All right, I call the meeting to order of the June 3rd, 2026 planning board meeting at 6:02. Hi, my name is Stephanie Sles. I'm chair of the planning board. To my right, I have Jimmy Tar, our alternate chair. On the far end, I have Doug Finn. To my
left, I have John Jeffris. And all the way at the end, to my left, I have Lee Bell. And I have Bella Jagger, our town planner. Um, as always for items, uh, we have we have public forum first thing on the agenda. This is for folks who are
here to not to speak on things that are not on the agenda, bring something to attention that is not on our agenda. Um, and I will also note that because our public hearing for the
special permit for uh 12 to 18 Elm Street, the public hearing is closed, we will not be entertaining comments from the public at this time. So if there happened to be any sort of
comments from anyone here on related to that now anyway this is the opportunity for the public to talk about something that's not on the agenda. Okay with that we will move the public close
the public forum. First um item on the agenda is to approve our minutes before we get into our decisions. Okay. >> Can I ask a question? How many pages are these minutes supposed to be? How many pages of text? Three. >> Two and a half.
>> Like 2.3. >> Okay. So the bottom of page two the line says the site plan and proposed change from one conforming use to another open PN single to multif family closed pens would create a there are elements of the ownership structure that would set a precedent for >> missing
>> there's something wrong there. >> Okay. >> I don't know what that's supposed to say. >> Oh it does. >> So >> approve. >> Can we table these or not move? >> We can table. >> There isn't even a a motion. We can just
>> check it next time. >> Yeah, let's set those aside for now. >> Since they're directly relevant to this hearing, was there anything that was there anything else in the content that >> I don't know >> any concerns? >> Depends on what was after the bottom of page two and the top of page three.
>> No, I was read I read up to Okay. >> I have no comments at this time on that. >> I'll figure out the missing decent. >> Yeah. >> Anything. Great. With that, we will move to the next
agenda item, which is a continued deliberation and decision potentially on our special permit with site plan approval for Benson Mini Storage LLC, 12 to 18 Elm Street, assessor's parcel ID number 223-144.
It's a point of process. Um because Lee was not at the last meeting, um he does have the opportunity if he reviewed all the minutes and notes and recording that he could vote if he reviewed all of that if he signs based on so whatever law,
but it's my understanding, Lee, that you do not. >> I haven't had the opportunity to read the manuscript as required. >> Yep. So with that, there will need to be four out of four votes in favor of this in order to for this to be approved
if as is or with conditions or whatever. Okay, >> just to be clear, can he speak on the topic or does that have to remain? >> I think discussion is closed, right? >> Well, there's discussion with the public is closed. We are internally debating. >> There it is. Good question. All right.
>> I think it's fair for you to ask questions. >> Yeah. I think engaging in the deliberation is fine. I don't think you can vote. >> Um I think where a person really can't participate is if they have a conflict of interest, >> like a financial interest in what's being discussed. with that. Um, one of the reasons why we
continued this to this meeting is that there was a question around um what the applicant was trying to do within the zoning related to um the pre-existing nonconformingness of the the property. In particular, with
section 3.4.3 4.3 of our zoning bylaws, which says pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses may be extended or altered when the planning board finds that s such extension, alteration or change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use. And then
specifically, we were asking if it is permitted to allow a change to involve a pre-existing non-conforming use even when the resulting use would not otherwise be allowed in the zoning district. meaning that a multifamily unit like that would not be allowed in
an industrial zone. And we consulted the town attorney just to be very uh clear on that determination and asking that specificity around that zoning part of the boat zoning bylaw and he believe and I'm going to just read from the um letter so the public knows what that is
and it's also a part of the packet if anyone requests minutes. Um, I'm just going to read some of it, not the whole thing, but he said, quote, "I believe that answer is yes. If the only uses that could be permitted under section 3.4.3 were those already allowed under the zoning bylaws, then the said section
would add little or nothing. If a given use were already permitted, there would be no occasion to inquire whether it was more detrimental to the neighborhood than an existing non-conforming use. The owner could simply adopt the current lawful use. I might add. Yeah. So, and then the
other part that he meant, so I'm going to end quote that. The other part that he referenced is saying um the planning board could conclude that the way to make it feasible for the owner to maintain the mansion at issue would be to allow them to change it to the different non-conforming use so that
it's not more detrimental than the neighborhood than the existing non-forming use. That is what they're arguing. Um and that is our what we have to consider with our determination. With that, is there any further questions or concerns related to that
particular issue? And then relatedly to the some of the comments um and considerations that the public brought to us at the last meeting. I personally don't see where the traffic created by this if it were a multi-unit property
with six units would be a real detriment to the properting Benson storage or whatever it's called now already exists and it already exists where traffic can come in and out of there. So we're not talking about something brand new to the neighborhood.
The question is, is it going to be detrimental to the neighborhood if six units were in there and and potentially 12 cars were able to participate in that? And being that there's a a substantial
uh storage unit facility in the back, I can't see where the traffic would be detrimental. Personally, that's my opinion. I've lived around the corner for a long time. Um, I just I don't see where traffic is is an is a real issue here. There may be other issues that
other people have, but I do not have an issue with the traffic and and and I don't have an issue with the project at all. >> Um, yeah. Yeah. It says up to 14 parking spaces is what? Yep. Um I think that us with the way that
approaching it in going to from zoned industrial they want to create the pre-existing non-conforming use to allow it for more what we would allow in more residential zoning which abuts the neighbors to me and knowing like I don't
like to I don't want to say this in any way to appear like fear bunker it's an industrially zoned property like anything that's allowed and to be zoned industrial could go in there and to me I feel like that would be more detrimental >> absolutely >> to the uh could be more detrimental to
the parcel and so I feel that this request for pre-existing non-conforming use rel to make it a more residential piece while although it could be lots of units um lots in relation to many as in
relation to um more than a single Um, I believe that this would be I agree that I would probably vote for this. I would do want to address some of the concerns or questions that the uutters
and neighbors posed and maybe considering some conditions. That's how I'm on this. Any thoughts on that? >> Feel the same. John, >> I feel the same way. I'm for it. I'd
like to put some conditions on. >> I think it also will add some even though it's not huge, it will add some units of housing to the town, which we're solely in need of. >> And it could though, that's the other thing is we're passing this to be allowed, but then someone has to buy it
and someone could still buy it and keep it a single family home, >> but we're allowing up to potentially six units. And if someone were to buy it and wanted to put in an industrial use, they would have to still come before the board to prove that potential use, whatever that may be.
>> Anybody else? >> I guess my question >> as a resident of Hatfield would be to the board, and this would come as say the core Hatfield person asking this question. Is this a slippery slope
>> that the planning board is going down splitting up a arguably a jewel of the town into condo units? And how far does that go? Do we start splitting if someone can't afford to
upkeep any of the big houses down on Main Street? Does that open the gates? Does this open the gates here for that to happen? and does that is that a detriment in the future? >> I'm not necessarily against this and I
and whatever it takes to keep this house up and shining is what we need to do, I think, as a board. I just think that that would be my question to the board, I guess, if I'm allowed to ask questions. So it would be someone
using the same argument in like a pre-existing non-conforming use way allow saying that in a residential area where that wouldn't be allowed them saying they wanted to make it six units or mult or multiple units because right now I
believe I'll have to see what's allowed in a rural residential zone. So I guess I I guess you're saying it might be an apples to oranges situation >> crazy edge case in that it's a existing non-conforming use. >> Okay. >> So I see. Yeah. So that does >> is a use in the use table of a residence
on a residential lot. That's a different animal. But even though it's the same argument I'd like to >> So anyone anyone who had a a house in rural residential or anything basically not industrial light industrial or a zone. So if you're business town
business center, town town center, you can't be in outing residential or but you have can be in rural residential. So basically where predominantly single family dwellings currently exist. If they were to come and say I can't afford the upkeep of my giant colonial home,
it's costs too much to upkeep and heat and whatever. I want to quote unquote conify it or make it multif family. We do allow that with special permit and it's something honestly that the Hatfield bill 2040 one of the recommendations was space using that as like a consideration and something we
should be thinking about or in um in order to since a lot of these homes only maybe a couple people live in them and they're how many bedrooms and things like that. So like that's those are also
some potential solutions or recommendations in the comprehensive plan in order to create more units of housing in the town without necessarily taking up more farmland to do that. >> So can I say one thing? Mhm. >> Um I think in terms of opening up a door
or like creating a slippery slope, it's like we already since we already allow 3 to six dwelling units in all the zones except you know so >> light like light industrial industrial agricultural outline residential >> through special per site plan approval which is the process that they're going through like we've already given
permission to have six units in those zones including including you know most of the residential zones like the doors already been opened to have that and if we wanted to have if we wanted to only allow single family homes in town like we had the opportunity to do that
before. We changed it to this at some point because we wanted to allow denser development. So I don't think that like allowing this is changing anything about what we've already agreed that we want in our zoning. Does that make sense? >> Yep. And I totally like heart goes it
goes through my heart a little bit too to think about like the grandeur and the history of some of these houses being changed to you know, chopped up and I I understand, >> but I mean the reality is that that may be the only way to to keep these in
place too. So, but I I just I just thought >> for sure. >> I just thought that that concern would be the one thing that would be expressed the most >> and it is a slippery slope in that anybody has a pre-existing non-conforming use, we allow an extension of it. They can come at us and
say, "Hey, I've got a preexisting non-conforming use. I just don't know how many examples of that there are. >> And who who could argue that it's not more detrimental than the neighborhood, >> right? Right. I I think that that's a key part of what we're talking about here is turning this into what they're
talking about is certainly not more detrimental to what's going on on that specific property >> and neighborhood >> and neighborhood. But spec specifically, you know, that's that's a site with um heavy use. And I mean heavy and in and
that it's not just a car coming and living there. It's got traction. It's got something going on in the back there. So I personally I think this would be a great use for that property. I've watched that property for the 40 years I've lived here and I've watched
it go up and down. I've watched Benson live there. The Benson's live there. And I've watched it deteriorate because no one's living there or whoever is living there certainly isn't doing anything with it. And to me, as you drive into Hatfield, it's a jewel. It is definitely
a jewel on that on Elm Street coming into town like no other house there. >> My daughter calls it the castle house. >> Right. >> Right. So, and I I would I would love to see it being used instead of sitting there with polls holding up the porches and and people arguing about what they
can and can't do there. I would love to see this come to a conclusion of some sort. and I would love to see it be allowed that we move forward in giving these people the permit to do that. That's my personal opinion. >> So I I guess as a non- voting member of this board, um I would say that that I
am supportive of this just having posed that question just as a as a alert. >> We appreciate even though you're not allowed to feel kind. >> Any comments from Doug over here? >> Yeah, I've got comments. >> Let's hear them. >> Fire away.
>> Spoiler alert. I'm voting for for it. Okay, let's put that on the table to start. But you're going to listen to me first. >> Oh, >> yes, sir. >> In a test for a variance and in a test for a question of no detriment, there's
a three-prongong test that's been adopted by Massachusetts courts. And the three-prong test basically says that there has to be unique conditions on the site, unique to that site, and not indicative of elsewhere around there that exist. That the relief being
requested can be granted without causing significant harm to the public good, such as increased traffic, drainage issues, what have you. and that the proposal the proposed relief can be granted without deriggating or um violating the intent of the zoning bylaw
>> or or or a determination of non not no detriment. And the courts have actually overturned decisions where that three-prong test was not made even for uh a special permit based on uh um you know no detriment
>> to the public good. a page and a half about the history of the place. I'm really happy to know that there was somebody living in the house up until about a year ago because that means the use of the pro of the structure as a single family home is not extinguished. Um there's that. Um MGL
chapter 48 section 6 is what the town's attorney was relying on when he advised advised the board that yes, you can do this if it meets the that you know no detriment three-prong test. Okay, that's all well and good except town's attorney may not be aware of or it may not be
referring to a case called Dedricch versus the zoning board of appeals of Chadam. This is a 2014 case where um something very similar happened. Somebody wanted to change the use of a structure from one non-conforming use to
another non-conforming use, but in that case the other non-conforming use was not permitted in the underlying zone. Mhm. >> Isn't that what a non-conforming use is? >> No. A non well non Yes. non-conforming use. The non-conforming use is not permitted in the underlying zone.
>> In Dedricch, the court ruled that the creation of a new nonconformity, which is what we would do by approving this. We're creating a use which is not permitted in the underlying zone. >> We're extending a nonconformity. extending it might be taking the single
family home which is in itself could be argued a pre-existing unconformity adding on >> or going from one to two >> but now you're substantially changing the use scope by going from one or two to six >> you're making it more non-conform
>> and our our own zoning bylaws three you know three to six units differently >> altering you're simply changing not extending or altering >> not extending or altering the structure but you are changing the use of the structure structure in some in the same way that if you went from a single
family home to a bed and breakfast, it's a change of use on the on the lot >> and that yeah the bylaw says we can do >> right our bylaw >> the court said that in reaching their decision to overturn the local decision to allow that they basically said that
the inequity and logical inconsistency inconsistency that results from interpreting 4A section 6 to allow a landowner with a non-conforming structure to create a new nonconformity with only a finding or a special permit,
but would require a neighboring land owner with the same zoning to obtain a variance. If either one of the properties on either side of this subject property were zoned industrial >> Mhm. and they and it was empty and they
wanted to build a six-unit home, they would be denied and they would have no way to get that structure in place unless they got a variance that passes the three-prong test. >> And a variance for a use is would have to be expressly allowed under the zoning
bylaw. As far as I know, that's not allowed. And the variance for a six family structure would not be allowed because they were not going to get the the variance for the structure itself. requiring the variance for the creation of a new non-conformity is consistent with long-standing policy. It's been
reiterated by Bransford vzoning board of appeals of Edgartown and a number of other cases since that uh since that time. What we're doing by approving this is making a decision that can be overturned if it's appealed. I don't like doing that. I think that's bad
juju. It's not a good idea. >> According to our attorney, he says otherwise. according to your attorney, but the attorney is not referencing the case law that I'm looking at. And >> you're also saying that the butter if they wanted to there is this is like a
solo industrial parcel right here. So you're saying >> Yeah, I know. But that's a whole another story. That's an entirely different story. thing would that then I feel like if the case like I don't if I would strengthen the argument of the lawyer if
he mentioned that in this letter but I'm curious if that would be the case then if like you're saying a butter applied for a variance to have a six family they wouldn't do that we because we would allow it with special permit was slightly improve >> so what you're arguing is because in
this circumstance they happen to be on the edge between one zone and another that we should just allow the the allowed allowable uses to overlap that that boundary line. >> There's looking at your three-pronged uh
>> not mine Massachusetts criteria. >> Yeah. >> Are you saying that because the parcels all around it are residential, they could change to multif family with a site plan, special permit and site plan approval? >> Yes. And they wouldn't need a variance. Correct.
>> Yeah. Correct. They wouldn't need a variance. Yeah. >> Why? So >> the point I was making is that a a property any other property in an industrial zoned area can't put in a multif family home. Not by right, not by special permit, not
without a varian >> use this avenue because they wouldn't have a non-conforming use. Right. >> Right. >> Right. So, and that's and that's what Dedric says is it's absurd to think that just because someone has a pre-existing non-conforming use, it gives them the ticket to do something on their lot that somebody else couldn't
>> and the board has to rule that's in the best interest of the town. >> So, it's not willy-nilly still on board. >> I asked myself, is there some other way to get to where we want to be that conforms? That's better. There would be three things that would have to happen.
the planning board would have to change the requirements for uh multif family housing to allow them by site plan review and I think this is something we should actually look at. I think it's consistent with what I heard a little bit earlier. We should look at changing requirements for multif family housing
to being site plan review and not special permit. >> I imagine those will come in the next >> in various zones. I think we should do that. We're in the middle of we're just embarking on a selecting a consultant for a zoning rewrite that with the zonings with that hopefully all entire
zoning will be updated by town meeting 2028. >> Right? So that's one thing. >> Another thing where we would do that >> there are two uses in the in the use table. One is self-s served storage which is limited to the industrial or light industrial zones. But there's something called commercial storage
which is allowed anywhere by right in pre-existing barns and garages. This had to have been designed to allow everybody with old tobacco barns to store boats in them >> rent out >> and rent them out. That's had to be that
case. But in my opinion on its face, the use is the same. very occasional access to the site, storage of things that don't make noise. They're not running while they're in the barn. They're just sitting there. And it's a commercial use no matter which way you spin it. I don't see why we, you know, and I've looked at
the storage units on the property. They're clean, they're neat, they're tidy, they're in good shape, they're wellmaintained, they're set back, they're not a visual intrusion to anybody, >> except >> why do we why do we regulate them? I don't understand why they're they're regulated so strictly. um they can be
poorly designed. But anyway, if we lumped in self- storage into the commercial storage and then made those requires uh site plan approval, then we would have the ability to allow them in other places, but make sure that they're
conditioned to be decent and neat and tidy. And the third thing we'd have to do is reszone this particular parcel to town center, which it abuts, which is more consistent with the neighborhood. we if there was another way to achieve what we're trying to achieve. >> That's what I'm saying. I was looking
for another way to get to the end zone without being internally inconsistent and contrary to state established case law. That's that's one way that we could >> have all of that approved by the >> we're not going to do any of that. >> Right. Okay. >> I get it. I understand that. I think at least one or two of these things we
should consider as we move forward. >> I mean along with a long list of other things. >> Yeah. The zoning rewrite is, you know, definitely I get that on the map. I get that. I am glad Lee is here. I'm glad that he weighed in. I was hoping he had looked
at the video I and and was would have been ready to vote. Um I'm going against how I feel I should vote, but I don't think it's fair given what I hear from the other four members. I don't think it's fair for me to hold up the applicant. Um it's unfair that he
started with a need to have a unanimous vote. He should have had all five of us here. That's just the way circumstances were and I'm no not throwing shade on anybody else. But I'm not going to punish the applicant for that. He should have a four out of five vote tonight. So I'm not going to stand in the way of
this. >> That's all I have to say. >> I appreciate the range of like I appreciate the dialogue that we've all had and the range of perspectives and stuff we bring to this. Um, I also am glad we went back to the attorney on this,
>> right? >> Um, and got like an even Well, it's the attorney then, right? It's on the attorney. >> You should send Dietrich to Tom. >> I'm not I'm not sure many people that
live in the basic neighborhood would feel badly if this passed. And I think a lot of people that live in the neighborhood look at it like, "What are we gonna do with this house? It's falling down. It
looks like crap." Um, is somebody ever going to come along and do something with this property that's been a jewel in this town for so long under and it's been, you know, there's been some shady things that have gone on in and around it um in the past. So to me, turning
this into a nice residential spot would just be a great use for something that could sit there and be an albatross to the town for as long as it goes un unused. And right now it's sitting unused and every day it sits in un in
disuse. It falls into further repair. So, so I mean as a jewel of the town, especially on Elm Street, I I would love to see somebody come in and take it over and do something with it. >> I will say though, you mentioned like you think the neighbors this, neighbors that, like all of the butters were
notified. The ones that showed up actually all spoke in opposition to it. So, >> I do want to make that note and maybe not strong opposition opposition, but with some concerns. And so, I would like to have us talk about potentially addressing some of those concerns. It's
also worth noting that not all of their concerns were really relevant to this permitic. >> There were questions about the previous permit >> and the previous permit >> and then there were some things that we felt we could condition >> based on their concerns. >> Hatfield adopted the community preservation act. Hatfield collects money, correct? Additional tax money and
it can only be used for certain things. One of which is historic preservation. And in other cases, I don't know if that's true in Hatfield, but in in other towns, CPA funds have been used to help to support the rehabilitation of privately owned properties. >> I think we did so on the old mill as an
example. >> There you go. Um, that could be one application that could be made to at least stabilize the exterior of the structure, to rebuild the porches, to make to repoint the brick work, to, you know, to fix the flashing, replace the roof, repair the windows, the exterior
envelope of the building could get some financial help from the town of Hatfield. I think it'd be an appropriate use. >> Everybody drives by looks and points. I drive by and I love the building. Um, so I I would have no problem with that happening. um keep that in your under your hat for the next guy who comes down
the line. >> But anyway, >> and yeah, it all depends on what that committee determines would be appropriate for. >> Yeah, of course it's that goes to town and town meeting and so yeah, there's a lot of process involved in it and that is an option too. All right.
Can we move towards some of the comments that the So, one of them in particular that I was interested in hearing that I believe is the Mark was Mark Aldrich. I'm imagining he lives right next to that property saying
>> that he would prefer the driveway to be paved to prevent dust from being cut put up kicked up on his property. I don't know how I also note that like when there's any construction going in and out of there probably before anything gets paved
there's going to be less could be dusty anyway >> and right now as exists people that go to the back >> I don't think many do many cars go in using that current driveway now that's the emergency access >> yeah there's no signage there looks like
a private >> can I ask a clarifying question of engineer. Just remind us that driveway is that a piece of the previous permit or is that >> it was >> it was okay. >> It was an emergency access to the back, right?
>> Okay. But we can condition it with this one is my >> I think yeah, we we're interested in doing so. But also I can see like someone not coming in and making it key gravel and making it look more in the
character by like putting a hard >> Sure. So it's not dusty. I would have no problem putting in a condition that uh requires the um the improvement of the driveway and parking area to be constructed either of an
impervious surface such as concrete or pavement or of a compactable material such as uh compactable gravel or compactable stone. >> Um but not to remain dirt. >> I think that would be fair enough. And then you can make a choice as to what you want to do with that.
>> All right. I I appre I like that. um thought on that. >> You know, just couple tire tracks through the lawn doesn't quite cut it, of course, but and also I think that might >> um >> which I'd imagine would happen anyway wouldn't have development of this, but to stay >> Yeah.
>> And I think the neighbors would be very happy not to see dirt. >> The other thing I'm wondering about is any sort of landscaping or anything like that. Um, there was screening that was required between the house and the storage units
that would be behind the house, but only after they're built. So, they haven't been built yet. The barn hasn't come down yet. >> And that conceivably for view for the public for like from the road and >> because there was concern about like, oh, I that beautiful barn and then I'm
going to have to steer it. >> Right. So, that's already conditioned. >> Yep. >> That's been proposed by the uh applicant. Uh, Emerald Arborvite. >> That's already >> along the back row. That's that's on their site plan >> from the previous >> That's from the No. Well, >> or is that an addition?
>> 18 Elm Street, November 20th, 2025. Is that the previous or is that the current one? >> So, it's already proposed by the applicant. >> I'm just curious if that or anything like that. I'm just too bad that they're not here to
>> Are you're talking about behind the house? No, to the side of the house. >> To the side of the house. to the west of the house. >> On that same site plan, I'm looking at L-3.1. Uh there's a note that says relocate proposed fencing to perimeter of driveway. My question is whether the
fencing exists now. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a clarifying question? >> Of course. >> Okay. >> I think it's fine. Is there fencing proposed on the um that would be the e uh east side the right
hand side of the property as you're looking at the house from the street? There's no fencing proposed between that property and the neighboring residence. >> No. >> Okay. Is there any existing foliage or or trees? >> There's some foliage there and I think Dave might maintain a short amount of
fence. >> Okay. >> That goes up to his house or something like that. >> Okay, fair enough. behind >> some of those are like pretty and right in the front that is before the sidewalk. Those are some pretty like older pretty large trees. >> Yeah. >> Um
as a tree person. >> Yeah. >> I would either like to say like if they need to come down we be replaced but that's something that I would be interested in. >> Well, yeah. And actually driving by I'm looking at the trees right along the uh the street line and those are some
pretty old long needle pines. Those are a little bit sketchy, but um for me, I'm just thinking about as vehicles move into the property and park in the parking lot, turn around in the parking lot, move out. Um you want to
try to minim I'm thinking about somebody coming in at 10 at night or 11 at night, you want to minimize the disruption to the neighbors if if possible. So, if there's a fence that can go along that east side of the back parking lot >> or arborite >> um arborvite along the north side
already proposed that's fine. >> I think on the west out >> on the west side >> pointing into the storage facility, >> right? >> Yeah. So, it' be west side. I would say >> you got uh well, yeah. No, the the west side with the the neighbors are budding
right there. Um, but by the time the cars move from the parking lot into the driveway to start heading forward, I mean, they've already pass the the residence, I think. Yeah. So, just along that back section, skirting the parking lot area
as they're driving towards the west, they would be their headlights would be the barn on the neighboring property, >> right? Okay. >> Not the house, >> right? driving towards the west and then they turn to the south to to head for the street. >> That's right. And they're Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> So, just for the minutes, if we come up with condition, can we just clearly state which direction, which corner of the property or >> Okay. Yeah. I would recommend vegetative screening such as emerald arborvite
to be planted along the west side of the parking lot or to the west of the parking lot along the boundary line is fine >> in order to screen >> screen for the above >> glare of headlights. >> Got it. and the visual of the parking
lot. >> And then Don, >> they do not have to go all the way to the front boundary line. That's not what I'm suggesting. >> I agree with that, too. Yeah, >> just the parking lot area >> and you got the driveway. No. >> Mhm. >> Um I don't know if lighting is proposed,
but I would recommend we we say all lighting has to be down shielded. >> Says no proposed no proposed lighting. It says >> there's no proposed lighting for the parking area. I think it's explicit to say in the conditions in the permit though if there not be or if they are
it's like a >> you're going to you're going to need to have some lighting on the walkway. You're going to need to have lighting on the outside of the building. Um I think that's by code. I think you're going to find that out. So if any lighting is required >> required >> that it be downshielded.
Um warm lighting downshielded. Yeah. downward facing >> and ideally not all night on a motion. >> Motion would be great. Yeah, >> motion sensors. >> But again, the the building code will overrule. So
>> Mhm. >> Got it. >> Um I would like to see before people move in a plan for trash management. That may be as simple as a a
a short fence enclosing a small area where people put their trash cans or where the dumpster is or whatever. >> You want to see a plan you said or you want to >> Yeah. I think you know that I don't think we talked about I mean we talked
about it was touched on but knowing where the trash cans are going to be knowing how it's going to get dealt with that's all. >> And I don't would we need it for this or like with any for before certification? I would say that it that has to be provided to the building inspector before a co. >> Yeah. >> So like wouldn't need to come back
before us. >> Yeah. >> But it would need to be considered and be a part of a plan. >> They would need to come back before you. >> No, would not. >> It would just >> provided to the building inspector before a certificate of occupancy would be issued >> like a plan. >> Conditions on the build proof. >> And I really hope it's not a trash truck
that comes in and empties a giant dumpster at 5 in the morning and then backs up the whole way. >> Yeah. They're going to say, "But it's zoned industrial." >> Was that Was that a snark? >> That was a snark.
>> Anything else? >> I can't think of anything. We talked about egress uh entrances. >> Yeah. in the character of, you know, >> basically. Oh, yeah. Is that in there? Like, but they're not going to put a giant
fluorescent yellow egress painted. I don't know. I'm just making this up. >> Yeah. Do you have to do fire and everything's similar to the character of the property? >> We've got elevations in this plan in this packet. This is what we're
adjudicating is what's presented in front of us. I would expect that if there's any significant changes as determined by the building inspector where the construction plans differ from these plans in any significant way, and I'm not talking about moving a window or increasing the ledge of a window. Those
are minor. I'm talking about significant changes to the to the the layout and the exterior appearance that the building inspector will refer the matter back to us for a review, >> right? And then we can make a determination as to whether it's dimminimus or whether no we got to open this back up because you just proposed a
giant outdoor staircase that's going to extend 12 feet back from the existing building or whatever happens. >> But also the building through permitiz like the planning department should get an alert anytime something with a the ideal situation which we're working on with the new person but is that the
planning department would get an alert anytime something that has a special permit is um done and >> gets a building permit request. >> Right. And when it's ready for a certificate of occupancy, he would tell us first so that we can double check that the terms of the special permit are met and then
we can be sure. Yeah, >> that's all I got. >> I'll keep my mouth shut. >> No, I think this was helpful for us to talk through. So, we said the driveway, the vegetative screening. What was the third one? >> Trash. >> No, there was another one before that. >> Lights. >> Lights. >> Lighting. Trash. >> Lighting. Trash truck. can all be
wrapped. No changes from the proposed plan. Significant >> similar pl similar yeah significant changes to the layout or exterior appearance to come. >> Hatfield requires that special permits are recorded at the registry. Right. >> That's the rigger. Okay. >> This is not necessarily a special permit
we're talking about. We're talking about a movement to >> this is a special per >> not just the movement to extend the pre-existing non-conforming use. So we had two things in front of us. >> The special permit of site plan approvals. The first piece is that you vote on the site plan to approve and
then you vote to issue a special permit based on your approval of site plan >> because it's a special. >> Is that necessarily the case in Tom's letter? I think it's just we can just >> We have to vote to approve the site plan, then we vote to approve the special permit. >> The special exactly
>> and yes, we do have to vote we have to approve a special permit for the extension of the pre-existing non-conforming use. That has to be a special permit. Yes. >> Yes. That is the permit special permit request. Okay. With all of that,
>> you ready to move on? >> I move to approve the site plan as presented and with the recommendated recommended uh conditions. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I >> I. And I'll move to approve the special
permit for the change uh to uh of use of the property to up to a sixunit dwelling. >> I'll second that. >> Any further discussion? >> Again, with the conditions as discussed. >> Yes. All in favor? >> I >> All right.
>> Four. >> Four approved. >> Thank you. Thank you for jumping through all the hoops and coming back all the times that you come back. And that is the way that we get clarification
on what you're trying to do and you get clarification on what we think you're trying to do and what we think needs to be done to to what you're trying to do. Also, >> my apologies for making Doug vote yes. All right. >> You mentioned the minutes. When can I
get or how can I get a copy of the minutes? >> These minutes or any minutes or >> uh >> from tonight or from before? >> Last month. Well, we were >> both. >> Um there is one piece missing. I like somehow left off. >> Are they online? >> We have to we approve them. They become
>> so they won't be approved to the next meeting. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> Probably is a public document. You're welcome to it. It's going to change. But also I can send them to you in advance of them being approved. It's draft minutes. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's a draft set of minutes.
>> Can you be a consultant as to how to deal with the planning board? >> You and you and Jeffrey partner up >> and personally see me for >> I'm very excited for something to happen to that place. I mean have to having to
drive by it so many times with boards holding it up and no one living there and it just you know such a jewel falling into disrepair that it's wonderful. I used to live around the corner so I used to see it even more so. So it's just wonderful that somebody has
accepted the responsibility to do something with this and hopefully it works out for you guys. Hopefully it's hopefully it's profitable enough for you to finish the project. Yeah. >> All all those things. >> All right. you know, with with with our good graces. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
>> All right. Next item on the agenda. Revision to the entry drive at 186 North Hatfield Road, Western Earthworks Works, parcel ID number 206-142-0 and number 206-8-0. All right, look who it is. >> Can I say something before you go
>> just to clarify what we are here to talk about? >> Great. A lot of these things are not planning board issues. You're probably going to outline the whole thing, but we are here to talk about um what permit process we would use hypothetically for
this change of the existing special permit. >> That's special permit. >> All right, let's permit >> amendments. Yeah, exactly. >> So, I didn't bring a large plan, but this is sort of the working concept. And so Western Earth Works purchased
um I think it's three no one E no three Northfield Road I think is what it is the the property at the end >> 320 it looks like maybe >> say we have 186 Northfield >> yeah so they bought that parcel number years a couple years ago um we were
before you last year for their new um new facility there um that's the barn building you see um in in brown that's on the larger parcel in back um on the um east side of North Hatfield Road. They recently purchased that small
triangular parcel right along um right along West Street. Um it was a pretty derelct house. Um they have since torn it down. Um their hope is that they would um extend their driveway curb cut
out to West Street and have a new entrance to the facility directly off West Street. Um it crosses a very small portion of the triangular parcel that they purchased. Um the North Hatfield there has been some
initial discussions with the DPW. They are amenable to the you know the concept. What he would like to do is eventually get rid of that portion, that northerly section of North Hatfield Road then so that the road, you know, veers out onto the um onto West Street like it
does now and then there wouldn't be that paved connection um further to the north. Um the couple of challenges um one is as as Bella noted just understanding the permit process through you all um for that you know little bit
of work on the um on the 180 uh the um West Street parcel. Um we've also got to understand what's involved with the county layout for North Hatfield Road. It's a county layout with a layout written in the late 1800s. I think this
these lines are taken from an intersection in Weightley and so we have spent spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out where those boundary lines really are and it's you know >> it's it's a little bit challenging >> forensic survey. >> Yes. Um so we are aware that we've got
to go through that um that that process for the uh county road. We also are aware that there's going to be a DOT highway access permit. Yeah. >> Um, but it's mostly what other permit triggers does this
bring up >> because the at least the square footage of disturbance on this parcel in particular is under the you know site plan review threshold any of the any of that work. So it's trying to understand >> what would be necessary um in addition to the stuff that I already mentioned.
>> Can I add to just where we are with the town? So the town is in the process of just investigating what uh the legal side and what the you know advantages and disadvantages of abandoning the public way would be. Um
from what we understand there's a question that would go through legal about exact you know it's not necessarily true that if like this piece of North Hatfield Road is abandoned by the town it doesn't necessarily become the property of either of those parcels. It's the maintenance falls upon those
owners, but it's not necessarily >> it's not and then put up combine like combine them. >> So, we would find out from legal. Exactly. And that's what that's on the town. That's not planning board. That's something the town is looking into. But in terms of planning permits and
planning concerns, um frontage becomes an issue um if they lost this North Hatfield Road um public way frontage. Um, if they could do an ANR with their new land, which is on West Street, they
would have that frontage. Um, but it's not clear whether they could do an ANR if there's a road running down the middle of it that doesn't belong to >> the current. So, that's the question. >> But the current owner owns both this parcel and what now has a dilapidated house.
>> They own both parcels. >> They took the house down, right? No, >> the house is there. They're using it for storage. Okay. Um, if the town of Hatfield and when you're talking about roads, you abandon a road, which means you stop maintaining it. And you discontinue a
road, which means you destroy it. It's gone. Abandoning a road requires a vote by the town meeting. Discontinuing a road, I'm sorry, abandoning a road requires a vote by the select board. They can do that at their next meeting if they want. Discontinuing the road completely requires approval by town meeting to basically
>> eliminate that >> eliminate it as a public way. Okay. When roads are eliminated, usually a line is drawn down the middle and the land underneath the road is split amongst the abutters, which would mean that since they own both sides, they would then own the area that is right now a road.
>> So then you could do an ANR and then the frontage issue. >> The point the point I was getting to was the frontage isn't an issue. Now they'd have front edge on two separate roads, >> but then they would need to come before us if they wanted to like do something with 320 after and change and combine it
and blah blah blah. >> The thing is that that road, that section of road has not been in use for an incredibly long time and uh and it only serves now to go into their existing property. It does not serve the
public way in any shape, form or manner and has not for a long time. I can't remember when, but it was a long time ago that they put in a lefthand turn off the end of Prospect Street to go to Five and 10 and discontinued the use of that piece of road and basically blocked it
off at the far end. >> Yeah, >> they blocked it off at the far end. It continued to be access for the person who lived in that house. >> Uh, no, his his access was off for five and 10. And it's honestly it it does serve the public in that it requires 186
to use that as the ent western or eastern western earth or works too requires them to use that entrance as opposed to using five and 10. So it serves the public in that way. It's requiring the traffic pattern to go that way. >> It directs all traffic into the the
proper mouth of >> consideration. I remember when we made when we issued that special permit like that was like a pro for the neighborhood on in that at that time I believe >> but >> it's up to me if they want to >> do that and then would they need to do
an ANR to for this to continue to be a buildable lot conjoin it with 320 I >> to join it with 320 >> why would they want to do that >> it's >> because of the front two lots that have share a common boundary that are owned by the
same owner, that's one lot for zoning purposes. >> Okay, great. >> Yeah, they don't need to do anything with that. Yeah. >> Yeah. They combine it. They lose their ability to do anything. >> So, basically, if you can resolve, they can do a perimeter survey just to create one lot, but >> but they don't have to forage thing. So,
what I'm hearing is that we need to wait and see what's determined with that road and then >> you would come to us if there wanted to be sight plan changes outside of this driveway. the process. >> Um I would no I would want to want them
to come back for site plan site plan and special permit for that driveway >> to notify the >> and it may they may find out that >> MASDOT is not going to entertain an access permit without that special permit without approval by the town of a new driveway there. >> The only means that we have in our
zoning to update a special permit is to it's >> we did this recently and we called it an amendment >> just to be clear. It was with the um parking lot for pickle ball. >> Yep. But they still go through the same exact >> I think you were a part of that were you? >> No,
>> the you're talking about the additional parking. Yeah. >> The extension of the parking on the parking lot that we approved >> the overflow parking lot. >> They have to submit like a traffic study and everything else that would address modifying a special permit is the same process as a special permit. >> Same notification, same abundation that
works. >> So yeah, um agreed with that. >> Uh you're going to do your homework anyways. The only thing that strikes me is if you're creating a new access and mass dot is probably going to be asking the same question is what does that do? How does that compare? Where are the
other accesses? Are you creating an access that intersects directly something directly across the way? >> Is it creating new conflicts? Is the speed on the road affected? How does that fit in with their mas dots pension for putting in sidewalks where nobody walks? >> You know that all kinds of sidewalks
there. >> Yeah, I would love that. Do you actually there's quite a few people that walk there that road there? Yes. 5 and 10? >> Yes. I drop my kids off daycare every three days a week. >> You drop your kids off on 5 and 10 and make them walk home. That kind of thing. Is that it? >> I see probably. And it's during like
morning commute time. There's probably a half a dozen people walking on that road. >> And could be more if we had sidewalks. >> Anyway, >> and if we don't, it could be less by attrition. >> They're probably >> Wow. >> by attrition. Well, you know, you walk
on a state highway and the speed limit is 45 miles an hour. I say I hate to say it, but >> a couple of them are the same people every day, too. >> You're taking your life in your hands, you know, and and on a on a a funky day when visibility isn't great and you're out there walking in your raincoat.
>> Have that in your traffic study. >> All right. >> Yes. Well, I mean, all that stuff um you mentioned is certainly, you know, within our within our um gun sites in terms of the highway stuff. I think, you know, what we aren't able to answer at the moment is
just whether the carts, you know, where the cart sits, whether it's before the horse or after the horse because I don't know, I can appreciate that Masot is maybe going to want some, you know, um letter something from the town speaking to the abandonment of that road. I don't know if it's vice versa. I don't know
how that's all going to work. Um but um just trying to understand you for you all. >> I feel you're a ways away from us having to do anything. >> Yeah. Have we provided you any help in all this process? >> So the town may have already gone through something about abandoning that road by changing the intersection to
come out next to the bar and abandoning that section of road. They would have had to go through something >> with the town to change the intersection. >> Plans that we found. What's what's interesting is that the northerly boundary of that so the southerntherly
boundary of that triangular lot or northerly was never defined. >> So the town had was shown on plans that were you know effectively on private property and it just that never got settled. So that would all have to be part of this is defining that, you know, >> sounds about right.
>> That that deed is Yeah. is is talking about property lines that are from Weightley, you know, intersections and it's trying to project that out into >> even better records than us up in weight. >> It's not it's not conclusive, >> right? >> But the assessor's records still show a
right away going straight out to five and 10. >> Uhhuh. So the other the other thing too that just obviously I think you're thinking when you said cart and horse makes me think too like you're sharing us this driveway situation but like and
depending on the timing of this if we have to go to town meeting and we're might there and there might be and if there's future plans with a combined lot situation and no road there. You know, you could be putting this before us as a special permanent
amendment to then turn around and have another special permanent amendment >> or >> not long after if there's going to be plans to do something if these were combined. Well, I would think by then by the time the the state and the town and the road
get all figured out >> and all the steps the state and the town have to deal with in terms of the road. That doesn't change our special permit approval or nor their operational layout. >> The road will still exist. It'll just become their private driveway. >> No, no, no. I understand that. I'm
saying I'm what I'm saying is I'm assuming you would purchase this land in the hopes and thoughts that you would expand your footprint or change something. >> Agreed. That has to come back to us for review. >> Well, it's before us, >> right? But I'm just saying >> don't borrow trouble. We don't need to borrow trouble. >> I saying
>> but at the same time the very reason why original roadway was discontinued is because it was deemed a hazard >> because people would get to the end of it, they turn to look left and there was a big house with a bunch of fences in their way and they wouldn't have good sight lines. So, if if all you're doing
is talking about just extending the driveway out, one of our conditions might be take down the buildings on that section and open up the, you know, and ensure that everybody's got good sight lines. >> Um, >> I can say from the owner's standpoint, there's their intent certainly was to purchase that just for this purpose.
>> Yes. >> And I'm sure their idea is to get rid of the buildings. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, they've got they've got big tractor trailer trucks, so they need to right >> that that current configuration with a with a North Hatfield Road is not ideal for their bigger vehicles. So, it's >> this would be much much better for them.
>> Yep. >> But so, >> someone that has to hear a backup of a tractor trailer truck might disagree. >> So, bottom line, we're like step 17 and you're on step two. >> So, come back. >> Thank you for reaching out about it early.
>> A little bit unique situation. So, it is. Yeah. >> I don't think there's >> one here and before us it seems >> I don't think there's resistance. Let's put it that way. I think there's hoops. >> Yeah. >> And and so when we jump through all the
hoops then I I think that it would be an asset to the traffic situation back there. >> I don't know if it would to be honest. >> Personally, that's my personal opinion. I think it would be an asset to a meeting when they to the traffic situation back there. >> All right. Okay. really appreciate.
>> Thank you, Jeff. >> Thank you for everything else. >> All right. >> See you next month. Try to come up with some reason to come visit us. >> I'll see you at Con. >> Are we meeting next month? We meeting in July. >> That's a joke. >> They also have a conservation permit for
129. So, it's like >> they also have what? >> Okay. Not >> they have a whole permit for it. So, they're >> for conservation. All right. On to item number three. Reorganization of the planning board. chair, alternate chair, the PVPC representative, and the CPC representative. For those people who
don't know acronyms, Pirate Valley Planning Commission representative, and the Community Preservation Committee representative. Um, first of all, I would like to congratulate Doug Finn on a landslide re-election camp. You know, hey,
>> well done. I had more votes on Black Line. I only got >> I was jealous. I had more votes for blank line than you. That's the thing is more people v did not vote for me than voted for me, you know, in terms of who cast a ballot. >> I was running on a pose and I still only
got 60% of the vote. I don't understand. >> I don't understand. >> It was It was touch and go there. Me versus >> It's not an indication of you. It's an indication of the big large ballot in a non contested. >> I I was all ready to congratulate blank
as the new member of the planning board. I didn't have to. I got in. Thank you. All right. And with that, after every um election, we do a reorganization of our planning board, which means we have to nominate a slate of who's going to be
the chair, the alternate chair, the Per Valley Planning Commission representative, and the community preservation committee representative. Who were those things previously? >> I would like to nominate. >> No, hold on. >> Planning Commission Rabbit. you were.
>> He was PVC. >> And who was the community preservation committee? >> She looks right at David Lee. >> No, I thought I passed it to Doug, but >> okay. So either way, I was told that there needs to be more attendance at the community preservation. >> Well, that's why I passed.
>> Maybe this is an AA and if they and if they were able to get me notifications of the meetings when and where >> in a in a more timely way instead of oh my god, we got a meeting tonight, >> you know. Um, >> okay. Fair feedback. >> Don't they have to post like a normal
meeting with >> Lori question? Is she helping them? Who's who's the helper >> that Lori was posting the meetings? It's But >> a lot of them were >> they weren't told because >> because she was sending them off wasn't >> email.
>> Okay. So that we're not to cast dispersions. >> In terms of our representatives, do we have to decide those tonight? >> Um, no. Um there may be some changes happening in my life and it's going to change my schedule and I'll better know
what's happening with me. So um I if I had to decide right now I would be reluctant to >> continue anything else because it's been proving to be difficult but things might change and my evenings might get very free soon. >> The timeline for CPC is just like the fall. So we could talk about it in
August and >> I'd be happy to do that if we can do that >> then. And then the part of Valley Planning Commission representatives. There isn't really anything that's done, right? >> Yeah. >> Like you get put on an email list or apply to some things if you want to. There's >> you you represent the planning board at the PVPC. Do they have meetings?
>> Yeah. The 10 in the morning every month. >> Every eight months. >> Every month about once once a month, Wednesday mornings, 10 a.m. >> Well, then I would like to we should put an agenda item on there to update us on those things that are happening at that meeting. I'd be curious. >> Yeah. Really interested to know. >> You you had to spell out the acronyms.
They never do. I've been to several of those meetings and I don't understand half of what's going on there. They're 20 minutes. They consist nothing but acronyms and roll calls. Every voted by roll call and there's 37 members. >> They're in the morning. Those meetings are in the morning. >> Yeah. 10 in the morning. >> I could do that. >> And they're all Zoom.
>> Zoom. >> I still could do that >> with with help with my wife organizing it. No, I have the I have the time secretary. Being retired, I have the time during the day where maybe the rest of you don't.
>> Oh, amazing. Love that. Thank you. >> Um, we could also do Well, did you want to wait on chair and alt chair, too? Are you mostly >> No, no. I'm I'm not trying to hold anybody up with anything. So, yeah, just I was just thinking about the like the CP the CPC. I have an interest in
that and I'd like to be a part of that. Just need to know when the meetings are a little bit more reliably. >> So, Yeah. >> So, being retired, I have a little more flexibility than the rest of you, >> to say the least. >> So, you want to be chair then is what
you're saying? >> Nope. >> Oh, okay. >> Nope. >> Nope. And nope. I am not good at that. I I can fill in at times. And hopefully when I fill in the meetings are pretty short like we've had
some really good short fill-in meetings. >> You're very efficient. You're efficient. >> I'm what? >> You're efficient. >> Efficient. >> Efficient. >> Yeah, I guess. >> Yeah, you are. >> All right. >> She said efficient, not impatient.
>> So, do we want to table all of these until August or are we doing several of them now? >> If you want me to be chair, >> I want Stephanie to be the chair again. >> Second. >> Chair. Chair. I nominate Stephanie. bury her chair around like a like a wedding,
you know. >> I'll sing. >> What am I married to? The town. >> Click the glasses. >> Well, you do a good job. >> And it's appreciated. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Like I'm I like two or three years ago, I was like, "No more of this, please."
But honestly, Bella's been very helpful in like helping >> pick up the >> sleeplessness that I had before her. >> I can't imagine. So, I appreciate >> the due diligence that you bring to the board, which makes me feel more comfortable in taking something like
continuing with the chair. And I appreciate you guys supporting me cuz sometimes it can get hairy. >> And also, I think that, you know, Jimmy's colorful running of the meetings when you're not around should continue. I think the public guest
>> I think the public demands it and this is all just self- serving because I really don't feel like it. So, you're just saying nice things so nobody says that we nominate you. >> The fact of the matter, the fact of the matter is you both do a great job. So, >> thanks. >> Move to nominate Jimmy Tarus, co-chair.
>> Second >> or alternate chair. >> Alternate chair. Sorry. >> Vice chair. >> Vice I don't know. >> Vice vice. We don't have Vice attached to my name. >> Viceless Jimmy. >> So, where do we go from here? >> I have too much. >> Wait, did he even check nominate me yet?
I nominated nominated you and Doug seconded. >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion on that? All in favor? >> I mammonous. >> I would also like to nominate Jimmy Tar as the associate chair. Is that >> second? >> Any further discussion?
>> All in favor? >> I >> I Jimmy alchair >> and we will table the PVPC and the CPC rapid meeting. >> Okay. >> I appreciate that. M. >> All right,
the juiciest part of our night. >> Number four. >> What's the town? Thanks. >> Updates from Bella. >> Oh. Oh, >> have any exciting I gave you a lot of the big project updates like on the sixth. >> Oh, that was a good one. That was good.
>> Fun. But we are we are meeting with two different um consultant firms. one tomorrow and then one the following Thursday to do interviews for the zoning rewrite um >> which was related to the one stop for right one stop for growth
>> yes >> grant we received for like $96ish,000 to do our zoning rewrite which is an 18monthish well goes to the end of next year is the end of 2027 is the end of the
terms of the grant or they have to use the funds by then um and It's going to be they're going to recommend a set of new bylaws for us, recommend a map, and do community engagement sessions to ensure that community input is there. >> They're going to be talking with us on a
regular basis, right? They're not just going to say, "Oh, here's what we think you guys should do." >> So, that's why we're saying like the proposal involves is like a whole schedule. They're you every month. >> Oh, and this is a group that we don't have hired yet. Okay. >> Correct. We are doing interviews this year. >> And how many people are we interviewing? How many companies?
>> Two consulting firms. There was seven that applied. Wow. >> An RFQ. Is that what happened? >> We weeded out five. >> Um, and the two we chose are pretty local and we're >> ultimately as a decision of the town administrators and not ours, but >> procurement officer.
>> Um, I have been in part of the selection with Bella and Andrew >> and Jake West. Jake West, >> the intern. >> Jake West >> indeed. >> Action hero. Action hero. Jake West. >> Jake West. I'm Jake West. We were
talking about some star town >> and Jake Weston is moving into the Victorian mansion on Elm on Elm Street. Matt Dylan Jake >> new shift. >> I really hope he watches these. Anyway, >> have we seen Jake West yet?
>> We have seen him. He was at town meeting. It was his first day actually and he's never seen a New England town meeting and thought it was fascinating. Good. >> Yeah. >> Red shoes, but okay. >> Okay. I don't think he said fascinating but interesting might have been a better word for it. Oh, isn't that interesting? >> That was a incredibly smooth town
meeting. >> It was nice. >> Having witnessed uns smooth town meetings before, that was I mean I remember times when when we quit at 10:00 >> and still had 10 items to go through. >> Rough. I haven't had to do that in my
town meeting lifetime yet, which has only been a mere >> Well, there were times when there were people that got up and spoke. A lot more people got up and spoke at the town meeting, not just Mike Cahill and Larry Gman >> and which >> I appreciate >> which Yeah, absolutely. And but there
were people that got up and spoke and and had the right to get up and speak. However, no one checked the alcohol content of their bodies at the time. >> So there were people that were extremely inebriated for alteration. >> So that's what you need is not only to check in to make sure you're a voter, to
give you a little card and then give you a breathalyzer. Okay. There were there were people that came that were extremely inebriated and would get up and have long- winded conversation about every single >> item. >> That happens at the bar anyway, >> right? Well, it happens at the bar, but
I mean, you bring it over to the town meeting. It was it was unruly at the time. >> Unruly. >> And you and you and the thing is with the town meeting, you can't tell them to be quiet, >> you know? >> Well, we try to guide them now. It's like you take one response per per you
know. >> Speaking of which, we're post 7 o'clock here. >> What's that? >> Speaking of which, we're post 7 o'clock here. >> What was that? I'm wondering if Ella has anything more to report. >> Oh, really? Nothing else? Are you sure? Nothing else we need to know?
>> Isn't there another grant that's you're applying for? And any >> No, no, >> not right now. No, I applied for the one for the housing production plan, but we >> we will find out next month. I it says summer 2026. Um so ideally July or August, but we also received at
the town meeting they approved um $40,000 of CPC funding for a housing production plan. >> That's good. >> So what we would do is either basically send out an RFP soon and try to get a consultant on board and then figure out,
you know, if we get the grant, we could use that money for it. We don't get the grant, use CBC funding for it. Maybe we can combine them. Whatever. we're in good shape for it and then that can be kind of moving along at the same time as the zoning thing and maybe they can be in conversation with each other and
>> um keep your eyes open and provide us with any news related to Planefields battery energy storage system bylaw that just got passed at their town meeting. Their bylaw is pretty standard is based mostly on the model but they
discriminate based on battery chemistry >> which is really really interesting. They do not allow they allow lithium batteries only in certain places, >> lithium iron phosphate in more places and sodium phosphate in many more
places. >> They're basically trying to encourage batteries that are much safer. >> I looked into that, but my question was how widely available are those other types of batteries and would it seem to be like a deacto ban if you were requiring that they use this like
CL is a Chinese company. >> Yeah. that I know is not, you know, we're not necessarily favorable for Chinese companies with the current administration, but they're a Chinese company and they have just committed to doing 50 gigawatts of C of uh sodium ion batteries. There's some companies in Europe, there's a couple of companies in
the US all starting on major production of sodium batteries. >> Wow. Well, maybe the attorney general will be hip to this news. >> The only thing that too, like I with the restrictions of the materials, like well then what new fangled material is going to be out in two more years? You know what I mean? Well, that's that's the thing is they want to keep basically
they're saying any other chemistry that doesn't have lithium in it. >> Gotcha. >> Um they're w trying to get away from the lithium as much as they can. >> Cool. Until they find out the next thing. >> There's also an effort by the state boards, health boards
>> to basically override all the batteries zoning anyways by saying batteries are harmful, so we're going to regulate them. And they're they're they're starting with a standpoint that they're bad, >> which I don't agree with. The state association of board of health boards
>> batteries are harmful, >> which I don't I don't agree with that that starting point. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it's like that's the thing you're going to choose to go after. That's not helpful. >> What about all these other things? >> Yeah, there's a number of other things that could lower hanging.
>> I don't know. >> Yeah. Good for that. Yeah, those are interesting things coming. So, >> totally, totally, totally. >> All right. >> Anything else? >> I make a motion we adjourn. >> First, let's just talk about our next meeting if we would. >> Um, and then we can go right there. So,
as I mentioned, no, we usually do not have a July meeting because that's generally the Fourth of July week, which people usually have lives and are doing things. We meet in August, but I know that's your vacation schedule, John. Generally, >> uh, I am unaware of any vacation plans. As in they're not like you haven't been
told them yet or there are not any? >> There are not any. Right. >> I will not be in town either the last week in July or the first week in August. >> Okay. >> Be returning on August 7th or 8th >> and then I'm gone the following Wednesday. >> Oh,
>> second Wednesday. >> That's that's where I'm not going to be. >> Oh, all right. So, >> third Wednesday then that's really >> that's basically two weeks then from the next meeting. Could you do it at the end of July? >> I'm not here.
>> Second. >> I'm not here. >> Third week of July. >> I'm not here. >> 22nd. Oh, >> we just do it. I mean, >> skip a August meeting. First Saturday or first Wednesday in July. Switch our tradition. >> Excuse me. >> July. >> I could if we did August, I could do a
Tuesday. I could do the 11th. >> Okay. Tuesday is fine with me, too. >> I could do Tuesday. >> I'm good. >> Okay. >> August 11th. >> August 11th. Tuesday. Tuesday, >> August 11th. >> And then our next meeting will be September 2nd after that. Okay. >> Excuse me.
>> Sounds good. >> And then if anything like urgent pops up, I wouldn't say we would create a new meeting for someone who's putting in a regular standard application. But if there's like some weird urgent thing that we need to address,
>> probably show up, >> make a meeting if we need to. >> It is June 3rd. If you get a special permit application tomorrow, we have 63 days to hold a public hearing. 714 21 28 35 42 49. We would have to hold a
meeting before August. If we get a special permit application in the next two weeks, we'd have to hold a meeting, schedule a meeting for sometime in mid to late July. >> Noted. >> So, don't check the mail for two weeks. >> Blinders. >> I second the motion on the table that we
adjourn. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I I >> All right. Meeting of June 3rd is adjourned at 7:18. >> Judge has been