Speaker 1: All right, it being past seven o'clock, I'll call this meeting of the Natick Planning Board to order at 7 0 4 for those following along at home. And they, there may be few, but the meeting is being recorded. Is being broadcast on Pegasus to comment or ask a question? Use your raise your hand function if you're on a phone dial star nine. An individual wishing to speak during the public speak or during a public hearing who's watching virtually must display their first and last name on the screen before their microphones can be unmuted.
Make changes in your name as it appears in the screen in Zoom. Click on participants to open the participants menu. Hover your cursor over your entry and click on more. Click on rename and type in your first and last name. So, with the ceremonial issues being at hand, it's time for public speak. As we start all meetings, any individual may raise an issue that is not included in the agenda and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes
and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. First on our agenda is an a and r, an approval. Oh, actually is there anyone who's here for public speak? Speaker 2: I don't see. I don't see any hands virtually. Speaker 1: Alright, thank you. So the first order on the agenda on projects is an approval not required for zero Pegan Lane. Amanda, can I turn this over to you? Speaker 2: Yep. So in your packets, I'm still just logging in. In your packets you'll find a application, a plan of land,
and also a step comment. We do have the town engineer available online as well. This is a, basically a dis, they're gonna dissolve a lot. Line. This is a unique property because it is a portion in Dover and a portion in Natick. I did originally think the lot line was right on the town line, but I realize it's a little bit different. But all they are doing is dissolving the lot line. It is Zed out in your plans, and then they have to do the same thing over in Dover. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much. And is, and no one is here, I'm assuming to speak on it.
Speaker 2: I am not seeing anyone raise their hand. Speaker 1: Okay. Any questions, comments from the board? It does seem very straightforward, especially now that we have the Zs, the dissolved line being Zed out. So Amanda, thank you for getting them too. Since Speaker 3: Mr. Mcal is here, we used to receive memos that, you know, like recommendations to, to endorse the, I always found the, it was Mike. Yeah. Sorry. Mr. McDowell's here. I used to always appreciate the memos where there would be a suggestion that it's okay to endorse.
I know this one's pretty straightforward, but I always, I'm just saying I appreciate those when we get them it, it clarifies things in my mind. So I'm, I'm open to receive them if you guys have time to review them and provide them for us. I, I don't see one here, but this one, like I said, is pretty straightforward. Speaker 1: S so, and Mr. McDowell, do you have anything you'd like to add? And No, is fine, but Speaker 4: Thank you. No, I don't have anything to add. And if I did not put that language generally, that's the last line in my memo, so I apologize if that was not in the memo, I would recommend endorsement.
Speaker 1: I, I, I can't, I can't. Sorry. Your audio is not clear. Speaker 3: Did we get a memo on this one? Speaker 5: Lemme go back in and check. Speaker 1: And there is, well there is the memo from the, I think, no, I'm thinking of another one. Speaker 5: There's one from Speaker 1: Conservation. Oh, thanks. Sorry. Okay. You were, I was was just looking for, for, but it's just as an explanation. Speaker 6: I guess I have a question just, yeah, I see two line. There's Speaker 1: There's one that's Zed out if you make sure you're looking Speaker 6: Yeah, the one that Zed out now. Does that also, that's all in Natick, both sides of that or Yeah, there's this one that's,
Speaker 7: That's the county line or the town line Speaker 6: And, but here Speaker 7: It's in Dover. Speaker 6: How about this line right here? 'cause that, doesn't this say Dover assessor's map over here? Speaker 7: Yeah, that's in Dover. Speaker 6: So the line go, where does the town line go Speaker 7: Here? These are two lots that are in Dover. They're gonna divide, they're gonna erase that line. That's it. Speaker 6: So this is, Speaker 7: That's this is, that's Speaker 6: The only part of Natick, correct. Oh, so yeah, Speaker 1: So Speaker 6: It's kind of only a technicality that we're Speaker 7: Even saying. Yeah, I mean, just always appreciate input too,
but let's remind the board. Okay, two questions on a and r. Plans adequate frontage. Zoning area. Zoning area. That's it. Speaker 1: And, and with that, are you looking to make a motion? Speaker 7: I'm taking a motion to endorse the approval not required plan for 36 Pleasant Street, Dover, mass as presented. Right? Speaker 6: I'll second it Speaker 1: Second for the discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? That is five zero unanimous. W Speaker 3: Was there a memo on that one? Speaker 1: There was not. Speaker 3: Okay.
I I'm, I'm just saying in general, I always appreciate receiving one if possible. Speaker 1: Okay. Point, point taken and, and usefulness acknowledged. So next order of business is, yes. Speaker 8: I was just wondering, we do have a brief thing, and I don't know if it's brief, but 2 9 1 2 81 Worcester Street. It's just the findings. And we do have someone Speaker 1: Who's here for that. Yeah, that, that is great. I'm happy to take that out of order. That's, you see it under planning board business under Roman numeral six of tonight's agenda. 2 81 and 2 91 Worcester Street. Review of decision.
Speaker 8: So in your packet, you'll see, Speaker 2: In your packet you'll see a, basically a document that is prepared to separate the 2 91 from 2 81 for the overflow parking and then also the transportation items. This was prepared by Attorney Silverman who was not able to make it tonight. But Connor, who is the owner of the property, is here. Oh, wait, that's right. Wrong one. If there were any questions, but it seemed pretty. I Speaker 9: Wanna show you how to make, Speaker 1: So, and the
and members will have have seen the supplemental finding that was drafted. Speaker 2: It was in the packet. Yep. Speaker 7: Absolute. Yep. Speaker 1: So are questions from the board on that language? I know we discussed it at, at our meeting, gentlemen. Yeah, Speaker 7: I think it's consistent with what we were saying. So this would be signed by the board and recorded. Yes. Right. That's the whole point of that, so, yeah. Yes. Yeah. Speaker 1: So a, a vote to sign the revision, the revised findings as shown.
Speaker 7: So moved. I'll second that. Okay. Speaker 1: Discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. And thank you Amanda for getting us getting that out of the way early. Speaker 2: Thanks. Speaker 1: So now moving on to the continued public hearing for 43 Cyprus Road. Good evening. And just introduce yourselves and the continuation of the public hearing that we're picking up this evening. Speaker 10: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. Members of the board, Brian Grossman from STR Scott
and Drew counsel for the applicant. And with me is Mike Dean, engineer. And we also have Bob Micho from MDM Transportation, who prepared the transportation memo that we submitted for the last hearing. Speaker 2: Sorry, just real quick, in your packets, they are gonna be presenting a series of slides. It is the one that is tiled presentation for August 13th. It is the same as the other one. It just does have color and we'll project it on the screen, but just so you can see it up close. Yep. Okay. On there. Thank you. Speaker 10: So I'll turn it over to Mike in a minute.
I, the, my notes on the, on the, the outstanding items were, we still had prior to the last public hearing. We'd met with the working group, had some comments that came out of that, met with the planning board and talked about some of those issues. And then went back to kind of further refine the pencil a little bit. Met with working group, again. Had some additional conversations with DPW engineering and conservation around stormwater design and man storm water management design
as well as sewer and water. We met with them a few times, including a site visit. We greatly appreciate their time and their input. We've gotten to a better design utilizing their input. Michael walked through that. Our understanding from the walkthrough at the site visit where Mike had had already finalized some things but had prepared these plans was that they were satisfactory as far as the proposal for stormwater management and locations of things like fire hydrants and mains and, and so forth. Beyond that, we talked about the,
the y hammerhead and that seemed to be the preference. So we haven't continued to include that as the proposal. Obviously that reduces the overall impervious surface. We've incorporated the removal of the attendant sidewalk, and again, that's a, we put it back, but that's a, we thought that was the planning board preference and working group preference was to further reduce the impervious surface. And given that there isn't a, a sidewalk network to connect to that, the removal
of the impervious surface seemed to be the, the preference there. So we've done that as well. And then the last thing we did from the last hearing was submit the memo from Bob Micho at MDM Transportation. You know, there were some questions around adequacy of access there. And so we engaged Bob, who did provide the memorandum to discuss the adequacy of access from our perspective and bobble walk through it, the, the additional three additional mar homes result in a marginal increase in terms of overall traffic. But the road network can certainly handle it. As we've talked about.
We've received comments from fire, they're happy with the, the turnaround and the width of the road proposed under the subdivision. And they currently have access through the existing road network with their, with their current equipment. So we didn't receive any concerns in our feedback from fire with regard to adequacy of access for emergency services. And with that, unless you have questions for me, I'm happy to turn over to Mike to walk through the, the changes. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Speaker 11: Hi, good evening. How are you? My name's Mike Dean from DNL Design Group here representing the applicant. Morell Construction. Amanda Amanda's going
to pull up the plans that have some coloring on them. So there's the set of plans, the revised set of plans that have been submitted. Just going through that quickly. There's the cover letter up at the top. It's the, the name of the project, 43 Cyprus. It's a definitive subdivision as the planner board is aware it's located off of Cyprus and connects to Evergreen. There are some on the bottom right hand corner of the cover sheet. Those are the waivers that two of the waivers were approved when we were in front of the planning board during the preliminary plan approval.
Those are the, those are number one and number two, the third one was added, which is eliminating the one sidewalk that was proposed. Proposed in the original submittal. So therefore there's no sidewalks at this point being proposed. And as Brian had just mentioned, that, that's due to trying to decrease the impervious surfaces. So that's one of the biggest changes there. There's still, it's still highlighted and more than likely we'll have to have further discussion on this, but still highlighted that as it was originally submitted, that the road was going to be petitioned to be public. But we've gotten feedback on that.
So I'm not sure that that's gonna be the case, but that's what's highlighted on that cover sheet. Speaker 1: So, and we should go into more detail on, on that. Just Yes. For, for anybody washing a home. Speaker 11: Yes, agree. So if we could slide through. So that's just a quick overview of the project itself. The existing conditions, you can see there's two parcels highlighted in orange and then the, the red or the darker orange, those are the two parcels that are involved. 43 cypress is the larger parcel. 53 evergreen is, is the small apostle. So if we can go to the next page please.
Okay. So there's the proposal that's, that's the revised proposal is once again you see the orange, that's the perimeter of the project, the two parcels combining for just over four, four acres, 4.02 acres when they're combined. And that's what provides for access to, to the large apostle 43 Cyprus. And with that you see the proposed roadway three hundred and twenty five, three hundred fifty foot long roadway, which is the docker black that is the right of way. The four lots, lots, 1, 2, 3, and four.
And you can see in this revision and rendition, you'll see the zone one is located towards the left or the western portion of the site. So that's what we have worked diligently with the town and the town departments as this Speaker 1: Is, that's the one that shows up in green, light green, okay. Speaker 11: Yeah. Speaker 1: For those following at home, Speaker 11: Yes. Light green. Correct. So that's off on the left hand side and with the hatching and that's 30,000 square feet of land there. And in this scenario that is being cut out from the overall, from the previous or the original submittal that is going
to be carved out of the entire project and ultimately into the town's disposition or ownership for that zone one, which will be in line with I think what the town wants and DEPI think DEP and the town has had some conversations or communications with that zone one Speaker 1: In terms of the control of the Speaker 11: Wells. Yes. Control even, not even via easement or anything. This is being carved out 30,000 square feet. Okay. And in doing that, what we can see is there is a reddish or light red color for the sewer connection that that's now proposed in the proposed roadway comes down
lot line, lot one and two and connects to the existence sewage system in Bayberry. So that was one of the big changes and we've had further discussion and DPW even in their letter, recognizes this proposal. And that's, you know, that's what we've discussed up to this point. And it certainly seems to be a goal because that that's, it would not work any other way with carving out the zone one and things of that nature. So then you have the typical hammerhead, the other big, the hammerhead type turnaround is shown in the gray.
Well yeah. So if, yeah, if you could just stay there for a second, that's just shown in gray. All the other utilities may cloud it. But, so with that hammerhead, we've also presented that in a working session. And then Amanda, if you could go to the next, and then what you see there is a, the truck simulation of the fire department's apparatus pulling in and plenty, plenty, plenty of room to come in, turn around and leave in a safe manner. And they've seen that and they're okay with that, that layout there. So then let's see if you can go back to
that other slide please. Once again, the pavement is 22 foot wide coming in. That has never changed. And then that hammerhead replaces, replaces the full blown 26, 26 foot of pavement all the way around. You know, your conventional cul-de-sac water line is shown in the docker blue and then the underground basin is shown in the si in the light blue or the cyan that's collected. And there's, there's items in, in introduced in that in the trunk line or the drain line to that underground system
that we've talked to engineering on like water, like a gate valve to shut it down. If in case there's anything that takes place or a spill or something in the roadway itself, you can close it down in addition to a storm sep, the hydrodynamic separator that cleans up all the, the runoff storm water meets local and storm water management regulations, local and state, the pre and post are all balanced out. The volumes are all balanced out the site really with all the gravel that's out there really in, in a hundred year storm event, you, you have flow rates
of like 0.43 CFS, which is not all that much when you're dealing with projects. So with that, the modificate, the modifications, reducing the impervious areas and increase in woodland results in reducing the underground basin by 39% and shifts the underground basin even further away from that zone one than originally approved. The exchanges all contribute to preserving the zone one and place in the area in the, in the town's ownership. Eliminating septic systems. That was, I forgot to mention that eliminating septic systems that by default by in, by having the town sewer system, you're
Speaker 1: Not, well not eliminating them, you're just not including new ones. Right. Is there are, is this eliminating existing Well, yeah, go ahead. Existing sump or, Speaker 11: Right, so the original approval was for onsite septic. Speaker 1: I understand. I'm just asking, have you got a piece of paper today? Yep. No. Are there any home properties on septic that are going to be able to take advantage of the new line, the Speaker 11: Existing one on septic? Speaker 1: So I'm just, Speaker 11: So the existing house is going
to be removed out of the zone one that's going to be removed and there's a septic system will be abandoned. Speaker 1: I'm just talking about there are others certainly in this area who I imagine yeah, potential have to rely on septic and I was just wondering if there was any move or opportunity to provide access to sewer by existing residents outside behalf of agenda back this particular parcel. Speaker 11: Yeah, there's a potential there and it's been discussed with the DPW. Speaker 1: Okay, I'll, I'll Speaker 11: Connecting others to that sewer line that, that goes down to the existing pump station at
Speaker 1: Bayberry. So I'll, I'll be asking Mr. McDowell about that later then. Speaker 11: So eliminating the proposed septic systems, I should say that was originally submitted. That's, that's how it was submitted. Reduction in the size of the stormwater basement and reduction in overall land disturbance and tree removal. So there's been a lot of time and effort as Brian had mentioned, put forward on everyone's part. And with that I turn it back over to the board and thank you for your time. Alright, Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 11: I, if you want, if Speaker 10: You want do questions for Mike now or I can just have Bob Micho present on the
traffic and access. Speaker 1: Do you wanna take everything together or piece by piece? Speaker 3: I've got a few questions on what we just heard. Alright Speaker 1: Then let's do that. Why would you want it? Thank you. Okay, Andy, I'll start with you. Okay. Speaker 3: Just so I don't forget them. So first the red line proposed sewer connection. I'll take advantage of the fact that Mr. McDowell is here, no problems there going across the, the 20 foot wide utility easement, Mr. McDowell and as it connects to Bayberry Road. Speaker 4: No, there's lot. There's still Speaker 3: Bill. Can you hear me okay? Speaker 4: Okay, can you hear me? Speaker 3: No, you're,
we can't hear you sounds underwater. Speaker 4: I'm not sure what a big spot you hit me now. Speaker 3: Nope. I'm kind of gurgly. Speaker 4: There's no problem now. Speaker 1: No Bill. It's not, you're not audible or understandable. Speaker 3: Well, so obviously it goes across the Natick utility easement, which I think it's fortuitous that's that it's there. But I do see it connects into Bayberry Road. So I don't know if that is a private property connection or if that's, 'cause that's a, obviously a major part
of this program in eliminating the need for Speaker 4: Septic Speaker 3: Septic. Yeah. So I just wanna make sure that that is, 'cause if that was going over private property, then I think you'd have a bigger issue. But the fact is it is going over natick. So I don't know if Natick gets charges for that or if we just allow that or, you know, I I, I don't exactly know how that works. Obviously I, I don't take for granted that private individuals can just lay sewer pipeline over town land without some sort of permission. So that's, that's do.
Speaker 1: Yes. Amanda? Speaker 2: I think I can answer that. I think in part of where we would be getting zone one that the easements for that would be part of that process that we would be giving. Speaker 3: Makes sense. Makes sense. Just wanna make sure that that's not just, I mean sometimes we, I I think we've had cases where those things make sense at this area, but there has to be some reminders to follow through on the opposite end of things. 'cause we've had things not recorded and we really need to make sure that this is all documented and all the procedures are followed through.
The second one is, boy, I've heard a lot of reasons why developers don't want to build sidewalks. They don't connect to anything. But I, you know, they're too expensive, nobody's gonna use them. But I've never heard somebody say we should remove sidewalks because it's too much impervious surface. That is an, that's an absolute new one to me. Is that, is that our current thinking, the not build sidewalks because you know, they're made out of impervious. I mean well Speaker 7: Given this site, I mean we're trying to limit runoff of all kind Yeah. Because of the sensitivity to it. So that's, you know, I think that's a
Speaker 1: With the proximity to the wells. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. I I think Speaker 10: The original proposed, the original proposed it, it was feedback that it Speaker 3: Should be Speaker 10: Removed that we took and, and, and altered the plan. Speaker 3: I I think that if this project is tilting on the amount of runoff of sidewalks, then the, the, I think we have to kinda reconsider. I I'm thinking that that is a minimal amount of runoff and I, and I appreciate where we, you know, where we're talking about. But you know, I know it doesn't connect to anything.
But this is a neighborhood that I suspect is gonna continue to have development. These are, these are smaller streets and people use sidewalks when they're there. So I i it, if this was literally the tipping point of like the, the, the hydro analysis won't work. If we have a sidewalk, then I'd say we're probably too close. Speaker 10: No, I, I that's, that's, that's not where it came from. I think the, the question as I recall it and understood it was really like, is there an opportunity to remove impervious surface in general? Yeah. Where can, where can we look?
That was one of the pieces of, of feedback. Again, it was originally proposed. Speaker 1: This is from the working group. Speaker 10: From the working group. Right. So it was, it was originally proposed. It wasn't trying to avoid it. It was the, the feedback as we understood it was look like let's, since it doesn't connect to anything and given the sensitivity of the area, removal of any impervious surface that doesn't necessarily provide a, a discreet benefit is, is preferable. I mean that could be, if you want a sidewalk, that could be the Speaker 3: Opinion of some board members or again, most of the board members. I think I'm gonna hold on to wanting to see sidewalks there. I just think it's just been a lifelong habit
of I think people use them. Yeah. And I don't, I I can't see where that is gonna literally create, you know, so much runoff that it's gonna create a problem. I mean this system is designed to handle the runoff of all, all of this development that, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna put myself in favor of, in re introducing the notion of sidewalks. That's, that's my opinion. Speaker 1: Can can I just Sure one, just want, is there a way of seeing if we can get Bill on any sort of communication device where we can actually understand him? Speaker 2: Bill just texted. We recommend no sidewalks.
Speaker 3: Mm. Yeah. Speaker 2: Let me see. Speaker 3: I'm gonna, Speaker 2: Didn't we do this one time? I think when Peter was away where we had him call in on my phone and we put it, did that work? Speaker 1: Yeah. I think near Andy. Anybody's at that point near anybody's phone. Speaker 3: My third question is with the cul-de-sac, I'm a little unclear how the driveways will work. So I wanted to see like how the driveways will come off this. So that's part A and part B looking at the area that's inside the black line, but outside the gray line, there's a fair amount of land.
And I have found that if we're not careful about those areas, they become sort of nobody's problem. And then they become weedy and overgrown. I don't know if you're, if there's gonna be a homeowners association, but it absolutely happened in the neighborhood where I live. So I'm really sensitive to it. That land has to be owned by somebody and has to be cut down by somebody. And just assuming that it's the homeowner is not necessarily the case because the homeowner's gonna be like, well that's not mine. And you know, we'll just let it grow.
And it really literally, nobody will cut that and in 10 years it just becomes a jungle. So I'm curious about that and, and plus how the driveways, I wonder if they might be dotted in here just to kind of show what you have in mind. Sure. Speaker 10: On the, on the ownership issue, our understanding really given Mr. Al's recommendation in terms of not seeking public acceptance, given the current status of the rest of the roadway network that it connects to, is that it'll end up being a private road with a homeowner's association. So there will be either private entity or HOA will be available
and responsible for ensuring the, the, the maintenance of those areas. Speaker 1: So the, so that none of that, it won't be worth, he envisions that none of the, none of it will be public or correct. Accepted part of an accepted roadway. Speaker 10: Correct. And there won't, there, there will be some the, the HOA be available so that it's not orphaned. So that there is is maintenance of those areas. Speaker 3: Didn't it say the proposed street will be petitioned to be accepted as a public way Speaker 10: Originally? Yes. And it still, it still does. But the recomme, my understanding from is the recommendation from DPW in engineering is to not do that given kind of the status of the rest of the e area.
'cause you'd have a disconnected public way to connect it to a whole bunch of private ways. So again, looking a little for a little bit of feedback we're perfectly, it's perfectly acceptable to the applicant to withdraw that and have it be a private way with an HOA if that's what makes sense from the town perspective. If for some reason it's better to have it and the will the, the want is there to have it be public, they would, they would make the request. Speaker 3: Well are those two things linked that it is a private way and therefore there will be an HOA Yes. 'cause it seems to me that those are not,
like one isn't really hung on the other through. Speaker 10: As I understand the only real reason for the HOA would be for that. Although Mike May have a Speaker 11: Different perspective, certainly under a subdivision, a definitive subdivision. If the roadway is not going to be accepted and maintained by the town, then absolutely you would have to have a HOA in this set and you would've four, four individual lots accepted by the town, then there would be no reason for an a. Speaker 3: Well, I can think of cases, an association, Speaker 11: But Speaker 3: I can think of cases where that has not happened. So I, I, again, I, this comes just from personal experience. Every time I leave my neighborhood,
there's a jungle on the left and the right that nobody owns and the roadway in this case. So I, I don't know if that is something in our decision that would survive the actual creation of houses in the HOA, I don't know. I mean that's a little hard for us to kind of forecast that far down river and make them have an HOA but I'm just raising the issue now. We, I do think we need to find some way to deal with the lands that aren't on the lots that are in the roadway. Speaker 1: Is what you're thinking that what what we should build into conditions, if that's the direction it goes, is the existence
and of, of an HOA and the, the management of by the HOA of the private ways or private way. Speaker 3: Well I think these future homeowners would appreciate it that when they buy, you know, these homes, that there is some definition that they are communally tied together to maintain it. 'cause if not everybody just watches it grow. Speaker 6: I especially on the, the bottom side here on the southern side. Yeah. This is not right in front of houses. I I agree. That's exactly what would happen.
Do we ever require like a maintenance plan or anything like that? Speaker 3: Well, it's not landscaped. So I mean we, we, we get an o and m plan when there's like really formal landscaping. But this is all just gonna be weeds and volunteer stuff that's gonna happen. No, Speaker 6: Just somebody needs to mow it every so Speaker 1: Right. Pretty much. Yeah. And just having that language and associated with an HOA, if we do it as a, have it as a condition that there has to be such an instrument established that we'll take responsibility. Speaker 3: Well we can do what we can do. We can, we can find some language put in the decision if in 15 years
anybody even remembers that or knows it and you know, and I, I would take the bet that it turns to jungle, but we can do what we can do on our end I suppose at this point. But those are, those are my que did Bill, did we get Bill back on to Speaker 1: He's on speaker. Speaker 4: Can you hear me? Speaker 3: Yep, Speaker 1: We Speaker 6: Can. Yes. Yes. Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And I apologize for the technical issues. Mostly it's the status of the roadways in the neighborhood that is, you know, basically not preventing us, but we're making us recommend that we would not accept this as a public way.
The access to it is over private ways. And as you mentioned, this would be an orphaned right of way. That being said, HOAs are usually defined in the deeds. So when they are conveying these property, that's when the HOA is formed. There can be language in the decision requiring a homeowner's association for maintenance of the drainage, landscaping the roadway surface. Speaker 1: Well yes. 'cause I was thinking on places like Graystone, we have HOAs, which with significant kind of
responsibilities for maintenance trails. That's trails. Speaker 3: That's it for me. Thank you. Alright, Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 10: If we can go ahead on the, on Speaker 11: The driveway that's on the last page of the packet that was submitted. There, there is a plan, an overall plan showing where those driveways are located. Oh, thanks. They're just not really part of the residential definitive subdivision submittal. But this, that was an exercise to get through drainage and it's always been submitted showing, but at the end it's just, that one's not all called it up. Speaker 1: Is this sheet, what is it, J 180 6? Speaker 11: Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. Speaker 3: 180 6. Okay.
Think literally the last sheet of the plans set that, that those are like the thick black Sharpie lines. 180 6. Speaker 1: So you can see where show the Speaker 7: Cul-de-sac though. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. But that's, that doesn't really show the hammerhead Speaker 11: Yet. Speaker 3: So I guess I'd like to see hammerhead design with like dotted in driveways just to, 'cause I, I think it's gonna be more, it's gonna be a fair amount of impervious area to get to lot four. Speaker 11: Yeah. That's, that's all been submitted and it's all designed. Speaker 3: Oh, so this J 180 6 is not the same J 180 6
that we have in our plans. Speaker 1: Oh, Speaker 3: So we should, oh yeah, we should. Speaker 12: What I'm looking at shows the hammer head plus the driveway. Right? Speaker 1: Is that the one with Speaker 3: Colored that's colored Speaker 1: Or is there No, hold Speaker 12: On. There's no color. No, there's no extra colors on it. Oh. Speaker 3: I'm looking at presentation plans. So Speaker 7: There's a presentation plan set. Go to eight Speaker 10: Of 13. On the, on the PD Speaker 7: File there's a presentation plan set and then there's a Yep. Updated set. The updated set shows the hammerhead, the presentation plan is not updated. Speaker 1: This is the updated one. Speaker 7: No, Speaker 3: No, Speaker 7: This is the updated one
Speaker 1: Because I thought I the other one would out. No, I thought I just went into our updated folder. Speaker 7: You did? There's two sets. There's a prelim, there's a presentation. Got it. And then there's another one. Got it. The other one is the hammerhead set, let's call it that. Okay. Speaker 3: We'll see if we can get that on the screen. 'cause that actually that, I mean those are, those are large driveways. Speaker 13: Page nine I sheet eight of that presentation. I believe so. Speaker 1: Yeah. Amanda, is there a way to project that? Speaker 7: Andy? What do you mean by large driveways? Yeah, I mean, I guess Speaker 3: Well they, those driveways are, I mean
that's just the first time I'm seeing that. So I, I, I am interested in knowing how the hammerhead is gonna be connected and by the time you, Speaker 7: I think what they're trying to do, and I'm not gonna, I'll try to, I'll just say it. You have a 22 foot wide requirement sheet, a as a roadway width Right. Under the subdivision rigs. So, you know, to comply you've gotta show a 22 foot wide roadway. And that's what those two, the why's the why, right? That's, those are 22 foot, 22 feet. Okay.
For the hammerhead, for the hammer. Yes. So where the, where the end of those roadways intersect the layout of the cul-de-sac, it's 22 feet. And you know, nobody wants a 22 foot wide driveway going into their, into their garage. But, you know, I mean I appreciate the comment about the, that I want to sort of put some guardrails on this conversation though, because this is a subdivision plan.
It is not site plan, it's subdivision. And so we're looking at how this plan conforms to our rules and regs, the design rules and regs. I, again, I'm not trying to cut off conversation or comment, but we really can't stray into where's the driveway sit, where's the house sit? It, it's, it's not our job to do that. Speaker 3: But if you didn't have a plan showing it, you'd want to see it. Speaker 7: I, not really, I mean a subdivision, I don't care where the houses sit or the Speaker 3: Driveways, not the houses, but I mean this, Speaker 7: The driveways come off of a road and so lot two comes off of the road.
Lot one comes off of the road. 57 evergreen. I'd like to know what the status of that will be, but I dunno, are you done with your Speaker 3: Line? I am. I I'm just, it looks to me like the, the, the driveway off of lot four is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 feet long. So I mean you're, the idea of saving all this impervious area is kind of going out the window. 'cause we're, we're paving it to get to the house. Speaker 7: We're not paving it. Speaker 3: We are not. But the idea that we're trying to minimize the amount of impervious area and you need extended roadways.
It, I'm just saying that it's, it's not as much savings of impervious area as I had anticipated. Speaker 7: Okay. Which is a comment. Yeah. Alright, Peter. No comment. Okay. I got a bunch. Okay. In no particular order. Maybe these are just simple answers, maybe they're not. So on the waivers Yes. We, we, we discussed those at the preliminary plan stage, not voted. We need to vote those in the definitive plan stage, each one of them.
Okay. So keep that in mind. The sidewalk waiver, you know, I do agree with the, the request and I'll say why a Yeah. It it, yes. Does it result in less impervious? Yes. I can completely appreciate the comment about, you know, having sidewalks or we have the opportunity to put in sidewalks. This is a dead end. It's four lots. It's serving those residents. I, I can't foresee anybody wanting to not be on a sidewalk
on cypress and then see one on the subdivision and decide that's where they wanna walk. I, it, I think it's unnecessary. And I, I would be in support of waiving that the cul-de-sac, and maybe this is a question for bill, the requirement for a design of a hammerhead, which I agree with. I think the hammerhead is the right thing to do. Is there something in the rules and regs that requires a circular cul-de-sac that we would have to wave? Or as in terms of roadway construction
or is this okay as is? I can't find anything in Speaker 4: Those. I'm not aware that there is a cul-de-sac radius requirement. Okay. But there does need to be provision for turnaround for emergency vehicles. Yep. Vehicle. So we did discuss this with the engineer. We did discuss this with life safety and you know, the fire department and they were okay with the hammerhead. Speaker 7: Yeah. And I'm, I'm okay with it from an operations layout point of view as well. I just wanna make sure we're gonna cross t's dot i in terms of waivers and if there's something in the rules
and regs design standards that say you gotta have a radius, which, you know, connotes a circle and we're gonna deviate. Please mute that. Thank you. Speaker 4: Not that I'm aware of. Speaker 7: Okay. Then we'll have to, you know, s request an appropriate waiver on that, if you understand what I'm saying. Yeah. Oh yeah, absolutely. You're saying if there is language, if there is, yeah. And if not, then fine. You know, whatever's on this plan we can, we can vote. So, alright. The sewer, I I, I'm glad to see that you're gonna be connecting. Bill's letter talks about requiring an oversized main.
Are you aware of that? Speaker 11: Yes, we are aware of that. That's referenced in the in letter Speaker 7: From the, in the letter. Are you, I think that's a good idea. Do you guys have any opinion about that? Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean I, I think we'll work through whatever diameter the sewer board arrives at. I think his letters kind of referencing the two different diameter. Yep. 10 Speaker 7: Or 12 inch. Yeah. Speaker 11: Yeah. 10 and 12. And it's, and I think the letter says that letter came out, I, I don't know the date. Speaker 10: August 5th. August 4th or fifth Speaker 7: August 5th. Yeah. Speaker 11: Yeah. And it talks about that it hasn't even really been proposed or something to that effect at this point. Yeah. So, okay. Certainly work through it. Yeah. Oh yeah. Speaker 7: Alright. So I, I guess the final version
of the plans will show that diameter and it's gonna be accommodating, you know, some future growth of some of, of some kind, which I think is a good idea. Speaker 11: Yes. Speaker 7: The infiltration system for, for the drainage. And this is related to whether or not this is a public way or not. Right. So, you know, again, appreciate the idea of having a, a valve for separation. You know, if there's some kind of event on the road that's gonna spill into the drainage system and find its way into the groundwater
and then eventually finds its way into the, well I get it. Right. Who is in charge of that? You know, I mean, who was in charge of understanding there's a spill, there's a valve, we gotta shut off the valve. That is a big question in, in my mind. Who knows when that if it happens, whether the town's even aware of it. Are the homeowners gonna be aware that if something like that happens, you gotta run out there with a wrench and, you know, pop a manhole and shut off a valve. So I, I like the idea it's just in operation. How does that work? Is that a homeowner's association thing?
Can that be something explicit about that? Somebody needs to have accountability for that? Speaker 10: I don't, practically speaking, I don't think you can make that a homeowner's requirement in terms of being, having access to that and shutting it off. 'cause if somebody's, if I'm a vac, if I'm part of the homeowner, if I'm the guy who's charged with that, I go on vacation and something happens and there's a spill. I, I think it's more of putting it there so that, you know, DPW engineering emergency services have it available to them. I, I don't know how, honestly, I don't, I don't know how it works in other instances, isn't, can't be the first time there's, there's a check valve to,
or a gating valve to ensure that something like that doesn't make its way into a filtration system. But I would expect that it would be who, whoever's responding to the emergency as part of their response protocol, if they're aware that it's there and wanna shut it down, they'll know it's, they they can, they can shut it down. Speaker 11: But I I don't think you make a private individual responsible for it. Speaker 7: I I Speaker 11: Wouldn't want a private Speaker 7: Individual responsible for it. No, I, I appreciate it. I I'm, I'm, I'm raising the issue. Speaker 11: Certainly Speaker 7: A fair question. And then, you know, man, lot too, that is a highly burdened lot. You know, you've got a, a huge amount of it, half of it,
maybe even more, you know, encumbered by the infiltration basin. How in its underground, what is the idea about maintaining the integrity of that basin? Which, you know, that is that, that this isn't a site plan issue. This is, you know, infrastructure issue associated with the subdivision. So tell me what's, how, how does that work a awareness? I mean, you, you're the owner of lot one or lot two, you've got a huge piece of infrastructure underneath.
You may or may not be aware of it, it's critical to how the whole thing functions. How does that, how does that work? Speaker 11: Yeah, so I, I think if you go to the, that last page there, it shows the development of that lot. I, I understand you have the two easements on flanking on each side line. Those are all within, you know, right down the property line. So, you know, they're within the side yard setback. So it certainly sets up a, a decent area for, for the, the building and the layout. Yeah. Now that underground basin, there's all gonna, there's gonna be all kinds of documents for the OO
and m operating and maintenance. We could, we could add some signage where that easement is potentially back there. So they know there is an underground basin. That's probably not a bad idea. A lot of those documentations will be all rolled in. We still have another layer of permit and with conservation for a major storm water permit, which all those o and m and all the paperwork has to be submitted for approval through, through that process. So once again, I think it's a matter of tying it together with the, with the, so it, most of the stuff still has to be, it's, if it's gonna be private and there's a, you know, an association form
that it's gonna have to be buried in there where Yep. If, if it was all accepted, typically with a subdivision, it all accepted by the town, then the town accepts it mean Speaker 7: Back in my day. And that's where it's, yeah. So yeah, back in my day I was town planner in Yep. A few years. And that's what we used to do. We used to say, you know, and this was in, in the day of retention detention basins. Yep. Big holes in the ground. Yep. Slopes, fences. I mean they're ugly as hell. Yep. But yeah, it was an HOA kind of thing. So I just want to make you aware, I wanna put that out there. 50. So, you know, what I don't see in this plan is the actual subdivision,
recordable subdivision plan of the lot plan. Yes. Speaker 11: That Yep. Speaker 7: Where is that? Where is that? Speaker 11: We're working on that. And when I sent these back out as revisions, I was cleared through the working group that those were not included in this. So Okay. We still, we still have to pull 'em together and clean 'em up. Okay. I didn't wanna go through the effort of finalizing all the baron's distances. You know, this is our first time back to the planning board with Calvin that, that zone one out. So, you know, it's, there's, there's a lot of work here. But Yeah, to take the next step and do all the calculations right
to every hundredth of a foot, it's, Speaker 7: I hear you. Speaker 11: So that's where they're at. I'm aware of it. And that's where, that's where Speaker 7: We're at. Just in, in, you know, looking at 57 Evergreen and how parcels c and B are referenced kons tomorrow, you know, let's, let's be more specific about that I guess. Right. You know, I dunno what that means. Does that mean who's who? Right. So the property owners. Yeah. If it's whatever, you know, I know that the intention is to give parcel B to lot four and parcel C becomes part of it.
56, 57 evergreen. Right. Is that the intention? Okay. Just make sure the lot plan Speaker 11: Correct. Speaker 7: Is clear about that. And is 57 being connected to the sewer or not? Speaker 11: This is showing a sewer service going towards that, towards that. A parcel into the parcel. We've discussed it briefly with DPW, but I don't believe that's been vetted a hundred percent. Speaker 7: Hmm. Speaker 11: But in the working session with just the DPW that was brought up and I, it seemed to be resonate fine
or well with the people in the room, but yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. I, I would encourage that. Speaker 11: Yep. Absolutely. Speaker 7: And then I guess last comment, I did read the conservation comments and I guess this is just in general, not just specific to this project, the major stormwater permit process and how it, how it can coordinate with what we're doing on a process like this. It's clunky. Super clunky. And like there are things that, you know, Claire's letter puts out there that says,
well we're gonna look at this and look at that. Well that might have an effect on lot layout or you know, and so it, I really, I dunno the purview of that stormwater permit, I don't know how far it goes. I don't know how far like conditions of it Amanda can, can go and what the timing of that is. 'cause I don't want to revisit stuff later on that gets changed by that. So it's neither here nor there. I think we can do a way better job about coordinating those
kinds of permits, you know, and processes, maybe joint hearings, something like that. I mean, sending one applicant to go to the conservation commissioner, vet these things. Personally, I think if it's infrastructure related and it's storm water related, it really needs to be buttoned up in this process. The subdivision process. Because that's part of the design of the roadway. Speaker 1: But presumably with input from Sure. Conservation agent. Yes. Conservation Speaker 7: Committee. Yeah. So I guess, you know, I, I appreciate like the process stuff that's in here, right? Which is like, you know, yes you gotta go and get this permit and here's what we'll look for. I'd rather see recommendations
that reflect what they're gonna go for and you know, recommend to the applicant that they be shown on the subdivision plan at the same time versus waiting for some process to unfold and then come back. So that's just in general, so I understand. Yeah. So that's it. That's it for me. Speaker 1: Okay. Alan? Speaker 12: Not too many, but I, I guess one question I have at least the new sewer connection that we have, Speaker 6: Sorry, I turned this off before when I was worried about feedback with a new sewer connection that connects to Bayberry Road, it kind of comes in between lot one, lot two
and then goes to the end of the DR of the driveway. I'm just wondering if, maybe this is question more for Bill. Would there be any desire to have it kind of come closer to Cyprus in case it's some future point, you know, they wanted to, you know, as they're redoing separate road connect, anything off of that? I don't know if that's more of a question for Bill. Just wanna make sure, hey, you know what, while the road's being built, if it makes sense to have a sewer connection kind of along the frontage of lot one all the way to Cypress, if that makes sense, that we do it.
If it doesn't make sense, then don't do it. Obviously. That was kind of, I guess my question as far as sewer, I guess this is, I don't know if this is even in our purview, but with the new hammerhead, of course we'll have to, the homeowner association will have to make sure people aren't parking on it. You know, if people wanna play basketball, that's fine, but obviously firetruck can't turn around then it's not really much use. So I think we just wanna make sure that that gets conveyed at least to the owner of Law four and to the homeowners association. And that's really all I have for questions right now. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you.
And then I, I, I wanted to follow up on some, something I think I started the session with and talking about whether there's anyone of, of current residents not on this parcel, but in the neighborhood are, is there any opportunity for them to be able to connect with sewer as the new development is? And I don't know enough about the logistics of the configuration to know if that's possible,
but it just seems like an opportunity as it is for a new development to have sewer instead of septic in a, in a sensitive area, but for, for others nearby or who may be able to tap into it to do the same. And it may be through a betterment process, but to, to kind of have that as an available, as a, as an opportunity. And you, you may tell me that it's logistically not something that's, that's feasible and I won't pretend to, to be the master of waste disposal
and understanding how what can and can't be done. But are there things for ne for neighbors of the existing site to, to tie in Speaker 10: And my understanding and, and we have Mr. McDonald, I'm sure he'll comment, but my understanding of, part of the reason for the request for the, for the upsize was to can make way for that poten that potential down the road. That is something that certainly can't be solved by the developer. I mean they're, they're right, right. It's only gonna extend up to Cy up to Cyprus. Right.
So at, at best you could bring that connection point that far and if at some point, and it sounds like this is a much deeper, longer, more involved conversation on the town end, if at some point sewer becomes available through Cypress, the way to connect it may be, may be through this, through connecting to the subdivision up over, up into Bayberry and, and to this pump station. There are a lot of other calculations, a lot of other things that would need to go into that that are far beyond what, what we could do and what we could accommodate. But Mike, you've been part of those discussions too, so
Speaker 11: Yeah, sure. I, I would echo what Brian has just mentioned, but I, I would presume that's why the DPW in our work session and in his letter they reference upsizing the, the diameter of what's proposed for that sewer line heading down to Bayberry. So I would think that would be the only reason a pipe is to carry more effluence. So, but as Brian just mentioned, there's a lot of other things that go into that. Like it feeds into a pump station. So I certainly don't wanna speak for the DPW and what there's potential there, but Speaker 1: I just wanna find out that it's not precluded that,
that there's nothing with this that then may make others, other things more challenging. Speaker 7: I guess. I mean, to tack onto what Alan was suggesting here, right? I mean extent extending the sewer line, and you may have talked about this, so cut me off if you, if you did, but bringing it down to the intersection of Cyprus, you'd still have gravity, like the whole thing's. Would you have, would you not have gravity at that point and then bring it along the right easterly side of the lot of, lot one and down that way? Speaker 11: Yeah, so, so to bringing that up closer to the intersection of Cyprus
and the proposed road a that's another eight feet higher and we're already like 10 feet 'cause we're, we're trying to gravity the end of the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac is the lowest point of the site. So Okay. Speaker 7: That's driving, that's driving that profile. Speaker 11: Oh yes, absolutely. Yeah. So, and you wouldn't know this, but in some of the sketches, I actually was down across lot three, the lowest point of the site and coming out the back and running parallel to the underground basin to keep that sewer, you know, you know, not as deep. So Bill had some input as to the close proximity
to the zone one things of that nature. So I chased it up further up to the hill, making that deeper there. And it would probably be another four or five feet deeper. It's the highest port of the lot that intersection. So yeah, to get that gravity from the, the cul-de-sac area or the hammerhead area all the way back up, it, it's, Speaker 6: Well what I'm thinking is, make sure I, talking into the mic and I know sometimes dealing with STS and stuff can be difficult keeping exactly what you have there. Yep. Not touching that at all, but if from, if there was a pipe from
where Cypress comes in, comes down and connects to that manhole where it makes that, you know, more than 90 degree turn just kind of a section there. Oh. So not to take away anything that you have, but if it can kind of connect to, to that manhole. Speaker 11: Yeah. So certainly once it's finally designed, and if that ends up being upsized, then that would be the direction that the town would then connect up to Cyprus. They, that's exactly what they would do. They'd come down rope. Speaker 6: Yeah, Speaker 11: Yeah, yeah. And tie into that. Okay. Speaker 6: But Speaker 7: You're suggesting they put it in Well,
Speaker 6: Well I'm thinking they're constructing the road. So, and, and again, maybe Bill will say, and again, I know sometimes when you're dealing with, you know, water, sometimes certain stubs and whatever you don't want. But if it makes sense for potential future connections before you build the road, because you don't wanna have to do it afterwards. Right. Speaker 1: It won't, Speaker 6: It won't happen. If that makes sense to do Speaker 1: It. If if you don't do it before, it won't happen after. Yeah. Speaker 6: I'm dealing with water replacement on my road right now, so maybe that's why I'm sensitive. Speaker 1: So. Alright, well we have asked a lot of questions.
I know that there are members of the public here. First, i, I just, oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Mis showed thank you. And then we'll come then we'll come round for public comments. Questions. Speaker 14: Thank you Chair and board members for the record. Robert Micho, managing principal of MDM Transportation consultants based in Marlborough. I'll, I'll keep my commentary brief. We were retained to answer the question is the current roadway infrastructure that would be serving this particular subdivision adequate?
Does it provide reasonable means of access to or from the property? And to answer that question, we've turned to certain publications that are recognized in the industry as providing guidance for roadway width and alignment safety characteristics. That publication is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO Green Book and the subcategory of low volume local roadways. I conducted a review of the streets in and around this particular neighborhood, this subdivision,
and compared those characteristics not only in terms of the width and alignment, but also crash experience on those local roadways to the criteria that are published within that astro document to, to find or make a determination of opinion that the roadways here are in fact providing reasonable means of access for this property. That field review included observations of Birch Road, Cypress Road, Bayberry Road, Magnolia Road, and Evergreen Road, with the principle means of access
to, from this subdivision, including the connection at North Main Street and Birch Road, which itself then connects to Cyrus Road, Bayberry Road, Magnolia Road, and then the Cyrus Road. And that is shown schematically in this aerial diagram as the green line that is the most direct and efficient means of getting to or from this particular property. Although there are secondary means of doing that on roadways that include Magnolia Road and Evergreen Road, and portions of Birch Road that are shown schematically as dashed yellow lines.
Those particular roadways, the ones that are dashed in yellow, while they provide a secondary means of access, are not in the best condition. They're subject to narrower widths, lots of potholes and, and those types of features. Whereas the connection on the green route is a paved route that has, you know, a better either fair to good roadway condition. I will say that as we were looking at each of the characteristics of those roadways, width being a prime primary
and condition being a secondary, that aashto would classify these roads as rural minor access roads. Right? And to put that in context, what that really means is that these types of roadways are really intended to serve adjacent property by people who are familiar with what those roadways entail. The astro specifically characterizes these rural minor access roads as frequently narrow traffic is largely composed of passenger vehicles, but the, those roads also need to provide accessibility
for school, buses, fire trucks, and other emergency vehicles and maintenance vehicles. So this, this series of roadways clearly falls within that category of characterization of roadways. The ash tow does allow for design flexibility in those types of roadways, particularly for existing roads. And that's an important feature here to understand the ash tow would suggest that the widths of existing roads need not be modified, except in cases where there is evidence of site specific crash patterns.
Right. And hence our looking at crash criteria and crash experience on, on these roadways when a site specific crash pattern can be mitigated by widening a roadway, for instance, you know, that, that that requirement if you will, that that criteria really would be driven by actual experience, actual crash experience. So part of what we've done here is not only to look at the roadway widths, which vary from 18 feet ave curb to curb at Birch Road and Cyprus Road, 26 feet for Bayberry Road
and the portion of Magnolia Road from Bayberry to Cyprus. Those are all 18 to 26 foot wide curb to curb dimensions. They're more than adequate to accommodate the volume of traffic that they're tributary to the, the, the portion of Cypress from Magnolia to the, the project itself varies in width from 14 feet to as, as large as 20. Right. The widths clearly fall within the acceptable levels of the recommended levels that are subject to rural minor access roads.
Right. Those, those widths on average should be about 18 feet. And we can demonstrate that along any stretch of, of that green line that that condition in fact exists, having determined that that condition exists. Then we look at the crash patterns and I'm pleased to say that over the five year period, which we review records that were available through the mass DOT crash database, that there are very few, if any, crashes along these roadways. The only crashes that were noted include the intersection at North Main and Burch Road one crash in 2024
that hap happened to be a sideswipe type collision, property damage only, no crashes along Cypress Road itself, Magno Magnolia Road or Bayberry Road. And there was a series of two crashes on Birch Road along any portions of, of its length that date back to 2020 and 2021, both of which were hitting fixed objects or sideswipe low speed collision. So within the path that's shown in green, there really is little to no crash experience and no evidence that there's a deficiency in the ability for
that particular roadway to serve the needs of this partic particular subdivision. So what we've determined, what our opinion is, is that that green path, if you will, does provide adequate accessibility to or from the site, not only for passenger vehicles, but for service vehicles, for school buses, for maintenance vehicles like trash trucks for instance, and certainly for fire apparatus. And, you know, so that's the extent of what we've documented in our finding. I'm glad to answer any specific questions that relate to it. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Questions for Mr.
Me showed questions about traffic and traffic movement. Speaker 6: I'll go, you have Speaker 1: A place to start. Speaker 6: I think the biggest concern for me, well really there's two of 'em, but the Cypress Road from the site to Magnolia, I think it was really helpful to actually have that memorandum, especially with all the measurements taken around and to look at the crash analysis. But it allows us to kind of focus, I think that one section there, you kind of even mentioned that it was essentially 14 feet for 14 to 16 feet. One concern I have or, or I guess disagreement with it is when you kind of said
that it's effectively 18 feet, but in that set stretch of road, we have guardrails and we have some trees. So like, in fact, I could think maybe my most concerning spot is between the guardrail and the tree towards the end. I think we're at like 15, 16 feet. So I think that's well below the 18 feet. So using that as kind of a primary axis I think is concerning. So I, I, I guess maybe I won't necessarily go to the next step, but I think that we might still need to look at accommodations on evergreen or,
or improvements on Evergreen to really provide access to this new section. Plus also just the, the rest of the neighborhood. I mean, I don't think we have the ability to, we're not gonna widen Widen Cypress because we're going into people's lawns and again, we have guardrails. So I think we are going to really need to look at other areas as far as access. I do agree most of Cyprus and a lot of Bayberry and Birch is a pretty decent access, but once we get really close to the site, that's kind of, I think my, my big concerns out there.
Speaker 14: Sure. Understood. The, the section of Cypress Road closest to the subdivision actually has an expanded paved section, right? There's a, there is a guardrail there, there's a topographic a, a change in grade from where that guardrail is to the property below it. That, that is paved. My measurement in that particular area was actually closer to 20 feet. Speaker 6: How about back by the tree? Like kind of in line with the pool? Speaker 14: There's a mature tree there. Yeah, Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah. It's, so, and it looks like the guardrail kind of, I'm looking at street view in case you wonder what I'm,
okay, why I keep looking at my computer. It looks like the guardrail kind of takes a bend there and that's essentially the narrow point is really almost right across from the tree. So it's not really, yeah, not much where to place to go. Right there. Speaker 14: One of the, one of the things that I looked at was the site lines that exist between Magnolia Road and, and, and the site. It's, it's clear and an obstructed site line. And there are areas along Cyprus Road that allow for what I call a pull off. So to the extent you have visibility to an oncoming vehicle from a distance
as they would be turning onto Cyprus from Magnolia, for instance, there is sufficient time available to a motorist in either travel direction to be able to select an appropriate area to pull off. And this is actually a common design feature too, these types of roadways. You know, the, the National Forest Service, interestingly has a set of criteria for designing pull offs for that exact reason, based on the lower volume characteristics of the roadway and the availability of sight line to an oncoming vehicle. So while there may be segments of that limited portion
of Cyrus Road that are effectively 14 feet paved edge to to edge, there are hardened shoulder areas and there's evidence of where vehicles actually do pull off, probably for that reason to allow for the bypass of a, of a larger vehicle, opposing Speaker 6: Vehicle. Yeah, I think that's definitely what's, what's been happening. It's just, I don't know if we want to encourage it's, this isn't in a forest, it's people's front yards and stuff like that, so Understood. Just kind of sensitive to that. Speaker 14: Yeah, no, it's, it's a, it's a valid point though,
I think in the context of the volumes that currently use the roadway, right? That that particular segment of Cyprus is tributary to no more than about 40 homes, probably less than that actually. And on a daily basis we're talking about, you know, maybe a hundred vehicles a day that would be inclined to use that section, you know, in introducing three additional lots, three additional homes to that is not gonna materially change the amount of traffic that uses that on a regular basis. And based on my own personal observation of
how folks are using the road roadways out there, I don't see that to be a particular problem. Certainly in today's case where emergency response might be required from time to time. You know, the fire department has already opined that they're comfortable with their ability to get to or from this property and certainly the, the introduction of a hammerhead facilitates their ability to get back to where they came from. So my opinion is that while it, it would be always nice to have a wider road for sure, the, the conditions
that exist along that area are sufficient and reasonable enough to provide means of access on a regular basis by, by by vehicles, passenger vehicles, certainly sufficient width and maneuverability for emergency vehicles. Notwithstanding, there are, there are those constraints, right? We know that there's mature trees from time to time of vehicle may have to pull aside as evidenced by roadside where that, that that condition would continue to be there.
But it certainly doesn't present a safety issue. And based on the lower volumes that we're talking about here, it doesn't present an issue that would raise a safety concern. Speaker 6: I think maybe my next question might be more for if whoever was on the sub, the working group or if anybody's familiar with the fire department, have they said how they would access the site? Speaker 1: I don't know. And I don't think any anyone from the planning board was, was Speaker 6: Oh, okay. On the working. It Speaker 7: Was, it was one meeting. Okay. Early. But yeah, Speaker 6: I'm just wondering if they would be coming up evergreen
or if they're gonna be coming down cypress, Speaker 7: Whatever means necessary, Speaker 6: We know how they'll turn around once they get into the site. But although, although Speaker 1: What, what I have to told admittedly anecdotally was the startling V view of watching a firetruck backing the whole way down the street because they could not turn around to go forward. And I understand that that's relative rare, but that's still a cause for concern.
Speaker 6: Okay. I'll let some other people ask questions Speaker 1: And actually if, I don't know if Bill is, his audio is, is functioning, this would be a probably a, a great question. Speaker 15: So can you hear me now? Speaker 6: Crazy echo. You could try Speaker 15: Though. Talk on my phone. Maybe mute your zoom. Speaker 4: Well I'm gonna try this again. Is this working at all? Speaker 1: Yay. Yes, thank you. Speaker 4: Okay. No crazy echo. Speaker 7: No, sounds great. Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And I, I very much apologize for these technical difficulties. I know this is making this trying for you to the sewer question earlier. Yes. We're talking Speaker 7: Bill, we had you for a second
Speaker 1: Bill. You've gone, you've gone, you've gone murky again, it, it's, I've Speaker 4: Gone rogue. However Speaker 1: Close you can get to wherever you're trying to talk into. Speaker 4: Okay, good. As to the s are you hearing that? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 4: Okay. As to the question of the sewer, we are not precluding the ability for other neighbors along that stretch roadway or evergreen that we're talking about providing access to those neighbors now was the, you know, reason for mentioning the possible upsizing of the storm main within the subdivision itself
and that would provide access to other members within that neighborhood. The issue with that, as Mike had mentioned, we are connecting to a pump station. So there is, as he had mentioned, there are other concerns involved with that. Before we can allow wholesale, you know, connection to that sewer, we would have to upgrade that sewer station. But that is something that the store division is aware of. As to the question of the gate valve within the drain pipe, that would be something that would be operated either by, as Mike had mentioned either by DPW personnel in response
to the spill and or life safety. The fire crews would also know that that green valve is available for them to shut that off in case there was some kind of larger spill of hydrocarbons heating oil or something like that within the roadway. Just to keep that protected from the, the underground basin. I do know you spoke about the underground basin. The underground basin is a Caltech contactor style unit. So it is something that is put under parking lots. They're very durable. It is not an open basin. I think you're aware of that. But those things are, are durable.
The, the operations mates of them are opening up inspection ports and just inspecting the bottom of the basin to make sure that the stone hasn't become fouled by sediments. So it's a relatively simple process. It's not something that's intrusive to the owners of the properties. It's underground and it's out of sight outta mind. You plant grass over the top of it and you wouldn't know it was there. Speaker 7: Bill, if I could stop you there for one sec. This is, this is, sure Doug, I I would, you know, can we put, and well I would just say let's, let's put a restriction on it. So you can't plant trees or anything like that, that it's lawn only.
Some kind of easement. That Speaker 4: Is actually, and that's something when we talk about the o and m with the stormwater permit, the stormwater permit is reviewed by the conservation commission where conditions have yet to make any sort of changes. There certainly wouldn't be any changes to lot configuration. The house configurations at this point are just representative of what could be placed on the lot and they're used for the drainage calculations as far as for improvement area. But so far from storm water are fundamentally p like
that. Bill. Bill? No, Speaker 1: Bill, bill, you're starting to break up again. Speaker 4: Sorry about that. Sorry. Speaker 7: Yeah, I guess Speaker 4: I appreciate Speaker 7: Yeah, and that's, you know, the storm water permit back in the ping pong match back and forth. I get that. I think, you know, perhaps a condition of the approval of the subdivision is that either something gets shown on the plan that we are being asked to endorse or, you know, you come back with a recordable instrument that locates that basin or that the Caltech and has deeded restrictions on how
you could use it planting. Speaker 4: That is fine. And that is required by the storm water review. As far as the, Speaker 1: I'm sorry, you're, you are gone again. Speaker 4: Okay. Better? Yep. Speaker 1: A little Speaker 4: Apologies. The form order isn't document Speaker 1: And, and I'm afraid it's, it's back to, it kinda is inconsistent, the the sound level, but you kind of fade in and out. Speaker 4: And I apologize, this is my computer. This is not your Pegasus equipment.
This is, this is my Speaker 1: No, and I and I I know you're having not, not nearly as much fun as you would want. So does that in, in the questions that you guys were asking that asking of the working group? Speaker 12: Yeah. So Bill did the fire or police, I guess more fire mentioned how they would get to the site, whether they would take that Evergreen Speaker 6: Your mic. I turned it off back when I was Hey Bill, I I wasn't sure if
during your discussions if they mentioned how fire would respond to this site, whether they would take Evergreen or Cyprus or, or if you, if they even mentioned which one they would take. Speaker 4: They didn't specifically mention their route to the subdivision ability turn around. They were inside subdivision itself. The, Speaker 1: Yeah, sorry, bill. Bill. It's it's not, it's not coming through. I'm sorry. Speaker 7: No, I apologize Speaker 10: Madam Chair.
Speaker 7: The efficacy of having Mr. McDowell's audio here is limited. I think so. So let's just not, Speaker 1: You know, what, if there are any, if, if Bill there any further points we want to, to go through, we'll we'll get them and pass 'em through Amanda and seeing if we can get answers at a later time. I don't wanna keep torturing you, Speaker 7: So. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 10: Madam chair, since I was also at the Yes, the working group, my recollection is we did have this discussion. Their preferred route would be the green route and come in that way. And if I also remember, and I think Mr.
Je might've been on that working group session, the, the ability to turn around whether by cul-de-sac or hammerhead was a net positive for that area for them as well. Speaker 7: Okay. Oh, so you mean using that roadway to turn around if there's another response Correct. Within the neighborhood, something else? Correct. Okay. Understood. Yep. Speaker 10: It gave them another opportunity to turn around without having to kind of navigate the rest of the, the roadway network. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. So thank you Mr. Micho and thank you.
No, nobody has other traffic questions. Okay, thank you. Then what I'd like to do is open up the, the, the floor or the virtual floor to members of the public who have questions or comments to anyone who is connecting from home remotely. Just make sure you do have your first and last name so we can call on you and ask that when you're speaking or raising question, please try to take into account any answers that have been given prior,
prior to your, your turn. Because we have sometimes a habit of regurgitating the same point many times. And I, I'd like to make it more productive and get the range of concerns or questions that people have so that we can keep this moving forward. So you are, you are my, our one person who's here in person. So you get to be the first member of the public right up to the podium, just your first and last name and address and that would be great. Speaker 7: Hello? Speaker 16: Hello. Okay. Hi. That's it.
My name is Ayana Hall. I live at 59 Evergreen. I'm one of the owners there. So I guess I have a few questions, comments, and concerns. 'cause this directly affects me other than zone one. Where are the trees and foliage being maintained? It seems like, I mean I have, you know, there's, it seems to negative affect the ecosystem, the, the animals, the, you know, just the is going, the noise, everything. And it seems like based, at least based on the plans, the only I guess protected space
is the zone one that was carved out. So everything else appears to be flat, is that correct? Speaker 1: Alright, good. Could you respond to that in terms of kind of the natural environment in the development? Speaker 11: Yeah, well certainly through the process we Speaker 1: Can you just pull up your mic a little so people can hear Speaker 11: Certainly through this process, as I had mentioned before, we've decreased the disturbance to the overall site by a fair amount. Certainly the zone one that's 30,000 square feet
that I understand that's on, not adjacent to, you know, the people that live on Evergreen's backyard, so to speak. But that's all protected there. We did save some trees down by utilizing a hammerhead turnaround. We, we have li we have decreased the disturbance in the backyards, you know, closer to the backyards of evergreen. And then the site, it's, the site does have some topography and relief in it, so it does require some grading. So there's not a particular area where it's just preserving it.
But, you know, we've, we've worked and minimized, minimized the overall disturbance. Speaker 1: Are, are there plans that show that clearly that someone could see and understand Speaker 6: Or list out what trees are being removed, even if it's in a Speaker 11: Yeah, the proposed plans with the grade and shows the limit of, of work and disturbance. So Speaker 1: That, that is something that the member of the public could see or a neighbor could. I don't think we, Speaker 6: I don't if they identify the trees to be removed, we're done an individual tree. No. Okay. Speaker 2: So as part of this major stormwater management permit, they actually have to inventory all the trees?
Yes. Okay, good. Over a certain caliber. Speaker 11: Right. So to that major, as, as Amanda had just mentioned to that process, the, the, there's an inventory, there's an existing conditions that show every tray six inches in diameter or greater and they're gonna be all inventoried. And then we're gonna be replacing trees to the maximum extent feasible that are removed to develop the site. So that ultimately will be an entire landscape plan that's approved through the stormwater management. Speaker 1: Okay. And that, that's something age your permit? Sorry? Is that something that will be part of our Speaker 2: Decision?
No, because the subdivision process is really the creation of a lot and the creation of the road and the stormwater management is more of infill based on that. So you can do street trees, Speaker 7: I guess. I mean if I could yeah. Help you out. I mean I think the stormwater management permit like another investment of your time coming out to a public meeting, but I think that's probably where you might have a better dialogue. Okay. On that issue. Okay. Speaker 16: Because it also looks like from the plans zone four, I'm assuming, would be owned by the owners of that lot.
So then they have control to do whatever they want past that. Which there seems to be very little space between the back of my land and this hammerhead and there, so it's basically my backyard now ends up on somebody's side street essentially if you, you know, so I mean that's natural, right? I mean, you know, with kids and things like that, I'd rather not have my backyard, but up to a road where people can back their car up. But I Don't have a say there.
I guess my next question is regarding the, I guess the roadway and I, I guess I understand and respect your point of view as far as it being sufficient, but actually living there and actually having to use the roadways, and as you said, Alan, there isn't enough room for two cars to pass on Cypress. There's all there between the guardrail, there's also a hydrant there and there's a person who redid their yard that had to redo all their bricks
because people had knocked them down trying to get out of the way. So the, the thought that it is sufficient in theory, yes. In the practicality of us actually having the root use the road. No. And also with visibility, you can't see around the curve from Magnolia to Cyprus. You, it's almost a blind turn when it's not like, you know, winter and all the foliage is gone. So him saying that it's, you know, completely visible and safe also practically is not true.
And as far as the roadways with school buses and stuff, school buses actually don't come on our neighborhood because they can't turn. So all the kids in our neighborhood actually have to walk out to either get to the school bus or walk to Benham or Wilson and there's no sidewalk. So that means they walk in the road. So the more cars, the more infrastructure that's put means the, you know, the decrease in safety for all the kids who have to walk in the street to get to school. So, Speaker 1: No, it's that, that's an important point. So anything further or I would call on the next person.
Speaker 16: Yeah. I guess my, my last question is the, I guess I, I guess I'm also concern would be regarding the public making the road public and all the other roads are private. That seems a little, you know, disjointed when we have to deal with the potholes and stuff that are made and filled and then there's a piece of road that's new that gets the town to take care of it and our roads aren't taken care of, but the private road gets to use the private roads and everything's, you know, not equal. So
Speaker 1: It it, and I have to say with a lot of natick where there was early development in kind of these summer camps, no one was thinking about streets ownership or, or a coherent traffic flow. And I I, I know especially where you are, that that's a, a, an unpleasant legacy of it. Yeah, I know, I know there are efforts being made to try to figure out how to address it, which Speaker 16: We appreciate. Speaker 1: But I, I take your, your, your point and your pain.
So, but thank you. Yeah, there are, we have people waiting. Do we have folks with hands up? Speaker 2: So there are people in the audience, but no one has their hands up. Speaker 1: Alright. So if there is anyone on Zoom who would like to speak this is, this is the time to do it. Okay. Then some homework. We, we have a lot kind of to, to take forward going from this meeting in and things that are still being developed. So next steps.
Speaker 7: Where's the mail going? Speaker 1: I don't know, but I'll wait until she comes back. Yes. Speaker 7: Do you wanna man the controls? Okay, let's hold on then. I think, I mean guess we're heading towards an, I think a continu Speaker 1: A continuation. Continuation Speaker 7: Of some kind and some homework. Yeah. Speaker 1: But there's, I think there's, we've kind of put a lot on the table to talk about and refine, including kind of incorporating and defining what a home homeowner's association is going to be responsible for and so forth.
Amanda? Sorry. You okay? What's that? You're okay? Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I was just getting her Claire's contact information. 'cause Claire runs stormwater management Speaker 1: Permits. Perfect, thank you. My hand Speaker 17: Went up but then it went back down. So, Speaker 1: But I was just saying, so I'm assuming we will want to continue and move forward on all the, this has been the first in, in a very long time that we've, that we've been together and exchange ideas. I feel like now we have to fill in all the gaps or, or all the unanswered questions.
Speaker 7: Next meeting is the 27th, Speaker 1: So now Speaker 7: Then the 10th of September. Speaker 1: Now we still have, so Speaker 7: We're on a Thursday. Speaker 1: Oh, in September. Yeah. Speaker 7: So not the Wednesday. Yeah. Speaker 1: Do we need an extension? Speaker 2: That is true, yes. Okay. We would need an extension. Speaker 1: So I think that that's no problem. There's the ask. Yes. Thank you. It's good. Well, it's good to have it taken care of, but it's also important for anybody who's watching at home Yep. To understand what the expectations are for, for the project and for the hearings. Speaker 7: So it's one thing to continue the hearing.
Are we under a timeline for the decision? Speaker 2: We, they would need to provide us an extension of time Speaker 7: Right? On the decision Speaker 2: On this? Yes. Speaker 7: On the 90 90 days. Speaker 2: On 90 days for this one. 'cause we filed the preliminary. Speaker 7: Okay. So when, what's that clock? Where? Speaker 2: On that clock. So we're, we've already gotten an extension at a time. Yeah. But we would need another extension at time because I'm assuming based on the comments tonight and getting everything turned around, we probably, the 27th is probably not, Speaker 1: That's not gonna be the last Speaker 2: No, but is it even, is it even doable to get, like, from your team? I, I don't know what other projects you're working on
outside of just this one or is September 10th better for the next meeting? Speaker 10: How fast can you turn everything around? Speaker 11: I'll try my best. But Speaker 1: That sounds like, that sounds like we're heading to September 10th now. Speaker 11: Well if we can table 27th and then back out of it a week, a couple days in advance Speaker 18: For the homeowners, that's really unfair. Continuously. Speaker 1: So I, I think if it's realistic to say the 10th, I'd rather, I'd rather be realistic. We've, we've just come off a series of continued public hearings that had no, no substantive discussion over the course of several months.
I'd rather wait and get and get more behind us than to, than to try to have the 27th come and then go. So, but, so then we would ask for the extension we'd need if, if we're the next hearing was on September 10th, you want this continued to the, at least through the 11th. Our, Speaker 7: Well, I guess that's my question Speaker 10: Are typically I've been doing 14 days past the date of the hearing. 'cause usually the, okay, because you get 14 days to write it. Right. And it's subdivision. But when you just kinda go under 48, which 40 a
and it's 48, which is not subdivision. But my default is look at 40 a that says you get 14 days drive Speaker 1: Decision. So 14 days from the, from September. Speaker 10: But if you're, if you're having a hearing on the 25th instead. Speaker 7: Correct. Speaker 10: And so you'd need the 25th to Speaker 7: Right. What I would Speaker 10: Suggest is, so we go to the Speaker 7: 26th, depending on where we are with the clock for the decision, I would say my suggestion would be extend the decision period on the definitive plan to the 26th, which is the Friday. Yep. And then we'll continue the hearing to the 10th. Does that make sense? That makes sense. Yeah. Want that in the motion Speaker 1: That so 26th of August Speaker 7: The dec No, September,
Speaker 10: September, September, Speaker 7: September. That, that we, we can do this in one motion. I, I'm fine with that. That we craft away that we move to extend the decision period of the definitive plan. Plan with the consent of the applicant to September 26th, 2025. And that we continue this public hearing to September 25th, 2025. Speaker 1: So wait. Oh, okay. Oh no, September 10th. September 10th. Sorry. Speaker 7: September. Sorry, sorry. September 10th. Thank you. Eptember Speaker 1: 10th. Alright, so motion made. Seconded. I think I heard over here. Yes. Oh, comments, questions.
Speaker 6: I think just, I, I wanna make sure everybody's we're all clear as far as what they're gonna come back with and what they are gonna present on the 10th. Maybe you guys wanna make sure you're all clear as far as Speaker 10: Yeah, I thought there was gonna be some little additional discussion. So I have, we need the laing plan, which I know we need to confirm the waivers. We'll look at the cul-de-sac issue as well. The issue of whether I, I think this, we'll talk with the client, obviously not who couldn't be here tonight 'cause of a family emergency about the private way issue. But I think we understand where we are on that.
So we'll pull that off the plan in terms of the request for public way. And then I know we talked, but a handful of issues that we need to look at as far as managing, managing them or at least a condition that says that the HOA is going to address those issues or handle those issues, those specific issues. Is there anything else that I missed? Speaker 7: I think those are the big buckets. Yeah. My opinion. Okay. Speaker 10: And then I hesitate to ask in terms of if we're trying to get to a final decision, some idea of where I think the rest of that we, we understand Mr. Meyer's position on the sidewalk, but we need to know whether it'll show it or not.
And we'd, I guess we could always show it and to be condition it to, to not install it if you don't want it. But I'd rather not make a plan change if we don't need to. Well Speaker 1: Actually on, on that particular point then, before we continued, 'cause I, you raised, you did raise that about the sidewalk and I'm not sure I'd be interested in hearing comments from other, I think you spoke briefly about it. Yes. In my opinion. Yeah. Yes. Just Speaker 19: My feeling in this particular case, I would say we can wave the sidewalks. It's just too confined too.
It's too much in a vacuum there. It doesn't, it doesn't connect anything. There's no chance of connecting into anything that I can see. Okay. Speaker 1: Thank Speaker 6: You. Yeah. And I'm of this similar opinion because we can't connect to anything. There's a lake there, so there's really rules out the possibility of ever having something. It's a very unique situation. I think I'm okay with not having a sidewalk Speaker 19: Unless you wanna put a bolt landing in. Speaker 1: So, alright. Then I, you Speaker 3: Might as well just plan on not doing them. Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah, I I'd say as, as a board, we'll, we'll follow actually. And I think that was Bill's recommendation it was as well.
So take that. So, Speaker 10: Excellent. We were agnostic on it, but I just wanna make sure we, we Yep. Put it on or didn't put it on as, as we needed. Speaker 1: Okay. So motion to council. Motion continue to September 10th. Great. Yep. Speaker 7: And the 26th with the decision. Yep. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. Motion made. Speaker 7: I, I made it. Yeah. Did anybody Speaker 6: Second it? Yeah, I think Peter second. Speaker 1: Oh Peter seconded it. Okay. All of those in favor A Aye. Aye. Very good. Speaker 10: Thank you. We'll see you in September. Thank you. Speaker 1: On the 10th. Thanks. Thank you. You know, it feels like it's gone on for a very long time. It's taken a lot of time, but we have had all very little in
the way of some public hearings. Yeah, Speaker 13: We got a letter too. Somebody from the neighborhood. I don't know if we Speaker 1: Yes, the one that just Speaker 13: Acknowledge it on tpo Speaker 19: Whatever, Speaker 1: But I don't have my copy of it. I'll Speaker 19: Just close the hearing there. But Speaker 3: We don't, sometimes we get a lot of them so we just add them to the record but we don't necessarily read them. Yeah. Speaker 20: Thank Speaker 6: You. Thanks. Bye-bye. Thank Speaker 3: You. So do you want me to read their public notice? Speaker 1: So the next, we are going into town agenda item four, town meeting zoning articles to amend the NA zoning bylaws, public hearings. And I think Amanda, we, we have read those.
No, these are no tonight's the opening night for the fourth. Okay. So clerk Mr Clerk, Speaker 3: Pursuant to mass general law 40 chapter A, the native planning board will hold a hybrid public hearing on Wednesday, August 13th, 2025 at 7:00 PM in the Edward Gilot meeting room located at 13 East Central Street, Natick, mass in person participation and remotely via zoom for the 2025 fall annual town meeting. Amend zoning, bylaws, removal of earth products to see if the town will vote to amend the Natick zoning bylaws by amending section
five dash F removal of earth products. And further amend any other associated sections where applicable or act in any other manner. In relation thereto amend zoning bylaws, flooding to see if the town will vote to amend the natting zoning bylaws by amending section 5G flooding. And further amend any other associated sections where applicable or act in any other manner in relation there to amend zoning bylaws. Limited site plan review definition to see if the town will vote to amend the natig zoning bylaws
by amending section 200 definitions, limited site plan review and further amend any other associated sections where applicable or act in any other manner. In relation thereto amend zoning bylaws. Use regulation scheduled to see if the town will vote to amend the natig zoning bylaws by amending section three A two. Use regulation schedule. Use categories within the use header G motor vehicle related sales and service uses. H transportation communication utility uses K manufacturing the industrial indu manufacturing and industrial uses.
Creating a new a use header for industrial uses and populate with applicable uses. Amend section 200 definitions, amending existing use headers and use categories as applicable to amendments. Made to use headers g, H, and K and further amend any other associated sections where applicable or act in any other manner. In relation thereto a copy of the full text of the proposed articles may be inspected in the town clerk's office, the Community and economic development office. And on the website per order.
Terry Evans chair na planning board Speaker 1: That you have a career as an auctioneer ahead of you. Speaker 3: Hey, sold. Speaker 1: Alright, now Amanda, I know we have gone, we've, you've presented kind of the framework of what we're doing here for those who are tuning in for the, the public hearing. Speaker 2: Yep. So we'll go through the first one, which is to amend nomine numeral five F removal of earth products. So this was an article that was put, it's in your pockets as well. This is an article that was put forth back in like 1974.
It does not appear to have been amended since. However, based on my conversations with conservation agent, town engineer and others, we are proposing to amend it, which would eliminate a portion of it, but then leave the intent there. So what is presented, and I will put it up on the screen, it's also in your packet, is just the modification of the language. And so with that being said, building inspector would become building commissioner 'cause that is their title. And then we would be removing the second paragraph in its entirety.
And also in no case shall said, material be removed from the town would also be eliminated because there are points where we've approved projects and there's so much material being blasted that it actually has to be removed. Removed. So to remove these items would not be detrimental. The other thing is preexisting use of premises for excavation or removal of sand and gravel continue to the extent through the, throughout the premises opening of new sand and gravel pits may authorize by the board of appeals
by special permit provided no one's really opened sand and gravel pits anymore. We also would want that in the use regulation schedule. But if it's not in the use re regulation schedule, it's not allowed. So therefore it's not. So this is actually giving an avenue to create it by a special permit, which we don't at this time want. So there's a lot of other laws that they would have to follow. Stormwater management, potentially conservation aquifer protection district, et cetera. So this is what has been reviewed as of today.
We don't need to vote on this today. This is just the opening public hearing. So it's something to be considered. But it is something that the board had voted to sponsor to put it on the warrant for the 2025 would be a request Speaker 1: That to, to vote to, to do so Speaker 2: To put it on the warrant. Yeah. So we can continue on unless anyone has any questions on that one. Speaker 1: Do you wanna take, let's just go ahead and Speaker 2: It however you'd like to do it. Yeah. Speaker 1: And to, to move to put this on the warrant. Speaker 3: I think we did that. This is more like to vote a recommendation town meeting. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you wanna go ahead. Speaker 2: We haven't voted to put anything on the town warrant yet. We've only, you voted to sponsor it and to open the public hearing process. But the whole technicality of getting it Speaker 3: On the warrant, then we'll have to have another public hearing. Speaker 2: Nope, this is it. This Speaker 3: Is it. Even after it's posted. Speaker 2: So we could have a, we could talk today about it and then continue it to a different day. Well, Speaker 7: Could we also, could we also, I mean this is a pretty straightforward one in my opinion. Pretty conscious. Speaker 3: It is. But I, there's something about having this meeting before it's on the warrant. I mean, I, I think we should leave, definitely leave it open so that we have something where people,
I don't know somebody's interested in this developer build or something. We shouldn't have this like closed Speaker 2: And we can do a double check with Caris or sorry, town council. Speaker 3: When does the warrant open? Speaker 2: Warrant closes? Speaker 1: It closes on the 21st, Speaker 2: 21st of next week. Okay. Alright. Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean I I think it's better to have these public hearings after the thing's published Yep. In case somebody's interested. Speaker 2: So, Speaker 1: And then, so when, then when we meet on the 27th, we, that's when we can go through and the Speaker 7: Warrant would've been, well hold on. So the warrant would've been closed on the 27th? Yes. Speaker 3: Right. We, we would have a fully complete warrant
for fall annual town meeting Speaker 7: On August 27th. Yes. What? Okay. Right. Well the, so what are we doing to put this on the warrant? Speaker 2: So the board just needs to vote to put it on the warrant. The warrant is very minimal language. Yep. Speaker 7: Are we doing that tonight? Do we need to do that tonight? Yeah, we should. So that's, Speaker 1: I was, I was trying to Speaker 2: Get, so tonight the o the, basically the overarching goal is tonight is to identify which articles you're gonna move forward. And that includes discussion of West Natick signs, even though we haven't really discussed it or anything else.
So that is the goal of tonight is to determine which ones are gonna go on the warrant and which ones are not. Speaker 1: And so with this just to vote to put this article on the warrant, all those in favor say Speaker 7: Aye. I would second the motion. Oh, Speaker 1: Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Speaker 7: Aye. Okay. Speaker 1: So, Speaker 3: But then we should, well we're gonna, these, these four are in a bundle. So we would one continuation of all four of them. Yeah, Speaker 2: You could do that one motion. Speaker 1: Okay. So we Speaker 7: Get to that. Speaker 1: Okay. So let's just take, moving on to 5G.
Speaker 2: Awesome. Alright. No al 5G flooding. This one in a nutshell says that the, basically you cannot build on a lot that is prone to or is known to flood. Which based on the intensity of the storms that we receive and they continue to grow, every single law is prone to flooding where they might have not been prone to flooding 10 or 15 years ago. This bylaw is not needed because we also now have the flood plain district bylaws.
We have the FEMA maps, we have other bylaws that are in, in this place. So the proposal is to delete noman numeral 5G and replace it with noman numeral 5G reserve. Just because it's a random G in the middle. This one, the board did say they would sponsor, would not wanna close the public hearing on this even though it seems straightforward. But it would be to request to put on the warrant for the fall of 2025. Speaker 1: Okay. So we will, let's you wanna, we will hold that, get through the others. Speaker 7: We could do what we just did. Yeah,
Speaker 3: We, we replace it on the warrant second. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 1: And now we have section roman numeral three A two. I'm Speaker 7: Sorry. Yes. God, Andy just moved to put it on the warrant. I seconded it. It's up to you. Chair Evans if you want. Oh man, Speaker 1: It's, yeah, Speaker 7: We're forwarding your having desire. Speaker 1: So. Alright, so placing it on the warrant, motion made, seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. So much. So for 5G.
So, and then we proceed to section three A two use regulation schedule and section 200 definitions. Yep. Speaker 2: Again, not looking for a vote tonight would expect this one to be continued because I do need the board to go through it to make sure that what we have there is what we wanna have there and to make sure that the definitions line up with this. So this one again would be a recommend request to recommend that it be put on the warrant. This is not the entire use regulations schedule. This is only the last remaining sections. So what we are looking at here, oops,
I don't know why it's not scrolling with me. Is there we go. G, which is a use header, motor vehicle related sales and services, H, transportation, communication and utility uses. And then in this one we did have it manufacturing, which would be K, it was previously K manufacturing and industrial uses. However, as we've learned, manufacturing is not the same as it was in the fifties, sixties, seventies. But then there's different types of manufacturing. So what we would propose
to do is create a new section K and divide it. Do I love that It's K and then it goes to N. No. But then that causes chaos. And then the spring is where we finally shuffle things back. So this would be K light manufacturing uses. And what these are is like wholesale, bakery, artisan, creative enterprise, it's workshop makerspace and items more like that. And N would be industrial uses. So that's where you would see the warehouses, distribution centers and the municipal waste facility.
So, and then we would also be working on reduction of the footnotes as well. And again, as I had previously mentioned, this would end the, all of the use headers and then in the spring would be a final overhaul to make sure everything's going where it needs to. And then also to basically delete all of the footnotes. But we have to Speaker 1: Make Doug very happy. Speaker 2: He would, but the problem is, is that we ha we are going by an alphabet system and the new ones went in a lettering and we can't, 'cause the first two are ab
and it would look weird if the first two appear nine and 10. So these are my problems, which are good problems to have, honestly. Speaker 1: So for putting, for putting this on the warrant, it is not the motion, but it is Speaker 2: Just the warrant to say you're just the Speaker 1: Warrant article. So we can go ahead and vote that because that's not gonna change. No. Yes sir. Speaker 7: So this also includes the definition piece section Speaker 2: 200. Yep. Speaker 7: All right. So I have a couple of comments. One, and probably not the way you just described the section headings, it's,
this is probably not within the bounds of what we're trying to achieve here, but just something curious going through the bylaw, and we kind of caught my eye, was the marijuana establishment that use section of the bylaw. Right. Which has a whole use It's a use table. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Could, and I'm not suggesting we move that in, but could we put some marker in this table? Oh, maybe under retail or something that says C-section three K, something like that. Speaker 2: So yes, absolutely. The one thing is, is that the can cannabis control commission has the updated regulation slash rules
that we need to follow. So we actually do need to amend the marijuana section. So that was something that I was gonna look at is either putting, 'cause the use regulation schedule since we've started going Y and and sp the, that regulation schedule actually uses that so it fits evenly in there. So we can, Speaker 7: Isn't there like a column in there about the overlay district, the marijuana overlay district, which doesn't quite fit into this. Yeah, right. So, so we, I I would say just, just
to make it for ease of use, I would say for this regulation, the main regulation schedule that we put marijuana establishment just as a line and say C section three K. Okay. Speaker 2: Something like that. Do you think, Speaker 7: Could that be done with this? I mean I, it doesn't need to be, but I, yeah. Could you think about that? Speaker 2: Yes, we can. We can definitely do it for like, there's certain uses like the light manufacturing, which is the cultivation and all those things that we could put it in there. It's just the retail one. But we do Speaker 7: Say if we, if we open up, open up the retail, Speaker 2: But we can actually amend, we,
we have time before the warrant. No, not the warrant closes, but before we get into the town meeting process. Yeah. Speaker 1: Would, would we need to do that or can we just say put on our table, see Yeah, I know it's this section. I actually wouldn't, that's a good question. I wouldn't deconstruct it, I think. Yeah, Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 1: I wouldn't try to Speaker 7: A Scribner kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. Speaker 1: It's begging to have something go wrong. Speaker 7: Yeah, I just, I just a comment. Yeah. Speaker 1: I throw it out there. Speaker 2: Let me, lemme take a look. Think about that. But I think that's a good idea 'cause it does need to be referenced just like there's other things we need. It's Speaker 1: Just, it's clean that way. Fine. That it, that it lives separately because,
because it's a section that may change radically depending on what the state decides to do. So rather than kind of carefully integrating it into our Speaker 7: No, I say keep it separate, but with a reference. Yeah. So how are we gonna do that? Yeah. Okay. Speaker 2: And I made note of that, Speaker 7: My last comment on the definition piece here around garages in definition of garage. So residential dwelling, detached, garage, right? Yep. A dete. So can you look at that existing language here? Yep. And I think there's a typo or something. And if you can look at it now as I as I, oh Speaker 2: Sorry. I was writing it
Speaker 7: So I didn't forget a detached structure on a residence residential zone lot that does not to exceed one garage. What, what are we trying to say? One garage per lot is what we're trying to say. Right? There's an extra word in there or something. Okay. Yep. Speaker 1: Does not Speaker 2: Exceed a detach structure on a residentially zone lot that does not Yep. Does not Speaker 7: Exceed one structure. Speaker 2: Yep. I see what you're saying. Speaker 7: So the intent Speaker 2: Is track changes. Yeah. Speaker 7: I guess in a definition, Speaker 2: I think we can look at this whole entire definition. If you actually, because we're talking about a single,
like when we say residential dwelling. Residential dwelling is the individual unit, which is can be a one family, but res let me take a look at this. 'cause we, Speaker 7: We are trying to Yeah, I wanna make sure we get the intent. We, we want, right. Which is one garage per lot single family is Speaker 2: It. But is it though? Because what if you have a two fam? Speaker 7: Okay, well this is detached, so I Speaker 2: Right. But if I had a house, a Speaker 19: Garage, meaning one Speaker 1: Car, I live in a two, no, I live in a two family. It's a family building that has a detached garage
Speaker 19: That is used as a garage Speaker 1: And you do, it's a two car garage. Right? Speaker 7: I have a two car garage, everyone, you know, detached. Right. But I guess what we're trying to say is don't let, let's not have a proliferation of garages. Garages on a, on a lot, you know, two garages, three garage. I mean that just encourages Yeah. You know? Speaker 2: Yeah, totally. Let me fix that. Speaker 7: But, but here's the other question. Philosophically, in zoning, when you try to put limits in the definition, doesn't that get weird? Yeah. Like, you know, you define what a garage is, it's a structure that house, houses, motor vehicles,
and then you say but one per lot. That's like, that's Speaker 1: A regulation. Speaker 7: That's a regulation as Speaker 1: Opposed to a definition. Right? Speaker 7: So how do we, how do we elegantly, Speaker 2: Let me take a look at the building code. Yeah. How they define it. Because there's some things that are actually well defined in the building code and we have to fall back on that anyway. Okay. So yeah, let me take a look at that. I just made note and highlighted that one. Yeah. Speaker 19: Clarity. What is a detached? I mean, what, what what would then constitute an attached if it's just a breezeway, an open breezeway, but physically attached.
I I I'm just picturing what it could be a breeze. All a variety of things. Yeah. Speaker 1: You could be Speaker 7: A breeze. It Speaker 1: Could be a breezeway. Breezeway is attached. Yeah. Speaker 19: Yeah. So anything that Speaker 7: Attached Speaker 19: That connects them physically connects them, Speaker 7: That's protected. I don't know. There's some way of dealing with it. I'm just saying, you know, that's fine. Right. But having two, three garages on a lot, I don't think we should encourage that. We should limit it to one. And how Speaker 1: Do we one structure, Speaker 7: One detached structure. Yes. Now a good point about Speaker 1: Which can hold more than one car. Speaker 7: Yes. And not limiting the number of cars, it's just what, what it is. And then what gets really kind
of interesting is when you look at the dimension table, okay, not the use table, but the dimensional intensity regs, there's a whole bunch of footnotes, right? You love footnotes and footnote Z, which is about sheds. And you know, that, that's problematic in my opinion, the, the way that's handled. Because what's a shed and what's a garage? What's a garage? What's a shed? And then the definition of shed of shed in that footnote says you can only have a 10 by 12 by 10
shed if it's within the setback. Speaker 2: 10 feet. Speaker 7: Yeah. What happens when you're out of the setback? Right? And then it says, but we can, you can have a bigger shed. You can have a 90 foot shed. Okay, well, is that a garage at that point? And then it also says it cannot be connected to utilities. The shed cannot be connected to utilities. So Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 7: Eek. I mean, and, and that lives in a footnote. Speaker 1: I I I remember it. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 1: So I, so Pandora's box,
Speaker 7: I, I don't have any solutions yet. I'm just, so Speaker 6: You're saying you want to start attacking shut, you don't wanna start changing the language on sheds. Speaker 19: I, Speaker 1: So Speaker 2: Let me work on the language on this. Let me look at what the building code says and then also look at this and then also look at the footnotes because we might be able to eliminate a footnote because it also, we have it when we, we advertise the legal notices it says and applicable sections. And that would definitely applic applicable because it's like, what is a shed versus what is a garage? Yeah. Speaker 7: And then I guess for the board, what's our desire?
What's the community's desire? Do we want to have 15 sheds on a lot? Do we want to have one? Do we only have two? How many garages are we gonna, you know, I mean, I have an opinion about it. I don't know if the other board members have an opinion about it, but, well, Speaker 1: And it, and it may be because again, if it's a two family, then it, it only makes sense to have at least two sheds Speaker 19: Can a garage Speaker 1: For like, for every living unit. You, you can have Speaker 19: In your garage structure have as many, many, you done an attached what is used as a shed.
It may even be a separate opening and, but it's a, it's one structure. Speaker 1: Oh, it's one structure. Speaker 19: It's one structure. And it can be for lawn mower, all kinds of stuff. Speaker 7: Yep. Speaker 19: But it's part of the garage structure. Speaker 7: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 19: So that can be, that does or does not come under shed or there's no limiting on the garage. Speaker 7: Yeah. It's a little bit of a, yeah, Speaker 19: You throw a few more square. I think Speaker 7: We should say something more Speaker 19: Feet in the garage for a car. And you've got your lawn mowers and you got your bikes and you got your everything else. Speaker 7: Your rake and your, yeah.
Speaker 1: And, and one thing I will note, just to confuse everything, is that with the adu, you're gonna start seeing garages matter a whole lot more because there will be people putting their a DU above the garage. Speaker 2: That is correct. We've had a couple ADUs come in for the pre, however, Speaker 1: However we define garage, we have to, we have to bear in mind, Speaker 7: Wouldn't that be an attached garage? Speaker 2: We can have 'em attached or detached garage. But the space that you use for your vehicles, it's not counted into your a DU space because that's not considered a gross floor area. Yeah. But you do have to have two means of egress
Speaker 7: From the unit. From Speaker 2: The unit. Speaker 7: Yeah. Yeah. But just in terms of the garage aspect of it, is it a attached garage or is it a detached garage with an A DU? Speaker 2: You can do either or Speaker 1: What, how do you, what's the difference? Speaker 2: What do you mean? If your garage is detached from your house, it's a detached a to you. Speaker 1: Okay. 'cause that's Speaker 2: Because it's not, the garage is not the principal detached. You Speaker 1: Were thinking, Speaker 2: Were you thinking the, so the way to think about it is, is the principal dwelling unit Yep. Is what if you're attached to the principal dwelling unit,
it's an attached, attached. If it is not attached to the pri, the garage is not attached to the principal dwelling unit. It's detached. Speaker 7: So if you have a principal dwelling unit with an attached garage and then you wanna put an A DU on your property above some kind of, you won't be able to do that. Speaker 2: You can, Speaker 1: You can have a second. A second garage. Speaker 7: What do Speaker 2: You could put it over your garage. Speaker 1: It is, yeah. Speaker 7: You can have Speaker 1: Existing garage or a new garage. Speaker 7: No, no, no, no. A new garage. If so, you have a existing house with an attached garage. You have a, it's,
Speaker 1: You know, then you get an A DU with its own garage. No. Or do you see that's problematic. Speaker 2: That is also allowed Speaker 19: As many options as you have people thinking about it. Speaker 2: What's that? That is allowed. Yeah. You could have an A DU with a garage. 'cause the garage does not count as party. You're 900 square feet. Right. I've learned a lot about ADUs. Speaker 6: Can we, are we allowed to have an attached garage and a detached garage Speaker 17: On a lot Speaker 2: Right now? Yes. I believe so. I saw one today Speaker 7: That I don't love to be honest with you Speaker 1: Being able to have both. Yeah, Speaker 7: That, that's my point. Yeah. So if you have an attached garage
and then you want an A DU with a garage that's a detached garage with an accessory dwelling unit, now you have two garages on the site. I'm not entirely comfortable with that idea, just my opinion. Speaker 1: Yeah. And Speaker 7: I think you have one garage. It's either attached or it's detached Speaker 1: With two fam with two. Speaker 7: No, I mean per of course, if you're gonna Yes, yes. Yeah, yeah. Right. Speaker 1: Hmm. Speaker 7: Just my opinion. Speaker 1: No, not there. And it depends. It, it can, you could have garages that kind of run away with the house.
Speaker 7: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And sheds. Speaker 1: Yeah. Although sheds less so. And at least I've not seen, I've not seen shed abuse. So Speaker 19: I mean, what do you call a structured, like a cabana? Freestanding. Speaker 1: Oh, for like your swimming pool. That's just an accessory structure. No, Speaker 19: I'm not know. I'm asking, I I have no idea where, where, I mean, where this can fit Speaker 1: Into. Do we, do we need to wade this far into the weeds on this and maybe we can just move forward?
Speaker 19: That's a humongous rabbit hole. Speaker 1: Yes. And a humongous rabbit to go with it. I'm sure. Speaker 7: So, okay. I'm just saying. Speaker 1: So we have, we have everything vote voted to go onto the warrant. No, no. Speaker 2: We haven't gotten a vote. Let's Speaker 7: Do that. Yeah, I make a motion. That section, these regulation schedule piece of this goes to the warrant. Speaker 1: Okay. Yes. That is okay Speaker 7: With a second. Speaker 19: I'll second it. Speaker 1: Alright. No further questions. Very.
All those in favor putting on the warrant? Aye. Aye. Done. And that is Speaker 7: One more Speaker 1: The lowest limited site plan. Oh, the limited site plan review. Yeah. Speaker 2: Yep. So we actually have a few more. So limited site plan review what we were gonna do. So this is based on the attorney general's request that we bring the definition for limited site plan review, also known as Dover, or limited amendment, Dover Amendment. Bring it in line with that type of definition. So that's all it is, is we're using the state's definition to amend our section 200 definition for limited site plan review.
It does not amend the process or requirements. It's just making sure the lines right. That was the request of the attorney General. Speaker 1: And that actually is helpful because again, if if we say we're following them, yeah. Then we'll never be wrong because, Speaker 2: And we do have, I can provide it. I should have provided it in the packet. We do have the letter from the attorney general outlining that. Speaker 1: Okay. So, so a vote to put this on the warrant motion. Speaker 6: Make a motion to put this on the warrant. Speaker 1: Second. Oops. Second Peter, any discussion?
No hearing. No. None. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Good. Alright. The last Speaker 2: One more? Yes. Well I don't have it 'cause we, this is not actually, would you like to close the public hearing? Not close public hearing. Sorry. Continue the public hearing until the 27th just Speaker 1: So we don't it. So someone want to make a motion to that effect? So moved. Second. Second, second, Peter. Alright. No discussion. All is in favor say aye. Aye. We stand continued. Speaker 2: Awesome. Thank you. So the other ones that I would like
to bring to your attention is West Natick, which is the, what would be called the neighborhood corridor and limited site Limited commercial. And that would be a zoning bylaw and a zoning map amendment. We have the opening public hearing on the 27th for all of that. I'm in the process of sending out legal notifications to the abutters within 300 feet. Also letters if, if your property is being amended in terms of like a lot line shift, like we have those ones that are single family commercial and we're removing the commercial because they're residential. Not the lot line. Not the lot line. We're just removing the, this is
Speaker 1: The north main. Yes. Speaker 2: And then also, or if your property's being zoning lines Change Zoning line. Yeah. Zoning changed or uses. So, but the 27th is okay. The date for that. But obviously that's after the warrant. Speaker 1: Alright. So do you, do we need us to at least put that on the Speaker 2: Warrant? Yeah, sponsor in. Speaker 1: So, oh, I'm sorry. Of course. Okay. Motion to sponsor this article and put it on the warrant. I Speaker 19: Shall move. You're not through yet.
Speaker 1: Oh no, that's good. Second. Speaker 21: Second. Andy. Speaker 1: Andy. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Speaker 7: And that will be on the 27th, right? Speaker 1: 27th. Speaker 2: Okay. Yep. Wednesday the 27th. Okay. Alright. Thank you. So another one that is in your packet. It's kind, I think it's just in the packet. It's not in a folder. We have not advertised this. So about Speaker 7: Or in the packet? Is it meant? Yeah, Speaker 2: What's that? Speaker 7: Where is it? Speaker 2: It's the signed one. No, numeral five H. If you go right to the packet, Speaker 1: I'm looking at our meeting packet oh
Speaker 6: Eight. It's 8 13, 25 Speaker 1: Section BH signage, DM and cg. Speaker 2: Yeah, sorry. Got it. I didn't really know where to put it 'cause we hadn't really. Yeah, So probably like a month and a half ago or two months ago now. Times just shucking by, there was a brief discussion on creating a working group to discuss signage within Natick Center, which was a kind of request of the Natick Center Associates and other businesses in Natick Center. That was in response to a-frame signs and other kind of questions of how, how to make signage within Natick Center,
which it's also coupled with the center gateway more unique to allow for a downtown signage package. So in that response, there have been members, Peter and Terry had attended the working group meetings with the Natick Center associates and several, there was one or two business owners within that as well. And then CED staff members to kind of get a question as to or direction as to what was the intent, what are we trying to do and what are we trying to amend? Numeral five H, which is sign bylaw
touches all over the community. However, we were only focused on the center gateway and the downtown mixed use. So in that you will see that it is much longer than what is in the zoning bylaw today because we got into more details. The overall goal, honestly, would be to take a similar format where we are using more of like a table identifying the types of signs that are allowed and saying where they would or would not be allowed districts based on the zoning districts. Yes. To allow for easier use.
However, we do not have time to do that. For the fall town meeting. That is a different task and footnotes of intensity. Regulation schedule is much more so in that effort, we have drafted this bylaw. The idea is to have this be the skeleton and then you would have regulations that would basically put the meat on the skeleton to allow it to kind of stand on its own. So what you will see in this draft, just a high level review, is we would be allowing for we wall mount signs, projecting, hanging signs,
blade signs, a-frame signs, and then also signage that is typical of not just the individual establishment, but of an entire building where you have multiple tenants, which would include directory or blade signs for second floor or up on the first floor. Then we would also be calling out public notification signs or way finding signs and way finding signs and public notification signs are providing direction, et cetera, to this area. I Speaker 1: Think that's defined isn't, don't we have that defined in definitions? Is there something on way finding?
Speaker 2: No, no, we defined it this time. So we're defining these things. Then we actually based it off of the size and the square footage that would be allowed based on your unit size. So that's where we're at with this. The big questions that we have at this point as a group is the reviewing authority of this and what's the process to review a sign. So that is something that is not really elaborated in this because it's still up for debate. So there is a question as to is there ability to, to sponsor it?
Who would be that sponsor? Or is it even ready to be at the fall 2025 town meeting? So I know Peter and Terry have been there. So Speaker 1: I I, I applaud what we're trying to do. I think it is way too soon to try to move this forward in part, even in our, the working group meetings. We haven't, we haven't gotten down to, what does that look like when I see that there? How, what is that dimension? We have a table and I am, I'm not remotely comfortable that
we've been able to see what that means in a visual, in a real visual context. So I would personally love to see us work on it and work on it so that we have examples that people can kind of understand. Design guidelines. Something that we all mean the same. We know, we, what we say, we, we mean the same thing to everybody. Yep. Speaker 19: I think we've got to have some specificity on like these blade signs. You want, you mentioned second floor and above. Do you, you want blade signs up high?
So we do you want them, where do you want them and at what height? We talked about this at the meeting. I, I don't think there's, there's a lot of information in this. We're getting down to some of the finite, some inches on some of these things. And I think that's kind of ahead of it or beyond. We're ahead of Speaker 1: Ourselves. Speaker 19: Beg your pardon? Speaker 1: We're ahead of ourselves. Speaker 19: I believe it. Believe so. It's, I believe, yeah. I I I think there's the, even just the basic concept of what the hell we're trying to do is missing. I really, I really don't think it's there. Signage Yes. Uniformity of some type or, or organization is absolutely essential
to give this town a better look. Speaker 1: Well, and there are different, and there are different looks depending on the zone. What, what you need downtown or in in center gateway will be a certain scale and what goes on route nine and Route nine is probably, Speaker 19: Oh, oh, I I'm just strictly talking about the downtown area. Yeah. There, I mean we have no, it's, it's chaotic and it, it shouldn't be. The ones I've seen that I think are quite admirable are more uniform U uniform. Yeah. That's not that it, it looks exactly the same.
That's No, but coherent. Where they're located, how they're located. Generally the, the store frontage makes a big, will make a big difference on, you know, how many signs you put there. And it, we just have a lot to think about, but I think we're way ahead of ourselves Speaker 7: And Yeah. And Speaker 19: I think talking about it's gonna be a few inches a year and a few inches there. Speaker 7: Personally, my, I, you know, I like blade signs. I mean, I think they give character to a downtown, right? So, you know, the, you said make it more organized.
Totally agree. I would also say let's incentivize it a little bit and say this is what we wanna see. Like we want a blade sign. Right. Speaker 1: And is it soft material or Speaker 7: Right. Whatever the design standards are on that. So first of all, yes, I agree way too, way too soon to put this on the warrant. Substantively though, and I think I mentioned this before, you know Amanda, there are definitely ways to create effective signed bylaws. They don't necessarily need to live in a zoning bylaw. And the reason I say that is because if it goes into the general, a general bylaw, which a lot of cities and towns do, a, it's easier
to amend, it's easier. It's 50, you know, is it Right. I think for a general bylaw at a town meeting threshold, I think it's, what is it? Speaker 1: Oh, majority. Simple majority. Speaker 7: Simple majority. Okay. Also, if you want to get really serious in some, some regard about amortizing signs, like you can say, you know, if a sign was, you know, permitted X day by 10 years from now, it has to be something else. And it gives enforceability if it sits in this general bylaw Yeah.
It gives a enforceability. If you want to try to achieve amortization of signs that you don't wanna see versus in a zoning bylaw, because who, right. So I would say put that on the table. You know, take the sign the signed bylaw out of the, outta the zoning bylaw. Put it in the general bylaw and then, you know, get serious about how you wanna implement it. Speaker 1: No, and I, and I think that the, I mean the group has been earnest and creative and had lot, lots of ideas, but we're not actually kind of hammering out something that feels like a coherent
Speaker 7: Practice now. Maybe, I don't know, Amanda, I mean, maybe some help, you know, from the outside, maybe there's a consultant we can bring and it sort of help us organize our thoughts around this. And Speaker 19: I may, some of the help that we've been getting is looking at others, other towns, which is what Amanda has done is that's been terrific. That's where you can see what you really think works. I don't think we have to pay a consultant to do that. It's just another opinion. Speaker 3: Do you think there's a, a consensus in town that people want to have a uniform signage look? 'cause we've, well probably talked about this,
I'm gonna say 15 years ago. And the, the moment we dug into it, we got the feeling that like one store owner didn't necessarily want to be felt compelled to sort of match the signage of another store owner for fear that you kind of look past them or something. Mm. Us regular citizens kind of let go into shops where the signs match. I mean, but I, I think that's a personal preference. I'm not sure that, Speaker 1: Well, and also Speaker 19: I think we're talking too much about what uniformity means. Speaker 1: The signage that you'd put on, say Clark's Block or other historic buildings may, may have a,
a different requirement because you're trying to do something that also preserves the character of those buildings. And so they may require something different. Speaker 19: The signs will vary. Should vary. I mean, you're not gonna take a Coca-Cola sign and write in one capital letters Coca-Cola. You're gonna write it the way Coca-Cola's branded. I mean, there's gonna be uniformity and there's gonna be variety. But there has to be both. Speaker 7: I guess a problem statement would be necessary. Like, what is it that we're trying to, what is the existing condition that we are concerned about?
What is the future condition we wanna see? How do you get from here to there? Right? And that's, that's Speaker 1: A small, simple thing kind of kicked it off. And that was the A-frame signs Speaker 19: You, they're Speaker 1: Go ahead. Which can be great and can be things that people trip over. And right now they're not allowed a-frame signs. And that's what started the, the merchants saying, wait a second, how, how do I let people know I'm here? So, and then, and so that's the biggest part, part of the, the problem statement is businesses don't feel
that they're making, they can make themselves visible as they think they should. That, that it's not, it hurts business. Speaker 19: I look at what happens when you walk into a mall, people of all ethnic backgrounds and can't read the e whatever. It's, there's a variety of people come in and the place is huge. But there's a directory. It's something that gives in a very simplistic but straightforward way where you're going or at least halfway there, which that building of that. So I think we need some directories for the people
who are on second floor and third floor to say what building they're in. Speaker 1: Like Clark's block has, has those, it has a directory in Speaker 19: Where, Speaker 1: So at the summer street Speaker 19: Entrance at the summer street entrance. And who the hell knows what the summer street entrance is to the clock park? I mean, we're talking main street maybe. I don't know if ever, if ever we'll get to doing parking meters at a central thing like a lot of places are and not have. But right there where it's people that have to go when they've parked or at each end of a block
or something to begin to tell people who's in that block and roughly where. Speaker 2: So awesome. Let's just table this disability. Keep moving on. Speaker 3: I said one more thing. Sometimes the, the best freest way to understand or to gather public comment is to put in a warrant article even one that you know, it's gonna be you, you you're saying it's gonna be referred that passes in front of all of our public boards. It's an opportunity for a lot of public debate. So there can be some utility, maybe not this fall,
but when we do it, you know, that that is the, that is sort of the best time to sort of shake the trees and have opinions fall out and get a better sense of what we wanna do with this. 'cause I think reasonable people can disagree, but thanks. Speaker 2: And then the last one, this would not be one that I was requesting the select or the planning board to put on the warrant, rather. I think this would be the town administrator because we had done, he has done it previously is for the accessory dwelling units. There were three items that the ag wants us to amend. One of them being we have it principal,
one family dwelling, and she wants one family removed. So it would be principal residential dwelling because based on the regulations of the state, A two family can have an A DUA triple decker can have an A DU. And so it is calculated in the totality of the entire triple decker to get your A DU, which we've pushed back on. But this is where we're at. That's one. A second one is, is that in the parking off street parking regulations, that if your a d is within a half mile
of a commuter real station, we cannot require you to have parking if you're outside, it's one parking space. However, the way that we wrote it is shall provide a minimum of one. She wants it to say provide one because the ag feels that if we say a minimum of a board would push people to have more, we pushed back and said, but if you wanna provide more, then what's the avenue? If you say just one. The last one that we are questioning on this one as well is that if you have a detached a DU,
that it would be a maximum of 25 feet or two and a half stories. She does not want that because we do not regulate single family dwellings to that same standard. We allow a single family home to be three, two and a half stories 35 feet. And because we limit it more restrictively than a single family home, that's different. However, we're still pushing on that one because an A DU detached, we can, since it's accessory, can be within 10 feet up a property line. And so therefore, if you think of a 900 square foot
being three story or two and a half stories or 35 feet, that's a tall lighthouse in your backyard. Mm. So those are the three items we still can still, can I question? Yeah. Speaker 7: What, what's the basis of that logic of of, of the attorney general's logic about not limiting height? Is there something in the, in the statute that says it can't be Speaker 2: No Speaker 7: More restrictive? Speaker 2: So no, actually in the state law, in mass general law, chapter 40 a section three, it specifically says
that towns can put towns and cities can put reasonable regulations on the design height and bulk. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 2: Just like you can with a Dover Pro, sorry, a Dover project, which is bulk, height and scale. You can do the same thing. So we did that because again, a nine Yeah. That's a tall building. Right. They didn't like that. So Speaker 7: On what basis? Their opinion. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 1: Some of these are just too Speaker 7: Bad. Speaker 2: So we're gonna keep working on that. But I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Speaker 7: Are they trying to say the statute allows, I mean they're,
are they're not state regulations coming out on this? Are there Speaker 2: There are. They've already released those and that's where we got into our favorite, like if you have a triple decker, you calculate the whole area of the entire triple decker and your A DU can be 50% or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. So if you're triple decker in, its total, all three units are, let's just say 3000 square feet. Yeah, sure. Yeah. So you get a 900 square foot A DU And the question we've come back with is at
what point does the accessory not become accessory? Because if you've been in a triple decker, the units aren't always 900 square feet, a thousand square feet, they can be 600 square feet or so that's the question. The other one is, is if you have a townhouse, so if you and someone else has a townhouse right now, the way that they're interpreting the law is that one A DU is allowed as a Right. So if you and I own townhouses next to each other and you get to the building department before I do, you get to have the A DU as a, right. Where if I wanted to add an A DUI would have
to get a special permit because Speaker 1: It's treated as a single building. Speaker 2: Yep. Hopefully that your homeowner's association would require you to talk to your neighbor. But some might be old, I don't know. So this is what we're struggling with, but I just wanted to bring this to your attention. That interesting. This would be on there. Yep. That's that's all I got. Speaker 7: So is that on the warrant or not? Are we doing that? Speaker 2: You are not. It would be the town administrator since. Got it. Speaker 1: But, but I have to say, what what's going on with ADUs is kind of the classic example of,
did the state think it all the way through before they started kind Speaker 7: Of dictate? No, it's well intended. I think it's well intended. I think it makes, you know, reasonable sense to have ADUs allowed. Yes. But now we're gonna start saying, well, you can't regulate height and deme if that's not what the statute says. If it says what you said, I don't disa I don't, don't disbelieve you. If it says you can re regulate it reasonably well, then that's what we should do. Regulate it reasonably. Speaker 2: And that's what we, and that's why we did it. If your a DU is attached, then yes, you can go the two
and a half stores, 35 feet. It was when it was detached. And specifically like when you're within 10 feet, Speaker 7: We're not disallowing a d just putting a reasonable regulation on it, which I think is within the bound of the law. Unless the regulations, the state regs, the CMR says something different. Yeah. Which then that's problematic and that, and 'cause then that would run afoul of what the statute says. So, Speaker 2: So that's where the, that's the question. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we're working on these, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention. But we have actually on the A DU side, just so everyone's aware, we have been getting quite a few applications for them. And they look pretty good.
Like they seem, and like other people are actually looking at us as to how we're regulating 'em, which is great news. Speaker 1: Well, congratulations. Speaker 2: I don't know about that. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Can I put toss in a, a quick something under the, any other business category. And that is, there are only five of us, and there should be six of us theoretically because we have an associate position. It would make sense. It's a, it's a good opportunity. Say, say I as someone who's been on this board forever, to get people who may be
interested in the associate position and who may then going forward become as many of us did, going from associate to full member. And you kind of have your training wheels off by having that time. So I wanted to, wanted to see what folks thought about us talking with the select board and saying, can we get together and review candidates and see if we can find, what about an associate, Speaker 19: What are you doing? How you, is there criteria that's documented?
What, what's the criteria for the associate? Any particular criteria? Or when you say interview Speaker 3: None, I, I was selected as an associate. So there's, there's no, there's no criteria. You Speaker 1: There, there really isn't. I think, I mean, it sounds cynical, but it's, that's really Speaker 3: Any, any idiot Speaker 19: Committee. What, what kind of questions would you ask a candidate if to determine one is better than another? Speaker 3: Well, are you free on Speaker 19: One side? Speaker 3: Yeah. It used to be. Do you mind late meetings? But that, no. When, when the select board and the planning board get together,
if there are two candidates, you have to ask 'em the same questions. Yep. So you, you know, why do you want it? What's your background experience? What do you think you can add to it? I mean, maybe some other creative questions, but they have to be the same questions. 'cause you can't sort of give people softballs and other people. Speaker 1: Yeah. And then, then the combined strength of the, the two boards. Yeah. They cast their, cast their votes. And Speaker 3: Do we have any candidates? Has it been posted? It Speaker 1: Has not been posted. So that's, I wanted, I wanted to flag it for you guys and see your, see your reaction. Speaker 3: We just start, Speaker 1: It feels like a reasonable thing to do. Speaker 19: We need it filled. Yep. So,
Speaker 1: Because otherwise we could wind up with somebody else, like, like Alan. Speaker 3: Well let that happen. Speaker 19: I was in that category, that same lesson learned. Speaker 1: I Oh, Andy. Andy was associate before me. I I then was the associate. Yeah. And then you I worked And then you came. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 19: Glen was, and he moved over to a vacant position. Oh, that's wood. I, Speaker 7: Everyone's got a soft spot for associates, I think. I think that Oh, thank you. Yeah. I think it's an, it's an opening. We should, we should fill it for the reasons why. But I would just say again, no offense to anyone who's served as an associate, it's uncomfortable for, I mean, it was uncomfortable
for me to constantly say to Alan or the chair, if you're seeking Alan's vote on something, you can't vote on it. We need to be really disciplined about how associate members are engaged. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 7: Okay. I completely agree. Speaker 1: Okay. And like, and, and when I disciplined about it, when I was an associate member, I remember having that question all the time. Like, can I vote here? I, I, I don't know. Yeah. Speaker 3: But no hard feelings, you know? Speaker 7: I know, I know. And it's, you know, you know what I'm saying? It's like, it's, it's not comfortable to say no, Speaker 1: But nobody, Speaker 7: But what was ha you know, you're recording. What happens is you record votes and it's a four to two.
Well, no, it's a five member board. That's right. We can't do that in, in the state law associate members are only allowed to vote on special permits. Right? Is that correct? Special permits? Speaker 3: Oh, no, we, no. What's that? No, Speaker 7: No. Speaker 3: Not I, I thought like not subdivisions. Yes. Yeah. What's that? I thought like, not subdivisions. Not Speaker 1: Subdivisions. Not subdivisions. Not Speaker 3: A r. Correct. There's a finding, Speaker 7: Not even site plan review by the way. Not site plan review, special permits. It's very constricted to that. But we've Speaker 3: Had associate members vote on findings
of vote on continuances to vote on. No, they Speaker 7: Can't. That that's a no-no. Yeah. I mean that literally it's a no-no. We may have done it and it's, it's literally special permits. Speaker 3: Well, to your point Yeah. What they can and can't do can be defined. And let's do a better job of exactly what that is and explain that to the person so that their expectations are clear. So there are no hard feelings. Yes. But I think it's, you know, if you're interested in local board type work and you have that defective gene where you find this stuff interesting, this is a great place to learn.
I don't think I made a declarative sentence in the first year as, as an associate member. I just asked questions, you know, learn the process and all that stuff. But it's, it's a nice way to get in. But, but to your point, we should, we should, this is a knowable quantum, like the amendment what you can and can't vote on. Yeah. And so you're not diminishing anybody. You're just saying that, you know, mark vote. But it is nice if somebody isn't here that the associate can fill in. Oh yeah. Absolutely. It's a very nice thing to have. Speaker 1: Absolutely. And it, and it, it makes, Speaker 7: By the way, there is, I, I believe Amanda, is it representative Kaner?
Somebody is sponsoring a bill in the legislature to sort of Oh, make more meaningful, we'll expand it. Make it more meaningful. And also to require training. Speaker 2: Yeah. I believe, Speaker 7: I don't know for all plaintiff board members, Speaker 2: I don't know where it is in the status, but yeah, Speaker 1: She was Speaker 7: The a PA mass is very much behind it. That's Speaker 1: Interesting. That would be extraordinary. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 19: Can I associate, I wonder if it's a disincentive may have a vote if the, in the absence of, if we need a voting person
in the absence of, you know, somebody missing. Speaker 1: They cannot, they cannot vote for. Yeah. Subdivision, subdivision of Speaker 7: Land. Yes. They only can put it this way. They can only vote on special permits regardless. Speaker 19: Period. Period. Speaker 7: Nothing else. Not zoning, not zoning recommendations. Not subdivisions. Not site plan review. Not procedural stuff. The actual vote on the, on a special permit. So that's, anyway, if we have one more thing. Yes. Progress on construction projects in Natick. I'm not talking about roadway projects,
which is a whole nother thing. What is, when are these projects gonna get wrapped up? Washington Street, St. Patrick's Zero, Maine. What is going on? Speaker 2: So St. Patrick's, they've actually gone through their Thank you. Their lottery process for the affordable unit. So those ones are actually tenant fitting up. I know that there is vacant space on the first floor. They're actively trying to lease those. They have a broker that's trying to, yesterday they did reach out to get the numbering for the, the townhouses in the rear,
because those have to be assigned A and B or whatever the number is. So they're in that process. So that one, I think they're getting ready to actually 10 it up in terms of the project next to the tavern, which is 69 East Central Street. That one is also actively looking for tenants for the first floor. Speaker 7: That one seems to be finished. Speaker 2: They were finishing painting. Yeah. Some touch up on the bottom. They do have, they just received five occupancy permits for five residential units on the upper floors. Right now they are waiting at the state level
for legal review for the five affordable unit. So they can't actively market those yet. So they're in that one. The one at 26 slash 32 Union, which is the one a little bit further up. That one is moving along. They were doing infrastructure. They've got their sidewalk. And they've also started to remove the construction fencing on that one. That one has submitted their a DU or sorry, inclusionary housing units to the state. They're in that same queue, which state is a little backed up, but does amazing job as does other members of her team. That's where we're on those ones.
In terms of Washington Street, that one's a little bit further behind because of the start stops due to the change in ownership and some other construction items that the building commissioner and the town engineer identified. They have con start commenced work back again. They started to put the siding up on certain portions. That one, I'm actually trying to get them to nail down moving forward in their affordable, because the hard part with the affordable, it's great to create the units and it's one thing to put it in the decision, but we reach out
to the applicants to let them know, because it takes about six months to get from submitting your documentation for the lip through the state's process. Speaker 7: I'm less concerned about the leasing. Oh, I'm, I'm, I'm more, they're Speaker 2: Also Speaker 7: Actively about finishing the project. Finishing it. So Speaker 2: That one's behind. That one's also actively looking for commercial in terms of one South Maine. Yeah. Speaker 7: One about 0 1 1 South Main. Yes. Speaker 2: Wait, is it one? Whatever, Speaker 7: Whatever. It's the corner. Speaker 2: Okay. So one South Main, sorry. They are still working. My understanding is, is
that they're gonna be doing the sidewalk and the, there's an agreement. They've done some of it along. Yeah. So they're working on that. They are still trying to actively lease those spaces. Speaker 7: When are they gonna finish that project? Speaker 2: I'm not sure, but I can talk with Dave before he leaves next week. And then 13th Summer Street? No, I believe 13th Summer Street is actively Speaker 7: Back to back to the corner project. They are occupying public property at this point. Right. Where there's fencing, there's, when is the project going to be finished? They, in my opinion, they haven't touched it in nine months.
You look in the interior, you look from the street into the site. It's dirt. It's not finished. Yeah. They're doing something inti inside the building, building out whatever devising walls. They gotta d When is the project going to be finished? It is an eyesore. It is occupying public way in a non attractive way. Get it done. Speaker 1: I I, I would dito that on Washington Street as somebody who walks down there. Speaker 7: Well, that's the other one. Every Speaker 1: Day. And I walk in, I have to walk in the street. Speaker 7: You mentioned the one next to the tavern.
That one was permitted and built right after one main started and still not finished. Speaker 2: And they moved to Water Speaker 7: Main. I don't get it. I just, I don't get it. Well, Speaker 3: You see the owner there every day walking around the building. Yes. Overseeing the details, which I don't, I don't see in the other locations. Who's Speaker 19: Doing that? Speaker 3: What the, the folks that own more tavern. Why, Speaker 1: You know Washington Street, that project got, do you know how many times that that has been sold? Yeah. Speaker 3: Didn't the tie that call had to be replaced?
'cause it expired. It was exposed to the Yeah. To the weather for so long without being covered that, that there was no longer warranted. There was a, Speaker 1: There was a structural issue really, Speaker 7: Wasn't it? There was a structural issue. Yeah. But yeah, that's interesting. But, Speaker 3: But that was this last delay. They had to, they had to rewrap the whole thing. 'cause the Tyvek materials expired, shredded. Speaker 7: Well, in the case of one South Maine, we have one owner who's owned it. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 7: And been here several times to do certain things. And every time he, he's come here, we've told him, go build the project. You've got permitted. Well Speaker 19: Look at Speaker 7: One and go build the project. Usually
Speaker 3: There's such a self incentive now to complete these. You don't think you have to do anything. Speaker 19: Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So, all Speaker 7: Right. One, it's, it's my, you know, Speaker 19: Quick aside the same issue though on residential, in a single family home. What's the, from the time it's demoed or started in major construction, how long does someone have, once they get a permit to do it until the permit expires? Speaker 3: I think three years. Speaker 2: It's three years. If you do not act on the permit, but once you start acting on the permit and as long as there's progress, then Speaker 19: It's good.
Okay. As long as there's progress, then you can go beyond the three years. Speaker 3: No, no, no. Well, actually it's kind of subjective because, Speaker 2: And Yeah, that's what I'm asking your permit. So when the planning board issues a permit, it's only good for three years. If I receive a permit from you and I do nothing, my permit expires at three years. I'm, however, if I start the project at year two of my permit and it goes for 18 months, I'm still acting on my permit. Okay. And I'm still in good favor. Even though I'm on year four. Speaker 19: I'm thinking just the specific projects.
Only because I noticed it when I first moved here, which was about 12 years ago. And it's still under construction and not occupied, but under construction on Washington Ave. Oh, Speaker 1: I know the pro, I know the project. I have a friend who lives there who said, asked me the same thing. It's, Speaker 19: It's, it's crazy. I realize it, it sounds, it looks like it's only one man when he has his free time. He does the whole thing. I mean, this thing was an existing house that was stripped back to Its Speaker 1: Yeah. Any, anyway. Yeah. But it's May, may I adjourn this meeting? You
Speaker 19: May. Oh, sure. Yes. Speaker 1: You motion, motion to adjourn. Mr. Meyer made, seconded, or just made. Speaker 19: And second, I'll go along with it too. Speaker 1: Alright, I'll go along. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. We stand adjourned at 9 47.