As a preliminary matter of this 20 night, chair of the Newbury Planning Board, please confirm Uh please permit me to confirm that all members and persons participating on the agenda are present and can hear me. Now playing board members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Uh Peter Pecos.
>> Yes, sir. >> Larry Murphy. >> Here. >> Scott Kenter. >> Yes. >> Steve Mangion. >> Here. >> And town staff, Christine Grubbs, planning director. >> Here. >> And Sadie Woodward, the assistant
planner. >> Here. >> Very good. Good evening. June Today is June 17th, 2026 open meeting of the Newbury Planning Board is being conducted remotely consistent with chapter two of the Acts of 2025, which extends the governor's March 12th,
2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, GL C 30A 20, until June 30th, 2027. For this meeting, the Newbury Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom
as posted on the Newbury uh Planning Board agenda, which can also be found at the town's website. You may join us by going to http semicolon slash zoom.us
and entering meeting ID number 832 7141 3056, and the passcode is 108790. Or by calling in 1929 205 6099 US and entering the meeting ID number and
passcode when prompted. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that attendees are participating by video and on telephone conference. The meeting is also being broadcast live through local access uh cable channel 9 and on Zoom
and at Newbury TV .wixsite.com/tnctv and the recording will be available on the Newbury access YouTube channel. Uh meeting business ground rules, before we turn to the first item on the agenda, permit me to cover some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of our
business and to ensure accurate meeting minutes. As Cheryl and introduce each speaker on the agenda after speakers conclude their remarks, we'll go down the list of board members inviting each by name to provide any comments, questions, or motions.
For all attendees, please remember to use your uh to mute your audio when you are not speaking. To on the Zoom, use the mute button. And on your telephone, use star six to toggle mute and unmute. There are no public um hearings this evening.
And finally, each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote. All right. Let's read the preamble. Um First item on the agenda this evening is meeting minutes. Um has everyone had a chance to review
the meeting minutes for June 3rd, 2026? And does anyone have any comments or corrections? >> I've reviewed them, Woody, and they look fine to me as drafted. >> Okay, thank you, Larry. Um with that being said um
unless anyone else has has any corrections, um I'd entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for June 3rd, 2026 as as they were written up. >> So moved. >> Yeah, I'll second. >> Larry.
Thank you, Pete. Uh roll call vote, Pete. >> Yes. >> Larry. >> Yes. >> Scott? >> Yes. >> And Steve? >> Yes. >> And I vote yes as well. And thank you for doing those meeting minutes. They're
good to keep up with them. Um next item on the agenda is liaison and meeting reports. Um we'll start first with uh ZBA, Larry, and I think I just heard there was a ZBA meeting soon. >> Uh yeah, their regular uh monthly
meeting is tomorrow night uh at town offices. Uh they have two items on the agenda, uh both special permit applications for 129 Northern Boulevard and for 15 Sunset Drive. That's really all I have to report on
those matters tonight. >> Okay. Thank you, Larry. Next is Conservation Commission. We met 2 weeks ago. The only thing that pertained to us is also on the agenda tonight. Um it regards um 34 Central Street and
the um Conservation Commission voted to approve the conservation um document, but without the road included. So, that's all I have to report. We'll touch on that in a little bit here.
Um MVP C, Kristen, um if you want to give us that report and then roll right into your planner's report. >> Um sure. Thank you. Um the MVP C Commissioners meeting is
tomorrow. Um it is the the annual in-person um pre-summer break meeting, so I will be attending in person. Um I don't think there's a big business agenda other than
um the usual updates and uh some accounting approvals for the commission, and then they take a break for the summer. Um the planners meeting is the June meeting is a week from tomorrow. Um I'll
give you a few updates from that. Um it says we'll have a MVPC program spotlight from the community and economic development team who we also uh have the luck of having on our meeting tonight. Um [snorts]
they're doing some arts and culture planning, so we're going to hear more about that at the planners meeting. Um the environment program team will be updating the planners on greenscapes materials, which is a regional
stormwater initiative outreach and education around um stormwater. They're also uh doing some uh technical assistance to all the towns for new clean energy siting and permitting um regulations that the towns
are required to implement um coming up in the next months, so Sadie [snorts] also attended a training about that um last week, I believe, and we'll be bringing more information on that clean energy permitting. Um consolidated permitting to the board
coming up. Um and then there's some updates on transportation projects including the street painting demonstration project that Sadie chaired and uh volunteered for and we talked about at the last meeting.
Um then the planners group also has a summer recess. So those are MVPC updates um in addition to again being happy to have um two of the staff members with us tonight and we'll hear more from them in a little bit.
Um planners report um let's see. Uh things are busy. We're working on closing out some projects. Sunset Club site plan, as you all may have noticed, the construction of the pavilion has gone up.
So, I know the conservation agent was out last week and will be the applicant has will be submitting their request to close out to the planning board including peer review. So, I will probably be bringing that upcoming meeting.
Um I think that's it. >> Very good. Kristen, if I may I would have had some interest in attending tomorrow's meeting, but I'm I'd rather wait until the select board approves me as the alternate
commissioner. Sort of like to keep things in order. And but then again, as luck would have it, having some dental work done tomorrow. And I guess I'd rather have dental work done than go to an MVPC end of summer or beginning of summer meeting.
But the interest Yeah. But the interest is still there. >> Thank you, Steve. We're We're glad you're you've raised your hand to step up as alternate commissioner for the town. And I guess
I didn't actually remember that the summer months are uh a vacation for the commissioners. So, I think you will have to wait till September for your first meeting, but we'll keep you posted. Thanks. >> Thank you. All right. Thank you both.
Um Turning to the next item on the agenda, I'd like to welcome Kayla and Ian from MVPC. Are you guys here? Hi, Ian. Good to see you. And Kayla
somewhere here. Hi Kayla. Um You guys uh are here this evening to present a uh introduction to a 40Y starter home zoning Merrimack Valley Planning Commission Kayla and Ian Burns.
Um So I'll leave the floor to you guys if you'd like to present. >> Sure. >> Uh and we'll go from there. We'll go to questions afterwards. Thank you. >> Great. Thanks Woody. Uh good to be back with you all again. Um I think most of
you know us but um Ian Burns with the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission for anyone listening that might not be familiar. Um MVPC is the regional planning agency here for Northeast Massachusetts. We're a public agency that supports the 15 cities and towns of the Merrimack Valley region starting
west to Methuen and east to Newburyport and every community in between. So we help uh Newbury and your neighbors with everything from housing to business development, transportation, environment and resilience planning and more. Tonight we're happy to be with you all
to talk a little bit about a new project that we're starting um both in Newbury and several of our communities across the region which is analyzing uh 40Y starter home zoning. Um I'm joined by my colleague Kayla Renny here also a part of our community and economic development team. Um Kayla while I'm
giving an intro you want to pull up the slides and we'll get um into things pretty quickly. Um >> Sure. >> I'll pull them up now. Thanks. Um So we thought we'd do a little bit of a presentation to make you all aware of the topics and kind of get everybody on
the same page with what this type of zoning is. Um happy to take questions either during the slides or we can wait till the end and take questions at the end. Um I'm just going to kick it off with a a little bit of an intro and some overarching comments and then I'm going
to hand it over to Kayla. Um Kayla we can see the presenter view on that You might need to switch the two. Under display settings. Um So, I'll go out and kick it off with a bit of an intro and then hand it over to Caleb to go through some of the details of the regulations for the zoning there.
Um and we can learn all about it. While she's getting that, I will mention that this is a state grant-funded initiative. So, um back in December, we got a grant to do this work in three of our communities. So, we're working in Newbury, North Andover,
um and Merrimack on 40Y starter home zoning. Um and then we are hopefully going to be doing this work in a couple of other communities as well. We just applied for another round of funding. That was right, Caleb? Um we applied for another round of funding for a few other communities. So, know that you are not alone in trying to
figure out how to um expand your zoning options for home builders to encourage some smaller housing types. You can go right into the agenda there, Caleb, on the next slide. So, as I mentioned, we're just going to talk briefly about what is this type of zoning, what the regulations are, talk about what it looks like should the
community decide to adopt this type of zoning, and what the benefits are of this zoning uh locally. Next slide. So, just to start you out, what exactly is 40Y starter home zoning? So, this is an optional residential zoning district communities can choose to adopt. It's
established by Chapter 40Y of Massachusetts General Laws, which is why we call it 40Y. Um in the law, it's called starter home zoning. Um the reason why it's called starter home zoning is because this type of zoning enables by-right development of smaller single-family homes. Um so, it is
enabling that because it's requiring the homes to be allowed at a density at a minimum of four units per acre. The homes have to be a maximum of 1,850 square feet built there. And a segment of the homes built within this zoning district must be set aside for folks
making at or below 110% of the area median income. So, most typically we would see this adopted as an overlay district in cities and towns, um similar to how you went through your MBTA Communities process. However, very different from MBTA Communities in the sense that this is not at all a state
requirement. It's optional for you. And we're looking at smaller single-family homes as opposed to multi-family zoning uh with this overlay district. Next slide. So, why even bother adopting 40Y Starter Home Zoning? So, a couple reasons that
communities are looking at this and are excited about it. Um number one, Newbury as well as a few other communities in our region, this was identified as a priority strategy in your Housing Production Plan. Uh many of you were on the board when we went through the HPP process, so you remember that we identified uh starter homes and a lack
of starter homes in the community as um a challenge that Newbury wanted to overcome. Although we keep referring to this as Starter Home Zoning because that's what it's called in state law, I really would call this more just right-size home zoning um because this is also for folks that might be looking to downsize. So,
you may have um an older couple that has a four-bedroom home that doesn't need anymore and is looking for smaller housing to downsize to. Um or you just might have a couple with only one child or just a young couple looking for a new house. Um so, it really is just looking at some smaller housing types knowing that Newbury is seeing mostly larger
homes built with new construction these days. Um looking at attainable ownership for those first-time home buyers like I said are downsizing seniors. Um and then one other key piece of this is that there are incentive payments offered to communities for adopting this zoning. We'll get into that later on in the presentation, but we do just want to
mention that cities and towns that adopt this zoning do get payments from the state for adopting the zoning and then get further incentive payments from the state for every unit built within the zoning district. This is very similar to 40R. I know you all don't have a 40R district in town. I think it was talked
about about 10 or 15 years ago up near the commuter rail station. Um but if you've ever heard of 40R zoning, which is uh denser multi-family, they offer incentive payments for that zoning as well. So, similar style of incentive payment option. Um and then finally, because this is
by-right zoning, you're you're creating a predictable way for developers to come forward. They know what to expect when they're considering building in that district. Incentivizes it a bit more for them to build those smaller housing types. Um and then I think with the next slide, I'm going to hand it over to Kayla,
maybe. Or I'll just I'll mention this one, so just um before we get into the details of the regulations, we wanted to give you a background of kind of what the market context is and why we're thinking about this. So, on the left, you'll see a Newbury a new construction home. This is what's typically built today because we're requiring homes on
large lots. And so, for the developers to get a profit, they have to build these large houses that are going to sell for typically over 1 and 1/2 million dollars. Um accessible to some folks, but certainly not all folks in the area. Then on the right, that is actually a newer construction. I think it was uh
the last 5 years, so it's a little bit of a more dated source, but it's within the last 5 years. That was a 1,400 square foot new construction home that sold for uh 690, just under 700,000. So, although when we're talking about um starter homes or right-size homes, um
we're trying to make them more accessible. I think we do have to acknowledge that any home construction that is new construction is naturally more expensive. We're not talking about, you know, the old outdated ranch that's selling for 500,000 in town. These are going to be new construction homes.
However, when you compare 700,000 to 1.6 million, certainly the 700,000 is more accessible for a greater variety of folks than the 1.6 million is. So, just to set those expectations there. Um smaller homes are going to be more accessible. Still expensive, but they're
helping to chip away at the folks that are not at the top of the income ladder, that can afford the 1.6 million, but really the folks um in the middle and upper middle that are looking for something that they can't find right now. Next slide. And I'm going to hand this over to Kayla now. Kayla's been doing a lot of work
digging into the regulations and the requirements. She's going to take you through a summary of what those regulations are, and then we'll get some questions from you all about uh what's outstanding for the zoning. >> All right. Thank you, Ian, for the introduction here. So, I'm going to dive
into some of the um zoning regulations for 40Y. Um I will say that, you know, these are new regulations. This is a um new program at the state level. Um so, as uh we are learning these regulations
with you, um if there are any questions that come up uh throughout either tonight or throughout the rest of this process that um we are not 100% sure about, you know, we certainly will uh get in contact with uh some folks at the state at EOHLC to uh hopefully answer
some of your questions um if we're not able to right off the bat. So, um with that said, I'm going to dive into some Oh. Let me click through here. Some of the um main requirements here. So, um in terms of the total land area that you
can use for the district, um the requirement is that any 40Y districts in your community must be below 15% of your land area. I don't think that Newbury will run into that issue, but um something to note here is
that while there technically is no minimum, um the uh incentive payments, which we'll get into a little bit later, um are really tied to, you know, how many of those um units we could really see in terms of production. So, um
something to think about when you're thinking about what areas you want to look at um and the scale of the districts you want to choose. You know, ideally we're not looking at just a couple acres, um, because, you know, that's going to limit what type of payment you could get, um, if you only
have a certain, um, level of development that could be done on a small area. So, um, while you're probably not going to get up to, you know, 15% of your land area, um, definitely something to consider in terms of maximizing what those incentive payments could be. Um, as we mentioned before, there is a
minimum density of four units per acre. Um, however, um, you can actually require a higher density at the local level. So, that is certainly something we can explore. Um, something that's really interesting about this zoning is that 50% of the homes must have three or
more bedrooms. Um, so we think about, you know, encouraging, uh, new housing that is ideal for, you know, young families. Um, so that is a requirement that half of the homes in a project have to have three or more bedrooms. Um, and then with the zoning in the overlay
district, if you choose to go that route, you can allow for some mixed use, um, and some other limited non-residential uses. And this district must, um, in the it must have, uh, developable land. And we'll get into that in a second here.
Um, there is a very specific definition in the 40B zoning that, um, kind of goes into what's considered developable land. So, somewhat unlike the 40 or, uh, the MBTA process that we looked at, you know,
they were very focused on, you know, that kind of theoretical capacity, what could be built, um, even if there were existing, um, you know, businesses on that lot or homes on that lot, um, that wasn't that didn't matter so much when it came to
the MBTA zoning. This is a little bit of a different process. So, the state's really looking at, um, these 40B districts that are located on land that can be feasibly developed. So this could mean either
vacant land if there are lots that don't currently have anything on it or lots that, you know, if you're thinking about maybe a commercial space that's been significantly vacant or, you know, has had a closed down business for a long time, that kind of thing.
That's really what we're talking about here. So this does exclude things like land that's substantially developed including open space there, rights of ways, public land unless it can be considered underutilized land. So think, you know, maybe a school that had
closed down or something. Um and then any areas that have significant constraints, environmental constraints. Something to think about here, we actually asked one of the folks at EOHLC to give us a little bit more,
you know, perspective on what could be considered developable and the way that they framed it was the bar for underutilized land is fairly high while the bar for substantially developed land is fairly low.
So that's something to consider if we're going that route and of course we will definitely have a lot more discussions about potential locations kind of as this process goes along. Thinking about the affordability requirements, 40Y is zoning does require
that any project that contains 12 or more homes includes a set-aside of 10% of those units as affordable to households that are at or below 110% AMI. They do not allow for a payment in lieu.
However, communities can provide other incentives such as density bonuses to obtain additional affordability requirements here. They must be integrated and comparable within the development. Um, and the regulations do state that the income
restriction has to apply for at least 30 years. However, communities can require them to uh be in perpetuity. Um, a few other additional zoning considerations is that the um projects
that are completed within the starter home zoning, um they must be built essentially under the starter home zoning requirements for to qualify. So, for example, if a developer came in and wanted to build something within the 40Y
zone, um but they wanted to under or they wanted to utilize the um underlying zoning, um you know, thinking about dimensional standards and uses and things like that, um they could certainly do so, but you're not going to qualify for any sort of um of those
incentive payments um when it comes to um thinking about what those project benefits are. So, um definitely a little bit more um interest in uh getting projects done in this zone that do fall under uh the 40Y zoning um
in order to get those benefits. Um of course, there's no age-based or prohibited occupancy restrictions. However, the town is allowed to um require that there are no short-term rental you know, things like that if you want to restrict those. Um you also must
have um if you need to go to have design standards, they must be objective and flexible essentially not to render the project infeasible. Um and site plan review decisions have to be done in a timely manner within 120 days. Um there are exceptions if there needs to be an extension or something, but typically
that's what they're looking for. And a little bit about the approval process. So, um something that's also a little bit different to the MBTA uh communities zoning process, um if you think back to MBTA zoning when we did I
think we did pre adoption application. So you can have that review as part of that process and I believe it was up to the town if they wanted to submit the zoning for EOHLC to take a look at it before bringing it to town meeting.
This is actually required with a 40Y zoning. So essentially what the town would do is submit the zoning to EOHLC prior to bringing it to town meeting. EOHLC would issue ideally a letter of determination to say that this zoning is
eligible and then the town can choose to bring it to town meeting and hopefully vote to adopt it within three years of being determined that it is eligible by EOHLC. And then EOHLC would issue a final approval within the
about a month after the adoption. And if there are any changes then of course we would still need to identify those. And if there are any amendments at a future town meeting that would also need to go by EOHLC. However, they will they could approve minor modifications.
There is also an annual report that goes along with that. Um with the 40Y zoning. So the town would submit essentially a progress report each year to show what's been done in the district. Um So something to keep in mind here is
that once the approval has gone through for the zoning, there is a incentive payment which we'll get into in a second. And then there's also a separate incentive payment for actual production. So um
before we dive into that, I just want to give a couple definitions here for how they discuss the different units in the regulations. So you have your existing zone units. This is the maximum number of units that are considered buildable by right under
your current zoning. So, you think if you have single-family zoning district, that you're allowed to build, you know, one unit on one acre lot, that's your existing zoned units. Your bonus units are the number of starter homes that are actually developed that
are in excess of these existing zoned units. So, if you think about if you have one unit that originally was allowed by right under the current zoning, and now under the new zoning, you're allowed to have, you know, that four units per acre under the starter
home zoning, that would be three bonus units. Um and then there's future zone units, which is the maximum units buildable by right under 40Y zoning. So, um this is essentially looking at what that maximum is, um not necessarily what's actually
built, um but what could be built. So, um if you think about what you have for your district total, um that is um your future zone units right there. And then your incentive units is essentially the future zone units minus your existing zone units.
I know that's a lot, so uh the way we look at this is you really want to focus on those incentive units and how many units you could have potentially in excess of your current zoning because that affects your um one-time zoning incentive payment
that the town would get for adopting the zoning. And your bonus units is a number of units that are actually built. So, the way that this looks is um broken down into these two different categories here. So, again, your zoning incentive payment is that one-time payment to the
town um based on that number of incentive units. So, it's actually very similar to um Chapter 40R um in how many incentive units um are in the district, that determines the
payment that you get for that zone once you approve the zoning. Your production bonus payments are a one-time $3,000 payment per bonus unit. So, say you have a project that ends up having 20 bonus units, then the town
would also get an additional $60,000 payment. So, this is really one of the key reasons why communities are interested in the 40R starter zoning. Of course, not just to encourage the
development of starter homes and to adjust the town zoning to allow for that, but also to get some financial benefits to the town. So, it's really great that the state created this program to not only encourage that type of um
that type of development, but also to give the town some reward for including this develop this type of zoning in their town. So, thinking about the timeline here, we did receive a One Stop grant to assist
Newbury with exploring the zoning through next June, so think about a year from now. So, over the summer we'll go through kind of the preliminary steps of this process. So, this includes of course our presentation to you all and we'll continue working with Kristen
and other municipal staff members to start looking at some potential locations, excuse me. Looking towards the end of the summer going into the fall, we'll start taking a look at some of those locations. Ideally, we'd present this with the
planning board and hopefully do some public engagement around this as well to get of course your feedback, but also some public feedback on some potential locations. And then in the spring going into the
spring next year if the town decides to continue to pursue this and bring this to a town meeting in the spring we would help by drafting the zoning bylaw and then of course we would review this
with the planning board and support that process. What I will say is that this is certainly your process so if you decide you know based on public feedback or based on you know some of the concerns if you
have any with the zoning this is certainly something that we can leave with you all you know we can still provide you with some of that draft language essentially so you have all the tools in your tool kit to pursue this of course if you want to move through
town meeting next year that is certainly something that we will help with but if the town also decides that this is something that they want to continue to explore then you certainly don't have to take it up at town meeting if you decide hey we want to you know give it a
little bit more time maybe this is better for the following town meeting that certainly works for us we're really here to support your thoughts on this process and provide help in any way we can but certainly not a requirement to bring
it to town meeting but if that's something that the town decides that that's the direction they want to take we're happy to support. So that's essentially it for the 40 Y zoning I know that that was kind of a lot of information so if you have any questions of course we
hope to answer them if there's anything here that we've covered and we're not 100% sure of the answer of we also will certainly reach out to the folks at EOHLC to get some clarity. >> Thank you Kayla. And thank you Ian.
Um >> [clears throat] >> I guess I'll turn it over to the the board um with some questions. There's a lot of information there as you stated, Caleb. But uh we'll start with questions. Pete, do you have any questions for Caleb or Ian on
this? >> Well, first, thanks for the presentation, guys, and it's great to have you back uh in in in our our forum again. Uh couple things. Um did I understand Ian correctly that is this mostly for folks
that are at a medium income level or there's a certain percentage of units that would be set aside for that? >> Yeah, there is a certain amount set aside. And so, any um development that is 12 units or more has to set aside units for folks making at 110% of the
median income or below. Um when I was giving my example at the beginning, that was a market rate unit. So, I was basically sharing that, you know, the market rate new construction, it's not going to be cheap, but it's not going to be as expensive as your, you know, new McMansions are. >> Okay. So, if there was an eight eight-unit, which would be
uh two two acres, that wouldn't have to worry about that threshold. That could be to the open market. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh and did I also see that this would also allow for an ADU along with uh the primary residence?
Less than 800 square feet, is that what it was? >> 600 square feet. >> 600 square feet. Okay. >> Yeah. And that's why the town can also um restrict the maximum square footage. So, right now, the maximum is 1850 square feet for the starter home. You
can restrict that locally to a lower uh threshold, but you can't go below 1200 because of course you don't want any ADUs to be, you know, more than half of the primary home uh size. So, that's why that number is there. >> Okay. And I understand the incentives to
town, which is nice. Is there any thought of doing incentives to developers because that's really who we have to sell this concept to. Is there any thought of that with this legislation? >> So, really the incentive is that they're
allowed to build more dense by right than what they would be otherwise. And so, my understanding, I was not part of drafting the regulations, but they did involve the Home Builders Association in drafting the regulations to make sure that that was there were enough carrots there that they would want to build under this zoning. So, my understanding
is that there's an incentive there as it is. I mean, you all can always as a town, you know, you don't have a ton of tools in your toolbox cuz you lack, you know, CPA funds or otherwise, but um there are certain forms of permitting relief that some communities might want to offer if they really want to incentivize this like fees, permitting fees, or
otherwise, but really the streamlined uh approval is the incentive. >> Cuz not the hardest sell I see is to get a developer to say, "Hey, let's put in eight units in four and you know, in two acres." I just I not that I want to say it's a non-starter, but um it's going to be
really difficult in considering our our infrastructure, lack thereof, our buildable areas, we have a lot of land, but we don't have a lot of buildable land. Or we do, but it's, you know, it has
limitations. Um I'm trying to appreciate how the this, which is a great program, can dovetail into our community realistically. >> Certainly. And we can engage as part of the process, you know, we're happy to to bring in some folks that have built
typical subdivisions in town before and get their feedback on it as we're crafting it, too. That could be beneficial. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it very much. >> Thank you, Pete. Larry, do you have any questions for the board? >> just a few, Woody. Thanks. Um so, this
presumably the 40 Y would be an overlay district. And would it necessarily have to be a contiguous overlay district or could you have different areas in town? >> You can have different Yeah, you can have these located in a couple different
areas of town. So, you can have essentially like sub-districts within the same overlay and they can be located in a couple of other areas. >> Okay, and how would the affordable units future sales be monitored? Who'd be responsible for that?
>> That would follow so that the homeowner would have in their deed restrictions and through their partnership with the state instructions for future resale. So, when it goes up for resale the homeowner would have to notify the appropriate agency at the state to help with that resale. The town's not responsible for
it although it would, you know, could help advertise for it. Basically, that's also to be done with some of the partnerships at the state level. >> Okay, and I'm not quite clear how the 15% limitation is is calculated. Is that just on gross acreage in the town or is
it just buildable areas? How How do you calculate that? >> I think for that restriction it's just that you can't exceed 15% of your total land area not just like just specifically developable land. Um
I don't think that that's going to be too much of an issue because that's a lot of land. Um so, I don't think there's going to be much risk of running up against that restriction. >> Well, well, when you're setting that 100% mark, you're including things like
salt marsh and wetlands and pretty much everything in town. >> I would think so, yes. >> Okay, thanks. That's all I would need. >> All right, thank you, Larry. Scott, do you have any questions or comments? >> Um
no questions, just a comment. Um Um you know, thank you for coming to present. Um this is um much needed. Um I'm fairly aware. I talked with Kristen. Um
and um I did a little research um before the meeting. So, um very interesting. Uh can't wait to hear some more. Uh very supportive. Um this is exactly, you know, what we need. But, to Pete to Pete's point, um
you know, eight units uh you know, on two acres. Um you know, Joe and you know, a septic system um or a community septic system um or, you know, two four-unit or two systems that will support four units.
It's it's uh it's going to be difficult to um I guess um get some of these things, you know, built. Um But, uh again, um all ears. Uh
love to try. Uh very supportive. Um and and um we'll see what happens. >> Thank you, Scott. Steve, do you have any questions or comments? >> Yeah. >> Like Ian and Caleb? >> Sure. Uh first of all, again, let me join the chorus of saying thank you for
coming out to talk to us about it. And a lot of the things that were on my mind have already been discussed, but I just want to revisit my uh scratching my head over uh what the maximum size of the units can be 1,800 square feet. And I'm thinking about then if you add
in a by-right ADUs, and then maybe a driveway, and maybe a deck, it's like at some point uh we're all all all use my favorite phrase, we're all decked out. And where is the space for people to
enjoy the great outdoors? And so, I have an underlying concern about just the physical space being taken up um by structures, let alone the uh septic systems and water requirements that uh Scott alluded to as well.
I mean, if I've got the numbers right, you could basically have a total coverage, and not total coverage, but something approaching it, where there is no great outdoors for uh the people that live in those three-bedroom, maybe even more than three-bedroom units to go outside and
play. And that gets into issues of open space, and do you have to get in the car and drive someplace distant to play ball. So, as time goes on, I think I'd be very
uh concerned about how what the build-out looks like, particularly if uh there's a lot of uh by right build-outs that could occur. >> Yeah, I will say I will say that it's um I think it's a uh fair thing to think about in terms of the amount of space in the build-out of
couple things to keep in mind as we go through this process. First being that we you know, we still have the ability to put in um maximum lot coverage requirements for um impervious surfaces within the the zoning. So, we can make sure that they're not building out an entire lot.
I'll also say that, you know, what we're talking about here is probably roughly a 10,000 square foot lot with four per acre, and that's not abnormal from some of the neighborhoods that we see in our other suburban communities. Um the hope being that if we are developing in a denser area like that, the
great outdoors, so to speak, and the preserve land could be much larger, more common outside in the development, um instead of mostly um watered grass lawns, which we see are a big drain on resources in most of our communities. Um but, something to think about, we should look at those lot coverage requirements
and those um setbacks to make sure that we're not looking at total build-out. And I did want to mention uh Larry, we just took another look just to confirm that total land area requirement is the total land area. So, it would include like the salt marsh when you're looking at 15%. Um
in there. >> Let me also add Ian that when you start having a you know, hard structures, whether it be the driveway or the roofs of a um all the structures, that creates a lot of runoff, which has implications for what goes on with the water table, which then translates into the septic
system, whether it be a community system or something else and uh one can always make a model, but then again, if you've got a uh severe event, the model may go to uh may not be adequate to predict what
really happens. >> Definitely. >> Okay, thank you, Steve. And I'll just say that uh all of you board members touched on a lot of thoughts that I had on septics, water supply, uh
lot coverage, um you know, the Larry has a good point if it's 15% of the of the total land area of Newbury, that's that that's a lot different than 15% of
uh buildable area in I'm I guess to close out, I I'm eager to see um what we come up with for potential areas for something like this to work in in town. Cuz there are there are still some
places that this would work in. I think it's a great idea, but uh you know, there's a lot of things to hash out, but thank you for your presentation. >> Oh, Woody, may I add one other thing that I um meant to mention? I think this follows up on Larry's
comment about uh when a property changes hands where it might be income restricted, how do we know? And I think I heard you said Ian say that it
you notify the state. And the town wouldn't necessarily be involved. And I find myself thinking, "Gee, that becomes a way where gosh darn it, I forgot to tell the state." And then time goes by. So,
I find myself being a little bit concerned about how relying upon the owner seller to notify the state sort of makes it not visible to the town. And seeing how things can happen with uh
I'll [clears throat] say enforcement follow-up, that gets me a little bit concerning, too, in that I think in my mind, the locals need to be involved in the uh information flow. Or at least that's a concern I would have. >> Thank you, Steve. And that also kind of triggered a thought that I had about
that, as well. It was um uh couple live there and has three bedrooms and has kids. Um and they they move on to another world and does it does it get passed down to the
kids, you know, or is it is it a forced sale? So, that's kind of a thought I had that, too, but >> Mhm. >> That's you have an answer to that now or not, but it's something to think about. >> Um so, I would have to look at
typically, so there's a deed writer that goes with the affordable home purchase. Um and so, that would stipulate um typically the person that purchased the home has to live in the home full-time. Um I'd have to look at how it's usually written. Um
and then in the that that deed writer are for details on how much you can then you're limited in how you much you can resell it for. You have to resell it at an affordable price as well. And so that would all be with the deed of the home itself. And so when a real estate agent or anyone is going through that, that's
going to be caught at some point. We do certainly have other communities in our region that have staff that assist with those home sales and help hire um the agent that does the listing for it. You need a special lottery listing agent fees affordable home sales. Um but not all communities have staff to do
that. That's why the state helps with it. But if it's something that Newbury wants to be a bit more involved in, we certainly can look at um how you can best position the town to run and help administer that. Typically communities pay for that with CPA funding, which is your challenge in
Newbury. >> Okay. Thank you. So there's no dying and passing on to your kids. >> Right. >> Um any other questions from board members? And if there's anyone from the public that has any questions, um I'll entertain a question or two.
Keep them brief. And I can't see raised hands, so if Kayla or Kristen, if you don't if you see any, just speak up. >> Um not any right now. >> Okay.
Well, I'll leave it with unless you have some comments, Kristen, I'd leave it with Thank you, Kayla, and thank you, Ian, for your presentation. It's been very informative. Excuse me. And you've left us all with a lot to think about, and we look forward to
getting some more information in the future as well. >> Thank you, guys. >> All right. >> Thank you. Have a great night. You, too. >> you for the gift. All right. Um If everyone doesn't mind, I'm going to jump ahead to
um the next item on the agenda. Um So I'm going to jump ahead on the agenda here and go right to the request for partial release >> That's the Western Boulevard. >> [laughter] >> Western Boulevard. Um request for
partial release security funds for Cypress Hall subdivision at 100 High Road. Success map R34 lot 21. Property owner 100 High LLC applicant Tom Neely. Is Tom Neely here? Does anyone see him?
>> I don't see him. >> Okay, well, I'm recused. I'm going to turn this over to Pete. And we'll do 100 High. >> Okay, sure thing. Starting with you, thanks. Um so, Tom's not here. Um Kristen, could you just bring us up to
speed where we're at with this update? >> Um so, as you know, this was a three-lot subdivision that's under construction. So, as such, the board has holds performance guarantee funds
for the project. So, this is a request from the applicant to release a portion of the funds that is matched with the portion of the work that has been completed on the construction. So, [snorts] the request has been reviewed by um
the town's inspector for construction and engineer peer review. And um it's all set. So, it is a match to the work that has been completed. >> Okay, so,
we have a green light from our consultants with regards to releasing. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh let me see if anybody has any questions. Uh Larry, any questions? >> No. No. >> Okay. Uh Steve, any questions? >> No. >> Uh Scott, any questions? >> No.
>> All right. Um then I would entertain a motion to release $19,150 from the security account being held by the town for Cypress Hollow subdivision leaving $19,412 in the account.
>> Double. >> Thank you, Larry. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you very much, Steve. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion. Roll call vote, Steve. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Larry? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Scott? >> Yes.
>> Thank you very much. Okay. What do you expect to you? >> Thank you, Pete. Um next item on the agenda, uh request for modification of 34 Central Street level two site plan review for Byfield Heights. A 44-unit multi-family development in
the Newbury zoning bylaw section 97-4G and BTA communities multi-family overlay district at 34 Central Assessors Map R19- 0-19.
Owner's applicant, Massachusetts Housing Opportunities Corporation LLC. Um [clears throat] I would like to uh Kristen, if you would, could you post uh could you put up on the screen um condition E
from the decision? And I'd like to welcome um town council, Jay Talerman. Are you here with us this evening? >> Yes, I see you there. >> Um Uh hi, Jay. How are you? >> Doing well. >> All right. Um we're here this evening
because of condition E and the Conservation Commission um ruling last week. Um And do we have Jerry Welch and Mike Ivers here?
And Christian? And I try I Mark Grabowski. Um So, I guess while we wait for the decision needed to pop up, um
I'll ask the applicant to present their request for modification. >> Yeah, I think I will I will lead unless um unless Mark jumps in front, but that's uh perfectly fine if he does. Um so, I know that uh
Chairman Knight was uh was part of all of the Conservation Commission proceedings. Um I actually was only in attendance for the last couple uh specific to the uh to the exit lane. >> [snorts] >> And essentially,
you know, what it boiled down to is is our our environmental consultant presented this application to the commission, and I believe back in October 2025, and uh brought it through several rounds of hearings, which resulted in uh
some mitigation efforts, uh some buffer mitigation efforts uh largely in the area where the uh the chicken coops were um and the you know, the the waterfowl were were um housed, so to speak. And uh that all remains
aside from the wetland mitigation area um because without obviously the wetland impact area, there's no need to mitigate that, but all of the buffer mitigation that was put in place uh remains on the plan as well as the uh
offsite improvement to the correction uh of the Central Court intersection to make it uh more 90° at Central Street. Um and and we really did uh you know, put through our best efforts. We we kind
of ran into a catch-22 where to to meet the um the stream crossing uh was basically because of the height between the existing grade and the top of or excuse me, the bottom of the uh of
the three-sided box culvert. Um that was the facet on which we did not meet the uh the stream crossing. In order to rectify that, we would have had to elevate the road, which would have increased our actual physical wetland impact area.
And I think most of you are aware that, you know, minimization is the is the second tier of criteria that both the state and the conservation commissioner tasked to look at. Um and the other one was we had about 100 ft of road after the low point, which
was obviously at the wetland crossing, uh that in order to collect that, the road would have had to have been curbed, uh probably elevated again, uh but then the the water the stormwater from that 100 ft would have had to be collected in
a closed drainage system and piped uh to the slightly revised bio-retention pond up near uh Central Street. And again, that would have resulted in a pretty significant increase in the actual physical wetland impact area. Um the
there was another facet that did not get written into or mentioned in the uh conservation order of conditions, um but you know, the their first uh issue or or assessment uh is for avoidance and
obviously with the two two-lane and in and out at Central Street, uh that is that was also at play, um I believe in the decision-making, but it did not make the order of uh order of conditions. Um that is largely it. I mean, by and
large, everything else uh remains as was approved back in November. Um we have gone through a number of the conditions, which I think we have discussed with at least in writing with the planning department. And that
is under the planning certificate of approval and order of conditions. We have received selectmen approval for the offsite improvements. Um >> [clears throat] >> we have
gotten conservation commission approval of the storm water design without the egress onto Central Court. We've received septic approval by well, authorization by Joe Serwarka and approval by the uh Board of Health.
We have received our Byfield water approval. We have provided the exterior lighting certification under letter J. Final landscape plans have been presented under letter L in the conditions.
And finally letter S, the final engineering review. That was sealed up back in back in December, I believe. But aside from that, I will entertain any questions the board may have or if Mark Bobrowski wants to to
chime in with anything further. Obviously, I would I would welcome that as well. You know, otherwise, I will entertain any questions or comments from the board at this point. >> Okay, thank you, Christian. Um
Pete, do you have any questions for Christian? Questions or comments? >> You're muted, Pete. >> Uh sorry. Uh I didn't want you to hear the whining dog that was by my side. Um
so we we see the we see the language on the screen uh to why we're here. So if we could drop that down uh now that we've had an opportunity to to uh see that. And um I'd like to get um kind of at at this point in in in in the conversation, uh Jay, I'd like to kind of
uh direct uh have you direct comments and uh recommendations to to our board now as to where we go with this, and then that might stimulate the conversation of questions that would follow. >> So, the the board's review here is it
it's in kind of two and a half parts, the way I see it. First of all, it's incumbent upon the the applicant, and they've suggested they have, but that's up to the board to decide, that the that they tried, and and they used best efforts to get this approved. I'm not
suggesting they did or didn't, but that's up for them to demonstrate to the board. If they meet that burden, that they did everything that they could. It's doesn't mean that they had to do um you know, spend a gazillion dollars or whatever, but reasonably did made
best efforts to explore all opportunities to do that um secondary access. If they did that, we're on to step two. Step two then would be, "Okay, are you all all right with the access as
proposed, or do you want to Would you want to impose additional conditions to make that access better, or to somehow address the issue regarding the single access?" And then the half a step that I would say is,
"If you're okay with just the original access plan, and you don't see any changes necessary to the plan as part of that step two, then no peer review is required. If you required some kind of reorientation or some kind of
improvement with respect to that access plan, then you do have the opportunity for some limited peer review that would be focused on that particular modification or condition that that you were looking at there. But it should be germane just to that
particular condition or alteration. So it probably be fairly abbreviated in nature. So those are the the steps and the considerations that you have you know, single access roadways. Um No one's a particular fan of them or single access developments. No one's a
super fan of them. Um there's a number of concerns with respect to blockage. So those are that's the inquiry. The board took it really seriously the first time around. You in particular, Peter, raised a lot of concerns about it. So I think there's opportunity for some good discussion
here on where you go next. >> Great Great, Jay. Thank you for for framing that cuz that helps. Cuz you know, as you said, I I I have been very concerned with Line of Sight is a big thing for me. And to go from an ideal standard now back down to a minimal standard, I want
to make sure that we have exhausted everything possible so that we don't lose this possibility of an ideal standard, which I think is in the community's best interest. So, how do we determine uh best efforts? Um that's kind of a question that I just
want to kick back to you for a second. >> So, you're not going to what you're not going to find is like some kind of standard for that. It's really a kind of, you know, everyone thinks that the law operates on some kind of standard for everything and there's a bright line
for everything. There is not. So, here I think it's a like in many areas of the law, it's a reasonableness standard. So, if you make further inquiries of Christian or his team at all and say, "Okay, did you explore this?" Or with respect to that 100-foot issue that was
mentioned there, did you consider this? Or if you wanted to explore perhaps another way of getting at it with the ConCom, did you consider this? Now, it very well may be that the ConCom wasn't going to move at all on this regardless.
Just it is a wetland alteration, so I could see some ConComs not doing that. But if you reasonably believed that without you know, going through extraordinary lengths that would cost that would be prohibitively expensive,
that there was something else that they could have done, then you can hold them to that. And that would be the inquiry. So, I'm not saying that we shouldn't trust what Christian says, but it is kind of one of those trust but verify situations on on
that on that first step there. >> So, I think you just hit for me, um you you brought something uh some clarity. Um I that and that that that need to um trust but but but to to to clarify. And
so, if we go down that pathway, um help me um teasing information out of you here, Jay. Help me with what that looks like because um I'm I'm on that page right now.
>> So, this is super technical stuff. So, um I think it would be important to know whether by getting information from folks that work directly with the ConCom or from Joe, your uh consultant uh peer
reviewer on this, if there was a feeling that if the applicant had done X or explored this kind of technology, would that have been possible or feasible to maybe do that secondary access in a way that would make that
would still be doable again without being ridiculously um cumbersome. So, I can't sit here and tell you what that is, but I think you have the opportunity to rely upon people that know this stuff and do
this stuff for a living and people that are on kind of your side of this equation. Again, not distrusting Christian at all, but you're entitled to get advice and consultation from folks that you trust and might utilize. >> Well, I feel very comfortable with that
because having been a surgeon, I often encourage patients to go for a second opinion and sometimes a third opinion. So, I'm very comfortable with that approach. Um and I think that is something that probably this board would want to give some consideration to. So, thanks for answering my questions for now, Jay. Woody, that's all that I have
right now. Thanks. >> Thank you, Pete. Larry, do you have any questions or comments? >> Uh yeah, just on this subject, Joe. I I would like a quick comment. Um one thing that caught my eye on the on the North uh letter of um
uh June 10th on the third page, um it talks about steps that could be taken to um uh meet the uh standards requirements. I think it's stormwater management and uh stream crossing standards if I understand it
correctly. Um uh and it talks about uh some things they could do to bring that into compliance, but also does comment on on the fact that it would have additional um significant impacts on the wetlands. So,
I I guess what I'm asking uh is has the Conservation Commission ruled out that approach? In other words, who's making the call that that that the additional um uh impacts would be unacceptable? Is it
the ConCom or the developer? >> Well, is is that question for me, Larry? >> It's for anybody who wants to wants to address it. >> So, again, the particular question is what is whose responsibility it is to
>> Well, no. I I I probably didn't state it very clearly, Jay. Um the this language in this uh the North's environmental letter, again, it's on the third page. Um maybe I should read it.
It says, "Um I'm taking this uh just a part of this uh compliance with the required openness ratio would necessitate raising the roadway profile by approximately 1.5 ft. Uh such a redesign would increase the extent of grading and road fill,
resulting in additional impacts to the wetland resource area and buffer area, which I I think as a I have a layman's understanding of um but um the the objection, if I understand it, is that
the openness ratio is too small. And what they're saying here is, "Well, we can fix that, but but it it wouldn't be acceptable." And I'm wondering if if the Conservation Commission has considered whether that would be acceptable or not,
if that was part of the presentation, for example, to the ConCom. Does that make my question any clearer? >> It does. I mean, I think maybe I'd ask Woody to cuz I think he spent more time closer to it than most of us here on our
on the planning board side, so what his sense of that was is probably pretty important. >> Yep. I I was trying to say something but I didn't want to interrupt you, Jeff. Um >> [clears throat] >> Well, sitting on this, it was on the agenda for a long time, but no action
was really taken and it came down to really three meetings, Larry. The first meeting was presented as a uh intermittent stream crossing with no endangered species of habitat. Um and man and also called man-made.
And then it took a turn in the second meeting. Second and third, I guess. I think there were four altogether, maybe. Um second and third meeting that you know, this stuff was presented and DP comments were coming back and that
there was identified that the culvert needed to be uh 1 ft taller, which would also affect grading. And by the third meeting, it was that they couldn't treat the last 100 ft of storm water and
the culvert and I feel as though it was given up from there. But it was laid out to we we the chair of the ComCom laid it out that
Heidi, who was sitting in for Mason because Mason's recused, write two decisions. One approval of an access road and one a denial. And that's fine and dandy. We closed the
public hearing and we went on to the next meeting in 2 weeks and that was our last meeting. And at that last meeting, it was laid out so that there was no vote for the access road. It was the
access road was excluded. The uh no offense, Christian, but that you said you couldn't make the calculations work. And we voted on the whole conservation package with the road excluded. So, we never had a vote on the road.
And it was never So, I don't feel it was fully vetted and I believe we only had one round in the tail end of meeting see a one round of DEP comments. I if that answers your question, Larry.
That's my recollection of it all sitting there. And the we didn't vote we we we work we couldn't speak to public safety or let public safety rule into our voting
uh process. And that's one of the two decisions we were ordered to be written. And then we couldn't we there was no more new information and we didn't vote. We didn't actually vote on access road. It was removed from the
from the table. So. Does that answer your question, Larry? >> Uh yeah, I think so, Woody. I think so. >> Any other questions or comments, Larry? >> Uh no not on the subject. No. >> Okay, thank you.
Scott, do you have any questions or comments? >> I guess I just I don't I might not understand it as much as Larry May. Um are you are you saying that um
there was no vote? >> There was a vote on the whole conservation uh decision. But the the road was the access road was removed from the decision. As of my understanding I asked for a clarification
right in the meeting are we voting on the road in the road was removed from the decision. We voted on the whole conservation package. And I see Christian's got his hand raised too. He might be able to put his spin on it.
I might not be saying correctly, but that's my recollection of it. We don't We didn't vote on a road. We voted on the whole conservation the whole site as one package with the road removed. And that's what we voted. We There was
no never a vote for the road. Yes or no. >> Okay. Uh Christian, um would you like to uh take the floor for a minute? >> Yes, please. >> You're beautiful, Christian. >> Uh yes, thank you, uh Scott. I just wanted to address a couple of points.
And the first of which being that uh the the commission did have us send out the plans and the full design of that crossing, the road, the culvert, all of it uh to Joseph Wodka for review.
And essentially his memo that came back to the commission agreed with us entirely um with regard to the fact that any of those modifications to that elevating the road a foot and a half,
and I'm not sure that the foot and a half foot and a half would have even facilitated the ability to put in catch basins and a and a drain manhole along with a culvert that would then lead to the uh bio-retention pond. Uh but that being said, Joe concurred with
our with our position that, you know, that this 100 ft of 20-ft wide exit exit lane what difference could that possibly make uh because you've got the entirety of
Central Court that has no collection system, no drainage uh treatment, or anything of that nature that runs into the same wetland. Um so the addition of the 100 ft really is moot and and and other point I wanted to bring up is that the uh
the opening of that of that culvert at the end of the day once we responded to all of the uh DEP comments um was 12 ft in width and that what is what was driving the elevation requirement for the stream
crossing. Now when we looked at that at that storm water event of the 100-year storm uh it it came nowhere near the bottom of that culvert. [clears throat] The culvert was not nearly full. So it was more than capable of carrying the largest storm that anybody looks at uh
in an engineering design. Um which which is a huge event by the way. That's that's around 10 in of storm water in 24 hours. That's a big event. That's that's pretty close to a hurricane if not. Um
specific to how they how they got to what the what the order of conditions were the the suggested order of conditions from Heidi. Um it's my understanding now this is all hearsay. Uh but that the the
chairman of the Conservation Commission actually spoke to somebody at Mass DEP and Mass DEP was was basically saying without the storm water he I don't believe they mentioned the stream crossing issue but without this collection of that last 100
ft which again would have produced a a much larger wetland and buffer impact uh that that DEP probably would have appealed a a an affirmative decision to the exit road. I think that's why they they ended up with what they ended up
with to vote on is what he had mentioned. But I I just wanted to bring those points up and again uh I'm I'm just going to mention I'm not trying to be contentious in any way, but um you know, the the safe sight distance according to the traffic reg- or the
national traffic standards um are met and and that question is is a yes or no question. Is safe sight distance met looking east? It is. By a couple of feet, I will grant everybody that. I
don't know that that alleviates anybody's concern. But you know, the the contention that meeting the safe sight standard is not adequate is is blatantly incorrect.
And and I'll I'll leave it at that and entertain any other points that the board may have. >> Okay, thank you Christian. Scott, do you have any other comments or questions? >> Uh no. >> Okay. Steve, do you have any comments or questions?
>> Woody, can I just on on Christian's last point there? >> I didn't see your hand. >> Yeah, I think the I mean I think the sight distance issue is important sight and stopping distance and it you know, it's barely adequate here, but I'm not saying it's inadequate. I'm not trying
to be argumentative, but when it comes to single access developments, sight distance is a is a factor, but that's not why the planning community doesn't like single access
uh projects. I mean, lack of sight distance would might exacerbate the issue. The problem is that there's no redundant access. That's the reason why single access projects are not favored by the planning community. Now, we
they get approved from time to time and there are cul-de-sac length limitations and there's other safeguards you can do, but really the primary issue that you that most planning boards are concerned about when it comes to single
access is what happens in the event of blockage, what are the what are the precautions and safeguards whether it's width or the ability to access the the unit that's the furthest from the main entrance of the project. That's the
issue that the board I think would be working to address in terms of the the conditions, improving that site access that that sight distance is certainly would be a benefit too. But mitigating for the fact that there's
no secondary emergency ingress and egress is normally the primary thing that that we look at. And I'm not a traffic expert and maybe the their traffic expert has already addressed this through various considerations regarding width and radii and the
ability of a fire truck to get in even even if there's some blockage out there, but that's the issue that um that I think is going to be on your plate when you're considering whether or not to impose additional conditions if you're satisfied that the
applicant did their best on the wetlands issue. >> Thank you, Jay. Christian, you have your hand raised? >> Yep. Thank you, uh Chairman Knight. And and Jay, I don't disagree with anything you just said. Um but I will note in
this case that the the single access portion, in other words, the entrance road to the point that it loops back onto itself, um there are a few hundred feet that are going to be cleared for homes, for the drainage
pond, uh for the uh the bus uh the bus stop location for the children, the mail kiosk. Uh once this road is constructed, there is virtually the the only thing that could block it
essentially would would be a vehicle accident. And in that event, the emergency vehicles, my assumption would be, headed to the accident. Um but with regard to that, the clearing is is wide enough
that there is is very going to be extremely low propensity for something natural like a tree falling across the road and that kind of thing. Um I I just wanted to to clarify that point. And I do not disagree with anything anything that you said, Jay. I understand all of
that. >> Okay. Thank you, Christian. Um Steve, do you have any comments or questions? >> No, I do not. >> Okay. Thank you, Steve. Pete. >> Woody, yeah. So, Christian, not to go back and forth, but
what what what Joe did was he reviewed what you presented. So, he said, yes, this does and no, this doesn't on what was presented. My concern is could this be engineered differently? I don't have the answer to that. I am
not an engineer, but I have a high degree of question as to whether this could be mitigated in a different manner. And I think the only way that I'm going to feel comfortable is if I have someone, as was suggested, that would
look at this from that from that lens to assure this board that in fact all best efforts were were were were performed. And this is not meant to be inflammatory to you, but I don't know that, and I don't
have that answer. What I have is that our peer or the peer review looked at what was presented to him and said, no, it wouldn't work. Is there another option that wasn't presented to the peer review? Usually, when we have applicants come before us and we tell them that peer review said
no, the applicant says, "Okay, let me go back to the drawing board. Let me see what I can do to make this work." And I didn't see that happen because there were only there was a presentation and then two hearings and then the hearing was closed, so there was really no back and forth at all. So, there wasn't any
opportunity uh to to see what constructive comments could happen. So, that's my observation of the situation as it stands right now. >> Thank you, Pete. Larry Scott and Steve, if you have anything else to say, speak up.
Jay, as well. Um I agree with few things that Peter said here and some other points that have been made. Um I think at this time we should um look into
um having having it looked at and um we'll put the applicant on our future agenda as soon as possible. But, it'll give us the board some time to gather some information
um what's been presented here this evening. >> Mr. Chairman, Mark Bobrowski, can I ask a question? >> Go right ahead, Mark. >> So, as I understand this conversation, we're now going to peer review the peer reviewer?
And who's going to pay for that? And what is the extent of that peer review? Cuz I it's Joe's call that this was not going to work. And now we're going to look at whether Joe made the right call, but that's way outside the scope of anything
53G is intended to cover for applicants to contribute to that. >> Mark, I don't I don't think that's what Peter is suggesting here. I think what Peter is suggesting and we can talk about funding for a second
in a minute, but I think what Peter is suggesting is that Joe was just being reactive to or was just reacting to what the application was and that was not in a position to say, well, here I think is an alternative.
But Peter, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what I was hearing. I don't think we're suggesting I don't think Peter's suggesting that we say we're going to peer review Joe and and second-guess that necessarily. I'm not suggesting either
that there might be someone with more enhanced wetlands knowledge that that might be a a good to look at this. As to the cost of it, I I'm not sure that I I think it may be one of those things and we had this
conversation internally that we might have to we might look at sources of funding for us to take a look at it on our own. We I don't think we've reached a conclusion on that. I think Woody is suggesting that we chew on it a little bit and see working with staff how we might manage
that kind of a review. I I'm sensitive to the notion of exacerbating costs on on this as well, Mark, but um I just wanted to clear the air and P- if Peter was saying something different then, you know, please chime in, but that's what I heard from what Peter was suggesting and what Woody was
following up with. >> Well, I appreciate that clarification, but um I you know, it's a question of time as well as money. This is a project that's as Christian pointed out met a lot of its
conditions in the decision already and I'm sure that that pace will continue. So, I don't I I I think I For me, this all goes back to the meeting that we had months and months ago where both of my favorite traffic
engineers Mr. uh Mr. Michaud and uh Jeff Dirk both said that the project was safe. I didn't hear anything to the contrary tonight either. I I get it that there's a desire to have
it uh as safe as possibly can be, but the standard is safe, not as safe as it possibly can be. And I don't say that wishing harm to anybody, but just wishing to impose a black and white standard and the traffic engineers are
very good at that. >> I do think that's a little bit of a generalization of what Bob Michaud said, but again, I'm not here to argue with you, Mark, on that. And that's the second issue if we if we're not um talking about the wetlands issue. So.
>> Yeah, I understand. >> Thank you, Bob. Thank you, Jay. So, >> [clears throat] >> um I guess at this point we'll Does it unless anyone else has anything to say, um we'll get you guys on the next agenda
after they'll give us 2 weeks to have um have some things hashed out here and some clarity for the board. >> Rodney, there is a hand raised from the public. I don't know I know this is not a public hearing, but I wanted to let
you know. >> Yeah, but this isn't a this isn't a public hearing and I'm not going to entertain um comments from the public at this time. All right. Thank you, Christian. Thank you, Bob. And um we'll see you in a couple weeks. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board, and Jay. >> Thanks. you. >> And Sadie, I don't want to forget anybody. Have a good night, folks. >> Thanks, Christian. >> Have a good night. And with that said, I don't see anything else on the agenda. Um
so I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. >> Move to adjourn. >> I think Scott did a second. >> Scott, was that a second? >> Second. >> All right. Have a good night, everyone. Malcolm, Laurel, Pete, Larry, Scott, >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Have a good night and thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thanks, everyone.