started. Good evening. It is 7:30 on Wednesday the May 28th and I'm calling this meeting of the Chsford Planning Board to order. My name is Chris Levali and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight we'll be following the posted agenda. Uh this meeting is both in person and being
televised live and recorded via Chelmsford Teledia and will be available on their website and YouTube. We do have Zoom um for potential one member of the planning board. Um so Evan, if you can let me know when Deerra if Deerra does
join. Tonight we are missing Anita Tanini. Um and potentially Deerra will be on Zoom or in person potentially late. So all right. Uh so let's start with public input. Uh 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 um or upcoming public hearing. Uh public comment on any public hearing will be heard at those public hearings. and Deardra is coming
now. Um, so are there any members of the public who wish to speak? Seeing none, we'll move on to the first agenda item, the ANR number n 690 Old Westford Road. And Evan, it's my understanding that they are requesting a
continuence until June 11th. I will take a motion to continue. So moved. I'll second. Uh, Mike made the motion. Dearra seconded. All in favor say I. I. Unanimous. Um Anita is Anita
is not joining tonight. Okay. All right. Um next item is Kate's corner discussion continued. Um I have updated the slides with our information from last meeting. I have updated the manufacturing definitions based on the
discussion last week or last meeting. Um we also received today um an updated um version from Lheed Martin that uh they are suggesting. Uh so what I've asked
Evan to do is put the version we have for ultralight manufacturing up on the screen. and I can explain the differences. Um we don't have the text
available to display uh but it's roughly the same. Um so one difference is that the part about the manufacturing operations needing to be fully enclosed.
Um it I moved that section up a little bit um as the second sentence. Uh the prior version and the Loheed Martin version had it a little bit later. Um I just felt it flowed better. So that's
one change. Um the Loheed Martin um recommended version has no dock limits per facility. They also are recommending um to remove the explicit limit on
tractor trailers for distribution um and during business hours. So that's the other difference. Another difference is that the Loheed Martin version has the maximum facility size
removed. And um they did add to the examples section, they specifically added prototyping and they added the phrase um examples include but are not limited to.
Um, so I wanted to talk um specifically about those four recommendations and see if folks had any thoughts on those. So, I have a question about the tractor trailer verbiage that's in there because
tractor trailer um makes a lot more noise compared to the box trucks and vans and also allows for a lot more material to be moved at once, you know, leaving the trucks running longer, stuff's going in and out of them. So, I think I had you had picked up before it was the other town that used the similar
wording about the smaller vehicles. And I think for me that's a huge thing because of size and if we're trying to make it light manufacturing, why do you need the big tractor trailers? And then if they're going to have if we allow tractor trailers and we have the whole
thing about removing the business hours, then they could be going all night. So that's my concern. Yeah. Other thoughts? I'll just I'll just offer a couple thoughts. Yes. So, there's um there's
nowhere within any town bylaw regulation that regulates hours of operation anywhere. Um, and generally speaking, even when the planning board is issuing a special permit, um, I can't recall the planning board
applying hours of operation. So, if you have a drive for a fast food drive-thru up in Drum Hill, I mean, there's nothing preventing them within any um, current rules or regulations from operating 247. We talked previously about there's
businesses that may run a third shift. Um, as far as the tractor trailer, uh, my only comment on that is sometimes, um, a distributor may be, um, going to
multiple businesses. So, remember, not not all the tractor more often than not, the tractor trails aren't really even owned by the business. Yeah. Um that may be a case with, you know, uh
ultra light manufacturing businesses. I don't know enough about it, but I think if you if you're able to uh I think get a version that limited the the number of docks or loading bays,
uh may address that issue. Mhm. but trucking and I mean it's just we're not working with a clean slate. Yeah, we've talked about some of the neighborhoods that we're what we're contemplating and it's not, you know, it's not an ideal situation, but I think with your
other with your other uh reg with the other aspects of this definition, the major business complex um and where you apply it, you should that should be enough control.
Yeah. Yeah. I I agree. I think that um even in the mill area that we were talking about where there is no heavy manufacturing, I have seen tractor trailers making deliveries there. Um and
so like you said, they may be going to multiple places. Um we can't make their schedule. Yeah. Um so I I have been on the fence about that specific one.
I think tractor trailer delivery is different than a tractor trailer allowed to pick up product. So if something was allowed to drop off, I mean that's usually a quicker stop than somebody loading up a tractor trailer for being taken out and it's being loaded for
longer periods. Evan, when you were talking about the trailer tractor trailers, were you referring to like you could have a business where you could have trailers parked on site? They may not be going in and out. No, I'm talking about with with a cab for delivery or, you know, drop
off a pickup. I mean, is it currently an issue? Tractor trailers in the Lockheed location. I haven't heard anything about that. We were I mean, you guys are changing this for everybody, right? Not just for them. I know, but I'm just wondering I don't know if it's
a problem currently because I haven't heard it. really speaking for town hall. Very rarely will we get complaints about the operations of loading docks. It's usually dumpsters. Um and then the amount of trucking, but
the but the overnight or the nighttime operation of the loading area, very rarely do we get complaints. On the other hand, we don't have a lot of businesses that are running, you know, off regular business hours. And usually if a business isn't operating off hours,
they're not going to be accepting deliveries for off hours either. Other thoughts? I do like the addition of the not limited to Yeah. and the addition of the prototyping because I think that fits what we were trying to do. Yeah.
Um so I would like to include that. Yes. I I would agree. And if we were going to limit the docks andor the size, which I'm not suggesting that we should, but like what are we thinking that we would limit it to?
Well, I I know in the Tukberry definition they are clear with saying that they have van or small truck for transit. Tractor to trailer use limited to delivery only. No overnight parking or distribution via tractor trailer. Yeah.
I don't know what other towns use what type of verbiage related to that. Most loading docks that I've seen that do accept deliveries have two, maybe three at the most. Two or three docks. Yeah. The ones that
I've seen, especially around town. Mhm. Joel, you're quiet. Yep. Which which one are we going with now? is the one we're looking at or the one we're looking at and adding in talking about the suggestions of the changes from Lockheed
because it's roughly the same definition with these small changes, right? And were they suggesting something about the tractor trailer? They're suggesting removing the limit on tractor trailers
for distribution and removing during business hours. So their exact sentence was, let me pull it up. Operational characteristics generally include limited loading infrastructure and tractor trailer use as compared to more
intense manufacturing. Right. Yeah. So they talk about limited loading infrastructure and tractor trailer use. So what does that mean though? That's part of the problem that we were wrestling with with the original one is that there's a little bit of language that's open to interpretation.
But I mean I think the solution to put a number is somewhat um arbitrary or capriccious. Like I mean we're going to have to we're going to have we're going to have an opportunity to review it in the context of major business business complex. So we can
define limited. If it's 52 it's clearly not limited, you know. Well, assuming it's over 20,000 square feet. If it's under, we wouldn't be Well, then how many docks can you have if it's under 20,000 square feet? So, in a manufacturing facility, a lot of times
they'll put dock doors along one wall like and it can be a lot of them right next to each other to a space and sometimes they're spaced out around. But you could have a complete wall if that's how they want to build. All depends on who's doing it. But like what would they be doing in
there that they would need a wall of large tractor trailer truck bays? A lot of material coming in and going out possibly at the same time. material movement is usually why. Well, I mean, I don't have such a big issue with
the number of dock doors because depending on the size and what the definition is, I don't think that there would need to be I don't think there'd be a ton on these. Um, you'd have a larger manufacturing facility that potentially could have more, which wouldn't be your ultra light. Um
but I mean if it says limited then we get to interpret that in the context of a permit right so I don't I don't necessarily see the advantage
of being that micromanaging. Yeah, Joel, you're still quiet. I mean, I think I'm leaning a little bit towards keeping the operational characteristics generally include limited loading
infrastructure and also the limited tractor trailer use. And I think along the lines of what Dearra was suggesting, leaving it at that and leaving it to us to decide what's particularly relevant because in the case of Lockheed, I could see that
they would potentially be loading product onto a tractor trailer for delivery to I mean they they support, you know, other other parts of Rathon. They're actually putting the things together. So that that wouldn't surprise me and you wouldn't want to limit that
just straight out. But that would certainly be something that we would look at and we would say somebody wants to have 10 bays then we may say we don't think that's limited loading infrastructure. You would want the more detail I think to help yourself in an
appeal. Um but I think in that case you know I think being less specific might might be a little more helpful. That's those are my thoughts. So if you left it ambiguous though like
that, how would you limit tractor trailer use by limiting dock doors? Like I mean is that what you're thinking? like you say you're only allowed three limited limited loading infrastructure so that I wouldn't be necessarily even re restricting myself to dock bays but
nonetheless certainly I could use number of dock bays if they come in with some number you know um we would say well we don't think that's a limited loading infrastructure because you couldn't couldn't have control over the I don't know how this board would control what
type of vehicles was coming in and picking things up right you can't if you leave it ambiguous like that, it's not going to matter. They can come in and out with whatever they have. You could limit it by dock doors because they can't have more than x amount of trucks there at the same time. So, you can also
limit it by parking and the circulation of the parking lot too. Actually, when we were doing the whole warehouse thing, um it it turns out that particularly in some facilities if they have very automated facilities, they can have very high turnaround. So, you can actually get truck a lot of trucks in and out
with just a few dock bays. So the number of dock bases is in itself strictly relation related to um truck traffic and not only that but also the um institute for transportation engineers does not use dock bays as as a parameter for determining traffic. They
use size. Right. That's kind of like why I was asking though because in the I think what we're saying is what did the word say again? It said limited. Can you use the microphone? Did I need to just move it closer? What did it um say in regards to limited? So their version says
operational characteristics generally include limited loading infrastructure and tractor trailer use as compared to more intense manufacturing operations. So how would that second portion be limited? Which portion? I mean what proposing we
do you can only have four an hour or Well no I don't think we can. And that's why I was saying by size you can limit like tractor trailer versus like box truck van things like that. That's my question. I don't know with the definition cuz Tukbury has definite
sizes with their stuff. You could limit it on a case- by case basis. I would think with Do they bring that to the planning board? Well, that would be the next thing we have to talk about. The current zone
has light manufacturing as um by right. If we wanted to, we could do both light manufacturing and or exclude. We could exclude light manufacturing or make it by special permit. And then for
ultralight, we could potentially do by right or by special permit. So, we could have both types of manufacturing in the zone by special permit potentially or exclude the light
manufacturing and include the ultralight by special permit or by right. If it's by right, it likely would not come to the planning board if it's under 20,000 square feet. If it's over, it would
because of the the uh special permit. I think at 20,000 square feet, you're generally not concerned about or you're willing to take whatever amount of traffic that ends up being. You're assuming that you aren't going to have a heavy amount of traffic associated with a building that small. That presumably
is the Yep. reason for that. What do we think about that ultral light being? Are we are people leaning towards having it be by right or by special permit? Evan, if we do a special permit for
this, what would it mean for current businesses that fall in this category in these zones? They would be grandfathered in. They become pre-existing non-conforming. And if they were to expand, they would need a special permit. Okay.
I mean, if we're trying to attract this type of business, it seems to me it would be beneficial to make this that we're trying to lean towards by right. That's what I would think. Yeah. Make this by
right. Make the light manufacturing special permit and assume that anything under 20,000 square feet with this definition is likely going to have limited loading infrastructure and tractor trailers anyway. Yeah. And they
still can't go in and do heavy manufacturing, right? Because it's not allowed, right? So, are people okay with that? I saw a lot of nodding as I was saying it. Reasonable to me. No, let's read this part. Okay. All right. And then do we
what? Okay. So, we said yes to the So, let me summarize. So, we will keep their recommended language of operational characteristics generally include limited loading infrastructure and tractor trailer use as compared to
more intense manufacturing operations. Mhm. Remove the dock limits. And I'm going to recommend given what we just talked about, remove the maximum size
limitation. Make this definition by right and make the light manufacturing by special permit. Mhm. And the size of this one is essentially under 20,000 square ft by right, over 20,000 square
feet by special permit because of the major business complex. And then we have a little bit of leeway on the capacity, the volume, traffic, things like that. I think that's good. So, are you okay with that? Sure. Good. Yes.
Evan? Yeah, I think that sounds good. All right. I will re I will watch the video again so I get the right wording and then I will type it up and get it ready for um
the the public hearing. All right. Um I think we were all set on the zone. We're all set on the definition. Um I do want to hear one last time if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this topic. Anyone
from or from Lheed Lockheed or the neighborhood? And soi from Prince Leel for Loheed Martin. So thank you for making those changes. I did just want to clarify we we do have tractor trailer trucks come and pick up materials from our facility and no one has ever complained about it
in the past. Um and that was that was one of the that was one of the concerns. Um another concern that we had was in terms of the um you know potential restrictions on operating hours. We we run multiple shifts and so that was the reason for that concern. Um you know the
one other thing that I would just comment on in terms of um you know the the language about um the language about detectable noise, odor, smoke, heat, glare, vibration at the property line. I mean it is it is possible to say you know nothing over
you know applicable limits at the detectable just is kind of a difficult word to to have as your standard detectable to whom so for example like the D has air not excuse me
the D has noise um limits and so that's a quantifiable standard that exists um but if it's that is something that you know is potentially more than detectable, but it is a applicable
official limit or standard. So, our suggestion would be something not not quite detectable, but something that had a little bit more um of a measurable quality to it. So, thank you. I'm actually going to recommend we don't
change that piece because that has been in the current bylaw without any problems. Chums jumps has a noise ordinance as well, right? Yeah. So that would be applicable for the noise. We also also have environmental protection standards
that cover a certain amount of this stuff too. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And that that part of the wording has not been changed from the current definition. So I I would like to keep that the same.
Okay. All right. So, I think we'll talk about it next meeting. Um, but essentially, I think we're all set with this for Kate's Corner. Uh, we can close this out and then move on to the next area that we
wanted to talk about in that mill section. So, we can talk about that one next meeting. Apply this definition and the zoning to that and see what we get. All right. Sounds good. Sounds good. All right. For the next item on the
agenda, um it is going to be the clarification of the planning board as it relates to managed growth strategy objective of the strategic plan and the clarification and discussion and statements made at the
May 12th um May 19th actually u select board meeting. Before we get into the strategic plan itself, I did want to address some more general comments um that were made at the select board
meeting. Um as it related to the planning board, um it was mentioned that the planning board wants to constrain growth and not encourage growth. Um, I'm only going to speak to my for myself on this one, but I do not feel that's
accurate based on the meeting discussions that we've had and discussions with people on this board. Um, I think what we want is an appropriate growth and development in appropriate places in town.
The planning board um at that meeting um was essentially also blamed for the defeat of the Davis Company's Riverneck Road project, the 129 overlay changes proposed to town meeting, and the recent 300 Bill Road Beehive project. Um and it
was stated that our board can never find a project that is good enough. To be clear, the Riverneck Road distribution center was rejected by a prior planning board when most of the current members were not on the board. Um the many people felt that it
was a bad project that was going to be detrimental to the town. In fact, town meeting overwhelmingly approved a citizens petition for a townwide prohibition on that type of distribution center that was being proposed there. The planning board at that time actually
had nothing to do with that um citizens petition. The recent 129 overlay changes were were defeated by town meeting and not the planning board. The 300 Bill Ricka Road project was also not denied
by the planning board. In a preliminary meeting where the applicant presented his idea, we requested that the developer not only provide amenities like a movie theater, fitness center, and dining facility to residents of that building, but he also provide amenities
that are accessible to the town as our BAOD requires. And it seems like that request was too much and he never brought it back for a public hearing. Yes, the Massachusetts general laws do require planning boards to have a strategic plan and we do have one. It's
the 2020 master plan. The planning board also should be using the town charter as its guide and we do that as indicated by our stated admission. The planning board strives to guide land use management that preserves the character and integrity of this
town. Planning board also has two hats. one in which we can approve or deny projects in the regulatory hat. In that role, we cannot be looking to perform our planning function or to promote economic growth. We're obligated to
evaluate the project per applicable law, bylaws, rules, and regulations at the fa federal, state, and local levels. If people aren't happy with the decisions we make based on those regulations, bylaws, and rules, then people in town are more than
welcome to bring proposals for changes and town meeting votes on those, not the planning board. The planning board can bring and we are bringing many changes to zoning as we're able to get to them.
We've been quite inundated with the MBTA zoning and the ADU laws that the state has pushed on us. So, we haven't had a chance to address many of the things we wanted to. So, given that our board has a 2020
master plan, we use that and the town charter as our guide. Our stated mission is to preserve the character and integrity of the town. Is it any wonder that we have a number of questions and need clarification when we are assigned the objective in the town strategic plan without any presentation or explanation
before the board? It feels like we were just lobbed a hot potato because no one else knew what to do with it. If the townwide strategic plan committee, as Paul Cohen mentioned in the May 19th select board meeting, could
not resolve the issue of what does the town want in terms of growth going forward? How were we expected to be able to resolve that question? So, with all of that being said, our discussion last meeting was essentially the first time many of us
had seen the town strategic plan and have been able to discuss it in our planning board roles. Unfortunately, we did so without much context and information around the plan itself, who was assigned which objective, and based on the discussion
at that May 19th select board meeting, I felt some of that discussion was misinterpreted. So, I invited a number of key people tonight for the two-way discussion. I would like to get clarity on the goal of the managing growth
objective, which topics we are assigned as a planning board and to get a little bit of background from the town manager, Aaron and Badri about what we are what the expectations are on this board and
to see how we can work together to further the strategic strategic plan because I did not share this statement with any other planning board members. I would like to give the other planning board members an opportunity to respond to either anything in this
statement or anything at the select board meeting. I have I have some things I'd like to comment on. Um, first of all, I want to say that the comments that were made about the
planning board were uh somewhat ironic because the charter also states the planning board shall have the responsibility to make studies of the resources, possibilities and needs of the town and to make plans for the development of the town. And we have been talking since February about uh
getting a grant specifically for the purpose of looking at what kinds of ways can we impact zoning in order to promote economic development that also preserves the character of the town which we discussed when our liaison was here at the last meeting but that was not
mentioned in the discussion before the select board in the liaison report. Um I think that um the thing that troubles me uh from the things that were said in the select board meeting is one the impact that has on liaison relationships
overall when your liaison report misrepresents the board when for example it was said we can't say no to everything and I kind of feel like the default is to say no to everything that is that the planning board's default is to say no to
everything just an Even cursory examination of our record shows that we do not say no to everything and in fact we say no to very few things. Uh and also that that that then liaison report then turns into attack on the board. I think that has a chilling
relationship on the liaison relationship between our boards. Two, it affects the board's focus. Now, instead of focusing on a particular application, we're going to be distracted because now we're going to be thinking about how are we going to be perceived in the things that we say.
If there's something that we don't like, if there's something that we feel should be denied, on the other hand, now we're being asked to consider, well, how are you how is someone how is a developer going to view that? Is a developer not going to want to bring business to town? Uh I mean where it was said that
basically the survival of the town is at peril because of the way the planning board is perceived. I think that I think that causes uh a general impression that we are essentially the cause of what
could potentially endanger the town and that therefore you know we would we it would only be natural that we would start to wonder well now how is this going to be viewed? But most most importantly is that it communicates a lack of support which is important when
there particularly when there is pending litigation which there is with this board. It communicates a weakness, a lack of support. And I think that's something that also could be um that would be considered by
applicants when they bring their applications knowing that this board essentially has been put on its heels by the select board, by the town manager. And uh and so I think that the things that were said I think that one thing that certainly could help is if there is at least some statement at least that
the select board does support the planning board in terms of the decisions that it makes uh and the and support in terms of funding for litigation and so forth are things that will be still provided. So that's all I have to say.
Anyone else? I have just a couple quick things. One is that I I view my role as a planning board member. Could you thank to be kind of a like a steward and it's a balancing act between the interests of
the town, the interests of the neighborhood, the interests of the um businesses who we hope to help the town thrive. Um and so there's a lot of
sometimes conflicting interest that we have to weigh in the context of the you know zoning law and the and the charter. Um and I agree that
um things that were said in the way they were said were um not at all collegial. I guess we'll leave it at that. Um, and then the la the last minorish point is that I was very excited and I know a number of
other people were about the beehive project. I thought it was great and I wanted them to put a little coffee shop because I mean I wasn't the one who brought that up but I thought when it was brought up that that was would be a good um
additional aspect of the development project and that the the owner if anything didn't or the applicant if anything didn't seem put off by that. I thought he said something to the effect of um you know we didn't want to ask for
too much so we didn't ask for that but we he didn't seem at all like that was a problem and I don't I didn't go back and look at that meeting I just didn't have time I meant to do it this afternoon but um but I don't know what the vote was
but I thought it was you know quite positive in my recollection six to one maybe quite posit when the beehive came up I wasn't even on the board I sitting in the audience and it was very you know it was a a lot of good communication there and I think the only concern you guys had
was there going to be chemicals the residents above like how do we make sure that this is safe for having residents there was never we don't want this this is bad this is not what we need there was a lot of excitement on this board for that project and yes you know it was hey can we put a coffee shop in or is
this someplace else that we could put something for the community to bring people into the area so when I saw the meeting and it's like oh they've pulled and now they're putting this in. I'm like, well, wait a minute. When did they pull? No one came back to the board or said anything about it because when I sat in those seats, it was approved. It
was, you know, you guys really like the project. So, it was very, you know, I I didn't even know what to think when I heard that at the select meeting like, oh, when did this happen? Like, yeah, when did this change? What made the change? Yeah, I was just going to say um adding
on to what Deedra said, my recollection is that we the we were not the board as a whole was not very negative. I don't even remember any comments that were that negative towards that that proposal. I was looking forward because I thought those contractors would be have a lot of they they have quite a
market here in Chsford to to perform their work. Um, and I just want to say I don't buy for one minute that we're we're perceived the whole town is perceived negative because one developer didn't get their project approved on Riverneck
Road. I was not on the board at the time. Um, I didn't have a vote on that. If I was that developer, I'd probably be upset if my project wasn't approved. But that's not why I ran for this position. I ran for it to represent the interests of the voters of Chumswood. They want us
here to ask questions that are intelligent, watch things, and not I, you know, I'm not here to see how fast I can put my hand up on a project until I know all of the the one thing I've learned over the past two years or so is there's a lot of details involved in
it's incumbent upon us to ask questions and um I I just I I think it's we do have a difficult job as others have said, we we're trying to balance the interest of the town, also the citizens and also private property owners that want to develop their property and that's sometimes a
difficult balancing act. Anyone else wish to speak? Okay. All right. With that, we will actually move on to the strategic plan. Um, we have a few links in the document.
Um, one is an article that I found from the New Hampshire Municipal Association, uh, talking about the secrets of small s of secrets of successful small communities. Um it's a little older article, but it is an interesting read
talking about the role of of um planning boards and uh growth of communities. So I thought that would be a good uh sharable document. Um I also put together based
on some of my questions a document. Um Evan, can you bring up that context and questions? So the first half of it is a little bit of discussion around
managing growth. Um it talks about a lot of the things that are in the strategic plan. Um land use and zoning infrastructure services.
Um I think if you look at the details in here of what typically encompasses managing growth, it is a lot of that strategic plan. So that is one of my questions also about what the role of that first
objective is. Um if you look at that first objective, it's developing a strategic growth plan. And if you look at what or managing growth plan and if you look at a lot of
what's in the managing growth, it's what the strategic plan is. So I'm still not clear about what is expected of that managing growth plan if it's not the actual strategic plan. So that's one thing I would like to hear about tonight.
If you scroll down to the questions and concerns um the first question is around that topic. Um what's the role of the planning board in that managing growth objective?
Um the planning board is specifically called out in number one in that managing growth objective in the managing growth goal objective one but it's not called out and there are no there's no ownership
called out in 2 three four and five. Two and three under that objective are obviously the planning board but the ownership of four and five is unclear. So if the planning board is owning
the goal and the managing growth overall plan, it's unclear how the ownership of all of those fits in. So I'm really confused about the structure of all of this. And objective one specifically states
that it's asking the planning board to develop guiding principles and core values for each of the components listed. If you look at the rest of the strategic plan, all of that is community goals, guiding principles, and core values. So
I'm not quite sure what the planning board is then supposed to develop beyond what's already in the strategic plan. And then many of the components listed under that objective are not in the planning
board jurisdiction. Um they're in other areas, jurisdiction, various boards and commissions. And so it's again unclear of why the planning board was assigned to this specific objective when in my
opinion it should be rolled up to a more umbrella group like a townwide task force strategic planning committee a strategic planning committee or strategic implementation committee um something like that. So are you talking about like zoning environmental
open space that Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So all of those all of those individual objectives roll up into the overall goal of managing growth in the managing growth
plan. And we own obviously a couple of them but not all of them. So I would like to get some clarification from the folks here, a little bit more context about what the expectations are, why the planning board was
selected to lead this and get a little bit more um input on that. So, if anyone is willing to step up and talk through it, I'm Paul Cohen, town
manager. If you'll forgive me the indulgence, I'm just disappointed this at this point. Your previous agenda item regarding the comments at the select board meeting, we didn't have a dialogue, right? I know your planner asked for a
dialogue and suggested an informal dialogue and instead it was put on the agenda and still no dialogue. So instead we're talking at each other and now we're starting this agenda item and we're making assertions rather than having a
conversation. Look folks, we've got to work together. Okay? We're not asking anybody to capitulate or to own things or to do anything. We're asking to work together as a community. and you had a member of the planning board on the strategic plan committee.
He's sitting right there and I'm sorry if he didn't inform you along the way or provide a sufficient understanding of what the strategic plan is. I'm really sorry about that. I'm not blaming Mike, but it wasn't to the exclusion of the planning board or to place burdens
on the planning board. The problem we have as a strategic plan committee is we didn't feel capable or qualified to determine what the town wants in the future. And yes, we look to the planning
board because under the statute, you do own and are responsible for the master plan of the community. And an implementation committee certainly can't do that because what would they have for authority or
ability? And so that's why we're not saying the planning board alone was going to do this, but my god, we wouldn't do it without the planning board as a central focus of this. And I think that's what we were trying to convey because I've seen personally how defensive the planning
board gets when you step in their domain. And as a member of the strategic plan committee and our fellow members in the room, we didn't want to do that. We didn't want to step on anybody's toes. But my god, the big problem we have, and we saw it in the strategic
plan committee, and you see it every week when you meet, is nobody has a consensus of where this town wants to be in the future. And therefore, we can't know where we're going because there is no consensus. We've got the select board out there doing studies on whether we should tie
to the MWRA sewer and that's costing real money, but we don't know if the community wants that because what's that going to mean? That's going to mean growth. And that is that going to mean commercial growth, residential growth, combination of all those? Of course it
is. That's the problem we have. And you're not at fault. Nobody's blaming you. But my god, we can't do it without the planning board. And what I saw in the 2020 master plan was an update of the 2010 master plan. There was no original thinking in
there in terms of a direction for this community. It was, "Oh, it's time to revise what we did 10 years ago." Well, I'm sad to say, and the reality is, and forgive me for my passion, the world is a lot different now than it was in 2010. And quite frankly, it's a lot different
than it was pre- pandemic. And we've got to figure out where this community wants to go. And quite frankly, I can be objective on this because I'm not going to be here in 10 more years and many of us won't be. But
that doesn't mean we're not concerned by it and don't see the importance to the community. But we've got to fundamentally see where we are. We saw it with the MBTA zoning. What we did is we did a paper compliance, right? We're going to zone areas that we don't think will be built so we can meet. Let's call
it what it is, folks. We're not the only community that did that because we we got the sense that the only people who show up in this room are people who are against something. And therefore, we don't know what we want to be. We saw the same anxiety with ADUs. What do we do in the ADU
situation? What's that going to mean for our school enrollment? What's it going to mean? And then we know and you saw it at the town meeting. I my heart broke for you, Chris. you did a a a what was meant to be a a a directive from the attorney general's office on to clarify
the terms of our bylaw to avoid litigation and you you basically walked out there empty-handed. That should be telling folks. It is telling. And yes, I know there's hot buttons in there that was rolled into it like definition of family and so forth, but at the end of the day,
the big picture was lost. Look, we can't we can't do school considerations formally in our decisions. And so when it comes down to the strategic plan, it it it I'm just concerned that much like the master plan
and the open space plan, the affordable housing plan, everything else, it's going to be relegated to a table or a bookshelf. Okay. So, how do we start? So, this is how we got to start to roll up our sleeves and work together. Where do we got to start? we've got to have a
dialogue. We can't do it now obviously till the fall. And this is where the the strategic plan felt they had to to to finish up and they wanted specific implementation items. And I had a staff meeting with all with all the department heads and we assigned every single item
in there for for for work. But what what what I can't do what the staff and the department heads can't do is we can't we can't provide the direction of where this community wants to go. You you can call it strategic plan, comprehensive plan, master plan, whatever term you want to do. But we've got to have that
discussion because we're also going to come to this community and we're going to want to build a new middle school. Well, we have enrollment projections and we've told the the the MSBA this is what we think is going to be the community, but we don't know what the
community wants. So So I guess the question is I don't I I don't if if it was easy, we'd have done it by now. But this is the struggle that we had as a strategic planning committee is what and and and Evan was a big voice on this. I'm not trying to push Evan in front of the microphone, but Evan was a big voice
saying we don't feel that there's a community consensus, right, on what the community wants to be. Yes, we want to preserve the character and and and and yes, we want to hold what's dear to the town of Chsford, but what is it? And we're now 37,000 people by the most recent census
data. And if and we know what the what the state is doing to us. They're pushing housing housing housing and and and it's and they're not through yet, right? That it didn't end with MBTA zoning and it's not it didn't end with ADU zoning. The the the con the message
is still there. The housing is the big issue and and the question becomes h what do we as a community want to be in terms of a type of community? And I agree and I've said this. If we wanted to be if people of Chester wanted to be Arlington, they would have bought a home
in Arlington. And you know, and if they wanted to have been Dunable, they would have bought a home in Dunstable. And instead, we've got the state doing one-sizefits-all. But more importantly, recognizing these constraints, which I know you do, we've got to come we've got to come to a consensus of what should we
be investing in in terms of water, sewer, roadways, the the traffic, the con the construction and ultimately the zoning because the zoning is the underpinning of all of that. So that is what we need to have a dialogue on is
where what do we do co coordinated manner meaning the select board the planning board the the board of health the the conservation commission but clearly the strategic plan you know couldn't do it and and it was it was too
big of a lift and I don't know if there's anything else bud or oh can I just can I just talk a couple things I agree with most of what you're saying the I want to make sure that we're clear
that the the approach we took for the ADUs and the MBTA was be not because we don't want growth but because we don't want growth in the way that the state was asking us to do it. We wanted to be able to control that the way we want as
a town. And so that's why we took the approach we did and we had discussions about that and we got some ideas from that that we have on our on our list of things that we want to get done but we didn't want to do it the way
the state was requiring us. So that's why we took that approach. Not that we don't want growth. I'm also a little disappointed because my understanding of the the purpose of the strate strategic planning committee
was to take all of the docu all of the different strategic plans from the different groups like our master plan um concom's plan bring them all together and figure out what the community wants based on all of that. That's why it
caught me off guard when I'm seeing all of these values and and the direction that I think is a good direction from that strategic plan. But then it's asking the board to come up with another plan. It didn't ask the board to update
our master plan. It said come up with this new managing growth plan. And so coming out of the blue like that, it I had no idea what the expectation was. And so
that's why it caught me off guard um in trying to figure out how we're going to go about this. And the reason for the managed growth thing is we we didn't call for an update to the master plan because we felt it was this this sole item of
growth is it was the issue that had to be addressed. So, we didn't call for a comprehensive update to the master plan. It's this growth question that is that is key is what what what does the town want to be and therefore because if you don't know what you want to be then you
can't plan on how to get there. I mean it's a difficult question because there's not a lot of buy there's there's a lot of different opinions and strong opinions. I do want to ask one thing. When we talk about growth, are we essentially talking about growth and revenue for the town? No. Then what are
we talking about? We are talking about the the fact is that the town will grow. Okay? There's no doubt. And again, take whatever your your snapshot in time, right? You could have had a discussion in 1950 was 10,000 people. You could
have had a discussion in 1974 after they built the new high school. What did the town want to go? and and and and I'm sure that there'd be the same perception at that time. Where is it that they wanted to go? Here we are now in 2025. It's not about revenue growth, but
yes, the growth of the growth of the town will generate revenue, but that's a determination of whether that revenue would offset the cost and and depending upon the development, it may or may not. But that but in a town that's mostly built out, that really isn't the the the
driver. And this wasn't the revenue issue. the the question became given that growth is inevitable and with the spectre that it's housing housing housing not only in Massachusetts but across the nation that the the question became so
if there's going to be housing growth in particular because that's where the the sense is then the question is how do we deal with that and if the answer is we don't want it then we should not be pursuing outside sewer sources such as the MWRA or or or expansion of the city
of lol or other efforts because if the answer is we don't want that then then we shouldn't be going down there and but but that that's what we're doing because there is no consensus and every board is sort of knowingly on their own going in their own direction as to what they think is
is a potential solution and so it's not revenue growth it's the fact that that growth is inevitable and what we've seen for growth let's look at the the growth in the last eight years has all been essentially been multif family housing,
right? Mhm. You know, you know, all the they're going to open these units on 255 Princeton Street, right? 400 units. You saw what happened to Kinlock, Nactton Road, Grismill One, you know, and and people don't like it. And people don't like it. Exactly. And I'm sure that in
the 1960s they didn't like the farms either or or Williamsburg. But the qu but and I'm not sure what the right answer is but but we now we can only deal with where we are today and going forward. And the question is what is what does the town want because if they don't want the
growth then let's just stop these these explorations. Growth is inevitable. Right. But no, but why why am I why am why why am I out pursuing MWA connections in in in Bedford and Burlington if the town doesn't want growth? But Paul and I'm going to get
the answers and and believe me, we'll have the report in July and it'll say this many millions of dollars, this much for operating costs and then the question is going to become well then what do we do with it? I also because I don't want them to I don't want them I don't want to cook up for massive cost that then drives more massive
development. You know what I mean? like if you build the infrastructure, are people going to come here? Right. But yet, but yet on the other hand, we're so fixated on housing that we're losing sight of of the good jobs and and what we want to provide as a community.
The big and I'm not just I'm not faulting the town of Chford. You're seeing the state do this. The state developed the Devon's Enterprise Zone after the Army base closed for economic development, right? They they limit it to like 500 housing units, whatever the number was. And now with today's pressures, they're basically throwing
that out the window and saying, "We got to put housing there." But the question's going to become, well, where are you going to put economic development? I if if you've now utilized your prime areas for housing and and that's I mean, the consensus you're having here tonight with Loheed Martin
in a residential neighborhood, you know darn well it's going to come back at us with Kinlock, the residents of Kinlock, with the development behind them and everything else. And so that's my point is we've got to knowingly decide where we want to go as a community and and it's and it's not a criticism of the
planning board. It's the fact that we don't think meaning the strategic plan committee didn't think that we could do it without without the planning board being the central point of this because of the heritage that the planning board has in terms of master plan development in terms of the the zoning control in
the community. And that's and that's really what we need to do. But I also think that there's a big difference between growth y and advancement. Yeah. And I think we can advance as a community without growing.
But we given our our limitations in infrastructure, we can't even advance. So because we don't have the sewer capacity, we can't fill up some of those those um office buildings with some of the R&D that we would love to get in
there. But but that's not necessarily growth. That's it because progress because if let me give you an example if we come in and provide additional sewer capacity on 129 right because that's the closest think about it the closest geographic border and how you would run
sewer to MWR would be down down Corum Street to Bedford and Burlington. I I've seen the draft report I don't have the final report. I don't have a hard copy of it, but I've talked to the consultants and they're going to come back in July and probably less than two months and they'll have some numbers and reports, but that's where you go. The
problem is the question is, okay, so now we provide sewer capacity in 129 that as you know, you're residential development's allowed in 129 as well. So, and as we know, money gravitates to the biggest return. Mhm. So if there's
sewer capacity on 129, as much as you saw 270 get torn down for a warehouse, somebody's going to tear anything down to build a multif family because you're going to have the sewer capacity to do it. And so the problem is is how do we,
you know, how do we deal with this? Because that kind of growth is going to create stresses, right? Because if you put 400 units in, especially if the state's pushing multif family housing, so three-bedroom units and so forth as
minimums, you're going to then impact the school system. You're then going to impact the traffic and the congestion, everything in the community. So that's what we're trying to get a handle on is, you know, it's sort of the unintended consequences because you you can't just simply add, well, we're going to add
sewer in 129 without realizing that that that's not going to be constrained to econ, you know, for for enterprise. It's going to be con it's going to be it's going to be available for all types of development. And the bottom line is, you know, like anything else, the money is
going to go to the highest return. And right now the highest return is residential, multif family residential. Don't we currently today have problems with our infrastructure? Isn't the sewer system today limited by our current population and everything else? Isn't there problems today with it? No. The
sewer system is limited by the treatment capacity at the L regional wastewater plant, which is not regional. It's owned by the city of l. And we have a license to to send our sewer u ephilent to that plant. A certain amount, right? We don't
we don't have any internal capacity constraints that that prohibits us from developing but our growth our growth is limited by the current sewer aotment that our town has today. Correct. Without even growing anywhere that is a current problem. So we know that has to
change. So we know that has to change and that's part of growth that has to continue. Right. I mean but yet but yet when they tried p introduction of private sewer systems the board of health reared reared up and said we don't want private sewer systems. So when when somebody if somebody wanted to in zone two in zone two which is most
which is most of the town which is yeah which is our drinking water right. So yeah so that's the problem is so you're kind of in the horns of a dilemma you know you you you're limited by sewer but yet there's other options you know we are one of the few communities that is entirely sewered but yet when when the the idea
of introducing some limited septic into the s that got that got pushed back but I don't think we disagree with that. I don't think the sewer thing is something that here we disagree. We all know that that's a problem, right? I mean, there's specific questions in here. I know Chris, you've been trying to get answers to, but but I think Paul, my perspective
is I'm not saying that the planning board doesn't have a key role in this. I just don't think that we have a lead role in this. I think it really because of all of the intertwined issues. Um sewer school
those are two of the issues but we also have an issue with conservation with a number of other areas board of health. I think because of all of those intertwined issues the lead on this
managing growth strategy needs to be at a higher level. I think it needs to be at the the select board. It needs to be at the strategic implementation committee. Something like that is a higher level than well yeah
because I previous job that I had I was a business unit owner and I didn't go around setting my own goals about how much revenue I was supposed to get and that sort of thing. That was given to me by the executives by the CEO, president,
so forth and so on. they allocated your business unit, you need to grow by this much, etc., etc., excuse me. That I feel like is the position we're in. We're not the ones deciding what kind of growth needs to happen overall. We can certainly do things to promote it and manage it in
silver and so on which we are already doing but the thing that we don't do is we don't set like for example the thing that Evans sent out from Stratford Canada right at the beginning we want to we want to add X many hundred units
right so MBTA similar thing we want this many units that's the kind of general framework that we need what we want is we want to increase by X amount of X amount ex tax base. We want so much commercial
uh or industrial revenue. We want so many units. We want so many whatever. Uh which may be something that comes out of a study and maybe that would be the thing of our study. I don't know. But those are the kinds of things that we need to need in order to execute as
opposed to actually come up with them. That's an executive decision that's above us. But but with all due respect, Joel, the legislation, the governor gave the town a housing count under MBTA zoning, right? So you did have a number and that was their number for us. That's
not the best number for us according to our leadership, which is you and the select board, right? So So I'm just saying in the world that I come from, which is which is a world in which there were expectations about what was going to happen. Yeah. That those things were not set by me. Those were things
that were given to me. And then I was implementing them. I was executing them. So as uh we have been um I of the committee which has still not been dissolved as June. Is it dissolved? Okay. Good. Okay. Good. I'm done with
it. Um as chair one of the discussion points we did uh and and some of the history was raised and I want to lay some background on this um before stepping into this. as as Evan pointed out in his email, I think to several of you, I think at least or all of them, is
that the background is come January, we had not to a degree address this notion of what some of the challenges and how we're going to solve this integrated problem. I was one of the um of the mindset for a
brief amount of time after Evan did produce thinking that the committee would solve and by the way for clarification it was the strategic planning steering committee not the committee itself. Our job was to steer the plan of the broad framework. So we were not involved in the actual solution
phase. We were in the problem definition identification goal setting process to to you in that sense. I think during the discussion specifically as it got laid out very much so and all the angst ran not being communicated all accepted this
is probably a first time that we're doing this and we should have communicated broader and lots of leaks happen so to speak or broken links uh but I think one of the critical things to understand is the planning board I'm not saying the other boats
don't have have the role and I would be on the roadways probably accosted for it But you have a diligent process. You have a master plan that has a sense and notion whether it has an update or where things stand wherever it is. It also
means that we are almost close to the next mass I mean give or take another five years so to speak. Um we're also at a crucial juncture and as a s a committee on the sustainability that I have sometimes come and spoken to all of you in and
around I take the very very long view a strategic plan is technically intended to be 5 years 10 years at best but some of the work that we are going to lay out in this who do we want to be how do we grow is not a question for 5 to 10 years you can't run that you really look very
very long distance in this and I think the planning boat usually has that thought process to a degree to a degree right if not all of it at least what I observed right so I'm just saying stating that as a as a basis in in some
ways the other thing I think was um as was pointed by the chair is that you know it's not that the planning board should be the lead or not it was given off to the planning board as being an anchor whether you want to be your lead at that point or not that's
something that you can discuss so to speak. But the fact is you're intimately aware generally of the challenges of what the master planning master plan document is. Some of the challenges in implementation, the types of questions you ask even when reviewing
applications, you take multi-dimensional questions into account. All of the seven points that you talked about I think was presented about the different aspects the planning board takes into consideration in one form or the other in terms of asking questions. It may not be the straight question by question but
you guys do that as a committee as a as a as a board. So I think take this as a request that we thought the most intellectual most processoriented group that has the ability to collect
and and one of the things I think also all of it affected maybe subtly affected us is the fact that the last master plan probably had about a thousand plus responses give or take some number 1,200 responses and our process only yielded
300 so to speak in certain other areas also. So it it elicited a few things, right? So think of this as a call um is anchor it if not lead it but you have the ability to call for the
types of people or or put out and have a discussion around the types of people who need to be in there first order. And as a conversation with select board member Aaron and town manager um and see where that leads in terms of
the the type of makeup and what kind of processes might we use. And this might be an opportunity in my own this is my personal opinion now is that this might be an opportunity to reuse um the the the 2020 master plan or and
see if there is a a different type of thinking that we have to bring not just in 10 years but this may be a momentous occasion for us because we are entering into a phase in my op in personal opinion a period where Massachusetts has to transform all the laws or or the the
guidance of the states that are being put together is basically trying to drive an economic engine that is needing to happen and people and bases and housing is the first order economic engine where there is housing where there are people and and in smart people
and capable people and affordable or reasonably affordable or somewhat affordable whatever that terminology is where there are people there's going to be jobs or economic engines happening and they wanted to look at that as an option right at least that's my simplistic
very simplistic top- down goal. But Joel, a pun intended, sometimes when you are the best team member in the CEO's staff, they do call upon you to set the goals for the rest of the business unit. So, in some ways, that also happens. Well, I must not have been because they didn't ask me,
but in retrospective, so to speak. How is that how is what you're proposing different than the master plan? It it's not necessarily just the master plan, but we'll have the ability in my op in my personal opinion is to have the integration of the other committee me other input points and have the
discussion and debate which may which may be about where do we want to head as as a community process to have people say what is it that we want to and drive conversations around scenario planning. Right? If you do scenario A, whatever
the scenario be, um this is the number of people, this is the type of things we will have as facilities or capabilities to serve and you know because that's additional committee members from different town departments or or commi um boards or committees will show up and
they'll we'll have a robust discussion about creating scenarios to present to the community. So I mean it sounds like a larger version than essentially what we did for MBTA where we were looking at different scenarios of how we might implement it but we had assistance from NIMCOG who was really guiding and helping us. So one question I have is I
mean I would think that if we were going to do something like that that we would need some sort of assistance and so I don't know if NIMCOG is the right group to provide that kind of assistance. the ones that did the last play or whether we did the or you know we we would we
would obtain um consultant assistance. Okay. Mhm. But this goes back to my point that I made earlier. I was under the impression that that's what that strategic planning group was supposed to be doing is pulling all of these plans
together and coming up with that more comprehensive strategic plan for growth and development in in the town. And it feels like it but it feels like it started and there was some progress
at the beginning of that document but then it got hard so everyone stopped. Um, okay. Let me try and address that whether it was hard or not. But I think as any new effort goes around, because this being the first time around that we envisioned a
strategic plan and as a steering committee, our task was to figure out what the big goals and buckets of issues were and how to look for it and just have an integrated um accepted pol um set of goals, right? We we looked at high performance government, we looked
at like quality of life, infrastructure and this big piece around managing growth. So we we have four or five buckets that we wanted to look at and have specific goals. We started to go down a particular path. Some people had you know questions maybe didn't come out through the the various Q&A process that
we had the consultant with and Evan did catch on to it and said hey listen are we addressing this very critical question central question right where are we headed this is a point because we and you know CEO ID was passed around
2012 14 15 something around that if I'm not mistaken and he's brought this question have you thought about this. This is a question not just of the the the growth in development utilization and tax revenue base but just having that thought process. It's a complex
question and Mike and I were on on sideline just having a chat saying do we do we do something like that. We ideated and decided from inputs from the rest of the committee members that it would take a lot more time and
process that the com then committee members needed more experienced hands like the planning board. Mhm. So it it was an ode to your the planning broads historical role processes thought process that all of you have evolved
into and not in some way as to where it was. That's where it particularly landed in. So Chris, you're right that if it could have been, it would have been that committee if it had that one answer set. But we we were we ended up being a
steering committee to set the goal process for the first time around. And I think by that goal process a lot of people got more aware and educated about all the complexity of the issues they stepped back for that moment. So I think
in the spirit of dialogue and and thinking forward I mean digest what it is um whether the word is lead or anchor or something else participant uh maybe the select boat reappoints another study
committee or or you want to meet that or inputs it maybe it's a conversation to say who are the pertain pertinent uh stakeholders and and participants who can vision this out for as As Paul pointed out, you know, it's not just 10
years. And who knows, even 10 years later, I may not be living here or you and you all have won the tri-state lottery and decided to move elsewhere, right? Hawaii or, you know, who knows? But the point is, can we give a a path and that's an public input process
again? It's it's the vigorous debate. I think we were just surprised really that yeah possibly surprised and that's why I accepted right the strategic plan was released or or you know it was published but it wasn't presented in every coroner
of it but I think Paul did a twominutter at the town meeting uh in in the spring but that was probably not quick enough for everybody's catchup so surprise given obviously next time around as I was saying at the end of the strategic committee uh plan uh steering committee
Hopefully some of us in that committee are around for the next revision in five years give or take to know because the process trying to figure out that central question I think can I also ask who the consultant was that worked right
Barry Dunn Barry Dunn Aaron you want to jump in otherwise Evan or you you seem like I just want to jump in while Aaron's coming to the mic. microphone that I think that first thing needs to be established is what are the demand signals right so in this case
Paul's already identified it didn't seem chronological to me but nonetheless he has identified that there's going to be inevitable growth so the thing you'd want to do is you'd want to get estimates to what you think that growth is going to be so that you can then see and and in what way in terms of if it's residential housing growth or what have
you so that you can at least identify what is it that's going or potential costs associated with infrastructure so that you can then identify identify what is it that you think you need to build up in terms of either infrastructure or your base in terms of what kinds of businesses you're trying to attract or
that sort of thing. So I think that you know we really need to understand first and foremost I think what is driving this and then the second thing that Aaron mentioned was uh he was concerned about maintaining at least some degree of growth so that we could maintain
level you know level uh service service and so that's another one so okay you can project out we have projections on what that's going to be so that also forms a basis for what kinds of revenue do you think we we're going to need to be generating in order for that to then see, you know, how and what we do is
going to be generating that kind of revenue. So that that's a at least in my mind one of the first things, you know, we need to identify is what is the need before we go about figuring out how we might need meet that need and how we're going to get consensus around meeting that need. But go ahead.
All right. I don't want to um I don't want to take away from the important messages and context that um Paul and Budrey have articulated tonight because I think I think some of that
discussion and the important comments that came out of that were what the intention that Chris and I had in some brief comments after town meeting when when this was when um the uh the plan
was uh put out there publicly. Um that meeting didn't come together and then it showed up as an agenda item on your 14th I think I have that right the 14th meeting. So I attended that meeting not just as a liaison but also with the
expectation that if there were questions as a member of the committee and the select board I could try to fill in some of those blanks and quite candidly right wrong or indifferent whether you intended it or
not it it didn't feel like the planning board was super excited and and I didn't get an opportunity to to try to clarify I certainly couldn't have done it as eloquently as these guys did tonight, but I could have at least started some
of the conversation and and again, if I took anybody out of context, people can go back and watch the meetings and I encourage you to not take my context, view it as your own. Um, but but I went back to just make sure I heard it right.
And I, you know, the statement was made that the planning board and zoning is not designed to encourage growth and expansion, but designed to limit control and set minimum standards. And and yeah, that's in a lot of the rules. But to me,
I walked out of here, no opportunity to comment. Didn't seem like there was any interest beyond what were made for discussion points amongst yourselves. And then that statement that kind of goes against this idea that I've had for
a long time that we we have to manage the growth because I don't want to become I've said this a hundred times, my hometown. I I don't even recognize it anymore. So if we manage that, we manage it to get what we want and we can still have growth, the appropriate growth,
advancement, I think that's a better word. So I don't like using growth. I like using redevelopment and I think I'm going to steal the advancement, Chris. Um, so that being said, I want to be very clear with the board and I want to be very clear with the public and make sure that they're public statements.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the war board, the work that the board does and openly admit it's the one job I couldn't do in this town. Everybody shows up prepared, educated, and they learn about all kinds of things that I still can't figure out and I've
said in a number of these meetings. So, my intention was to not Joel make anybody look bad, insult anybody. Um, you'll you'll find over the next three years that sometimes my passions
get ahead of the the words in the statement. Um, but but what's underlying, you know, is it's because I just care and I want this done right. And the inability to have a conversation when it was an agenda item. Now, I didn't know if I was supposed to come up
and ask, but I thought if you had it on the agenda, you were going to ask me to get up and speak. So, I didn't want to jump up and and derail the conversation and have you say not an appropriate time. So, if I personally insulted the board, I publicly take responsibility
for that. That wasn't my intention. Um, and that the conversation is the important part. The strategic plan, guys, isn't perfect, but we need to start somewhere. And I do hear a lot of like it's very frustrating. We're not designed to
encourage growth and expansion. And I just don't believe that to be true. Again, I think what we're doing too is we're getting noodled around, we're getting worked up around some of the different definitions of what does growth really mean. Again, if we sit down and have the dialogue and the
discussion, maybe we can get the right definition around it because I'm going to bet that most of us in this room are not misaligned whatsoever. But here we are at this discussion tonight. And and I'm not going to lie, it's definitely, you know,
if I could rewind the tape and put some of my statements back in the box and keep them to myself, I would. But I wouldn't I wouldn't take back and I won't take back the passion that I care about this stuff because I don't want it
to be Stonem or Reading or Wakefield. But I also want us to be a place that we do attract business. We do attract the right growth. We do have the right type of housing for everybody that we need across the spectrum. From the new people starting out that can't
afford a whole lot to the seniors that want to age in place. I care about all of those people. And this board has a lot of that expertise and a lot of that experience. So the idea that we had was that you would be the the kind of the lead agency and get the right people
together. And that just we didn't get to have that conversation and said again you said some things that definitely didn't seem as friendly at the time and if I took that out of context again my apologies. Um, but this
stuff is too important candidly to let the meeting on the 14th and the meeting on the 19th derail this. So I am I am still allin on this project. But on the other hand, I do recognize that it's being the liaison to
this board is is beyond just this particular project. and and I serve on all my liaison assignments at the at the pleasure of of the chair. Um I am more than willing to go back to the chair and say that we need the liaison to be able
to move forward and we need this project to be able to move forward then then we can talk at our next meeting about um updating those liaison assignments. And again it's not it's not personal. I get that. Um but I
do that the aison on assignment needs to work um going forward and very much this how this gets resolved whether the planning board takes the lead or not or the select board takes the lead and it's a and it's a couple of different people to put this together to get these
discussions happening as I've said to to Evan and others in past we need to start doing something because MWR is going to take years and we we want to know the impact but as Paul said if the town really doesn't want that then let's not spend the money and figure out what
we're going to do. But I I do it'd be foolish to to not consider the financial impacts of not having some sort of redevelopment and some sort of business growth would just we'd be foolish, right? So if we know
that that's not what we want to do, then let's take some appropriate action to to go down the path and and and address how that's going to impact us. Um, I also definitely don't want to be Burlington or Reading or Stone or any of those either. So, um,
again, my apologies and please let Aaron or myself know and if we need to do the leazison assignments, I'm perfectly fine with having that updated. Thanks, Aaron. I appreciate that. Um, I do want to mention
that yes, part of that debacle last meeting was my fault. Um, I did want to mention some of the concerns and issues to the rest of the board. Evan was not at the meeting. Um, we hadn't had that
discussion yet that I wanted us to have around getting a better understanding. So, I didn't want to have an internal discussion with the board, even with you providing input because we didn't have a complete picture. Um, so I didn't want to have that discussion at that meeting.
Um, but I did want to give the rest of the board some insight into what I was hoping to get clarity on. Um, and I didn't want to get too deep into the weeds at that meeting because I still wasn't prepared to have that
discussion. I have said it in the past and I still stand by it that zoning does not encourage growth and development. It sets the minimum standards. We've seen it multiple times.
The the underlying zoning essentially sets what things we do and don't want. Doesn't mean it's going to get built. The overlays can set additional things of
what we want. But again, on 129, we have grand visions in that overlay of what we've wanted to see there. that hasn't encouraged anything. And so I have done a ton of
reading on this, ton of research, and I've seen it in practice in this town where the zoning does not encourage growth and development. It can help it. It can remove the barriers. And I think it's one of the
pieces of the full picture around town that can encourage growth and development. But I think the role of zoning is more around setting the guard rails, setting the minimum standards, but there needs to be a lot
more in order to be able to encourage that growth. And so that is my perspective on zoning. Um, and I'll stand by it because we've we've tried many overlays in town that haven't encouraged the growth that we've wanted
it to encourage. So, I that's my perspective on zoning. Um, and I think that that's one of the reasons why I'm pushing back a lot
on the the planning board owning this because if we do want to encourage de encourage advancement, which to me is a better way of saying it than managing growth, but um, then I
think it really needs to be at a different level. Like I've said before, the planning board can participate, other groups can participate, but I think it really does need to be a maybe a a select board driven task
force, which is what the the strategic planning group was. Um, so I'm going to respectfully semidisree and and uh the reason is because I think that
uh either either I'm being flattered too much by what Budrey said or you are what being flattered too much by what Budrey said. But I think given the fact that this board was able to execute the MBTA says to me that this board is
able to t take on responsibilities that can be fairly comprehensive and wide ranging and drive to a solution within a reasonable period of time. I don't know that I see the select board as being the same way. Yeah. So I I see that this board and because of our history with
the master plan which really covers the same kind of spectrum of things that are mentioned in the uh in the um strategic plan. So I agree with Badri on that too. So I I think we are of of the different groups in the town. I think we probably
are the best choice to do this because we've already been doing it in a more limited way. Uh I want to hear what Evan has to say, but I also want to add on to that first that I also think that our work with MBTA started us with a lot of thoughts
about this proc what would be which would feed into this process. Um, I mean, I have a few ideas of things that I feel strongly about that I would like that I think would be helpful for in terms of a a long
range, whatever you want to say, advancing advancement process. Um, and I think that I think that I agree with Evan that I think I'm sorry, I agree with Joel that I think that we would be better
suited to do it. So, but Evan has been trying. I know Evan, I'll get to you in a minute. I think I agree with you that we were successful in the MBTA and the ADU. Um, but I think a lot of the success from the MBTA came from the
NEMCOG group. They helped guide us. Oh, absolutely. So, and we'll need guidance. Big key to the success was the consultant used in the process. Exactly. Yeah. But we could use another I also think that that process took over our
board. Yeah. And if we have any hope of ever advancing some of the work that this board needs to do that we keep trying to get to that the state keeps overriding. I
think we c we have to make a choice. If we're going to do this, it's going to take up all of our time and we're not going to be able to get to all of the other stuff that we've talked about. this doesn't have as much meaning until you answer that central question. Yeah,
I agree. And I think we have progress that we can make in the meantime. We've been making progress without this already. But I think we should try and tackle this question. Yeah. Um if I may, because I've been keeping my mouth shut.
You and then I promised Evan. Okay. Uh I rather agree with Joel and with Deedra. uh our function in the town. I mean the fact that the word planning is in the
name of this board uh should give us a couple of hints uh as to what the appropriate organization might be to tackle this question. But let's be really honest about the question that we're tackling
here. Uh it's a very very difficult question. and it was punted by the master plan committee in 2010. They didn't want to deal with it. And although there were a couple of us on the strategic planning committee that
thought that maybe it might be a good idea for the strategic planning committee to take a shot. Hi there. Uh we know who we are. Uh that didn't happen either for a number of reasons and and and legitimate ones in terms of
manpower and timing. Uh so far in the last 20 years, everybody that's tried to deal with this problem has wound up punting it. Um all right. Why is that? Well, we talk about
diversity of opinion in town. You know, some people want no growth, some people lots want lots of growth. That's not really the problem. The problem is that we have people, individuals, who say, "I want growth,
but I don't want it here and I don't want it there, and I don't want it there." And you got an awful lot of people who are saying thi who are taking two positions that are diametrically
opposed. I mean, you can't have usable growth if you allow every objection that comes up on a neighborhood basis
uh to block you. And we have we have zoning districts in town that were laid out some of them some of them 50 60 years ago that said 128's a great place to do this kind of industrial stuff but
yet nobody wants it when it actually shows up. So it's a very very very difficult problem to handle. I think we can do it. Uh, but it's not going to be the fun kind of thing where everybody gets into
wonderful agreement. A lot of people are going to come in on both sides of the issue. Uh, individuals, the same individual on both sides of the issue, including me. you know, I I have I have feelings
about what would be good and what wouldn't, and I'm not sure that they're all always consistent. So, I think we should take on the problem. I don't think we should kid ourselves that it's the least bit easy to handle. Um,
and we should probably not spend a lot of time doing yet another canvasing of the populace to find out what the populace thinks. Uh, we probably ought to come up with a plan and
then deal with the reactions to that plan and make the modifications at that stage. All right. Did I make any sense at all? Mhm. Yes. Okay. Kevin, just a um couple of items. One is I don't think anyone ever
thought that the planning board as a full committee would lead the effort. I think that needs to be really clear. I think the vision was uh a task force would be created, one or two members of the planning board, one or two from select
board similar to master planning. The reason I'm mentioning that is that if it's a task force, then the the actual full planning board and your regular meetings are not being devoted Yeah. to this to this to
this um this effort. Um I think that's you know that speaks directly to workload and and things of that nature. Um I I just wanted to spend a little bit of time on the on the why.
Um, you know, as as as Mike mentioned, the last 20 years of master planning in town, um, was that it was just planning. It was it was visioning. The difference in my mind is that we are now faced with
real infrastructure uh, challenges and these are beyond challenges. Sooner than later, if the town does nothing, there will be a letter written by a town official saying, "We cannot provide the connection." So the the context of the
2010 master plan and the 2020 master plan, yeah, no one wanted to touch it, but there was really no critical need to to answer the question because there wasn't any threat other than other than a self-created political threat. Yeah. But sitting here today, we are closer to
um closer than not to receiving a letter and having to tell a property owner or an investor, we cannot accommodate you. So I think that's a that's a a major reason as to why other reasons as to why you know
Paul and I and other town officials meet with a lot of a lot of stakeholders a lot of people who want to invest tens of millions of dollars into the town and 10 plus years ago staff was able to clearly
articulate the strategy the vision um increasingly we're not able to do that um so you know as an open-ended question you know I would pose as you know what is the town's aspirations
short intermediate and long term you know and you can answer that in a variety of ways you want to you want to retain character you want to uh you want to advance you want to be trans transformational um but essentially the last 20 years
have been trends continued the master plan didn't didn't make any major changes. We did a couple overlays. Physically, the town hasn't changed much. You've had 10 10 or 12 40 bees that are that look like mushrooms in the middle of, you know, neighborhoods and
corridors. But if you don't want trends continued, then it's what? It's something else. What is that something else? You can call it opportunity, growth, advancement, enhancement. The fact of the matter is you've reached the point where you're
a mature you're mature built out suburban community. Your physical development is what it is. You're going to be primarily dealing with with redevelopment. But even if you had all the proper zoning in place that provided for appropriate development and
appropriate locations, you're still closer to a scenario where you're not going to be able to effectuate that even if you wanted to because you don't have the proper infrastructure. And even if you do have the proper infrastructure, the residents and the sentiment of the
community is that the infrastructure um isn't adequate. So you're dealing with a variety of of issues. Another reason it's for why when you when you layer on all of these real and perceived challenges to related to
development and what the planning board does from a regulatory perspective and then the other regulatory interests that have quickly um quickly been added to the table. All of that, in my opinion, challenges
the economic relevancy of the community. Regardless of whether you want to do nothing or you want to be aggressive, eventually the economic relevancy is going to um is going to be an item that the town's going to have to
deal with. Joel refers to it as, you know, uh approving development to chase revenue. You can call it whatever you want to call it, but eventually if the town is not advancing, reinventing itself, reinvesting, there's going to be a day
of reckoning. And then finally, you know, we can be we can be reactive or proactive. I would say currently we're very reactive. I think the board may have convinced itself that you're being proactive by trying to put the proper
zoning in place to to to obtain the pro the appropriate development. That's a good exercise, but it's it's really just nibbling at the edges because even if you're successful in getting all of the zoning changed to be
appropriate locations and appropriate development, you don't you still have the neighborhood the sentiment. You still have the conflicts. You still have change. Anytime a developer comes to you, they're going to want more than what's there. not more square footage,
but you may be taking a um a building that's been very lightly utilized and now they're going to reactivate it. So, you're going to still have all the same challenges. The real challenges that need to be dealt with are the infrastructure challenges. The real challenges, the ones that town
officials in the community can can truly document and provide evidence as to why there's strains on on the municipal infrastructure. the other stuff is is political for a lack of a better word. So to me, you you layer all of those
reasons, that's the compelling public interest as to why we need to do something different. And it's not a master plan. The master plan has not solved any problems. It's never going to solve any problems. So I view the the managed
growth strategy as just the next logical step of a master plan. But these issues need to be discussed. And at the end of the day, as Aaron said and Badre said and Paul said, if the choice of the
community is not is not to uh pursue um economic expansion via M MWR connection, you're still going to have um 8 million square feet of commercial
industrial that we need to figure out how how is the town what's the town's expectation for that 8 million square feet. Is it good jobs? Is it um um is it increased increased CIP tax base? Uh is
it transitioning some of that space to something else? But you can't do any of that. You can't even have an intelligent, rational conversation if the infrastructure doesn't support the vision or the goals.
And so to me, that's kind of where we are, you know, in the in the public realm with with public hearings and so forth. The the record would indicate that it's um it's it's political reasons not to
support development. In reality, if you were to neutralize public sentiment, you're still left with significant challenges. So we can call it whatever we want to
call it, but we need to figure out to what extent does a town want to provide the opportunity for growth, advancement, enhancement via infrastructure um investments. That's that's really, you
know, the the entirety in a in a nutshell. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with anything. No, I agree. I thought it was important to explain why because I think there's a lot of people outside this room. Yeah. Who don't necessarily understand the complexities as to how we got to where
we are. And again, it's not just infrastructure. There's we have we have a variety of um sentiment against development or significant concerns about development. We've layered on uh recently layered on environmental uh
concerns. So even if you have a limited infrastructure, you still have challenges to to get the the the kind of development you want to get. Even if the proper zoning is in place, as you said, Chris, if the market doesn't believe
that it is a good place to spend its money compared to other places, it's going to choose the other places. So, so the grow the the managed growth strategy isn't just, you know, infrastructure. It
really needs to also um uh get to the core of of, you know, public sentiment, what are the compelling public interests, what are the aspirations, what are our strategic goals and objectives. If you just look at the six million square feet of 129, what is
what's the town expect that to provide to the town 10 years from now, 15 years from now, 25 years from now? And those are those are those are discussions that aren't necessarily directly related to you know MWR connection are not but they
are directly related to each and every time a development project meets with Paul and I or staff and eventually the the neighborhood or the planning board. None of these projects are easy. None of them are ever going to be perfect. If
you had MWR unlimited capacity and a 200,000 square foot biotech manufacturing facility made a proposal some some neighborhood is going to feel negatively impacted. So, so, so the the growth management strategy if
successful are would clearly articulate um guiding principles and core values with the understanding that development today there's winners and losers and under a a a perfect scenario there's still going
to be winners and losers. But what but what is the overriding townwide compelling public interest as to why we do any of this stuff right now? I think it's very combative and divisive, meaning I don't think anyone can clear clearly articulate where there are
winners and where there are losers. There's no strategy. But Paul, I Evan, I do think though that a lot of the neighborhood sentiment for the negative neighborhood sentiment for growth and and development
is related to the lack of infrastructure. It's if we had if we had more capacity in the schools, if we had better roadways, if we had more capacity for sewer and didn't have to go with
septic, I really do think there would be less and less opposition from neighborhoods to some of these development projects. You could be right because of the negative impact. But I think because of some of the negative
impacts on the neighborhoods, because of these infrastructure challenges, that's why we're seeing a lot of the No, understood. Understood. So, to Aaron's point, MWR is a 10-year horizon. Yeah. So, so what does what is a town going to
do for the next five years? I think what the the managed growth strategy is suggesting is that we need an answer now in order to in order to be at the place we want to be 10 years from now. You can't you can't wait any longer. But that's a different question. What's
happening is the town is is digging is digging itself into a a theoretical hole in the marketplace and the community Yeah. is is is running in separate directions. uh there need there needs to be a forum
to answer these questions and come up with a a plan to achieve the desired outcome. That way everybody is hearing the same message. They may not agree with it but then internal and external stakeholders understand what the town's
strategy is. Ideally, there would be political commitment to that strategy and then and then neighborhoods, planning boards, staff, external external stakeholders would understand. Right now there is there is
no there's no even ability to articulate what the town's um strategy is. There is no strategy right now. But what you said earlier about how do we what's our short-term plan? We don't know what the short-term plan is because we don't know what the
long-term plan is. So then you can put all that in in the in a growth management strategy process to be figured out. But right now it's like I said, some people would say we're we're still being reactive. My guess is people on the planning board and myself would say, well, we are being proactive. We're
trying to fix the zoning. I think we're I think we're being reactive in many cases and as proactive as we can be without knowing that long term. What I'm suggesting is a growth management strategy, a forum, proactive forum with
a with a specific strategic intent. Yeah. Would be very very very beneficial for all involved. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that. Okay. I think everyone's agreeing that we need that. Okay. Yeah. So, who who lead I mean who leads it? I don't I mean the is what I'm
hearing tonight is the preference is that the planning board leads it. What that means to me is that the planning board is appointing this ta the task force. After that's done, if the if the right people are appointed to the task force and you have a a good consultant
on board, yeah, the full planning board shouldn't be burdened. Ultimately, the final plan is going to have to come to the full planning board, likely the select board, but I think it's more about providing a credible process
that where everybody understands and wants a credible process that's data driven that is acknowledging that there's maybe this there's three um uh opportunity scenarios and that your and that your
your your intent is to uh figure out to what extent you want or need development and how to um how to pay for those capital improvements to accommodate that desired development growth whatever you want to
call it. So, if we assume, and we do need to wrap this up soon because we do have other agenda items, but if we assume that the planning board is going to lead this, the next question is, do we have any volunteers from the planning board to lead this,
maybe premature, but but that's my point is that we've already just nominated two people for another task force. We've got a number of the lead or not, there's going to be at least two planning board members out to participate. But we've also got a lot of
other zoning amendments coming up for fall town meeting. And if the planning board is leading this, it will be more work on those members of the planning board than if they were just participants. It will be
if they're chair maybe, but there's there's ways to mitigate that. Unless Audrey wants to volunteer. Make a comment to what Evan just could you come up to the mic so others can hear. I was just going to make a comment. Uh
it's not my place to volunteer at this point. I was just going to make the same point that Evan made is that maybe the appointment rather than figuring out leading in the sense is not by saying that they have to chair and run the process. leading is by saying providing the weightage some of the the knowledge base of what the planning board has and
the processes and other things may be the way to think about it that a task for task force uh pro setting up process gets started and then you know that task force also will have to go through the forming storming norming conforming
performing stage that we just saw in the last hour and a half so to speak in some some ways play out so I think having appropriate People who have knowledge of the older master plan, somebody who's interested in looking at it in a 10 25
horizon plus range is going to be an interest fact and and figuring out a few data points there is going to be a good thing to have the committee or or the new task force come up with the appropriate uh other members so to speak. Okay, that that is that's all my comment. Thanks. You want to say
something? No, I think I'm going to keep my mouth shut at Well, no, maybe I won't. Uh, I think however we set this up, I think it's going to be very important to have
a detailed conversation of exactly what this group needs to do. And I think one thing we need to look at, and it concerned me a bit in the conversation that you and and Evan just had, we shouldn't be looking at
infrastructure. I know this sounds like heresy. We should be looking at the objective, what we want it to look like, and then back up from there and look at the issues of infrastructure. And I will
say on the issues of infrastructure, there's a uh an argument technique that you find in in legal argument all the time in in uh in in legal writing and you know, in litigation. It's called the parade of horribles.
where somebody doesn't want something so they start listing all the most horrible things that they could imagine it would result from this thing that they don't want to happen. Uh we hear it in our context with for example claims that
will wildly overload our school system when in fact every time we've looked at what goes on in additional housing and the kind of housing we'd be looking at it doesn't really have all that big an impact on schools a little bit but it's not
gigantic. We get into this with traffic discussions. We'd get into this with uh road condition instructions. We're we're as guilty as anybody else of falling for uh parade of horribles. So, we should talk whatever this committee does, it
should focus on where we want to go first and then go figure out Yeah. what uh infrastructural things might be implicated. Could it I understand what Mike's saying. I I would offer a little bit of a different
perspective in that um I I as we study manage as we all work on this together on managed growth what I see when we define managed growth I think the hardest thing for our board and for everyone that we work with is what is the acceptable level of growth in my
mind managed growth means that we're trying to I know I speaking for myself only of course it's not realistic think we're going to close the shades lock you know lock down the roads we're going to have zero growth or advance ment for the next several years. That's not
realistic. I think managed growth to me means we're trying to match this with what we have available for infrastructure. Maybe the roads aren't perfect, but one thing I do know is the school system. So, right now there's an effort to build a new Parker Middle
School. And what we've been told is that one of the key components of that is moving that one of the possibilities they're going to look at a number of possibilities is moving the fourth grade into that school so you can relieve some overcrowding at the elementary. I go back to 2017 2018 the last time we had
an effort in this town to add on space we added numerous modulars. It was a little over 6 million. We're still paying for that. So when I look at things, I'm not saying if I appear cautious when I when I look at these things, it's not that I don't want to
have any new residents, don't want to have any new development. I'm just trying to wrestle with what is affordable, what can we do, and I think we all know it's going to take a herculean effort to to, you know, the select board pulling together with the school committee, um, school
administration, town administration, all working to convince residents that we need to build this school, that our schools are aging. if if that it may take more than one try to get it passed as we all know with the history of Chumsford. Um if that doesn't happen
then we have a problem. So I don't want to see us encourage tons of new new units and then find out oh well the schools you know we have to be realistic how this is where school administration can guide us. How many students can you realistically fit in the elementary
schools? I think you just hit on the key is the the managed growth has to the vision for that has to be realistic because if we have like a build baby build strategy that might sound great but if we can't accommodate those children then we have and then we look foolish as a planning board in my mind.
Okay. Um so we will pick up this discussion next meeting. Um it sounds like there's sentiment on this board that we
should own it. Yeah. Um I will commit to that and disagree. Um but I will commit to that. Uh let's think about the task force for next meeting.
We can start discussing that. we can talk about what the question is that we're going to answer. Um so take a look at that um objective or the goal and the multiple objectives under it. Um and we'll have that discussion next meeting.
One um one there's a couple of things I wanted to say. Um first of all, I I think that what worked well for MBTA is that it was the full board that considered it together. And so while I agree that a task force is helpful and
useful, on the other hand, I felt like where this board was really successful was when we were doing it together and where we had a very clear goal and uh a clear idea of what it is that we needed to do. Um so that I would I would
think that would be an important element. The other thing too is that I I'm I'm still don't hear a consistent story among all the things that are said as to what is really driving this.
And I think that's why I was trying to dwell on the why. Yeah. No, I don't know how much more at least personal even in what even in what you said, Evan, you said infrastructure, but then you said it's not just infrastructure, but it's this other stuff too. It's right if but
so it's not just infrastructure but infrastructure is important and likely in the near-term important or whatever. I guess what I'm trying to say is then you went on to say and and others have said too this theme of building consensus that we need to go out and we need to get people's ideas. I don't
think that I think that we need to establish that there is a problem and we need to quantify that problem and I think that problem has to be translated into what specifically do we need to do right and in particular what is the
minimum we need to do and then what is potentially some greater than the minimum that we might consider doing and then as we consider scenarios about how to do that is where we would build consensus around these ideas of how we're going to do that. But I think
there has to be because if the perception is that we're interested in growth because we want to grow, we're automatically going to get resistance from that. And if we say that we want to increase infrastructure, people are immediately going to say, well, now all this growth is going to, this is why I
said we're going to turn into a Somerville. the town needs to identify the compelling public interest as to why why it's identifying a goal. Yeah. And I'm I'm what I'm saying is essentially we need to we need to
quantify that and I think that would be the first thing that we would want to do is to quantify that and then I think we then we establish what are the kinds of yeah there's a variety of methodologies and in order to but to me that's essential because that is going to be
the thing that is going to give people the reason why they need to cooperate is that we all agree recall recognize the ship is sinking and we all need to start grabbing and bailing and just how much are we bailing? Well, even that needs to be articulated. I mean, what I've what I
said today, you know, was just high level bullets. I don't think that's one of my other's consensus as to the why that I that I articulated, but I agree with you. the town needs to clearly articulate the
the strategic why as to whatever the methodology is for the the study that we're going to hire a consultant for. Yeah. And I and I think that the my sentiment also about this board is that this
board does things. It doesn't talk about doing things. It does talk about doing things, but it does things. And I think my only interest in this would be is if we come to a point where we are executing a plan, us through the things that we can control, other parts of town
through what they control, but that we're doing it to achieve the objective, not just to talk about the objective. And so that would be my other interest is not not to participate in group discussions so that we can all get an idea that everybody agrees with. It's to develop specific plans about what we're
going to do so that then we can execute them in the things that we do. I agree with you and I think the strategic plan started that. Okay. But it I don't think it went far enough. It did. But let me just give you an example where there was a disconnect. The strategic
plan acknowledged and further encouraged the um the connection to MWR and then simultaneously acknowledged that we have this growth management strategy issue. So they're still they're still
operating on on parallel paths at the same time. And yet we all we all know that you have to make a decision on on one before the other. But yet it's been over a year, right, that
that the the town's been pursuing the the long-term wastewater solution. And that's my point is that the the first half of this report starts that what that vision
is but then it doesn't go deeper into how do we get there? I'll only speak as a spectator for the strategic plan. One could easily come to the conclusion that the strategic plan it wasn't a conflict for them that they that they that they collectively support connection of MWR
and then that's their starting point for a managed growth strategy. We didn't have that conversation. No, I know. But from just reading it, it looks like that first half started what I think we're trying to get to. Didn't go far enough and then it said these are all the other
things that have to happen. all go do it at the same time. They're needs it needs to be discussed at the same time because they're they're all critically intertwined, right? But I think as soon as as soon as as soon as the decisions made not to pursue
MWR, well then the the the growth options to John John's point are significantly yeah lower in scope and scale. They may not be high enough to achieve the desired outcomes, but they're not going to be um that's why we need to
take that first half further and say what is that vision? What are the detailed? How do we get there? Right? And then talk about okay, how do we get from here to there? Right? So it's as everyone said, it's it's it's very complicated, but we need we need to start somewhere
and we need to agree on a methodology and a process. Right? I I if I may, I think what was unsaid but was sort of beneath it all and is the affordability issue. Yeah. You've
got a community that's aging where your predominant population is going to be 55 and older and then 60 and older. And what we heard at the age friendly initiative which we've been part of and these all things is it's not
sustainable. And so to sum up I think what the problem is to define the problem is and it's not a revenue issue. It's it's an affordability issue. People can't afford to stay in the community and yet their children can't afford to come into the community. And that's the
and the problem is is our commercial base has has shrunken not due to our fault but because of the market. And so the point was when we look at a bara that's 60 40 residential commercial and we're approaching 86%
14% and and we're constrained then it's an affordability issue. And naturally what if you look at and I can see it because I see what's going on in the community when you assemble it all together. The whole goal was how can we keep how can we allow people to age in
place in the community be able to live in the community have the housing stock and supply for the community be able to educate our people. The problem is it's an the problem isn't an affordability issue because at the rate we're going, we're not going to be able to
maintain the services as was talked about earlier, but you're not even going to be able to be able to afford the whatever the services that you have in the climate because if the push is housing, housing, housing from the state and yet they're not even giving you inflationary increases if local
partnership of of state aid then the problem that Chomps is going to have and you're going to see happening to the communities around us. It's the affordability issue and that's why the zoning is important and that's why the the planning board is important and the and this whole effort is important is
because what it comes down to is we're not going to be able to maintain and afford the community and the and the characteristics and desires of what this community wants. And that's the core and that's why this discussion has to take place because if we keep
drifting to where we're going it's going to collapse in and of itself and that is the core thing because here's a community who has a history of not exceeding the constraints of Proposition 2 and a half but yet
Proposition 2 and a half doesn't work in an inflationary environment and then as John noted earlier how are we going to pay for a new middle school when the cost of that is going to be significant when you look at the cost to not only construct that school but then to operate that
school and then the other inflationary and and aspects that are going with it. That's the core problem. Yeah. And so it comes down to you're right what is all you know it's it's like it's like a presidential campaign. It's all about the economy, you know, and in the local community. And the issue here is it's
all about affordability. And the problem right now is we don't have that affordability solution. And we're constrained because we we we we not only need to address that, but we we need to afford the infrastructure, but then you need to be able to mitigate the ability to people
to stay in the community in terms of their tax burden. And that's that's the crisis that we're in now that we weren't in 10 years ago or 20 years ago. It's the affordability question and and that's where it's struggling and you're seeing you're that's what you're going
to just see unfold and unravel in the years ahead is the young people can't afford to move in and and then the older ones are struggling to hang on because they don't have the housing options or the other options in which to remain and I think that's that's the core problem
and therefore I think the whole idea of the managed growth thing it's not for the sake of growth it's the it's the strategic effort effort or the comprehensive effort of how do we maintain the character of the community in order to maintain the
affordability of the community and the values of what we want. And I think that's what it's going to come down to. And that's why the questions about that are staring at us are infrastructure questions, sewer infrastructure, water infrastructure,
school infrastructure, and then the ability to provide the services that go with that. And that's where the question of the zoning comes in and and where the planning comes in, the economic development comes in is because well, what are the good paying jobs? What are the high tax base? Because quite
frankly, what we're seeing happening out there now is warehouse space, institutional rehab facilities. None of those are great job payers nor nor contributors to the tax base. And so basically, it's falling in upon itself. And that's where the discussion has to
take place is that's the alarm bell. It's the affordability question is how do we provide the affordability for people to to stay in the community but also attract the the commercial investment that is needed to
support that. Okay. and and right now where we're unraveling is is is our commercial base is declining in terms of the percentage of the budget as well as the qu the type of commercial development that we're seeing coming into the community. So I
think that's is is the situation and as Evan and I struggle with is when people come in and they say, "Well, would this be acceptable to the community?" And we're like, "We don't know because it seems that anything now because this anxiety that's out there and and it's
not a childhood issue. It's a societal national issue. We're in a we're in a period now of anxiety of of of change and and and the flailing that's going around at the federal level and everything else is is what are we to do? I mean, we've got to we you know, look at what's happening right now at the
state level. Well, we're we're we're adopting a state budget, but we may not know in August whether what we adopt in July is going to be viable, and therefore, you know, we'll sit tight and hang on. I think it all comes down to affordability. Okay. So that may be the
question we have to answer. What's the that is the problem of affordability? So all right, we do need to move on. I want to thank Budrey, Aaron, and Paul for coming tonight um for having a really good honest discussion and thank you
guys. Um all right, we will continue the discussion on this topic next meeting. All right, fall town meeting, massage establishments. Evan, could you give us
some context of this one? We were a little confused about this one last night. We did watch your last meeting. Um, so the the quick and simple uh uh recommendation from the building
commissioner working with council and consulting um with me is to go into the use table, remove the special permit, make it by right, and then uh revise and
simplify the definition to eliminate the um the reference to to the board of health and the exemptions. Um the backstory of this is um I've been
here 18 years. Uh when when I first arrived, the commissioner and the zoning board were were requiring and issuing uh special permits for each individual masseuse.
uh because each individual masseuse was considered its own establishment. That's how that business works. They rent they rent tables um multiple massuses of renting tables. Um that quickly transitioned uh
to the next commissioner who indicated that uh the definition clearly says that uh licensed professionals are exempt. it references the board of health or the board of health no longer had regulations because the state it's a
state license uh process. So we operated um probably for uh 15 no 10 10 12 years uh whereby uh special permits were not required. Um and that worked out fine.
new commissioner shows up, gives it a read, wants to make sure that he's implementing, administering the bylaw appropriately. He started requiring special permits. And then most recently, um, an
applicant kind of questioned the whole thing. It was a it was a relocation. Someone who had a special permit in one location but was relocating to a different location. The commissioner indicated, well, zoning is based upon
address. It runs with the address, not with the person. So, that's how how the backtory is to how this all came to be. Okay. Simple simple um uh solution. Everyone agreed, myself, council, and the building
commissioner, go into the bylaw, make the official uh amendments so that it says the way it used to be administered. Don't require a special permit um and simplify the definition.
One of the things that came up last meeting was the potential issues with board of health. Is there any So the as far as I'm as far as as far as I'm aware, the Chumpshire Board of Health has no involvement. Okay. Um they don't have any local regulations. It is is 100% state
licensed. Whether the state does inspections or not, I I don't know. Um the only the only rationale that I've heard um over the last 18 years as to why a special permit provides any value
um is one that public health and safety is aware of the location and two um they can they can do uh inquiries so to speak.
Um, but as you as you likely know, if it's allowed by right, we still have the ability to share that information internally. Um, so I don't I don't see any glaring deficiencies from a public
health or safety perspective. Um, again, as far as I can tell, the board of health is not directly involved in them like they are with a food establishment. Joel, you were gonna mention it at the board of health meeting. Did you? Yeah. And they haven't met. Okay. Since then.
They meet, I think, next week. Yeah. So, I took the action to ask them. I could have emailed, but I didn't. It's okay. So, I think at this point, we'll at least go on the assumption that they won't have any issues. Um, if no one objects, we'll go with the
recommendations for fall town meeting. I'll write that up along with all of the other zoning we have to put together. Um and then Joel, if you can confirm it um at the board of health meeting next and Tuesday, next week. Yeah. And then we can discuss it at the public hearing
that we have it. Can I just ask a quick quick question? Does the state license the person or the establishment? So, um, apparently there's been recent revisions to the state law. My understanding, and Becky in our office,
um, has some experience with this in a past, uh, professional career, uh, is that they they license the individual. Now, so that individuals can then take their license anywhere they want.
Is an esthetician, like a person that does that type of thing, a separate license. a person or a I think it's also a person right so that's the uniqueness with zoning zoning is an establishment and establishment isn't necessarily a one person so for for purposes of
uh uh massuses it's it's a it's an it's a it's an awkward fit with zoning particularly the way that industry's evolved and that's why it made sense they use the address because for zoning it matters where it is not and so the most recent the most recent example it came that that came to ahead with this
was someone came in uh asking the building commission to sign a DBA. And so as part of a DBA, we we do a we do a baseline zoning zoning review. And so that's that's what brought this to a head is that it wasn't
even a zoning application. They weren't no one was coming in asking to establish a new uh massage establishment at a new address. This was literally an existing masseuse uh who had a special permit at their original location was changing
locations and needed a new DBA. Was that Anita's masseuse that we heard about? I was going to say I thought we heard a lot about that about that going across the street. So I would view this as kind of housekeeping. Yeah. Okay. Just do it.
Even housekeeping articles at town meeting. I don't know, but it sounds reasonable. Want to make sure you all have the answers when we ask the questions. Yeah, I can see how this one's going to go. Me, too. is correct. You're not presenting
and then maybe reaching out to uh to uh police may may be worthwhile as part of a town meeting process. I I could just see people questioning um like that whole thing of the establishment versus the person, right? because it's a place that they're going to, you expect that
place to be clean, you know, if it's a place versus a person going to a a certain area. So, I just see when it's being brought to that meeting potential. Yeah. Well, I think in your engagement with board of health, ask them if they do if they get a complaint, what do they do with it? Do they have jurisdiction?
Do they have other um inspection um abilities that are above and beyond the the state license? Yeah, that would be my question. Are they like inspected like month not monthly but like yearly just to make sure? Yeah. The question I was going to
ask is does the board of health inspect massage establishments? Are there rules and regulations they apply? I mean they don't inspect my office. Are you a masseuse? No, I'm a physician. Well, there you go. Board of Health. You might think I know. You would think that they would want to ensure that those
places are clean. You know, estheticians. I think if the if the injection board of health had the legal authority, I think their preference is to have it the way it used to be, a local license, local inspection, local
regulation. My understanding is that that's been taken away from them. Okay. Yeah. It's just interesting. And any support they could give us a town meeting would be appreciated, too. Right.
I'll make a note of that, too. All right. Um All right. State planning grant. So um I am um I'm actively um uh in the
system filling out the state uh planning grant application. Um, I had uh mentioned to uh to Chris about a week or so ago via email that um based upon tonight's conversation
uh we collectively may want to consider pivoting from the original idea of applying for uh zoning consultant services to help the planning board with the uh use tables and definitions and zoning conflicts to um applying paying
for funding to advance the uh the growth management strategy uh process. Um so I you know love to hear ideas, thoughts on that. Um my
um the funding request for either option was going to be around $80,000 with a 20 25% local match. Um, I think for the for the zoning um exercise, I think that's likely uh
adequate funding, more than adequate funding for the strategic plan. I don't have a real good sense. One, I think we're struggling with still what's the scope, what's the methodology. I'm actively uh in conversations with several um consultants who have
participated in growth management related um uh uh documents. Um so I expect they have a better handle on that. Either option I don't see Chumsford getting more than 80 to 100,000 just just politically viable
request. Um I mean it seems like a 100,000 would 8020. Yeah. Yeah. So my my recommendation or suggestion is that I think the planning board can handle the land use and zoning
exercise in house. I think we just successfully did that with Kate's Corner. Mhm. Um the advantage with hiring a consultant is that presumably the the planning board would want to uh take one huge bite and bring it all to town
meeting at the same time. Yeah, that may strategically may not be a good strategy for any type of comprehensive zoning changes on the strategic plan. I think it goes without goes without saying we collectively are not able to facilitate
that. no independently and in-house regardless of who who who would have lead it. I think it it warrants uh some sort of consultant services whether those are technical related to
growth scenarios and and fiscal impact or if it's or if it's simply facilitation. Yeah. How much was the NEMCOG facilitation for our MBTA stuff? How much did that come out to? I think
the value was probably like 35,000. Um, Nimcog provides a good very good bang for the buck. Um, they're certainly significantly lower than um traditional planning uh type
consultants. Um, with the land use and zoning um exercise, we still have the ability to apply and work with NIMCOG. I don't suggest that Nimcog or any RPA
for that matter would be um would be the uh best consultant option for a growth management strategy. My initial sense in looking at the Stratford and some some others is that some of the analysis is rather uh can be
rather technical. Yeah. And it may require multidisciplinary uh consultant firms. Mhm. Again, this all depends on what the what's the detail of the scope and scale of the methodology that the town really wants to pursue and what what can what
can we actually get for $100,000. Sure. I mean, the main thing that I thought that we were trying to do with the study was not so much for the zoning part because I think we felt like we could handle that reasonably, but that it was because we didn't have insight into the
market and what the market trends might be and how that matched with what potential zoning actions could be done to promote that. That's the piece that we really needed expert advice on, which is basically some market knowledge. So,
somebody who's aware of what the market is and somebody who's able to project the market, a reason, you know, guesses better than we do. Um, and then also is able to say this kinds of zoning promotes this kind of growth, this kind of zoning promotes that kind of thing.
That's that's what we needed. But for the strategic for the growth management we really need I think a wider range of skill sets in the sense of you you're you're doing estimations of population growth you're doing estimations of of u basically again some sort of idea of
commercial growth uh and and needs and you're also looking at projections on infrastructure. you're also doing financial forecasts in terms of you know the the kind of burdens that that we'll be facing to put the whole
financial picture together because ultimately this is all going to come down I mean I Paul said affordability and I agree with him it's about affordability but the only variable in the things that he listed was revenue is generated by commercial businesses
that's the one that he's still still that's the variable that we need to look at so I think that for the purposes of being able to identify in a broad in a in a in a broad view what are the different things that we need to be having going on, right? That skill set
to help us to be able to identify what those things are is I think a more general skill set than this more specific skill set that we need that is particularly related to economic our economic market area and what kinds of zoning would promote that.
Those are the things I think we need to have. I agree with you and I think that if we're going to spend time on getting a grant and and spending money, I would rather do it on the strategic piece first.
Muddle along with the zoning on our own and then after the strategic is done, then if we have more time and energy and grants available, we can do another grant to do more of that. market stuff
in but I think we're going to need both. I think we're going to need professional assistance in both. Yeah. Yeah. But I would prioritize the I would too. I agree with you because we first need to be able to frame the problem in order to know what what is the commercial the zoning part that's going to fit in with that. Yeah. All right. So, is everyone
agree that we should shift the focus to the strategy? Just do it. All right. So, then I'm I'm on track to submit that for by the end of next Wednesday. Okay. It's a not a heavy lift. And as Joel knows, the the uh the amount
of characters uh allowed for each question is very limited. Characters. Characters, not words. Characters. Um does it small words? Is there is the statement of work or performance work statement or whatever it is, is it very specific or So they do ask they do ask
for a um a scope of work basically articulating the tasks, right? Um I'm in the process of developing that. I'll try to keep it as kind of generic as possible. Yeah. But still hitting the Yes. Yeah. That's what
essentially the state wants the scope to justify the budget. Mhm. Right. Is it is this is the scope going to be are they doing essentially essentially a technical review of the scope in order to assess the goodness of the proposal or are they just looking
for something that provides some level of justification for the money that we're asking for? That's the primary line of questioning. There's also a secondary question that asks to what extent has your scope and budget been
reviewed by a planning consultant. Okay. All right. Yeah. So, just make it as generic as possible. Yeah. So, we have flexibility in how we actually allocate that. Yeah. And I have the I have the Stratford, Ontario RFP as a you know, to
work with as a baseline. Um the town of Hingham apparently has something similar and I just learned today that the town of Malber also has something similar. So, I'm in the process of tracking those down and I'll be able to cobble together. When would
that get awarded? So, the state uh decisions don't come out until fall. Okay. Contracting wouldn't be till late fall, early winter. Okay. So, earliest we could bring somebody on as his is winter. Okay. So, that gives us plenty of time
to get set up to essentially get them pointed in the right direction. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. Sounds good. All right. All right. Layers on updates. Mike, anything? Nothing here, Joel?
John? So, I attended a Nimcog meeting on May 21st. Um, they adopted their annual budget. They did a bylaw update. One of the more interesting things that I wanted to share is at the end of the meeting they have a um like a sharing session where where the reps from each community share what's going on um in
their in their communities and the LOL planning board member talked about um if you're familiar at all with the area on Plain Street where the Target store is in LOL. Um there's a old VFW property that's been um that's sold and it's
going to be redeveloped and the planning board member said that the businesses have changed numerous times, but they've approved it to have three fast food restaurants. I believe it was Chipotle, Popeye's, and Starbucks if I have my names right. And one of the interesting
part of this whole thing is they said that either one or two of those restaurants are going to have um they can you you have to basically order using your phone or online before you get there. They won't have they don't have so it's a smaller type of facility. So you can't pull up and there's not an
employee to take your order. So I just thought I would throw that out there maybe for the future if that's something we So like they're going to have what um I know up on 101A and Nash where they had like the very small ones. So, it's just drive-thru. It's quick, simple. A lot of people like do the quick mobile app, pick it up and on the go. Yeah, I
guess it's supposed to be a condensed down version. You do have to order online. So, I just thought I'd throw that out there for the future as possibly something to look at. But, I thought found that interesting. That's all I have. Okay. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Not the
next one. Wow. Just all for you, Chris. Com met last night. Um it was one of the longest meetings I've seen them do. Did you say that two weeks ago, too? Oh, it was really long last night. It was quarter of 11. Um Old Westford Road,
they passed that uh development with uh conditions. Um subsurface storm water installation needs to be witnessed by DPW. 25 foot setback markers on the property, probably a a fence or
something. and then um lot a pin pinning their footing since it's really close to the 50 foot uh setback. Um that's why I was really surprised that ours continued because theirs passed last night. Um
they had extensive NOI hearings on Freeman Lake. Uh two hearings, one for ecoh harvesting and then one for more comprehensive management plan including chemicals. And that went on forever and it is continued to June 10th. Um and
then they're going to be their regulation subcommittee meeting is next week. All right. Um 270 Bill Ricka Road. Evan and Joel. What's going on? Yeah, it actually uh it it says in the agenda update on MCP compliance requirements
and that is not exactly true. It's about compliance with the RAM plan that was part of our I believe it was part of our conditions on the decision. Um but anyway in in the in that plan as
far as handling uh contaminated soil because um they had quite a pile particularly yeah particularly in the areas where groundwater had risen and the groundwater is is contaminated. So the assumption is the soil's contaminated that the groundwater went
to. Um and so then they they sort of identified what the level that they thought that was going to be at which we or compromised on. And um and so they hold that in a pile and they do soil
testing then to determine whether they whether it's contaminated or not. And if it is not contaminated then they can reuse it on the site. And if it is contaminated, then they truck it off or do something. I don't know what it's in the plant. Um anyway, so while they have this pile supposed to be covered, uh you
know, to um just to prevent, you know, it it blowing or if there's rain to keep it from, you know, basically infiltrating it further out or was seeping, all that sort of stuff. Like just makes sense. Keep it covered. Well, if you recall during the for those of you who were there, um if you recall
during the hearing, I mentioned that I had had this vision that it would be a weekend. I'd be driving by and it would be pouring rain and the cover would be flapping in the wind. And I said that and um and so sure enough,
it wasn't raining, but it was it was not it was not covered. And I and I I had read the it was very windy and I had read the um the um the field reports that we had gotten and so I I I was aware that there was a pile and then it was covered supposed to
be covered. And as I was driving by and I looked over and I go, "Oh, that must be the pile." And then there's covers just blowing all off it. So I emailed Evan. I said, "Can you follow up with the beta to ask them, you know, basically look into this?" And um
so then it then it came up again and uh and the word got back. Yes, they were aware of it that they had talked with the with Ed Waggle who was the LSP if you remember who appeared before us and that he was working with that happened twice. It well um yes. So I I well then
they had it then after the first time I saw it even though I had hadn't heard back I saw it covered and they had an excavator with the with the hook or the the bucket bucket of the excavator on top of it. So I thought okay it's a little extreme but none you know just a
sandbag would have done fine but I guess it was just for flare you know so you can see that it actually staked down on the corners. Well, they they should be, you know, it's a little bit far in the back, so I can't actually go up and see it. Um, but nonetheless, when I went by
again at a later time, it was partially uncovered and uh and so again, emailed again uh you know, heard back from Rob and then uh and then Rob mentioned that they were you know, dealing with it. And so then in in these in this exchange of
emails that included Chris and also David Coun, uh I mentioned that um that uh and so I I I mentioned to Chris that we might consider putting as an agenda item just so we can all catch up on what's going on. Uh but then um also I
emailed uh Rob back, Rob Smith, and I said uh you know, if you if let us know if you need any help making this a priority for the contractor. Um, so we have not heard back. So I don't know if if uh it's under control at this point
in Beta's mind or not. And Rob is the LSP. Rob Smith is the LSP for Beta. Yeah. So he's our So uh Beta just has done a tremendous job. And I've I've been so happy with Rob Smith. He basically he said that the contractor had said, "Well, you know, it's it's
about to be we're about to get the test results anyway, you know." And Rob Smith's reaction was, "Yeah, but you have to keep it covered until you get it back. You can't just assume results of the test before you get them back." So, nonetheless, uh, glad that we have Beta
on board that they're they're doing their job. Conscientious. They're conscientious. They're they're doing uh, you know, off hours, off off hours inspections and so forth. So, uh, so I'm glad. So, a shout out to Beta and also
that uh you know hopefully communicating to the contractor and to others that the board takes its conditions seriously. So, and did the test results come back? I haven't heard. I haven't heard yet. I haven't heard. I did mention this at the Concom meeting and Mark Gibbs mentioned
that he noticed a soil for sale sign on the front fence of that property. Do we know where they're selling this soil from? Maybe they should wait till the bay test result comes back. Are you Are you making it funny? No, he
actually saw a soil for sale sign. He doesn't know if it's still there. I don't recall seeing it, but he did see it at one point and I didn't know if it's something we should have the with Rob follow up on or I mean, um, you know, they're they're following
the plan. Okay. Clean Phil wanted I told I told I told Mark that I'd or a pas one I'd bring it up tonight in unless well beta is there to make sure they're following the plan. Okay. But if the sign says go take some from under the tarp in the back then I think then I
think we'd have a case. Yeah. Practice is not uncommon. I don't this is the first time I'm hearing of it in Chelmsford. Um but it has been um has been used in other towns. Um in some towns it has become a zoning
issue and in other towns it's a trucking issue based upon the scope and scale of the you know the operation the development. Fortunately I think in Shelrid 270 is not of scope and scale where they you
know where people we haven't received any complaints of trucks coming and going with you know buying or purchasing consumed soil. Yeah, I wouldn't expect that would be normally an issue, but with contaminated soil, agreed is agreed. Well, I mean, what came to my
mind was just a zoning violation or a neighborhood nuisance without added trucks, but yeah, the uniqueness of this site is Yeah. Yeah. as as test results before they sell it. The so the contaminated soil is being segregated according to the plan.
the soil is to be segregated and uh so okay beta is there to confirm that they are following the plan. All right, but you just said I don't know they chuck it away somewhere I don't know where or sell it on the open market.
All right. Um so do we need to do anything or follow up or anything on this? No. I mean I probably if you don't hear back I probably would want to hear back from Rob. Let me I'll I'll email Rob ask for an update. That would be nice.
Okay. Excellent. All right. Where are we at? Meeting minutes. Meeting minutes. Ah, April 9th. Um, I did see an error on April 9th.
Um, I think it had John and Joel both nominated for vice chair. Oh, I didn't even notice. Oh, yeah. I missed that, too. I think because I knew what they were
voted for, I just So maybe Becky can change that that on page one that Joel was nominated and carried for uh clerk as
opposed to vice chair. Joel nominated as nominated as clerk, you said. Yep. Yeah. Bottom of page one. You couldn't guess it. What does the clerk do anyway? Okay, you missed it, too. It reads stuff. That
was the only issue I saw. So, I'll take a motion. Make a motion to accept with that correction. Second. Motion from John, second by Who said it? De. Okay. Um, all in favor? I
unanimous. Any issues with the 23rd? If not, I will take a motion. I'll make a motion to accept the meeting minutes of April 23rd as presented. Motion by John. Second it. Second by Marcy. All in favor? I.
Unanimous. And May 14th, the only issue I saw there was Joel's report. And Joel, please confirm if this is correct. The second bullet says no known progress on the 21E study for
Hillman House 40. Hildrith. That's what I thought. Hildd Street. Hildrith project. It's Hilderth Project. Yeah. Not Hilman House 40. Yeah. Hilderth project as opposed to Hillman House 40B project. Make a motion to approve the minutes of
May 14th with that correction. A second. Motion by Deerro, second by Mike. All in favor? I. Unanimous. All right. Next meeting will be June
11th. Um we will cover the 55 to 59 middle sex uh zoning map area. So Evan, if you could have that zoning map sent out so we could take a look at it um in
that immediate vicinity. Mhm. Similar to what we did with um Kate's Corner. Kate's Corner. Um depending on how that goes, we can start to identify other areas where we may apply this
zone and then we'll talk about the strategic plan and then um I do want to kind of start talking about the timeline for fall town meeting um so we get our ducks in a row for that
um really lengthy public hearing process for all of those articles. And so we can get before the right boards in time. Okay. And and you have a um new public hearing opening for 300 Bill Rucker Road. Yep.
Is that coming June 11th? Yes. All right. I think that's it. So I move to adjourn. Me second. Motion by Mike, second by John. All in favor? Good night. Right.