y'all when y'all are in the booth I'm assum [Music] perfect good evening everyone and welcome to this our Monday our meeting of the planning Lunberg planning board
for Monday April 28th 2025 excuse me um we are here at the Bada meeting room in town hall and if you are watching us online and wish to
comment uh we do not have a Zoom link for this meeting um so you'll have to come on down it's otherwise pretty minor and uh we can oh this meeting is however being recorded and I think that's
everything we have to say so that's that if anyone would like to lead us in the pledge we can do that i aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God
indivisible with liberty and justice for all okay so we have a comparatively light agenda ahead of us tonight um enjoy that May 12th is coming up which is not
um do we have any public comment seeing none we will hop on uh chair director's report everything is I mean continuing to run at the planning office hopefully
um things get a little more even in the near in the near future we'll see but till then Logan and I are in there well Logan's there all the time i'm helping out where I'm able and we're getting things going forward um you'll see a couple like couple
things tonight that come out of some of the discussions we've had as a board and just want to make sure um like the board discussion for a certified vote that's just to handle something we've kind of talked about as a board but we do need to have a vote to make it more official if that's what we want to do um about
just peer reviews beforehand um as an option not as a requirement great but first up we have uh a request for a day minimous change for 110 Pleasant Street to their uh previous site plan
approval very good good evening i'm Ryan Proctor i'm with Dillis Roy Civil Design Group i'm here tonight representing the applicant Paradise Contractors the board might remember a little over two months ago uh the board voted to issue a site plan approval
decision for a project at 110 Pleasant Street which involved the construction of an addition to an existing shop and garage uh utilized by an excavating contracting company that decision has since been clerked with no appeals and has been recorded at the registry of deeds uh that was completed I believe a
couple weeks ago subsequent to recording that decision the applicant contacted us uh looking to make some minor modifications to the foundation of the proposed addition so I've indicated those two areas in red um basically they were looking to extend the foundation in two locations extend those out 2 feet
from what was previously approved uh one to the south the northwest excuse me southwest side of the building and one to the southeast side of the building so those would be two feet and the originally approved uh square footage of the addition was
1,092 ft the proposed final addition with this minor modification is 1,259 ft so the increase we're requesting is 467 ft greg Roy was at the original meeting he presented the project and I'll just reiterate that the area of
this proposed addition is a combination of paved and compacted gravel so we really do not see any impact with respect to storm water uh with the previously approved addition and certainly with these minor modifications secondly we do not see any impact to the required parking there is
requ uh adequate parking on the site which we've documented on the site plan right at the top and lastly there was a comment from the board of health during the initial permitting of the project uh that we had to do a title 5 inspection prior to issuance of a building permit
we still do intend to do that and given the use of the garage space that we are proposing we don't anticipate any impact with respect to the system the septic system relative to that i will be brief and leave it at that if there are any questions I will be happy to take them okay as a reminder from the board this
is a request for a day minimous change that does not require a public hearing um we first determine if our our our common path has been to first determine if it is a dimminimous change if the request would qualify that way and then
to vote on if we would um if we accept the dimminimous change uh we do have guidelines for dimminimous changes in our let me whatever the document I'm
looking in our rules and rags for site plan approval and special permits [Music] and are those Logan are those already in the um no but I can um upload specifically the
section about Mr okay I can just go over it quick i have it up if you don't mind I can read it to us quickly um which is the planning board where is not otherwise inconsistent with these provisions or with the town zoning bylaw
may approve dimminimous changes to a previously approved site plan deminimous changes may be approved for such changes including but not limited to um and these are numbered but I'll just go through them total number of parking
spaces parking space size and alignment minor drainage for surface storm water curb opening dimensions and locations um provided as approved by police and DOT removal of underground storage tanks
or other underground utilities minor changes to water and/or sewer changes in hydrant locations changes in building elevations and topographic changes on portions of the site changes in walkways and handicapped accessways and changes in the type of
screening uh and types of screening or rubbish rubbish collection areas so um this isn't something that is directly on the list but if we deem it of the
same magnitude we are because it is a list that is including but not limited to we have the ability to view this as a dimminimous change um so I didn't you said that this is an increase
of about 160 square ft right 167 okay yep and this is But you said it doesn't change the impervious on the site did I or what do we The existing land cover where this addition is going is essentially
impervious now it's a combination of pavement and compacted gravel okay so it it it we're exchanging imperous surfaces surfaces essentially yes okay y there's one fine point there though it this is going to be roofed it's an enlargement of the building it
will be y so the roof runoff is considered clean for for for drainage reasons and um if it wasn't if it wasn't roofed then it would it would add to the runoff calculations but since it is clean okay
making a note um what prompted this change uh frankly I'm not too sure um this came through somebody else in my office um so I could not tell you um and this is please remind me again i know you you
probably covered it initially but um I'm about at 85% right now okay so um what is the building and what is the change like like not numbers just descriptively like what are we Yeah so
it's a combination of a office space which is this lower section here mhm and then the rest of it is a garage that's utilized for the construction company's storage uh maintenance on their own equipment and so that the expansion is an expansion of the garage area okay
and um is it still maintaining the same setback and everything so we still are compliant with zoning setbacks we did update the dimensions on the plan that we submitted um so I think it's a little bit closer to the property line but we're still within the the allowed zoning setbacks
okay all right i turn to the board for other discussion or com or questions or general thoughts um if you're ready I would move to find that it is a dimminitive change if you're ready for that uh if we have a if
we have a second absolutely i'll second moved and seconded any further discussion just because I want to make sure we're not cutting off fine all right all in favor i okay now we believe it is a dimminimous change and now we can decide if we uh
accept the dimminimous change um any discussion on that or I feel like if it's dimminimous it's fine to me like in this case like um I I would move that we approve the
dimminimous change for 110 Pleasant Street plan approval i'll second moved and seconded um Logan that should cover us right as far as you know yep okay all in favor hi hi hi bangarang thank you
very much you got it have a good night thank you can I ask a general question not specifically on this but for uh the dimminimous changes is there a reason we don't get these plans in our documents do they not need to submit it no sorry it is there um Okay
that's fine yeah if you refresh the page it should be there oh is it okay yeah um so right now the office is both short staffed and Logan is pulling double duty
helping for other staff members that are out on significant leave like like independent of planning right now yeah i'm just cuz it's a little Yeah no so I just want to be um if if things are set up a little wonky we are uh many hands make light work and that
on the other hand fewer hands make well heavier work um but okay thank you thank you i'm going to go back to our agenda okay that is our dimminimous
change public hearings we have the public hearings for the warrant articles for town meeting this weekend um for our ADU and flood insurance rate map updates it's loading [Music]
thinking about it yeah that might be me i apologize i feel like the internet on any device I touch for about the past four or five days has been super slow and so it might be uh lagging by proximity okay
almost there there we go okay uh the Lunberg Planning Board will hold a public hearing on April 28th 2025 at 6:05 p.m town Hall 17 Main Street Lunenberg Mass to make a recommendation to annual town meeting 2025 on
alterations to code of the town of Lunenburgg chapter 250 zoning to conform with provisions of the Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act being chapter 150 of the acts of 2024 specifically relative to accessory
dwelling units sorry adus and article 4 to replace in entirety the flood plane bylaw section 250-4.8 to allow for mandatory updates
to the flood insurance rate maps FIRM and required zoning bylaw and map for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program materials are available for viewing at the planning office at 960 Mass Avenue in Lunenberg
Mass all right so we have currently no public here for the public hearing but we can discuss regardless as we should and if people show up um that works again if
you are watching at home tonight um on public access or on face I think they do Facebook live too um we do not have a Zoom link for tonight's meeting so please you can come on down to town hall and we will be happy to hear you out but
the board has discussed these previously over months at length as well um so wanted to give us uh do we want to talk about them se I'm f I'm comfy just kind of talking about them together because we've looked at these several
times before but if we want to be a little more break it up I'm fine with that too okay I'll just dive in um no I've uh spoken with town council about these as well
um and I mean it it is as we've talked about there's a couple minor points that are more points of interest than anything else um some towns have tri I mean the
language is there but if there were a motion at town meeting uh for the ADUs to say oh we should only allow this in single family residenc like single family zoned areas or or single family residences um some towns have tried that
and been shot down so that is if that were to come up that um uh town council put that on my radar as something some municipalities have looked at the last minute and doesn't really work now we have not
required previously that ADUs only be on single family so that would actually be a restriction we haven't had for a very long time if it came up in addition but um also uh something else town council
brought to me it wasn't something that had been discussed as uh thoroughly i don't I didn't remember it from discussion here so I wanted to call it out um for the flood plane any work done Oh two things for the flood plane don't
let me forget the first is just any work done in the flood plane area and I've been looking at the maps the changes are very small um requires a special permit not if your land is on the flood plane it is a
change in the flood plane area and in many in most instances this is mean I mean you're talking about a very small buffer around a stream or something so um and that is not that is a again
that's a requirement of the feds so that people can get their um flood insurance through the feds uh it's I think the odds of that ever coming up at this point are low anyway but putting that on our radar the
other thing I wanted to call out um is I had originally asked the um uh the planning office if we could reach out to the residents that are that have
um uh whose property is being impacted i've had uh I don't want to say extensive but multiple significant talks with Katie Pate from DCR who's presented to us before and the
um unfortunately with the licenses and everything we have in town that information is very difficult to come by and I tried going through the maps and it it requires a step by step for every property looking on one map then
dragging a slider to see if there's a change then finding the same spot on a different map to figure out what properties are there um it it the person hours involved are not feasible right
now with everything else going on and um so with that what I do intend to do is uh print up for town meeting for those who are there basically the state has instructions for different or sorry the feds have instructions for tools you can
use online so people can give a quick check they can find their property on the map drag the slider bar and see if there's a change where they are on the map and really um it the changes are minor
we have um 18 flood insurance policies through the feds in town and this would not change much if anything um in terms of
those so that's just where we are right now i tried to follow through on that because we discussed doing it as a board and made that request at the office but uh the the time investment versus what's
feasible isn't doable right now i do intend to try to stop go to the select board meeting tomorrow night just to state that out loud to them as well so it's out at their meeting as well so the public is aware of it because I don't want I no point do I ever want the
public to feel like we're trying to pull a fast one or covering anything up there's just limited hours in the day um I kind of wanted to give those updates otherwise we've seen it do we
have other discussion on these topics i think just with the the ADUs just to to reiterate I do think it's important that as we we present it that we indicate that um you kind of brushed up on it with terms of the amendments that they're not
allowed because this is mandated by the state and it is another you know in my opinion encroachment um of our local rights and bylaws and controlling our bylaws and zoning um and that acknowledge that the state
does have the authority to do such but I I think you know again I think an an important point to to emphasize is that the owner occupied aspect of the bylaw is going away and you know to your point it is comforting that the the bylaw is
otherwise not significantly different than what we had however that one I do believe is significant and you know opens up properties to to investors that are looking to you know increase their portfolio of of rental property and
thereby making fewer homes available for people to purchase on their own so it's you know I'm I'm I'm not in favor of this the state encroaching on uh the the town's um by or the zoning um but acknowledge that they they do have have
that authority and you know and that you know dovtales right into the the you know future discussions about the MBTA communities act that this is not a one-off that it's more of a trend of the the state stepping in and uh you know
their focus has moved away clearly from education and it's now housing and that's where a lot of the taxpayer dollars are now going is to housing and this is just an example of that so again I just think it's important that we make it abundantly clear that this change is
driven by the state and that we don't have the any of the options and and to highlight the the impactful changes um a a per discussions we've had in the past full agreement on my end i suspect
so I've worked under the assumption I was going to present these um at town meeting like I have recently if if that's a cons if people don't like that let me know but I was just kind of working forward under that to keep things moving um and as and Glenn as
we've talked about before I think I am I am likely to make that point less emphatic I'm I'm likely I'm going to make that point I'm likely to make it I believe less emphatic radically than you might prefer due to my role of trying to
educate people on the stage and get us through but I also would certainly not object to that point uh to if you chose to raise that point from the floor i that would not bother me one iota because I think it's a thing we do need
to understand and get across i just um I don't want to when presenting something we that's important in my in my estimation that we pass i don't want to risk confusing people into maybe we
shouldn't from my vantage point up there but I think it's a point we do need to hear as a town i agree with everything you just said and I'm comfortable with that i I just my main concern is that it just doesn't get swept under i think that you know it's incumbent upon us and we have done our part so far in terms of
speaking of it several other times but um I I just that one in particular I think it just that the voters just need to be informed because you know and to your point you don't have to embellish like I have tonight and previously that
just disclosing that that is the owner occupied aspect is being removed is in my opinion sufficient for notice for the voters yeah and that will abs because the big takeaways for changes um I mean the big takeaway for changes
with the ADUs owner occupied is the big change y that's really it um aside from very odd niche use cases like that
could happen i mean if you want to get technical a condo development could with its with within its own bylaws like and its own ability to do things at an ADU that I don't know we
considered one way or another before and that is more explicitly allowed but those are niche and very limited in scope and again that's a if a condo wanted to and the condo condo rules and rags still apply this
doesn't impact those so it's not like someone in a condo could do it and force the condo or condex as we more commonly have in town the the small scale and and also in fairness the the owner occupied aspect being removed could be
you know beneficial to some people some people may view that as a positive so I mean it's it's just it's just information that should be shared yes um all right other thoughts or discussion on
these hearing none um do we have a motion to uh this is to uh to do we have a mo a motion is it to recommend
approval is that Yeah let me uh what was the wording on the Oh I think it's recommend acceptance do do that within the open uh Oh I think we'd have to close the public hearing first yeah you
need to ask even though you need to ask a public comment even though there's obviously that's fair um I kind of did by implication but you're right i do need to do that overtly uh is there any public comment there's no one else in the room with us
tonight so that is no public comment if someone knocks down the door we'll hear them um okay with all that said uh we could have a if we're done discussing we could have a motion to close public hearing
was the public hearing for the map of the of the uh flood plane as well are we going to talk about it before oh I I kind of got into that so I I was just addressing them both as we talked about them if we want to break it out we can this public hearing was for both okay so
we can't so we actually Yeah the is one public hearing for both so we need to close for both both if we're done talking about it that's fine if we want to talk about flood plane more I am fine excuse me if we leave the public hearing open and somebody does want to come in that would allow for them to be able to
comment all right um can we just move on to other business while the public hearing's open and go on to other things on our agenda no I would assume that would only be allowed for the two things that we had yeah so in that
case think we need to close unless we Yep unless we want to sit here and to to that point like the the uh public public hearing they would just be able to express their opinions and trying to get us not to support the articles and that
really is still applies they could come to town meeting and still speak all they like and have the ultimate vote is on town meeting floor and yeah and frankly if you're at home and you're like but I'm coming down right now we'll still hear you out
um like we we can't we have to close the public hearing but by the same token if you were like but I had this big concern this should be addressed with amendment you can still come down we can still talk about things is a public meeting that is allowed just the public hearing
will be completed and we'll cast our vote on whether or not we recommend approval okay do we have a motion to close the public hearing for the ADU and flood
insurance rate map update bylaws so moved second moved and seconded all in favor i I All right um do we have a recommendation to would
it be to what would is a recommendation to conform That's what it says in the I mean it says a recommendation to annual town meeting on alterations to conform with provisions or it could just be a recommendation
i am looking at that wording as well give me one second isn't Isn't there a comma after zoning zoning to conform with provisions comma to Okay yeah comma to conform so I'm pretty sure it's just recommend approval yeah okay that's what
uh would we Let's handle them separately just so we're uh a little more thorough in case it matters um do we have a motion to recommend approval for the ADU bylaw so moved second moved and seconded
all in favor i Okay great do we have a motion to uh recommend approval for the um flood plane bylaw so moved second
moved and seconded all in favor i I I um great going to move us back uh there's one other uh Glenn you mentioned um MBTA communities and I did want to
give us an update on that um I should have done that during director chair chair report but forgot um I have been speaking with our contractor and got that all squared away
and uh for MBTA communities we will be uh and he will be coming on the 12th and presenting to us that is all squared away he will be the after like initial report and everything that he'll be the first thing on the agenda
um and he will show us basically the options they have put together and we will be able to discuss those and I think we talked about this at our last meeting some right the timeline okay um I haven't found dates
yet but I'll have to in the coming week and I may reach out for scheduling purposes but the goal would be to have a couple uh basically public info sessions to talk chat gather info get
feedback so that before our meeting on June 23rd we have look we've had a chance to review we've had a chance to present to the public the public's had a chance to review because we don't have a second meeting in May it gets a little dicey as
well but the goal being to have these discussions um and as a reminder I did request at least one paper um what's often called the paper compliance option what could we do that is is there an op if there is an option
for there to be minimal if any change to the town um and then yeah that is coming up on the 12th 12th is going to be a full meeting um okay let me find the
agenda board discussions certified vote revising 53G uh peerreview standard operating procedures now what this is not is a full edit of
our standard operating procedures that requires a public hearing and other things the rules and regulations rules sorry oh that's right change to rules and regs requires that we can change standard operating procedures thank you
Logan um and what this is is um for those of us who have been on the board uh really for Matt and I um Amanda I don't remember did you overlap with Adam too on the board okay great then you as well there was like it was a
shock to us when we switched over to Richard Harris and suddenly we always had to approve um peer review where in many instances it just kind of came through for us um and uh I chatted with Adam as well
recently we grabbed coffee and and though that was something that was basically said to developers you could elect to do this you could elect to put in money and request the peer review before the board does and yeah if the board doesn't want
it I mean I guess that's quote wasted money but it's going to move you forward by like two to six weeks in terms of timeline and um Logan spoke with uh Jen the town manager about it and the feedback
basically was because we haven't done it in a while it would be better if we had a certified vote which is just a vote everyone agreeing put it and then we put it on paper put it bring it to the Thinktown clerk just to say this is what
we did this was our vote um basically to get back to that practice being an option as a convenience for the applicants and um I to be a little more formal I would
recommend based on the numbers that have come through that we that we uh make that an option for I would recommend $2,000 is a number we've commonly heard for peer review that make that an option that
uh my recommendation would be basically if the planner or I'd like it to be planner or board chair well that planner role uh is not available right now just to make
it easy um basically where if one of those individuals thinks it likely the it's that basic I don't know the wording I want to use i want developers to have this option i want them to be able to
turn to someone in the office and say "Hey do you think the board might want it?" And they give their estimate their guess which we I think I personally think we're very predictable on that and then if the developer wants to either
way they could put the money into the account without having to wait for the board to request it and start the peer review process early are we comfy with that can I ask Well please go ahead i I think I would be more comfortable with making that a
standard that we require peer review for any application and then having the the opportunity to wave the peer review at the meeting i don't think I mean I don't I can't think of hardly any applications that I
would be comfortable reviewing without getting the input from the review i think that would be a change to rules and regs not a standard operating procedure it would be a bigger step and a discussion that I I've had with Logan
in the office is I would personally rather um we don't make changes to rules and rags until our planner situation is sorted out because uh I think that role
needs to have active input into such things and I would ra I would rather a patch for now to help the applicants coming in and then once we have a professional who can coach us better
handy rely on that to actually help us shore things up in a better way across the board but if we don't like this and we want to do it that way we can do it i can get it on an upcoming agenda realistically probably would not be the
12th cuz if remember that one's looking pretty packed but that is an option we have uh if I may Mr chair please my my I do share some concerns from prior with with Mr allison um but just when I was first
compiling all the information on this one of my first concerns was that any vote that gets taken on this might end up depending on the specific wording and such kind of laterally colliding with the rules and rags in that they might be close but not completely aligned um and
I hadn't hadn't thought of that um possibility before having it be a requirement that then is uh addressed explicitly with a waiver um sort of like that table that Marjorie had back in the day where it's has each individual item requested in the rules and regs and then
is it here is it not here or is it explicitly asked to be waved because those are three different things um and from the sound of it I do think that would solve that issue on the offic's side um I I also completely
agree with um waiting on any revisions to the rules and regs and until the office is more stable but um at the same time it it if it was something as minute as that as a singular sentence or paragraph within the rules and regs I think that could be
more feasible uh just my two cents okay i appreciate it so in looking at this and it's I open I opened the link in our shareepoint uh it's it's B submitt I don't know what
document this is from this is from the uh planning board rules and rags um it's not direct the text is it's annotated slightly for clarity um but the text herein is under
um let me get the specific speific section submission procedure uh section 3.7 review by consultants 53g/ project review fees okay so so but this is our rules and regulations yes so it already it looks to me
like we didn't need to make a vote a motion and a vote to have the review it looks like to me that we already required it is am I reading this wrong um if an applicant fails to submit the
required fee the application shall be deemed incomplete so it seems like it's a requirement already the uh caveat to that is is essentially that in my experience what
the required fee is hasn't been made clear to applicants because that presubmitting described in the paragraph above which is kind of a lynch pin to all this um has not been happening andor when the application is
coming to me for submission i I am certainly not qualified to to be saying this looks like it will require $2 to $3,000 of what have you to me right um I agree with that so I mean the the bigger
problem I see is that um we don't know anything about why there isn't a person there and we've got nobody to answer our questions and I mean could we just stop taking submissions until the um until that
position is back up and running i mean because I we're not supposed to change our rules and regulations without a public hearing it's already in the rules and regulations that this is going on so if I don't understand what changing the standard operating procedure is going to
do for us when it's already in our rules and rights that that this is a requirement of the office when there is a pre the the requirement of a presubmission meeting is already there right it's it's implied at the presubmit
presubmitt meeting i mean even if even if it just comes down to the meeting is the submission i mean that would qualify as far as I can tell but I mean this is our rules and regulations and we can't change it without a public hearing but
we're trying to go around that by changing our standard operating procedures is that is that the intent um the intent was to give developers another avenue than what we have been
doing which was to get them before us and have to have them get in front of us with plans and everything and then we request peer review and then they have to wait it was not so much to get around anything as to give
another avenue versus the way business has been done in the office for the past year plusish um well I I've said it before and I'll say it again is that just because we've done the wrong thing for a prolonged period
of time is no excuse to continue to do the wrong thing um I think I I appreciate your your your intent here I think but um I mean I don't I don't even know what
the standard operating procedure revision is going to be is it here timeline there so I don't know um no the materials that are uh present here just sort of context for the conversation that's happening now um I
didn't have a chance to draft up a full piece of language that would reflect what the revisions would be um just with the sort of juggling if you will at the moment mhm um quick point through you Mr chair on uh
the presubmitt meetings uh under section 3.1 submission um there's a paragraph applicants are welcomed and encouraged to schedule one or more presubmitt meetings with the planning department these meetings can be to review the
submittal materials or an in-house technical review with other regulatory departments um the way I read that is that they're not explicitly required and because of that the fallback is um in the earlier section B that the applicant
would be submitted uh informed at the time of submittal what the uh uh peer review fee would be and again that kind of just comes to you're being asked to provide $2 to
$3,000 on the spot if you happen to not have that presubmitting could read that as encouraging those presubmitt meetings which I could I could totally understand but um again I'm just trying to report what it's like on the ground right now no very much
appreciated and the issue is um oh I've got I've gained a newfound appreciation being in the office for how
much lacking a better term how much applicants don't read and I don't even there's a time I would have said that and meant it pjoratively now I just mean it as a statement of fact because it is
so dang pervasive i I don't understand it but it is what it is um in terms of um people don't read the application guidelines they don't read the term the terms and conditions
that we set at meetings when we do you know we talk about standard terms and conditions we get it down we review it we sign it the frequency with which those are not read is large and I've gotten to see that
then uh Brian Jingris our bu our building director has to come in and say "Hey um you know you're supposed to have this meeting first i need to check these things and before you before I can give you the B building permit." And these
are all the things that are in a standard conditions and have been so there's a time I was said they really need to and I still feel like that but the rate at which it doesn't happen leads me to believe there has to be some broader change in the long run to
facilit I don't know what that is um and part of it was with a more stable office pe uh builders develop relationships they'd come in and I think things happened more organically and smoother um I
wonder do you even have to come in at all if you're submitting via open gov um only to drop off uh hard copy requirements like a um hard copy of the plan if you're paying by physical check
um in theory no i wonder and that's not really a topic for tonight but like I wonder if that's something we need to make more clear via open gov that these are steps that are like required or recommended as well
because I wonder if having an online process which is really good for us and for the applicant but it might be creating the illusion of everything's online correct and I think that could be a stumbling block as well
if the board would rather wait and look at everything in a broader sense I'm uh fine with that we we cannot just not accept applications because we have to accept applications that's what the department has to do and
we can't not accept them because there's things with timelines and everything and developers or applicants in general get to apply so we have to make use with what we have if we'd rather wait I'm comfy with that i was trying to help
things uh this discussion came from things we had talked about previously as a board and trying to help remove one roadblock in what looked to be an easy way i'm fine with waiting if we're not comfortable with that
well in in project review fees in C it does say that uh they're based on the actual cost of the consultant's work a deposit of $2,000 will be due at the time of application so and then and then cost estimate will be provided by the review engineer and
the balance of the funds are due within 14 days of whatever it's cut off so I think it's already pretty clear i mean every application requires a review fee of $2,000 or
more if this if if we would like to So clearly based on discussions we've had with multiple planners as a board um this process has not been enforced if
we want to enforce this process I'm fine with it yes that's what I if so yeah but I'm saying that to the board at large if we aren't sure if we should because we haven't been I think that's a fair viewpoint too i don't know that I care
much either way i do think having an answer one way or another is beneficial and I'm fine either way we settle on that personally no I I think after reading this the answer is clear mhm it's already
required and yeah so I've heard a lot from two of us both Matts i'm going to say that it it makes sense to enforce it okay as it's written i think it it becomes more burdensome
to the board to have to have the applicants come to the meeting and then explain to them about the fee and then this you know going back and forth whereas if it's written here that it's $2,000 and then in 14 days the rest of it's due it's already written there
it makes more sense to just say "Hey," cuz it even says here even if they don't have the presubmitting it says at the presubmitt meeting or at the time of submitt so even though these meetings aren't happening if we have that standard hey you're applying this is it
you you you got to put this money down it's it's right there yeah I do find it a little bit confusing and I think it it's hard to argue against enforcing the you know the the rules as as as they exist without a
further you know review process mhm um so yeah I think and but to that point so are we saying we don't like when someone comes in with an application and we're going to deem that the the pre-submittal meeting they're we're not
collecting the $2,000 at that point the money is collected at the time of application they would ideally be informed about it ahead of time during a presubmitt meeting where they say hey here's what I
want to do and it's oh great like so that would be previously I'm going to use Adam as example because that's where we this was happening well hey Adam I want uh here's the I want to talk to you about the development of the stuff I'm doing we also didn't have all our applications
online you had to come in to get applications right hey I want to pull an application for a site plan approval oh hey what are you doing while I'm doing this oh well if you're doing X then I can tell you you're also going to need
and there would be that kind of talk the oh you're new why don't I introduce you to the bu uh to the building commissioner and that was all stuff that happened um in a more in-person paper-based move
i'm fine with it um Logan this seem I'm assuming but you know the back end and open Govern stuff much better than I this is something that we could work some wording in to help people understand the process 110% there's an
easy way to snag users upfront and before they can do anything else make them answer the question yes or no i you know do um want to submit yeah if it's being enforced then um it can get okay snagged
up front great then then we have ways of catching people up front and getting it in front of them and getting them on the right path earlier that way i'm personally comfy with I'm fine with that i don't have a problem with that one bit um and I don't
think I'll take a vote just for the sake of taking a vote but this isn't just for the sake of clarity and in case that needs to be memorialized at all but um I would look for a motion for us to
enforce our standard operating procedures um as Logan has detailed to us as written so moved second moved and seconded all in favor i I great um just as a side note I thought
that we well I think at numerous points and I think even probably numerous points while you were with us is that we have tried to get um standard submission requirements for applications and I thought that we were pretty close to
having and if not already had them um like like a like a sheet for each application oh you want to do this here this this is what you need to do that Yeah that is work we began with Adam um
did some Josie kind of took it upon herself to uh bring some ideas and stuff to us working with Richard Harris as well and we kind of did some of that but now there's been the full shift to open gov and
um I can go back and I can go through um all of Adam's files exist they are all backed up convenient um he was very kind to us and did the backups himself when there was a server migration to make sure it happened
correctly so we have all those files so I can try to go through them logan and I can go through them and find the older documents um being realistic knowing the summer break I don't know that we're going to make progress on that front until the
fall but when I say summer break it's not like we break as a board but boy town government slowed down in the summer can I make a recommendation please if we do have if we do catch stuff like this that's in our rules and regs that we uh
outline it or detail it or or um put it in our standard operating procedures so that it's already there so that when we do have the public hearing we can go back and look and say oh we want that we want that we want that and then bring those all into the public hearing and so
they move from the SOP to the RNR is is that sound like an equitable I think that makes a lot of my gut says sure i have no clue if there's weird technicalities and why we would or wouldn't do that and that's one of the reasons I want to wait for us to
have a more stable office yes but on the surface I'm in full agreement myself i like it okay we did hold the vote to enforce as written right okay cool
great all right I'm gonna look at our agenda okay I'm going to wrap board discussions then if we're good with that um anything big and abuing communities we need to know about
um no a couple notices from Fitchburg but um nothing germaine Lunenberg all right committee reports master plan steering committee um Tim is not here but I was
at the last couple master plan steering committees and um the last meeting was especially rough um backing up a little just a little broader we got
info from overunder on survey results and and everything else breaking it down saying this is what we think we want it should be talked about in more detail this is our recommendations this is basically based on all the feedback here's things we that have come through
on the surveys and public forum forums that we think would be good appropriate for Lunenburgg what we think wouldn't be based on community feedback and everything else and things that need to be discussed in more detail
um the master plan steering committee is golly is there a lot of struggle right now um just the committee struggled to meet for a long time and now it is and people are feeling I think I I can't really speak
for them and I don't want to put words in people's mouths i I get the impression that there's a lot of trying to figure out overunder's recommendations and why I'm going to reach back out to them and schedule another meeting um but the last master
plan steering committee meeting got cut short due to an unfortunately worded motion that got voted through that was to do one thing and close the meeting and that was interpreted as what now
means closed adjourned didn't get through their agenda um but they are sending me feedback on their questions and everything so I can get more questions to overunder and try to get it back to them
um it's a struggle right now being very just being completely transparent i think we're going to get there fine but the uh difficulty meeting I think has just in the long run has made things
harder is what it is open Space Committee uh I have not met since last meeting all right municipal Building Design Committee uh we were scheduled to meet last Monday but there was a qu there wasn't quum there was no
meeting all right capital Planning Committee has not met no we haven't okay um economic development committee uh still still working to try to address issues that they uh see or perceive with Lunberg not
being you know as businessfriendly as as as uh wished and um tomorrow we are meeting with luckily the the chair is willing to to meet with us because the EDC's plan was to sit down with the um
land use director but his in um being unavailable like thank the the chair for stepping stepping in and we'll have a meeting with the the chair of the EDC myself and the chair tomorrow to start the the ball rolling which I think will be an an important step to get everybody
on on the same page and again appreciate your uh willingness to keep the ball rolling happily um so oh never mind i'm sorry oh okay excuse me uh stormwater task force
tim is not here montichus Regional Planning Commission uh we haven't met we'll meet Thursday um I went to I did their uh lunch they're running an interesting lunch and learn series to sit and chat about
basically how do we deal with where funds are disappearing out from underneath us and we don't know what the future looks like um just with all the shifts in federal funding and everything else um that was uh I attended that that the
cup I think two weeks ago very interesting um just to get other communities feedbacks and talks um there was some promise that there is promise and hopes that Brownfield funding will remain solid
which is good for many municipalities Lunenburgg included um yeah and Massachusetts Joint Transportation Committee uh we haven't met we'll meet next week okay minutes
approval uh if you refresh it should be in your SharePoint now although I need to add the heading to it these are the minutes for April 14th you continue to write the clearest minutes I've ever read
just I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that we have extremely similar habits in terms of bold face and headings once people are ready I would accept a motion i'll motion to approve the planning
board's minutes from the April 14th 2025 meeting second any requests for more time all right moved and seconded all in favor i Love it okay meeting schedule um we meet at
6:00 p.m here at the Bada Meeting Room at Town Hall unless stated otherwise um our next two meetings are May 12th and June 9th um our regular meeting would
fall over Memorial Day and so as is usually the case we don't meet then um I mean in that of course we don't meet then but we don't schedule a separate meeting so uh May 12th and June 9th are our next scheduled
meetings great public comment all right seeing none um board comment concerns all right all that said I would accept a motion to adjurnn so moved second moved and seconded all in favor i
I I all right that that has it thank you everyone for another meeting of the Lunberg Planning Board we'll see you uh on May 12th for what will likely be a good old marathon session