I'm calling the Tuesday, January 6th, 2026 meeting of the Esong Meadow Planning Board to order. I'm required to ask if there's anybody in the audience who might be recording this meeting. If so, please state the method you're
recording and your name. Hearing none, uh, we'll call the role. Fansa >> Russell Denver >> Cassandra Sherol >> Rob >> and Pete Punderson via Zoom. So the
first order business is the approval of the meeting minutes of December 16, 2025. Do we have any additions, corrections, edits? Hearing none. Do I have a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Do I have a second? Second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. All in
favor say I. >> I. That matter passes. There are no uh public hearings under new business. Discussion on zoning bylaw goals for 2026. >> Mr.
Director >> Mr. Willo Mr. Willo. You know, it's kind of like, have you noticed I've stopped using Cassie's last name cuz I never get it right. >> That's true. >> So, you know, >> is it Sarasol or Cherasolo? >> Cherasolo. [Music]
Nice. >> Practice that 25 before you go to bed. >> Um, so >> that's all right. >> So, I put this item in here because I just wanted to get a general sense of, you know, if there's any sort of zoning uh goals or initiatives that the board
wanted to consider for 2026. 25 was kind of a slow year. Um, you know, after the ADU bylaw, we kind of did a few other small things that the town council didn't really want to move forward with. Um, and then we kind of just hit the pause button for a while. So, I have a
few items here on my short list. I'm just going to say what they are so you all understand like where I'm coming from. So, the first of which is the Sarat town district which is still kind of in limbo. Um, that's probably going to come up sometime this year, but you know, we also have this uh comprehensive
zoning review going on at the same time. Um, that's going to probably create a lot of different things for us to look at, too. Um, there's also this whole issue about the definition of agriculture, which is one thing I think the board could consider discussing in the in the
near future because our definition is very vague and confusing. And the way it's worded, technically home gardens are not allowable in residential districts as well as um certain types of
pets and animals while also not really restricting the types of pets and animals you can have. So, I think that's one item that I'm hoping to at least tackle this year to just make that definition more clear um to avoid any sort of confusion. Um >> well, two things on that if I could.
>> Yeah, sure. So, one is the proliferation of people who are now selling wood >> from their property. >> Yep. >> And they've put up these little containers and you know, I'm thinking specifically the one right next to the entrance at to
Birchland Park. >> Y >> Mhm. >> Now, that guy had tree work done a number of years ago, but not in the last couple years, and all of a sudden it's there. So he can't be harvesting all the wood from his yard. >> He's also a landscaper though.
>> Yeah. But but the work is not being done on his property. >> He's splitting it on his property, but he's not cutting it from his property. And so you might recall Paul Bunan the when we when we uh discontinued the special permit on
there the issue was it was not being he can harvest from his own lot. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> But he can't bring it on the lot. So, just to be consistent, should we be
enforcing that all around town? So, I I guess we need to address that. I don't know if that's a matter of enforcement or but we should look at that because to me that's retail. If
he's not harvesting from his lot, that's a retail operation in a residential zone. >> The second one is in with respect to agriculture. So, I was invited to a meeting early. No, right after our last
meeting. Um, the town manager was in attendance. Connor O'Shea from the town council was there. I was there. And councelor uh Paige was there. and he indicated that
he is going to be drafting some language for the planning board and town council to consider which would expand the uses within agriculture specifically what farms can do. So his
just initial thoughts were, can you hold a wedding on a farm? You know, can you put up a big tent and hold a wedding? And it's a way for um you know, the farmers to make more money. So can you put can you use a farm for
besides agricultural but cultural events, educational events, recreational events in an effort to kind of expand the uses and apparently there is currently going through the legislature a bill that
would allow communities to adopt similar language. >> I did hear about that. So he's, you know, he's indicated that he sometime this year he's going to put that in front of the town council and they may end up sending it to us.
>> So interesting. >> Okay. Who who for? >> Yep. >> Yeah, that's good. >> So those are the two things on agriculture I had. They could definitely be grouped together, too. I think um you know I had this written on a board from like months ago and I haven't really changed that board but I think having
discussion on agriculture is important because there's a lot of things we have to kind of figure out and I'm glad you brought that up Russell because those are some things that came across my desk too. So I'm glad that we got that in the open. The last thing I have is that um for the longest time and you guys know
how like we use dimensional measurements for buildings and stuff on lots for different projects throughout town. So, the way that we always measured how much you can build within a lot aside from distances from property lines and height and stuff is that we have what's called
um building coverage. And basically what that is is that the square footage of your building cannot exceed a certain ratio in relation to the lot overall. So, say for example, you can't have more than 20% of your lot be just a building
and the rest has to be undeveloped. um that's that's essentially what building coverage is. But in other communities, they also regulate it a little bit further than just the building itself. So sometimes they'll regulate say impervious surfaces. So like sidewalks,
driveways, basically anything that's like a storm water hazard. Um and the reason for that is to avoid a piece of property that's entirely, you know, impervious, like there's no grass left. Because the way our zoning bylaw is
worded, anywhere in town, somebody with the exception of a few special districts, somebody could actually build out a concrete pad the entire property lines if they wanted to and put a house there as long as the house doesn't exceed the maximum percentage of what the house can
be in size. So, I think a discussion is needed on that at some point to kind of determine whether or not we also want to cap the amount of driveway, concrete, sidewalk that somebody puts in their lot as well, uh, to avoid situations like
that. I'm not saying that we've seen this. There are definitely a few properties in more densely populated parts of town that do have it already. But I think moving forward that creates a lot of problems because, you know, for obvious storm water related reasons, it also affects, you know, heating,
cooling. It affects utilities. It affects a lot of other things that people don't realize they're affecting. So, at some point, I'm going to bring this up to the board in the future, maybe when things slow down, uh, because we're kind of fearful that we could see another development do something like
that. So, we want to make sure that our regulations are more specific and they're grasping everything that we need to regulate from these developments. So, um, you know, that's all I had on, you know, this topic. I don't know if members of the board wanted to bring up
anything else they saw from the zoning texts from previous permit hearings that they thought would be wise for us to take up in 2026. Uh I I'll definitely leave the floor open to you guys if you want to say anything or or chip in or or what have you.
>> Oh, we're good. You guys good? >> All right. >> Um Oh, RVs. >> Yeah, >> RVs. We had RA, didn't we? >> No, we didn't. You kind of talked me out of it. >> Okay. I thought we did. I thought we were pushing. >> Yeah, we pushed it forward, but then they said no. >> I think the council said no.
>> Got kicked down. Yeah. >> What did we do? >> We put on the council. >> And they said no. >> Wait, wait. Which what did we put in front of it, Mike? >> The RV one. >> But what did it say? >> Storing it on private property. >> Yeah. Russ's rules. >> Wait, wait, come back to me. I would have remembered this.
>> That was that was it. Yeah. Yeah, that was it. >> Rob called it. >> I know he did. I know he did. And I' I've held that against him several since he >> Oh, we didn't get you the special book, >> you know. Um but the council did shoot it down. >> No, I I can't remember what they shot down for.
>> I wanted to get you a notepad. >> It's because they also um we include a few other things in there, too. It was like >> drones, too. >> Yeah, we talked about a number of things that were included in there. >> Well, what I'd like to see >> I I do think the drones should be thrown back on the table. >> One of those buzzed over my head at AW Browns the other day.
>> Wow. >> I was like, what? So >> there was one in front of my house like a month ago. >> So currently RVs are supposed to be stored behind the front line of the house. >> Correct. Correct. >> So the issue comes up when you have
corner lots. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So I'm just going to specifically reference um because I see it a lot on Westwood. There is a uh I don't remember the name of the street, but it's a side street on
the same side as the golf course. >> I know which one you're talking about. >> It's a blue It's a long blue house ranch, I suspect. There's a very large RV. It is behind the front. >> Oh, I know where it is. >> It's behind the front of the building. >> Yep.
>> But because it's on a corner lot, >> Yeah. >> it's exposed to the world. >> Yep. >> I see. And there's a couple of other places where that occurs as Oh, Shaw on Shaw Street. >> Um, it's a brick. So, the house is on
North. The trailer or the RV is on Shaw. >> Same situation. Behind the front of the building on North, but exposed to the entire neighborhood because it's behind
the So, we need to somehow address that. I personally ran into that issue with fencing and was not allowed to put up fencing. I'm on a corner lot. It was an issue. Um, so I' I'd like to I don't think it's visually attractive and I
really think they gain an advantage that someone who isn't on a corner lot does. >> If you guys can picture this. So, >> um, and then I would and and I you talked me out of it last year, Rob. Rob W. So, I'm not gonna let you do it this
year. So, I'd like to uh propose a restriction on the number of RVs. And I don't know if we I don't know if we define them cuz these are detached RVs. So, what do you call those? Detach.
>> Travel trailers. Travel trailers. >> Travel trailers. >> Make the ones you have to uh >> But there's so many different or fifth wheel. There are fifth wheel. Yeah, >> there's there's different Yeah, different things. >> Or a class A >> or a class A. Yeah, >> I have a class A diesel pusher. >> Yeah. >> Right.
>> So, there's a house in town >> that actually has three of them. >> Jeez. >> In their sideyard. To me, that's obscene. >> Are you only allowed one?
>> No. That's what I wanted to do. >> No violence. W said that he felt state law would not allow that. >> But I'd kind of like to push that if we could. >> You know, I get it. People are going to want to store it on their lot in one,
you know, okay, but not more than one, >> right? >> The big advantage of having it having it at your house is you can keep it plugged in and like mine is mine has uh eight batteries in it and if you don't plug it in, they freeze. >> Yeah. I have mine plugged in all the
time. >> And you have one? >> Yeah, >> I have one one big one. >> Yeah. >> It's worth looking into, but I think >> I think and I agree with Russ. I I don't see that the sense of having three stored on a lot. What the heck? You can only use only use one at a time,
>> you know. >> What if we um what if it was only limited to residential properties? >> That's fine. >> Yeah, >> that's fine. >> Yeah. Although I do have to tell you the uh >> open can of worms >> the property between Dunkin Donuts and
Custom Is it Custom Auto? >> Yeah. >> That is storing >> Oh, that like strip of land. >> All all of he's storing trailers, RVs, >> a lot of stuff in there. >> Yeah. And if you want to talk about
improving the image and the look of the town center, >> getting an RV storage facility out of the center would would probably enhance the view of of >> So it wouldn't hurt. >> So >> they they used to be a licensed RV dealer. >> Yeah, but he's not anymore.
>> I don't know if he is or not. >> These aren't new. >> No, they're not new. They're they're very old. >> So um >> and Okay. >> I was going to say um >> I'm on a roll. >> I know. giving you a soap box in a minute here. >> Um, >> where's this microphone? >> If it's no more than one RV,
>> our definition of recreational vehicle include boats >> and other things. So, can we >> So, we might have to tweak the >> I think we got to tweak the definition. >> Y >> because if somebody has a boat, they also might want to have an RV. They also might want to have a jet ski. They also might want to have an ATV. I I know
that's that's kind of what I would like to avoid. But I don't think I'm getting much love from people on trying to do that. >> But I could also see if you just distinguish an RV as something separate >> like a, you know, a large recreational vehicle and just say you only have one of those. I think that's more plausible.
If you just say you can only have one recreational vehicle and it's like more broad in what that means. >> Yeah, we have to. What if they have one of everything? I >> then that's too much. >> But they >> according to Russ I don't know screen them all and garage them.
>> I'm thinking yeah if they're garageed and screened and yeah I mean all good stuff. >> There you go. >> All right. I got another one. >> All right. >> Shoot. >> So tell me what the current rule is on accessory buildings.
>> Um residential or non >> residential. So, >> do they need to be behind the front of the residence? >> So, depends on the type. So, usually yes. Uh, they could also be if they're an ADU, they can be on the side of the
residence if it's attached. >> No. >> But if it's detached as BB >> So, these are like very large storage sheds. >> Okay. So, like a non-residential building. So, like a shed or >> Well, yeah. The accessory use building is not a residence. It's
not part of the residence. It's like gigantic storage sheds parked in people's front yards. >> So, we had a whole debate about this. So, >> who did >> uh playing it was with Mr. Paige. He came in about his uh pole barn. Um and
the situation was the definition of what accessory structure meant. >> Yeah. So typically insubordinate and I forgot the whole definition but basically the way it's worded saying that it has to be inferior in size to the main house. >> Yeah, both of these are that I'm thinking of.
>> So if it's bigger than the house, technically it doesn't fit the definition of accessory structure and building. >> Yeah. >> So yes, it has to be behind the house. Um and if it is behind the house, you can have it up to 5 ft from the property lines along the back and sides. Um,
there's also a setback requirement where it says that whatever the front setback is for the house, the shed, we're going to say shed. The shed has to be 10 ft further beyond that in most residential areas. >> I'm talking. >> So, >> no, I don't really walk down that
person. >> And, you know, these are, just to clarify, these are, you know, accessory buildings that are not they're used for storage for other things, not people residing in them. Um, so yeah, that's typically how we treat it right now. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> there's at least three that have popped
up in the last four months that I in my walks I go, "Oh, >> is that new?" >> Yeah. Like within the last four or five months. Yeah. >> Just like in the driveway. It's on the side of the driveway.
>> I know. Like I've seen them working on it, but I didn't know what it was. >> Okay. All right. I will be uh okay. As far as zoning things, I'm I'm done. >> Are you done? >> Yeah. Everything I needed. Um
>> this thing is also kind of zoning, too. But it's very important. >> We write down the drone, though. So, you would like to revisit. >> I wrote it down. But that's not a zoning thing, though. But I did write it down. I'll bring it back up again to the town council and see if they're willing to to move forward with that one. Um but anyways.
>> Okay. So solar and battery storage permitting process. So the state has recently almost adopted legislation to promote their own local consolidated permitting process through the department of
conservation. I think it's DNR or DCR. I'm not sure which one it is. I think it's department of natural resources. So basically they're creating their own consolidated permitting path which means that instead of having applicants go to the playing board then
to the conservation commission that's the board of health they're basically eliminating the need to do that and instead are consolidating it into one specific process that sort of supersedes all the local stuff. Um, but there were
some recent amendments that allowed for municipalities to still offer their own local processes instead. Um, but the way that the recent updates were is that you're supposed to present these two permitting paths to any solar or battery
storage applicant. Option A, do your regular zoning and conservation path. So, Concom and then planning board and whoever else needs to get approved, right? separate hearings. The other path is to do this one specific permitting
path in which I believe the town manager or the town manager's designate could sign off on a project. It doesn't go to any board or committee unless the town manager designates that person. Um that would be option B. And the applicant has
the right to choose which path they want to go down. So, if you were the applicant, would you want to go to all those board hearings or would you rather go down the one-stop shop and then you're done? Um, that's that's kind of what is before us right now. The state's telling us we don't have to update
anything on our end. We just have to make their applications available for when applicants of solar projects want to go down that path. What you guys have in your packet was the most recent draft sent to me from my planning circles. And
I think so, Department of Energy Resources is who's going to be administering this program. Um, essentially there's a whole lot of stuff the applicant has to do up front and it's a lot of work, but once they're done doing that work before they submit
to the town, they can go ahead and get through this process fairly quickly. And usually the process cannot exceed 12 months. according to the state. So again, there's nothing we have to do on our end. Um, come start July 1st, we have to
make this new permitting path an option for folks. But then October 1st, we have to make it an option. So July 1st, we have the option to decide whether or not we wish to advertise this permitting path. Um,
>> is this already passed? So, I don't believe it has passed yet, but it's getting close. And when it does, July 1st would be the first deadline that kicks in. >> So, isn't this really kind of really There's a lot of public protest against
battery storage facilities. >> So, yesterday is fighting it, I think, locally. >> Every town is. >> Yeah. >> Yep. And I think, you know, this doesn't really resolve a lot of those uh protests. Um if anything, it's making it
easier to build these types of facilities. Um but at the same time, the state has its goals for renewable energy and they're hoping this process helps them achieve those goals and that's why this process is coming to be
into fruition. Um, there are certain companies I've seen for the battery storage that are very notorious for having faulty systems where a little bit of water if it gets in it causes a a phenomenon called thermal bridging and that causes a fire to happen which
requires millions of gallons of water to put out. So, realistically, there's a lot of stuff up front in this peritting path that the applicant has to go through. Um, it's actually a little bit more strict than our planning board special permits for solar or site planer
view, I should say. So, I kind of see pros and cons both ways. I think the biggest con here is that it basically ignores all the other state laws when they're going through it uh just to do solar. Uh, and then I think the state has to approve it at the end as well after the town signs off at it. So,
there's kind of like a whole lot of things going on here. Of course, the regulations are not finalized yet. Um, and the law I believe is still in the works. Um, but yeah, I just wanted to make you guys aware of this. This is the latest memo I have. If you wanted to keep it for your records
and all, Mr. Chair, >> so in the end, the way this is drafted, >> they can avoid coming to local boards for approval. >> They would have to go to >> the state. >> They would go to the state first, but then afterwards they would come to us,
>> the town. >> The town. And then whoever the town designates the representative to review and sign off on these projects will be the person they deal with. Whether it's a person, it could be a board, it could be any of those things, but it has to be specific area. >> Theoretically, could be us. >> Could be you guys, could be the town
council. It just depends on who the chief elected or appointed official, which the town manager decides that person or board's going to be. >> So, in the end, there is local review and approval. >> There is >> and approval. local review and approval,
but you're not going to separate boards and committees. You're not going to concom. You're not going to board of health. You're not going to planning boards separately. You're just going to one place. And there's like a whole scoring criteria they have to kind of evaluate and do beforehand.
Pretty lengthy. Initially, they wanted the town to do all that, but then they said, "No, we're going to have the applicant do it." So, if the applicant wanted to do this easier process, there's a lot of work they have to do for the performance. If they if they would rather hash it out with the boards instead, they can do that as well. Just
depends on how much work the applicant wants to do. >> So, that's what we're looking at. Of course, I'll keep you guys updated as that um progresses. >> I think it'd be nice if we could get our keep keep our hands in this some way. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. might be.
>> I think it's good that we don't have to do any updating of regulations on our end. Like we can still use our zoning bylaw the way it is. >> But I'd still like to have a voice at the table. >> Absolutely. Um I think the comment period ended recently. So >> yeah, I know. But I just, you know, as this thing as it fleshes out, I mean,
you know, there's going to be changes. >> Absolutely. >> You know, when they start tacking on the amendments. >> Yeah. I think um that's all I had. I don't know if you guys had any questions about that or >> square. That was a really well a really well done explanation. Thank you. >> No problem.
>> Okay, design review. So I uh you know just following up on our discussion from last time about uh developing a list of triggers. So I developed this list here. Uh it's in
your packets. So the way I looked at it is that I looked at what is required for site plan review and just made those requirements a little bit more intensive and the more intensive requirements would trigger design review. So for
example, any new construction that's not a single family home over 1,000 square ft unless it's weighed by the plane board has to go to site plan review no matter what. So, if we were to say a new construction over 2,000 ft² would need
design review, that's a good jumping off point. And we could obviously make that number bigger if we wanted to. I mean, 2,000 ft² is like the size of a single family home already. Um, and I don't know if the board would rather that be bigger buildings, but that's design view
trigger number one. The second one pertains more to the exterior of the buildings. So say for example um I use this metric of 50% of a building's exterior. So that's square footage of each surface on all four walls of the
building. So this includes painting of exterior surfaces. This includes changing materials on the sides. Um any sort of refinishing, resurfacing, and then changes to building fenestration. So if they were adding windows and doors. Um, and I figured minimal
increases probably wouldn't be enough to warrant a design review, but if they're doing it to more than half of the building surface, then that makes more sense for them to come and get design review before getting site plan review. And then the third is building expansions, which are over 50% of the
existing building footprint. That kind of doubles the already required minimum to receive site plan review from the planning board. And then number four, any addition of floors to a building or any increase in
I want to include so commonly see this in Esau met, but I feel like if that was something that did happen, say if somebody changed the way a roof looked or if they did add an extra story, design review would probably be appropriate in that situation because
you're making the building pretty much different at that point. So, these were the four that I had developed just to start discussion. If you guys like them the way they are, cool. If not, um I'm open to feedback and any questions you guys might have.
>> You did a wonderful job. >> Yeah. >> I I think that when we look at the plans, when somebody comes in for site plan review, we need to ask more questions as to what it's going to what building materials are going to be there. If it's got columns, what are the
columns going to look like? If it's got large windows, are there going to be multi-light windows? >> Um, you know what color? Obviously, to keep it in line with a c not a country town, but you know, >> more something that that belongs in the Long Meadow. >> Yeah. I think we as a board need to ask
more questions at that time and then we can say well I think the design review committee should come into into play here and discuss options that the the builder can take into into account and you know maybe come up with a different
plan for like we like I said before like for columns for windows uh painting siding material. >> Yeah. So, we're back to the question of should they submit their design before
coming to the planning board for site plan approval or come to the planning board first and then planning board says you need to go to our site >> uh review >> to our design review committee B
when they're when they're presenting it in front of us. We need to ask more questions and at that time have a discussion as to what may or may not pass muster because if they if you just bring the plans in, we may not know exactly what their pl their plans are. I
mean it it if you look at a a regular site plan review for a building, there's many pages, different elevations. So we need to you know I think it's better to discuss it in person with them. >> What are you going to do here? What are you going to do there? rather than us look at it and go, "Well, I don't know
if this is good or not or not." And they get you get it done in one meeting. If we're not satisfied, then we do the design review committee. >> That's my that's my thought. >> So, right now, the way the zoning is worded in the bylaw is that they have to
get design review before going through site plan review. So they would have to first go to the design review board, get their recommendations, and then take that with them to the planning board afterwards for a site plan review hearing. So if we were to go down that
route, we'd probably have to update the bylaw to reflect that as well. Does that seem like the path the board would want to consider at some point in the near future? >> Well, >> I think it's like a double meeting, though. >> It it is. >> It is. It is.
>> Yeah. So, I'm just going to use as an example, and you know, I think we kind of brought design review committee back to life after there were a number of individuals who got in the ears of town
council members about the design of the Chase Bank building at the Rotary. >> Yeah. Right. So if they had come, if we had design review committee in place and they had come before the site plan
>> uh you know uh meeting people could have said to them you know we don't think this design is appropriate for the town center and it's not you know east metal like I guess and you know we would love
to see X Y and Z and And and then they come after and then they come back and they go, "Okay, we made these changes after listening to you." >> Yeah. >> And now we're in front of the planning board first site plan approval. >> Rather than coming to the planning
board, we asked lots of questions. Then they have to go back with their plans >> and redo them. >> They're going to have to do that anyway. Possibly >> if they first meet with the design review committee and suggestions are
made and things are agreed to, they have to redo their plans anyway. >> But do they so they they come to the planning board, we ask lots of questions, they go back and they make plan changes, >> right?
>> Do we then require them to come back to the planning board? >> Yes. But if we ask if we ask questions during their their first visit to the planning board and we find nothing unreasonable, then it's just one thing and we approve it. Approve it. So
>> So do we So I know there's language in there, Rob, maybe you can rhy, but >> yeah, >> under the design review bylaw or language we have in there, isn't it? Is there language in there about, you know, it should be,
you know, appropriate for East Long Meadow using design standards and materials that you see in other locations in within town? Is there >> is there a language like that? >> There's design review criteria they have to meet. There's a whole list of things
that includes, you know, character, siding, materials, color, types of roof, all that stuff. And so do you as planning director tell people that you should be thinking about this before you build a building or do they
just show up with their plans? >> I tell them to be prepared for feedback on building design. >> Okay. >> Because you guys have the authority to do that. >> Okay. >> Right. >> I tell them yeah I mean as long as the building fits the style of the neighborhood. >> Okay. >> You'll have less push back from the planning board.
>> I think that's what we're looking for. Okay. Then I'm fine with that then, Pete. >> But there is there is one thing that our consultants brought up to us during their review of our bylaw. They said that we should better define what character means. >> Yeah. >> And I agree with them. I think that's really vague. And I think having
specific >> makes more sense. And also, if we're going to go down the route that Pete's suggesting, >> I think instead of having these triggers, right, the triggers are only useful for when you're doing something before you come to the planning board. If it's something where, you know, they have site plan review, they go to the
plane board first. Playing board determines whether or not it goes through design review, why don't we just give the plane board sole authority to determine what does go to design review and what doesn't. >> Yeah, >> probably would be the easiest way. >> Yeah, >> it's not worded in our bylaw like that at the moment, but we could definitely
change it to reflect that. >> I'm on it. >> Yeah, that works. >> You guys? >> Yeah. >> You like it? >> Okay. >> All right. Next, Rob, your report. >> Yep. It's written down.
>> Well, while while you're thinking, so I'd like to see if we can get an update on the litigation at 3:30 Chestnut given that we are defendants. >> And then the second one is we approved a
site plan for I believe it's referred to as Hawk Nest. >> Hawk Landing. >> Hawk Landing. But it was dependent I I guess whether the project could move forward was dependent upon whether the zoning enforcement officer/building inspector y >> declared that it was an agricultural
use. So can you give us an update on both of those? >> Yeah, absolutely. I um sorry I got signed off my Google account. Give me one second. >> All right. Anyways, I just pulled up on here. So I was actually going to update you on something else too. Okay, good.
>> Um, happy acres. But, uh, yeah, I'll start with those two. So, litigation still in limbo. We, uh, had it filed. Well, they filed it with the land court. As you know, Russell land court takes a year or two to do anything. >> Yep. >> So, that's where we're at. Still waiting. They have not filed their
special site plan review um, those decision yet. It's still sitting on the same desk it was for a month and a half now. So, I'm encouraging the applicant to file that as soon as they can. >> Okay. >> Despite the fact that it's in
Washington, um the other thing which was about the Hawks Landing 896 Summers, correct? >> Yep. We're a farm LLC. Um so, they at the moment were discussing with the building commissioner about whether or not they could do their proposed use on
site. Uh, I believe he pushed back against any sort of restaurant, any sort of large event space because the type of building that would be needed is not what they have there. Um, you would need sprinklers per the building code. Uh,
fire alarms, all that stuff. Um, there's no there's no note of any of that stuff in the plans. Um, and also per zoning, what they were trying to propose wasn't really allowed and there wasn't any clear connection to any sort of on-site
agriculture. I last heard earlier this week that they are working with the other towns that their property touches into, which includes Ham and Summers, Connecticut. So, I think they're kind of going down those other routes at the moment. But
East Law Meadow might be a new point of entry to potentially the Hampton side or they're going to use a driveway down in Summers, which already exists, and just go through the property that way. Or Esau could just stay how it is uh at the moment with the little sheds there.
>> So, what use what's the zoning on that property right now? >> Residential double A. So low dens our lowest density of residential development in town. So that means you have to have a big lot. You can put like
a single family home with your accessory buildings and that's it. Okay. >> And any other allowable use in residential districts which typically are just residential and civic uses. >> Okay. Thanks. >> And agriculture. Yeah, no problem. Um but yeah, the agricultural on site
doesn't really it's not operational yet. >> So thank you. >> Yeah, no problem. and then I will go into my direct support if you want me to. >> Sure. >> Cool. All righty. So, I apologize if I sound kind of nasely. I'm recovering from a
cold. Um, so I'll do my best to be loud and clear. Um, I put your next six meeting dates just so you guys have them because you approved the meeting schedule. Um, on January 20th, the board is going to be holding a public hearing
for the town of East Law Meadows grants to the Environmental Protection Agency. Uh, they have a program called the Brownfields Cleanup Grant. Uh, this public hearing is required before we can submit an application for the Cardamundi building. Uh, this is the building that
was vacant for over a decade now on Maple Street. >> Carlin, >> the Carlin building. >> Carlin. Carlin. Carlin. >> Sorry about that. Wrong. Carter Mil Monday's the old Milton Bradley. >> Yes, that's going strong. >> Building, my mistake there. Thank you for correcting me. >> Yeah, >> the funds will be used to clean up the
old building and to tear it down. >> So, we can get new development in there. Um, the town can obviously not afford to do it by itself. It's going to cost well over a million dollars. I think millions actually with a s at the end of it. >> Yeah. When they start digging, they're going to find a lot. >> That's why you need the extra millions. >> Oh, yeah.
>> Um, >> and hopefully the EPA is going to be kind enough to give us those funds. Um it's a long process. I did a similar grant program when I worked in where it takes a while. You're probably not going to hear back for at least 6 months. So the board will be hosting so graciously
that hearing on that date and time. Uh in terms of a few updates for other things are going on in the department. So our zoning survey is still up and active. Just a reminder to folks they can take it. It's going to be open until February 6th. Now we're adding a few extra weeks to it. There are still
physical pickup locations at the library and the senior center which have QR codes on them if you would prefer to take the survey online. And lastly, uh update on Happy Acres in terms of their enforcement issues. So, no letter has been sent as of today. Um the reason is
because I heard last week that the sidewalk started getting cleared out. Um there is still the issue with the debris in the storm drain, but we figured since construction has been slowing down because of the weather in the winter, that we would pick that up again in the spring. So if there's evidence that
nothing's done in the spring, there's still clogging issues, all that stuff, um then we go full force with the enforcement. So Mr. Chair, that's all I had. Thank you and the board for your patience tonight and for >> for making this meeting possible.
>> Anybody uh have any other business? No. Pete, any other business? >> No, sir. >> Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> Is adjourned. Thank you.
>> Good night everybody. >> Night.