Speaker 1: This meeting is being broadcast on Pegasus. To comment or ask a question, use the raise your hand function. If you are on a phone, press star nine. An individual wishing to speak during public speak or during a public hearing must display their first and last name on their screen before their microphone can be unmuted. To make changes in your name as it appears in the screen in Zoom, click on participants. To open the participant's menu. Hover your cursor over the entry and click on more. Click on Rena rename and tap and type in your first
and last name so it is written so it shall be done. Is there anyone here seeking public speak? An in any individual can may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it'll be taken under advisement by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. The section, this section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes. Bless you. Sorry about that. And any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Speaker 2: Is our she limited attention
Speaker 1: Y Yes. The public hearing is yes. Hey Andy. Speaker 3: Hello everybody. Speaker 1: Good to see you. Alright. Do we have anybody looking for public speak? I do not have anyone on the, that you can see on your end. Okay. Yep. I have the portal open in the middle. I will, I will take your aware on that. And then we move to the continued public hearing on 43 Cypress Road and 57 Evergreen Road that was continued from a previous public hearing. And Amanda, do we have, oh, we have the letter.
We have a letter from the attorney for the applicant's that's correct. And it says re request for continuance and extension of time for planning board to render decision on subdivision applicant moral construction. Dear members of the planning board on behalf of the applicant moral construction in connection with the above-captioned application, the applicant respectfully requests that the hearing scheduled for application today, July 23rd, 2025, be continued to the planning board's next regularly scheduled public
hearing on July 30th. As discussed a prior public board planning board hearing during the working session, the applicant received feedback concerning potential alternate designs that the applicant required additional time to design and explore since the continuance of the June 25th, 2025 public hearing. The applicant has made several changes to the proposed plan and has met with and or received feedback from the Department of Public Works Engineering and Conservation. The applicant has made further changes to the plan
as a result of these discussions and is, but is still working with the departments to fully address their concerns. Accordingly, in order to allow the applicant time to continue to meet with the appropriate department heads and staff, the applicant respectfully requests that the publicly, the public hearing scheduled for today, July 23rd, be continued to the planning boards regularly scheduled public hearing on July 30th and is signed by attorney Brian Brian Grossman. So Speaker 4: A move Speaker 5: We continue to the 30th,
Speaker 1: I, I would like if, if somebody wants to second that's fine. I'd like a moment of discussion before we move one second straight to that. Thank you. So I know we have some members of the public who have, who are here and who have been trying to come to any public hearings on this subject. I feel like we should give them a chance to speak. So you Speaker 6: Can't, Speaker 1: We haven't, we haven't agreed to continue it. Speaker 6: But you have a second. So technically when it's in
between, it should only be the members of the board speaking. So you would have Speaker 5: I withdraw. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. It's totally polite and thank you. So, so would you like us then? I mean, I, I, right now, the public hearing has continued to tonight and I feel like the least we can do is if not get into informed discussion because we're still waiting for several points in the project to be developed further. I feel like I, it is appropriate for us to hear from residents and members of the public. So
Speaker 6: Yeah, you just, you just can't have the, the motion in place. Like you can consider it, but you just, Speaker 1: So, so thank you. And we, I, I will be planning on discussing that later. Can I Speaker 4: Ask a question? Yes. So Amanda, have you been part of these conversations? And I know I was on one of the, yeah, earlier working group meetings. I could not make the other ones. I've been away for a couple weeks. So can you just give us the highlight, like where is this heading and what, what are the highlights of the issues that are still outstanding? Speaker 6: So I was not in the most recent meeting, which was on
Thursday of last week, which was specifically regarding DPW. That's a working group meeting? No, it was just a town meeting or not town meeting, sorry. A staff meeting between DPW, specifically the water department, DPW and the applicant. So the town or the working groups and the other DRT meetings that I have been a part of, specifically the conversations that have been one locations of what would be the septic or the sewer capacity. If they kept the septic systems, they would be limited to bedrooms. That was a conversation brought up by the board of health.
However, they were allowed to connect into the town's system, then that would remove that barrier or the limitation on the number of bedrooms. However, the other side of this is that the well zone is located within this parcel. The town has to legally have control of that wellhead. So that's the reason why there has been conversations with the applicant and the town to try to determine how the town can gain control of the wellhead zone area. So those have also been in the conversations.
Other conversations that we've had is regarding the internal road that they would be creating. Originally it was brought up as a cul-de-sac, which is a long road. Big huge open pavement circular. There was discussions of creating a paper cul-de-sac, but then actually removing that and creating less to decrease the amount of impervious area. One to create the frontage but then not create the actual roadway to decrease the amount of impervious area to then further the amount of infiltration that goes into the ground. There are conversations I know
regarding the easement location, if they were to connect in the locations of where the piping would go and how it would connect in not wanting to traverse as much on private property but more public property there. This is e this is easement for these water for the sewer line. Exactly. Bayberry. Right. I just wanna make it clear for, to bay road to other people who are here. Oh yeah, sorry. And then there is a, 'cause there is a significant topography change from this proposed development down to the Bayberry Road Palm station. It significantly drops off. Which is the other reason why they can't connect the road
from bayberry to this because of the significant topography. 'cause that was asked as well. 'cause it would've made some more sense if you could have done a loop, but you can't, other parts of the conversation do include just travel, like private versus public access to this road because it does go from a public road to a private road to, or not private, but not publicly accepted. And then they were looking to have it publicly accepted. So can you go from publicly accepted, not accepted to accept it?
The fire department would still need to continue its review depending on what the configuration is. 'cause they don't want dead end stumps of the waterway, but they need to make sure that the fire hydrant accesses are adequate. So there is still quite a bit. And then conservation is still reviewing this 'cause it would require stormwater management permits just because the amount of impervious area. So in summary, there is discussion still on fire, fire access, and then the fire hydrant, the construction of the roadway and what would be constructed versus
what would be laid out the waterway or the water services, which would be tying into the town services or continuing on private septic, gaining control of the zone wellhead area in addition to the creation of the actual lots. Making sure that the lots are conforming, the existing structure would come down. And then, but they still have to meet the build box with the understanding that the planning board isn't identifying the exact locations of the houses other than identifying the builds within the lots to make sure it's conforming lot.
Speaker 4: So all of that's gonna be resolved by next Wednesday? Speaker 6: A weekend today? No. So next Wednesday. Okay. No, no. Next Wednesday would be more of a discussion for a public meeting purposes because we received a traffic study. Yeah. Back on, was it July 7th or something like that. And we've never discussed that. So it would be more focusing on qua adequate access to the subdivision would be the main focus. The 13th would be more focusing on the well Okay. In the water. Speaker 1: Okay. It, it seemed like, because I know that issues relating to access and private
and public ways have been a particular concern to, to residents and and others as well. And since there has been a traffic study provided by the applicant, I'm eager to hear feedback from the town engineer in terms of of, of that study and what, what the outcomes do or don't tell Speaker 6: Us. And then also, in addition to all that, there are two items that would be on the planning board's agenda on July 30th that the town engineer would be present for. There's street acceptances, not anything to do with this project, but would be able to stay on
and discuss with you if there were questions on this project. So it would be helpful since he would be here Speaker 1: Because that's kind of a little bit of the, the gorilla in the room that we have a study, but we haven't actually heard analysis or opinion in terms of its content and what the implications might be to what would be required of the, of the applicant. So could I ask, and I, as you can tell, many of the things you may be interested in, we don't yet have answers
to. But we're, we're gonna Speaker 7: Say how, how do we get access to that information? Speaker 1: Probably in many ways the same ways that we, we do, which is we will, we will get reports and testimony from Speaker 7: Those Speaker 1: Employees on website. What's that? Yeah. Speaker 7: Posted on the website. So we keep checking the website, we see the updated reports. Speaker 1: They would be, do we, there'll be in the fi fi the online file folder that's accessible to the public Speaker 6: Yes. In the OpenGov portal. Yeah. Yep. You just go right into the attachments. Speaker 7: So are are you for clarity,
because one of our neighbors is one of the most, one of 'em, one that one that we were most affected by the track pattern was anticipating coming tonight. Speaking to that, knowing that and knowing that he was unavailable next, next Wednesday is upsetting because he was prepared to come get prepared. Speaker 1: I would encourage him to provide written testimony. Testimony. I think I I that matters. Yeah, it is, it is reviewed. It's considered, it's read. Speaker 7: You read the before? Yeah. You discussed what what he thought was
mailbox run over. Speaker 5: Excuse me, Terry. The the mic isn't picking up the, the questions from the audience if that's, if you just wanna repeat what the questions are. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Yes. They were asking whether the materials testimony would be available for other people. Speaker 5: Sure, thanks. Speaker 1: And we're, we were explaining that there is, there's a lot that we don't yet have because staff who are working on the project haven't yet completed their study. But the materials that they will, that they will be generating the reports
and so forth, will be available to the public on that's why where Amanda was talking about open.gov. So it's trying to understand for someone who can't be there, I think you were saying someone who could have been here tonight and can't be there next Wednesday. And, and we, that's for that we were suggesting write it. And what I, what I would say is as, as clear and cogent as possible. Very well because that, that is great because simply saying, I don't think this is a good idea. No, it very specific that is measurements and all
Speaker 7: That kind Speaker 1: Stuff that, that is helpful. And then we, we are looking to see what the professional staff for the town think of materials that are being presented and reviewed. Speaker 7: I also Speaker 1: Just ask, and you know what, if I, if you're gonna speak quite, if I could just have you that the mic right here, the mic Speaker 8: Right Speaker 1: Here? Yeah. If that, if the green light is going, yeah, you could stand or sit. It's, sorry. Speaker 9: Just so anybody online or anybody who's watching Pegasus at home can, Speaker 1: And just if you could just give your name and address Speaker 8: Julia Callan 42 Evergreen Road. I guess the question is more about why is the applicant
allowed to continue to postpone? I feel like, you know, not, I feel, I mean we live in a world where generally 24 hour notice minimum is required of people. And the reason they gave in the letter that they hadn't met with the fire department and the DPW yet seems like something they should have known before this afternoon. And it just feels that they're taking advantage of you guys. They're taking advantage of our time, I think with the hope that will eventually go away and get tired of coming. And it's, you know, it's just becoming frustrating and and embarrassing to the town really,
that this is allowed to go on like this, Speaker 1: It is in, it's in their best interest if, if they want their project to move forward to make progress on, on issues. And yes, I don't think that we have a bottomless well of, of patients when it comes to producing materials that move either move the project forward or as we've had in some cases where a, a project has been either withdrawn or denied in some cases for kind of lack of progress.
Speaker 8: I mean this is what their third, last minute cancellation. Speaker 10: Yeah, three in a row. Speaker 11: Three in a row. Speaker 1: Right. So yeah, so sorry, there, I, there's someone's just mentioning that this is the third cancellation by the applicant and like last for three meetings in a row. Speaker 8: Last minute, like the hours before the meeting. Speaker 1: Oh, well I, again, I don't think we, we, our patients is bottomless and we, I have been in my time on the board part of a board that has, that has decided fish or cut bait and if we have to cut bait then, then we will do
so at this point, we have reason from professional staff to think that a solution is at hand and they're working towards that. So I'm, I think for this time we're feeling like we'd rather have progress than just shutting everything down. But again, it's not limit and it's not limitless. Speaker 12: Excuse me, Terry. Yes, Speaker 1: Peter. Speaker 12: Is it within our purview to let the applicant know, especially where we've got a list of unknowns that if things are in progress?
I don't believe that a meeting with the planning board is intended to be a series of progress meetings. It's my thought that the project would be complete and presented as such and presented as such. And now I think we're looking, if I'm not mistaken, we're almost looking at another progress meeting. A few things, some very significant things are not yet determined. And I'm wondering can we let the applicant know about these, about certain aspects of the project? That must be, let's have an answer to it.
Let's, it's not a progress. So that, yes, maybe the next meeting we have most of these things resolved. Speaker 4: Can I, I, I, Speaker 12: Yes, Doug, Speaker 4: Amanda, where are we with the clock on this project? We, so it's a, it's a subdivision residential subdivision. So 135 days? Speaker 6: No, it would be 90 days because 'cause of preliminary they got it applied. But the preliminary, however, they did give an extension of time into August. Speaker 4: When would that 90, when would the 90 days have elapsed? Speaker 6: I Speaker 4: Believe are, are we still in that window? Speaker 6: No, we've exceeded the 90 days
and now they have a, they requested a continuance, which was previously August 6th to August 27th, which was outlined in this letter. Lemme just get the original, but no, that timeline has Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 6: Gone Speaker 4: Past all so and so let me just also say again, it is probably nothing you want to hear, but when it comes to subdivision, right, the planning board's role in this, it's really not discretionary, it's really not. We, we have to approve a plan that conforms to our rules and regs and the, and if the lots comply with zoning
and they show adequate frontage, we are compelled to approve the plan. So I'm kind of with Peter in some respects here where, you know, a subdivision is a subdivision. I mean it, I know for people who aren't familiar with it, it seems complicated and the design issues and all this stuff. But if you come to the board with a subdivision plan, it's fairly straightforward. The roads have to be designed this way. There has to be sidewalks, there has to be utilities provided. The lots have to be conformed to zoning period. And come to us and show us that I am not,
this is not a site plan review. It's not like, oh we wanna put a, you know, a coffee shop and a on a retail lot and then we can kind of shape the way that looks. It's really not that. It's much more straightforward. And unfortunately I think this process with this project seems like it's a, oh let's have a give and take and let's talk about what what we're trying to, it's much more straightforward and really, I dunno who said it, maybe Alan or Peter just said it or Terry, it's to their advantage to just package this thing up once and for all
and give us something that's a final product that we can say, yes, it conforms or no, it does not. Speaker 12: We are not a working group is what it boils down to. Speaker 4: It really Speaker 12: Shouldn't be. In a sense that's what we're being used as and we're playing in with that. And we should not, Speaker 1: And just, so, so I know there are, there still may be conditions attached to this if they are, especially if they're doing something that's not simply a a, a conventional subdivision that's using, you know,
making use of cluster bylaw and so forth. Speaker 6: So a subdivision you can approve, approve with conditions or you can deny if the denial gets overturned by the applicant or someone else, then they can construct without conditions. If you approve with no conditions, they can bill as is. So I think Speaker 1: Conditions, conditions, you know, considering a vote with conditions and deciding what are the important elements that we feel should be explicitly called out in the condition section of the decision. And I think that's ultimately what we are,
what we are coming to sooner, I hope rather than later. Speaker 6: Yeah, the conditions have to be, have a nexus in addition to the purview. Like we can't ask for a firetruck or something of that nature, but like roadway, utilities and I, items like Speaker 1: That road roadway improvements. Thank you. So, so, Speaker 13: So Speaker 1: Yes. And Patty, if you just identify Patty, Speaker 13: Luke 63 Evergreen Road. So to that end, does it sound like they would be prepared to bring you that nice neat wrapped up package in the next seven days? No. No. So I don't know why we're scheduling them,
putting them on next week's agenda, making people switch off their schedules and do what they, that kind of thing to come to have the same thing happen again. Speaker 6: You can Speaker 1: For, well I'd say for us it would be, will be helpful just because the town engineer will be before us on another matter and, and he is someone who I very much am interested in hearing what he thinks of in terms of the status of the project. So if there's a good reason to be saying that Speaker 13: Sounds like a good reason that for them to bring that package.
I don't know that we have any faith in them bringing that package. If Speaker 1: You I do not believe it's, it's the package is fully baked and I it's, I'm assuming that all of these reviews and comments are building towards what the final plan will look like. Fine. Speaker 13: Like a work in progress, which is not what the board is supposed to be. Speaker 1: Well it's not. We issue, we've Speaker 4: Got, we we've got a package before us, this is what they submitted. We could vote that up or down until we get something else. Until they, Speaker 13: Until this is what we have in front of us. Right. I think that we're in this position right now
because they had that extension, right. If if they hadn't had the extension, you would've voted it down and they would have to go off on the merry way and come back with said package. But because that didn't happen and they have this extension, we are coming at their beck and call Yes. Because she wanted to schedule them in August and they said, no, we wanna come next week. Well, but not, Speaker 1: But for us in Speaker 13: Terms of yes. And I go that's a good reason to agree Speaker 1: With it, having tone engineer there. Speaker 13: But that was again their, through their suggestions. Yes. So it just does, it just seems like we are being manipulated
in ways that make people uncomfortable. Speaker 1: Can Yes, Amanda, we can do Speaker 6: August 13th and we can just have Mr. McDowell be here and we can just put it as first item of business so he can get Speaker 1: In rather than dealing with it on the 30th. Yeah, we we have enough on our plate on the 30th. Yeah, Speaker 13: We do. So I, you know, so, but I, and Speaker 12: I appreciate the fact that the town engineer has his schedule and all and and so on, and we'd like to have the town engineer use his time efficiently. However, if he is, if this project is not ready for the planning board's task
aside from the town engineer's schedule, then it's not ready. And, and we should not be brought up. Speaker 13: Are Speaker 1: Are we, and this is to board members, are we at a point where we feel we should be asking 'em to fisher cut bait there? We're asking them either to come up with a co coherent executable plan or, or, or we will kind of vote denial. Well, Speaker 4: I, Speaker 12: Amanda, Speaker 4: So my, my Andy's trying to talk here. My, my answer to that is we're beyond the 90 day window.
So I think it's a legit a posture to take. However, denial of a subdivision is a extremely, extremely tricky, risky prospect. Okay? Because again, the what's before us, to me on the face of it, is a completely compliant subdivision plan that's approvable. If, if the board wants to deny a plan that's been submitted that's conforming we are gonna risk a lawsuit.
So this is the dance. Okay. It's very tricky where you just, again, it's not discretionary, we just can't say, well you haven't given us any information, so we're gonna deny your plan it, Speaker 13: But they Speaker 4: Haven't, we'll be in, in court and we will be spending taxpayer money quicker than you can say. I Speaker 1: I understand that. But Speaker 4: So we need to be very careful about that and deliberate, however, again, testing the patients of the board here. Yeah, I think that's a great question to ask them. Come come prepared with the final plan, submit it in advance so we can see it and come here
and testify to the fact that the, the plan is conforming it conforms to the rules and regs in every single way and give us the planning board the reason to approve it, which is our job and Speaker 1: Right. I'll say and with or without conditions. Yes. Right, right. And I think, I think that that conditions may provide the, the kind of what makes us come up together. Speaker 4: Yeah. And I think we have expertise on this board. Yes. You know, between Yeah. Mr.
Cloutier and, you know, myself and everybody else here that, you know, we can ask some pretty intelligent questions. Speaker 1: And so Andy, sorry, Speaker 5: For, for those of us who, who've been on the board for a while, the these cycles tend to repeat themselves. I, I started coming to planning board meetings when I had an issue in my neighborhood and I felt the same sort of exasperation. Like, what do you mean we're not gonna get this resolved tonight? And of course a lot of the people who are neighbors would like to see the thing denied, which I, which I certainly appreciate. And they don't want to keep dragging themselves down here to see continuation, continuation.
It makes it seem as if they're kind of abusing the system. But, but the reality is, like Terry said, our patience is not endless. And if we really feel like we are just being kind of dragged along here, we have in the past voted to deny and sometimes with, sometimes without prejudice. The, the idea here is that we want the best project possible. We want something that's gonna really work well and gets a full review so that it does work well. And yes, there are some times and it is frustrating that the, you know, a meeting or two
or even three gets continued. But I do think the goal is good review, good plan that people can live with, with apologies of having to come down and meet again and again. And as, as those of us who've been on the board, you know, we've seen this over and over again. But rest assured it's not endless. I think we can pass on a message to the applicant that we're not really looking for more continuations on this if this is a serious project. These things need to be answered and we really need something to, to see in its final form. So, you know, essentially everybody who's
spoken tonight is correct. I, i all the points of view I think are valid and we do need to bring this to some sense of close and we need to pass that message on to them so that the next time we meet whenever it is, seven days may not be enough time, August might be a better date. And, you know, and really compel them, impress upon them how important it's to come in and have these questions ready to be answered. Speaker 1: And I think we have to come forward being prepared how we want to respond to whatever they are presenting to us. And by this I don't mean another cycle, but moving to the conditions phase of a decision.
Speaker 12: Well we may not know that until we get their presentation true. However, can we, I would assume we can then, can we set a, a continuation date that we as a board feel should be an adequate date for them to come in with a proposal, a a completed proposal. And maybe that's a month off, maybe it's, I don't know how long, but give them enough reasonable time and that way everyone will know at that time it's gonna be the fish or cut bait.
It's gonna be, that's it, Speaker 1: Amanda. Alright. Do you have a sense as to i it it's moving slowly and very incrementally. It doesn't seem to have any sort of fixed timeline. So I'm, Speaker 4: You just said in August. Yeah. Speaker 6: So it, so they requested a continuance 'cause they originally had it till August 6th. They requested a continuance till August 27th, August 13th was the original date. So in terms of coming in, so I think you hold it to 'em and if they don't have the ability to provide a adequate
complete package by that point, then either prove it with heavy conditions. Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 6: Or you deny it. Speaker 1: And I, and I think letting them know that, that I'm very happy to suggest that the board embraced that as, as the timeline and as the goal. Speaker 12: They said the 27th, is that not correct? They, they put it, alright, that's their, that's their choice. Alright. Let's give them another couple of weeks. Another give, give, give them another. Speaker 4: We can't do that. We can't. We have to do it by what they're asking. Speaker 12: Yes. What they're asking for must be
Speaker 4: Yes. We cannot, we cannot extend it. We can, we can only approve. That's the date. Speaker 1: Would Speaker 12: You respond to That's the date they asked for it. I'd give it to 'em and, and expect a completed project. I've been there, done that. I've been Speaker 9: So if they were here in person, they could say, can we continue the next week? And we say, oh, it's already pretty full next week. Can we push it back? Speaker 4: It's gotta be an agreement. But Speaker 9: Since they're not here, Speaker 1: They, Speaker 4: You have something on record that says we work okay. Extending it to the 27th of August. We can say fine. Speaker 1: Well, and we had not yet come up with pushing it back.
The last pushback we had was to the 13th. Speaker 4: Right. But they, Speaker 1: But Speaker 4: I know you just said the 27th. Speaker 6: The 27th is the date of extension where you have to, to grant them a decision by Yes. Speaker 1: In other words. Speaker 4: So they can so we can, we can accept that date. Correct. And then schedule them for the 13th come, Speaker 6: Correct? Yes. Okay. Speaker 1: Because if we're, if we're relying on the 27th being the end of everything. Yeah. Speaker 4: Do we Speaker 1: They need some running room. Speaker 4: Our next meeting after the 13th of August is when Speaker 6: I have to look that up. That's actually what I was looking for because Speaker 1: I think it may Speaker 4: 'cause we would have to act on that date
before the 27th. Speaker 9: So Doug, I, they asked to be continued to the 30th, right? Speaker 1: No, 30th of July. Speaker 9: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So can we, if they, they asked for the 30th, are we able to say no? But you can do the 13th. Speaker 6: Yes. You can say no. 'cause the original request was the 13th. But Speaker 4: What are you, what are you reading from this as the 27th? The Speaker 6: Letter that Terry had just read That's in your packet. So that's second page. Yeah. So you can take the 13th and that's what you put it as with the acception accepting of the August 27th as the extension date
Speaker 4: To act. To Speaker 6: Act Speaker 4: Right on the, yes. So that should be okay. If you're ready for a motion, I'll make that. But I think Speaker 6: Because I'll have, we can, I can even give you the original letter, which was the 13th, but we wanted them to come in next week. Yeah. 'cause we had the traffic and everything else. Speaker 1: Okay. And do we, do we want to use that time next week? No. Okay. No, Speaker 6: The next, just so you're aware, the next plenty board meeting Speaker 4: Yeah. Between the 13th and the 27th. Speaker 6: So oddly enough, August 27th. Now Speaker 1: When we say the extension is to the 27th, Speaker 4: That means the extension to act Yes
or no deny or or approve. Speaker 1: Does that close a business on the 27th in which case we got a problem? Speaker 4: No, it's the, no. Okay. No, it's Speaker 6: Midnight. It's like midnight. Is it Speaker 1: Midnight? Yeah. Okay. Just yeah. Making sure. Yeah. So Speaker 14: Andy, Luke 63 Evergreen Road. Yes. 34 year town meeting member for precinct five. So my roots are pretty deep. Doug talked about lawsuit liability. Have you guys been to the site to see it? The land pitches to the evergreen wells. So if the state owns it and that prevents them from doing this development. So we're gonna try and get control for the town
so we can do something bad to the wells if that well gets polluted. You guys are on the hook for having approved that change to the ownership of the well. And then the, Speaker 1: I I think everyone is is, and this is very conscious board of health has been working on this conservation agent and, and, and, and in fact the team at, at Natick water and sewer. So, and, and what is paramount is that is the, the safety of of the wells. That's why technically
Speaker 14: Two, two evergreen wells. Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. I say wells plural. Well, yes, Speaker 14: I watched them build both of them. Speaker 1: So what we're, what we are looking for is to have a solution that meets the stringent requirements that they want. Speaker 14: I'm shocked that the, this is even allowed, I mean, to build that close to wells like that, but Speaker 1: Well, a whole lot better than, than relying on septic. Speaker 14: Well, I mean septic just made it, you know. Yes. Ridiculous. But, Speaker 1: But this is actually it. It is, it makes it safer. It really does.
By being able to, to get, if they're, if they can get them onto Speaker 14: Town and can you prohibit lawn chemicals from being applied because again, the land pitches to, to the wells and to the lake, which is the aquifer Speaker 1: That one I'd say the conservation agent works on. I know that she actually is an activist not just on this site, but all over town in trying to get a reduction. Speaker 14: Right. 'cause we hear, we hear the, the algae removal boat out there every year as they're trying to knock the algae back, which is a byproduct of all the fertilizer going into the lake.
Speaker 1: So, and, and it's, it's something that at least the conservation side of town hall has been working on ferociously for. I, Speaker 14: I gotta imagine they're scared to death that the thought of building this close to the wells and the aquifer, Speaker 1: I would not say scared to death. I think that they, they understand the cautions that are required to be taken and it, that's part of what's being actively considered as they're looking at what should or shouldn't be done as it relates to the safety of the wells. Speaker 14: I just feel bad for you guys
'cause it ends up coming back to blame. You, you know, lawsuits will name you guys. Speaker 1: I don't think that's what, that's not what we worry about. What we wanna do is get something that is safe, that is functional, that eliminates the issues that certainly that septic feels have posed for town water. Right. Speaker 14: And the fire chief must be having palpitations. 'cause we, whenever we have a fire call in the neighborhood, you see the crew backing the fire, fire engine out of the neighborhood because they
can't, there's nowhere to turn around. So just what they need is another road that they can't turn around on. Speaker 1: So Speaker 12: Can we require, or I should ask the applicant to present with us with the completed application, a letter from Conservation Board of Health, a number of whoever Speaker 1: We're doing that you don't, that that's comes Speaker 12: It's coming. They produce that one that can be thorough enough to an answer to some of the questions that lay people who are living all around it would are asking.
Speaker 6: And so as part of the subdivision process, one of the actual required groups that have to participate is the Board of Health. So they do need the final letter, but they can't give a final letter until they get the Speaker 1: Final Speaker 6: Plan, something final to finalize. So they will have to weigh in on this 'cause that is, they're named in the subdivision control law as being a co review. Speaker 12: I'd be interesting. Well, the material that they require for their final letter be the kind of material that we would expect in this presentation. This, this, with this deadline
that we're giving them, we're giving the Speaker 4: Applicant. Yeah. I mean I think the plane, well like, like Amanda just said, in the subdivision control law, the Board of Health has a critical role laid out in whatever the Board of Health says in their lab. Correct me if I'm wrong, Amanda, whatever the Board of Health says in their recommendations, the planning board must include them as conditions of approval. Is that correct? That Speaker 6: Is correct, yes. Speaker 4: So it's like they have a very important Speaker 12: Watching the other and Speaker 4: Yeah. But but in the law itself, in the law itself, it says the plan, whatever the board of Health says,
the planning board really must adopt as a, as a condition addition. Speaker 6: Like the law specifically Doug just said, specifically calls out the board of health. Good. So it doesn't call out like the fire department or the police department, it, but board to health because of that protection of life safety item. Speaker 1: So, so you know, I'd really like to wrap this up only because I'm aware that the, that the applicant is not here. They had requested an extension, that was their choice. We'll be happy to have him watch the, watch the video. Speaker 15: That was his choice not to come though. That was his choice not to come. Speaker 1: So, yes, I'll, it's, she said
that it's his choice not to come. Yes. Although we have had several sessions that have been continued with, without testimony being taken. So they may well have assumed that that's the case. I'm not doing it as a favor to them, it's just that I think where we're going to get momentum isn't going to come as much by what we're doing here now as what we, what we do when the applicant is, is in front of us. It Speaker 15: Was more logistical question for the board. Speaker 1: Alright, go ahead. About Speaker 15: How like this
Speaker 1: Okay. Brief if you can just be brief please. Yeah. Speaker 8: So Doug, you said like the board approves like kage and streets and stuff, but if you say yes, that's fine and the board of health is like no way then like other people can deny this project. Is that what you're saying? Board of Speaker 4: Health's purview is around water septic system issues around that. It's not about the design of the road. Speaker 8: Right. But if they're like, this is unsafe for the water or a septic won't work, then it's just Speaker 4: We need to take that into consideration. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. And that would be for the board of health
that the board of Health's opinion is paramount on that. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 8: And then I just had a question for Amanda. You said that if it's septic it will be two bedroom units, but do we know how many units? Speaker 6: Oh sorry. So right now it's still four. Okay. But they're limited to two bedrooms each. Okay. Because that would be the maximum that the septic could hold. Speaker 4: Okay. That's 'cause of Title V. Speaker 6: Title V. Yeah. And that's state. Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Alright, Speaker 1: Thank you very much and thank you for your persistence. So, so can I get a motion that we, Speaker 4: So I'll continue, oh, make a motion to do two things.
One, continue the public hearing until August 13th and accept the proponent's proposal to extend the date for action to August 27th. Speaker 1: Oh, so that's the action deadline. Yeah. And is there a second? Second. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. And remember, because we have a member, you have to say your name. Mr. Meyer. Speaker 5: Aye. Meyer Aye. Speaker 4: Landry Aye. Speaker 12: Nots and aye. Clear a Speaker 1: Evans. Aye. Thank you. So it stands continued,
the public hearing continued to the 13th and an acceptance of the extension of the deadline to August 27th. Great. Alright. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Speaker 16: I think we can still call that progress. I'll have too much fun when we Speaker 4: Move. Speaker 12: You can hang around. Speaker 1: Alright. We don't miss Speaker 12: Anything. Speaker 1: So Amanda, I know that among the many things you are juggling right now, you have rolled out content for fall town meeting. Yep.
Speaker 6: So Speaker 1: Zoning bylaw, Speaker 6: I think what I, and one of the reasons why one of the landowners is actually not here tonight is because I let them know that we would not be discussing West Natick. I'd like to take a lot of time next week, I'm trying to get my folder out, sorry, of next week to focus on West Natick. So therefore tonight we would not be discussing that one. However, I do wanna let you know that we do have several items moving forward with West Natick. I have drafted this bylaw, the bylaw. I have created what I call almost like pockets. I've taken the entire transect
of from the Natick Framingham municipal line all the way to the dog park and have built basically a model of an Excel sheet of all the parcels within there to understand what they have for one existing use landowner, if there's landowner that actually owns multiple parcels, assemblages lot area frontage. And then whether they're conforming, nonconforming, any constraints that they may have. So we have that. So we're really kind of understanding what is on the parcel. The other item is, is that I have actually in my email today a scope of work
that I just have to review to get a profile. And the reason why we want the profile is profile a profile of 1 35 oh like a, Speaker 1: A roadway profile, Speaker 6: A road profile. So what we would be doing is looking at from the Natick Framingham municipal line to Mill Street, specifically because of the significant change in topography, but also the single family residential to show and understand if we allow a certain height at the bottom of the slope where that is in connection with part or development on the top of the slope.
So currently a 35 foot story or 35 foot in height house can go on the top of the hill. The roof line of that may be the same as a four story at the bottom of the hill. So we're trying to understand that that's the reason why we want the profile to actually, and that's the fun thing with form-based code. So we are working on all of that. So that's why we're gonna talk about that all next week. So continuing on to the next efforts is trying to get some consensus. These were emailed out and also in the packets.
So if you are looking at the packet for tonight or in your email, there were a few items that I would request that we ask us to select board. If the planning board was willing to sponsor or start the public hearing process is the document that says June or oh six period 23 period 2025 section, no Nueral V, sorry, which G flooding, Speaker 1: Which page are we on? Speaker 6: You are in the tonight's folder? Yep. In the folder that says town meeting. Yep. 2025. Okay.
You go in there and it's for me right now, it's the second document, but it's dated June 23rd Speaker 1: June flooding Yep. Oh 5G. Yep. Yep. 5G flooding. Sorry, sorry. 5G. Yes. Okay. Okay. Speaker 6: So this here is the deleting of the, oh my gosh, there's quite a few spelling errors in there. Deleting of the nomine neural 5G flooding and replacing it with reserved, Speaker 1: In other words, eliminating that section. And I know we talked about this E either at our last meeting or the meeting before that it
is irrelevant. Speaker 6: It is irrelevant because since this time of the adoption of this, we've got the Aqua protection District updated. We also have the floodplain maps, which also were actually updated at the last town meeting. So this, it also, the intensity of the storms has significantly increased. So you may not have been in a flood situation before, but now your backyard is flooding. Like this is basically making every lot not buildable. So we, I would propose to leading this.
Speaker 4: So what's the question? Who's sponsoring it? Speaker 6: One, would the planning board be willing to sponsor it? And two, requesting the select board refer back to the planning board for the purposes of holding the public hearing. Speaker 1: Okay. So I wanna make a motion that for sponsorship Speaker 12: For this part, just this For Speaker 1: Just Yes. Yeah. For, for a section 5G nuke. Speaker 12: I would make a motion. Doug, we Okay. Replace 5G as written with 5G reserved. Speaker 1: Yes. In other words, eliminating. Speaker 12: Eliminating 5G as flooding as written. Okay.
I'm not sure how else you want Second. Speaker 4: Second Speaker 1: Questions, comments. Okay. Hearing Andy, anything from you? Okay. Okay. All those in favor say aye by name Speaker 12: Including aye, not sin aye. Speaker 4: Co Landry aye. Speaker 12: May or aye Speaker 1: Evans. Aye. Good. Speaker 12: Okay. It was easy. Speaker 4: So we are, Speaker 1: And then are Earth, earth products, have we covered that already? Speaker 6: Yeah. So we're gonna now take up earth removal. So that's the next one in there. That one is five F,
no numeral five F removal of earth products. This one we would not be deleting in its entirety. What we would do is clean up the language Speaker 1: And the purpose of the cleanup is Speaker 6: One, it hasn't been reviewed since 1974. And then when you review the sections that we are actually removing it is not relevant or it adds no value. So basically puts everything in here. Also it refers back to this board of appeals. So the planning board would be Speaker 1: The authority. Yeah. Okay.
Would you like a motion to sponsor this article Speaker 6: Sponsor and request a select board to refer it back to the planning board for the purpose of public Speaker 1: Mr. Landry moves. Speaker 12: I'll second Speaker 1: It. Mr. Cleary, your seconds. All those in favor say aye by name? I'll start with Andy Speaker 12: Meyer. Aye. Speaker 4: Landry Aye. Speaker 12: Mountain and aye. CLU or aye Speaker 1: Evans. Aye. Great. Thank you. Great. Speaker 6: Next one is the uses regulation schedule. I know that we haven't had a time to go fully through this one, but continuing to work on it is the update to this one has been made since our last
June, 2020, June 23rd meeting. And so with that I just, we are looking specifically at the, Gosh, transportation, sorry, motor vehicle related sales and services G. Yep. It would be G. And so with that being said, what we would want to do is take a look at all of these articles and the one that was actually, this is not the updated one. It was taking everything that the board had
requested at the last meeting. So the one in the packet is not the one, the one I emailed out is actually the most updated one. But I will run through that. In summary, we had requested that we delete sand and gravel pits, junk yards and waste removal from private entities. So we were gonna delete those lines. We were separating out, it was parking lot had filling station with it. And what we would be doing is separating it. It's a parking lot or parking garage and a filling station would be completely, completely separate. Then we also have car sales. We did not differentiate between new and used
because a lot of new sell used, but what we did do is re separate sales from repair. So it would be two separate lines. And so those were the focus. The other items that we would need to discuss during the public hearing process is really just making sure that everyone is good with the separation. Because right now we have manufacturing as one use header. However, if you look at manufacturing in terms of what it is and what it isn't, there's two types of man manufacturing. There's like the light manufacturing, which is more like artisan productions, more like
technology based. And then you have industrial, which is more like heavy machinery and that might include commercial storage facilities, distribution centers and items like that. So this would be the last cleanup for all of the sections. We also, at the very end in the spring, we would fix the rest of the footnotes, but I just didn't want to, 'cause I need, because the first two to be the HM one, one and two, but right now it's A and B and it already designated something as one and two, so it would cause chaos. Speaker 4: So what would be, so yeah,
I think we've talked about all of these changes. I, you know, I assume that everything in there's been incorporated, but what would be logistically the way this would be presented in a warrant article? Would it be all of it at once? Is it, and then separate motions or all one, how would it, how would it be presented? Speaker 6: Yep. So this would be the same way that we've done it before, which we've basically set one motion. Yeah. Okay. But we basically break it down into the use header. So what you're seeing right now is all the use
category or use headers. We do not usually present it with all the use just so, 'cause we're only, the only the ones that we're touching would get in there. Speaker 4: Okay. So it'll be one article, Speaker 6: One article Speaker 4: And one motion. Got it. Yeah. Speaker 6: And it's just a very long Speaker 1: Motion. Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. And it's follow, but it follows a process that town meeting members will be very familiar with. Because this is what the fourth basket of use regulations that we've pre presented to them. Speaker 4: So what do we need to do with this tonight? Speaker 6: If the board would be willing to sponsor
and also request a select board to refer it back to the sponsor for the purpose of a public hearing. So we can get that started. Speaker 1: This is for the changes to GH and or to just broadly to this section. Speaker 6: You brought it to the use. So it's to the youth table and section 200 definitions. Okay. Because, Speaker 4: So moved. Okay. Speaker 9: I'll second it. Okay. Speaker 1: A discussion. Speaker 9: Yeah, just to, since I'm kind of new, I'm the newest one for all this stuff. So it's going to, we're gonna have a public hearing as far as on the planning board, not during town meeting. We're gonna have that too, a session where we invite people
to come to talk about this. Speaker 1: Anything that is being presented to, to that makes changes in zoning, bylaw, anything that's passed by town meeting has to have a public hearing associated with it. In this case, planning board must hold the public hearing because that is who the select board assigns. That's Speaker 4: What the, the public Speaker 1: Hearing to, Speaker 4: That's what the state law says. Yeah. Speaker 9: So, but by voting on this right now, we're not saying that this is com completely done. It's nope. That we're Speaker 1: Kind of continuing, it's saying we approve it, here's what it looks like, Speaker 4: That we're gonna sponsor it
and then it's gonna come back for a, a public hearing. And then we Yeah. Speaker 9: And then there might be some more modifications through the process. Okay. Speaker 1: And we may have public hearings for things very often we do that we don't sponsor. Okay. But because they're dealing with zoning matters, we are required to, to hear them. In this case, it's our business literally. So. Alright. Speaker 6: It doesn't, the warrant doesn't close until the 20th. So you might get into the public hearing decide of August. Of August Yeah. That they're, you're not gonna put it on the warrant or you might get through the public hearing process and be like, you know what, we need more time.
Like it's just getting the public process started. Yeah. Speaker 9: So we're gonna have to meet on the soon then. Speaker 6: Well, yeah, but I have to have the select board refer it to us. Okay. So, and then, Speaker 1: And they, they usually do that pretty timely. Speaker 6: It's actually one of those things where it's a technicality, like they actually have to refer it to us, but it's, Speaker 1: If they don't a requirement, Speaker 6: It's Speaker 1: Somebody missed Speaker 6: Part of mass general law. So we do it. So, so yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So, and, and what, what we're doing now in getting us all out
of the way gives us one less thing to panic about when the deadline for closing the warrant comes. Because not only can it be on the warrant, but it leaves us prepared to go ahead and, and hold initial set of hearings that we're required to to do. Speaker 6: So you need to Speaker 1: On that and, and Yes. And we Yes, we moved. You Speaker 4: Moved. Oh right. Speaker 12: I Speaker 1: Seconded. You seconded. Okay. Andy Speaker 4: Meyer. Aye. Landry aye. Speaker 12: Aye. Include Speaker 1: Or aye. Evans. Aye. Alright. Thank
Speaker 6: You. And then the last one that's in your packet tonight, no changes have been made. This is just the amendment to the definition for limited site plan review, which was requested by the attorney general. So we were just taking the language and putting this in here. So it's, it's basically more of a cleanup but required. Speaker 4: So there was a, a pretty good email on the mass planner's listserv the other day. Did you see that one, Amanda? Speaker 6: Which, what was it about? Speaker 4: It was about the, the, the Dover Amendment. It was a missive that was written by the attorney general's office about guidance on
Dover amendment provisions and zoning bylaws. It's, it was really good. And it was really good. So who wrote who's, Speaker 6: Hmm, who was that? July 14th. Speaker 4: Is that it? Yep. Speaker 6: Is it from, it's from Margaret Hurley. Yes. Yes. And it says, wanted to share the guidance. Yep, yep, Speaker 4: Yep. There it is that, yeah, there. Speaker 6: Do you want me to forward it to everybody? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes, please. Speaker 4: Yeah. So there's two documents. One is from, so it's guidance on regulation of religious and educational uses of land under the doberman. And this was written like within the last month.
So it's really, really good. I I, I geeked out on it and I read the whole thing and yeah. So, you know, take a look at it and I'm sure, I mean this is a pretty simple revision we're proposing and I'm sure it's compliant. But just take a look. Speaker 6: This was using her, I don't know if it was Kelly or Margaret or Nicole in the ags office who gave us this, but Speaker 4: Yep. Oh, okay. But we'll, yeah, Speaker 6: We'll let's make sure too, let's review that. 'cause there was, I know they had been working on amendments to it.
Speaker 4: Yep. So I will make a motion to sponsor and have asked their selectmen to refer back to the blame board for hearing. Speaker 1: Very good. And second, second. Second from Peter. All those in favor? Andy? I, aye. Speaker 12: Alure Aye. Aye. Speaker 4: Landry. Aye. Speaker 1: Evans. Aye. Okay. Okay, Speaker 6: Great. And then just so you're aware, there is two items that are being worked on in addition to, Speaker 1: For, for fall town meeting. Speaker 6: For fall town meeting. In addition to West Natick,
there is a working group that is currently taking place regarding signs and advertising devices specifically to Natick Center. We met two weeks ago and we're meeting again next Tuesday. So that is one item. And then the other item was just talking with the building department portion of CED and wanting to clarify or clean up a couple of the building related definitions because there's confusion in the way that developers interpret certain definitions. Like,
Speaker 1: Like structure and building or, Speaker 6: Yeah, like, like a habitable attic of what is and is not where the roof meets and stuff like that. And then the other one is the grade from the road measurements. So it was just looking at those. Speaker 4: So would that be an article? Speaker 6: Potentially, I don't know if it'll be ready for fall. So I I just wanted to let you know that we are working on building related definitions Speaker 1: That, that would Speaker 4: Be, are there things in the building code that can kind of take care of that
and then we can just kind of simply reference it? Speaker 6: That's what we were also trying to see. 'cause the 10th edition is now fully in effect and a lot of changes made were made so we could use those a hundred times easier. Yeah. Speaker 1: And so, so, and we don't run the risk of getting outta sync with the state if you're, if you're citing them. Speaker 6: Yeah. Kinda like what we did for body art Yep. With Board of health, like trying to make sure that we can do that in other places. So yeah, that's where we're at in terms of town meeting stuff. Speaker 1: That's all I have on that. Thank, thank you very much for getting ahead of so much of it.
I know that there's, there's a lot on your plate, but also it is, it's just this load lifted if we know that we're not, like Speaker 6: It's good to get it out Speaker 1: Time clock Speaker 6: Out in front just 'cause then people can start looking at it before and we hopefully can prevent last minute. Yeah. Thanks. Speaker 1: So, and are, are we down to then planning board, business planning, board meeting committee assignment reports? CPC has a, has a plate full, let me see, it's eight currently. Yep. Projects that have been proposed that
the, that have gone through the initial LOI, the letter of interest and have are moving forward. Amanda's been kind of orchestrating all of this. I have been, I've been part of one of the lois and have kind of been able to see the materials on the other. I think it's an ambitious number of projects to start with, to have eight as our first go. But I think it, it seems to be moving forward, well, don't, I don't think there's any expectation that everything that's proposed will make it through Mm.
To the finish line. And that's fine. Speaker 6: We've had with the, a quite a few of 'em actually have taken some of the information and actually have revised their scopes. We had one for, I think it was LOI three, they came in with one project and then based on the meeting they actually came back for a reise of the LOI because they realized they needed more information and more detail. So that actually limits the scope of their work in terms of more planning and design rather than trying to implement the project without knowing that.
But I don't think it's expected. All eight would be, we have about $2.8 million to use. But I don't believe, based on the tracker that we have, which is online and all the LOI reports that have been issued are also online and available to the public is not expected that all 2.8 would be distributed out. And we don't expect all eight to apply. 'cause an LOI is good for two years. Speaker 1: And I'll just, I'll just jump in to say that what we're, what we're trying to do is to make gift the material as visible
and accessible to the public as possible. Yeah. The, I know we often refer to it as the, though the CPC website, it's, it's in effect, it's page on open.gov on the Natick, the Town of Natick website. But it's astonishing how accessible if anyone's interested in learning about what the projects they're being proposed. Speaker 4: So I assume there'll be, you know, press and kind of a celebration of the ones that kind of get to the finish line and get funded and, Speaker 1: And get through town Speaker 4: Meeting advancements and stuff. Yeah. Right. Oh yeah. Town meeting has, right? Yeah.
Yeah. So yeah, Speaker 1: In this, in in the fall, Speaker 4: Yeah. Oh Speaker 6: Yes. I haven't gotten that far in my planning yet. It's really been more of getting everything down and into the like group. 'cause the lois are pretty extensive in terms of the information they get. Also all the documentation. 'cause we create a checklist so you don't have to be in the open gov system that you can actually use to help get everything together before you submit. And then the evaluations as well. But like, yeah, if anyone's interested, you just go on to this, you can go right to the CED website, Speaker 1: Which is, which is under, it's part
of the town towns Natick website. Speaker 6: Website. Yep. And you just go under, and it's in conservation or if you go to the CPCs website, it actually has a link here as well. And so what it really does is it looks, just making sure I'm scrolling right here, you can actually see there's a tracker and if this is updated as we continue on with the projects. But it shows you everything that we are looking at right now. So here's all eight projects. It tells you the addresses, if there is an address, the title of the project, what category
of the CPAs it is, what type of project. So it could be restoration, it could be support, it could be more than two. The amount of money that they're requesting based on their LOI the status. So if they've gotten their report or not, or if they're pending, et cetera. And anticipated how meeting that's based on the information they provided. We haven't received anything different. And then up here is just a tracker just showing if all these funds were requests, how much it would actually come down to maybe. So Speaker 4: Question for you on, are the funds, so the funds reside in a account somewhere?
Yeah. Is that a investible account? Speaker 1: I believe it's in an interest bearing account. It's, Speaker 4: Yes. Yeah. Speaker 6: It's in an interest bearing, but we can't use it into like a money market or anything like Speaker 4: That. But it's interest bearing. Yeah. Yes. Speaker 6: So if anyone's interested in that, that's Speaker 4: Excellent. Speaker 6: Yeah, that was, and then just one other thing for the planning board. So I know we've been asked a lot on how do I find projects and everything else. And so over the past few weeks I've been putting together a
table on the website. I have a table that I have, which is everything about every project that we have, which back actually goes back to, Speaker 1: Does live life projects or all, Speaker 6: Or all projects from basically from now to 2016 if they've been withdrawn, et cetera. So if you're on the CD webpage and you go onto under application review, which is where a lot of our stuff lives, you can always go to OpenGov and go to the portal. However, if you don't know the address or the project number, it's very difficult. So here's the two active projects that are currently
underneath the planning board's review. Then if you go back down, down a little bit, it's called the planning board project database. And so what you can do is click on any of these dates or years and you can actually see anything about these projects. So it'll give you the project number, the address, what the status of it would be, the permit type, the project type, the project description. And then if you wanted to actually see it, you would just click here and it would take you specifically into the OpenGov page specifically for that project. So not the OpenGov landing page, but the actual project. And then once you're here, a lot
of people don't know details. It gives you all the information that we see as the application. But then if you go into files, this is actually where all of the documentation lives that you can see. So it might have a locus plan, it might have your traffic studies, but that's where everything lives. We'll keep that up to date. Right now we only have it to 2022 was because May of 22 is when we started OpenGov. So I, now I need to figure out how to show past projects that were pre OpenGov so people can see the information that was there. Speaker 1: That's cool. It's an amazing resource. Thank you.
Speaker 6: So hopefully it's, yeah, good Speaker 1: Time. Super useful. Speaker 6: So that's what I got. Speaker 1: Yay. Any other meeting committee assignment reports. And I, I guess I just wanted to ask, I know we, we've been talking increasingly about working groups and I think it's a, it's a term of art that gets a little blurred. Those of us who've been on the board for the planning board for a while think of working groups as two members
of the board who are assigned by the chair to do X. But we've taken it, I think in the last couple years, much more widely than that. And we talk about sitting in on, you know, staff, CED staff meetings to, that are discussing projects and so forth. Is there, I'm just trying to understand when people, when members of the public ask about what meetings are open to the public to attend, I'm assuming that most
of the, what is the status, maybe I, I shouldn't assume, but Speaker 6: What is, so working groups that are posted. Yes. Those ones are, the DRT is not, that's specific to staff. So those ones are not open to the public. Speaker 1: So it's, it's those that have either a member of the planning board or some other like elected appointed body. Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly. And the reason why the DRT isn't because it's specific information regarding infrastructure and all those things which have to meet the code. So it's things that can't be, some things can't be MedEd.
Speaker 1: And so something like the signed bylaw that we're working on is a working group. Speaker 6: It is a working group and that is public posted. Speaker 1: And that is because there are point appointed or elected officials Speaker 6: And those ones. Yeah. And also because Natick Center Associates also posts their meetings and it's those ones, yeah. We want members of the public to come. Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's great to be able to have those open. I just, I wanted something to, because the definition of working group, you know, a subset of a, of a whole, and this is a, it's a little different at the way
that we're taking working groups now. And I think they're fine. I think it, it's a good cross section of people. It's just not what people think of as the, a traditional definition of a of a working Speaker 6: Group. Yeah. And they're hard because they're also in the middle of the day. Yes. Or random times during the day. Speaker 1: If and if there are ever ones that where it works to push it within the working day, but to one end or the other that might allow, but you know, a little wider participation, it would be terrific. Speaker 6: Oh yeah. You know, it's funny 'cause we always think push it to the middle at noon 'cause then people could be at lunch,
Speaker 1: Except that there'll be people who would want to, to participate who don't work in, in Natick and so can't get here for lunch. Speaker 6: Oh. But they're usually virtual, Speaker 1: But I mean Okay. But if, but if they're, Speaker 12: If we were serving lunch, would it be different? Yeah, Speaker 1: No, I was just thinking that, I was just thinking of the same thing. A lot of people's work schedules midday are variable. But anyway, beat that dead horse. Speaker 9: Yeah. Prior to COVID, that was me who was always like, okay, can it be early, can it be late? Because you know, I've been in the office, I can't,
Speaker 1: And, and even, even having Zoom, it depends on what you're doing at work at the time. Yeah. So anything else? Is there anything else that, any other members? Speaker 9: The Memorial School Building Committee, we've been moving forward. We've had a couple meetings so far including one of 'em at, actually at the school. So we get to check out the existing school and see all the needs that it currently has. So still definitely in the information gathering part of the project. So, but moving forward, next one is August 4th. Speaker 1: Okay. Awesome. Thank you.
Thank you for being the point person for us on this. And truly, you actually have interesting, could not be a better fit. Yeah. I Speaker 12: Feel likely that there'll be some program written that defines all the different, that describes the building in narrative. Speaker 9: Narrative about what's, what they're planning. I mean, so right now we're, it's kind of two tracks. One is the, all the information has to go to a math school building authority and try to get approvals from them. Yeah. Which there is a bunch of information laid out, like how, what the population will be and, and what have you. Okay. Speaker 12: So it's a lot of the data that goes into defining,
I'm just saying before that in mine, my world, it was, you don't do a line on paper until you have it really what that line's gonna be. And that's a narrative form. Yep. Speaker 9: Yeah. It's just, so yeah. Some of that's gonna be informed by, by, by that. And so yeah, we're gonna kind of apparently have to identify some needs that we have, I guess of, of the project well before it goes to design or anything like that. Speaker 1: Like sustainability issues on sustainability.
Speaker 9: Well, or even for instance, how many floors is it gonna be? Yeah. You know, and knowing that it's El Elementary school, I think especially the, the superintendents that they don't wanna do an elementary school that's four stories. Yeah. Right. You know, that can work for older kids, but not for younger. I'm curious, Speaker 4: I I what's the projection of the school for, for enrollment? Is it, are we planning for growth? Are we planning for Speaker 9: I think some, but there there's a lot of rules that they have to follow. Yeah. So they can't just kind of put out their own thing. So they, they have to follow whatever M-S-B-C-A
puts forward and they have accounted for some growth in that or, you know, even possible moving around as needed. So they definitely don't want to build something and have it be undersized. Right, right. But Speaker 1: I think they, they do have a record of nevermind. Speaker 9: Yeah. Well, but a lot of that, even though numbers for, for the high school like that was what the rules they, they, they don't like to play around. Oh, I either are what it have to be. Speaker 12: But as there was for the high school, I believe around the state, the guidelines for this is what the state participation will be in a high for a high school. And like some towns went way above it and
Speaker 9: Oh yeah. Well they don't give away as much money as they used to either. So, but it will Speaker 12: Be that it's true guide line for this. Speaker 9: Yeah. So I mean, right now it's still early on. We haven't identified for sure if it's gonna be follow the mass. The, there is a, I'm trying to remember the exact name, but the, where you're following a specific model of a sc the model school program. Speaker 12: Yeah, Speaker 9: That's that We haven't even decided whether or not that's going to be the case or not. Speaker 12: Okay. Speaker 1: So Speaker 12: Yeah, Speaker 1: Seeing no other business, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Speaker 9: I'll second that Speaker 1: And seconded all of those in favor say aye. Aye name. Speaker 4: Aye. Speaker 9: Including your aye. Speaker 12: Aye. Speaker 1: Evans. Aye. And for the, for what's That can not on anyone. No wait for the record. He just to make sure it shows that he was not present to vote. And that's it.