Thanks for those who came who who brave the heat to come and then and we have a member of the public who brave the heat as well. Probably increase our attendance. When I uh when I had it stabbed, I didn't realize. What's that?
I can't hear you, Josh. You're you're out. Get started. Can't hear you. Oh, okay. Um, we can get started. Okay. Very good. Yep. Okay. Well, good evening. This is uh it's 7 o'clock um uh 7 p.m. on June the
24th, 2025 uh Tuesday. Uh uh we're here for the public meeting of the Danverse Planning Board. Uh the meeting is taking place at the TUMI room at Danvers Town Hall in Danvers. Um, so my name is Lewis George. I'm the chair. I will be
participating remotely um this evening. Uh I'm joined in person at town hall. We have um uh Jean Hartnett, our our clerk. Uh also in person, we have Tim Spiddle, uh Mike Dulis, uh and Jim Sears will be
participating remotely as well. Um and we're uh and we're with town staff today. We had Josh Mars, principal planner with the town of Danverse. And so I thank you all for joining today and it's uh and and coming in the uh in the
in the in the heat today the the record-breaking temperature. So um so let's why don't we begin with our agenda. So the first agenda item here is the transportation needs assess uh assessment. So this is a discussion about draft transportation needs
assessment report. Um so you all should have received a copy of this in your packet. I believe it is posted online as well. Um, and we did have a discussion about this at a at a prior meeting. And so Josh, did you want to sort of give a um give a run through sort of what we
are, where we are, and and what is um sort of what do you need from from us today? Yeah. So, um this is a draft. Um we are trying to finalize the draft, but um this is an opportunity tonight um for
the board. We very similar to what we did a couple weeks ago. Um we're just looking for the politic board um you know, any fe any feedback, any kind of comments um as we sort of uh as we kind
of finalize this document. Just wanted to make sure there was nothing uh egregious that was, you know, included that shouldn't be included or vice versa, something that we think would be uh you know,
significantly beneficial to be in the document that is missing. So, um from planning staff's perspective, that's um sort of our our goals or objectives around this discussion tonight. Okay. So, in terms of so you so you're
not looking for a vote from the board uh tonight. Um correct. That's right. We don't need it's it's a planning staff initiative. Um we don't need it doesn't need an official um vote from the board, but we we're simply seeking um your your
input, any feedback and any comments. Okay, sounds good. And this was also posted on our on the town website as well, correct? Yep, that's right. Okay, that sounds great. Okay, so Oh, and I I do want to just make a quick
mention here because we do have um I know myself and Jim Sears, we're participating remotely tonight. Um any votes that we do take, I know would not be voting on this, but any votes on minutes, for example, we'll need to do a roll call vote for any votes taken tonight. Just wanted to make sure I mention that. So, um okay. So, why don't
we then um so in terms of taking a look at that, I do have this report. It's a 57page report which you know that includes the um the appendices and um and just looking at you know just sort of to do a just to you know for people
who are um you know who are potentially watching at home um there's an over just to you know there's an overview of key findings um and there are uh you know we have several key findings the first is key finding one is walk I could read it Lou would you like me to read it or do
would you Yeah So just um yeah, why don't you go ahead? I mean just just to sort of walk through briefly what the recommendations are and then I'd like to turn it over to the board if they have any comments or or questions. Yeah. So the the report sort of um after
interviews and data and analysis um looking at you know previous transportation documents uh planning documents for the town there's there's some key findings um overall um regarding transportation in town. So the
first key finding is uh walkability is important. Um the key finding number two, people are concerned with traffic in congestion. Key finding three, people want more transit services.
Um and that was and that was it. And then it goes into recommendations. And the priority uh the first priority recommendation number one is update the complete streets prioritization plan. The second priority recommendation is
develop and implement a parking management plan for downtown while identifying key improvements for walkability and familyfriendly changes. Priority recommendation number three, centralize transportation planning processes. Number priority recommendation number
four, promote existing transit services available in Danvers. Pri priority recommendation number five, revise the zoning bylaw to promote sustainable development. And that's it for the priority recommendation.
Okay, sounds sounds good. Thank you, Josh. And so um and so in terms of in terms of timeline, so once this is you know you know so this in essence will go back to to staff. So what sort of is the
timeline in terms of any um you know in terms of any recommendations or sort of you know where we go from here? Yeah. So from tonight um you know any you know discussion feedback that comes through tonight it will be incorporated
into this um we're working um with MAPC. MABC is um in the process of um kind of formatting it in like a prettier like into like a prettier document with like pictures and stuff like that. Um and we're just we're working with MAPC to
final just finalizing uh the language. We're towards the and then um you know it's probably something that would be like final in in the next like month or two month or two. Okay. So then final in the next month or two and then we're looking at in in
terms of any implementation of of of any of the recommendations is that where we're looking at potentially requesting grants or doing something of that nature. Yeah, all of those all of those things. I mean some of those recommendations are more short more short term and then some of them are
longer term and you know it's um you know just stuff that we'll have to start you know start picking away at as time goes along. Okay. All right, sounds good. Well, why don't we um uh what I'll do is we'll I'll uh I'll I'll turn it over to the board for
any comments or questions that they have. Uh this is a um this is you know this is not a public hearing, but if there's any members of the public who do have any um comments or or questions at all, I think they can uh I I can invite some public questions or comment with respect to that as well once the members
of the board have have posed some of their questions. So, um, so why don't we turn things over to, um, uh, to to Gene Hard. Hi. I don't really have any comments. I think we've seen all of this before. Um,
and it looks like what I expected it to look like. I don't know. That's good. That's a fine response. Okay. Nope. That's that's fine. So, all right, Jean, how about um how about Tim
Spiddle? Tim, do you have any any comments or questions about any of the findings or the recommendations? I wasn't in the last meeting, so I can may maybe I have some comments to catch up. Sure, go for it. The thing that caught my eye was the recommendation around
uh where are we? Sorry, I'm waying the appendix. I got to back myself up. and tell me what page you're at too if you if that can if that if that's helpful if you're looking at a particular page. Yeah, page six. Um, priority priority recommendation three
centralized transportation planning processes. Can you say more about the transportation advisory committee, Josh? Like what what does that do currently? So that group is um I did look up the membership, so I
understand it's mostly town staff from different departments. Yeah. So, it's just it's town staff um from various different departments and generally the situation is um it's a place where residents in town
um they come to this group and say, you know, this intersection is really dangerous or this intersection really could use a crosswalk or this intersection could really use a stop sign. And it's a place where that conversation
is had um with you know professional staff from various different boards. They talk about you know they have a discussion they have a discussion about whether you know it's appropriate to add a stop sign in this place or why it's not or why it would potentially make it more unsafe
you know and from that conversation. Um ultimately a solution or resolution or you know whatever scenario was discussed and sort of agreed upon or rec is then provided as a recommendation to the
select board who who controls the roads and streets in town. So they ultimately would say the select board ultimately votes on the stop sign like being installed but that's the group the group kind of gives a recommendation to the select board that we you know we've had
this conversation we did this analysis and we think that it's appropriate to do you know XYZ like so does that sort of make does that make sense? Yeah, I mean I was just I I read I I highlighted a few pieces that were a little confusing
because that makes sense as like a reactive body or a body that compiles feedback for action, right? But two things stood out to me. One is like, well, this advisory committee exists. Yeah. But we also see lots of areas for improvement in transportation in the
town. We also see lots of plans and recommendations that have come from prior plans. So, I was a little my meta comment was sort of like, okay, this is one more plan. Who's going to actually do this stuff? And is it this committee? Like, who what is this doc? Where does this document go from here? Because
there's only one that's related to zoning. It's a plan. It's a planning. It's a planning document. So, it would be our office. There would be the planning office and se several of these, right? But like we don't control centralizing transport transportation planning processes, right? That's a town government. Well, sort of how it's sort
of how it's mentioned there, it's it's split between planning and econ. So, kind of most of these recommendations and most of the stuff is the planning office working in conjunction with like DB DBW like those two are like the main the main divisions that do the
transportation stuff. Yeah, that was that was my only comment because like um you know develop a parking management plan, update the complete streets plan, like those all sound fine. Yeah. But then plenty of them had follow-up actions of like then applying for a grant, then actually
doing the work. And it there's just so much here that it's like this sounds good in theory, but right planning or on its own or or working with DPW on a significant majority of most of these
implementation items, if that makes sense. Didn't we have a meeting where we where we ranked the recommendations? Yeah, we we sort of like we talked through that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We actually did that I think at the at at when this was last introduced.
Was that on May the 13th, Josh? Is that right? I was looking at the minutes. Um likely. Yes, that sounds right. Yeah. These right now they are not in any order. They are simply just listed right now forformational purposes. They're not um they're not uh in priority. They're
not a list. Um Oh, number one isn't number one. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And in terms of just um just picking up quickly just in terms of what Tim mentioned about the about the um the
traffic advisory committee, I I actually you know went um you know have have gone to a meeting with respect to you and like Josh mentioned it involves if you have and I I think it's it's worthy of mention. I'm glad you asked about that, Tim, because I think it's worthy to mention that it's a if uh if if
residents have concerns about traffic issues and such and and I attended because a um a neighbor was expressed a concern to me as a town meeting member about traffic in our neighborhood and so uh in particular of um uh the speed of
vehicles going through and concern about uh child sa you know children's safety and that sort of thing. So um so we had a discussion with that and I think the I think as a result of that meeting we ended up even having the you know one of those speed boards that were placed on
the street to be able to sort of give a reminder to people in terms of um in terms of speeding and and I think part of the thing they look to is signage and such as well. So it's a it's it's it's definitely a a good resource I think that not a lot of people necessarily um
either are you know aware of or use. So yeah that's great. anything further in terms of this? I mean, I know that uh you know, and feel free if you have I know since you didn't participate in the first one, if you have any other comments or or or you know, comments or questions? No, I think the only thing that stood out to me is maybe just a
question moving forward, which is Yeah. So, the the one that primarily overlaps with us is revise the zoning by a lot, promote sustainable development. Sounds good. There's some actual tangible tactics that are recommended here. I did notice that a lot of this document sort of
um led with either feedback and surveys from people's opinions on what needs to be prioritized and then some was empirical about like data. Um, and it strikes me that those were sometimes at odds. And so as we
move forward with that in particular, like some of the I saw a lot of conflicting priorities. And so I think it's going to be very difficult for us to deal with zoning bylaws which are abstracted even one layer above like should we put a bike lane here, but like should we potentially in the future
maybe allow a potential seven different types of development. This is a squishy piece of feedback, but to the extent they have data related to the survey feedback or related to like the traffic and stuff like that, like I'd love to get more of that. Yeah. So, that's all at the appendix, Tim. Like, I know. Yeah. The appendix are still aggregated
statistics. I'd like the underlying data. If we if you could put us in touch with uh the fine people at MAPC. MAPC. Yes. Because they have lots of great resources on their website if you ever been there. They do. that that is one of their greatest strengths is that I was
hoping someone would be here tonight so I could be like so like pester them for the backup for all this basically but to the extent more data sharing I could put I could put you I could connect you with them if that's what you would like I would like that thank you Tim is one of your questions I guess in terms of potentially conflicting in you know like
the you know sort of survey responses about that people really want to be able to walk more and walk around but then it comes out that there that that you know that you know a super majority of people drive, you know, drive vehicles, you know, drive cars by themselves. Is that
sort of a an example or Well, yeah. Yes. That one of I want to walk everywhere, but I also want to make sure I can park first as soon as where I want to go and then walk. And like those things are at odds or don't make bike lanes. That'll cause congestion, but bikes would reduce congestion because more people would be
biking, right? It's like you can't reconcile those things. And so the I would always like to see the survey responses in terms of the perception But then the data like what is the actual congestion? Where are the high peak points? Like what you know traffic consultants would obviously do this at a
much more rigorous basis than what we can. But that always feels like something where I'd love to better understand the actual dynamics of what we're talking about in any given sort of zoning discussion as opposed to opinions. Not to undertake opinions. Those anecdotal evidence matters. But
that that's kind of where I'm coming from. Okay. Got it. Okay. Very good. Um, thank you, Tim. Uh, uh, Jim Sears, Jim, did you have any any comments or or questions with respect to this?
Jim, uh, Jim, do you have any questions or comments on the report? Thank you. You still there, Jim? Yeah. Okay. Thank you, sir. Yep. Jim's Jim. Uh, he's all set for the moment. Luke.
Okay. Very good. All right. Um, what about um, uh, Mike Culis? Mike, do you have any any any comments about the about the setting? Couple quick things, I guess. One, just like following up on Kim's thing. Yeah, I think it'd be good to know like I don't know if this is information. We probably could figure this out, but like the distance people
actually are going to walk to things from because I know you hear about like people wanting to walk, but how realistically how far are you going to walk places and stuff like that? I mean I I live downtown so I do walk downtown all the time but I know like I think once people are outside a half a mile or
maybe a mile I don't think you see a lot of people walking it's probably places there's a decent amount of research on this topic and that you're right like that half mile is I believe that half mile is so at that point you're talking like a little bit of like downtown you're talking the plains like like that
side of the town like and then after that like I don't there's other than that like it's high street down there And then the other way there's not a So I don't know. It' just be interesting cuz I I agree that people talk about walkability like Tim point which I I think is great. I cuz I happen to live in an area that's very walkable to downtown. But yeah or if a lot of people
are still taking cars. I agree with Tim's point. And then the other thing is I know one of the sustainable notes talks about like reducing parking requirements for multif family. That's referring to u not downtown right in general. But I I think that I'd just be
curious like the that's realistic in like the city and stuff like that. And I'd be curious to like talk to people and see see what people's thoughts are about doing that in a suburban area. If you have a two-bedroom and you have one or less than one parking per unit, like I don't know who doesn't have a car if they live in a suburban, right? You just
park on the street. It's not assigned, right? And then we're taking up street parking. So I Yeah. As someone who lived in Boston for 10 years, I'll tell you all about fighting for parking spots. Yeah. Yeah. But but less than one less than one spot per unit is stuff you see in Boston. I mean that's
that's what I mean. So but multif family new multif family buildings in Boston you'll see that in those numbers. So I again not opposed to reducing parking but I just cuz I think it's great if people are going to walk and bike but I just don't know if it's the reality of like what is actually going to happen. And then the last thing I just curious
about is where did these like initial things come from? Like I know we ranked them once you guys presented them, but this was is this from the survey or where did this actually like where did these ideas come from? Like if you look through the app like the appendex is like 30 pages. There's like the there's
the survey and then there's a bunch of other like quantities. So it's a mixed bag of things. Okay. Right. That's I guess what I was asking. All right. I'm I'm all set. Thanks, Lou. Okay. Yep. Very good. Um and I have a few comments in terms of this as well. I mean I um you know I think it was a you know uh I
think it was a very you know I think it's a it's a uh uh in terms of the in terms of the findings and recommendations I thought that was definitely um uh you know um uh I found that the right that that the findings I I actually found the the appendices interesting too in terms of kind of
walking looking at some of the survey responses and it and it it refreshed my own memory when I filled out the survey. Um and uh and sort of similarly as what what what Mike was saying, I mean my my wife and I live, you know, near near the middle school. So we so we so we do, you
know, a fair amount of um our errands, you know, uh on foot in terms of going to CVS or going to the post office, you know, that sort of thing. But the um so uh you know so definitely I think you know walkability is um is important and
you know I and the concerns about traffic and congestion I think are um you know are very are are well stated with respect to the I mean one thing that I that I think that that should be um that I definitely endorse in terms of
the uh you know there's there's nothing here that I that I'm not you know that is that I I can say I have I have a problem with. But the uh but one recommendation I definitely um think that we should be looking at is promoting existing transit services. Uh
that that's something that we do have uh you know that not a lot of people know for example about the Salem Skipper. Uh the you know Logan Express I that's something that is a uh I'm really a I've been I've been I've used it you know I've used it a lot. I'm on work travel
right now and I used it um you know I actually used Logan Express on Sunday morning, you know, to fly out. I was I was uh I I I caught it in the morning. It cost $9. You put you book it online, it cost $9 and I was at the airport. It was Sunday morning, but I was at the
airport in 25 minutes. So it was great. So, in terms of um and so uh you I did the uh impose upon it on my wife to drive me to to drop me off at Logan Express at 6:15 at 6:00 in the morning, but it was still uh that saved also having to drive all the way into Logan.
So, and it was a very easy very easy trip and I've been very happy with with Logan Express. So that's something I think that um I think that people should you know I think letting people know about all about the options that are there and I think to the extent that people are using it more then I think it encourages sort of more transit if
people are are you know are doing it. Um in terms of revising the zoning bylaw to promote sustainable development. I mean I think that I mean I'm definitely you know in favor of of you know promoting sustainable development. Yeah. parking I do have a few you know just some
concerns with just because of um you know again understanding and I lived in in Washington DC where parking is definitely at a premium and you um you would you know sometimes you would make a decision as to whether or not you go out because knowing whether you'd have a parking space when you get back but the
um but I almost think that that some of the you know it almost seems like and I know that it's not necessarily in any order but some of the some of some of this could benefit benefit from a little bit of sequencing. So, for example, you know, expanding, you know, expanding
transit, getting the word out about existing transit services, you know, getting a lot of that done first, um, and then, you know, then potentially revising some of the parking requirements for development. So I I
think that without you know doing doing the doing those revisions without sort of a coordination of what comes first um just to make sure that the infrastructure is there frankly and that the ability of easy transit is there. I think that um you know I think that that
that's sort of a a take that I have in terms of uh and maybe I have a question here for that more of a comment I guess a question for Josh um in terms of you know revising zoning for for sustainable development in terms of potentially
reducing the parking requirements. Uh is that how is that generally coordinated or sequenced with other things like increasing transit or getting the you know getting the word out about transit doing you know making sure our existing parking is really is optimum. How does
that all how does coordination generally work? Yeah, it would all that would all be, you know, that would all be concurrent, right? That would all be happening at the same I mean, so this is this paragraph is referring to, you know, um not downtown, which we do have
fairly, you know, um we have reduced the parking um for multif family downtown. So, this is referring this is referring to basically like a multif family project that was not downtown. um as we're talking about this and I don't know if speak out of line whatever but
but yeah where it says the one space or less we probably don't where in our sort of environment we probably don't we're probably not kind of as the group has alluded to we're probably not and I don't know if Aaron O'Brien would disagree but I don't know if we would be
under that one space per unit level I don't think that's probably where we're at um but maybe potentially it just depends on the project, right? Um but your kind of question all of I mean all of those things would have to would
occur concurrently Lou uh you know if you were to make this you know this sustainable development zoning change it would be a land use it would be right you'd be you'd be making land use changes
simultaneously with the parking changes so just you know I know we talk about all but just like the downtown right we added the mixed use we added residential and then at the same time we reduce the parking. Okay. So it would right
you'd have to do it it would be more beneficial or would it would work you'd have to be you'd have to pull all as Brian says pull all the lever all the different levers at the same time. So, okay. No, I think that that I think that makes sense and and that's really that's the concern that I that would be more
the concern that I have and it sounds like it would be addressed that you'd want to make sure that there's a coordination that any of these steps are done not independently but they all work together so that one doesn't suffer from the lack of another. Yeah, it would be a it would be a holistic ch if you were to
really modify the parking. It would be a holistic change from from the land use side at the same time. So, Okay. Got it. Okay. Um very good. And and just in terms of um in terms of the in terms of
coordination, so who would be sort of taking lead on this now that we have this report? Um sort of to echo I guess what Tim's you know question too. And so this would mostly be owned by um you know by land use and economic uh and development. Correct. It would I mean we
would we would certainly take a significant role in it for sure and not like solely but um you know at town hall you know there's a number of different departments and personnel but um the land the land community services would
certainly have a role in or a significant role in almost every one of these um recommendations. So okay sounds sounds good. Um, let me see any other um any other comments from uh from members
from members of the board. I have a question. Um, did you send the complete streets prioritization plan from 2019? I have not yet, but I know that it's that that was requested. But yes, I could do that. And one follow up to what you just said,
Lou, that reminded me the this report mentioned the 495 bus that was cancelled. 495. Mhm. That's what it was. I thought I saw it was canceled. Was that It said because of decreased ridership. Was that during CO or before CO?
Uh yeah, Tim. And and first of all, I didn't notice the typographical in the in the in the main of the report. It's actually the 465 bus cuz I used to take it. Um and it was it was the 465 and in the appendix it's it's it's it's spelled
out properly. It's the 465. But yeah, it it was terminated during CO. I think it was in I think is March of 2021. Is that correct, Josh? March 14th, 2021. Yeah. Yeah. Y um but I would say that um I
have heard or somewhere I could dig up that writership prior to COVID was I believe Erin or someone in my office could um um it it was ne it never I believe that the low wrership didn't
necessar wasn't a causation of co exacerbated it was it was always I believe it always had pretty low ridership because I think it's important like to your point Lou like advertising existing transportation I think is is important to hopefully increase that ownership but if we already have history
of underuse I think this like prioritization of more transit options is again somewhat in conflict with people's actual behavior yeah it's a it's an interesting thing you know I mean just just to pick up on that because as a as a as a a a writer of that because this is when I you know
I I worked in in in downtown Boston at the time and so I would take the I would take the commuter rail and so I would and I would take the bus from I would take it from you know right out you know kind of across this you know sort of the near the it's near the public parking lot near the um you know sort of near
the atrium and it was a I think that there were probably three people with me on the bus that and they would maybe pick up a few people on the way into Salem and so it was not a very it was not a large you know it was it was not a very robust but frankly I think part of
it too and again this is just all anecdotal I think that people didn't necessarily know that the bus existed and they didn't know. Um I I think that there was a I think people just weren't I think it is a combo. I think it was people weren't aware of it. I think people frankly they wanted their own
car. I think that was a thing too. So they wanted to drive to the when I commute into the city it's like it's already enough to drive to the train. Take the train to the tea t to the office right? It's like adding one more in there feels like infinity more time. Uh what I found really interesting too,
sorry now I'm on a different topic. You've you've spun me out on a tangent. Uh the statistics about like Danvers being a employment hub, but how the people who work here can't afford to live here and the people who live here generally either work from home or commute somewhere else. It's very fascinating to me. So, I think there's a
lot to I'd like to think for us to think about in zoning and obviously in housing like we know we're trying to deal with the more affordable housing problem which solves part of that, but also the like what are we zone for in terms of commercial use and the types of like development that we're encouraging here
for the types of jobs that may continue to grow here. I know we've talked about this before, but that struck me as something is like that's where most of your translate is coming from is people just passing each other by from their homes to their jobs. It feels like we should better know where those trips are going, coming, what types of jobs people have, stuff like that. There's a
significant symbiotic relationship and like res folks in the Northshore who, you know, they'll live in a community. Everyone shops in Danvers, but a lot of people, you know, will live in Beverly but work here or vice versa. Um, there's
a significant amount of folks who are just, it's just going, you know, going to puberty. they, you know, they live here but work in PBD or they work in Salem but live here. Um there's a there's a significant amount of folks who do that. It is very interesting. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean the statistics
they had again back to the data the statistics they had on rides and the types the nature of rides and the number of rides for different types of trips as well as the nature of employment of people who live here versus people are commuting in and out. Like I find that very fascinating. So that can help us think about how different types of
development might affect that balance. For sure. Yeah. No. And and and I remember from from even just again anecdotally from from when we've had uh even had you know um commercial ventures come before us like for site plan review or such and
when the questions asked well how are employees getting here and sometimes you you hear about employees well their employees are there's a there's a van that comes in and brings you know brings the employees from from other communities. Um, and so it's not people
who necessarily live in in in town. Um, uh, one thing I found interesting as well, and this might be just in terms of of the survey results was also, and I think I know I can't remember what page it was, but in terms of the the income ranges of those who completed the survey
that it was, I think the largest percentage cohort was with a household income over $200,000. Mhm. So I can't remember where I saw that, but just in terms of those who who completed the survey. So Tim, did you have anything anything
further? Nope. Thank you. Okay. All right. Any uh any other members um have any uh any further further questions? Okay. Um I'm going to turn things back. Uh are there any members of the public
who have any any questions at all? Yes. Y okay if they can come to the podium and introduce themselves. And hi Noah Sam town meeting member precinct one. I just had a couple questions or just a question and a couple comments.
Um the I feel like the um the location of the multif family for reduced parking is really the important part of this. It's like, yeah, it makes sense downtown, but if you're putting a multifamily 3 miles away from downtown or 3 miles
away from anything walkable, it doesn't make sense to reduce their parking to one or less. It just that just doesn't seem to make sense. Um, now reduced parking for commercial, I think, makes total sense. We have so much just
pavement for businesses that is underutilized. Like the Liberty Tree Mall is ridiculous. The amount of parking we have for that. And I know that that's pre-existing, so there's not a lot we can do now, and most of our businesses are, but I think anything we
can do to reduce commercial parking spaces would be great. Um, I don't know that I think the developers should be the ones to determine whether or not um what the market needs are for parking. I think it said in the in one
of the recommendations it said that the developers would decide what the market needs are and that seems I don't know seems like not really the right way to determine that. Mhm. Um, and I don't know if Jean was asking
about the 2019 complete streets prioritization plan because I'm curious to know what has been completed from that plan and does does any of this do anything. Mhm. That's it.
No, thank you. Just a couple. Josh, do you have any Yeah, just wanted to comment on that 2019 prior prioritization plan. We did have a couple um there were a couple intersections that we did try to move forward with the state um to and just unfortunately um we
just weren't awarded funding to fix those intersections. But um I think with this exercise what we would do is um we'd work with engineering staff and we'd probably um we'd probably me you know in 2019 we're
it's almost we're mid 2025 um you know I'd be interested in which you know what would come out of that process now it might be a little different. So, I will say I like the point you raised about um Oh, sorry, Luke. But the um how
Okay. the multif family with reduced parking really only makes sense in the downtown. I did like the recommendations they had in here about potential amendments to the bylaws about allowing smallcale neighborhood commercial uses um or identify other sites like Liberty Tree for mixed use. Right. is doesn't
right now it only makes sense of the downtown but if we could think about maybe other areas that fit that profile and could be updated to look more like that then maybe okay that's great okay very good thanks for those those those comments any other comments from members of the public at
all I do not believe so okay thank you all right if there's nothing um If there's nothing further, I guess anything further from any other members? If not, we can uh we can move on to the the next agenda item. Josh, do you have anything um anything further
you need from us? Do you have enough comments and such from us? Yep. I think we're good. Yep. Thank you. Yeah. And I and I assume as well that once we get that 2019 study, if there's any if any of the the the board members have any further comments and and uh comments,
they can just direct them to you, Josh. Yeah, that absolutely. Yep. Okay, great. Sounds good. All right, thanks very much. Let's move on to the next uh I think the next agenda item here is just we have our minutes. Okay, so we have minutes from we have
three meeting minutes here. I think the April 22nd minutes we have um these were uh I think all members were present with the exception of Gan Hartnett. though. Um, so I'd like to Has anyone
had a chance to review? And I'd like to entertain a motion to uh on the on the minutes. Motion to approve the minutes from the April 22nd, 2025 planning board meeting. Second. Okay. The motion to approve it made by Tim, second by Mike Dulis. I'm
going to call a roll call on this. Um uh let's say begin with um Tim Spiddle. Hi. Mike Doulus. Hi. Uh Jean Hartman. I wasn't there. Um she can't vote because she wasn't
there. Lou. Okay. So, is that abstain? Yes. Oh, okay. Got it. Um Jim Sears Jim Jim are you Yeah. You're good with the minutes on
for April 8th. Okay. Thank you, sir. April 22nd. April 22nd. I'm sorry. You said yes. Yes. Yep. A delay. Okay. Yes. And and I say yes. So um uh so we have a uh four in favor
and um any opposed? None. And we do have one extension. Uh J. Okay. Very good. Let's move on to the next um uh the next set of minutes which is the May 13th minutes. I believe all of our members were present at that
meeting if you've had a chance to review it and any um any any changes or edits to them. Okay. Hearing none, I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the
minutes from May 13th. Motion to approve the planning board minutes from the May 13th, 2025 meeting. Okay. Motion's been made by Tim Spiddle. Is there a second? Second. Second by Gene Hartman. Okay, very good.
I'll call a roll. Um, uh, Jean, yes. Tim, yes. Mike Doulis, yes. Jim Sears. Jim motion to approve. Jim, are you uh you good with those
minutes from May 13th? May 13th. Yes. Okay. Yep. He says yes. Thank you. Yes. And I say I say yes. So we have five uh five in favor, no opposed. Okay. Next set of minutes is the uh is the May 27th
meeting. Um and so that was a everybody was in attendance. Tim Spiddle was not present, but I believe Tim did complete the um uh Tim can Tim vote on this or is that probably Probably not. Probably would not make sense since he wasn't
there. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. Understood. All right. Very good. So, um the only uh there was one typographical I noticed on the on the minutes, Josh, on page four. Okay. There was uh on page four of the minutes, there was a reference to Julia Steves's
um uh comment. It says expresses an opinion, but it should but it actually has an apostrophe. Okay. So, there should be there should be no apostrophe. Okay. I could change that. Okay. So, um Okay. Any other um any other comments or
or edits to those minutes? Okay. Hearing none, um I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes uh from uh from May the uh May the 27th. Make a motion we approve the planning
board and minutes from May 27th, 2025. Okay, very good. Jean has made the motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mike. Very good. I'm going to call a roll. Um, uh, all in favor? Jean? Yes.
Uh, Mike? Yes. Uh, Jim Sears. U Jim uh May 27th minutes. Yes. Yes. He says yes. Yes. Very good. Um Tim Spiddle. Abstain. He abstain. Yep. Got
it. Uh and I and I say yes. So we have uh four in favor and one abstension. So the minutes have been have been approved. Okay. Very good. So, um, so Josh, what is our what is what is our, uh, uh, why don't we give a quick
summary of sort of our our next meeting? Yep. It's just, uh, it's, uh, Tuesday, July 22nd and as we speak right now, um, items that will um the TR lane release of Covenant was continued to
that meeting. The 83 Elm Street, five Essex Street mixed proposed mixeduse project was continued to that evening and um there will be a site plan review application
um for 12 to um 12 to 17 Cherry Hill Drive. Um it's proposal to expand um parking at EMD Millipur up on Cherry Hill Drive. So those are the three the three items that are planned for that
evening. So okay that uh do we have um just in terms of um in terms of attendance I mean I'll be I will I'll be in Massachusetts that on that day. So I'll be uh I'll be able to attend. Uh everybody does um are are all the all the other members are anticipating being
able to attend or uh either in person or remotely? Jean, will you? Yeah, Jean, you um how about uh Jim? Yep. Uh how about Mike? Yep. Okay. Yep. Uh Jim, will Jim be able to attend? Jim, will you be able to come to
that meeting on July 22nd? Yes. Okay. Yep. Jim says yes. Okay, great. And I and I'll I'll be able to attend as well. So, well, great. All right. Anything else uh that we have? Um uh anything that we that in terms of I
guess in terms of Trass Lane and 83 Elm any sort of any further updates on that? No, we really can't get into much detail in terms of because they're not on the agenda currently, but any Yeah, I'll um I can I'll send a link around tomorrow, but we did we did get um updated
documentation for the 83 um 83 Elm Street. So if you folks would want to take a look at there's a new kind of new uh elevations and renderings or architecturals um take a look. I will send that out tomorrow. Okay. Will those
also be available on the um like on the on the town website? That's where they are. I'll just send that link. Yep. Okay. I just put them up today or yesterday. So Yep. Okay. Yep. Got it. And so and so it has some changes in elevations and Yep. Just like a decent
Yep. there were some modifications to the the look or architecture of the building. So, okay, it's worth worth checking out then. Great. Okay. Um and TR Lane, anything um just just we're anticipating a meeting on the 22nd?
Yeah, nothing no really comment on that. Um Okay. Yep. All right. Um anything anything new too in terms of anything we talked about at our last meeting? I know we talked about a number of things at our um at our last meeting in terms of plan, you know, with
respect to future plans in ter, you know, including such things as master plans, things of that nature. Um just the two meetings in the summer are like fair have a decent amount of applications. So, um I'm thinking that
most of the stuff that we talked in terms of short and long-term planning initiatives um would likely we'd probably start in earnest on some of that. um probably in September and the fall and stuff just because the July meeting and August planning board
meetings are already pretty full. So yeah, that's true because we have just in terms of the schedule, we have we have we have one meeting in July, right? And then we have one meeting in August. That would be August u uh the 12th, isn't that correct? That's right. Okay,
sounds good. All right, very good. Anything else by any other um any of our any members? Any any other um any other comments or or questions? Uh Lou? Nope. It doesn't seem like that. Jimmy, you Jim, you have any questions or comments?
Nope, he's good. Okay. Um then hearing then we we are uh uh we can have a a a shortage meeting tonight on this. It's very hot night. So I'd entertain a motion uh to adjurnn.
I make a motion we adjourn. Okay, very good. G motion's been made by Jean. Is there a second? Second. Second by Tim. Second by Tim. Okay, I will have to do a roll call. Uh Jean, yes.
Tim, yes. Mike, yes. Tim, no. Jim, motion to adjurnn. You hear a yes. Yes. Okay. And I am in favor as well. Okay. Very good.
All right. The this meeting of the planning board is adjourned. So, we'll uh keep cool everybody, keep safe, and we'll we'll see you all in uh on July 22nd. Thank you. Have a good evening.