Okay. And you can hit record. >> Recording in progress. >> All right. Good evening everybody and welcome to this the Monday, January 12th, 2026 meeting of the Lunberg Planning Board.
We are here at the beautiful Bilada meeting room at Town Hall. Um, you're going to want to kill the volume. And well, so funny enough, if I was about to say that if you're watching me, good
job. You have found us on channel 22 tonight. Um, we're not streaming on Facebook and we're not on channel 8 because of the tri board meeting that is also happening tonight and they didn't want to cut us off halfway through. Um,
but the meeting is being recorded and you can still join us online. And if you are watching at home on channel 22 and you want to participate, go ahead and log in with Zoom. You can do that by accessing the agenda on the town website
and uh the link will be there along with a phone number to call in if that is better for you. I do want before we dive into other business tonight, I do want to let us know that um Zero Reservoir Road was
listed for tonight. um they have requested a continuence so that will not be addressed in any detail tonight. Otherwise, we'll be continuing with the agenda as posted.
Okay. Um I'll first turn to the board and oh, first of all, just make sure we're working. Amanda Richard, could I get you each to chime in quickly? >> Yes. >> Great. >> Here. Okay, perfect. I heard Amanda as
well. Thank you. That is all I needed. Just uh Amanda Reid is joining us remotely tonight as is Richard Harris, our interim land use uh planner, whatever the term is now. Um
great. Okay. Um I'll start with do we have any board comment? Nope. hearing none. We have the chair and director's reports. Uh Mr. Harris, I
will turn to you because I have been blissfully slightly more handsoff. Um is there anything you want us to know overall before we dive in? Oh, I think you might be muted, Richard. didn't unmute enough. Uh nothing
significant. Uh I know the new uh planner began second. >> Apologies. One second. Can we Oh, we might have already done it actually. >> Okay, try now. It was a little quiet for me, but try now. >> Um nothing major, but I understand the
new planner begins the first 1st of February. And we have a couple new applications submitted that'll be scheduled sometime in February. >> Yep. And uh that that is correct. Mr. um Steven Wallace
is going to be joining us starting the first Monday in February. >> February 2nd. >> February 2nd as our as our um director of planning and economic development. >> Yes. >> So I am super excited. Uh Mr. Wallace
brings in a great deal of experience and uh this is going to be a real good fit for the town. I'm looking forward to it. Wonderful. Um moving on, our first item of business on the agenda otherwise
would be an ANR for 10 Parameter Road. Good evening. Happy New Year. I guess that's not old yet. Greg Roy with Dillson Roy. Thanks for your time this evening. I have uh an ANR plan that was that we submitted to you.
Um that's uh a little different than most of the ANR plans that we submit to you. Um we um the the property is known as 10 Parameter Road, Apartment Street. Um right situated um actually between Round
Road, Parmentor, and Ruth. Um it's about 50 acres uh nominally the the piece of land that's that is a wholly undeveloped piece of property. Um and it's a it's unique in that um there is a lot of frontage available um on the um
surrounding the site uh for the um available to to uh create uh ANR plans with. So this this plan shows a total of 35 ANR lots. um on the property. Um the
property is located in the residents A zoning district. So um we're dealing with a 40,000 square foot um minimum area. Um there are several lots that are uh reduced that we're proposing that are reduced frontage lots. So in th in those
cases, the uh minimum area uh needs to be doubled. So it would go to 80,000 square ft um for the resident a zoning district. And um there's a couple of things about the property that make it pretty unique and I want to talk through two of them and I'm sure you folks will
have some questions and comments too that um I would like to get to. So I won't talk forever. Um as we were preparing our doing the survey and the research and all of that, all of the work that goes into uh preparation of a
plan uh such as this or survey of a property such as this. Um there were two things that that um became apparent. Um the first is that along Par Street and Ruth Street um
there have been some historical street or uh uh takings by the town. The first of which was done in 1988 and the second one was uh at least started in 1991. And that's a kind of an
important point that I wanted to u that I wanted to talk through. Um in 1991, there was a plan that was put on record, a street taking plan, if you will. I'm not sure what it what the name of it was, but it was it was a recorded plan
that showed essentially the areas that are hatched. If you can see those kind of darker hatched areas along the frontage of the road, um those were the areas that were to be taken by the town for the uh for the because the road is
is in them is in those areas. So the road wasn't actually in the rightway. Um we have discovered through research that those that the actual instrument for you know the actual legal instrument um that would have finished and completed that
taking was not recorded was never recorded. So there was there's a plan of land on record but that's not good enough. You have to have a deed if you will. I'm not sure exactly what it would be called a take an order of taking or or something like that. That instrument was not recorded. It was for 1988 but it
wasn't for for 1991. So there's an issue now and I'm going to show you some plans here in a second. Um where uh still today um because the those areas were not taken formally um the road pavement is outside of the
existing uh rightway and actually on the subject property. And I'm going to show you a couple of maps that kind of highlights that a little. Hold on. It's a little difficult to to tell, but I I essentially just turned on the pavement in red. Okay, so this is
Parameter Street and in red you can see um there's a starting at the um the round road and down at the corner, there's a pretty good chunk of pavement that's off uh in that hatched area. Uh and then it gets a little bit better as you go forward. uh but then at the at
the end there there's another uh place where the pavement is now outside of the uh of the existing easement. So those hatched areas today are not included in the right are not legally part of the rightway for the for the streets. And then similarly
as you uh Parametric Street is is off to the uh left. If you round the corner um onto Root Street, you have the same issue. So the hatched sort of the dotted hatched area is the the triangular shaped dotted hatched area uh is the parcel that was not taken and you can
see where the road is um high I just colored it in red for you. So um one of the things that we were that we are proposing to do with this plan and the reason we created those as separate parcels is we would like to create those as part of this so as part of this ANR
plan and just correct that issue and deed it to the town >> so that now that is is gone that issue is resolved. Um the second let me go back a plan. The second interesting part about this
piece of land is uh related to fire road 15. Fire road 15 if you were to take Round Road which is down at the bottom. Fire road 15 parallels the uh MBTA Railroad which is that straight line right at the
the bottom of the the page. Fire Road 15 provides um is a way it provides access to five or six homes along Lake Shirley. Um but it does not exist in a rightway like we have for Round Road, Parent Street and Root Street where you have a
right away and then a traveled way. Um there is a traveled way um that we have survey located from excuse me the end of Round Road all the way up to where it exits the property um which is entitled Fire Road 15. And it in fact provides
historical and current access to several properties um along that um are um along Lake Shirley, excuse me. Um, so that's an interesting uh that's an interesting situation we find ourselves
in. We have a way that's not um typical in that it doesn't have a right away, if you will, and a traveled way. It just has a traveled way. Um, so our contention um or our proposal is that we
acknowledge the way more formally. We're proposing to um actually create a rightaway uh from Round Road to the edge of the to the end of the property where it where it exits the road the traveled way would continue. Um but we would
create the uh the rightway and we think that cleans up um a situation that exists today where you really have um folks that are traveling uh across that way um and there's no real defined
right of way if you will. There is a traveled way defined traveled way. >> Um so that's our proposal. There are a total of lots 20 five lots 25 through 35 um have uh front on uh fire road 15. Um so that is the um
those are the two things I wanted to point out to you uh this evening. You were kind enough uh Mr. Brener to give me a few heads up on those things. So we wanted to be a little a little at least a little bit prepared to acknowledge that. Um, I wanted to just put it in the context
of of other um I I know it's not really material to the ANR process, but I wanted to give you a little bit of update of um what else is in the works with this. Great. >> Um, we know that we will need storm water permits uh from you folks, storm water
permit applications. We're working on those. Um, we know that uh in a few cases we're going to be proposing uh to access a few of the the uh lots with uh common driveways. Uh so we'll have a a few special permits. It just makes sense from a grading standpoint on
a on a few um on a few of the lots. Um and we also uh there are a few wetland areas. The most significant wetland area is is on the southerntherly, if you will, side of Round Road. Um so all of those lots um lots
17 16 through 23 or four are going to have uh conservation commission filing. We're also working on those. I know that's not apppropo to your board, but just to put it in the context um of of where we're at with with other uh other permits. Um
I think that's where I wanted to leave it. Um I'm happy to take questions. Um, it's a complicated one. I know it. So, um, I'm sure you folks have a few questions. Um,
uh, to start us off, what I would like to do, um, I want I want to call out a few things I'm super impressed with on this, by the way. I want to let you know one concern I have that isn't going to impact the ANR, but again just because we try to give those heads up ahead of
time during this process. Um I I see one potential issue with common driveways that I want to call to your attention. >> Okay. >> And then I do at least at least myself I have some concerns about the ANR itself. But first,
I want to start by saying, dang, is this well put together. Um, in terms of I am cuz this is what 34 loss something like 35. >> 35. Yeah. >> Um,
>> you did an amazing or whoever put this plan if it was you or someone else >> is exceptionally well put together and clear for something so complex. And uh the fact that the lot lines were figured out by hand doubly impressive.
>> Y >> um >> no AI yet in our office >> and as well as the the communication about here's all the frontages this that made made this complex project much easier to understand. Thank you. Um, I
did want to point out that if you're planning on um using common driveways attaching to Route 15 or not route to Fire Road 15, this board does not, to my understanding, does not have the ability
under our common driveway bylaw to grant common driveways on Fire Road 15. >> And bec and because it I have my notes here. Um, give me one because we require Oh, sorry. It's reduced frontage. I take
that back. Um, we require uh 250.1b3 250.1b3. I don't remember a section versus what? Yeah, >> that's fine. uh we require reduced frontage to be in
accept on an accepted way. >> Okay. >> Which fire road 15 is not an accepted way. >> That is true. >> So that doesn't stop us. That doesn't get in the way of the ANR.
But that's I wanted to call that out because that might impact your plans or the applicant's plans. Um, and that's not I mean that's just that that's a matter of the way the bylaws stand. Um,
I have I I went out on the 29th uh with uh Brian Jingris, the building commissioner. Um, in in part because I only have all-wheel drive and he has a 4x4. >> Yep. Um, and
I have very strong reservations about the suitability of Fire Road 15 for development um, at this level as it stands now. And again, I I Brian, not
Bri, Richard, I encourage you to correct me where I'm wrong or if I'm wrong, but my understanding is in ANR, we have to view it based on current status, not on future status. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And as that road stands now, um it it seems neither safe nor accessible. um for that many. I I know there's already a few properties serviced by it.
>> Yep. >> But increasing that property amount gives me a huge concern. And I think we have a letter from the fire chief um that has come in echoing that as well. Okay, >> just to kind of dog pile on that, I went
out there in my Honda and I didn't get >> 100 ft up the unimproved portion. >> Yeah, we're >> and that was 2 and 1/2 hours ago. So, like it wasn't the worst of the icy conditions, but it's still fairly icy
out there and frontwheel drive. I mean, could I have done it? Maybe. Was I willing to push it? No. Um, so I I share the concerns about width, grade, surface material, and who's responsible
for maintenance. And when you add, you know, another 10 or more homes, um, construction traffic and day-to-day traffic, I think, is a significant issue. >> It froze. >> And, uh, Richard is looking to chime in
for us. Adam's Adam's speaking froze in the middle of his statements. >> What? What was that? >> Adam, he froze in the middle of statements. >> Oh, basically I think it's too steep,
too narrow, and has no real suitable material. Um, I think the other thing I'm sorry, I didn't mean to jump in on what you were saying, but >> No, that that was my if we're talking about the right of way. You said there is no right of way, so you want to create a right of way, which in all of
my years in training says that's a subdivision and thus not an ANR and does require an approval because now you're talking about creating the legal instrument for the construction of a
road. the road requires I think I I believe and I I'll leave it to the rest of the board to comment for themselves needs improvement which would need to be constructed to subdivision standards. So I think at least that portion is is subdivisionw worthy. Um, and going out
there, it's it's unclear on the road, and I haven't been able to get the the Fitsburg uh deeds website to load uh either Saturday or today, but there's a sign just past the intersection of Parmentor and Round that says Private
Road entering Fire Road 15, and it's on the improved portion. And >> yeah, >> I'll be the first to say signs are like the least legal and reasonable way to determine what's what. But yeah, that went up at some point.
>> And so without a deed on the road and and without having the benefit of looking at the plan, I have some kind of questions about where Fire Road 15 begins and and what it it takes. Um, and
never mind there are between lot I'll say at least 18 19 20 21 22 I have some concerns about um
suitable grade access because it goes up fairly significantly. >> Mhm. >> Um and finding >> which lots did you say? uh basically 17 through 22, but um 18 through through 21 are the really dicey ones in my opinion.
Um it goes up pretty steeply and it it seems to hit a level but keep climbing. So >> yeah, we have those designed and you'll you'll get them eventually. >> That that's fine. If if you have them designed and it meets the the 10% standard and all of that, then
>> Yep. But that that's the that's that there. Uh and then like I said, I mean my real concern is that unimproved portion of fire road 15. Richard, >> I think it might be helpful for the record just state what the standards for
an endorsement are so people understand why we're talking about what we are. If I may >> please. and and those are found in master law chapter 41 section 81L which provides that the division of a
track of land into two or more lots shall not be deemed constitute subdivision within the meaning of the subdivision control law if at the time when it is made every lot within the tract so divide has frontage on a a
public way or way which the clerk of the city or town certifies is maintained and used as a public way or B a way shown on a plan therefore approved and endorsed in accordance with the sub
control law or a way in existence when the subject control subdivision control law became effective in the city or town in which the land lies having in the opinion of the planning board >> that's the one we're on >> that's critical
>> sufficient width, suitable grades, and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed use of the land abing thereon or served thereby and for the installation of municipal services to
serve such land and the buildings erected or to be erected thereon. Such furnishing shall be at least a such distance on as is then required by zoning or other ordinance or bylaw. Um
so I think it's and C is what we already talking about fire road 15. Um and that it is solely in the planning board's determination as adequacy. And we did receive a letter from the fire department expressing
concerns about advocacy from a public safety perspective. Richard, can I ask you a question about way in existence? Because in my experience and all of the the research I've done and all of my my previous uh
experience, all of the case law refers to rights of way that exist, constructed, unconstructed, of different levels of construction, and fire road 15 doesn't even have a right
of way associated with it. How what is do you have any any anything like am I missing something on the legal side where that would even be a reasonable frontage >> in case of ANR you may in fact have a way that does not have rightway it's
just a means of access um >> and you're right earlier when you mentioned that if in my opinion if you're going to create a rideway that's a subdivision Uh but you could endorse ANR iss that
and I've seen that done and in discussing this with town council he did not express any concern about that issue but the fact is if the if the way itself is not adequate from a construction perspective access grades widths etc
then in the plane boards perspective then it does not qualify as endorsement. >> Okay. Thank you. It may not have right away. It may just be a physical structure there. I I've seen that done. Um >> where is it was privately owned and it
was entitled to endorsement because it did meet in plan board's way in that case uh condition for an endorsement. >> So I have a couple things if I could I'll try not to forget. >> Let me address that first. Um
uh two two things on that point. One is um yeah I think we probably could have and again I'm I'm not a land attorney here. I'm also not a land surveyor. >> So >> two strikes against you. That's two strikes against me. But um but I think
we probably could have foregone foregone not drawn the uh the 50 the rightway or whatever 40 or 50 foot rightway that we're proposing across Fire Road 15 and just drawn them to the center line of the road. It's a it's still even though there's not a rightway that's wider than
the traveled way, it's still you have a rightaway because it's you you you have the ability to pass and repass over that. I understand your concerns with the adequacy. Um, so I wanted to I wanted to say that we thought that um it
would be cleaner to just create a larger wider uh right away, but that may not be the way to to go. And I'll say too, as an aside, we're going to have to take this list and go back and >> get you some, you know, consult with our legal team, I think, and get you some
some answers on this. Um, so that's number one. Number two, with respect to adequacy of the way, um, if it's determined that we can derive frontage from the fire road 15, um, which I think I just heard Richard say
that he had conferred with town council, but I could I could be mistaken on that. Um, I guess my question is um if we can derive if we could I if
there is I guess I'll say it in a question. Is there a way that we can improve propose to you or to the town um to improve the adequacy of the way in a manner that would be satisfactory
um so that we can then derive frontage on it without going through the subdivision process and we have done that in other towns. I know you're shaking your head but we have done that in other towns. It becomes it becomes a matter of um making sure that the adequacy
uh meets with the planning boards. Um I mean he'd read the statute. It it needs to meet the planning boards. Um so you don't have to answer the I'm asking questions but I I want to before I forget my other thing. >> Yeah, please.
>> Um so so that that's my my question on that front. Um, and then the last thing is that we are fairly confident that Round Road is a public road all the way down to where it uh meets the Massachusetts Bay uh transit. And I
think that probably that sign was put there because there's in fact no houses on, you know, past that point. So in order to not have people, you know, >> get all the way down. Yeah. >> Yeah. And then turn around. But we believe we're fairly confident that it's >> and I don't disagree with just wanted clarification on that. Um that's fine.
My my position as a member of the board on the improvement of Fire Road 15 is the toothpaste out of the tube. You've filed an ANR and the ANR is now predicated on
the existing conditions on the ground. If the applicant or the property owner had gone out there in May and said, "You know what? We have legal rights on Fire Road 15 to improve pass and repass, done
work that they felt made it a more appropriate vehicle to do so and filed the ANR afterwards. and we had gone out and seen that there's a 22 foot, you know, even if it was w and the fire department gave
us information that said yes, this meets our standards, then I think we're talking about a different situation. But at this point, we've identified that it doesn't have adequate construction or suitable grade. >> Yeah, that that I understand. I guess I guess what we need to flush out and I I
don't think we're going to come to an answer tonight is is the only way to do that improvement in this case since we believe that it's a way it's just not adequate. So if it's a way and it were adequate we could drive frontage from it >> without with through an ANR without a
subdivision. I it's not adequate. So we have to address that. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is how would we go about doing it without is there a is there intermediate path here where we could improve access adequacy
um without a sub a formal subdivision approval given that it's already away >> I can I think I can help with that a little um in that this came up uh when I was speaking with town council um >> who is a
delightfully into land use law. >> Oh, yeah. >> He he >> Oh, that um >> I know Adam well. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, now Richard, I have in my notes from that meeting, but I'd want to qualif I' I'd want to check with you if
if I have it in my notes that if if fire road 15 is not adequate today, they can they can make it adequate and come back under stat that that's allowed under statute. Is that does that reflect your
understanding or memory of that meeting? >> My recollection is that the board has to act on the ANR as presented. >> Yes. >> Under conditions today. >> Yeah. the board if they were to deny this ANR because of fire road 15 being
inadequate, the applicant could go back and go through proper meetings to upgrade fire road 15 and submit a new ANR u and the board would then look at it as conditions exist at that time.
that that is that that is the words I meant said way more eloquently than I did. Um >> that was my takeaway from that meeting. Um and it but what I do want to point out though um I I gave you the concern
about the reduced frontage before. Um >> uh what I have in my notes now I was I'd have to I'd have to check that uh section of the bylaw again because I remembered it being about common driveways, but my notes kind of indicate
it's about um just reduced frontage lots in general. So, I I couldn't tell you which. I'd have to go look and see. >> Um but I specifically have in my notes that, >> you know, we could still approve the
ANR, but um ex entrances and driveways for the reduced frontage can only come from an accepted and approved town way. The way to address that, what the only way to address getting an accepted improved townway
is through the subdivision process. >> I think you're right. I think that is in the common driveway provisions. >> Okay. So, >> I think I remember reading that >> that would potentially >> I mean, >> if we're to my understanding after speaking with town council, um, and I
would have to go back to verify things. I'll be frank about that. Yep. >> You could gussy. You could fix up fire road 15. >> Yeah. >> Apply again. >> Yeah, >> that could be fixed. >> Yeah. >> However, you're still going to have some
other potential issues if you're barking up that tree. >> Yeah. I don't think we're proposing any common driveways off of fire 15, but I we'll have to look at that. I do appreciate you saying that. Um, >> again, I I don't what I don't want to have happen is you put a bunch of work in. Yeah. And then
>> you accidentally fall prey to something else that we maybe could identify ahead of time. >> Yeah. No, I I thank you. I appreciate that. Um, I don't want to speak out of turn here. I think that I know that Mitch is here. Sorry, I didn't introduce. Mitch is with
the applicant. Uh, Benjamin Builderson. I think also Ally is online. So, if Ally, if you see a hand raised, >> hi. How's it going? Ally, if you wanted if you have anything to say, feel free to interrupt. >> Yeah, if you don't mind, and sorry I'm joining via Zoom. I am 9 months pregnant
and trying to stay local to my house should any early labor happen. Um, but I did want to kind of touch upon the fire road topic. Um, so doing some of my
background is a land use attorney. Um, so I kind of was digging into it as well because it is an interesting situation. Um, so I went out and I did kind of explore the different fire roads and I went through the GIS map and did notice
that 51 lots are serviced by the fire roads in this area. Um, most with the same condition or lesser some of the narrowness of them. Um, I know there's fire road 8 that has the campground that
it services um along with the little food shack at the end of it. Um, with I think it has three houses. Then there's fire road 10 that has four houses. Fire road 12 has nine houses. Um, then as we
discussed, fire road 15 does have, I believe it's five houses at the very end of it. Um, so if the board would be open to it, I do know that um, we would be willing to come back if we could make it
possibly contingent on us improving it to a width that you'd be comfortable with or whether it's paving um, adjusting the grade a bit. um where there are already so many houses serviced by fire roads,
it does seem to be a way to access lots that the town the planning board has previously found adequate. I understand that there are concerns and you don't want to exacerbate that on fire road 15. Um, but if there is a way
to kind of agree or like a contingent approval based on us improving it so that we don't go, like you say, kind of spend all that money and then come back and reapply and maybe we don't improve it as far as
you may like or to the standards that to kind of meet in the middle. I don't believe we have the option of contingent approvals on an ANR. >> ANRS aren't contingent. Um, and I mean I
I don't see a path to do that. I think also if you I I don't know the length of Fire Road 15 or the width that one would propose to construct it to. Um, but you may end
up in a storm water permit disturbance level where you're 40 over 40,000 ft of disturbance. So, you get into a storm water permit to do the improvements because it's not a zoning bylaw, it's a general bylaw, so it applies to all
land. Um, one would generally infer that if you're going to create new homes and you're doing 35 homes and 25 of them are served by
public roads and 10 are not, that's going to be something that at some point the folks there are going to say, "Well, you're not plowing our road. You're not maintaining it to the to municipal staff." And then we've got to go through the exercise of telling them, well, it's not a real road or it's a private road
and you've got to figure it out. It's not constructed to town standards. And then at some point they have to do a subdivision to create a road. I I think there's just a lot of pitfalls for for the town to provide any endorsement. So, as one member of the board, I'm not
comfortable with us providing much, if any, direction on how to or what to do to improve it. Um, I'm going to stay in the camp of a subdivision is probably the most appropriate vehicle to consider
Fire Road 15 as adequate frontage to locate new lots on. Um, I appreciate the groundwork you did to look at the fire roads. I think the the history of the fire roads goes back to the 20s and 30s
where they were camps. So I don't know that the number of homes served is is a an a is a mo is the most relevant allegory between this proposal and what exists
because a lot of those were camps that over the last 100 or so years have been slowly or less or or quickly converted into to year round homes. Um, and you know, I I think that it's difficult for
the members of this board to say if you do this, this, and this, it will be adequate because we still need to go back to the fire chief, to the DPW, and say, here's, you know, we said this, and they're like, well, that doesn't work for us or, >> well, yeah, we know we'd have to go
through that. and and I understand you do, but I I just that these are my reservations as a member of the board providing direction >> and our planner is waiting patiently as well. Richard, >> I want to reiterate that there is mention about a conditional approval.
Anal plan by definition is not approved by the board. >> Right. That's fair. >> It is an endorsement. Therefore, you cannot have an a conditional endorsement. It's either yes or no. It's not anything in between. There's no option for in between here. Um
they could very well board could decide not to endorse it and file that notice and the applicant is free to go back redesign ANR. If you want to design some plans, some lots as ANR that gets
endorsed and a subdivision plan for the rest of it, they can do that. That's their option how they want to approach it. But the plan board has no latitude for a conditional endorsement. Now, how do you put signature on there, but say
it really doesn't mean mean anything? No. You sign the plan, it's there. Um, and board has no ability to put conditions on the on the plan that requires upgrade of a uh way because they've already said it met the
requirements for endorsement. >> Yeah. I if I could, Mr. here. Um I I don't disagree with that. I I think what Ally was asking was So here's what I'm going to say. I think that we where we're headed here. Um it seems clear
that you're not going to endorse this plan. Um so I think that what we're headed for is I mean we are going to bring an ANR plan to you. We are asking for you to endorse an ANR plan. We're hopeful to get it all done of course all 35 lots. But I think what we're probably
headed towards is taking lots 20, well actually we'll probably consolidate lots 25 through 35 into one lot and you're going to have a 25 lot ANR plan um instead of a 35 lot ANR plan. Um and
then we'll deal with the you know disposition of Fire Road 15 which will go through lot whatever that lot would be 25 uh later. U because it's clear you can't endorse it. I I understand what you're saying, Richard read the statute. It seems pretty clear you can't endorse
a future condition on an ANR plan. I we understand that. Um I guess my question is um I think what Ally was asking is um it's and I think Adam answered it. Adam I think would be looking for a
subdivision on that. Is that what you're saying? >> That that's that's my position. I'm I'm one of four. So, uh you know, >> and so maybe what we need to do is we need to take that back to our legal team and discuss that a little bit further. Um and see if you know, maybe we're maybe we're back into you with a with a
different um with a different proposal on that. But one thing is for sure, we we understand it it seems pretty clear you're not going to endorse this plan as we're presenting it with 35 lots. What I would like to do is propose that you just hold on it and not act on it and we will continue this again. um continue
your ability to act because I would rather not have to um either withdraw it. We have a plan in front of you. I just like to revise it um to something that is uh acceptable. Um
>> can I ask what your hesitancy is with us acting? >> I don't want to pay the filing fee again. May I recommend that rather than ask us to continue to hold on to this, we take action and you request a waiver from
fees for resubmission. >> If that's acceptable, I would be happy with that. I just rather not. It's not procedurally >> this number it would be acceptable. >> Okay. But I mean that's >> yeah I think you're going to see a configuration of lots one through 24 the same and then we're gonna you're going
to see 25 through 35 consolidated into one with frontage on the on the far end of Round Road. Richard, >> what I've done in some prior life experiences uh where an applicant had a an ANR or
site plan or special permit plan that needed substantial rework. Um I've encouraged the board to take the position of acting on not let's say deny ANR plan and as part of that motion
agree that if they submit a revised ANR plan for the subject property uh within X period of time no fee would be required for the resubmitt. >> Okay. Um >> would that work for you and the
applicant? I want to confer with the applicant. Yes. Okay. >> Ally. >> Yeah. So, that would work. We appreciate that. Um, so we'll kind of go back to the drawing board and present them as kind of two separate issues.
>> Okay. >> I appreciate that. >> Um, okay. So, I think we find that acceptable. I guess I did want to ask while we're here, and I don't want to monopolize your entire meeting with this thing. Um, were there any other concerns that you folks had relative to the I know we
spent a lot of time on fire road 15 and I think we beat that horse tonight, but was there any other concerns any or questions or anything else you want us to chase down or >> it's not a an ANR issue, but I assume you've done soil tests and are are
comfortable that you'll be able to >> All the septic systems are designed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. um >> tested. >> I had >> uh so I had a couple concerns. These are much more minor and I think are hammer
outable straightforward. >> Um there's the turn there's the you're using the turnaround on Ruth Street that doesn't exist and is a wetland right now >> for frontage. >> Well, it's it exists. That that's right.
That is legal rightway. Okay. Oh, it's a rightaway but not built. >> Ah, correct. There's Okay, that's it. >> You'd have to go Yeah. to the >> Yeah. >> Um, it's not constructed. >> It's It's constructed to here.
>> And then you can Yeah. And then you can see they're using what looks kind of like a a big what would be a turnoff or called the sack in the road if it if that sack in fact did callull. Um,
>> uh, you may want to consult the definition of frontage because I believe it requires frontage to be constructed and I'm I'm checking I'm going back and checking my notes too because I brought that up
>> as a concern talking to town council and I was just looking at that quickly. I do see a hint from the applicant. I will get there. I want to double I just need to focus on my notes for one. I can't read and listen at the same time. Um um
Oh, okay. just I had I had it in my notes that um the big thing I just wanted to call out is it's a wetland. You'll have to go to Concom for that as well, which you're aware of, but that could always throw a a wrench in
the works as well. >> Um I think that's all I had on note there. Um, oh, I had it in my notes that we might have to in that instance withhold endorsement until Ruth Street is
constructed. Um, because you have the right to construct it. >> Mhm. >> But the frontage doesn't exist until it's constructed. Um, so that would be another concern I have
as well is how that gets addressed. And again, I'm just working from my I would have to go back and >> I got it. I'm making notes. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, and I know there's a hand up from um, one of the applicants as well,
and I did want to turn to her. >> Thank you. So, I think you kind of ended up covering it at the end there. Um, but I did just want to point out that yeah, the culdesac is part of the rightway on the taking that was recorded in 1988. And that's also kind of part of the we'd
like to the road is constructed in the wrong area for a large portion of it or portions that were taken weren't constructed. So, yeah, it's kind of part of what we'd like to do is bring that
area up to where it should be and then deed that or over to the town um so that it's cleaner for title issues moving forward. >> No. All right. No. And yeah, that's that was a discussion that came up because I saw it and went, "Huh, that's odd." and
then you know town council was like well and did his lawyer magic discussing everything. Um I can picture it. Um,
those were I I had a bunch of I about if frontage was I hate to say elucory frontage cuz that is more and less technical all at once in its weirdness. But I had some concerns
about if um if grading on a lot of it could actually give meaningful frontage. But if you're saying you've got plans and it can >> Yeah. >> Okay. I mean if it can it can that that's I was worried about that looking
cuz that but >> I mean >> yeah if it can happen it can happen. >> Yeah. >> Super. That was my >> we pretty much have the whole thing graded at this point. No, my >> driveways, houses, septic systems, storm water. >> You just don't just not part of the ANR
plan. But and so you have no reason to believe me. But you know, that doesn't necessarily >> uh matter to you. It's not really your it's no skin off your back if we give you an ANR plan that you endorse that we can't build. You know, can't build, it's not really your problem, >> right? >> Yeah. the our problem.
>> The only way it come the only way it applies to us there is um because the frontage is is what grants access for things like emergency services and emergency
services may have to go anywhere then we can't I mean that's where the elucery comes in but it's I think I don't think I would have that if you're saying it can be graded I don't think I have that >> well yeah but even if I mean, I think there's probably a note on the thing
somewhere. Most towns require it. I think you do. Your endorsement of an ANR plan does not say that it's a buildable lot. >> That that is correct. >> And we would have to prove that we have adequate access per your bylaw for grades and all that stuff before we could get a building permit on the lot anyway.
>> And that was what I basically said and town council kind of came back with. Yeah, but like yes, you're right, but >> the frontage ha has to be >> Well, yeah, we elucory access is clearly defined in both in case law from here to
next Tuesday about ANR. So, if we felt that there were lots that provided elucory access, it is a reason why a town can Yeah. And it needs to be real lucer access, which is why I asked if that particular grading cuz you drive down Round Road and there are areas
where it feels like it it climbs incredibly quickly over a short. >> Well, you you do I mean I think we submitted a uh top plan with it. You have >> um but yeah, I mean we've we've been working on doing that. So on that >> I think my real concerns are um are the
other things that have been stated at least for me about uh about the adequacy of Fire Road 15 >> um about whe and I don't know the answer off the top of my head that's very whether or not we can take that section
of Ruth Street that is not yet constructed and approve an ANR for because it is the >> right way, but it isn't constructed yet whether or not we can improve based on that. >> Yeah. >> Um and I mean I don't know the answer
off the top of my head fully, but that would be that could be a concern. >> Mhm. >> But um those would be mine. And the Ruth Street one is mitigatable by you have the right
to build the road. Oh, that's like if it's been approved by the town, if it's built to >> it's it's a town road. It's it's an existing right of way. It's a public road. Um there may be some permissions or
uh rights for construction that you need to obtain from either the select board or the DPW to do work within public property. >> Yeah, it's interesting. Yeah. Yep. Uh But I I I think that's probably the
smallest road issue. >> Yeah. >> That exists on this plan. >> Yeah. Um >> Okay. >> No, in terms of overall layout and uh minimum widths and everything else, nothing
in all those more typical zoning things, nothing came out that was at all a concern for me. >> Okay. Good. >> All right. Um, I think I understand. >> All right. So, so if you are going to act and you want to and you were so
inclined to add that language as as uh Richard suggested relative to the fees, we would appreciate that. >> What time frame would you need? >> Um, this is really not a big I I would actually I would hope to have this back into you for the next meeting.
>> Okay. So, what >> So, I I would if you could give if you could give me a month or two, it would be nice. >> Yeah. just to make sure. But >> I move that the planning board does not endorse the ANR for 10 Parmentor Road and if the design is altered and
resubmitted for the land included within 6 months, fees for submission are waved. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moved and seconded. Uh because Ms. Reed is remote, we will have to do a roll call vote. >> Uh Richard, six months. Sorry, Richard.
6 months. Yes. >> Um, we had because the deadline for making decision and filing a decision with the clerk, we have a written decision prepared that Lee has that uh she could distribute to the board. And
if I can read the motion that was made in that is written in there, perhaps Adam might accept this as a motion. Uh the draft decision age of the pink one. >> I withdraw my motion.
>> Very tough one. >> The um draft decision on page three makes 10 findings and then motion says at the conclusion of planning board's review of the subject AR plan during the January 12,
2026 meeting, blank person made a motion to adopt the findings stated herein. Yep. I got >> and to deny endorsement of posting oil plan. Uh and then I would add to that the motion to to grant waiver fees if I
would suggest if they submit the um revi new ANR plan within 90 days of today's date. >> All right. So do you withdraw your second? >> Yeah. Uh, I move that the planning board adopt
the findings that Round Road Parent Street are public ways depicted on the plan. Ruth Street is a public way to the extent it exists. However, appears to be that the turnaround depicted on the subject plan does not exist on the
ground. The subject proposed ANR plan depicts 12 of the proposed 35 lots having frontage on and access to Fire Road 15. At present, Fire Road 15 appears to serve four to five residents at the present time. Under the proposed
ANR plan, homes utilizing Fire Road 15 would be increased by a factor of three. Fire road 15 is not a public way, and the maintainer of said roadway is unclear. Fire road 15 is a way which apparently existed at the time of the
adoption of the Lunberg subdivision regulations. Fire Road 15 is a narrow, hilly, dirt road that's not well-maintained. Fire road 15 was only mildly passable by a 4x4 vehicle when reviewed by the building commissioner
and planning board chair on a site inspection on December 26, 2025 or December 29th, 2025. Uh please correct the document. It says 26. uh fire road 15 is not of sufficient
width, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed use of the land abuing thereon or served thereby. Uh and these findings stated herein uh
allow the board to deny endorsement of the proposed ANR plan based on the determination that Fire Road 15 is not in its current state of sufficient width suitable grades and adequate adequate construction to provide for the needs of
vehicular traffic which would utilize said roadway as proposed by the subject ANR plan. And do you have >> add to that one statement? >> Oh, and and do we want to do that as the same motion
or a separate motion? >> Let's do it as the same motion. So I they're tied together nice and tight for the applicant. And if the plan if if a new ANR plan including the land depicted on the currently the aforementioned plan
is resubmitted to the board within 6 months. The board will wave any ANR fees. >> Uh second >> one quick thing before you there's 11 lots and you said 12.
So lot 24 wood fronts on the proposed road, but it has frontage on round road. So lot 24 is actually front >> having frontage on and access to. >> That's what it says. >> That's what the that's what the finding was. >> Okay. >> So the the 12th lot doesn't have
frontage, but it has access is the way that I'm I don't think anything would preclude us from changing the plan and including that lot. So that's fine. I don't think it's okay. It's just your reason for denying that plan, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, that's fine.
>> All right. >> Or not denying but not endorsing. >> Okay. So, we're moved and seconded and everyone comfy. Richard, you good for us? You good with us? >> I didn't get all of the additional sentence that Adam added. I I need that
so I can make make revisions in the document. I did not hear that clearly. I mean, am I good to take the vote now? >> Yes, but I need Adam if somebody can send me Adam's U language for the last
for the new sentence so I include that in the decision. >> The language for the waiver? >> Yes. >> Yeah, I'll I'll I'll send it to Lee. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Because I got lost in that, too.
>> Okay. All right, it's been moved and seconded. >> Uh, all in favor this Well, this is a roll call vote. Uh, Amanda, I will do you third. I will pick you third in every roll call vote. So, you have time
to unmute. Mr. Bernie, >> I. >> Mr. Wilsmer, >> I. >> Miss Reed, >> I. >> And an I from myself. >> Okay. >> Thanks. Appreciate that. That was above and beyond the call of duty for an ANR plan. So,
>> well, this is I I again I want to give y'all credit because every professional who has looked at this has said that is the most complex ANR plan I may have ever seen.
>> Yeah, we don't do many like that. So, um, but I mean everything I said in the beginning about I look through it and I'm like, "This is so much." And then I read it, I'm like, "Oh, but I can follow it really easily." >> So, thank you for that.
>> Is there any public comment on this or >> um No, it's not a public hear. >> We're not So, we are not required to take public comment. I am not opposed to hearing some public comment. I am generally open to public comment for the board on topics we're addressing. So,
Mr. Pearson, if you uh do want to speak, uh I'm happy for us to hear you. >> Yeah, I own the pro I'm 75 R Street, Rich Pearson, and I own the property across from this proposed culdeac. Uh so I'm a little concerned about this and I don't know how that's going to go
in and it probably didn't go in because there's wetlands across the road and I own across the road. So I I'm I'm just concerned how this proposed culde-sac going to be going in. That's all. >> Okay. So uh well what I can explain to you Mr.
Pearson is in an ANR we are and that's a little funny cuz often if you watch these at other board meetings uh other playing board meetings you will see these are usually very quick and that is
because an ANR has very little room for the planning board to consider either way. We are very limited in what we can look at and how we can address it. Um so things
so we are limited very technically on that and that's why we were talking about only specific parts of specific roads or on that turnout for Ruth Street. It's already declared a public way by
the town. Um if you're con if if anyone is building on wetlands they have to go to concom generally and there's rules and restrictions they have to follow for
that but otherwise um we are very limited in what we can look at in an ANR process. Now, um, as this project, assuming it moves forward, when there are storm water
permits, when there are site plans, there are other things we would look at that come be that potentially come before us. But in ANR, we have a very limited scope on what we can look at in that circumstance. And that's what we were
doing tonight. Uh, does that answer your question or give you some scope at all? >> Uh, somewhat. It just sounded like they needed that culde-sac to to go in to be able to approve this and based on what I'm seeing out there where the wetlands
are, I don't see where this culde-sac can even go in. And I think that's why it's not in because of the wetlands that are sitting there. uh the the wetlands would be a separate the wetlands are a separate issue and are addressed by conservation
commission. So that would be a discussion there because there exist there exists circumstances where you can build over wetlands if you're doing other things. That's not the purview of this board. >> Okay.
>> All right. Great. Um, but thank you for raising your question and concern. I do appreciate that. >> Thank you for listening. >> Great. Happy to. All right. Okay. Next up on our agenda
would be 30 Summer Street continued from November 24th, 2025. >> Now back. >> Hello, Mr. Roy. I wanted to give a quick update um and then request another continuance. So, this will take a couple minutes. We have now gotten the
peerreview comments back. They are not significant, but we got them on Friday and we're not done with them yet. So, I'm not going to I don't have any new information for you tonight um since the first time we opened this maybe 6 weeks ago. So I would like to request
>> before you do that uh I had asked questions about whether or not the applicant intended to have a manager department on site. Did you get any >> uh we are working on those will be all those answers will be in that letter. I'm sorry I should have we probably have
a lot of those answers. I can tell you with certainty that there is no residential component to this. >> Okay. That's >> that's one that I remember you asking that I remember the answer from the but um >> we will have a comprehensive along with yeah so I have a letter here extending asking for a continuence and extending
the time with which you have to act by 21 days >> because I think it's I think I actually had asked for a continuation to the 5th thinking that it was going to be the 5th. >> Yeah. And then >> so this continues it to the 26th. Is that correct? That's the next meeting and I added 21 days from the 5th to the
26th. So, right 21 days. So, added >> perfect. Uh, now I just So, if I'm correct, this is a continuation for the storm for the um storm water permit and
site plan approval. We have not opened the special permit yet. >> Right. And there's no reason to tonight. >> No, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page. >> Yeah, that's fine. So again, for those following along at home,
PBSW26 and PB um >> SW >> they I don't think they're not both PBSW. >> Oh, no. >> PBSP uh site plan SA.
>> Yeah, SA. Sorry, >> sorry. PBSW26, PBSA 258 for the site plan approval have both been continued. We have not opened PBSP 259.
Again, for those following along at home who might not use be used to it, these are the reference numbers you can use to look up individual projects in the open gov system. So, you can get all of that info. You can also look up by address
and everything too, but that's a specific project as referenced in open gov. So, everyone's talking the same thing. Okay. Uh, I would need a we need a motion to continue to ad
>> uh so moved or sorry, we need the actual date, don't we? >> Yeah. Uh, the a motion such as to continue the uh storm water special. >> Would you like to read his letter? Well, just the storm water permit and
site plan approval for 30 Summer Street to January 26th, 2026 at 6:05 p.m. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Uh vote Mr. Bernie >> I.
>> Mr. Wilsmer >> I. >> Miss Reed >> I. >> And an I from myself. >> I'm here again. >> Oh, okay. here for your next one. >> Now, >> uh, we now have a public hearing for 1083
Northfield Road. >> Are we going to Do you want to continue Reservoir before we >> Oh, we do need to continue Reservoir. Okay, you're right. >> I move that we continue Reservoir Road to January 26th, 2026. Do you need to
give the number on >> Zero Reservoir Road uh PBSW255 >> second? Um at what time? >> 6:00. >> Okay, great. >> I I I hate assigning times cuz then when they don't show up, we get stuck. >> I thought I was told we had I thought we
had to assign a time. >> I mean, if you assign the beginning of the meeting as the time. >> That's why we're at 605. Yeah, that's fine. No, that's great. >> And we have a second. Second. >> Okay. Moved and seconded. Mr. Bernie. >> I. >> Mr. Wilsmer. >> Hi. >> Miss Reed.
>> I. >> And an I from myself. Now >> 1083 Northfield Road. Scenic Road special permit. Uh, not special permit. It's a just a scenic road application.
Ignore my words except for when they're right. Um, you can pay attention to those. Okay. >> Miss Reed, would you care to open this public hearing? I sure can. >> Thank you. >> Uh, the Lunberg Planning Board will hold a public hearing on January 12th, 2026
at 6:05 p.m. Town Hall 17 Main Street, Lunberg, Mass. to hear and review an application for scenic road alteration pursuant to MGL chapter 4015C by Ryan Proctor on behalf of Tanner S.
Cole for removal/relocation of approximately 40 linear feet of the existing stone wall along the property frontage. Subject property information. The location is 1083 Northfield Road.
Assessor's map 55, parcel number two. Owner is Tanner Cole, 856 Massav in Lunberg, Mass 01462. Uh you can view materials online at lunbergmma.portal.openggov.com/arch with record ID PBSR-25-2
via an email request to the planning office planning lunenbergmma.gov or in person at the planning office at 960 Mass Avenue in Lunberg. >> Excellent. So, >> Greg Roy with Dillison Roy representing
the applicant. Um, and we are here for the the scenic road uh permit. Um, I think this was filed when we had an hiatus in the office right as you were coming or right before Lee was coming. So, this has actually been in your pile
for a while, but um I don't think anybody knew it was there. So, uh which is which is fair. I I understand um the situation you folks have been in. So um you may recall you I'm sure you recall we were here for a common driveway special and storm water special permit
um a few months back um which is um which is we we finished that process. Um but we did we do need to file uh did need to file the scenic road. Um and I did need to correct the record a little bit and I
do apologize for this. Um, we are intending to we do need to take out 40 ft of the stone wall. As you as you read, there are two roughly 30-in white pine trees in the middle of that wall.
So, I'm not sure if that's uh Bill, I think uh Bernard commented that he didn't have any concerns cuz there weren't any trees coming down the rightway. Um, there are two trees coming down that are on the rightway, like straddling the rightway. Um, so I did want to correct that record um just to
make sure that there was no um just to make sure it's correct. So I apologize that our initial application didn't state that, but I think we may have filed some pictures of the trees. We we took a few pictures. Not sure if they made the portal yet.
>> Uh we do have pictures. I don't know. >> And I showed them on this plan. You can't see it on your copy, but they're here [Music] >> like on each edge of the driveway. >> Correct. >> Now, did you say 30 in? >> Yeah, they have white pines.
>> Are they healthy? >> Most white pines at that size aren't, but I don't know. >> Question. >> Um, I don't know. I'm not sure. I didn't Ryan went out and took pictures of them. I'm not sure if he probably just took a picture of the trunk, too. I don't think
he took a picture of the over story. Okay. Um, so Bill, we we replied to Bill today to tell to correct the record. Um, so I can I can understand if you want to hear from Bill on this. Um, >> I we we would understand that.
where I hear 30-inch tree. I I would rather hear from Bill first because that makes me I mean I love me big old I love me big old trees. >> I'm a real simple guy and I if they have
to come down they have to come down. That that's also life. But >> yeah, >> I would rather a tree of that size and age hear from um our tree warden first. >> Okay. It's not clear from the plan you submitted where the walls coming out and
we don't get physical plans so we can't scale it. So 40 ft I am inferring that your driveway is probably between 22 and 26 >> probably. Yep. >> And then we got some grading on the >> Yeah. So that that leaves some
>> We can clear that up for you. >> We'll clearly show where the walls coming out. >> Yeah. I guess my my followup to that is is there a remediation or replication plan that
deals with that 40 ft of removal. I get that you have to grade. I get that you have this retaining wall on what is that the west side of the driveway. Um that holds the driveway up along the wetland.
Um, I I'm going to infer that that the top of that wall is at or about the grade of the the driveway. >> So, it's a a wall to hold the driveway up, not hold the wetlands back, >> right? Uh, is it possible to take the
removed stones from the wall and create a flared end or some other type of um, homage to the wall that was there to, you know, continue to re-emphasize it or at least to bring the wall as
reasonably close as possible to the driveway entrance. Like if you have to take 40 feet away and at the end of the day the driveway is 24 feet wide, you end up only taking 28 feet away because you're able to rebuild the ends of the
wall in a way that >> remove and replace some. >> Correct. >> Yeah, we can do that. I wasn't We weren't sure what you wanted to do with that. I've never I don't think I've been before you folks for a scenic road in Lunberg. So I know there's other towns I've been this a lot in, but >> I wasn't sure what you want. This wall
is, by the way, it's not um it's a fairly broken. It's not a like a picturesque. It's not a stone wall. You >> Yeah. I mean, I guess >> I'm not saying that matters, but I'm just saying >> in that kind of scenario, commonly, we will request that the stones removed be
used to ba basically to improve less to improve parts of the wall that do need improvement. That's >> or I I like Adam's suggestion here about >> if you have to clear out extra wall to do the grading. >> Yeah. >> Well, bring bring it up and then
>> brought back to some >> I mean, there's some reasonable level there. I I I know you're not going to go >> right up against it cuz that's going to possibly create but >> we can we can come up and then we can flare it in. I'm not sure if we can do it on the side with the retaining wall to your point. >> No. And I I think just trying to make it
look like the driveways just barely getting through the wall as much as possible. I I would turn your attention to Flatill Road just north of Paige >> where they built all those houses about 5 or 6 years ago. >> Um they had a similar thing. The wall
was kind of busted. It wasn't like a great example of the wall. Um, and I think you actually have a little bit of benefit that they don't have where your frontage is heavily wooded. >> So the kind of denigrated wall doesn't necessarily
>> pop out stick. >> Yeah. Like so like Matt was saying, back filling it doesn't necessarily do any good, but if you can concentrate 40 ft worth of thrashed wall into 15 ft, you're going to get something that >> Okay. >> You know, sort of goes back to what the intent of the scenic road is.
>> I got you. That's fine. We and we'll we'll update the plan to that effect. >> Um if >> and we'll show the trees on the plan. >> I was going to say if you could show the trees on the plan too, that would make my life >> No, we will do that. I apologize. >> You know, if the uh driveway potential driveway entrance is still marked on
site. >> Um I don't >> Okay, that that's not the end. >> We can mark it. >> I can >> I can mark it. >> I mean, if it's >> We'll mark it. It would help me driving by it to be frank just to get a look see because I like to drive by the scenic
roads especially and get >> okay >> eyes on it. Um >> does show like a number nailed to a tree. >> Oh yeah, it does. Okay. Then that will probably be sufficient for me to understand. >> Yeah. >> To Yeah. I hadn't processed the number on the tree then. Yeah.
>> All right. No, then I'll be able to look at it, see what we're talking about. Okay. >> Great. >> All right. Fair enough. We'll we'll make those those changes ASAP and hear back from Bill one. >> Okay. Would you like to uh Yeah, >> if we don't have anything else, would you like to be continued to our next
meeting? >> Yeah, that would be fine. >> So, I would look for a motion such as to continue the scenic road permit for 1083 Northfield Road >> to um our meeting on January 26, 2026,
6:05 p.m. >> So moved. >> Second. moved and seconded. Uh, roll call vote. Mr. Bernie, >> I. >> Mr. Wils, >> hi. >> Miss Reed, >> uh, I just want to point out that Mr. Harris has had his hand up.
>> I am. So, uh, can I pause a vote while we're while I'm in the m I mean, I'm a chair. I can do whatever. >> Do whatever you want. >> Yeah, I'm caught. I just >> Mr. Harris, I apologize. I just want to note that under Mass General law, if it involves a public
shade tree as well on a single road, the planning board and the tree warden are both required to hold a joint hearing. >> Uh on >> correct. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And so >> Oh, so we may
>> might want to somehow incorporate that into the next meeting if possible. Not sure how you can do that, but yes, >> I think I think >> I believe that was how it was advertised if I'm not mistaken. >> Yeah, I think he has typically wave that
need if we're seeing it, but I could be wrong. >> No. >> Has he? >> Yes. >> All right. We can bring it to uh the tree warden's attention regardless. And Um if he needs to be here, he'll we'll
see if we can get him here. >> That that's that's Bill, right? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um and if he if he feels his >> contribution just by a statement is adequate, that's >> his prerogative. I don't have a problem
with that either. Okay. All right. Great. So, um, I'm going to redo the vote on a motion that's sitting there now that we've discussed it. Mr. Bernie, >> I.
>> Mr. Wilsmer, >> I. >> Miss Reed, >> I. >> Thank you for that catch, Amanda, and an I from myself. >> Thank you very much. >> There we go. All right. >> Sorry to monopolize your meeting. Appreciate the time. >> All right. >> Have anything else?
Um, next in front of us for decisions in business, we have um 485 Lemonster Shirley Road. Uh, the applicant is requesting an extension of time to commence construction. Uh,
Mr. Harris, I believe you can summarize this better than me with some technicalities there. >> We have the applicant here. I see. >> Um, it's my understanding they have not uh been able to start construction under
the definition of the town's zoning bylaw. They have probably began the project according to the definition of the federal law because they have actually acquire or purchased materials
and equipment. uh but they have been delayed because of the pro the federal tariffs and stuff and therefore they're requesting a extension the deadline for beginning construction
>> and uh as a reminder for those on the board for Mr. wrote is the battery energy storage system we uh >> looked at. Adam, you were not on the board at the time. >> I'm not. >> Uh the rest of us were >> lucky you. >> Yeah, >> they they had show good calls.
>> Do you have anything else you want to put forward for us? >> Um so Ryan McLolson, I'm with South Electric, the applicant. Um no, I think that was a good summary. I mean, I'm happy to go into more details as what why we've had delays. We are um we do plan to break ground, you know, actually start physical construction in August.
Um and you know we'll be complete um uh you know we should be completely the project should be online by the end of October. So that's part of the reason for the like these projects take a long time to do. We have a lot of long lead items that we have to order and everything that take a long time. The
actual physical construction is very quick. So, um, I did find that whole email chain fascinating, by the way, because I got to learn about how beginning construction is defined differently in different statutes for different aspects of the project. I had
no idea. That was uh fun for me. >> Um, you're such a nerd. >> Yes. >> Learning something new is always fun. >> Okay, I have news. If you're willing to sit on this stage and discuss land use for hours of your month, um
that's the pot calling the kettle a nerd hour. >> Um okay. Uh do we have any questions or concerns for the applicant regarding an extension of time for construction? >> I do not. Hearing none, what would be um
if we were looking for a to do this favorably, uh what would be the motion we'd want, Richard? >> I would suggest you move that the board finds this good cause for the delay in beginning on-site construction, not to
the cause of the applicant. And therefore, the board grants a one-year extension of the deadline for beginning site construction on the reference project. >> Uh, so moved. Can we do it that way?
>> Yes. Okay, great. So moved. >> Uh, I'm just looking because I want to see when when when does the one year expire currently? >> March 24th. But that's the data I have in my head. I
think it's around there. Uh, okay. And you're >> Yeah, I'll second that. >> Okay. Moved and seconded. Roll call vote. Mr. Bernie, >> I. Mr. Wilsmer. >> Hi,
>> Miss Reed. >> Is Miss Reed still there? I did not hear her. She is >> I >> Oh, there you go. Okay. Sorry. And an I from myself. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Bang. You're all set. Thank you.
>> Okay, great. Uh board discussions, master plan. Um we can really skip. So, I wanted to be able to talk about the first draft, but that was implying I wasn't going to spend literally all of Christmas vacation sick and then this
past weekend um also sick. So, >> do we have a first draft? >> Uh a a first a first draft was uh sent uh for for review. Um yes, we do have a first draft. Um, we're going to be
talking about some initial feedback from the steering committee or from the at least the chair and vice chair of the steering committee and anything I saw get back to them. I could certainly send it to the board as a whole um and then we can talk about it more.
We're going to have an initial talk uh tomorrow just to go over it with the uh with overunder but note that we have a draft. It is reading over it lightly at first, largely as expected
and um I will send that on to us and they're going to get some feedback and they'll be open to more feedback. It's just it's the ongoing >> tweaking that's the word. Um I wanted to have a little more for us
there to talk about but again um yeah Christmas flu stinks. Don't get that either. strong recommendation. Okay. Um, is there anything big happening in the local communities we need to know about? No. Okay. Nothing neat, exciting,
super fun. Committee reports. Um, master plans steering committee was well um I think we can rem the committee hasn't been formally. We'll leave it for now. I guess we leave it for now. Sure. >> But there's nothing to talk about
because the committee hasn't met again. Correct. Okay. Um until we will likely formally disband them once they're done with meeting minutes and everything. Open space committee. >> Um I think the last meeting the open
space committee was like beginning of December. I think we've had a planning board meeting since then. So I don't I don't think there's been another meeting since. >> Yep. Municipal Building Design Committee has not met since our last meeting. I
thought we had a meeting on January 5th and then I sat down at my computer, went to the agenda center and went, "Oo, I'm wrong." >> Thought you had a lot of meetings on January 5th. >> Yeah, that was um
Yeah, that night was more free than I expected at first. Um, we do not have another meeting scheduled. I actually meant to ask Greg about that when he was here in case I had missed something, but it doesn't look like I have. So, capital Planning Committee, uh, we met
and I believe since our last planning board meeting, we have submitted our capital plan rankings. There was nothing super crazy about it this year, but with the understanding
that we really have no idea where the money for capital planning is going for the capital budget is going to land this year because that would imply the town has um >> money to spend
>> both money to spend and the finance people in place to tell us um >> that we don't. So, it is anticipated that the capital plan the capital planning committee will likely be meeting once we have a firmer hold on
that. The town manager will let the capital planning committee know. We'll meet some more. We'll probably meet then to go over it in case there's anything wildly different than expected. But um yet it it is another year where the
capital planning committee was hoping to get further along the process of capital planning not just capital ranking. I would say we have made more progress on that than it looks and it feels even to members of the committee. If only
because departments are getting better every year about submitting everything in a more similar way that makes it easier to discuss and compare >> and are getting better about getting meaningful estimates for projects. So
that might not be the step the big steps we wanted to have taken over the past couple years but I think the value and the steps that have occurred is a lot larger than we might just think at first. >> Standardization leads to an easier
planning process because everybody's dealing from the same deck. >> Yes. um as well as uh departments seem to understand the importance now of >> quality estimates >> estimates >> um and what what a frankly understanding
of what a quality estimate means >> in this context and I think those gains can't I mean they weren't what we looking for but they're valuable economic development committee um has not met since our last meeting will be
meeting tomorrow, storm water task force. >> Um, now that we have Wesson and Samson on board, uh, we had an official meeting with them. Kind of got everybody on the same page. Uh, we've got quite a bit of
activity. I knew I was forgetting something. Uh, quite a bit of activity coming up over the next few weeks. M >> um uh let's see. We've got meeting at the end of January. We're meeting with
FINCOM, the select board, and then we have a public info session uh March 5th. Uh so that's the next uh two and a half months for the stormwater task force. >> Great. >> Is that anticipation for this May's town
meeting? >> Um yes. the plan for the town meeting. Um, I think we want to try and get uh bylaws in position. Uh, we're not going to be putting forth the like rates and
the actual financial >> stuff until the next town meeting at the earliest. >> Great. Thank you. um Massachusetts Regional Planning
Commission. >> Okay. So, we met last week on Thursday. Um and we had Kurt Gartner come. He's the assistant secretary for environmental policy uh at the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. It's a big title. um and he came uh to talk about the Massachusetts Integrated Land Use Strategy um known as MIUIS M I LUS uh
and it was just an information session about what the state is doing um from my understanding they're basically creating a tool um in terms of like a dashboard uh to help provide towns uh with options
for um scaled growth in terms of land use. Uh they've been focusing on how land use patterns have improved slightly, but there's still issues obviously with growth um in terms of congestion and um home scarcity,
inequitable housing. Uh so they're basically working on surveying and creating this dashboard and it's not going to mandate anything but it's going to uh provide towns with tools that they could use to find that information. Um I
guess that they they've done similar projects in Connecticut and Rhode Island and uh he had some examples of those maps as well. So it was very interesting. Other than that, nothing really to report. >> Great. Thank you. Um I mean that that
does sound interesting. I I'm looking forward to more of that info coming through. Montichus Joint Transportation Committee. >> Uh we have not met. We meet this week on Wednesday. >> Great. Um and sorry if I can I think I
forgot a piece of information. I don't have it written down here. Uh but there was a discussion about potentially having a joint meeting, having the planning board at I want to say it was the select board uh presentation of uh
the storm water task force uh what we have going on so far. I will email the rest of the group and have them confirm that for me. And if so, we'll see if we can figure something out. At the very least, if we're not going to do a joint meeting, uh, then like myself or anybody
who wants to show up from the planning board can attend. >> What was the date on that? >> Uh, select board is February 10th. I'll and I'll I'll double check that. And I assume that's emailing to confirm something with my board and then
emailing here to confirm with us shouldn't be in violation of >> Nope. That's a scheduling task. It's the exemping law. that >> that's what I hoped. >> Was this the plan? Yes, it was. This is the schedule. That's all fine. Yeah, that's all allowed. That is not
deliberation or discussion. That is >> that's not opinion. That's fact. And >> Right. >> Yeah. Okay. Timing. >> Great. >> The same as at the end of the this meeting, I'm going to ask Miss Reed and Richard to hold on for a moment afterwards to go over a couple scheduling things to make sure we're all on the same page.
>> Sure. >> That's allowed because it's just scheduling. It's not >> Yeah. meaningful anything um is meaningful for us but not it isn't meaningful in the public discussion >> not deliberative >> way yeah all right we do not have
minutes for approval it looks like correct okay >> not yet >> um upcoming meetings we meet here at here at the BA meeting room upstairs at town hall at 6:00 p.m. um unless we
specify otherwise. Upcoming meetings include the January 26th, February 9th, and February 23rd. >> Um yeah,
neither of those is over school break, is it? >> Uh the 23rd might be. Hold on. >> I don't remember. >> Let me too many questions, Matthew. >> I know. Uh, what do we have? Calendar.
>> Does Lunenburgg have the same schedule as Lemonster? Because And that would super >> lost audio. I think I'm trying to get it back. >> Okay. Um >> I hear you now.
>> Oh, Amanda, we missed what you said cuz they had lost audio for a moment. >> We just got it back. >> Yep. >> Oh, all I said was that if Lunberg and Lemonster are on the same schedule, it would not be over a school break. >> Perfect. Okay, great. Um, I will look to
the board for any board comment. Um, I know that the APDC had previously intended to propose changes to their bylaw. Do you does anyone know if that's continuing to move forward for spring?
>> I have not heard anything about it one way or another. Um, I will I can follow up on that and see if I hear I mean just see if at least what you know if there's any discussion and >> I just think it would be important for
the board to be part of those discussions. >> I would like us to be >> because it would impact um economic development as well as other development within that district. And I I think that that's something we should
be a part of, especially with the master plan coming. >> Uh full agreement. Um I am working uh just so the board knows again for uh Steven Wallace's first day. I will be sitting down with him that morning for
an onboarding handoff. Um and Richard, I'll I'll email you. I got the feedback today from town that timing works. So, we can pick one of the times we talked about and there'll be a handoff so that Richard and I can go
over all the projects with Stephen and um then Richard is free from all of our cows and pastures. All right. Uh but that's it. It that's all I have.
So with anything else again uh Richard Amanda if you could stay on one moment just for some logistical questions but that isn't part of a meeting so I would look for a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call vote. Mr.
Bernie >> I. >> Mr. Wils. >> I. >> Miss Reed. >> We don't have audio I'm afraid. Miss Reed. So, could you say it again? >> I. >> There we go. And an I from myself. Friends out in Lunberg, thank you for
joining us tonight. Um, unless you're watching late, then thank you for joining us when you do join us. Have a wonderful day and we'll see you in two weeks. Take care, everybody.