We're on. All right. Call the meeting to order. Uh 602 for the October 1st, 2025 planning board meeting. My name is Stephanie Sish. I'm chair of your planning board. To my right, I have Doug Finn and to my left I have John Jeffris. Um we as always at
the beginning of every meeting have public forum. This is the opportunity for anyone who's not on the agenda to speak to something and bring something forward to the board. Noting that the person here in the audience is for uh not is for something else on the agenda
and no one else is here. We will move uh to close the public forum and go to our approval of our minutes from our August 6th, August 20th, and September 15th meetings. I um going to take a moment to review these because they came in kind
of last minute if that's okay. To anyone watching this, go grab refill your drink of choice. Come back, run to the bathroom, whatever you need to do. I'm >> ready with the minutes.
>> We'll check them out. >> Anyone have any >> I can only sign off on the third and I'm good. >> Uh, you can only sign off on the >> I missed the first two. The last one phone call I can approve of. I was present.
>> Who was president? So >> August 6th, >> you were at the September 15th. You were not on the August 6th. >> Nope. >> Um I recommend we wait on approval of the August 6th and the August 20th meet minutes until we have another meeting. I
would be okay with approving it, but we don't have a majority of >> You were on the phone though. No, >> that's I thought for the second the phone call on the 17th. I'm just not marked as president. >> Ah, so that would need to be updated to >> Yes.
>> on the 20th, correct? >> Yeah. The long one where Yeah, I was a I was remote. >> Oh, the sixth one. The one the sixth you were remote. Yeah, I remember you calling into that. >> Oh, yes, I remember. >> Yeah. So, we would have to >> um >> Were you remote on the 15th
>> or was that the 20th? No, it was the sixth because that was Was it sixth? One of these you were remote that >> I'm not sure. Yeah, I think I was out of town for the sixth. I was out of town for the sixth. >> Yeah. So, this is the August 20th one. >> John, yeah, he's on listed on the 15th as remote and you were out of town on
the 6th for family vacation. >> I definitely missed that. The August 6th I was away, >> but this August 20th I believe I was on. >> Weren't you here? >> Call it shows that I wasn't present and meetings taken minutes taken by >> that. So, >> we might want to wait.
>> She's pretty tight. >> All right. Well, I guess then we can vote on >> the 15th. >> The September 15th. >> They look good to me. >> Move to accept the minutes of the 15th. >> Seconded. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> All right. >> Uh, move to table review of the August
6th and August 20th meetings. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. I. >> All right. Table those. But I'm pretty sure you were at one of those, though, Don. >> Yeah, I think so. But since we can't confirm and want to be for sure, then we will wait. Uh, next up
is uh the ANR related to Straits Road with Paul Cernac parcel ID number 206-107-0. Would you mind just coming and sitting in front of the microphone? Um, an ANR means approval not required, but
it's more of a state term, which means that there's as long as a parcel is being in this circumstance, it's a parcel that's being um divvied up and as long as it meets the town's requirements for
lot size and frontage requirements, then um this is more of a procedural thing more than anything else. And so you brought four before plans um for Straits Road. We've seen you here before on that same parcel. Just continuing to parcel
it out. Um is there anything you'd like to say or mention? >> No. >> 200 foot of frontage and 60,000 square feet are the minimum requirements for area and for frontage, I believe. >> And I believe that's what the plan shows is 60,000 square feet
on parcel B, right? or parcel A. >> Yep. And then remaining >> 498. >> Yeah. At least >> five square um frontage, the frontage size. >> Yeah. So no lot is left without minimum frontage. Both lots have access across
their own frontage to the buildable portion of the lot. For those reasons, I move to uh endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the subdivision control act. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I
All right. approved. >> Is this inaccurate here? Minimum area of >> proposed. >> He said 60. >> Uh for depends on where it is zoned, but this application for 45 >> um I'm looking is is this uh rural residential? >> Correct. Yes.
>> Then in that case, uh yes, it's uh with no town services, 45,000 square feet with town water and sewer 45,000. It's doesn't matter, but 45,000. >> 45,000 is the minimum. >> Perfect. Perfect. >> But it's 60,000, isn't it? Or is it 50,000
on parcel B? >> Uh 50,000. So it's just over that. >> That's fine. >> Um and so we can sign this right now and then you can take these. So if you just take a moment, let us sign these. You can >> Yeah. >> Got fancy pen. >> Mhm. >> All right. >> What's the date today?
>> It says for 101. >> Oh, I almost wrote a September. >> Can't believe it's already October. >> Doesn't really feel like it. It's been hot. Had a cold night last night. Left the windows open. >> I don't love fancy colder tonight.
>> Really? Tonight? Yeah. >> Get some shot. >> Pass that one down to you with a fancy pen. >> Five. >> Just remember what line you signed on because that's the one you need to sign on. >> I think I signed a line four on that one, didn't I? >> We got to get everybody's signatures or three is going to come
>> three is fine. [Applause] That's why you're taking too long. You're writing the date on there as well. >> Mhm. >> That's why I'm taking forever with my really long >> I forget one. Does one stay here at the town hall and not? I don't remember. I
think we keep one, maybe even two. >> I think we keep two, >> but I don't know. That's >> There are four paper copies. So, you'll take the myar and two paper copies and we'll keep two paper. >> And if that's incorrect, then you can
just run back. >> Yeah, I think they normally keep one paper copy in the planning office for the permanent record and one has to go to the town. >> You pay for slab me that one, would you? But then also like we might have an extra one that goes towards something else too. So that's what I don't know
>> or might be or something. Anyway, >> I would recommend taking all of it and then stop it with whatever the um deed the registry of deeds needs and whatever they don't need just coming back and dropping this off probably is how I would approach this. The
>> registry of deeds keeps the myar. >> They do, but I don't know if there's another reason why they I have to sign something somewhere bottom. No. Good to go. >> Oh, it says Oh, here we go.
>> We had to review and review and review. >> Not review. >> Not review. >> I feel it says I have to sign somewhere. May I'll just sign next to this. So it says endorse remarks. No remarks. Unremarkable, which is great in this
instance, right? >> Welli. >> All right. Thank you so much. >> All set. >> You are all set. I think this is the one that we're going to keep for us. >> That's four paper and one mile.
>> This >> uh we keep we keep the application. >> Oh, we have two copies of the application. Very good. >> So, he's got his signed copy there with Elena stamp on the date and you've got your signed copy here. >> Should we keep one paper and give them the whole package? >> I think we should keep one paper.
>> We should keep I say two to be honest, but that's okay. >> Lori will give us either way. >> Take two. They're small. >> That gives you two and you're good. >> There you go. >> Sweet. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Moving on the second or the now we're turning to some board discussion. Um, I'd like to take item number two first, which is related to the Hatfield
Rally House, which for those who are not familiar with that name, is the pickle ball and tennis facility that is going in currently under construction um on five and 10 up kind of near
CNS entrance there. um they are going, you know, they're going ahead with construction. I don't know if you've taken a look at or got driven by there recently, but they would like to put in some gravel for some overflow
parking for up to 40 cars. And because of that change, um, we are we are curious, well, we believe that that I don't know if we, but I'm
curious your all thoughts on whether that means an amendment to the site plan review. I would say I'm thinking probably, especially if there could >> change in the site, >> right, and potential um, storm water runoff, etc., etc. Will that so
>> the Bergkshire design group put together something and it's their interpretation that the storm water runoff off wouldn't be would be like negligible from what we already approved. >> I think they got an engineer report on >> um cuz the original if you look at the
original we approved like outdoor courts. No, actually we didn't. >> I think we did. >> We approved their moving forward in the future, >> but they'd have to come back to us because the plan. >> I'm pretty sure we approved it. >> Okay. >> As is because I remember having that
conversation and I remember then us at the kind of at the end being like, you know what, no, we can just go for but regardless, that was the original plan that we approved apparently. >> Uh yeah, I'm that's not my recollection, but we can go back to the next. Yeah, we
can double check that or even the permit the um application. >> My thought is that this the storm water actually the storm water calculations I'm first of all not as well verssed in >> storm water to be able to assess this on a
>> you know on a moment's notice. Um and I would like to have someone actually take a look at that and provide us with an independent advice as to >> even larger here. >> No, sure. But um >> although you can't >> it would be good to have someone else
who understands these calculations to be able to advise us as to whether or not the storm water is correct. But setting that aside for a minute, adding another overflow parking for 20 cars is a significant expansion of the parking on the site. It also puts cars closer to one of the abutters >> 20 or 40. You said 40.
>> It says 40. >> It says 40. Okay. So there. So I just did a quick calculation. They have not including the ADA spaces. They have 70 parking spaces on the existing site as approved. So, if they're adding 40 more,
then that's a lot. >> Mhm. >> That is a lot. That's a significant expansion of of parking on the site. A lot more traffic that would be moving around. Um, >> I also want to just take note too, it looks like the septic leech field and the first not it's out of our perview of
septics and leech fields, but the looked like they had one in the original plan and it ends up with looks like there's two now here. >> Yeah. >> And that interferes with that layout. >> I I assume that the second rectangle is
a reserve area that nothing's actually going to go there, but they can't actually build anything there. Mhm. >> Um it has to remain in reserve in case the initial leech field fails. >> Regardless, um I don't want to get into it because the applicant isn't here. >> Yeah.
>> And but I I think we're in general agreeance that yes, it would require an amendment to the site plan, >> which should >> would be site plan review. Our policy is for our bylaws is to notify abutters >> um just to get input. Like for example, if this is right across the street from
a dwelling, for example, they might have feelings about an additional parking lot. >> Yep. um and might have requests for screening or other things. So, >> agreed. >> Um it looks like that they also kind of want to time this with the finishing up of this project, which will be soon, I
guess. So, um but they're aware of our timeline and that we only meet once a month and that is likely to be at the next meeting in November. But this is just mostly a heads up for us. Um a heads up for the public um and noting that a butters will be notified. Um,
this brought up a lot of abutters last when we originally had this site plan um, >> yep, >> last time. So, I'd anticipate that as well. So, we wanted to make sure we at least mentioned it on tonight's agenda. >> Is there any resource that we can draw
on to provide us with a another look at those the calculations that have been provided just to verify them? >> Um, that is a great question. And I know it's something Bella was in the middle of doing and I want to acknowledge that Bella is not here tonight. She was traveling and now um is now sick. So
she's been a little um unavailable the last couple weeks which understandable that happens. So I think >> in a moment she's on the agenda here. Updates from Isabelle. >> It's a recurring agenda. Um, so this is
kind of me giving I if she were here, she would probably have more she's looked into this a little bit more and been having communications and conversations about this and probably could give a little more context into what she's thinking, but she's not here. Um, and then also I see something circled down here that's new too in red,
but I cannot read it. And so that's not >> good luck. >> Main parking lot. Yeah, because whatever is circled as red is something that's new. And there's something circled on the parking lot. >> Did I? I did. >> Provide 4 foot wide flush curb flash
curb with something both sides. >> Yeah, with transitions on both sides maybe. I'm curious as to that seems really like that wouldn't necess What is the words up there? They look like they're matching structures.
4 foot wide >> flat flush curb, whatever that means. So that's another thing we could ask about. But in general, if that was the only site plan they were changing, I don't know if that would come to us. But this makes it the extra 40 person parking, which is like
50% more parking than what they originally accounted for, would and that is also something that I would like input on is the traffic impact study that was originally done. How does this >> impact that? >> Yeah.
>> So those would be the things that I would be interested in hearing in. >> Uh so >> agreed. >> Any other comments on this before we move to another agenda item? >> Nope. I think we got to review it again.
>> Yep. And like I said, it would be a little more of a formal process, but it is only a site plan review. Understood. >> All right, with that going back to item agenda item number one and it also um is talking
about next steps for the and zoning inconsistencies situation. So, just to bring the public along on the journey of this, um we were supposed to have a public hearing on September 17th to bring town potentially
to bring um articles to the any future special meeting, special town meeting warrant agenda to pursue um adjusting our zoning map to eliminate zoning um inconsistencies, which we've called
zoning islands where there's in for almost all of the parcels that we targeted which were around 40 parcels um they were spots of uh one zone surrounded by most of it was residential zoning. So it's
kind of like something that could be developed into anything allowed in the business zone or like industrial zone in some cases could happen in a residential neighborhood. It was recommended multiple times since 2012 for the board to address that and update the zoning
for that. We consulted with council, went through the process s um and then it was determined pretty last minute um that even though we asked the similar question earlier in the pro in the process that there could
be a potential um argument for conflict of interest because it was only 40 parcels and three of the five planning board members are considered a butters to that. Um, and a butters means within 300 feet,
which doesn't necessarily mean they're like the legal definition of a butters. >> Um, and because of that, there's the recommendation from council, even though we asked the version of the same question earlier and he said it was fine um to not go ahead unless the only way that we could vote on something like
this is if it was around if it included 10% of the residents in town. Like that wouldn't be a conflict of interest. So it ends up like having us turn around and have to >> do it all at once or smaller batches, >> right? Or smaller batches all at once
more. Basically, it's trying to like we have to like kind of create more stuff to do >> so that we can get 10% of the population within 300, >> right? As opposed >> shouldn't be too difficult though, right? >> There is future stuff that we want to, >> right? And so we and we can do that. I
also just want to take a moment to address um pretty much straight up fear tactics and intimidation that were that were being said um uh and that have been you know not it's unfortunate that we haven't weren't able to have a hearing in some way to at least get the correct
information out to folks. Um things kind of ran a muck um as as as it as something tends to do when there's change and people are nervous about it. Um but yeah, there's definitely some misinformation out there. This is the time of of America and politics and
misinformation, but um regardless um learning experience for us and how to go forward because I think we all agree at le I mean I don't I speak for myself but I for I think at least you do we do need to move forward with some of these things that we are tasked with updating our zoning map and these are all parts
of comprehensive plan. We aren't just like going off doing our own thing going rogue. guess is like was recommended >> um >> and so it's something that we will be pursuing going forward but probably for a annual town meeting as opposed to
doing it like sooner with like a special town meeting. So it gives us a few more months can do more information around it but it's something that we are still going to pursue and I want to be clear about that. It's just a matter of doing it in a way that um you know that it was like I said it was
a procedural thing regarding the town council's recommendation and not necessarily on the merits of what we were trying to do. So, >> any other thoughts or comments on that? >> Oh, yeah. Lots. >> Mhm. Go for it, Doug.
>> One of the comments that I heard was that we should be looking at a more comprehensive reszone. Uh, one of the comments that I heard was that was, "Why aren't you looking at the the West Street corridor?" >> That definitely needs work. So >> uh I at the the meeting on September
15th, I think it was, I um spoke in opposition to the opinion of of legal counsel. I don't believe that there conflict of interest exists when there's no financial interest. Um, and I don't believe that and I also don't believe
that the uh particular person who wrote a letter to the planning board saying that this reasonzoning is going to change my my valuation. Um, regardless of whether or not that might be the case, it is not something we should consider because we are not concerned with property valuations. We're only
concerned with land use and the acceptability of land use. the argument. >> That's the argument that we're concerned with devaluing >> or due to inappropriating the value of our neighboring properties is the
>> that can be leveled is the first. >> But the problem but the whole thing is that's not how our taxes like we talked to the board of assessors and that's not how t that's not how we assess properties in town. It's by its current use. It's not like what it could be. It's it's what its current use is.
But the the letter that was written is about you're you're taking my ability to sell my property from >> and that's was the the feeling of what people were saying. But then on the flip side, if you look at the neighbors who abut some of these parcels that are
zoned frankly incorrectly for the neighborhoods. On the flip side, you could say that we would be devaluing their property if um a business came into on some of those parcels and could impact their neighborhood. >> To the why. That's the why.
>> So the whole thing is it's depends on who who which person you're talking to and yeah. >> So what I would like to recommend and it's certainly up for debate um or discussion and maybe because we're missing two members we don't make a decision on this. >> Yep.
>> But what I'm willing to do and what I think we can achieve in the next five months or so, six months um November, December, January, February, let's call it four months. We need a public hearing and we need uh you know to submit articles to the to the select
board for inclusion on a warrant town meeting is in May. Correct. >> So backing into that we've got about four months to do this. I believe that if we commit to it we can do a more comprehensive examination of the whole zoning map.
look at any inconsistencies across the whole zoning map, including areas where we see heavy business next to light business. We ask ourselves why. If they're if they have access to the same resources, the same transportation resources, they have, you know, similar
size lots, similar, you know, if we look at those types of inconsistencies which don't jump out like bright red spots in the middle of a sea of yellow or something that we comprehensively look at the map. And if we really and and what I'd like to do is get a public
forum together in the next month and a half where we invite the public in >> to basically say tell us what kind of community do they want to live in. Maybe what kind of neighborhood they want to live in. What do they find acceptable in their neighborhood? What would they like to
see in their neighborhood? What do they see now that they don't like? >> And also in the context of the conference. I agree with that. And it should be like this is what the comprehensive plan is saying, right? Do you agree or not agree with that because this is the path? Like I think it shouldn't be do you agree or not agree because that is the comprehensive plan
but like what components of this >> do you think we should prioritize over others? >> Sure. Sure. Um, and I think if we commit to doing a couple of months of exploration and public input and information gathering, I think in January, if we commit ourselves to
looking at the zoning map at at, you know, in that month and saying, "Okay, based on the feedback we've heard, based on the information we have, here's some changes we think we can make." >> And then have that new map drawn up.
Exactly. you know and have that new map adopted by town. >> So rather than do it in small tranch just try to do one sweeping change. >> Right. So that's what yeah that that's the strategy conversation and that's
kind of why we thought that this this strategy with doing this hearing which we could also still again pursue um do um well we can't because of unless we include extra or do smaller amounts like it's a strategy of like do you take little bits at a time or do you try to
do something all at once y >> and I think there's polit there's risk to both of those um one that we're not moving fast enough >> right >> two that it gets shut down >> four lots it cause such a ruckus then how is doing 120 bucks >> Mhm. cause less,
>> right? Um I >> we're going to cause ruckus. >> There's going to be people who don't participate in the public hearings, the the information sessions, the listening sessions. They don't come to the public not hearings, you know, to examine the map. They're going to show up at town
meeting and say, "Why wasn't I told >> and raise a ruckus >> or they're going to be told the rumor mill gossip mill where misinformation has nothing to do with that, >> right? So, we're going to face that at town meeting. No matter how inclusive or
how intensive we reach out to people, we could we could knock on everybody's doors personally and give them the schedule of public hearings and invite them to attend and they will still say I never received notice. They will still say I this is the first I'm hearing about. >> There's nothing we can do about that.
Um, >> and zoning is complicated. >> And zoning is complicated. What's the What's the right way? Uh, look at the map, make the changes to the map first, or look at the zones and make the changes to the zones first.
>> That might be a really good question to answer first and foremost. >> What's the language in the comprehensive plan? What's >> direct? >> Um, >> straighten out the zoning. We recommend that we straighten out our zoning or is it more is it tight? >> It's not It's pretty loose. It's the whole the that's more about like the
objectives we want to achieve and and it it's >> that's the way it's got to be >> it's like >> explained in that way. The why is what people were just lost on. >> You know, this is the town. >> But yeah, to Doug's point though is that like do you because at the same time
we're also looking at updating our entire bylaws in general and that could mean we don't have an industrial I'm just making we don't we combine light industrial and industrial zones into one zone. we might not have this, you know, like some of the zones might change. So,
if we update the map >> we're probably like, do we are we gonna update the map again in a couple years >> for and then the following year when we look at the bylaws and update our bylaws? This is where it feels actually
easier to me to not look at the map in terms of the specific uses that might be allowed in any given zone because that can get really detailed. You can get easily stuck in the mud. Um but to look at the different zones, the the ways you
cut the map into pieces based on the geography, based on the um the uh uh uh uh uh proximity to water resources, based on the proximity to natural resources, and based on the proximity to constructed resources like highways,
transportation, rail. Um all of those things are things that will not change regardless of what we think needs to go where. But all of those things can lead one to say that the West Street corridor, there's a nice big long stretch that's got access to five and 10. It has easy on and easy off the
highway. It's got it's got high uh power. Um some of it doesn't have water, some of it doesn't have sewer. That might drive our discussion on that. Um and we need to look at that as well. Access to town water and town sewer. Um there's other places that we are going to want to look at and say, "No, we
don't want to touch that. We don't want to change these areas from the natural undisturbed area they are to something that's developed regardless of what the purpose is because it's yeah there's a road but there's no town no water no town sewer and it's within 400 ft of the Connecticut River. We don't want to do
anything there. We want to leave that alone. >> So to me that says that the geography the hydraology and the existing constructed resources are going to be our principal things that we're going to focus on when it comes to creating those puzzle pieces. >> Mhm. Then later on we can have the
discussion about what kind of industry, what kind of business do we want to see along West Street and make those decisions at that point. >> So as a practical matter then is that updating the map or updating the zoning? >> I think it's updating the map.
>> Mhm. >> With with a full understanding that like if we just I'll make something up. If we say West Street up to the end of the the sewer sewer lines is heavy industrial, we just zone all that heavy industrial
and everything above that is light industrial up to the the crossing north of the RV place >> um where five and 10 crosses there and then from that point up it's business. >> Let's say we just make that decision. We
can still say, okay, well, what kind of business would fit in with that >> section of West Street in North Hatfield, given given what's there, given the number of proximity to residences and so on and so forth, what makes sense there? We can decide that later on.
>> Even if our current zoning doesn't quite fit what we think should go there, we can still tackle that later on. >> Yeah. Because we also Yeah. We all agree that our table of use needs to be updated and like >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that's kind of that the table of views is part of the
>> map part of the map. >> It is. It's not part of the big bylaw review. >> It's both. >> That's what I'm saying. So it's like carb horse which bursts both at once. >> That's what he's already. Well, and that's the thing is I think the table of uses should actually be the exhibit, not
the the regulation. And I think the regulation should come first. I think if that makes sense. >> Yeah. No, I understand. and using it more like to your point geography like big picture not like oh this person this is this person owns this parcel and this person owns that parcel
>> where it gets into you get you know they're like we everyone agrees >> that we've got a strategy stuff but this particular car is special to me >> right that's the thing everyone agrees communally something we should do but
except for this little and everybody's got a >> unfortunately our map has too many cars carve outs and that's why we're in this problem and when the map shouldn't have even been carved out like this to begin with. And so that's the part that the people don't the public doesn't understand because oh it's been like this for hundred years is not what we're
looking >> you're trying to break it. >> Right. Right. >> Right. >> Um All right. >> Yeah. >> And also knowing that like to your point, Doug, there's only three of us here. It looks like they have to go together because one feeds into the
other. >> And that was feedback too. Uh when I brought this before the select board because we like proceed like as a you know courtesy we kind of went to the we go to the select board and we let them know that we're doing this to put it on a future warrant and that was the feedback like well you're it seems
like you're eliminating a lot of potential business sites but you're not really adding any extra which could be future revenue. And in their mind their role is to think is in part to think about revenue and businesses. >> Are the select? >> Oh actually I think it's our role as
well. >> Yes. >> Economic development is definitely part of long range planning >> for sure. But that was one of like the criticisms I agreed with that was stated at that meeting and that like yeah you know we we are take with this if we just passed it with with the 40 parcels
taking potential like the very limited you know land is limited and we're taking away some things that could be develop could have been developed. >> Yeah. >> If they were developed they would cause disruption in the neighborhood. >> That's the whole point. And then would
you would you like to lots of business we can do that and there's going to be a lot of people knocking on your door saying why did you let this happen here? So yeah. >> Yep. Uhhuh. But to the point of it thinking thinking more big picture about if we're taking some off the table, we
should be putting thinking more about putting some on the table which I think would happen. >> Every argument goes towards this has to be done comprehensively. The bylaws are arcane and confusing. just not they need to be simplified. The whole recommendations of you know flow and
simplifying the table of use >> making things some some things easier to do in town. >> It's going to drive the drawing that's going to drive the map >> changing to the map. I think they >> Oh, so you're saying you think by go first? >> No, I just think they're just two together. We can't do one without the other. You know, if we do the map, it
has to be informed by what the bylaws are saying. This is a part of the whole >> chicken. go towards the proper goal rather than getting into counting the grains of rice, right? >> The whole thing goes this way. >> So, you're so
non divorceable. You know what I mean? I think be a big it's one big >> one big map update as opposed to smaller pieces here and there. >> Just they're they're two time. I don't think you can do the map without I don't think you can really do the bylaw without map. The bylaw will drive the map because then you're like you said,
you're doing the math twice. you're reszoning >> potentially which is gonna cause twice the >> So let me let me suggest this then let's maybe think about and I'm totally willing to continue this conversation at the next meeting when we have the other two members here. Let's consider the
possibility of of looking at the map of of Hatfield and then creating some areas that meet certain criteria. And this is going to require help through GIS. Um, we need a map that shows where our water
lines are, where our sewer lines are. >> We I would like to see um an overlay that shows any property that is within, let's say, picking something up, one half mile as a car drives to an entrance
or exit from I91. Um, or one mile as a car drives, maybe a half a mile as a car drives to 5 and 10. Um and maybe not the whole section of five and 10, just a portion of five and 10. Um >> a map also has the preser preserve
permanently protected >> permanently protected land. That's yes under permanent conservation restriction. Um and and as well as any area where there is uh water and within the buffer zone the water that's that's a steep hike but for someone who's
skilled with GIS it's actually just downloading the right layers and entering some calculations into a GIS software and they could build that map for us. >> And I think Pioneer Valley Planning Commission did a lot of that work when we were doing the comprehensive plan. They had all those maps out. we were looking at them and we didn't get to the
point where we were like this is where things should go but um overall but there was like questions about like where should we increase our uh biking and pedestrian infrastructure where should we increase this so it would be more of getting all those things and
putting them on one >> yeah sure yeah maybe maybe that's the first step and I I tend to now I'm thinking about it I think you're right I think you can't look at land use without really looking at the types of uses that you want to put in any given place.
>> I think the table use is just too grand >> into the weeds super fast. All got to go >> Yeah. >> together. I don't know. It they can't go A then B or it's all got to be. And again, good timing because Pine Valley Planning Commission should be w we haven't heard from them, but they should
be wrapping everything up in the next month or two for us to at least move forward with some of the zoning bylaw changes um that we also could do now, could do later. Do us a separate thing. I don't know.
There's some questions around all that too. Sorry. the zoning bylaw itself, the document itself from my my point of view, it needs to be not only, you know, sections that need to be reconsidered and all that, but I think the document itself needs to be restructured.
>> So, I think that when it comes time to actually do that work, it's going to be asking town meeting to adopt an entirely new zoning bylaw, scrapping the old one wholesale. >> And that's going to take a lot of work to get there. >> That I think is we're two years out.
>> I agree with that. um minimum uh that won't happen this coming spring. >> Agreed with that. >> So, >> so that's why the map might make sense at least in the interim. >> So, you think you can get a map a comprehensive map revision in by May when our 40 parcel thing I mean we're at
a legal issue just a legal recommendation issue but >> the sense of the street >> on the 40 parcel let's bite off this first simple try. You know what I mean? We can try. >> It was a lot of push. I I don't think it was fatal push back. It was a lot of
push back. So, it's like, >> yeah, it's again, >> we tried a little nibble and we got this push back. Let's try doing >> Well, I think there's going to be push back regardless to Doug's point. And also, it's unfortunate again that we didn't have the at least some version of a hearing because like you only hear the
people who are complaining. How many people would have showed up in support? I don't know. How many people would have actually showed up to com and against it? I don't know. We heard we the only emails we received to the board one was in favor and one was against. Those are the only >> Yeah. >> So that was the only thing that we
received. So that's >> I did hear directly and indirectly that there were a number of people who were actually very pleased to see this was happen. >> Correct. Yes. >> So >> I have some thoughts about ways to look at the map from uh a boundary line a lot
boundary line point of view. that's agnostic to that >> agnostic to the idea of who owns what lot >> as we should >> and that we're looking at resources not lots or ownership. Um let me play with that over the next couple of weeks and throw some ideas out.
>> Yeah. And I think we can do something before town meeting. It's just like we will have to show up to meetings and be prepared to have like hard conversations amongst ourselves probably with the public. Um the reason why this hasn't been done since 2012 with the
recommendation is because there hasn't been that um people haven't really wanted to do that. Um >> I as someone who went through the compreh wasting time and frankly resources taxpayer dollars
if we didn't move forward with some of this stuff. Yep. >> Um even if it is politically >> treacherous. Okay, >> without the other two, that's >> Yep, that's about as far as we can go. >> Yeah. >> Um, there was something else I was
supposed to bring up on behalf of Bella. What was it? My brain. >> Is it in your texts? Is it in your email? >> Probably in my email. >> The Mass GIS site is pretty cool. >> It is. Oliver is fun to play with. Um,
but there's some things that it you can't do with that that >> it's beyond my skill level. >> Basically, things like identifying an area, you know, that's within a half a mile of this road. Okay. >> What does that look like?
>> Hold on. Let me just >> And hopefully >> Oh, it was the email that I brought up with you. Um it's rel related to the zoning in the zoning inconsistencies. One of the 40
parcels that was IDed to be >> changed that is currently zoned industrial I believe or light industrial one or the other. >> Y >> um there's we only allow one single dwelling residence um a single family residence on an industrial parcel. There
currently already is one. There's interest in turning that parcel into four to six condos, which is allow we allow that in our zoning bylaws. Um, up to six units per dwelling with special permit with site plan
approval, I believe, or site plan review, I don't remember which one. >> Right. >> And he wants to go ahead with that. But in order to do that, um the only way for that to happen is to um extend or alter
the pre-existing non-conforming use of it being already a residence on an industrial parcel. So that means coming before the board and asking for that and the argument would be like the argument that they would make is that it
actually is not more harmful or more detrimental to the neighborhood because it's a residential a pre-existing non-conforming residential >> and it's in a residential community. >> It's it's a residential use that predated the change of the law to an industrial zone. >> Correct. So, it's a pre-existing
>> then the owner relied on the industrial zoning to develop and expand a business located on the lot. >> They are now asking to expand the residential use where I believe it's light industrial. >> I forget if it's industrial or
industrial. I think light >> if it's light industrial then the residents use with one residence is allowed. If it's heavy industrial, then residential uses are not allowed. Either way, to go from one unit to five would be
it wouldn't be allowed within the zone. Um, >> correct. It would have to be an ask for an >> right >> for a board for like a favor. expand expanding a pre-existing non-conforming use would be something like the person asking to put an
addition to the house not converting the house to a multi-dwelling unit which in any even in residential zones I believe requires a special permit right a five unit or a sixunit >> uh yes >> yeah I think that's beyond the scope of just expanding >> uh it's one it's up to four to six
they're not sure what it end could be >> an extension or alteration of the pre-existing non-conforming when they have extended >> industry >> when they have when they've made use of the industrial zoning lighter heavy whatever it is they've made use of the
industrial zoning to put in a use which is otherwise not conforming to the zoning of all the lots around them >> cake >> and eating it at the same time yeah >> they got their sort of both ends >> I I looked at the particular property I
note that there's access on both directly across >> we're talking about 12 and 19 El Street which we have talked about before sorry >> there's both access along the lot that in question but also access to these industrial uses from the adjacent lot and I understand that the ownership may
be common in both >> to both um >> yeah I'd like to look I'd like to look at the map of the zoning before >> and I would like to make a note that If we were to pass what we are trying what we were trying to pass,
>> this would be allowed in >> this would be allowed for res. >> Yeah. Um >> and the business that that currently exists would still be able to exist. >> It'd be a pre-existing non-conforming. Right. Exactly. >> Absolutely fine. >> Cake and eat it too. >> Yeah. >> Why make a cake? >> Is this some decorative cake?
>> Yeah. >> My understanding is that the request did not come from the owner of the property. Is that correct? >> No, it didn't. >> It did. >> Mhm. Okay. Because that property is also for sale. >> Correct. So the plan >> I don't think they want to be real estate developers. So the person they
want to sell but but that house is what's for sale. So >> just the house, not the land. >> Just the house, >> which is why it's going to be a condo. >> There you go. >> Income generating for somebody.
>> They got to come forward with a plan if they want to So that's their question is procedurally >> do how much of the plan do they need to bring to us >> like do we that's why I asked Bella to look into when they come for a special
permit to extend alter whatever the pre-existing non-conforming part do we need to do that and then do we need a separate special hearing permit whatever to give them to
allow them to have the to split it up into condos or can you do it all at once or like what is the procedure of that? Because it's two steps. It's we're granting this pre extension of a pre-existing or alteration potentially of a pre-existing non-conforming use and
then it would be that to add four to six units or you would need a special permit with site plan review or approval. I forget which one. >> That's a significant increase of of use on the lot. It's an increase of use on the lot
that's compatible with the surrounding uses >> and there isn't plan to change add on to the structure or change it. It's just literally Yeah. And then maybe like um one of the porches that's there might need to be rebuilt or something like that. Yeah. Because it's falling in on itself.
>> They need to bring us a plan. >> Yeah. And so Yeah. That's >> the question is like to how to what extent yeah >> they need they need to come to us they need to determine exactly what kind of relief they're looking for and they need to bring a plan to defend that request >> but it's two requests
>> that's my >> the first one is may I increase my pre-existing non-forming use >> or alter it >> alter the alter the boon you've granted me then next question is you've allowed me to do that can't I put six condos in
this building or is it all in one one question. >> I think it's all one question >> and I think it's up to >> the two part it is up to them >> to answer the second question. >> Yeah. >> Here's how I can do it under the
existing zoning under the existing bylaw >> if you increase the amount of residences >> and and if and change the walls. >> Yeah. And if their plan to do the the five units, the condoise, if that's fleshed out in a way that addresses things like, you know, how are these people going to feel about living next
to the, you know, the the surrounding business use, how's it going to access, where's car, where are cars going to park, where are people going to have access to on the ground, so on and so forth. They answer that and they say, "Your zoning bylaw allows this under these provisions here."
It's up to them to understand the zoning bylaw and to understand how they can see a path forward. >> I I don't want to be the guy inventing the way for the to get, you know. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> But we'll see what >> anticipate that in the next couple months. I don't think it's >> they're just starting that conversation around >> Yep. the blueprints and architects and selecting all of that. But the idea is for them to the owner who owns it to
sell it to someone else to develop it, but they want to their ducks lined up to sell to someone so that they knowing that when they sell it that that can be done with it. >> Not that it has anything to do with what we do.
I've seen other houses of that era and of that stature that that design be condoized where a single unit a single house now contains four separate condo units and almost invariably um the the house is cut up into just such pieces
inside. U it's from an architectural point of view, from a historic point of view, it's sad to see the old house be hacked up like that. Um, they never retain the grandeur inside that they have now. Um, and from the look of the house, it looks like it hasn't been
changed since its construction. No, and I mean that in the best possible way. I mean, it's really >> I guess it is really beautiful. >> Delightfully unmolested by pesky renovation. >> It is very beautiful. It really is. >> Yeah. >> And I I agree with that. And on the flip side, multiple conversations in the
Hatfield 2040 committee were like, and we need to increase more housing. How many people are actually living in these giant h beautiful historic homes? It's like one or two people, you know, like a couple maybe. And what if in order to stay in their homes, they could do the 80. It's a whole back to like a similar
conversation. Yeah. Argument around why we >> increasing the density in in residential areas. Sure. >> And if it's a way for them to keep their homes from having porches falling in on themselves, etc., etc., to have >> alternate income. I agree with and yeah,
>> there's a Yeah, there's a lot of moving parts. >> Yep. >> I want to see the proposal. >> And I will say there are quite a few homes along main historic Main Street homes that are um multiple units. >> Um that you may not know that are and
some that are that you can that you do notice are. So >> um yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, thank you for taking the time to discuss those things. Our next scheduled meeting is the first Wednesday
of the month. So that's November 5th. Um, where I anticipate at least one of these things to be the rally house in particular to be on there. Um, >> okay. >> And hopefully a path forward for some
sort of update to the zoning map. >> Sounds good. >> Next steps. Sounds like a procedural office supply trivial question. >> Yes. >> I would like a big color map of the zoning that we could point to at these meetings. >> Can we get one like high def like what's
the cause? >> I think that's get a printer to print >> 40 by 60 big >> big poster size >> big. >> I don't want to be trying to zoom in my phone and some bad it was a is impossible to follow the conversation. I'm trying to follow along. >> Yep. >> That's a great point. >> I would also like a copy of the
comprehensive plan. one here so we can thumb through it because about five times tonight I'm like wonder what it says what it says keep we're trying to can I pull it up on my phone which I'm just too slow just one yellow pages that we can >> in Bella's office >> and I'll drag it to the meetings so we
can live on my just >> row side to side >> great and there's also that beautiful poster that hopefully will get hung up which is top level >> that's that's tight I like that >> and then I think that's great I will look into the budget for that and seeing if we have the budget money for that. We usually
>> I can probably print a paper something at work if I had a high depth drawing like a PDF >> which I know we got all those together for the >> map on the wall. >> Oh, I like that idea, John, too. >> It won't cost you anything. >> Do we have the projector technology?
>> Yes, >> great. >> I don't want to bite off more work for >> Well, that'll be Bella's work to bite. >> It's just setting it up and aiming it at the wall. >> All right. >> All right. I think that it'll be great and helpful context so people just don't
have to stare at us. Our mean mugs the whole visual, you know, so you point >> something. It's a picture's worth a thousand for sure. >> Yep. It sounds like like a good idea. >> Um with that. >> Oh, you're looking for a motion move. We
adjourn. >> Gladly second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> All I meeting adjourned at 6:57 on October 1st.