All right, I call the meeting to order at six o'clock on May 7, 2025 for the planning board meeting. Hi everyone, I'm Stephanie Sish. I'm chair. Uh to my right, I have Doug Finn. To my left, uh John Jeffris far and Lee Bell and we
have our assistant town planner, uh Bella Jagger here as well. Um the first item on the agenda as always is public forum. This is an opportunity for folks who are not on the agenda tonight but would like to bring something forward to the board's attention um are welcome to
do so now and come before the microphone up front and introduce yourself. All right, everyone who here is here for an agenda item. Great. So, I will make uh I will close public forum and the first item on our agenda is
approving our minutes from April meeting. Um, I don't know if anyone had a chance to review. Looks good. Yep. The only thing that I had st like that I was confused about was where it says March under approval of minutes of the March
5th meeting. It says Stephanie abstains because she was absent for both. Oh, sure. It was just was absent. Not necessarily. For both. Exactly. So, that would be my only You were absent for five and 17. I just didn't word it that way. Right. I was here for 17. I was not
here for five. Right, right, right, perfect. Cuz I Yeah, perfect. And that's why we abstained, I believe, on 17th because he wasn't there. Okay, and we'll add
that. Other than that, motion to approve those edits. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I I I. April 2nd meeting minutes are approved. Great. Next item on the agenda is a discussion
about a potential doggy daycare at 336 West Street. So for folk Yeah. Come come sit up front and center next to the microphone. Introduce yourself the town you're coming from and uh what you'd
like to talk to us about tonight. Hi, I'm Tara Baldi. I've spoken with couple people here. I'm Rory, I think. Yeah. So, nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. I'm Erna Lopez. And I'm Brian Gotley, Terara's brother. Thanks.
Um, yeah. So, if you could get take just a second um to I know some of us have seen some emails about it, but you know, this is also an opportunity for the public because this is a public meeting to explain um what brings you here tonight. Um should I? So, Tara, I don't know how in depth I should get with you
guys. you can push me. But um so Tara worked for the ALS association for years and recently left. And I asked her, I said, you know, what do you want to do now? And she said, I don't know, but I I said, what do you love? And she said, dogs. So then we talked about this. I
live I live in New Jersey, by the way. So um we talked about opening up a doggy daycare, and we were kind of we're making it a reality. Um, we found this location, which is perfect because it's in a commercial zone and it doesn't have immediate neighbors. Uh, the owner of
the property approved us and she she's a character. She said she'll raise hell if if we don't get it. That's good. That's good. But, um, so we want to have a uh a doggy daycare and also eventually
possibly we're trying to work out the plumbing right now. uh groomer like groomer for one or two grooming stations. Uh we plan to have between 10 and 20 dogs. So we would have two employees at all times in there with the
dogs and then Tara would be managing the place and working um outside at the desk. Um and our hours would be 7 to 7. Uh the dogs would all be indoors. There's an outdoor space that we are going to build a fence around and an
awning. Um, and the dogs would be outside. Say first shift from like 7 to 2, there would be two hours that they'd be outside and then the second shift would be 2 to 12 to 11 to 7, sorry. Uh, where they'd be outside from 4 to 6,
right? Yeah. Yeah. Because we we are going to have the small dogs um separated from the large dogs. So, small dogs out for 1 hour, large dogs for one hour, and then later the same thing, right? And initially we're going to just
until we really get the hang of it, we're going to limit it to certain breeds. We're not going to go with pimples or rottweilers, mastiffs like that. Um, do you guys have anything else to add? No, I think that's pretty much it. But
if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Yeah. So, you've done some research on this, but if you could want to talk about what you've done talked so far about. Yeah. So you're in the business zone. So the process for that um it is allowed by a special permit. So
um all of that process is laid out in the zoning. I think one thing I wanted to raise is that most of the stuff that you'll see in there for requirements is kind of for like new construction. So not all of it's going to apply to you. Um it asks that you bring in like plan drawings from an architect or whatever
that you but you don't have those because it's a rental space, right? So I was thinking maybe for site plan I mean for a special permit for this what they might need is since you need the um kennel permit possibly you could bring in um a list of things that they are
requiring and how you're planning to meet those requirements. So if you need like dividing walls and like how much square footage of outdoor space or whatever it is that might kind of fit into the special permit review since they're not building a new building and they don't have like a footprint for us
to look at. Does that make sense? Yeah. And like any the external structure pieces. Yeah. Like it's just an awning. That's like a temporary thing. Like not a permanent structure. Um. Yeah. And like you were saying like hours of operate like Yeah. The hours of
operation because Yeah. When a special permit process is triggered, it's notifies the abutters. They come in and to a meeting like this and we have a conver like we hear from them and some of their concerns and like condition certain things on a permit like you know their concerns would probably be like if
I were to guess out you know noise right um and diagram of the layout. Yeah. So like a layout at least the rough you know sketch of what's going Yeah. Especially like Yeah. Any like with a fence or like an odd like what where that will be on the property west just the general layout. Yeah. parking to
stuff like that. Maybe remind me and the public where where 336 is on West Street. It's at the corner of uh Depot, Mountain Road, and uh 5 and 10 the bookstore. Okay.
Um yeah, so like our our job is to make sure that you're following this the bylaws. It's not necessarily like how you're going to how you run your business, but some of the stuff that is entailed with uh the structure and the property and things like that is is what
is our purview. Um but yes, it is allow allowed with special permit. And so if you just follow those um follow that online and I'm sure Bella can follow up with with um the specifics on that um and engaging probably I don't know if you'll
maybe some professional support to help you fill out and go through the special permit process. Um and we have meetings at the beginning of every month. So it' be like if but we have to post them. We have posting requirements by Mass
General Law in order to issue special to have special permit hearings. They need to be basically you need to get all the materials in at least two weeks in advance. So we have enough time to post and notify letters so that we give them fair notice in order to come and express any sort of concerns that they could
have um or support they could have with the business. So, I do I printed out the application special permit and I saw in the last um sheet that it does there's a list of what's needed along with the application. Is that what you would need
at least two weeks before? Yes. Uh that and um you could request certain waiverss based on on the fact that you're renting for example and that kind of thing. So, that would also be discussed at the the special permit hearing if you would requesting any
waiverss for certain pieces of the special permit process. Um, which I think you would probably want to given the fact, like I said, you're uh that Bella said too, you're a tenant and not the owner of the part of the property. Um, yeah. Right. So, the permit will
need all the requirements all at once or waiverss for any particular Okay. Request waver. Yeah. And that whole thing has to come in two week service just we can publish it. Okay. To get you on the next month. Two weeks before June 4th. Yes. At at least two weeks before
plus two or three days. We would have to publish on I just had it up uh up there on the calendar. Yeah. We'd have to publish on the 21st. So you would need it like the 16th or the 19th is at the latest to of May to get that. So that
that gives you 10 days. Okay. that to say we'll safely say the 16th because we have to publish it in the newspaper. Sometimes there's not enough room in the newspaper and it's bumped a day and if it's bumped a day then it can it'll delay the whole Yeah. Yeah. So now that that we're clear on
the process part, do you have any questions on that? Because I'm sure I'm wondering if other members have questions more about business or any other things that come to mind. I I'm not concerned about the business. I'm not concerned about the use on the site. Uh, the only thing I'd be wanting to take a look at is is access onto the
site from the public way. How will cars get onto and off the site? Um, any qu, you know, include any details about signage. If you're planning on putting any signage in place, that might come into play. Um, lighting and because of the nature of the business, waste waste
management, how are you going to deal with that? Um, other than that, probably falls under the kennel regulations, too, I'd imagine. Right. But still, it's something we're going to want to consider. Yeah, it's a double. We're just going to compost it on site. No, that's not going to work. No. So, if
you'd like, I can I can answer. I mean, you're just going to have to say it again to at the public hearing anyway. So, this is just stuff to give you an idea as to what we're appreciating. And at the at the special hearing, like you're going to have to it's like a full-on presentation and like this conversation hasn't h you know, it's
like this is the opportunity the special permit hearing is like the presentation to the public to us. This is like an informal conversation where we um might guide you. Yeah. Flag it. Raise any things that we want to make sure that you can consider like lighting might be another thing if you're considering adding additional lighting. That's a big
thing neighbors and the public um care about. Um along with like I mentioned noise and and you know the stuff that the other things that Doug raised namely. Anything else comes to mind? No. I just
think the only thing just thinking about that site I mean the only thing that might be tricky and I think Doug Doug touched on it was traffic in and out right at that intersection right there. But I mean it's it's been a business before. So yeah they've worked before. And and the nature of the business is not going to be constant traffic all day
long going in and out. It's a little bit in the morning, a little bit midday, a little in the afternoon or early evening. So people are dropping off whereas even with the bookstore there would be cars parked for longer than Yeah. Yeah. Where is that little U shape? And it would just be like a drop off pickup. Yeah. And so being
thoughtful like you know maybe there's signage or some being thoughtful about how that would work. Um going on five and 10 versus on depot road and that those those types of things um is something that we would be considering and probably the butters might we can
want uh for further thought about as well. So just making sure you're thinking about that. Um, but yeah, it's I like it. Sounds good. Yeah. And then just so you're aware also of the process like there could be, you know, a range of butters
here. There could be no one here. There could be a lot of people here. Um there could be a lot of support. There could not be. So then we take um some of that feedback into consideration and we can either vote to approve with conditions um based on stuff that was raised. We
could also uh vote to continue the hearing to the following meet another meeting if there's like things we need like if for example you didn't give us a comprehensive plan or like we thought there were some glaring missing pieces something like that and so then you would come back with more information to
us at the following meeting um that kind of thing or we could you know decide to vote that night that night um okay so just you're aware of the process and the timeline so thank you but yeah excited to see something happen
with that property. Um, and yeah, we we're, you know, excited to see something like this in Hapfield, I think. Yeah. But yeah, any other questions? And feel free to reach out to Bella if you have any questions um going forward about the
the process or any sticking points with the bylaws. So, and we still have to get you well, Jenny can get you the formal list of abutters. I just sent you a casual one, but there may be like everyone within 300 feet of the premises, so she's the final authority on who the actual voters are. Yeah.
Totally. Yeah. Yeah. Any further questions? I don't think so. No. All right. Great. Great. Thank you everyone. Thank you, And then. Yeah. Um, also just let us know if we'll like to be added to the agenda for June. I'm sure you'll be a conversation. Yeah, we do. So, yeah.
Okay. Great. Perfect. Cool. All right. Thank you guys. Talk to you soon. All right. Um the next uh item on the agenda is uh potential proposed business for
Six Church A with um Andy and Mandy Black. I'm not Andy. You're not Andy. Correct. Yeah. Please introduce yourself for the record. Uh I'm Mandy Black representing my husband Andy. Uh he is on vacation
and also property owner. Yep. Uh I'm Dan Dones. Uh I'm with Thiago Construction. Uh we are the potential uh tenant there for that space. Okay. So I know that this is a parcel
that was as of a couple years ago was zoned for a residential um kind of spot-zone residential was surrounded by um those in the business zone business. Um and it was this six church a and four church a I think it's eight eight other
side of to the right okay yeah so there's two except for two parcels that were zoned rural residential these were all surrounded by zone business zone uh business zone um and so it was brought towards to town meeting uh to change the zoning for those to business to match
the character of the neighborhood and so now the pro the the parcel is zoned business however Our will note for the public if anyone is googling our assessor's map and looking at it. Okay, so that confused the heck out of me. All right, the assessor's map still shows
that it's zoned for a residential, but it is not. It is zoned business. We passed that at town meeting. It was approved by the attorney general's office. Enough time has gone by that it is approved. Um so just for the public's awareness and and the board's awareness.
And the board's awareness. Yes. Um, so the question is, uh, probably similar to the previous applicant, like the process and what does that look like potentially? Um, and would that type of business be allowed in business in the business zone?
Yeah. Cool. All right. Um, so the type of business you do, uh, could you explain that a little more so we can try and figure Yeah. What's the plan? Uh so our current offices are in Ammerst right now on Triangle Street. Uh
we have horrible parking and we're getting overrun by students and dormitories. Um we currently rent uh the barn a part of the barn from Andy on that property and looking to consolidate u some of our locations to make it a
little more logistically helpful for us. Uh, so a building that we're talking about doing would be about 2 to 3,000 square feet and it'd be mostly offices to house about 20 to 25 employees. Um, there's currently a house on there,
correct? And a barn. Barn, right? Yeah. Yeah. And it would be an addition to what's already on the property. Y is housing for 25 people. Not like at a max. I mean, currently
we're we're at 15 employees and that's just in and out full-time staff in offices is about five or six. So, um the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that there's like wetlands behind there. So, I don't know. I'd have to pull up a map and see what that would
look like because that could potentially limit that could be a limit what you can do. How much roof you can be on a property. Sorry. whether or not you can even build how much you could of the property you could cover up. I see. Okay, that's also you the wetland delineations are only good for three
years. So unless there was one done within 3 years what you're seeing on the map it's like you need a new delineation to be done and then that person I'm going to take my notes on my phone so don't think I'm just like yeah we're also recording this too Facebook in the middle of a
meeting. Um, so the other thing just like when you're rural residential and you're building a house or whatever, like you don't have to know like these don't apply, but now that it's owned business and you're putting, you know, going through the special would be a special permit process. Um, there's, you
know, more that you have to consider. Yeah. Because it's generally considered a heavier use than just someone living in the on the parcel. Um, it's own business. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. But I'm just saying now that it's now now business from residential. No, understood. But um I'm assuming that
this would I mean what's the size of the building you'd be talking about? 2 to 3,000. It's a commercial building. So it's actually only it's there's no public hearing. There's it's a site plan review. Well, Kyle allow according to the schedule. He has to take in all the you know percentage of the thing and
he'll just take your permit. Right. But we still have to do site plan review. Yes. which is so it's different than what we just explained to the previous people. Um the site plan review we still notify Butters but it's more of just like an informational
I thought that was for site plan approval. Site plan review doesn't require a butters notice. Okay. So going back to the way that it's worded, it says that we I believe based on previous in incidents
that it says we have to notify them within a certain amount of time. We interpreted that as notifying them of the decision, but at one point, but we felt it was more proactive of us to notify them of the discussion even if they don't have Yep.
um even though we can't overtly turn down something that has special site plan approval, right? Kind of overreaching the wording, I think, is what we decided on. Yeah. To be, you know, more proactive and inclusive of
the community. It's it's worded vaguely. So, is that like another special meeting or So, yeah. So what would happen is we would um it's a just you said site plan site plan review. You put together a site plan. So you put down a site plan. Yeah. Of like what you want to do, the
size and scope of of the project, making sure that it fits within the wetlands delineations, all that kind of stuff. Yeah. And going in the assumption is that it's an an allowed use. Um and it's and it's up to you to just basically define it and it's on you to cause it to
be rejected. If you're proposing something that's outside the scope of what is allowable in the zone or what's allowable in the wetlands area and all that, then no, it wouldn't fly. But go coming into site plan review, the expectation is that it's an allowed use and we want to just make sure that we're checking all the boxes. So that's
basically it, right? And it would the right and it would be you know doing a just making sure that the project the the construction and pieces of it you know the public get the abuters get a chance to look at the projects and they get notified of it so they can come and see that like the presentation of what's
going to happen to that parcel. Okay. But it's not it's not like it's not in our purview to reject something unless it's completely flies in the face of the storm. Like if that's what you got to go through with us. Yeah. get approved, your site plan approved and then you're off for a commercial building permit.
You know, you take that plan and you show this is what we want to do. And you would be getting doing a site plan anyway. It's just comes to us for visibility and for the public to get visibility on it. So their process stepping forward would be really it's
the wetlands to start. Always. You may need the wetlands. You may need the wetlands delineation. The state everywhere was like built. Yeah. Yeah. So, our commercial corridor is still on, right? So, get your wetlands delineated and talk to the engineer who's doing it.
It'll be they'll they'll know the regulations. That's step one. Um, if they if they determine, yeah, you might need conservation commission review of this. That would be the second step. Okay. The conservation commission review you can do simultaneous with this process because they're kind of independent,
parallel. That might save you a little time. That's only if we have any issues with it like potential concerns. you are within and I don't know the way it it's X if you're in within X distance from that from the wetland buffer it's it's
called a buffer zone you may either need to give notice of intent which is a longer process again public notice to a butters um or it may just be a request for determination which is do we need you guys to review this which is just asking a formal asking of the question
to the conservation so the existing building is only 173 three feet from the furthest point of the river behind you. This um and so there's almost no way that you're not going to be building within the buffer unless you're trying
to build east of the house. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Well, then you might be fine. You're not building behind. No, no, no. It's in front of the barns. It's basically do east closer to the edge of the Okay. Yeah. It's basically closer to 91. It's a setback. It's between like the house and and then the only thing you have to pay attention to is set.
Yeah. and potentially wetlands too. Who knows? It's Yeah, it's still it's still worth it to do that because if you're planning any parking areas or any, you know, significant landscaping, all that might come into play, but you want you want to keep Triangle Street going or you going to move the whole mess over here? We're gonna close it all down in
Ammerst. Do you have another yard or is this going to be all This will be all us. Yeah. Nice. For the most part, there's a a roofing roofing rents out the other half of the barn right now. And then and we are just talking about office, right?
Yeah. Uh vehicle storage, overnight vehicle storage of We already have that already had it going in the barn at the Oh, on the same site. Yeah. Okay. What we're doing is consolidating but not a materials yard. No. No. Ar is across the street. Oh, no. No. Fair enough. Okay.
No, I didn't I didn't know if So, we do we do mostly residential commercial constructions for just construction. Fair enough. We're not doing not landscaping. Not happy construction. We have tons of equipment and stuff like that. Fair enough. I see. Thank you. Then we have like two trucks or three trucks at max. Oh, that's fine. That's fine. Okay. And then also if you planned
on like paving anything extra, that would be I think you might unfortunately be looking at an NOI which is the like I'm looking here and even um so this is the river here and then
200 feet there from the river is this spot. And so if you're anywhere further back than that, then you're building in the buffer. So you need an NOI, which is you'll just need to come before Concom. And you and I can talk about that process if you want. I'm the agent for Concom. So it's just a it's just a
little more involved process. All too often in Hammer, so everything's an intermittent stream. I got it. Exactly. All right. Do you have any other questions for now? for just so you're aware too, we meet once a month. Um, but
you have some other stuff to do before you bring that I think before us. So, we don't generally have a meeting in July because the first Wednesday of the month is usually around July 4th. However, if enough stuff comes up, we could make a special meeting in July. Um, there's
potential for us needing to anyway with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and their work that they're doing. Just a heads up for you. Um but it would be you know based probably on what works for the board and their timeline probably too. So just yeah so you're
aware of timeline you go right. Yeah. I think the biggest thing is just going to be the concom review. Other than that like you said it's within the right usage and everything else. So as long as we're good with the setbacks and building size. Yeah. And I'd say probably try to
get the again let project even though it's not required to get the project in a couple weeks ahead of time so that we have time to notify the abutters um and letting them know that this conversation is going to happen. Cool. Great. Any other questions or comments from the board?
All right. Okay. Good luck with the concom Thank you. Okay. Is Andrew Um, I guess he's coming in later. Yeah, I told him probably like 6:45 and he's didn't realize these things would be quick. No, that's good. Um, okay.
Actually, since we're talking about industrial brushes on Elm, I have some I put it on the agenda just so the public can knows that we're continuing a conversation even though I knew it probably would show up on your updates. Yeah. Section. I wanted to things we want to be intentional about the public
knowing we're discussing. Yeah. Yeah. Pulling it out of like the generic dates from you. Okay. Well, since it is in my up, do you want to talk about it now since it's not here? Okay. Yeah. The storm water thing. He said to make it last on the agenda if we So, great. Okay.
So, I'll recap what we talked about with the puric properties because I've realized some stuff. Um, so 65 is the one in the front. the house that he's currently renting out one unit of or whatever with a bar with a barn
attached. Yeah. Has a barn in the back. And he wanted to do two family in the barn. Behind that is 65D that has the cigar the big industrial factory on it. And then he wanted to do to start off with one attached residential unit.
Um that those are two parcels. The front parcel is split zoned with residential in the front and industrial in the back and 65D the back parcel is all industrial. So we had talked about reszoning in that way. Then across little Neponet is 67 which has a garage
on it and he had talked about wanting to put two family units two two family units right up sorry two single single d above the garage. Okay. Um, and that one's owned rural residential. Yes.
Although it was also wrong on the map. So, we confirmed it was right. That was the one thing. We told them it was fine. You could do that on the rural residential parcel. Yes. Um, however, oh, we talked a lot about the zoning. We did not talk about the square footage of
either of any of these parcels. Hey, the only one that's big enough for any of this is 65D, which has the cigar factory on it. 65 is uh 43,000 square feet and 67 though we told him it was fine forward is 16,000.
Was he talking about changing the footprint size of the building or just going up? Well, you can't put a two family on anything under 60,000. Our goal zoning I had even go up on an existing building that's you know that's not it's not a conformed use, right?
It's a lot. That's the nonconformity. Yeah. And then the other and then the other thing too with our zoning bylaws is like we have lot size requirements for a single family and we make the lot size get consistently bigger if you're going to have a two family or three family or four family which is another whole thing with our zoning bylaws that we need to
think about with right in general but I think multif family is the same 60,000 if it's in the zone that he's in I think either way I thought what he could do is if he combines 65 and 65D
okay so which ones are those two again the um cigar our factory and then the one with the house in the barn. Two different zones, right? Two different zones, right? Now to combine, then you have to decide what you combine those two lots, right? Then you have to decide. No, because 65 is already split
zoned. Yeah. So it doesn't really maintain their split zoning. Wow. So if you combine them, then you would have the square footage. But does he have the frontage? Uh yeah, that one seems like it'd be tight. No, don't unless unless you uh count that right away as frontage as a
public way counting the ponet that's the problem. But is the ponet technically a road? Is it a public way? It's a it's shows that it's a right of way at least on the assessor's map but and well but it also right so if he doesn't have the frontage either in that case I was talking to Kyle it's like well he could
apply for a variance about the front edge but that's a whole thing you can't it's a created nonconformity they won't grant it. So if the frontage is out truly that's like the decide that's a nail in the coffin I guess. So we can't do anything until we resone argue. But even then he can only
do it on the back about you can argue about neponset. It's a road for hundreds of years. He can make it a public way. He could establish it as a as a private road we subdivision right. Wait, but what why would it change when we resone? I mean, if we reszone real residential talk about the frontage, you know, if
you had if that neponet was a it would have two it would have street and a ponzet, right? 125422, he still wouldn't have enough frontage on the Yeah. All right. So, that's But if we're talking about the big the cigar factory site, the front if we combined this one and
that one. Oh, that one and that one. Yeah. But you can't have split frontage, can you? You can't count frontage on two separate roads to to meet your minimum frontage. Oh, fun. Cool. Cool, cool, cool. Can he
prove the existence of those of those lot lines prior to zoning or were those lots created? I'm assuming that they were created. The lines were drawn separately. Wouldn't they have been combined? Well, never mind. Um, maybe.
I was going to say there's that whole merge doctrine thing, but that was somebody else probably owned it before the if he created those zoning lot lines or if somebody created those zoning lot lines actively, then it was a selfimposed nonconformity. Um, and there's nothing that can be done.
When you say zoning lot lines, are you talking about the split talking about the line between 61 and the 65 and 65D? Yeah, the history what what that how that happened. Well, he could probably still do an ADU though. True. That's the only thing that he
could do. That's the only thing he could do. All right. Or convert. It's possible to get a a special permit to convert an existing structure. Yeah. I mean, is he talking about converting an existing structure? Yes. The garage and the garage. Oh, then there's a provision in the bylaws which basically
says that the planning board can by special per special permit allow for uh alteration or even expansion of a non-conforming use or a non or even a structure on a non-conforming property if they determine that the nature of the
expansion or alteration does not increase the nonconformity. Right? So if it doesn't it's the lot the lot itself is nonform it's not gonna break the fact that it's already not and we're as long as they're not expanding the footprint and stuff and even if they are expanding
the footprint if we make a determination that the use as proposed is going to be as equal or less impactful than what was what was there. I don't know though yeah it's currently garage both of them are garages. What are they but he's proposing to convert it to residential. Yeah that's a lesser impact on the
neighborhood I would think. One's a barn though. I don't know. But that would be the argument would be made. But that would be that's a makeable argument. That's all the only leg they've got to stand. And I would say that's up to the applicant. That's a makeable
argument to be unable makeable argument. It's it's at least an avenue that they could explore. It'll be up to them to prove that. And probably they would need to talk about current use on the lot, current
accesses on the lot by vehicles, truck traffic, uh current impacts, you know, how many uh crossings are there across sidewalks or other, you know, public modes of of transportation? Will that increase or decrease? Will the noise on the lot increase or decrease? Will it be
adding green space? That kind of thing. Where in our bylaws is that that you speak of? thought that was um is it in the table of use because that would be um nice. Yeah, I think so. Yes. Uh alteration
extension 3.4.3. Amazed I pulled this out of my hat here. If I can find 3.4 alteration. Okay. Pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses may be extended or altered when planning board finds that such extension, alteration, or change is not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use. That's different. Not substantially more. It's got a lot more. Yeah. Not substantial. Yeah. However, if the neighborhood shows up and thinks that it is, then that would be that
something we would consider. Absolutely. detrimental is like vague on purpose. Yeah. So substant exactly not substantially more substantially more like come on let's that's just trying to avoid an argument
that says oh well the existing use is 30 car trips per day the proposed use is 35 that's terrible and that can't be allowed no it's not a substantial increase substantially more so measurable does not mean substantial okay all right so we could do that
without reszoning But do we still want to have a conversation about reszoning those? Um but no, it isn't the problem. The zoning is industrial. The whole thing it doesn't help even No, the zoning doesn't have anything to do with this problem. Yeah, I thought except I'm sorry. This is for the one lot that
actually is zoned residential still. Yeah, the front is residential. But wait, no. So wait, we the garage though, the garage one is residential. Residential. This is would this we would do and could purs they could pursue this that way. Yes. However, the other the
other parcels would still need to be reszoned. Yeah. Before they can do anything before they could do anything. Although even if they do though, they have the frontage bro. They have the frontage. That's right. I mean I would there's no point trying to resone. No. No. Because they could still if they reszoned and made it all real residential, they could then apply again
for the special permit, the alteration or extension, etc. Yeah. At least for the one with the house in the barn. And then they could they don't need the alteration and extension for 65D if we reszoneed it to rural residential. They would just go through the process.
Although I was checking with Kyle before this and he said it's like you said something about the more restrictive zone governing the use and then he was saying actually it is the front end the one you have to pass through. So I was wondering whether because the front part of 65 is zoned residential does that
mean he actually can does that dictate if the back is zoned industrial residential uses are not allowed by right they have to be approved or there's very significant limitations right okay I mean I'm I guess I don't totally get it because
it's like in that case what does it mean for the the zoning that's on the front part of the parcel to be the one that governs the use it's because there's a They probably kept it real residential in the back office barn. So they owned that industrial and the fact that he wants to update the barn. Yeah. I Yeah. Well, the
last thing I did tell him in that email thread that was going to be confusing was that he does need to wait to change the zone to do anything on 65 anyway. Yes. So, we found a way to Okay. Last time we said yes, he can move ahead with the
garage because it was owned for residential, but that wasn't true because of the square footage, so tiny the non-conformity of the lot. However, we now determined that he can through a special permit, right, through section
3.4.3, 4.3, right? And ask for an extension or of it. And then he has to prove that the use doesn't significantly increase the impact basically. Yep. And then less substantially will not substantially be
more include the neighborhood. That's the way you put it. Well, no. So even if it increases the use on the lot, even if he's converting a barn into a residence, is that going to be more detrimental in a residential neighborhood? Answer is probably no, right? But it's up to him to prove that.
Yes. Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, okay. Not as simple with that lot, but still possible. Still a way forward. It's a way forward. Okay. A sineuous way forward, but nevertheless, snaky, right? Twisted passageway forward as his wand.
Yes. Okay. May I now talk about 12 to 18? I hope you a whole other So I think Oh, you want to talk about the reasoning maybe more? Yeah. So the last meeting I alluded to potentially another parcel of
industrial zone property and Elm Street that was interested in putting residential or condos on the part on the parcel but it's zon industrial which we don't allow residences slashcondos whatever to be
built besides more than just one. There's allowance for like one unit, but that's anyway the plan was not allowed with the industrial unit, industrial zone. So, the idea is we could reszone the ones we just talked about,
the Pureic properties along with this other one, which now is 12 to 18 Elm Street. I didn't reference the property before, but we can. Right. I was gonna there was he had a question this week, right, that he emailed you about whether because so he has the storage
construction is in process still. He's built three of the six that he had planned units that we approved, right? Which that was approved at a 2023 hearing. There was an ANR in May 2023
that weirdly split those parcels into two. Yes. One of them had like 65 ft of frontage, which we realized wasn't like, "Oh, no." So then there was another ANR in September where you combined the parcels and he
never Oh, I don't think they ever filed the first one either. It did, right? Yeah. Well, so this is the theme that I was bringing up. It shows his two parcels on our zoning map. I don't know if maybe he did file the first one and that's why it's showing us two parcels
on our zoning map, but it is a condition of his special permit that he file that the ANR be filed to combine the two parcels back into one. It's just that you had to have the ANR hearing after the special permit was issued. So, it's written into the special permit that like in one month when you get the
ANR, then you'll file it with the registry of deeds and the parcels will be combined and then you can proceed with your construction project. But he did not file them with a registry. And so technically it is still two pieces which I don't really know what we do with that. It's in violation of special
permit. It is right. So that's one wrinkle. Okay. And that should have been caught. Um well I don't know who if it's a condition of the permit. Yes. But I don't know. This is like more an administrative thing that even comes up with the PBPC recommendations is like
what are the administrative steps to making sure that all the parts get done because these things like come out in the wash later and it's like a whole thing. But so it's still two pieces. He had written to ask if a zoning change would limit his ability to finish the
construction. I told him no. It's like construction in process. It's already done. Let me back up a second. Sorry. So, and I'm assuming am I looking at the right property? That's the right property. Okay. Is it number um 18? 12 and 18. But is it number 18 where the
the first three units are being built? No one east. And some of them might even be on 18 to be quite honest. Well, they're going to be on both, but the ones he's already built are on the eastern part. So unless he files that ANR plan to recombine the lots, then if
he's got buildings that are straddling that dividing line, then he's in violation of the zoning bylaw and a ceaseence decision should be ordered by the building. If he doesn't yet, he's got plans to he's got approved plans to build those three more units. Those are the ones that strat at least one. Well, can't he just like bring that to the So
still, nonetheless, I mean, still that's the building. got to reup the special permit uh or at least just combine the lots and then the special permit is valid. Right. He said I sent him the email about how he hadn't filed the ANR and one hour later he said that he had filed it. But Lori and I
have been looking at the registry all week and it hasn't shown up yet. So I'm a little confused. Kyle was like they show up like in so Kyle was like maybe he handed it to his lawyer and he didn't file it yet. But either way it hasn't that we can tell been filed yet. He is in violation of the special permit. So,
um, so he was concerned about the zoning change. I told him that wouldn't really be a factor, but there's all these other factors to consider, right? Yeah. Um, the other things, separate issue, that's one issue. That's one issue. Not related to the historical one, not the Okay. The special permit. Um, I wanted to find out
if his special permit was going to expire. Basically, it will lapse if the project isn't substantially completed within two years of approval. But he's built. Is that according to our bylaws or state bylaws? Our completed or completed. So really substantially
completed according to NGL means that it's at least enough of it has been completed that it is like usable or occupiable for its intended purpose. So he is renting out I think three of those units already. So from what I can tell that shouldn't trigger our he's not
substantially complete with the six unit. The problem though is the reason why he hasn't substantially part maybe one of the reasons he hasn't substantially completed is because that barn Yeah. which is so there's a barn on the property which is this that he wanted to knock down but there was a he
can now because that's laps that year that year delay so but that is part of why he hasn't probably substantially because there was a what is the term called when historical delay historic it's like demolition delay there was a demolition delay about it being
potentially historic and so it was they had a whole year to try and figure out if it was histo and that year has finally up but only recently finally up I believe so Okay. I and forgive me for asking this question. Well, don't forgive me. I don't care if you do or not. Are the condominiums business or
are they offices or are they residential? We haven't even gotten that far. He wants to do residence cond. Yes. So, what I'm sorry then what is he building? Storage. Storage unit. Storage units. Continuation. I'm sorry. Okay. Moving on. Thank you. are coming. So,
him requesting the wanting to do a conification of the historic home there, right? Has triggered all of this other stuff, right? You still haven't even got Now, now, let me back up a little bit here. Um,
is a multif family? No, a multif family dwelling is not allowed in that zone. Period. That thus, now I'm starting to get it. Thus, the request to change the zoning. Right. I would say until he gets everything else in place, I'm not willing to consider a change in zoning in spite of the fact that I think it
should go back to rural residential, but sure. I mean, we were this some of it is our fault. And I say ours in like the town's fault in that we did not our fault, but we delayed the construction with the demo delay of the barn where some of those in the law storage units
are supposed to go. That's in the public law. that was in, you know, that really investigating and this is this is sort of playing a a bait and switch. Oh, I want to put up storage units. So, can I get my property zoned, you know, industrial because that's allowed by right. Okay, thank you very much. But now I want to put in a
residential condo. So, now can I switch it to residential because that's allowed by right. We didn't make sense. It's been zoned industrial. We weird pocket zone. That was whoever the previous previous people were blah blah blah. So, the town that did that allowed it and the town meeting that approved it. I
don't it was always zoned in nothing went to town meeting or about zoning this. It's been like that. It was like that when he was allowed to do that. It was just like Yeah. There's no bait and switch if in that regard. Yes. Like all of these like part of this plan is I'm
going to combine these two lots. We were like they were both already zoned industrial like that. Well, no, but they were zoned industrial like that at some point in the past long ago. Unless unless you're saying that when the zoning map was established, they said, "Oh, there's an industrial use. We might as well zone that industrial. Our entire
map is that's why our map is the way it is. That's where the industry was. You can just look that barn is like it's like set up for major. Okay. So that explains a lot about the way the map looks. Correct. It is more an identification of the type of business or the type of use of the land at the
time versus anything proactively. There was there was an insul there was an insulation um manufacturing business on site in the 80s and it also used to be like a dance hall and and I think that's what I think that's when the zoning went through. Yes. In the 80s there was an asbestous removal insulation
manufacturing company uh in there. So the only intentionally zoned like industrial is like corridors kind of along five and 10ish area. But everything else where it's spot zoned all across the town with these heavier uses is because it was like that at some
was that use was there previously, right? And it was probably the land owners wanting it. Some storage units want a billboard. It was a no-brainer. Sorry. So, I think the two things that maybe are a little unsure. Um, I mean, I
got substantially completed from MGL and I'm not sure. It's like enough of the project that it can be occupied and used. I do think you might be renting out the storage units. So, I think this is a thing to run by town council to find out like what substantially completed means. I have never heard of a
special permit expiring. It doesn't expire, right? Well, upon unless it's substantial completion. I've heard of special permits expiring and MGL supports this that a special permit shall expire unless substantial commencement of the work. Yeah. The start the work has to start, right? And
and depending on what town you're in, that's defined differently. Yeah. Um in some towns it's I've pulled I pulled the building permit. That's substantial commencement of the work. Yeah. With the building permit, if it's lapsed for 180 days, then he has to get an extension. It expires. Yeah. So, I don't know how
long he's not been building for, but basically, I asked him for a timeline of the remaining construction. There's a bunch of loose ends he needs to tie up. It's kind of a mess. There's also an open NOI or an open order conditions for the property with the Yeah, that's the other thing I was looking at is the
water behind it. Yeah. So, there's just a lot going on with it. And this is why this is why I mentioned the theme of the theme. Yes. Um, and I think that again with with PVPC's suggestion, even just what they sent us, which actually did Lori point that out? Yes, she did. She did. Okay. One of the things is just
like administrative processes and like how do we like with a lot of concom stuff, there's like triggers to for the concom to follow up, but like how do we follow up with like ANRs and making sure that these things get right done? Because we're not like an enforcement
agency like Concom is. you file this within XD and it goes to the zoning enforcement officer to do that. So, we kind of just like approve the plans and then all right, where's the next one or deny a plan? Um, one of the things that we can do, a couple of things that we can do first is we can ensure that the
registry is not going to record a plan, an ANR plan that is more than a year out of date. They're required by law to not record a plan that's more than a year out of date. Oh, well, maybe that's that's on the registry to to deal with that. Um, that's so that's one thing we
can check with them about and find out if that's something they check. The other thing we can do is make sure that the building inspector has a notification of every special permit that's granted and every ANR that's signed that they have a copy and that they rely on that instead of the assessor's maps which are
not reliable clearly right um and it's not the assessor's fault. It's the map company that we can that we right farm out the map to. Yeah. Time to Yeah. Yeah. do something about that. Um well because the registry I think sends the
assessor a package every whatever after things get voted on. And so if the assess if somebody doesn't file something at the registry then the assessor doesn't get it and then they don't put it in the only other thing I can think of is is talk to the building inspector and ask if there's a process of review for building permits where
conservation and planning and anyone else has to sign off on it before the permit is granted. Right? because then that would that would mean oh they've applied for a permit for this storage unit. Then you could go back look at the records and go where's the recorded ANR
where they've combined the two lots. Now that stops the building permit in its tracks until they fix that. Um and it's not like we're trying to like be like like stop projects and like it's
like legally liability rise. It's about liability to the town and us trying and us trying to be good stewards of the town. No, because there's been definitely a narrative of us being like we want to be pro business and pro and it's like but not at the expense of the potential liability of life of the
neighborhood in the quality of life of the neighborhood. So that's something that I just want to be clear about. Um yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. You want to talk about storm water before? Yeah. You can go to any
Yeah, might as well. Yeah. There. So, the things that we have left is voting to accept reject the open space and recreation plan, fire Valley Planning Commission's goals for zoning diagnostics, and the storm water bylaw. So, let's do the uh most tedious one first. You mean what we just did was not
tedious. There's so much more. Most remaining a little handout, but is that separate? Okay. Okay. Excellent. So, is this going to be at town meeting? It is. Oh,
it is. Oh, it is. And I'll explain why. Legal services. And so, what's in your packets tonight is the text of a bylaw, right? Stay with me. The reason the
reason we're doing this is if it fails, which people might have enough questions about it that it fails, then we'll need to do a special town meeting, which is fine. We can do that. But we thought it was worth trying to get some information out there, educate folks, and see if they'd be on board with passing it because it really just serves as the
shell for the regulations that come through. And the regulations will need to be passed by this board. Um, and we will have consultant help, legal help, everything else to get there and do that over the the course of the next year. Can you explain why this is so important? I can, and it's in your your
handout as well. Um, uh, about the article 36. So, uh, the reason we're doing this is because, uh, it's part of the MS4 permit. So, this is the municipal small uh, sewer systems uh, permit uh, from the EPA and state D. Um,
we are required to have a bylaw that uh that uh complies with federal standards on construction and post construction uh storm water management and the town has received a letter from the EPA uh tell telling us we are out of compliance with regulations since we don't have this uh
set of regulations or bylaws on the books and we have been told to remedy this by February 2nd, 2026. So they give us some time but not a whole lot of time. Um, so what we need is both a bylaw that sets a framework and then
regulations that would be then passed by the the planning board. And the bylaw is roughly the same as sample bylaws that have been passed in other communities. And I think when you read it through, it should work pretty well here. There are
a significant number of exemptions that are in there, and we can talk about all of that. Um, but passing the bylaw would put us on the path to be able to comply with this uh this this order from the administrative order from the EPA while we also work on the specific regulations
uh that will be part of issuing that permit that comes from the planning board. So, can I ask a question really quick? Yes. Is it a zoning bylaw or a nonzing? It is non a zoning bylaw. This is a general bylaw. This is a hot one for me. Yeah, this is a hot Oh, sure. So we don't get
to really this is the other spicy one. Oh, this is a general bylaw that mandates that the planning board does stuff. Yes. That we become the permitting become the permitting authority. And do we know anything about storm water? We're gonna have
so another another question. When did the EPA reach We hire an engineer every time we need to review a project to make sure it's in compliance with federal EPA standards on the dime of the applicant. Technically, we could. So, interesting
you say anytime that an applicant comes in. This is for any product a project that's over an acre in size and has substantial exemptions for a number of different kinds of projects. It talks about disturbance of soil over the size of an acre. Most residential projects,
if it's just, you know, the footprint of a of a house, something else, it shouldn't be triggered. We're talking about subdivisions. We're talking about, you know, larger commercial projects. Those are already going through parking lots going in. Parking lots. A lot of these are going to be subject to a special permit anyways. And this would
create basically another step as part of the special permit. Uh, is this storm water management? I have a question for you, Ronda. When did you hear from the EPA on this? And have those people been fired and will we hear from them again before February 2026? That is not an
invalid question. It was actually something occurred to me earlier today. Yes. I was um chances I was shocked to hear from him again. Okay. Uh with the consent order with the administrator. They're bothering with little. Okay. Yeah. This is this is important to them
and and they're still here. Um which is good. So yes. So, uh, let me just go over really quickly on on article 36, I have this little what does this do? So, creates this new storm water management permit that must be obtained in order to con,
uh, conduct any construction activity that will disturb or impact at least one acre of land and that's there in the the regulations in the bylaw. Clarifying question on the at least one acre of land. So, it's disturbing one acre or the parcel's one acre and I'm
gonna says disturbing one acre. Parcel's an acre. The par parcel could be 15 acres, but you're only working on disturbing, you know, half an acre of it. It shouldn't apply. Disturbing. Define disturbing. The the bylaw does.
Okay. Um Okay. But anything that would mean moving it. Yeah. Okay. So, as I said, number of exemptions in here. It establishes the planning board as the permit granting authority and enforcement entity except in areas already under jurisdiction of
the conservation commission. So, we won't have duplication. That's going to be it. That's going to be we're going to need to up a whole lot of them. We're going to need an increase in our stipen next year. He's baking and budget. Increase increase in the staff time and training and everything else of the assistant planner. I think makes a lot of sense.
Absolutely. um our argument to expand the hours of the assistant planner. I agree with that. Yeah. Okay. Continue. Uh allows the planning board to create the specific rules and regulations for obtaining this permit and that's what we'll have significant help to do. That's another article at town meetings
to get us those that funding from our engineers from engineers that we hired to do this. I ask one more question. I'm really sorry. Get it? No, don't be sorry. This is a forum. Really sorry. When it says except in areas under jurisdiction of the concom does that mean like concom would have jurisdiction
in those areas? Yeah. Their regulations which are like if so if there's wetlands on the property and it triggers conservation review does that mean that it's not a planning board thing anymore because correct it's so full of wetlands in this town that that's going to be like a huge number of these are actually
going to go through conservation instead of you we have to issue storm water management permits. No, I think if it's if it's already if the issue is already under review by the conservation commission then it would be a conservation commission question at this point. Not then
conservation commission become like the permit granting in that scenario for the whole site or just for the wetland an MS4 permit is not required where conservation commission already has jurisdiction. It's saying that we duplicate have to do this process if it's already covered by the conservation
commission. they take it over because the conservation commission is enforcing state law as opposed to local regulations. Yeah. And the conservations is more it's more restrictive. They're not going to allow you to manage storm water in a buffer zone. They're going to and there's usually a storm water um
permit you need for all these projects anyway within most of what conservation does. So I'm just saying that kind of that further narrows down the number of projects that maybe planning would be in charge of righting and kind of judges. is a big lift from
concom potentially another reason because this role your role supports concom so yeah okay go on sorry and then allows the planning board to wave these provisions if it is in the public interest and in other select circumstances that's there in the bylaw
as well so there's a number of ways to to work with this if it's if it looks like it's going to be an issue and it says here what happens if the bylaw is rejected it says we're just going to have special town meeting, you know, review the bylaw. What h you know, what happens if we don't comply by
February 2nd? I think there's two things that could happen. One is just we're told by the EPA, you're you're still non-compliance and that's that's bad. Um I don't know if they start moving to to fines or whatever else. I I don't know yet. I don't want us to get to that point. I'm
just Yeah. And then the other thing is I wonder if there's other ways to potentially do we need a bylaw passed? Is it just a policy of the conservation commission or a policy of the planning board that would then be enough? I I don't know. Policy of the health uh
adopted into our local health codes. Maybe there's another way to try to to get there um without a bylaw. But I I would think bylaw is the best approach that would satisfy the federal requirements. Fine. Yeah. So, if I may.
Yep. Um did anyone look at the zoning bylaw 7 section 7 storm water management? So what's in in there? I was the regulation for the proper management of storm water is adopted under the provisions of MGL chapter 48. The purpose of the bylaws to better manage
land development in order to protect maintain and enhance the public health, safety and general welfare. It includes uh objectives. It includes applicability. Um it's actually more restrictive. any development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of new impervious surfaces, any project
that results in the disturbance of one acre or more of soil. So, are we out of compliance because we don't have a non-zoning law matches the one acre and requires and what the zoning bylaw does that and and I understand this is only the first
step in a larger process, but what the zoning bylaw does is it gives us criteria. It gives us the measuring sticks that we're supposed to use to measure a project. Um it's it it defines what the applicant needs to provide. It defines the performance standards that we're supposed to use, the design
criteria that it's supposed to be used, maintenance of any storm water management system. It requires the applicant to um to provide a performance bond to make sure that they're going to actually install the system as designed. Um have we actually done any part? No.
Well, with a larger project, no. Like Okay. The difference Yeah. So if it's a zoning, if it's part of the zoning, then are we already the enforcement body for right? Well, we're not we are not enforce the building inspector. Well, the zoning enforcer does. Well, it
requires a special permit issued by we have to approve it. But yeah, by the planning board, but yeah, the whereas this would be a nonzoning bylaw and then we would be the new enforcers of this thing. Is that are we just out of compliance because it's not a because they needed nonzing. We need to match up
what we're reading here in zoning with with what EPA is charging. Yeah. And we got to make sure they're clear on what we have and where what's the delta what's what's missing from this looks like exemptions here that I got to go to
the zoning thing there. There are certain things that are missing from the zoning bylaw which mostly it's the references to the um uh mass stormwater standard. I don't remember the acronym, but but um the EPA and what's that? NEPIES. Is it the Yes. NPDES? Yes. The
NPDS standards. Um and there's a few other things that are in there that we could incorporate into the existing zoning bylaw and we'd be I zoning bylaws have the same enforcement authority as a general bylaw. Mhm. So the other thing too is I
remember from the comprehensive plan committee there was mention about we could like there was reference to our storm water by bylaws and like we could tighten them up a little bit more these exemptions into that less of a lift and
we p not pivoting but like hey we're going to be talking about PBPC doing our zoning diagnostic. If they're going to be reviewing this anyway we could ask them to review it against that. Yeah. As well, if they're going to be doing it anyway, they should be calling out things that are out of compiance. Out of
compliance. I I certainly don't want to slow the train down and I understand the urgency of needing to get this, you know, updated and and bring the town into compliance with big bad men in blue from Washington DC. But um
instead of reinventing the wheel, let's just put a new polish on. The framework is there. Yeah, it's already in place. Great. to to dress it up and make it comply with the with what they need. Again, it unfortunately follows up next Tuesday a little bit, but it's fine. We could just not do it.
It's fine. And then if we find out we need to, we could just do it during the special per special meet special town meeting that could happen in the fall anyway. Is there one planned for the fall? Potentially. Special town meeting. Potentially. It was there was pro we
thought we would need to do one for this but now we're pushing ahead to try to see if we can do it for for Tuesday but um I sounds like I need to call the EPA to find out. That's a tricky Yeah, that's a short time frame for that. That sounds like a lot of hold time potentially for what the
read what we got to ask. The question is hold time is measured in days. The question is why we aren't in compliance with what we currently have. It's like they did a cursory reading of or they looked like you don't have this and it turns out we have a good portion
including the text of disturbing an acre of land. Yeah. That's why I'm wondering if there's any like there's some requirement that it needs to be a nonzoning bylaw like if that's right. That's what it seems like. It needs to be up to regular bylaw and not buried zoning or something. But I don't think that shouldn't make a big difference.
Right. It's as as enforceable as a general. Exactly. Okay. So, we might have an argument rather than just a you know quick hustle to comply. Yeah. If it's there there it doesn't have to be reiterated. It whatever special they got a bunch of exemptions in here so we have to like tie that together you know to make sure
that we're cross everyone. Yeah. And I think that's the the text that was provided. Um it feels like it's it's the book ends and what we have now here is the meat in the middle of it. Um
mixing my metaphors sorry but it delicious donut the whole I don't know anyway depends on your book ends I guess but I think that integration of the two sets of of rules the two regulations is possible too much well yeah because we would again light
at the end of the tunnel yeah because we would require you know an applicant to put that storm water management when needed plan together if it's not already like a con thing. Yeah. It's like, do these people even read and do all this work now? People aren't reading the fun
zoning bylaws. They're there to protect the Yeah. Because it was my understanding that our before going into this that our storm water management wasn't out of date and needed to be updated, which still might need to be updated to meet these standards. We don't Yeah.
But enough of it is there. Good start. What do you think? What do you have an exclusive? Sorry to create more work for you now. I mean, I'd love to just pass the thing, but because we know it complies. Um, and if we got this, it's probably because there's something wrong with our our zoning bylaw, but I also
understand wanting to uh, you know, just work with what we already have, but we're also changing a lot of our zoning bylaws anyway. We could remove the the references to the to the storm water uh permits in the zoning bylaws when we when we supersed it with this and this
should make sure this is all covered in. Oh boy. If we know it complies, which I can also find out, you know, what's going on with with what we already have and what's wrong with it. If you wanted to continue to pursue the general bylaw, I would say that the framework you provided is fine as a starting point,
but I would still want to amend it later on to include at least the general content. Not not the specific words, but the general types of content that are in the existing zoning bylaw, the the standards for performance, the criteria
for review, that would all need to be in there. So those would be that's that's the one thing is that the bylaw is proposed right now. All it says is yeah you got to go get a special permit from the planning board and then the idea is that you would pass your own regulations that would then be planning board policies
that that provide the information for that not not at the level of bylaw right I would actually prefer that the criteria and the standards for review be at the level of a bylaw so that a board couldn't by just a vote at a public meeting change it arbitrarily. Yes.
Isn't this like the wetlands protection where it's like the town is allowed to be more restricted than the state and they encourage you to adopt like standardized one and you're able to wrap the ones that we already have into this. That's my and that's what we're going to be using the consultants and town
council for to develop specific regulations. Yep. And that's what Pioneer Valley Planning Commission coming from the comprehensive plan committee with the idea of climate resilience was recommending anyway being a little more restrictive potentially than definitely should. Yeah. Especially
because a lot of our wetlands and it's also currently zoned industrial and commercial. Yeah. Bigger than an acre incidentally. Um where does that put us? What are we saying?
We're a little like chicken egg kind of. Yeah. No, EPA is asking us to require a general permit for storm water discharges and they're asking us to have post construction storm water management regulations. Is it because it's not its own separate
like process? It doesn't say that yet as terms of what they're asking. Going to have to try to find out um and I can try to get more information back. Whatever is I what you know whatever is the course of action that doesn't delay but also doesn't like befuddle
every neither delay nor so that's the question like how how difficult is you're getting that answer out of somebody in in reality like how long will it take us to even you know hear back on this bylaw from attorney general go through the appeal process everything else it's a long process uh even after
we pass it could you get it yeah that's could be done at fall, right? It's going to be the fall. Well, well, no, they have 90 days. We never hear back from the attorney general until like the end of the year on approval and then there's the 90day period stuff. So, you're like
February by the time this thing would be approved anyway, if we were to approve it next week. They have they can respond they have to respond I think by law at the latest within 135 days after which we can assume it's approved, right? And that's what they did with the the ADUs. It was in the previous year when they
rejected something, we didn't hear from them until like late November. So 180 days, right? No, I it's they have to respond within 90 days. They can request an additional I think 45 above that. I I might be wrong on the specific count,
but So we're opposed to voting on this next week. Is that what we're saying? No. No. Okay. What is the downside to voting on this next week? Is that what anyone is saying? I think the downside is we it sounds like we already have some regulations that are very close in our zoning bylaws already. What's the I mean
if the idea is later to revive next week to the public meeting what? Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. It's currently on the on the town meeting warrant. Okay. Yeah. The downside is what Doug said is it could create conflicts. Yeah. It's a lot of controversy. That's what Well, no, he
means like conflicts with this general bylaw in conflict with what is I don't mean like fisty cuffs on the That could happen too. You're right to vote. You never know. The things that you don't think would be controversial are and by the ones you think are going to be controversial aren't general. Well,
so if there was a conflict between what we have now, then it would be something that PBPC could review um between this adopted by there would just be like some conflicting. Yeah. But that means there would be like a year's worth of time where our this bylaw, our general bylaw,
and then the zoning bylaw. That would be our argument to the people. I feel like which could be an issue. Yes. If someone has a good lawyer and is like well does any of this m which is the authority on this
gives us the framework and the time but also could be a question for the attorney. our attorney. Yeah. Should those options like if these things conflict, what is if there's enough language in this bylaw to allow for um the discretion of the
town, then maybe it doesn't conflict. Yeah. I mean, if there's anything that literally conflicts between the two of them, then we have a problem, which some of them sounds like maybe do, but we haven't really done the I have no I haven't compared the two. Yeah, that's
the trick. And the whole Updating the zoning bylaw is just easier than passing the town bylaw. Correct. No, it's the same process. Okay. All right. And it's it's harder to pass the zoning bylaw because you need two-/3s majority, right?
Unless you're talking about housing, then yes. Wouldn't wouldn't count as housing. No. Is this something is this a crazy is this something that the attorney could That's what I Yeah. Review the two. So yes, but I I think that helps us with
this conflicts question. It just doesn't help us with this issue of um what's up with the EPA and why they don't think that this the the current zoning one is sufficient that well that that is a question. I mean some at some point the EPA said, "Hey, your zoning bylaw or
your bylaws don't comply with modern standards for you know storm water management. You got to change them." Somewhere somebody had to have said why. There's a checklist. Yeah. Yeah, for whatever reason, what they always said was you don't have a bylaw, which isn't true. So, I don't know if they just are
completely unaware of this, which or if, as Bella was saying earlier, maybe it needs to be a general bylaw rather than a zoning bylaw, which makes no sense to me, but who knows? It does. I I I can't imagine that happening. Or it's lacking to certain things, right? That's the most likely kind of like you need to
know lacking something. I have a feeling they looked at the general bylaw, didn't see anything that said storm water. A specific title, a specific title didn't bounce out. Didn't I think that's possible. It was done by AI and 19year-old engineers. These guys aren't
doing this, right? Guys are smarter than a small 30,000 person town. Says we need a storm water bylaw. Here we go. So, what's the Sorry. What do you know? Well, I mean the the select board
has voted to put this on the town meeting. Oh, the the planning board can't necessarily Yeah, we're just This is just informing trying to figure this out together. Yeah. Yeah, we want to You have every reason to on town meeting floor say we're not ready for this, which completely makes sense.
Um, but I I'm going to try to find out as fast as possible what I would just be concerned personally from the the question to the attorney of like if these conflict then are we putting ourselves in like a situation where yeah a latigious yeah
that would be my scenario and I would definitely ask town's attorney to identify you know were they aware of the zoning bylaw And were the concerns answered or are the concerns expressed by the federal government answered by
the zoning B? Do we do we are we actually in compliance? That might be a bigger Yeah, a little bit bigger review. Yeah, I'll be asking that. And also knowing too that like we mentioned, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission is doing a zoning bag diagnostic and they would also flag if this is out of
compliance, but not in time obviously for next week. They would let us know when they wrap up that project by the end of the year. A little bit of background which I don't have. When the the notice was given that we had to put something in place. Um was it town's
attorney that drafted this proposal, the proposed new bylaw? Uh towns attorney reviewed it. Did not draft it, reviewed it. Um and I understand it's boilerplate language and probably could have come from any number of different sources which is fine.
Um, but it wound up just saying, "Oh, I guess we better get a bylaw. Let's find some language. Here it is. Town's attorney. Please review it." About right. Okay. No, fair enough. And we were emailed, or at least I was emailed on it like a couple months ago, and I had a conversation with you about
it, but I didn't. It was reviewed by, you know, building inspector and DPW, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm gonna write to the EPA, figure
out what's going on. See what happens. We'll see how I'm curious how that goes. Um, might also be worth it to reach out to Mass D, uh, and talk to the circuit writer, uh, the local rep, um, because they may also have some information about it. Yeah. other communities have gotten and they might actually not have
seen a major reduction in force recently. So you'll hear back from Mark in like five minutes pretty quickly. Is it still Mark that's circuit right? Oh, he's correct. Been doing it for 20 years. It's a brief hiatus. Yeah.
Yeah. That's not a bad Mark responds so quickly. Yeah. Sorry you're throwing that at Oh, no. That's very helpful. We we need to know if there's some of these issues. Okay, there's that. Is there anything else you want to talk to us about
related to stick around for the other This is what I have for for storm water. Thank you. Um I I think you flagged the obvious concerns that folks are could have some issues with this. Um and if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. We'll we'll figure out, you know, what our plan B is. We might already be covered
by the storm water. Do you need us to get up and be like we support you? If they say no, then you're threatened with another meeting because of it and then they're like, oh man, not another need. So here go. I mean, that's that's my base in the hole there. Going going into
town meeting, I would hope we'd have enough answers where either town's attorney has already weighed in and said, "No, we actually do need this to be a general bylaw." In which case, yeah, that's fine, and we proceed forward and we'll figure out how to modify it later on to make it work. um or town's attorney says, "Whoops, seven
section what of the don't bylaw." Whoops, didn't see that. And it was not the town's attorney who who said we need to do this. It was right. No, fair enough. But yeah, um agreed. But if and or if the town's attorney says, "No, this is going to take some time for us to work out and figure out, then then
pass over the article instead of putting it out to a vote or having it, you know, turned down." So just avoid the conflict at town meeting. Absolutely. But I I would say that for me personally, if town's attorney says, "No, we need a general bylaw," then I want to stand up
at town meeting and support it. Yeah, agreed. If town's attorney says anything different, then I'm either going to say nothing or, you know, point out section seven and it's article 36. Who's going to be around for that anyway? Question majority vote. Where's the
zoning? Majority vote. Two, right? So just that avenue in and of itself makes it superior. Everyone, please go to town meeting Tuesday, May 13th at 7 p.m. 7 p.m. 7 p.m. That's for the academy. One night.
You guys gonna have dinner? Does it serve dinner there? No. No. There was child care one year or it is again still. I mean, there was a bring a bag of chips for everybody. You know, it went out from the school that they're looking for. I'm sure that's in the budget. The finance committee factor that in one bag of chips.
There you go. It'll be a snack bag, too. nine chips. All right, thank you. Um, that was a good discussion regardless. I mean, talk about tedious and moving on to more tedious. All right. Uh, train is coming. You
know, we don't know the care. We don't know the stick, but it's we are total radical that we I have two other little definitely no care weird parcels that I wanted to just tell you what's going on with them for your updates section. Um it yeah it might just make sense to do before we talk about PVPC goals and the
open space and recreation because it's kind of in the spirit of the um 12 to 18 and all of that. Okay. Go for it. Okay. So 104 and 108 West Street. Um a zone change was approved at
annual town meeting 2021 from rural residential to light industrial. Oh yes. the applicant did not bring a map to show the change to the meeting and so that was not approved by the AJ's office. Y um they've since moved away uh
maybe they're no longer interested in the stone change that actually I think we were kind of talking about the Selena. It seems like it wasn't completed legally to any extent. It was just approved. Correct. And just some more historical knowledge, when we reached out to that applicant, when we
realized when we got that back from the AG's office, we reached out multiple times in multiple ways via phone and email to try and remedy the situation and get the owner to bring it to the following town meeting to update it. Yeah. And he was unresponsive until like
the meeting before town meeting and like came and yelled at us. Remember? Oh, I do remember very clearly. and he was un unwilling to work with us and which was unfortunate because we were supportive. Everybody voted for his plan, right? And it was just creating a
hostile situation for like no reason ex because he was upset that we there was that oversight by anyway. Yeah. So I do think like in this case it's an example of how even if it's on the applicant to bring the map or whatever it could be maybe a little more administrative
support from our office could help people understand what it means to bring the map. Like to say we definitely overadministratively supported them. Okay, good to know. Um if there are any loose end I don't think there's any loose ends to tie up because I don't
think that anything happened legally if that makes sense. I think it's there's like an asterisk on our map or something that says in the zoning there's like a highlighted line that says this wasn't approved, right? It's like in this limbo kind of situation. Um yes. So, um I don't know appetite on
behalf of the board after the interaction with that with that landowner for us to like be proactive to solve that. That was my last question was like because it doesn't even really fit. It's spot zoned if you if they do it that way. So, it's like it doesn't seem like it's even worth following 104
and 108. Mhm. In spite of what happened, I mean, did town meeting approve a change to zoning to industrial? Yes. Light industrial. Light industrial. Okay. Yes. And the only problem was that a plan couldn't be provided to be signed? No. Certain deadline. Yeah. There needed to be a map. The applicant
supposed to bring a map to show the zone change. We didn't make it up. That was published. He could have read it. As far as we know, legally, the status is that the zoning remains residential, rural residential. It was never registered. across the street there's about seven or eight parcels that are light industrial.
So that was the last question is like is there some reason that we would want to push to complete the zone change based on surrounding uses or anything like that or should we just leave it as is? I think we should wait personally based on the previous conversations and thoughts I had when we kind of talked about this
before about like oh do we want to be proactive and take this forward is that land it was pushed by the owner before it's on the owner it could be on us but to because of the spot zoning thing but I don't feel compelled to do
so if we are currently beginning this process of a zoning guys diagnostic and zoning map diagnostic that could change this gets ripped it should gets swept up in no desire to push forward anything right now. Yeah, there's no urgency. Again, the theme this is just another
it's just these are the types of wrinklings that we're find wrinkles that we're finding in the zoning where it's just like for one reason or the other. It's either it's like in this case it's not like the map is it's not the mapping company that made this mistake. It's not something about the title card. It's
that the person didn't complete. So there's just all kinds of reasons. It still feels like holding up a vote of town meeting based on an administrative glitch and it feels just some something feels not right
about that about what? Sorry. Town meeting voted to change the zoning on those two lots. Yeah. Yeah. Complies with this checklist. One of the things on the checklist is bring No, he's saying it's it was the will of the town at that time. So, is it is it is it on us to follow through? I guess yeah,
he didn't he didn't do some check, you know, checklist items. Okay. Really, how much of an issue is that? That's a good question. I remember I remember we we as a board and correct me if I'm wrong, we were supportive because of of that realizing that it was probably spot
zoning, but it's kind of a it's locked between 5 and 10 and 91. And it's kind of, you know, and given and given the state of the other side of the road, it was kind of a perfect situation to kind of move forward with. I agree. Yeah. Yeah. Mhm. So, I mean, you know, he had
support and he got the I've I've always been supportive of this despite his negativity to the board, you know. So like I mean I can understand misgivings as as far as as far as pushing as far as our and then in my mind then is then I would say we if it was p pushed by us
and we were to want to bring something back to it I would be more in favor of doing more than just those two parcels to be quite honest with you. Well the one right across the street from there that's you know what like I would have been I would have taken a different approach if we're pushing it versus the
landowner at that time pushing it. I get where you're saying though, but the town desired this, the town approved this, you know, that sort of form of government. Let's wait for the the zoning diagnostic to come back because I I have questions about why the the all
the lots on the other side, which look to be empty fields where zoned light industrial. I mean there could have been an intent to do that to actually change the uses there which is fine but they're bordered on the southwest north and east southeast west by rural residential and
then farther up there's something which is businesszoned but it's all residential in use with you know a couple of small exceptions. So the question is, was that actively done or is that just a memorialization of the use at the time of the zoning? It kind of is. We were told that it was the
neighborhood, the families that lived there for generations who wanted to keep it a residential neighborhood. Yeah. And the recommendation from the comprehensive plan is to reconsider reszoning all of five and 10 to make it at least business owned.
Yeah, we should wait until we get I think it should be part of the bigger picture, but it's just it's a it's an illustrative example of which there is one last another one illustrative example. Um it's the parcel that the one that Habitat for Humanity was interested
in first that well that's been for sale for forever. Yes. Um Yep. number 72 is 72 West Street. So RJIS shows it as one parcel. It's being sold on Zillow as two separate parcels. The house separate the
house and barn separate from another barn. Another barn and a lot. Yeah. Um we've let him know that it's still legally one parcel. He did not ever file the split after the ANR with registry of deeds. So at some point when he's selling this work that these are things
that this is like the same thing with the Joe Saikowski property when he was like oh no I need this tomorrow because I'm already selling it as two lots even though it's not so there's an ANR that was signed for that property. How long ago was it signed over a year ago? So same question to the registry. Are you
going to report going to accept it? So and that's going to be a problem for him because he's already listed it on Zillow but whatever. um that's his issue. But two different developers have shown interest. This is again illustrative because a developer showed apart from Habitat, which is a whole other thing.
Um one developer was interested in doing a two family on 104, which is the lot with the barn. Yeah, just the barn. Yeah. And then the other one wanted to do a duplex on 108. So in both cases, there's not enough square
footage for a two family. It only has enough square footage for one single family, which is why Habitat passed it up. But if Well, Rapat didn't 108 or you talking about too expensive for a one family. They still made an offer and it was rejected. Got you. Either way though, if we had known
it was one parcel still interested in like a multif family thing sometimes. Yeah. The question that I have is how like if we're asking for a developability map for the housing production plan from PCC, I mean that's
a grocery store in Seattle. Um PBC. Um how much like accurate information do they need from us looking at our maps about like what parcels are split, what parcels are not split, what's actually zoned as what? And like how much of a problem is this going to
be if they're like authority? Yeah. Wow. You know what I mean? Um are so the the housing production plan is in process now. It's like October. Yeah. And there you we're about to do a a zoning diagnostic which may
involve at least in some way reszoning the plan the map or um or changing what uses are allowed in various places. If we do that after the housing production plan is there, it invalidates a lot of the data that the housing production plan is going to be based on. I have
wondered this as well. Uh typically these efforts must run in parallel. A lot of the time one of the outcomes of it will will say just work on your zoning or or that will be one of the well we know that so we know I mean that's that's basically why I think we
should just get this housing production plan done because we're out it's it's it's old at this point. We've just done this entire process for the comprehensive plan, right? Um we know what a lot of the outcomes of it are going to be. I I think not having the specific zoning that might change as a result of the of the diagnostic
shouldn't be a problem with it, but we'll see. I I think you as much as we say it's it's due by October, we'd like to try to get it done. Um if it stretches out longer and we we realize that we need to to have that process take longer because of the zoning diagnostic work happening, that's okay.
That can happen. I'm also suspecting that the the zoning work that we want to do is going to take more than just the next six or 12 months. It's probably going to be two to three years ago. And so that means that by the time we get that done and really fully adopted, the HPP might be 2, three, four, five years
old that we would want to. So we're going to want to go back to it anyway. We may be writing a new one in a year or two anyway. That's what I mean. But you're fine. So okay. Yeah. Thinking a lot of that. Yeah. So that I just wanted to discuss all of those quirky parcels before we talk about zoning goals for
PBPC because maybe that will inform can some of what we're looking for. I want to put this into one sentence because I don't want to belabor the point and I don't want to waste any more time. It's already 7:30. I'm hoping that the housing production plan will take into consideration uh what it means to be
fully built out in the community with everything put into consideration like the existence of wetlands, the the desire for maintenance of open space, the desire for maintenance of agricultural space. And there's going to come a time where we're going to basically say no, that's all. And I think that's an okay thing for a
community to conclude. That's a fundamental thing it has to address. Yeah, we have to yeah look at that. For sure. Definitely. Stay tuned for next episode of Bella's Quirky Parcels. Cue the music. John, my quirky parcels.
Okay. Thank you. You're going to be quirkier next time. Okay. Thank you for indulging me. And I would also like to note too like the amount of time that this has taken up of yours is another like issue. Why if we just had cleaner
updated we could move like right we could spend time being more again more proactive than reactive on this stuff holes and taping up. I often like weigh whether to tell you about all of this minutia because it's very boring but it's also like this is kind of the bulk
of the work and it does sort of like clog the system and get in the way of like thinking about larger goals, right? But it does inform like what the goals could be when you're like, well, there's all of this to clean up and like how does that actually present an obstacle to doing things in a streamlined like
forward thinking way, you know? Right. So, looking at the Piner Valley Planning Commission's goals for their zoning diagnostics. This was sent to us and I mean us like me and Bella this today. Yes. Yeah. Really? Yeah. Did it get forwarded? Drop I don't think we
forwarded it. I didn't see it an email. Was it to Is this Oh, sorry. Is this paper? I think they just sent it to me. I sent it to Lori. I hope she printed it for every packet. It is. Okay, good. Here's
the Was it this horizontal thing? This might have been related though to the comprehensive plan committee thing. This isn't actually what we needed to I have it in my email. She may not have seen it because they did just send it to us, but she was asking about it.
So this act just you left me left us up just so you're this is actually the other so the Pirate Valley Planning Commission is doing a couple things for us with their with the grant funds. One of them is helping get the implementation committee off the ground which Doug is the representative of and these are the documents related to that
and this is what the the implementation committees are two copies of the same page. Can you print something for me? Email your plan. Uh, yeah. Weird. They're supposed to be two different pages, but I'm going to Andrew's going to print these really quickly. One of them is lead ro versus support ro. It's
supposed to say up at the top, but this is not This is not Got it. Thank you. All right. This two, they're the same thing. It's supposed to be different. Yep. Okay. And then oh so we have copies of the same and this is for implementation committee for that
conversation not for us but it's related to the goals for the zoning diagnostic which never mind do you have it um the thing that will help with the zoning thing is just in the body of an email which would be annoying to ask him to
print so I'll just read it to you. Okay go for it theatrically. Okay. Um, it says, uh, "Before Kyle left, he tasked me with a few things to bring to your attention before your planning board meeting regarding the zoning bylaw diagnostic, as I know you were likely waiting, you likely wanting to identify
components to address based on your review of your bylaw over time, there are some initial considerations that we always include in our technical review. They are structure and format, districts, access and ease of use, clarity and consistency,
administration, colon procedures, incomplete and outdated provisions, missing topics, and a review of exclusionary zoning, um, which can involve things like minimum lot sizes, stuff like that. Um,
some resources and tools for an implementation committee and work going forward. We worked with this town of South on their master plan. Their implementation committee has created some documents, resources and tracking tools that have helped them get started and from a framework their committee set for themselves. Um and then he attached
the matrix document. So those are the that's the backbone of what they'll be looking at in the diagnostic. So these pieces these things. Oh no. So this is related to implementation committee that is not related to that's this then. Sorry they look similar. They're this
the same thing. Yeah they are. Oh okay. So those things are that's the only part on zoning then I think. So those six or seven bullet points. Can you read them one more time? Yeah. So structure and format districts districts mean like zones I think is what we're call access and ease
of use which I don't really know what ease of use. Maybe the bylaw itself. Yeah, by itself clarity and consistency, administration procedures, incomplete and outdated provisions,
missing topics, and a review of exclusionary zoning. Are there any So, they're just looking for guidance on whether those feel right, if they're missing anything, so they can get for start going on the diagnostic. That's fine.
That's a great start to putting in a framework. Um, I agree. This is basically they're going to take a look at our they're going to look at it through those lenses. They're gonna then present us with uh basically a boilerplate list of what's right, what's wrong, what works, what doesn't.
Potentially potentially red line. Yeah. Do we have a a Google doc version of our bylaws that we can send them that might be helpful to Let's not use the term red line. Stay off the red line. Okay.
I'm sure that we do. Yeah. I'm sure that they're gonna they'll probably send us a list of all the stuff that they actually need from us soon, I would imagine. Yeah. Okay. Um, the only other thing that I would add to that list would be
codification. Basically, what is in what order, where it appears, and how things are numbered, consistency in in numbering sections, and what should be first, what should be next, what should be next, what should be next. Am I fall under ease of use or clarity and consistency? Oh, fair enough. Yeah. Um,
is there anything that we've been talking about that we think is like their purview? Like I don't know in this past these examples. I don't think so. That's in their purview. Yeah. Like all the issues that we were
just talking about, I think those are all on us and that might fall under administration of procedures. Really have these problems. Yeah. You know. Oh. Oh. Oh. Okay. All right. That wasn't clear. Yeah. No, that makes sense. Yeah. How to get all of Yeah, that would be under procedures,
but also like internal procedures, not necessarily bylaws. The bylaw itself, the maps. Yeah. Okay. I don't know what missing topics is, but I'm excited to find out. And I will note that they don't mention that they're not doing a diagnostic of our map. It's just the bylaws right now, but they are looking at the table of use and the zones that
we do currently have. Yeah. So they wouldn't I mean if they see that we have like spot zones are they going to comment on that? They don't they're not looking at the map so they wouldn't know. Maybe they wouldn't. Is that what your impression was? I feel like the map
kind of needs to be considered along with along with the the zoning bylaws. I would think that's a part of it. I would like that to be I would think to some extent. Yeah. Because if if we want to try to reconcile existing uses, proposed
uses, uses that are acceptable in any given district or zone, then we may want to look at either changing the map or changing what's allowable in the existing zone or a combination of the two. Talking about, you know, what uses are
allowable in the rural residential that may not be currently allowed, but that might not be bad um under certain circumstances, right? So that would be a change to both the map as well as So I guess can you reply Bella and say these look great and
confirming about the map and like is that being considered with these right is it integral to the because we think that some will in like it's important and will inform the analysis right whereas the actual zoning overhaul
is where we'll get like suggestions that are like here's where you should do chapter 40R or whatever overlay, right? Okay. All right. Feeling good about that, everybody? Yay. And their timeline is to try and do this by the end of the
fall, I think. And we which resulted in me giving you all a heads up that we may have to have a July meeting in order for them to hit that deadline. We generally do not have a July meeting. Problem with that. We would just determine that at our next meeting. July two. And it's I likely that they PBPC
will be at our June meeting to discuss where some of these issues that we've seen come up so that they can get more context for this. Um and so I know Bella will probably have a conversation with with them, but it also would be helpful for the public to also be aware of of
that conversation and hear that conversation. So cool. Um all right. And I also Bella would like us to talk next month about if and any progress on reszoning potentially the industrial
parcels of Elm because we've kind of like Sure. Yeah. It still it seems like more sticky things have bubbled up and is it something that we still want to potentially pursue for a special town meeting because the timeline for that right would be soon. So just yeah and we can to talk about that
as a board. We don't have to decide that right now, right? Um, all right. Last item, which is actually really exciting. We get to vote to because it's the P planning board's job to vote to accept or reject
the open space and recreation plan. That's something that was written and developed in 2023. There were just some outstanding items that made it officially complete because they have to like do all these certain things. So, it's been written since 2023. Um, it was
used in the comprehensive plan because it was so new and updated. Um, but to officially get it submitted to the state, uh, we have to vote to accept it or reject it. Um, and then it can like potentially open,
uh, opportunities for funding to get some of these things done. Is this This isn't our plan to accept, is it? the we are voting to there are required um letters of of support from three
organizations that's the select board the planning board and the PBPC okay required to say that they they have seen it reviewed it and it unlike a comprehensive plan where it's the planning board accepting it you are supporting it so that goes to the state
who then accepts it you see an unsigned draft of this letter in your Yep I see that yep um and I did review uh both section eight and section nine, the goals and actions and the seven-year action plan. There's a couple things in there that I had some questions about, but nothing which jumped out at me as
being any reason to not to do anything other than support this. Yeah, same. Um, really well done. I think I think it's clean and clear and that's terrific. Awesome. And they had a lot of participation from the public, which is great as well.
There were a couple things that I don't think are achievable. um the town can't establish a private nonprofit organization, but I appreciate the fact that it's in there and that's that's members of the public, you know, making those recommendations. So, um I would move to support this and to authorize
our chair to sign the letter on our behalf. Second that motion. Any further discussion? Just that I appreciate the open space and recreation committees for taking this on. It's a big task. So, huge task. Yeah, huge. Um all right. All
in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Accepted. Great. I'll sign this and we can get this submitted. Um, anything else? Yes. Happy birthday to this man here. Happy birthday. Today's the day. Today is the
day of your birthday. Is it May 7th? Really? Yeah. My wife's birthday as well is today. So, how about that? I'm gonna I'm gonna have to buy her I'm gonna have to buy her dinner weightly in on Friday. Going out to eat. Yeah. wives to adjurnn. Um, yeah, our next
schedule meeting is June 4th, Wednesday. All right. And I'll second the motion to adjurnn. All right. Any further discussion? All in favor? Um, meeting is adjourned at 7:46. Thank you all. All right. Thanks for that.