Okay. >> Um, if I could add something, uh, the requirement says that the ADU has to be behind the front of the existing
>> well. Well, um, if you read through this and there's a lot of streets, houses, you know, I'll give you a few where the houses are well set back,
>> but if you go up Bennett Road, um, you know, my neighbor, um, he's his house is set way back. So I'm going to say that if you have to put a requirement I think the requirement
would be that it um has to meet the front setback of the zone that's the 80 is being you know applied for um
the only thing is it's you know in this on page four like halfway down where it says table of use regulations they say specifically that uh taking this in which you're protected from ADU
is located or is so restrictive excessively burdensson or arbitrary that it prohibits renders infeasible or unreason unreasonably increases the costs uh of the construction it would be deemed unreasonable regulation
So if the house back of the view, you're saying that it must be in back of the front of the house, but houses that are way way off the road frontage. um you would be
implying that you couldn't either one do an ADU or two you'd make it unreasonably try to in some other location >> right >> yeah especially for people who have long
driveways you can't even see the house >> right I mean there's there's you know Glendale Road has um quite a few >> and so does in south uh South Mson has a few um scantic you know you can go and so
I'm going to generalize something I'm going to say if you will um using Wilberham Road going north south kind of I think we
concentrated and I was on the committee that helped write the bylaw I think we concentrated in that area to the if you will the west not thinking that you know somebody in in a small area would put an 80 in front of the house that's why we
came up with that requirement but if you look at north again Wilberham Road going to the east where the conditions are much different they're wider spread houses are and they're
usually larger acreage Um it can it can become some I mean you can go up chapen road there's a few south road um you know uh south south bridge
>> definitely shap >> there you know all those homes there >> yeah south road has a lot of houses >> yes those are are some questions so I'm asking would it be possible to
move that you know requirement or at least add say >> yeah 75 set of foot or whatever in that spot >> yeah I can't imagine there's many people who are going to be plopping a an ADU in
front of their house if they have a tiny little plot even if they could squeeze it in to that setback who's going to do that to their property and make it big Isn't all of that kind of an an argument in favor of us keeping some purview over that? Because I mean, yeah, it's site
plan interview. It's permitted by right provided they meet dimensional regulations. But, you know, there's a ton of use cases that you're kind of pointing out where maybe discretion makes more sense, you know, for us to say, okay, we're a building inspector would have just said no outright because it conflicts with our our zoning bylaw.
we can take a look at it and say, you know what, in the totality of circumstances, maybe it does make sense to allow it in this case because, you know, the neighbors are located here. This is where the house is located. You know, they have an existing structure in front of the house they want to convert, whatever it may be.
>> But that brings you into the site review. >> Well, that's my point. I >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But that conflicts kind of with what the attorney general and and my feeling is it's the attorney general makes these broad brush,
you know, laws or restrictions or unrestrictions depending on what they want to see. Um, and they take don't take into account in its nature. But my my thought be I mean I didn't
think they had an issue necessarily with site plan review as much as they have cons you know they obviously don't want permitting in terms of like special permitting processes for it. You know my thought was site plan review was okay just because it's permissible by right. Um I get your point though. You know I'm
not if anything I'm just I'm suggesting that you know we have more discretion than say the zoning enforcement officer would if he was just applying you know the bylaw as written. um to every single use case. >> Yes. hide the
>> I think your I think your argument brings up the whole point of >> it's we should just see it >> and then make sure that if you know if you have a say your house you're way away in the back but you have room in the front case by case situation >> and that's yeah I feel
>> like are you putting together >> because >> yes I I don't have >> the build inspector is just going to say no going off of these >> right >> but we could say you know what >> they had a meeting we determined that It's not a big deal. >> Yes. >> You know what I mean? >> Yeah.
>> Again, it's it builds our argument, >> right? Butters have an opportunity to to weigh in on a situation where it may not comply with our bylaws, but we've got that discretion. >> I don't know. >> So, like everything that got removed. >> I also don't want to general, >> you know, I don't want to annoy the building inspector either if if wants to
in his >> stories. I don't know. >> But, but I totally get your point. You know, there's, you know, applying this to every case may not >> make a whole lot of sense. in the uh you know >> parking
quite >> liberal saying that there's no no side setback >> on the street by law doesn't have to be bind to setbacks but yet that house
in that situation did >> so it's difficult and I'm yeah >> you know I'm not discount something that it's I'm putting the rock you're putting you people rock you put the rock in hard place and um you know
that's so >> you may get >> you make it just >> right >> there's a setback 75 ft or 25 whatever in that zone >> then u for those homes that are way off
the code, you know, um they can bring it. >> Well, then my then then at the same time then my house is 5T shorter than that and now I haven't and now I can't put it. >> So, >> so that's where you get into all of
that. So if your house like you said is >> the setback is was built before the setback requirement >> but if you understand same >> that it doesn't fit in that or the zone was made after the house your house >> pre-existing non-conformist not requirement
>> which they do address I believe >> they do yeah >> so question is you know >> it would be allowed >> right >> because it's pre-existing not conforming >> you you know, >> right at you in front of us
>> as Yeah. As long as you're not increasing the non-conforming nature of it. Correct. >> Which would require a special permit. >> So if they came to the planning site plan review, what what are we requesting? What type of a plan? An >> you know, yeah,
>> an engineer plan are they? And then >> what they would present to the building inspector for their building permit or >> I would feel Go ahead Dave. >> No, no, you did. >> So I feel that just like they're going to do when they come with a with a garage. >> Well, they only come with a
>> They come with a sketch. How high? >> They don't usually come with engineered plans. >> No, it doesn't have to be engineered plans. It just has to be we were put we want to put it here. Will we have to give them some type of guidelines like a 3x5 site plan two one by four? We have
to give them some requirements for site or do we go by our existing site plan or even >> right that requirements >> go by that >> we go by our existing requirements. >> Yeah, I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. >> Existing requirements. >> So would it be
>> Well, couldn't it just be Sorry. So for a garage, it's when people come in for like an accessory building, right? So it kind of should be following those guidelines. So it doesn't have to be an engineered plan. So just saying where it's going to go, showing how close it is to the property line.
>> You're right. An accessory building is, you know, you put an accessory building in front of the principal dwelling, >> right? >> Okay. is gone because you need to effort >> and then you're getting your that's your review, right?
>> Yes. So that's the review. So the um you know the principal dwelling can be actually so you the accessory building is actually boring. >> Right. >> Right. >> Set back. >> Right. >> But the house is set back further. >> Right. Right.
>> But then it gives the planning board a chance to just say >> true. >> But it doesn't have to. And it also gives I mean yeah I mean it gives us that opportunity to to >> to see it but it also gives the abutters an opportunity to see it. So if you know if that neighbor is coming here and they
they do want to put the accessory structure in front of the primary residence >> and the neighbors are there with them saying this is fine we don't care you know then why why should we have a problem with it? So um
the same would hold true then if they wanted to put it right on the property line basically the side or a rear set back >> right >> now in other words what's happening now is the uh or what would happen is the neighbor
would come in and say I don't like it >> sure >> but what what grounds do they have or you have to say we're not going to Well, other words and >> I mean if if we kept the bylaws as is though, then the grounds are well it
conflicts with our existing bylaws. >> But that's the the attorney general said we don't care about your on the general. >> Sure. >> We don't care about your existing bylaws. We don't care about sets. >> But I thought they did not have an issue
with the located behind the front. >> They did not. >> Right. But that's my point is >> that's my point, >> right? But we could also my point is just that we would have that discretion whereas you know zoning enforcement would not you know >> I agree with you
>> but then I'm saying that when you apply this the liberal movement of I'm going to put it right on my property line >> and you're going to have a you're going to have a review >> site plan review. What's going to happen? The neighbor's going to come in
and say I don't like it there. I don't want it there. Mhm. >> What how's the outcome of the planning board? >> We say no. >> You say no. >> Right. >> So then what happens is the attorney general, you go back. >> What's that? >> Yeah. But we're not we're not bound but
we're not bound by by our precedent. As long as we're justifying our decisions, they're not arbitrary and capricious. We can do that. >> This is all sounding sof attorney general obviously behavior. They don't want >> and if somebody comes in Sorry. If somebody comes in with a
neighbor who says, "No, I'm fine with it being on the property line," then we approve it for them. That's kind of shitty. >> But once again, it's frank, >> you know, it's a case by case situation. You know, if we're talking about somebody who's got a really far set back house and they want to put it right on the property line, it's a very different
story than we've got somebody who's got a really far set back house. I want to put a 10 foot in front of their house. >> Yeah. I just I don't know that I like determining it based off of whether the neighbor >> No. And I'm not I'm not that right. That was either >> that was not me suggesting we're just
going to agree with what the neighbors saying. I'm just saying that as a you know, as an example, at the very least it gives the abuters an opportunity to actually >> weigh in on the discussion as opposed to us just giving this blank slate to the zoning enforcement to say yes or no. And then all of a sudden the neighbors are just saying, "Hey, look, look what
they're building on their property." >> So we can't restrict from putting on the property line. >> That's ridiculous. >> Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. I mean, because somebody wants to do put one on the property line on Main Street or compare it to Glendale Road, that's two different that's two different areas
because Main Street, all the houses are like literally on top of each other. But if you go up to Glendale, there could be woods between you and me on the property line and you could say, "I don't care." >> But then in the center of town over here, it's like no, that like >> right >> there's like on a fence, you have to put it six inches off the line. I mean we
even make the we make the a shed has to be so many feet off any any structure right that's >> the attorney general has basically spoken and said you we want this process to go as smoothly
and quickly as possible. That's kind of the underlying meaning of take the zoning requirements and that's just what they said. I mean we the board worked very very hard to come up with a
you know not not as restrictive but take into account the neighbors and everything else >> in the neighborhood. >> So I'm sorry I'm just I'm not reading the changes that were when we do our proposed by the same way because as far
as I can see it still does have to comply with setback requirements. >> Yeah. He said it sounds like from what he's reading it does. >> I'm sorry. I'm just looking at the >> decision. He's saying that it it reads
that it still has to comply with the setback comply with frontage setback height loting requirement >> conforming lot >> except that an attached stage. >> But once again, if it's a non-conforming lot, they still Right. >> But they're also dealing with the if you
know if you're doing that you're technically increasing the non-conforming nature of the lot. >> So then you're looking at special permits. I think that is a justifiable special permit >> even if it's for an ADU. >> Yeah. I mean this says except that an
attached ADU shall be located behind the front a detached ADU shall located behind the front of front building wall of the primary residence structure. That's not stricken. In the case of a corner lot, the ADU shall be located behind the closest
building wall of the primary structure to the lot line or in compliance with the minimum front yard requirement, whichever is less. >> So, you know, I I just don't, you know, I don't think there's going to be a scenario where somebody could put it on the right on the setback or right on the sorry >> property line.
>> Right on the property line. >> I mean, not the way this is written unless it's nonconforming, >> right? And then in that case again it's you know they couldn't do that because you'd be increasing the nonconformity >> correct >> but under under relationship to
nonconformities on page 9 would you read that section maybe it's a proof of it because it conflicts with their prohibits the emphasis of a special permit requirement for an ADU if it's on a pre-existing non-conforming primary residence.
Okay. We can't even ask them to do a special permit for that, right? >> They would have to go to right. If it makes it more nonconforming, >> not even a special permit. I mean, it's a special permit or a variance to these
law enforce >> I mean they ha they have to, right? If it's >> right it says because >> located with half a mile radius >> nonconformity >> station we're not >> right >> so we can >> I'm not the park >> the whole town is non there's not even a
bus that goes through this town >> because we have a I think we've got a decent handful of preisting nonconforming properties in this town that 10 of those uh towns existing zone violet
4.3 4.4 required special permit that paragraph for expansion of pre-existing non-informing use that paragraph is dealing substantially more detrimental. So a variance, right?
So, what they essentially want is for us to take that section out completely like you did and then just rely on our pre-existing non-conforming. Yeah, >> that's why I sent it to town council.
>> Yeah. I mean, I would like to see something added specifying that they would need to go get a variance from ZBA. Otherwise, I think it's too gray. Let's see what he says now. He's reading. >> Well, the whole catch to this is I think
I have 90 days >> and he's got to be published. February 9th was this letter. So, February and March to April. I don't have much time to get this answered from town counseling.
We don't really have we don't there Interesting. >> Yeah. I mean, I think you're right. I think that there's even if it's preisforming, I don't think that there's any special permit review all of it
treating it similar to a like an educational do amendment use as opposed to like a solar dollar amendment use or something like that. So going back to the seven and I don't mean to >> no no this is I mean
>> my my feeling is is that the setback requirement of 75 ft when we say it can't be in front of the existing the existing building or dwelling >> um becomes more restrictive.
So >> yeah, >> you strike that and just say that >> just leave it at setbacks essentially. >> Leave it at setbacks is what you're saying. >> Yeah, >> maybe. Yeah. >> Now would we have to go back to the attorney general? Is this considered a change that may turn that it has to go
back like to town meeting and vote on the change and then to the attorney? >> Yeah. Less restrictive. So think. >> Yeah. I would think if anything no because it's less restrictive, right? >> Yes. But we're changing the meaning of the zoning bylaws
even though less than restrict of the bylaw. Are we changing what we >> I think they only voted at last town meeting. Wasn't it only voted to submit it to the attorney general, not to put it into the >> Yeah, it was just a submission to the attorney general, >> right? So why >> was the wording that we submitted?
Submitted the wording. >> Submit that. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But you're making the changes now anyway. board. >> Well, it went to town meeting. They voted on it. It went to the attorney general for approval. And these are the comments. So, do we have to do that whole process again? I don't think so.
>> We strike that. That's all I want to know. I don't care if we do. >> No. >> I mean, what what would it do? We we >> we can't not comply with the >> have to make the change. >> I think if anything, it just makes it more consistent with the attorney general's letter.
>> Okay. because of the fact that we've got this special, you know, the non-conforming, you know, >> situation potential. >> Okay, >> that was a fun discussion. >> So, so exactly. So, you can put an ADU in your front yard. >> So, the shall comply with frontage,
setback height, and lot requirements. And then I guess we >> our neighbors will show up >> shall be we're not we're taking out shall be located behind the front building shall conform to the front setback >> right and in the middle of the two red sections there's except that a detached
ADU so that would be stricken shall be located primary res and then the whole sentence about the corner lot pretty much the last whole sentence there two sentences.
>> All right. So, it's just section B. I'm going to reword section B and have you guys >> it I think section B is quite literally just going to be that you shall comply with frontage setback height and lock coverage request retirement patch ADU
>> shall be located I thought we were removing >> shall be located behind the front building we're changing shall conform to the front setback >> I think >> in lot coverage requirements period >> I think we remove >> but that's what we said the first >> and just end it Just end it at requirements
>> with all with frontage setback height and lot coverage requirements. >> Period. Yeah. Period. And then >> Yeah, >> I think that's it. >> Okay. >> That or we that or we keep it in and
deal with it every time it comes up. >> All right. Should we define principal dwelling as reflected on paper and address? >> We never added that. But if we add that to our um our definitions, that would have to go back, right? >> We never defined principal dwelling.
That's why we should >> principal dwelling is not defined. >> I don't believe it's in our zoning bylaws. We say um single family home. I believe section two definitions. I think we have
>> No, we don't. We don't have >> We have single family and they cross it out. >> Yeah. So, do you think we have to define that or let it go for the next round? Somebody
Well, what exposure does that leave us open to? >> I don't know. Define principal >> define principal development in accordance with au >> the primary residence. >> Yes. >> The largest structure. >> There are houses in this town that have
bigger barns than footage of the house. I know that would say the primary dwelling is now the barn >> garage. >> So we're not going to define it is what you're saying. >> No. I just wondered because that we're using it in the bylaw
>> and we don't define it, but there's a lot of things that are in the >> I think if we don't define it, it's leaving it up >> to interpretation, but the the first thing they're going to go to is principal dwelling definition on MGL. Okay. And that's what we go with. That's
it. That's >> crossed it off. You could put like principal dwelling and then in this put in parentheses like C definition as stated in MGL whatever after the word principal
>> or can we just leave single filling in parentheses where they cross it out since that reserve >> I'll see what town council says do that yeah remember what you just said >> what was the com I just I couldn't >> rather than Crossing out single family just put it in parenthesis because that matches our definition.
>> The principal principal >> our dwelling. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Everywhere >> parentheses single family and parenthesis dwelling. >> So instead of red lining it and crossing it out, you just put it between parenthesis.
>> Yeah. But I mean I said >> I'm only saying that because single family is in our definitions already, right? So then if somebody's breaches principal single family they say >> as defined by single family >> is it even in here >> because the I mean that's that was the issue that the AG's had with the bylaw
though is that principal dwelling can't just mean single family in the context of the ADUs because they're allowed for multifamilies as well >> because they off. >> All right so never mind bad idea. So, >> so what do you what what is it?
>> I think you just leave it outside. You need to define it. >> Don't define it. Okay. >> Because it could apply to any dwelling. I mean, it if it's in a single family residential zone, then they've satisfied the requirement if it has a dwelling unit in it.
the question that's and I mean again I don't recreational district you have really >> no caretakers is allowed so >> and it's great it's it's not a single family zoning district
>> right they want that as you said they use a duty and that's okay >> but you can >> that's I'm you know as far as I'm concerned as long as our bylaws are are coordinated and and work with the state
law relative to ADUs, then >> then I'm sorry, if you're not located in a single family living on ADUs, then you're going to have to find some other way to do it because the whole purpose of this is specifically for residential individuals. It's not for a commercial
>> a commercial enterprise. So, I I just don't feel swayed by that argument even a little bit. >> I Okay. And it's just that you have the chance anyway. >> I would reference that right >> definition of principal dwelling on the state site. >> You can make the judgment call >> or state law,
>> right? State law. I like somewhere in this section where principal dwelling is written. I would put principal dwelling. C definition >> to Massachusetts general law single family home or just stop someone from coming in.
Well, my barn is bigger than that and I have a loft in there with a, you know, this is my principal dwelling. What's to stop someone from doing that if we don't at least put a reference to some kind of definition of principal dwelling? >> I'll I'll not that I think we would have that
issue here, but >> Tracy, you think it is? >> It is. It's can't solve for a unicorn, but we can try. I try. All right. Are we good to this? >> Yep. I'm gonna draft it up there. All
right. >> Hi. How are you? >> I'm good. How are you? Nice to see you over here. >> So, I'm Gina Stabillo, 219 Ames Road, and I'm back again to make your head spin with drop number two of possible solar bylaw revisions. So, I sent this
document out last week. Was kind enough to send it to everybody. So, hopefully everyone had an opportunity to look at it. my binder is very big. So, a couple things that I did add was um I added the ridge ridge side provision which I could
not find any example of anywhere else. So, I did the best I could. Other towns have that but there was nothing in their solar bylaw to reference it. Rather than put all four pages, I just said refer to the section your site may may qualify for it. Double check, verify it. Um what
else did we add here? I guess looking obviously looking for the feedback seeing what people think and I'm I was waiting for Mson's bylaw to come back for their battery was supposed to come back last week but they didn't
get it yet. So I don't know what that's about. That was one by lot I was waiting on to see had some interesting things in there and I would like to maybe do some more on deep functioning. I was doing homework on that and ran out of time because I realized that that's 20 40
years down the road, but if it's not in our bylaw now, then they don't have to comply with that. >> Yeah. >> Um that's where I am with it. And as always, everything for the most everything in here has been a
towns last couple years. It was a lot of work. >> One thing I did add was I made sure that if anyone's trying to for commercial solar that they also have to comply with the battery. That was the disclaimer we added for the battery. So I just put it in the solar so there's no confusion.
Right. Oh, the other thing was the viability insurance that we had talked about the last meeting and someone town did a um a monetary amount. We weren't really sure if we want to do that or not. So, Mr. Flynn said, "Oh, go to the board of assessors, see if you can get a file for
the landfill, see what's there." I managed to get it. I read through it. there was something was there about insurance staff. So, I'm still hesitant about putting a number on the liability because something that's one megawatt maybe wouldn't have the same liability that something that's five, it has a
battery, it's in a flood zone. >> It's a pilot program. So, I have a binder with each solar with each solar. Do you have the liability in that? >> I have the insurance. I told her that um June discussed it with me. So, I pulled out my file. >> Okay. And um with each um
decommissioning in the pilot, I have the insurance certificate with the dollar with the dollar amount for the insurance policy. That's what you're looking. >> Yeah, that's what I was I was trying to get like a range. >> I I do have some That was going to be my next note to her. Who has records of that? I do. I have
>> Okay, I'll have to come either see you. Yep. Okay. >> Do we think I'm cool with it how it is right now? >> Do we think that I'm just playing devil's advocate? I like that it's here, but um that the mass general or the >> whenever
>> attorney general uh four and five, the last sentence says, "And shall be subject to the more restrictive requirements." >> That's exactly what we put for the battery. >> I copied it word for word. I just switched out solar for battery. >> I'm coming off of like ADU.
>> No, you're fine. I felt bad you guys were like that. Now I'm here to make this >> and I was and then I had my head on best. Anyway, but >> all the guidance, Tina, on noise. >> Yes. >> Is that what was the source of all that?
>> That was what we for Ham that got approved. >> Okay. >> But I want to say I can't remember where I got all of that from because it was a year ago. >> Okay. >> But I know the numbers that 33 I got from other towns and it had been approved. >> Okay. >> The testing I I have to go back and look
in my notes. It's not in this binder. >> All right. All right. >> I can I know I have it though. I figured if it was this battery and it was approved in February, it should be sent for solar. You mean the um did you use the uh
preconstruction and post construction? >> Well, I was just you know >> were you thinking about the testing? What were you what were you trying to >> Well, I just can remember our you know discussions about noise. >> Yeah. And just kind of the issue being, you know, and I see I think you've got that covered. Well, you know, at the
measurement point, where was the measurement point? Yeah. The property line or, you know, >> it's both. I'm pretty sure it's both. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Because depending on the topography, I can really echo. >> I spent about two months on that noise.
>> Oh, I know. Fact. It's Oh, no. Go ahead. >> It's so technical >> hasn't changed from the last time you touched it. >> So, I guess that's a you know, it's so technical that the the measurement the >> be in here like you know who who do you bring in to do the measurement? Is that
>> it's in Yeah, it's in here. Um >> you have somebody to make it you mean? >> Yes. I see you have like a board certified member of the institute. go on their website and pull that up. >> Okay. >> And then also for the National Council of Acoustical Consultants, they have a search engine as well. So you have to
the applicant would have to go in and find somebody. >> Okay? >> Because that's how I I talked to a lot of them with the Glendale project to see who would be willing to work with the town. So I used those sources and kept them called. >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes. Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's all free, too. You don't have to pay a membership or anything to look at who's actually qualified. >> Open source don't want someone to go out there with, you know, a phone app and try to measure something that not qualified to measure.
>> I wouldn't be able to do it. think that I did see one other stupid thing that as I was reading it, I don't even know if this has to be put on, but there was an error on one of the pages. It said 10. It should have been 180
under uh action by town. And I was going to put that in the draft, but I was like, it's not worth it. It says 180 and then parenthesis it says 10 >> sorry in the yeah in our current bylaw yeah there was a oh I don't have I don't have
>> oh it doesn't matter I I can include that I just thought it was grammatical thing kind of silly >> but it's not it could it could have just been >> it should it said 180 days for action by the town I think through commissioning and in parenthesis didn't say 180 it said >> oh okay just send me an email keep that
separate that was just something I saw. I'm like, "Oh, I saw that." So, I'm silly because that wouldn't go to me. I wasn't sure if it was a type. Okay. >> I have a question for you, Gina. >> Sure. >> Um, >> give me a page number. >> Uh, no, it's not. I don't know if it's in here yet. I haven't made it that far.
Um, you know, like when you go down Mil Road. Have you been down Mil Road? >> Yes. >> The netting around the fencing? >> Yeah. >> Trash. >> Yes. >> Did you put any claws inside there that says they have to like maintain like the netting and stuff like that? because it looks like trash. >> Does look terrible. I want to that one
get built before the current bylaw was in place and that's why they're not doing their That's in my backyard. >> That's been there a long time. But I'm saying it looks like trash. >> I could do that. I was in their operations manual. >> Correct. >> Operation maintenance. >> Make a note, Gina.
>> Yeah, I'm going to make a note right now. Look at my stats. >> Did I put it? >> Yeah, I I know I seen the green netting, but I didn't see anywhere where it said it has to be maintained and when it gets like that, they have to go back and fix it. >> No, I understand what you're saying. To be honest, I was looking at maybe up
feeding the landscaping as well. I just didn't get to it. So, >> I just thought that I drive down Mil Road every day, twice a day. >> The one that goes toward um Connecticut, the trees look it looks terrible, too. >> Which one? >> Um it's right next to Yes. Down the
road. Yeah, >> it's rough. >> Best looking one we got. You think that was >> it is the best looking one we got. >> That one's rubbing. All right. So, >> I like the dump because you can't see it. >> So, basically what we're thinking is we want to make sure that they have to maintain that fencing that that
screening >> the screening when it gets ripped and torn like a yearly basis. >> Want to give them a timeline. You think >> like a yearly basis to be checked and maintained? >> It's in there already. >> I'll double check. >> Yeah. The um operating and maintenance >> manual. >> Manual. >> Yeah.
>> Right. O E O M O >> N O and M >> and M. Thank you. >> And that was OM. Who's >> Well, so >> that's a good question. >> So that brings and I don't mean
>> No, you're fine. >> But that brings you back to you know the if if you will. We talked about the um the use of life is gone. when you're tearing it down, but also the bond. We
also want a bond. >> And I think the bylaw now says I think every three years. Yes. >> But the question is is who's doing that? Who's who's right checking that every three years? >> Are you in my house? Because my mom and I have had this conversation multiple
times. Who's checking it? >> Right. And that's that's where um there was never an assigned person or department or entity. Okay, >> that would do that. The same thing with the U operations and maintenance. That
plan was supposed to be reviewed on newer, if you will, newer facilities. Uh, and then there was a yearly inspection that was supposed to be if the trees die, that would say that
blowing season. And that is that's going back quite a ways. those those probably not a 65th birthday but >> well when we did the storage units we kind of wrote similar stuff like
>> yes we did you're right >> I guess the question is who would be the proper >> it should be the building >> checking this building >> no I'm asking your opinion yeah >> so in all reality it's a zoning requirement so where does it fall right
>> it's the zoning enforcement officer Okay. >> Okay. So, he would do a yearly just like he does I think he goes out and checks make sure that exit signs are things that in restaurants making sure all that
stuff. So, it'll be like a inspe that's what I was inspection. >> I'm wondering if the if you have a representative of the town go out paid for by the applicant because I've seen that in a couple places. have them go out and inspect everything because if you have a big solar
development or any type of commercial development, there's a pretty pretty probably a pretty solid storm water plant. Is one person going to be able to see if the storm water is, you know, working as it should something like that. I don't know. >> So, the storm watering also.
>> Okay. So, there you go. But I'm just wondering if something that's that big >> the select board would or they're designated as >> I think just a select board one of them can just go do it. >> I nominate Don. >> Well, John always likes to go for his
walks. >> I I know he's on. >> I was say he's like struggling to find his unmute. >> I know he's on. How you doing, John? >> Oh, I mean it's just a question I had too. It was, you know, we're putting all the checking. >> Really? Oh, there he is. >> I was waiting for it.
>> I can do some homework on that and see what other towns have done just to verify that >> usually usually when I say that. >> Well, they may have right. Are they doing it? >> I can't find it.
>> It's probably loose in the back. Loose in the back. >> When >> I think I just I think >> companies have to come. >> Gotcha. somewhere >> the infrastructure and it requires >> I know I left >> like a whole front yard.
>> They have to do it though. They notified me because they replaced the >> town of I have a couple of friends who live on >> up for a certain amount of time a couple of friends who live on Bayberry and that was happening apparently a few weeks ago and and they were all losing >> towns to apparently nobody was
>> they weren't we had with Glendale as well they were going to do and >> these are the changes that are talking and like there's just >> it was like sand and stuff running all over It's just is what they said. So, um
I was shocked to hear that they more than one person said they hadn't been notified that that work was going to be done. >> I don't know. >> So, I was just curious to be notified. >> Like if the utility company has to come trench the front an entire neighborhood
to update structure, they have to be notified. So I >> get all the utilities do any work in town they have to work >> unless it's maintenance work but if the court loo >> they have to come before the board of
selectman get approval >> right >> Mayberry we had two hearings on notified all the butters >> and they explained exactly do so yeah and that's what I was kind of trying to get at the bottom Um,
>> but I was just asking because on page 12, um, >> Oh, yeah, that was more >> they said the list of a butter shell as well >> because I agree in all fairness, property owners >> do deserve the right to know when they're >> Yeah, the final because I don't have the
final. >> Yeah, I'm just curious. and they said we're going to know every substation, but if you >> I just felt like I didn't ask >> the developer know they have to pay for the infrastructure work so they're going
to know which front yard it is. >> I just felt like that wasn't fair to everybody else. >> I believe the proposed >> that makes sense. >> Yes. >> Okay. It says draft but I don't I didn't get include 300 foot radius. Is that
consistent? >> Yeah, that was that that's fair. Nor >> I'm just now I'm looking for like >> as you can see I save everything. >> Don't know. I got it approved from the battery. So she's >> basically Yeah.
>> You have Can you resend out the final draft of the battery to in an email to me? >> Yeah. >> I only have the draft. I don't have the final. So, Gina, an observation. Now, if I go down to the transfer station and I look
at the solar facility, I see on the fence, I believe I see something that says danger, high voltage. >> Yeah. >> Is that on edit? I don't see that at all of them. >> Yeah, that's a requirement for the fencing. >> Is it on? Oh, yeah. It's on all of It's on the one on Mill Road. Is it
>> to be on every side of every entrance? >> Okay. >> I would assume that that's a state. Yeah, I would hope so. >> Massive safety requirement. >> Hey, the biggest thing I walked away from this was apparently if you are uh
if you're exposed to artificial light for too long, your risk of cancer goes up. >> But then I was like, what? I was reading it. I was shocked at that. >> I have all my lights covered. >> Thick enough. >> No, I already put it in. No, I'm saying this is thick enough to protect.
>> No, you're good. People won't want to go by all the planning board members are wearing hats to their meetings. >> I'm gonna wear an aluminum hat. >> Just gonna throw my sunglasses. >> Yes, I have. >> Are we gonna with all these changes? What is the
process we're going to do now? Are we going to go through them at some point when they're finalized the list and agree and disagree or are we taking these under h what's the process we're going to do here? >> I've just been reading them. >> Oh. Oh. And if I have a or or a gripe,
>> that's what I'm here for. >> Well, eventually we us five need to sit down and decide if we want what we want to add or not add and then make a decision on on all this. >> Any problems with anything so far?
With one we just did. That's that's make sense, Joanne. That's an agenda item for us then, right? To >> what? >> We We're going to have to as a >> keep that onto our agenda. >> Yeah, we have to clear the comments at some point, right? as you said.
>> But would you do you want me to just add this to our next agenda and I can he's going to are fear are you submitting more change? This is this is my thought. I can look I have no problem looking up the fencing. I'm going do a little bit more homework on the decommissioning. My thought was this. >> Some point we have
>> Yeah, that's exactly where I'm going with it. I'm thinking I'd like to update the perfect to match the battery a little closer. And then my thought was this. at the last meeting town meeting we did with the battery Christina you read that cover letter. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So instead of having to go through
every single change the this cover letter and the cover letter um talked about why these changes are necessary. So my thought is update the purpose get a draft of the cover letter that's still legally okay to do. Then we do that at the fall meeting rather than having to
hold people hostage at the meeting for two hours and explaining every single change. That was my that's my head now moving forward getting a draft cover letter done. Does that make sense to everybody? >> And the cover letter would say that the board has
>> basically read the reasons why it needs to updated. >> Yeah. >> Protecting our resources, >> all that good stuff, right? >> Get it in line with the the best one. >> Yes. >> So there's continuity. This is this is a improvement. We're not taking things out
and making it less restrictive. We're taking things out and putting new things in to make it I'm not going to say more for regulation. >> In some respects it's more >> I was just going to say >> make it more appealing. >> I'll come right out and say it. >> Make it more appealing for the town and
looks and preserve wetlands. >> Yes. Preserve our resources. Preserve our property values. >> We don't want the deer to leave town. >> No. >> Okay. >> I if they don't stop eating my tulips. >> What was my thought process? for the
purpose with the battery get the cover letter drafted and we'll be should be good to go. >> Great. >> That >> are you trying to get approved this time? >> No, >> I ran out of time. >> I was waiting for the battery to come
back because I figured I wasn't sure what was going to get approved. >> We have to have a public hearing, too. So, >> yeah. >> Well, don't put it on the next one. We have a public hearing and >> No, thinking definitely makes sense. I mean to your point, it it makes sense to see what happens with Mson >> because it's gonna it's going to fully
inform what we can and keep >> they had they had some different things in there and I I'm still waiting but they said April 2nd and it wasn't on the website. I don't know if they had another I don't know what's going on with it. >> Yeah, >> but I knew I wasn't going to probably get it in time for the where is it? But
it'll I mean it'll definitely save us some time in terms of knowing exactly what the AG is gonna say okay and not okay is to make sure that there's really no conflict law that got passed and from my my knowledge I read everything I read all the guidelines
conflict >> they may come back and say different but >> there are some things I would have liked to include but it would have been fine not to do it makes sense >> I have like over >> changing ownership Okay. >> Yes, that was directly from the battery.
>> That's directly from the battery. >> Yes. >> So, what I don't see here >> um >> if >> see large amount of gravity >> number one, the red that's in red. >> It's the drive-thru. >> What page are you on?
>> Uh 20 eventually. >> Yeah. >> See where we are here. All about me is kind of big retailer. Oh, >> 242. Here we go. Yep. Okay. So, what what do you say?
>> Says conditions. Uh, so fourth line, conditions of the special permit and de decommissioning plan, right? Yes. That they have to submit in writing. >> But at the same time, um, should we add a line in here stating that they have to maintain the insurance liability?
>> That was a square. I think I have that under insurance, but we couldn't include it in there as well. I'll read it. >> I mean, yeah, it's a PDF of >> it's making it twice, but >> Oh, it doesn't say that here. >> Yeah. Okay. >> You know how people are. They're going to read between the lines. They're going
to be like, "Oh, I just got out of it." >> Okay. I can I can add that in the yearly insurance requirement just to make sure it's in there. And you're thinking right after >> added in to that sentence, >> that last sentence after D.
>> Or if it's a run-on sentence, just add another one. >> Okay. >> Or shorten the sentence and then where the comma is. >> Yep. You can do that. >> Sorry. >> I'm not putting this on. We have public hearing for the April 22nd.
>> Okay. and then you stay in touch with me. >> Yes. >> Whatever the next meeting May something >> I actually think I have a I feel like >> I have probably have a continuence of the public hearing any >> well April >> for the 22nd
>> May 13th but that's the week of uh >> town meeting. So you >> um as long meeting on Monday so we I'll find out. But I think we can have them. >> If that's the case, I can wrap it up. >> Yeah. >> Cuz
>> Well, I mean, we got a good start. It's not like good start. It's not like there's another >> insurance the same thing. >> Is insurance like the proof of the insurance and assurity the same thing? >> No. >> I think it's for the bond.
says the new owner operator must provide a new security inordance with the employing May 13th >> original May it's second and fourth second and fourth was the second it's the second 13th is the sec so it's 13th
>> but send me what you have for that that I'm trying here. I'm trying to sit through every single I don't have the attention span for it and I wrote it >> state regulations. >> Okay, good.
>> All right. Item five. >> Is this saying that we're conflicting by having a don't make it more non-conforming statute or bylaw? >> Okay. Section.
32 John's favorite section >> discussion to amend section due to conflict with state regulations as interpreted by the books but this memorandum from >> 2013 >> right it's been on our it's been on our
um forever >> we had a zoning board meetings public hearings and this fell into >> it's been under old business >> what just happened in a pre-existing non-conforming law. It was shaped like a buy. So, it was brought up again and they said that's why we need to have
that bylaw changed because the chair of that is the zoning board. Jed Berliner is the chair of the ZBA. He wrote his opinion in here too. So, it's still something that they want to pursue, >> right? >> So, um >> it it did come up >> it came.
So, I said I'd put it on the agenda. And um >> the history is it's been sitting for a long time. We had um town council which was um Martell.
>> Dave Martell. >> Dave Martell. >> David. >> Dave Martell was aware of it. Um he brought it to Jesse Belchure. Timmy >> Dy. Thank you. Yeah. Um and Jesse wrote an
opinion I believe and he said it does conflict if you will um with present day. I like to read 432. >> And that should if you read the video,
if you if you go into the the buy, >> they have a copy. I gave you a copy of the bylaw. >> Interesting. Is that >> What did this come up in? I'm sorry. That Jud was >> She just had a public hearing for um an
addition on a house on a pre-existing non-conforming house. So, the setbacks are already non-conforming. >> They wanted to add make it more non-conforming. >> Believe it or not, >> doesn't seem like there's a conflict with law at all then.
>> I think it started with Jets with Jet's sh. >> Yes, it was. >> That's how it started. >> That's how it started. It's in his letter. It says it. >> Okay. So he was not the if you will he was an applicant and be
that he's an he's an attorney. um he felt that the bylaw it's not with directly enhance he was not coming at this from the chairman of the ZA is coming at this
from a citizen that has that wanted shed >> there was a a case that bail case and he's saying our bylaw conflicts with >> that I disagree I disagree I fully
disagree with that. >> Okay. So I >> I mean it's as far as our I mean and and maybe this is my incorrect interpretation of the bylaw, but part of our part of the zoning board of appeals review and a special permit determination. So if we're if it's an
increase, >> so if they're not increasing or the non-conforming nature, then it's understood zoning enforcement officer building inspector can issue a permit for that purpose. Doesn't come before the ZBA review. If you're increasing the non-conforming nature, first applicant
makes a makes an application to the building inspector, zoning enforcement officer, >> denied. >> If they well, it it's maybe not denied. At that point, they may refer the applicant to review by the ZBA >> ZBA, >> which then it seems consistent to me.
>> They have the opportunity to review to see if it's going to be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity. I mean, that's what our bylaw says. The proposed structure shall not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. >> But then it says in 442, setback shall
conform to table 7 one uh 7.2, >> right? And then 432 which they said to delete says setback shall conform to table 72 annotated except for sideyard which may be reduced to 25 ft which they want deleted. >> Right?
Because what you what they're saying is that if I want to put a shed or something like that, I have to it has to be done. But if I want it closer, >> then you have to come for >> the CBA. >> Yeah. >> CBA. But CBA is locked into this.
>> That's what CBA is saying. >> That's their Okay. So that's their position is that >> so that they don't even have discretion. >> They don't have discretion. >> Well, actually under a special permit, they have more they lean a little less lenient than a variance.
>> Right. >> Right. >> No, more they're more lenient in the special per lenient in a special permit than the variance because we went the special permit route >> because you have more flexibility. >> You don't have to meet the four requirements of variance and have a
>> correct. No, I see the point. But he did say and again, you know, our town council, >> it's agreed with >> No, I I actually agree with that. Then it's just weird that they even added that language >> in the in the first because you wouldn't
even get to that point of review unless you were likely already violating setback requirements. That just seems strange. >> That's why it's Yeah. >> needs to be I apologize. I retracted my previous days before >> you do that.
>> So are we so are what would be the process here that we're going to do? Are we breaking out 4.3.2 as a change to our zoning bylaws >> and we have to have a public hearing in that whole process. >> I mean I think that makes sense. >> Does everyone agree with this to do we
have to vote to to >> expl I'm I'm a little confused on that. So the I think so Massachusetts general law essentially says DBA has the ability to make a determination whether or not it's more detrimental to the neighborhood if we're increasing the nonconformity.
>> That's where it stops at the state law. Our bylaw says oh but also >> 25 right we've got >> whatever our >> you got to put it in the middle of your backyard instead of on the edge of your backyard. Oh, it's the it's the >> right
>> right it's the 25 foot part that's the issue because in my mind the assumption is if you're if you're there before the ZVA or non-conformity more often than not I'm not saying it's always the case because there's all sorts of different kinds of non more often than not it's
setback related >> with CDA >> right >> so we need to do like a motion and a vote to remove or >> do we need to make what what is the process? We're changing zoning violence. >> I think I mean I think you're absolutely
right. I think it's public hearing and I think we got >> we have to take it to the town. >> Yeah, I think we got to take it to town meeting and it's >> I mean it's in my mind if this if it's as simple as we're trying to make our bylaws consistent with the >> ML. Okay. So, um I'll just I know what I
got to do. Done. Next. Right. >> All right. What is happening? >> I'm only going to tell you quickly because this is I read it all. I you can read it in your you can read this whole package
and >> what my biggest my biggest problem with this is my biggest gripe with this whole process is every application every form they have that they want us to start utilizing these all things needs a local government representative
to be overseeing this whole new process. Oh, where >> explain just quickly the process I believe that entails conservation, right? >> They want one type one meeting, one
public hearing where the or where the applicant would meet with all the boards, >> get all all the requirements needed and then we would have one meeting. It's to speed up the process so they don't got to go to conservation for a hearing, planning board for a hearing. You know what I It's a it's one click process
with all the boards to speed it up so they get a decision in 12 months for larger scaled solar and battery. So I mean the whole thing's in here. You look at it but >> we uh uh there was a really good slide deck, right?
>> I printed it. I gave it to you. >> I find it I gave it to you. >> Okay. Yeah, that's >> today and gave everybody just you review it and then we can discuss it another time. I just wanted to >> get some feedback on because this is effective July 1st but mandated by
October. >> Yeah. This this doc is really excellent way to get up to speed if you want every >> one representative. >> One representative from every board. >> Yeah. No, one representative is going to see the entire application which is 20
pages. >> Yeah. So there's a checklist they have to run through that they've done everything on this checklist. It's 20. It's no a local government rep would oversee the application and then after they see the application there is a
checklist that they've done everything. >> But then did you say something about meeting with all of the boards simultaneously? >> They have to um Yes, >> that's what I'm asking. One member of the each of the boards or all of >> every board? I don't know. I honestly don't know. I didn't get into it that far. That's that's what I
>> for two sessions. >> I would think if they could make any votes, it's >> it has to be the whole point. >> It would have to be. Yeah. >> And then at the end they also have a request for site suitability score. >> Oh, and the map is terrible. >> It's a map. They have to go out to a government site where it's a database
with everybody's overlays and all their zoning maps. >> Very confusing. >> See if the site's even suitable. So, it's quite a process. >> It's part of mass building. It's a map you can put an address in and it gives you another score and depending on how high your score is. You might have to do
mitigation with the town. >> It's not like a GIS. >> It's not like a GIS but it's by the by the state. >> It's got all the overlay. >> That's I'm just you know that sounds really useful if it works. If it's accurate it didn't work and then it
didn't work and then it worked. >> It's a government. >> Do you deal with this? I don't >> we did actually. >> Now, so Joe, now you're talking another day a month to meet on whatever day time. >> No, because if we have they in reading
some of this, I read quickly um you know, you have to make it convenient for the applicant, which is normally night hours. They said what? >> I I mean I think this is on an as needed basis, not on a consistent regular. >> No, as an application comes in for battery or solar. >> May I say something?
>> I didn't get you. energy. >> Yeah, it's all real clean, isn't it? >> Most towns rely on, you know, consultants and how long it takes, right? 12 months seems pretty tight. >> Yeah. >> 12 months is tight. >> It is tight. So, I guess they're going to have to pay more. So, they get to the
head of the list with a consulting group. >> Yeah. >> Frank, this is the work they >> we can drag it out over months, two years. it's going to cost you, you know, 20,000 now it's 40,000. >> But that's also it's just whatever you
>> Everybody's instead of it's running, everybody's running in parallel, not in series. So in other words, we don't wait for conservation. Conservation comes with their determination. Planning their determination >> all at the same time. That's that's the
way I >> and I think that the whole point of this is the applicant knows what they've got to do before they submit the application. So, the work is going to be done. >> How much time? Really >> interesting. >> Going to come back with >> let you know questions. They're going to
have to meet with all of the boards >> 10 times. >> Yeah. They have to have to get it. >> They have to do it. >> No. No. That's what I mean. Is is I think how much time is it really going to save? Not every board's going to sit there and be like, "Okay, we've reviewed it and we approved." Like they're going to have to in my opinion, I think they'd
have to come back because the board >> going be a three-hour meeting. I think it's I think it's I think you're right. I think it's probably not going to be as time-saving as >> I really think it is because we never go in front of Concom and they have everything they need the first time for a project like that. You got to go back
multiple times. So now are you going back to all of those boards? >> I'm not sure. We've got to that would have to be cleared up. I'm not sure. >> I think what'll happen with this big meeting? Okay. Um conservation's going to look at it. Planning is going to look at it. Building's going to look at it.
everyone will look at it time. Okay. And then uh whether you refer it to your um your designated engineering group uh whoever that may be. >> Yeah. >> Um and they'll come back and they'll
make suggestions. What it is is that that after all the suggestions are made, changes are made, then you would approve project or or not approve project depending on the scoring. I guess my question is if they meet with all of the boards simultaneously and planning is
like we have everything we need, you're good to go. But conservation is like no, we're going to need a few more meetings. Do all of the boards have to subsequently meet at those subsequent meetings? >> I'm not sure. >> Because of the fact that something that
changes conservation, right, >> yeah. So that was my thought on the timesaving pieces. I'm not sure. It could be a meeting where where they say okay planning you need to do your storm water you need to use that study you need to do this and then conservation
would say what they need to do >> so they know everything they've got to do before they actually >> then they go to the individual meetings as they fix whatever they need >> I'm sure I'm not sure they'll >> the goal is not to have planning take six eight months and then um
>> roll into conservation 6 months and then all of a sudden this changes the plan. So now has to come back let's say three months study. >> So that's what they're trying to get over there. >> Yeah, I could see the I don't think it's
a bad I just don't know that's going to be that timesaving. I hate the idea. >> Two quick things I had before we move on. If somebody is moving into, it's the main event, the hair place on Main Street. It's a hair salon. It's not a
change of use. They're just a buyer's buying the existing business. They don't have to come to us for anything. No site plan. Everything if if there's no change of use. So, do we have to make them come to us? Because every business that applies for a business certificate, they
send them to us >> because we do the site plan reviews. But when it's not a change of use, just a change in the owner come to us. >> Black sheep came here just as a courtesy, but we never saw them again and they're up and operating.
>> But they did some changes to the >> businesses. The business is not ch hair salon to hair salon. >> No, it's fine. I thought there should not be >> they went from a restaurant a Chinese restaurant which had problems with the septic and all that. >> That's what I'm saying is why why
>> they did rent they did changes too to the building. The reason why black sheep would come would become because that there was a change in the number of seats. They had and there's in the >> funny restaurant.
>> Yeah. >> But that's my my point is they had a change but had they not I mean that's really all they came to us for. If they hadn't had a change in seating they wouldn't have been here. Sorry, I don't think that. >> So then on Two Allen Street where the dentist is across the street from the mini mall, all those businesses up on
the second floor, >> if somebody wants to open up a wellness center, restorative wellness, it's zoned business, but it's a new business, they she's going to come to us for a site plan. >> Correct. Detain the youth. >> They both came in this week. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So her she'll do the other one. I'm tell Okay, I'm good. That's what I thought, but I wanted to run it by. So the one of the fluids with hair dressing >> the chemicals and the septic >> the board of health but they they're not
changing their use. So this okay >> last one >> okay >> item eight >> are we? >> Yeah one set a minute. Did anyone review? >> Yes I did. >> Motion to approve. Motion to approve the
minutes dated >> here. Me either. >> Uh March 11th, 2026. >> I second. >> I >> I We're good. Okay. >> All right. >> They're out of it. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> No, I thought we had item number seven. >> Oh, >> discussion regardization of the board vote. I I was wondering after I put that on there, should we wait to see what happens at town meeting as far as the two people running? >> Are they both running?
>> We have two people. >> Nobody's dropped. >> Um, remember James Quack? >> Quacken. >> Well, James was on our board when I first started. Jim Quack. >> So, he was and I think it's his son, but I'm not sure. So, he's running. And the judge. >> The judge. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, jeez. You should wait. I think we should probably >> get voted in before you make any decisions in this for so we'll pen. Do you agree with that? >> Okay, >> John, you're not ready. >> I got a plenty of stuff to do. >> John Flynn asked who my guest was and I
was like my first guess is John. That was although I've never got it moved >> motion to adjurnn. >> Yeah, we still >> I
>> I got it. Thank you.