subdivision I guess if you will under under
subdivision control and your rules and regulations it has Frontage um on a public way so we respectfully request that you uh agree and otherwise endorse the anr uh plan that's before you pretty straightforward
I hope and so each will be in acreage oh more about one well the one will be uh 2.45 the other will be uh a little more than one and a half I I believe so my apologies well that's fine plenty of
Frontage what's it zon I'm just curious what's it zoned as over there not that it matters RB RB it's RB okay yeah um okay does anyone have any questions for the applicant any
discussion um Evan no I would just uh indicate to the board that the applicant is also filed a notice of intent with the Conservation Commission that hearing will be opening uh probably within the next couple of weeks cuz there's Wetlands
yep um okay is there anyone from the public that would like to speak about this um anr oh we don't have to it's that's not a public hearing never mind um so I can make a motion I would move that we endorse the
anr um with the statement attached to the decision that the endorsement under the subdivision control law should not be construed as either an endorsement or an approval of zoning lot area requirements okay was this does this
actually fall under the subdivision control yeah okay I didn't know where where it was written up okay um I'll second motion by Chris second by Mike risbeck uh all in favor I I I'll
abstain are you saying I abstaining you're abstaining okay so we have um six eyes and an exstension very good thank you should I pop back tomorrow the next day grab we'll sign it tonight you'll be ready in the office tomorrow morning
great have a wonderful evening thank you you too okay next up we have Kate's Corner um discussion with the neighborhood regarding the current limited industrial IA Andor commercial CB and or residential RB zoning planning board
seeking to receive informal input regarding the zoning conflicts and discuss the potential for rezoning um we have um in our packet a presentation by Mike and Anita
about some Concepts resoning Concepts um you going to present us this packet one of you two sure it's actually needed it all the hard work all right let me just get my glasses though when apologize for being late that another meeting
um Mike if you want to start okay got the presentation up all right so if you remember last meeting we kind of went through and we looked at the uses um for this new Zone
and we were tasked to go back and now look at the dimensional requirements so we can look at that the next slide then we can also discuss whether we think it's applicable to seid um and then we can look at you know
what partials this includes and next steps all right so the districts RB CA CB and I a and this new what I'm calling CB light
um Mike and I met this past weekend we looked at what the comparables were in that area and we made some recommendations but the ones highlighted in yellow we'd like to discuss with the team not all that hard we did have a
question because we were looking at the death for CB it says zero yeah what does that mean what does that mean um that's in the table right yeah I see that it's also in
CD um my guess is because many of the CB and CD lots that as they exist are not very deep to begin with um the the depth is is defined as you
need that that number of feet from the frontage um back 125 ft or 150 ft the purpose there is to uh create as much of a square or or a rectangle as possible
for lot shape and then once once you're once you're beyond the the the depth of Frontage then the lock can begin to narrow so it's just a way to try to create create um
um traditional sized Lots um but if you look at many of the CB lots and CD Lots as they exist they're they're not very big to begin with so mathematically it must have been determined that the lot depth wasn't
wasn't was a non-starter so to speak all right so we should look at probably add that as a highlight of the death for the CB life mhm considering that we have some Lots in that area we weren't sure if this was just a typo at the time we were discussing like this is this a
typo yeah um which is why we recommended the 150 just because it was consistent with IIA um and the RB was 150 and then CA was 125 so we assumed that probably should be around that area but maybe we might want to
look at that m what would be the Harmon just putting it at zero just like CB I would think you would want something that's not right on the road though right like you would want something set back yeah the building
setbacks be based on Frontage okay the dep the depth is more about the shape of the lot I don't like the [Music] zero change that it's nonsensical right just saying you're not you're not
applying it as a requirement that's all it's saying well then I would put in it's like a notop pical right it's be yeah the na would be okay right it it be it'd be very different if we were creating if the if the if it was envisioned that a lot of New Lots within
the CB Light District were going to be created right most of them exist and they're likely under sized to begin with so then would we just put in Na Na's fine I think that that tells the story
better I don't think it makes it's easier to explain versus like I literally thought that that was a typo in our when we printed it out my God we must have forgotten like a number versus non applicable so I'm fine with changing that
I just need my computer to start up we should change it in the other one too probably should stories we left at three again because we wanted this to be it's a buding the neighborhood we felt that three was appropriate since it matches
the RB Zone um height same thing to match the um RB Zone floor ratio we have kept at 45 coverage 30%
[Music] 30% I would just suggest um I think the the 30% is likely good for existing um CB Lots um but depending upon where you apply
this um let's assume you're applying it on existing IA zoned properties that are but single family MH um those are much larger Lots um so you
I don't want to over complicate this but depend again I think it depends on where you're going to apply it the specific locations and same with same with the um side and rear I think as drafted the 40
and 30 are picking up from IA M right so as an example if you were to look at the the existing CB in Kate's Corner mhm the the IIA just mathematically
doesn't work the CB Works a little bit um so again depending upon where you're applying it many of the CB districts just have smaller Lots so what is the coverage for the
current lot key do we know I don't know I don't know what the existing conditions are but once you once you once we leave Kate's corner and you begin to look at other places in town to apply it you'll I think you'll mathematically
you'll quickly see that um you know there's going to be a difference between CB lot sizes niia lot sizes I think we want that though right like we want that not to be as dense yeah so that's the goal of it so that's
why we went down by 10% because you want it to be a gradual density going into IA so again I mean I understand what your your point and maybe since we have locked here if they can just take a look at our recommendation and see if this
works for you and what you are right now and maybe provide some feedback would be great you can take that action yes right and then final comment on the uh dimensionals most of the lots are going to be currently
developed what CB and KES corner is currently developed so when they when they apply for redevelopment they're likely going to present the existing conditions as a starting point MH so generally speaking for zoning
legalities the whatever dimensional requirements you put in here are likely only going to be applied to a vacant lot that's not that's not um claiming any grandfathered right or tear down in complet even even even a tear
down if they they come in they say this is these are our existing conditions and here's our proposal they'll they they'll take credit for the existing setbacks so again if you look at CB around town and even some of the smaller IAS up in uh North Chums vinyl square
area you know the buildings are essentially on the lot lines it's true yeah but again this is a planning tool for future like this is our vision right it's not um I understand that right so when you look at the planning function of the
planning board this is how we're envisioning it so I think we need to Zone to how we want it to be and then but it is helpful to think about that it won't really it won't apply won't be applicable to Redevelopment projects I hadn't thought about that as a but maybe
not not in you know In Our Lifetime but maybe you know in our kids lifetime like this is the vision that we're having and we want this to be a buffer and eventually through turn and what happens it gets but the math the math may not
work on um CB light side and rear footnote 4 increased to 100 feet when a budding res yeah so an acre is 20 200 by 200 so if you have residents on both sides and you apply 100 foot setback you
have you have zero mathematical opportunity to put a structure on but we have IIA that has that exactly exactly so so we I right there yeah like so again last ly to take we' like to have your feedback for your specific
area but I'm thinking the other areas like on Turnpike which you go from residential to exactly IIA and we're going to put 100 foot would be would be fantastic on River Neck Road right if that were if that were a new construction right Turnpike IIA gets even gets
smaller um again I don't want to over complicated but depending again depending upon where you envision applying this you may want to consider um differentiating between Lots an acre and under and an acre and over something to that effect if you're if you're truly
trying to apply um you know future uh dimensional standards MH if you apply the seid then for all practicality it doesn't matter what the what the traditional dimensional table States
yeah but that that has the convenience that it puts us in a much better position to to work out the details of uh the development which is part of the reason co8 exists from the one place that would
grab you I suppose is if you actually had a vacant lot MH it would be kind of hard to apply seid to it because there wouldn't be any previous development and that's the one case where might get
touchy all right so do we want to discuss COA applicability yeah all right um so COA just for those at home who don't know what that stands for it's a community enhancement investment overlay District um and it's currently
applicable in CA CB CC CD and IIA zoning districts um move to the next slide um and this is I just kind of cut and pasted the purpose and the intent um just because I think it's good for everybody just to kind of understand the
whole reason why we have this I'm not going to read um go through each one but I think you guys can all read it um and assuming that we feel that it's applicable um we went through and made the following recommendations again
the ones highlighted in yellow are the ones we'd like to we flag that we'd like to discuss um but I think it's good to look at all the dimensional
requirements um maybe we can start with whether or not we feel seid is applicable anyone have any thoughts I know Mike yeah you felt strong really I I I felt that it uh it made sense to have it applicable m
and what specifically do you feel like why you wouldn't mind elaborating because uh I think in this this area that we're trying to to come up
with uh we're likely to run into a lot of different situations depending on what we designate as CV light or whatever we're calling uh and I think we're going to want to have the
maximum uh space to adjust what we do and seid lets you do that seid really does give the uh the planning board more uh more
leverage uh if it's applied and I guess if you read the purpose and intent of the seid applicability I mean it seems to me that the things that were're are we're trying to be achieved are still valid for this
Kates Corner area I mean we are trying to encourage high quality development protecting and enhancing the value of real property providing um encouraging aesthetic enhancements encouraging appropriate site
design I mean encouraging entrepreneur entrepreneurship and expansion of small business and the Village character I feel like that's exactly what we're hoping to achieve in Kate's corner I don't as agree with that but my
question still becomes practically speaking what does the overlay give us that the underlying zoning that we're now creating I I get that it makes sense for areas where the underlying
zoning has already been done and it doesn't necessarily reflect the the the flexibility that we want but we're now designing underlying zoning areas that we can we can design that flexibility
into and so I'm trying to figure out what this overlay gives us that the underlying zoning that we could create doesn't well giv a mechanism that we're already familiar with and we imply in a lot of other places but it we can only apply it
if the applicant comes in under the overlay if they come in under the Zone the underlying zoning then then then we have no flexibility well do they really no there there are limits in here in in in your setbacks in your layout that
they're not going to have unless they invoke seid but in order to invoke seid they're going to have to be willing to negotiate perhaps some other things that they might have by right I mean that's the difference right but we've encountered quite a few projects since
I've been on the board where they don't come in in the overlay they come in in the underlying zoning and we lose that flexibility that the over would have given us we don't lose the flexibility we never had it in the first
place uh again the flexibility I'm talking about is not the flexibility to do something that the underlying zoning already lets them do it's the f F ability to do something that they might not have been able to do but in exchange
for some other concession to us and know can you give an example perhaps I mean I think a good way to look at this is um many of the recent projects that have come in they didn't need the dimensional relief that seid provides they could
design their project or willing to design their project to be dimensionally compliant um many of the CB districts and the conflict districts by definition are are non-compliant with zoning Soup To
Nuts so they're not going to be able to comply with your your new dimensional table which means one of two things either your new district has some sort of special provision that allows for flexibility which you'd have to further
Define or they're going to come in under 195a pre-existing non-conforming structure or they're going to be required to go to the zoning board for variances so the seid keeps it all with the planning board and it's designed to provide
dimensional flexibility primarily for redevelopment where nothing is compliant today so like 270 Bara not not really a good um they literally had you know three plus acres they could design to
comply uh dimensionally um so it's not I'm trying to think of other projects 191 cheler Street didn't need any dimensional relief um that's why I think it's really important before you get too far down
the line on uses and dimensional Beyond Kate's corner you begin to look at where else you may apply this maybe we take this as a I don't know like I find that the co applicability like like why
don't we look at it holistically to for all these Zones look at what properties there are what really doesn't comply because I feel like part of the problem least like we have our zoning we have our use we have our dimensional requirements but then
half the town is under the seid so then what's the purpose of trying to plan how we want things if we're just going to provide relief so I'd like to the seid the seid is not designed to provide relief what it's designed to do is provide an opportunity to repair
damage that was done by historical development so take take Kate's Corner that CB property the building is shifted all the way to the left it's not centered so with with seid they'd have
the dimensional flexibility to propose something that was more centered and the planning board has the ability to also Grant the dimension of relief potentially in exchange for something else that we want exactly so C
CID seid is not intended to be applied to um compliant Lots it's designed to provide flexibility for lots that are non-compliant sizewise and dimensionally
and provide a flexible mechanism for redevelopment to assist in helping the planning board work with the neighborhood and developer to make it better than it is not going to be perfect because it's not new development it's usually
Redevelopment so what and do you say and we get something in return what do we typically get because I don't know all the practics that I've seen come through like it seems like the town doesn't get much of anything the SE bylaw specifically says in exchange for the
flexibility and expedited permitting we the town will require higher quality architecture site design connectivity and Community benefit so that's codified in the seid it's it's a it's a it's a c carot and
stick approach so most of most of the projects that we've seen under the SE seid um overlay have been in the IIA District where like you said we don't need that dimensional relief
um not in the 129 was what are some of the other ones that was the CVS project seid no it wasn't okay no I remember the seid the seid acknowledged that again much of the commercial
industrial properties outside of 129 are non-conforming the fact that the market hasn't submitted applications is a reflection on it just isn't once you leave like the 129 area and you leave the center there's not a
lot of Market pressure but the tool is there otherwise what you're going to have is you're going to have applicants coming in and struggling with how do how do I design a project such as CB and Kate's corner like what
is what's what's the Reg at strategy the town is trying to push them towards you most developers want to design to comply you can't designed to comply in Kate's corner it's just mathematically not possible so they're going to they're
going to Leverage The The Grandfather's status yeah the seid says we don't want you to leverage a grandfather's status we we come up with some customized dimensional requirements designed strategically for redevelopment sites to make it better
than it is now it's never going to be perfect so it it it it creates a process whereby the developer is voluntarily submitting and understands that it's a give and take it's a discussion that's that's the power that the planning board holds is that if you if you if you treat
the flexibility process you can call it waivers or whatever that's very powerful for a developer because now they know they don't need to design to comply there's some there's some there's some reasonable flexibility understanding
that all of these lots are are difficult they're challenged with existing conditions a butter conflicts first generation development there's little or no storm water on these sites there's no Landscaping so the benefits of the
overlay probably won't be seen in most of our IA zones not in the 129 area but if you go if you go IIA up up in ch up in North Chums right North Chums but in the zones that we're creating now
in CB and it's likely that we would see the benefits of the overlay we just happen to not see them in most of the recent larger scale projects cor okay right so another way of looking at it is if you if you truly want to
encourage Redevelopment that results in improvements and repairs the seid is an incentive and it can be designed to provide those incentives for the developer and for the board and for the and for the community but in most of the smaller properties not the larger ones
that we've seen right okay right okay and just so I just from my understanding if someone goes in with a pre like if we didn't have the seid and they say okay well you know I'm going to go in because I've got a pre-existing condition and they want to redevelop do they have to stay on the same square
footprint no no what they'll what they'll claim is that that um the existing conditions it has a a 5ot sidey yard setback Y and I'm proposing to maintain a 5- foot sidey yard setback in
other other in other setbacks they may they may change them but they can claim grandfathering for maintain the so just they'll maintain the five foot and we don't have just so I I I just want to make sure I understand the benefit vers you know versus if it was under seid and
say the zon required 40 ft set back we don't if you go we don't have the seid the new developer can't say well I'll propose a 15ot setback is that what you're saying they still they still can because 15 is better than
five so so so under your scenario 15 is like more Akin with seid straty I'm saying like I'm just tring to say like if we didn't have seid then we wouldn't have that flexibility of saying correct without without seid they would be forced to do forced to do two options
grandfathering or seek variances from the zoning board okay or or complying with like the 40 foot set back right versus if we do a seid and it's currently five and they want to propose
15 we can say yeah that works for us yes and it makes it better okay I think that I just wanted to make sure I understood the benefit yeah it's a good conversation okay thank you okay you want to keep going down so we want to still so is everybody I guess we
all in agreement that we proceed with the SE like what I would do I would suggest like each of you grab a somewhere in your travels pick a site on GIS and maybe run you know run some mathematical that that was my next thing out of this I wanted to ask you um I can
yeah can certainly do I want to look at again specifically Kate's Corner one we finish all the dimensional requirements and in run because they not a lot of lots correct um that we're thinking and I think that's further on on the SL but if we can do that specifically for
Kate's Corner um it just as a as an operating example an operating example yeah because I'm a math person so I like to see the numbers um this is conceptual first and then we can go to reality that works um okay so let's look at the COA
um site um um no go back to seid all right do you want to you guys all have um so I'm assuming depth would be na on this one yes so we didn't know what to do so let's call it na
and we do so I'll do an for all of that those three y I mean interestingly it seems like the um the by right there's not so much distinction between the CB and the
AA right on the dimensional requirements which is yeah in particular worth noting here on the uh the proposed covid numbers that a lot of the ones in this new District
have the the six uh footnote footnote which uh would put us in a position to make much bigger adjustments to the U uh to the setback
mhm than with the four that exists in IIA and and I think that's important because we just really don't exactly know what we're going to see I that this is a sort of a transitional district and and I think
the the variations in situation that we're going to see may be considerably greater than as Evan pointed out over on 129 m I that's the idea but we had a lot of conversation about that and again like we like one of the
things like the um minimum yard requirement 60 ft for the front M like you know we wanted it to be a little bit more Greenery a little bit more like neighborhoody um but again this is all
up for discussions um so I am going to propose I if if people don't um I don't know what people think but I would like to I I feel like we just got this last night and um we want to leave time for other for the
neighbors and for loed to give us their feedback if they've had a chance to look at it I think I I'd like to think about it in terms of specific properties in town as you suggested and I don't feel like there there's urgency I don't think that we're in a big rush to approve this
so I might want to just keep going down this rather quickly and then look again quickly at the um use table yep I move yeah I so I reput the use table in here which is what we discussed last time I think there was still some question we
had right and a couple errors and did I have a couple errors okay on on the dimensions that you had up there there is one mistake I think I think I just heard Joel mention it too okay
which one the side by right 32 yep should not have a six next to it is that the one you noticed yeah oh did I copy I probably copied one yeah needs a six I think you want to look at the footnotes in general yeah you can't have
a six on that 32 right and I don't know if you want to go decreasing to 25 ft not increasing it to 25 ft I think the numbers themselves are okay yeah the numbers are need to take the footnote six off of that so this is
um seid side 32 Side by right 32 Special permit 20 and if we're take the foot correctly then you also want the you you also want to reconsider the footnote four which one Joel footnote
four which goes goes with the side and the rear yeah I wouldn't apply that to the CB light yep yeah so I think just the footnotes need to be so that pulls hold on so that pulls over from the
dimensional so footnote 4 over here increased to 100 so we got to remove it from go to the back the other slide we need to change it from the other one that's why that's pulling up the four okay so let me remove from there so we don't want to increase it to 100
feet when a budding we should look at it we you should look at it but mathematically it's not going to work for most sites so I'm going to highlight it then if you don't mind so then would we want to take a different number than 100 feet right we
may have a different yeah or make it rid of it all together because it's this is meant for to be a budding residential do we get rid of it altogether like do we need anything this ISS if it's a budding residential why we just Zone it appropriately M right yeah
with the right so that's the other like yeah okay but again I think this is important that we look at with all the Lots we want to identify that would fall under this which I think is a separate project that we all need to do I think you may want a foot note of some kind because like like you mentioned it's
it's going to be fine typically you'll have residential on one side and you'll have non-residential on the other so you still want a footnote that whatever distance you're putting may increase on the residential side right so it would shift something a little bit closer to
IIA than from residential potentially okay so I think we just want to think about what we think those have a bunch of lopsided Lots all right so um is anything else that I think that's a good starting
point Y all right so now going back to the use table so sorry you said you found some mistakes here yeah on um 22 commercial the bank with drive-thru and
without drive-thru I think you reverse those mhm oh yep and then 38 the parking lot accessory use the no in the zone should be planning board and that actually should be uh parking lot principal use yes
which one this is number 38 38 parking as an accessory use is currently allowed okay so this is principal use we want this to be PB PB yeah did I okay and then this is princip stupid question what is essential
Services um utilities basically okay and then the parking lot in industrial principal use needs to be changed to which one are you talking about Chris the last in industrial parking lot accessory use should be changed to
principal use that was the one where we didn't we didn't necessarily want to have it as a principle use but we wanted to extend the sort of proximity to proximity of its accessories proximal to so I don't think we want to so I don't
know if that would be a footnote yeah to an accessory use to say you know in this case it that's right allow it to be in that case keep it as an accessory use with a footnote yeah what's the principal use for this prop number another property nearby right we want to
go principal yes that's what was discussed yeah okay did you get that the bottom one is the accessory yeah yeah accessory with a footnote that it extends to the principal use we'll give we'll
fill in a number yeah we'll figure out how to say that better and that's PB correct y then I had a question about the health club one I couldn't remember what that
footnote was 31 on commercial uh why that's how many how many little that that Roman numeral one I couldn't remember seven it's eight yeah Special permit seven or eight eight eight special permit from the planning board shall be required of more than 10,000
square F feet yeah gross floor area is devoted to business use on this premises anything lar so if it's smaller it's it's by rate but if it's bigger than it's special permit got it that's right we did that a couple of spots I think I like that I like that
footnote okay so parking lot so down under industrial parking lot accessory use that's PB right yep y yep then we have principal use I don't think we're going to even list principal use
huh we wouldn't have a parking lot principal use well hold on not an industrial not indust commercial parking lot principal use you maybe just change it was my mistake what we agreed to was a just say you have a parking lot accessory use with a
footnote okay okay on both even in commercial okay yes yes okay this is 38 again I can't I could no no because listen we've covered this I was worried about trying to figure out which which form of principle I had to use which you know so I'm glad that's a
lot easier like accessory okay I can spell that and it's PB ground hog yes yes okay keep repa okay I think we could should okay let other people speak who would like to speak um do you want to
continue with think and then maybe go to the um Parcels to rezone at the next meeting if people that's fine y that works um okay um is there anyone from the public
that would like to speak and or from L of whom you are public I guess good evening Ann seski from Prince LEL on behalf of L Martin um we've just seen the proposed dimensional requirements so we do appreciate the opportunity to take that back and take a
look at it and come back to you with you know any specific comments that we might have um I don't believe that we have um an agreement yet for the Maxwell's property that is still something that is in process okay so just to give you that update great thank you did you have any
uh feedback on the use because you sort of saw that all happening before you last time now you've had some time to give it a little bit of thought so right I I don't think we have any concerns about the uses I'm a little bit confused about what just happened with the parking
but we are too but I going to find a different way to describe it yeah that fits the use that's being discussed right and I think I've seen in some other towns I think Wayland has something to the effect of you know
accessory parking um is permitted if located within a specific number of feet of the principal use I don't know that they have it in their table I think they have that as a as a footnote or some other component of the parking may but that's a different way that they do it
there so perfect thanks take my notes off Nancy arway 65 Littleton Road sorry guys I have not much voice um as you're having this discussion about setbacks and
sizes what I'm hearing is that there's you haven't yet decided all the areas that you would consider applying this to and it sounds like some of those areas would currently be commercial and some of those areas would currently be
industrial and they have very different sizes today so those commercial areas that might get converted over are going to be real small compared with the dimensions you're looking at whereas the industrial
areas that you would consider converting over are going to be very large compared to those sizes and setbacks so it's a real it's a it's a balancing act here um anyway because of all that I would
encourage you to identify the potential areas for application and then do an analysis of your dimensional tables against all of those areas before you settle down right
so to do still yeah thank you thank you okay I do have a question um for um Evan on the seid can that to Nancy's Point can that be applied um
does it have to be applied to a zone or can that be applied to an area meaning you know if we look at like 129 Turnpike which those lots are bigger can we exclude seid from that and only apply it to the areas that have like more
smaller yeah we already do to some degree yeah you can you can treat um small lots and bigger Lots differently within seid or or not appli it at all like not apply like for instance like we may if taking this back to and we look at like say we look at
Turnpike or riverneck road or whatever I I'm just throwing out whatever and we see that these lots are all big and you know they're different we don't necessarily need to apply the flexibility of seid to that so we don't do that overlay there
but we do it on Kate's Corner because that's where we do need that type of flexibility MH we could do that yeah absolutely okay and yeah I mean like riverneck and 270 are much different than the IIA properties
on turnpike right onike a conflict area y so right yeah you can yeah you can pick and choose you just have to come up with some you know some rationale as to how to how to define that using zoning text yep and that would be a modification to
the sead yeah it probably be a um at a minim be a text a text change the mapping may may get complicated so if we could do it via text that'd be a lot easier I mean could we do it based on lot size yeah yeah you could do it based upon lot
size yeah I mean I think we're looking at you know lot size and then areas of conflict right and then zoom in at those areas of conflict and really see what's going on right what's the scope and scale of the conflicts much of the conflicts may be resolved by the use table amendments yeah and then
dimensional doesn't become as as um sensitive critical yeah she's back I'm back yeah um if you're considering applying this to Turnpike consider
that the um the bayod that applies to the bayod overlay that currently applies to Turnpike does not permit General
businesses so a lot of the businesses that you have worked into this new Zone if you applied it to turnpike would then be permitted on Turnpike and there are much higher traffic uh producers which is going to
increase the conflict which is going to increase the conflict not decrease it yeah yeah so it's it's not a placebo for Turnpike MH
um they it it was specifically planned to not put businesses uh on Turnpike Road retail ret retail business retail businesses and uh traffic generating retail businesses CBL light currently
introduces it would introduce TR higher traffic in right yeah right I think when we got to that level of detail it probably be clear not to apply right right right yeah I mean for every area that you consider applying it to you're
going to going to need need to look at a a chart a comparison chart of what what's currently permitted what would be permitted what would be permitted overlays would be prohibited what be prohibited solving the areas as of conflict is not a one siiz fits all C it's complicated it's going to cover a
vast majority of the area yeah so thank you yeah okay um so anyone else want to speak about this okay um I think that then we're going to
move along you want to continue that to April 9th I think so what else do we have on April 9th I'm not aware of any new public hearings they have plenty of time to talk about
zoning good are you are you going to need any more deliberation from your committee I'm always up for another of coffee maybe if um if there's a way to pull like maybe we can reach out to you about a way to pull the data of looking at Lots like information from lot easier
than like looking manually y we can pull the uh I can give you the entire assessor database which will which doesn't it seem like I mean it's going to be more helpful if we Zone in on a property as opposed I think using the zoning map is is going to be easier but if you wanted to crunch numbers on I want to crunch
numbers so accessors you take the lot the lot area and then you can divvy up small Lots Big Lots yeah I it's not going to give you much more than that though but'll will it give me like dimensions and be able to no you have to use a Gis for that and there's no easy way to extract that in Excel like
selecting uh I I could ask a GIS manager if there's a way to extract it using GIS all right let's take this offline but that would yeah I me reach out that's what I'm trying to do is to put it all into Excel so then I can easily crunch the number and anything will fall
out that's would be out of the area we don't need a motion to continue this do we no it's just discussion okay next up we have a conversation regarding the pedestrian bridge um at 11 Cushing pleas and um you
know so first of all um I'm going to assert at the beginning that my interest in this I'm in a butter of like seven two and a butter Two and A butter 700 ft away so I don't think I'm a a butter of any import um and my interest in this is
more in terms of what we can learn from this experience or this thing that happened you know however many years ago in terms of not having hopefully something like this happen again like how can we craft better decisions that
um keep things on a timetable or make them happen in a certain order so that we don't come back you know eight or nine years later and say oh we didn't get that amenity that we were promised so that's it's more of a um kind of
policy interest I have in this matter more than the specifics of what happened and what should be done about it um although I think that also needs to be addressed I'm not sure it's an A matter for this board um what do you think Evan
would you um I would say that the um the decision is fine I think everything the planning board did was fine
um offsite mitigation or offsite amenities are challenges always have been and likely always will particularly where the offsite mitigation requires
town M involvement multiple parties involvement right um it's not just this project there were several 40b projects that requireed off-site mitigation um and it it's just
problematic um not like so when involves like offsite mitigation let's take this project aside like if you have an 40b example if you can maybe elaborate what Brook Crossing which is 50 Hunt Road mhm
um there's the side road I'm forgetting I think that's H um hunt M um if you go down hunt uh to the first intersection there is a bridge that 40b was required to put a
pedestrian connection over the vehicular Bridge very similar to the Cushing so it was codified in the decision developer was required to to um uh work with the town to uh get that get that
moving all that offsite mitigation requires um at a minimum coordination with DPW it requires a lot more than coordination it requires an interest in wherewithal
to to uh to coordinate and engage in advance the project the the developer itself is not always in a position to advance work on off their property that involves the town MH
so if you recall many years ago uh the town engineer used to attend planning board meetings you used to sit right at the table uh is that bill Pearson Jim Pearson correct y even it was a while it was a while back
Christina Pap a number well I'm not suggesting that that is a um uh you know a shorefire um way to um avoid these situations but at a
minimum dpw's at the table they're hearing what's going on and they understand um how it's going to be codified in a decision and they may be able to provide a comment to the board as to how to draft that but at a minimum they're aware and they're like
more than aware they're likely um an active partner in trying to achieve those off-site mitigations Cushing place in the 40b DPW not at the table I'm not even sure uh that
DPW uh included those in their recommendations so again it's at face value it's not something that DPW is asking for and yet it's codified in decisions which then requires DPW to take action MH uh so that's a process
issue nothing to do with the planning board yeah but that process issue from a planning board process issue could be that when we are we want to add something like that we need to have dpws sign off on it and and have them
review the wording like that could be an internal process the monetary I mean so I don't know I I actually went back some time ago and looked at all those meetings for diff because I was interested in how they came up with the pyo because I thought
that was excuse my language um but and I don't remember about this but my my thought is that a lot of those pyo discussions were centered around amenities that they weren't paying the I don't know the formula came up with
800,000 I think it said in that letter and they paid 280 so that 500 25,000 or whatever it is thousand that should have gone to the affordable housing fund instead went for amenities
that they were that they were enabled to buy their way out of paying down for the affordable housing so that was basically affordable housing that didn't get sure sure because there was amenities given and now I don't know how much of the affordable housing money that didn't get
given was supposed to be for this bridge I know they always said I think or they say they always said it was 15,000 but I don't think all that is I mean all all that's somewhat out of context the um well I mean I've seen them talk about
putting in a pipe to provide more water service and that's a $100,000 benefit to somebody no aged isn't to the affordable housing needers right so the the the the decision that the board made at the time to
prioritize um public benefit package that didn't include money towards affordable housing that's just a policy decision and I think this board has had has had a policy discussion as I understand it when I meet with prospective developers I am telling them
that um the board wants to see the affordable units built as part of the project and they're not inclined to take the pyo that's so that was a policy decision at the time with the with the planning board setting that aside
um there's still there's for projects of that scope and scale there's still opportunity to uh leverage other public benefits in this case a bridge the bridge the context of the bridge and if you were if you pay close attention to
the the meetings you got to remember that um the original approval in the public benefit package was negotiated with wi Stanley the the developer that developer right the the developer that actually built the project had nothing
to do right with the with the negotiation he basically um inherited the original decision the conditions applicable in the original decision when Stanley and the current developer came in jointly asking for the
modification to reduce the project from 70 units to 302 I think in the planning board's decision said okay all the applicable conditions in the original decision carry forward what's important to remember is
that there was little or no discussion about the pedestrian bridge the reason for that was that the planning board at the time was spent all of its regulatory um hearing time focused on
traffic drainage landscaping and architecture the bridge was essentially codified as as um uh a pedestrian Boardwalk just like an add-on and it was the only detail is what's on the plan there was never any discussion
about what kind of bridge what's what's it going to cost what's the material um there's a decision in the planning board decision that simply says developer will coordinate with DPW that's it so on one hand you could say the planning board handled that
appropriately was the planning board literally going to spend their hours of public hearing trying trying to micromanage the bridge or are they simply going to handle it as a condition with the expectation develop DPW will figure it
out so I mean I guess you could say a lesson learned is yeah maybe the planning board you know should should spend more time on getting some basic details on the other hand you know there's Merit to saying developer in DPW you figure it out but you can only do
that if DPW is in the room too to well if they're not in the room then it requires you know me contacting them offline um I agree if they're in the room particularly if we're talking about offsite benefits it's Ben it's beneficial if
they're in the room I'm not suggesting that they absolutely need to be in the room we could handle it offline right but they need to be part of engaged they need to be engaged right right well I mean we could have them for things that relate to them you absolutely sign on in
a more concrete way instead of like DPW sign up on the plan DP like okay what about this but the key the key is what Chris is saying you need to know upfront that DPW is either interested meaning it's their proposal something important
to them or if it's a planning board interest that they have the time interest and ability to engage and to what extent none of that was discussed and at the time that's that's how that's how we you know that's how we that's how we operated
so so as a policy going forward a recommendation would be I yeah I think if we're going to contemplate if a developer is going to introduce offsite mitigation or the board's going to introduce offsite mitigation we need we need written Clarity from DPW that they
or whatever board whatever it is y whatever this is whatever like impacted yeah I mean it seems like concom needed to also be involved con knew about it because it's on their plan as well um when they when they approved that
project the bridge was part of it their their permit has since lapsed John you yeah I was just going to ask Evan could we do something like if this similar situation comes up in the future could we do something where we have the board has the developer post a
performance shorty an account for an offsite Improvement or is that only permitted as part of the M you know the actual development no no we we can we can certainly we can certainly do that um I mean it always comes down then then the big question is how much is the dollar amount and you're going to have
inflation over multiple years but I'm thinking if the person has to post aurity account with the town they have some skin in the game so to speak they're less likely to then yep so that that was contemplated
um The Challenge was that there was there was no there was no detailed conversations uh and when the developer uh came to me uh with their final occupancy there was no reasonable um
justification for me to withhold final occupancy what I did do is I got the letter of commitment yeah at the time which I think it was four or five years ago when it was dated think it was 23 that that seemed pretty reasonable yeah I know reading it they
made they gave assurances that they were here so again what I didn't know at the time and I don't think anyone else knew including the current developer was what was the details of the bridge and to this day it's very clear that there is a
great fundamental difference as to what what the current developer Envision building and what the town thinks needs to be built well I I mean to this day I personally would love it I mean that gentleman I forget which one it was
described you know they've done it in Prior other towns and they've built it on top of circular pilings or I don't know what like do they have plans for those could we see them like we've asked we've asked for plans to be submitted and I think that's also a
fundamental disagreement as to what a plan is so they have for the ones they've built before that they were built apparently in the other towns I think he mentioned North Reading it didn't require any permitting he did not I need a building permit for it it was
essentially viewed as a as a pedestrian light light duty pedestrian Boardwalk over a wetland this is not that this is attached this is not on private property this is on public property attached to a town own
Bridge so over a moving Brook so the I think the starting points and ending points are vastly different the lesson learned here is that it was none of these details were ever discussed and then you had then you had the original
developer handing off a project to a new developer and then the third item is you did not have um you did not you you did not have proper engagement and coordination I have another question about the minor mod like that doesn't
seem like a minor mod to me it's minor in the sense that everything was being reduced that's the size of the building the pavement um so under our working definitions of major and minor it's minor all the
impacts all the development is being reduced okay that's what I figur and just from a clarification perspective like when the building inspector signs off on the permit like the occupancy permit M I assume like this was an oversight
that that didn't no oversight no oversight so the way it works for every project is is the building inspector asked all departments uh to do a final sign off I'm included in that on behalf of the planning board I did a physical
walk through counted all the trees and the shrubs parking lot striping parking lot lights anything above ground I'm able to verify this was not something that I that I thought could be could reasonably be
withheld um because the developer met their obligation and with the letter of intent I thought provided reasonable commitment based upon the circumstances as related to the original Deion at that time the town
still needed to do work correct so and they still do now right they wouldn't it wouldn't be right to hold up permitting for the town correct delays this wasn't permit this was this was Final that's that's why the that's why the shity would come in
the sh was the first option yeah the developer did not have a problem with shity the other the other party involved was not engaged at the proper level no I'm just yeah I'm just trying to like again you know you had good point like
from a process standpoint so like to your point like you know this wasn't like holding off on the occupancy wasn't reasonable but we have this condition in there so how do we prevent it in the future like is there a process for for that to then we it comes back and we ask
for the the shity like can we like can we create that as a process we can certainly do that I think this all self- resolves if moving forward um prior to issuing approval we we coordinate directly with
DPW but in case again you know we never know what what happens in the future right new people and things change but in case it like for some reason something falls through the cracks if he get can we have a policy that says if you get down to it and there's something that's just not there and it's really
minor but you can put that right in your decision um we had it recently on another project um it was one with Casey uh doing the engineering there were a couple different phases that was um um the duplex project on gr on Gren
road yeah a couple different phases that depended on town or so that that when we had a bond so we had all the leverage subdivision requires a bond yeah um yeah I moving forward you know there's certainly your your your current
decision says 100% of site improvements shall be complete prior to final occupancy otherwise a bond is established so your wording is good can we ask Council to you know to review it and and update it yes we can those bonds
are usually are usually the numers usually determined by DPW okay unless the planning boy is going to start using that's fine and that's the case where we would have needed to have included them earlier in the process that they could determine the bond for that bridge the
value value kind of aware of it and buying in already yeah right right again yeah um another side track point I'm going to get back on my horse about the pyo but we did discuss when we had an executive session meeting about it and
decided that this board um didn't want to um let we wanted to discourage pyo we wanted the units we also said we would come back circle around and look at the formula um after this had been in place
for a bit and I I I would like to put that on the agenda um or maybe whoever's the chair next session I would like to request that they that we put that on the agenda for either a um work session or something um I think the numbers are
very low and I think as part of our effort to discourage people um doing pyo it would be also helpful if the pyo was more appropriate I agree so uh my suggestion is we asked
David hederson to maybe provide a memo to the board um the pyo number is not that relevant if the board's I wouldn't even call it preference if the board is not willing to Grant the pyo it's not it's not the the developer's Choice it's
the plan planning board's Choice well I I I think one exception to not being willing to Grant the pyo in my opinion would be for the fractional shares so if some you know understood so if if they're going to build 12 and they
should have then th whatever right right but that fractional share would be a fractional number of the new total pyo amount right yeah it's so if it was half of one unit yeah I mean but the board does change yeah membership so having that pilo
formula updated I think would theut when the board may turn over and maybe that board yep prefers the pyos sure and certainly you've seen a lot of inflation since 20 2020 2021 and building materials and labor cost and I I've
mentioned this to you and David will reiterate the original the original methodology on the pyo was not to to the pilot was never intended to uh be able to create an affordable unit it was it was it was a
methodology the difference between the market rate and the affordable rate at the time it was you know 150 for ownership um so if you if you maintain the same methodology then updating the numbers is very you know very straightforward and easy I mean maybe we should get David's
input on you know if he would think of it if he if he I mean he works with a number of communities if he has any other formulas that other communities use that he thinks might be also appropriate for us to consider yep
okay um okay no new public hearings so so we taking any specific action the final so the final sentence of I guess the lawyers um memo was we could either
accept 15,000 or have I think I think he I think Council suggested uh two options for the board you could attempt to negotiate negotiators within the purview of your permit which would basically mean uh you would you would attempt to
negotiate a resolution with the applicant um or you would be re re esting zoning enforcement and what would that be that would be done by the Building Commissioner which uh Council Council indicates that there's more to it that
prior to Jose issuing a formal zoning enforcement letter Council would like to you know fully review the file right um I think council's indicating that zoning enforcement
is um challenging in this particular ular case well I wonder if it would make sense for us to request that we get an estimate for a plan for a bridge so all
of the background that that that transpired over the last six n six to nine months with the developer in town hall while the developer never submitted any of that DPW did do some um you know back of the napkin type
of ES mhm I mean they have it estimated at at least you know $200,000 so so there's a again there's a fundamental disagreement as to not only what the bridge is made of but how it's secured to the to the ground to the
Earth right and I think and and not for anything you know I I think it's time that we went down the legal rout um at this point and we asked for enforcement and I think we asked our attorney to look at it um because I think this is one of those
cases where unless we I first of all we have you know one of the best law firms right that that specializes in this it's a you know they're very well known in the state and I think in order for them you know we can always negotiate um but I think they need to
understand that we you know we take this stuff seriously and they made a promise to us and I think at a minimum we ask them as um the select board um to enforce the zoning to to look at this and talk to the attorneys
they're never going to you know if we keep on talking right we're never going to go anywhere this is one of those times that I think this the benefit for the town and for the residents of this town it's worth so what may make sense
is I can for that uh to uh Council as a as a planning board action I suggest question is Council would likely do a full file review sure get the full context and maybe report back to the board if necessary on their findings
would this be like um and again is this a planning board or select board decision one and two would this going into an executive session if we're comp contemplating some legal action where it wouldn't be a public input so the uh the zoning enforcement would come directly
out of a planning board decision okay um basically we'd be finding them not to be in compliant with correct permit so how about we request that he review the file and and get back to us however in whatever format he thinks is appropriate
whether it's his executive session or what in terms of what his recommendation is for us okay and and I I mean another another possible negotiating point would be the whatever it was however many years ago that they proposed supposedly
15 ,000 or that was their number I don't know that number was never mentioned in planning board deliberations it only came up when what if we took the value that we think it cost then you know
$210 of the 20,000 there's a variety of methodologies to come to a number I literally is fundamental and there there there are some there are some pitfalls here right uh in general if you have two parties
who think they've agreed to something and it turns out that they in fact haven't agreed at all and one can certainly get that reading from the attorney's letter here
uh then you're not in a very good position to try to enforce and collect I think we really need to get uh our Council to review it and and make a decision or make a recommendation recommendation on that I mean the
question is what did everybody agree to 6 years ago or however many it was and if one party thinks they're agreeing to a $15,000 bridge and the other party thinks they're agreeing to a $200,000 Bridge you don't have an agreement yes but I also think that from a developer
perspective going into a Le a long lengthly legal battle is not it's not effective for them so they may it's not effective for them not cost effective for us but they may come up and and up it right or split the difference right
now we're not even close right so at this point we have no option but to go down the legal route we have a good attorney let's get the analysis done let's get the analysis done let's see where that is but not doing something like that you're just going to get the low ball and you will continue to get
the low ball oh yeah I mean the important is that it is a condition of the permit it's a condition that has not you did well there's your problem we're in a circle we're going to get we're going to hear back from the attorney how's that yes let's let him take a look
well I was just going to to to go to what Anita was saying that I think that we should be I think we should be very very much following up on conditions that we make but on the other hand this is an old
condition and one in which the town itself in making that condition didn't really follow it should have and so I think that's something that we want to factor into it as well yes I think if this was a condition that this board had made two three years ago then I would be
all for full enforcement I think in this case again it's going to depend on what council says and stuff like that but I think we want to take it with a grant we need more information okay I'll advance that okay thank you okay um no new public hearings no
continued public hearings LS on updates I've got some from concom yesterday um there was a really good Watershed analysis um that was presented by DPW and an external consultant um of flood
prone areas it included Evergreen deep Brook which includes dunshire area black Black Brook which um also includes granitville which is the property we had the anr for today um the property what
hadr for right um so it was a really good report it might be worth um talking to DPW to see if they could present it to us or at least get us the report um because it does uh show some flooding
impacts to a number of our areas that we have projects in um and so they have proposed mitigations um all of them cost significant amount of money but um there are some pretty good uh suggestions for
mitigations um as Evan mentioned there is an noi filed for the gr of De property uh two single family houses um they concom passed the hildr decision 4 to one with one
exstension um so that one is closed uh for them they did also sign a letter of support for the lighting bylaw um for uh fincom to include in the booklet I think they'll be sending it to
Jim and they're also creating a subcommittee Peter Chris and Carl uh for looking at their Wetland bylaws and regulations um so they're going to do some work to update them based on a number of their uh recent projects and
then have some public hearings and eventually get it to town meeting so they had a pretty uh full meeting yesterday best yep um along those lines I was looking through something maybe the old
minutes for tonight and somewhere I saw about the um Board of Health was going to be reviewing their water guidelines and wanted our input going forward was the Gap anel yes the
famous Gap Gap there there's been a gap uh that should be we should be getting you should be getting a questionnaire from the consultant any week now from the from the Board of Health consultant
yes okay about about the water yeah about about the Gap analysis okay that was a thing where they wanted us to send one or two representatives and we said the whole board and then they went radio silence we scared them I guess so I I
mean I mentioned it to the Board of Health you are I mentioned it to the Board of Health that we had voted that we wanted them to come to the full board and and then said we haden't heard anything for can you ask for an update at the update is you'll be getting a questioner the up any week any week now
not any day okay yeah um you want to hear about the community preservation committee at all yeah the um so the community preservation committee met early this evening next door and um uh myself I was attending um
Evan was in attendance Joel also attended and um was a brief meeting yeah as in the audience and um the main the main topic was the Central Square utility suppression project so um a revised financing plan was presented
which borrows 1 million and then uses 1 million in CPC funds um all also um council is available and I believe you know everyone can correct me if I'm wrong the next step in the process um some questions have been raised um over the
last few weeks about you know um even though we have a local historic district in chumford Center does the does the um does the project fall into one of the permitted definitions that CPC monies can be used for and so the next step in the process is I believe the historical
commission is going to take it up and and considered declaring that the area is historic did you guys vote again yes what was the vote just curious I was it one abion I think the rest was you was was
yes this is for the 1 million 1 million 1 million 1 million and that that 1 million um from CPC funds it's to be to to be determined whether it's coming out of historic or whether it's coming out of what open space or what would be the
AL other Al going to do um the bonding will be under the undesignated funds and then the uh don't they have to be in one of those three categories it us to qualify for one of the three but how you how you fund it I think is handled a little bit differently yeah
but which of the three would it be qualified under historic yeah well they they're hoping that gain open space I think I think we've I think we've I think the committee resolved that tonight yeah and then it'll be presented inom tomorrow yeah well because we've asked that's the reason why I was asking
for the vote cuz we asked that that be resolved and okay there was some question on at fin con I think one of the verbs that was restoring that's a that's a key thing you know because people some questions that come up well you are you you're not really preserving
a historical asset and then it was discussion about restoring is also one of the key key terms like the restoring the shed view or whatever okay so I have um not a liaison update but John and I were at um
a meeting which apparently took a lot of people um by surprise um there were two Bridge projects happening in chumford oh yeah they're replacing the Westford Street bridge and the gorm Street Bridge so that's about a threeyear
project three years well yeah um phase one should take about 18 months before they restore like so be total shutdown and detours will be presented um so 3A is half and half they're not doing
half and a half really yep y total tear down this will be going to be down yep mhm at the same time right yep yep jeez yep so it's definitely going to have an impact holy moly the one up on um by Hunt Road yeah
they did Hunt Road they so they did address that CU people did ask the question and this would move a lot faster um and less of a disruption um I don't know about that that's relative hey you don't live on 495 don't even talking about
disr um so yep there's um so anyways it starts in April holy next month like next week they've already done the staging I've seen Jersey Barry is already out there on Westford Road yep yep so next week yep so not that like
again my husband we knew about it it's been two years that my husband's been attending meetings but we knew about it because through the 495 expansion um we knew this was coming um but we were surpris to be quite honest I was surprised that it was happening this April and we
got the notice because it was Paul I believe who sent us yeah actually it was the the select board had a um notice where they do those public an service announcements at just maybe about was it like two weeks ago weeks ago so that's that really brought it to The public's attention I mean I thank them for doing
that but without that without that I wouldn't even know about it and again I like live on 495 and I've been watching this for years my husband's attended the meetings and I was surprised by it so I can imagine a lot of people I just want people do watch the plany board so I
just want to make sure people are aware of this this is coming starting next week okie dokie fun times okay um just a couple just a couple of other yeah um so fincom meets tomorrow night I believe they're doing
recommendations on the zoning articles next Thursday zba meets moros 40b and ledge Road um will both be um on the agenda morose and Le ledge Road Monday the 7th the new select board
uh the re reorganized select board will be uh beginning the review of the Warren articles uh Chris and and any other planning board members uh are welcome to attend that meeting to provide uh the board the presentation on the zoning
[Music] articles um on Tuesday the 8th Nim Cog working with the housing Advisory Board will have a virtual uh public uh presentation from 4:30 to
6:30 um we should be getting the invite I'll get that out to you that's on the uh draft uh housing uction plan the goals and objectives and potential strategies and I think that covers
covers other other other items so by way of context the housing production plan is something that ncog has is developing for the region and then they're taking it down by community and asking the stakeholders in each
Community hopefully to buy in and so well that's a regional effort and separately the housing Advisory Board working with Nim Cog is developing a chumford specific right housing production plan housing production plan is a creature
presentation is the regional only no that's that's the chumped one CH one that's what I thought okay next up we have um the Grant I submitted the expression of interest uh
yesterday uh we'll we'll receive uh feedback within 5 days which will then set the stage to do the uh the full submission in I think it's early June it's do
y so I'll between now and June I'll work with the board uh to further refine um sub the application y thank you okay
um did anyone everyone rather get a chance to look at the very old minutes probably should make try to vote on all of them before the people aren't on the board anymore um so first up we have the October 11 um
[Applause] well we want are there any edits can we just approve them all like at once there are some edits okay that's like why don't we do the edits it Chris's name spell wrong again no on the 11th on October 11th it looked
like Joel you were marked as not present but yet you voted what did do that amazing thei is having difficulty with I noticed and votes omnes I completely missed that what was I
voting on what is the nursing home overly District that I was supposedly presenting I don't know where that's just I have no idea that all right for fall town meeting the nursing home overlay
District that chair Connelly players to plans to present I I didn't present anything at town meeting must have been Chris so which which minutes were those the first one when we're discussing currently October 11 you did I didn't
present anything a nursing home I thought you did nuring said something yeah n the the thing where we were allowing um Senior Care senior senior dayare adult daycare okay but we we did do that we
did do that remember presenting you did okay we all have to go back and watch the all right so we're not approving October 11th obviously we've got some going as long as you have enough members next meeting to to approve
them we should there need a simple majority okay yep yeah all right so table um okay so we can table October 11th any issues with October 25th I didn't find any issues
eth um yeah the at the on uh like the fifth page under discussion um Tomy Andre Paul advocated for the easement as part of the larger brick walk should be I assume Brook brickwalk y n oon
Road in the center Village master plan where does that stand that's the 25th that's the 25th yeah the 25th the second one okay so yeah the 25th approve those as amended as amended yep Y and then okay we'll
take a motion no hold on let's do all three okay fine no because there are some changes in the other one next one well so why don't we approve that approve all right so make a motion to approve October 25th second as
amended all in favor I I I unanimous um of the people so only people who are present can vote so it was is that right only people who were present at the meeting okay so that would be me Mike
Walsh Mike reck at this meeting John and Chris was present on you got to be physically at that um 118 meeting as well right that's what I'm saying so those were the people that were there at the oh on the 25th
sorry the people who are present oh my goodness sorry um Mike Walsh Mike rebeck Anita John Chris Joel and I was not and so those people all voted to
approve those as amended and then the next one is um November same people plus Anita for November 8th for November 8th correct and you were there I need to unzoom and I was there yes that one I
did see that your name was misspelled um in the lays on reports um and his name is spelled I did send that to Becky already Okay so we're gonna have to go with nicknames moving
forward I think yeah I mebody missell my oh they dropped an a dropped an N yeah okay that's fine so take a motion make a motion to amend uh to approve November 8th um minutes even without my name being fixed
okay okay um all in favor I great and now December 13th and I was not present nor was Anita so this is Mike Walsh Mike re John Susa
Chris and Joel and on that one the vote to adjourn should be 60 not 70 if we only had six people there oh my God really counting everything that's amazing Chris you just
are so and I did send that one to Becky already okay make in a um a motion to approve December 13th as amended second all in favor I I abstain
because I wasn't there I also abstain okay and then we have our next meetings April 9th and 23rd regard so April 9th we only have what do we have um Kate's Corner Kate's Corner Andor May some
administ okay so can we start at 7 yeah yeah okay can we start S yeah Brad okay take a motion move to adjourn before we adjourn did yeah did anybody say anything because I was late no cuz we're still public so I think uh
want to express our thanks to Mike Walsh for his years of dedicated service on the planning board of exceptional uh Duty and uh will be sorely missed thank you here indeed no appreciate it it's been great working with you guys you will be Miss Mike so it's been I think
it's been six and a half years right three and a half yeah cuz I filled in uh at the end of one year the year before six months before the first election so as associate or Ed no as a voting member yeah oh he was sick so it's been great
uh the and I appreciate all the different points of view and putting up with my crazy comments sometimes so Evan uh thank you very much and I always appreciate been good you're not going too far you're backing so no like I said I'll be involved with the viny square committee but uh I am off this board so
thank you again and uh thanks for all your support and good luck thank you thank you thanks Joel now so I did move toour second then good
night e for