Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, March 31st meeting of the Norton Planning Board. We are here in person at the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street in the Crane Room. You may also join via the Zoom link as listed in the agenda. And please feel free to email
any questions before the meeting to town staff as listed in the agenda. I will call this meeting to order. Currently, we have six members in person. We have one member that's in the building at another meeting running late, but he will be here shortly. As far as our business and uh planning
board business policies, minutes, warrants, we will handle all that at the end of the meeting so you guys do not have to listen to it. The first item on our agenda is going to be special permit 37 and site plan approval 20 for 246 East Main Street. The owner is the Advanced Group LLC.
The applicant is Marty Wellness Norton LLC. The applicant seeks to approval for a 2,000q ft² marijuana retail facility within an existing office building. This was continued a few times. However, we did close the public hearing at our last meeting. So, we will not take any more
information from the public at this point. The board will just be discussing um the project, the conditions, and the any waiverss and then we can choose to vote or whatever the board pleases. Paul, do you want to start off with anything?
>> Sure. Well, there are um certainly two uh votes you need to make and then there's potentially a third one. And um I had brought this up before because this is in the water resource protection district, but looking at this more, this applicant is moving into an existing
space. They're not adding any square footage. They're not adding any parking. I don't know that you need to, you know, vote on that, but the fact that they aren't adding anything. You could vote for it. Uh, and then the
criteria would be, are they, you know, when it comes to water quality, are they making any changes to water quality or quantity, which again is they're not, you know, adding any impervious cover? The answer would be they're not changing anything. So, you could vote for it if
you want to. Tim, you have a >> Paul, did they apply for that special permit? >> Not initially, but when it when I reviewed it, I thought it would be, you know, prudent to um bring that up. So,
it has been on your agendas for uh the for the water resource protection district. >> So, it's been on the agendas, but they didn't necessarily apply for it. Okay. >> Right. Right. But I I was being a little cautious with it since it's in the in the water
resource protection district. >> Okay. Now, I've always viewed it as it's the applicant's responsibility to apply for the relief that they need and if they don't, that's on them. But good on you. >> The the rare time I catch something, you know, >> don't take it away from me.
>> You kind of recommend we do just to dot the eyes. >> I think you I think you'd be fine, too. >> I've got no problem voting on it later. Um, the board members have any opinion on that? >> No issue. >> No issue. >> That one's pretty straightforward. The other two, um, special permits that
they're going to need is a special permit for the marijuana establishment and a site plan review will be the other two permits we will be voting on. Um, we do have a list of conditions. Paul, do you want to bring those up? >> Sure. >> As there's some pretty specific conditions. So, hours of operation 8 to 111 as we
talked about. Um, that's what the bylaw says, that's what they're asking for. I don't have a problem with that. Anybody? No. >> Kind of go through one by one. If you have anything, please chime in. um adding signage at the ingress and egress.
Um some of this was brought up in either during the meeting or in one of their uh traffic studies. They need a provisional license from the cannabis control commission. Um they wouldn't be able to open it anyway without that.
However, town council, I believe, or town manager, one of them advised us to at least have it in there in our conditions. Um, we're going to ask them to align their light lighting site lighting hours to the hours that they're open. Currently, we do not believe or we have
heard that their lights on on to 11. They will make that adjustment. Um, adding pavement markings regarding the exiting and entering if possible. This is something they're going to have to work on with um the property owner or the adjacent
property owner. It's a little convoluted in that area as we've talked about. Also going along with that, we're going to ask them to work with the traffic safety committee to address signage or if there's anything possible they can make better in that area. Uh that'd be
wonderful. And then in the traffic report themselves, we heard this at the end of the meet. Um the traffic engineer did call out four specific things um that it can't hurt that we put in there as listed. Um during the initial month of
opening and Saturday peak hours, the applicant shall monitor plaza traffic to ensure ingress and egress movements do not conflict with the through traffic on East Main Street. I think this would have been more pertinent when marijuana first came to the state. It doesn't seem to be
generating that much business, but you never know with a new opening. Maybe it gets busy. So, I don't think that hurts having that in there. Um, if peak hour trips exceed the anticipated 51 to 64 vehicle trips, the applicant working with the police department may implement an online
pre-order or appointment based system to level the trip distribution throughout the day. Um, so that's kind of on them to self police if they're having more customers they anticipated. If necessary, use stansions on the
interior to form a labyrinth to prevent exterior patron queuing. If outdoor queuing occurs, use weather resistant stansions to be placed parallel to the building facade so as to not conflict with internal movements. And security personnel will manage the
exterior to prevent patrons from congregating in the parking lot, ensuring the safe transition from the vehicle to store and back to the vehicle. And as is required, they've got 25,000 shy per their decommissioning plan.
Anybody else have anything they want to add or we talked about that we think we missed in the for conditions? Tim, >> uh, no. >> Can you scroll up, Paul, to one and four? >> Thinking this was something that we discussed at the last meeting about the
lighting and the hours. Um, I don't have specific wording on this, but I'm sure that we can come up with I trust Paul would be able to come up with something that hours of operation as per the bylaw
dependent on adequate site lighting in those hours. So, they need to fix the lighting before they get the hours of operation that they want. Not I want them to be linked basically.
So if you get you get the site lighting you can get the hours. If you the site lighting stays as it is you get whatever hours the site lighting is turned on for basically >> I think we heard it's 10 right now currently maybe in the plasma.
>> Yeah. Basically that it forces the tail to wag the dog so to speak. >> Correct. We have it listed separately. we can put them both on one line. It's >> should be fine. >> Something like that to >> and I I'll put that condition in the the prior to final uh occupancy that the
lighting shall be established >> and yeah, pursuant to public safety at the site or something like that. Yeah, if they want the hours to 11, then they are now motivated to get the lighting adjusted rather than, oh yeah, we've been having
trouble getting the landlord to get the contractor out to do that or something. >> I've never heard anybody blame a contractor for anything. >> Never. >> So, other than those conditions, any questions, comments, concerns
regarding this application? >> Um, Rob? Yeah, I um Oh, sorry, Mr. Chairman. Yes, >> I um did go back when the video came out. I watched it and wrote down what their what the uh issues and the concerns were that were being raised.
They were largely around the traffic and the pulling in and out of that entrance. So, I did go up there myself. I went um two different days. um one of the days in a very little tiny sports car, so I was low. Um and uh in rush hour, too. Um
and um honestly, I never had a problem making a left turn out of that place or anything. It was easy as heck every time. And the sight lines are actually quite good because of the way the road curves gradually. You can see right across the uh QuickMark parking lot and
you see a good distance. >> Good stuff. So, thank you, Peter. So, that just giving that input that I the issues raised, I just didn't observe any of them when I was going there. They were saying it was too narrow. It's actually quite wide. While I was waiting
to make one of my left turns, some people were coming out going by me to make the right. >> So, yeah, I don't think it's an ideal. I don't think that's how that plaza would be set up. If they're building it new today, it would be set up probably different. >> Um, that's what we're working with. It's
been working there with the same amount of businesses, maybe different uses, but the same amount of businesses for some time now. >> Yeah. The sign that was said to be blocking view, it's actually set back a little bit the road. So, when you're waiting to make the left, it's by the back of your car. It's just not in the
way at all. And the foam pole that was said to be right in the middle, it's not. It's off down to one side. Um, the only observation I had, and it really wouldn't be a condition to bother these guys with, would be it'd be nice if the town could possibly put in a left turn lane for people going eastbound,
but that's totally separate topic. If you'd like, I'll just go mention that to Bob Kimble would be the >> We'll put that right at the bottom of the list. >> Way at the bottom. >> Mhm. >> Next page.
So if there's no other questions, comments or concerns, the public hearing are closed for all of them. We have three votes to take whatever the pleasure of the board is. I can start one by one. Good. >> Yep.
>> Tim, >> motion to approve uh special permit for water protection district. Second. We have a motion to approve the water protection district special permit for SP 37 in a second.
>> We're still missing a member. Um I we don't have to do a roll call vote, but uh do you guys want to do roll call or all at one time? It's pleasure to report. >> Doesn't matter. >> Doesn't matter. >> You can do an you can do just a typical You don't need to do a roll call. >> Sounds good to me. All in favor? I
>> I opposed. Abstain one down. >> Mr. Chair, special permit or motion to approve uh SP37 for use of marijuana facility in Marijan Overlay district.
>> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. Abstain. Six. Nothing. One more. And Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> Motion to approve uh site plan SPR-20
with conditions as discussed. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Abstain. One done.
Were they online? Paul, I didn't >> I think I saw someone. Oh yeah, >> the public hearing is closed for >> Yeah. Thank you very much. Have a good one. >> Oh, we can't hear him. >> That's the guy. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just didn't know if they
were listening or not. >> Yeah, >> he gave a thumbs up. >> Sounds like uh >> Next item. Next item on our agenda is definitive plan three and special permit 36 for zero Pine Street and Zer R Pine Street Weeden Place. The owner applicant
is Norton Land Company LLC. This applicant seeks to create 21 residential lots as a residential cluster development. This has been continued a few times since uh March 17th was our last meeting on this.
>> Good evening. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um my name is Bob Forbes from Zenith Consulting Engineers. Um you may recall at the last planning board meeting uh the meeting was continued um so we could go to a conservation
commission meeting which was last week. Um unfortunately they did not close their meeting last week uh although they asked us to add a couple of uh what turned out to be notes on the plans. So no no design changes or anything. Uh we
added those notes. um sent them to John Thomas for his uh review and any suggestions he may have and he wrote back to us and said that he felt that they uh adequately responded to everything the conservation
commission uh had asked for. Uh again, those some of those items had to do with some storm water management on individual lots. And even though we were meeting the entire intent of the um meeting and exceeding the entire intent of the storm water management uh
guidelines, um they wanted additional. So that's what we agreed to do. Um the only other items that changed on the plans um uh Mr. DJeppy and I um talked with the fire department and um to get
approval on the road names. There was one road name that was similar one proposed road name that was similar to one already in town. So, we changed that up and the the alternate uh road name was was approved by the fire department.
And also um of no consequence um the uh fire department and uh hydrants at the end of the two culdeacs were positioned essentially as you're entering the culdeac say 12:00.
Uh he asked that we move them to 9:00. So we did that on both times. That's in in so if they push the snow forward doesn't bury the hydrant. Makes perfect sense. So we were happy to do that. We did that. So that's that's all that's happened since the last meeting.
>> So I believe we just got the those plans um >> today uploaded. Um I'm sure none of us had a chance to go through them. >> Paul did review them. The conservation agent did review them. Um I've got no problem taking them on that what they've
seen since it's very minor corrections. Does anybody have a issue with those changes? >> No. >> No. We do have just like the last um meeting, we're going to have three votes on this. We're going to have to vote on
the definitive plan and we've got a special permit for the cluster development and we've got a special permit for the water resource protection district and the special permit for the affordable housing. We're not even addressing. We're just going to be taking no action on that. So, I
understand we're going to do it. Uh Mr. Forbes, anything else you'd like to contribute? We have a list of waiverss we're going to go over next. Uh, no. I have nothing else, but I'm happy to stay here if you'd like me to. >> Sure. >> Paul, do you want to pull up that same
page of waivers? There was a list of waiverss asked for originally in the original application, and they were peer-reviewed. Um, the peer reviewer signed off on all of them. Had no problem with all of them. Paul went over them. Paul doesn't have a problem with them. Uh, we can go through them
briefly. They're mainly very slightly detailed. So the first one is scales of 1 inch and 40 on the plans. >> Second one is another scaling. Third one is to allow a 4ft sidewalk.
>> Uh chair it's one >> one 4ft sidewalk as opposed to sidewalks on both sides of the road. I think we talked about that at the very first meeting. Um allow Cape Cod Burm wave the requirement to provide 50 ft of vertical curve length per degree of
grade change. Allow open drainage basins. Allow a driveway lantern on each lot rather than street lights. I believe we all agreed that is fine. We like that look. Allow a maximum of two tree plantings
per lot and a 10 foot wide tree planting easement rather than a tree every 40 ft. Allow HDP pipe with less than 3 ft of cover. Allow one foot of freeboard and storm water basins in conformance with mass
storm water. Wave the requirement for grading easements outside the right of the way. Roads will be graded and constructed prior to any lots being released. And the last wave would be to allow concrete flared end sections with steel
grates at pipe ends. And again, peer reviewer Pat Brennan reviewed all those. We have any other questions, comments, or concerns with those waivers? Tim, >> I guess I just want to talk tonight. Um,
number eight with the tree plantings. Um, I think you spoke to this earlier, Mr. Forbes, and Paul, if you have specific um, feelings about this. I think this was one that was applied for on the other project and wasn't granted. >> I believe that's the case. Yes.
>> Um, with the intent, the feeling that yes, we want trees, but I don't think you're not proposing not to have trees. What you're asking for is flexibility, right? >> Yeah, we're happy to provide the trees. What we're asking for is just flexibility on where they get placed.
You've probably seen subdivision roadways where they're they're planted every 40 ft or so. And it I don't know, it has like a barracks type look to it. And uh we just want to be able to clump them and do it. Let the homeowner have a
little say. Let the developer have a little say. If there's a landscaper have let them have a little say on where they go. So, we're not trying to get away from doing any of those. And I as you were um uh talking Tim I I I don't think we I don't think we I think the word
maximum there is incorrect. I think should we should allow a minimum of two tree plantings in that right away. Does that make more sense? I mean a maximum if we put zero we would comply with this waiver request >> would be true.
>> So I I I think I I in intended for that to say minimum not maximum. >> All right. Especially with 150 foot >> wide frontage. >> Yeah, >> that's we're cutting we're reducing the number of trees. >> And if you want to change that to
minimum three trees per lot, that's fine, too. You know, we just we wanted I wanted to leave it in there just and I do realize that that the board didn't grant it the last time. It's just it's not in an attempt to get away from planting them or the number of them.
It's to just have a little bit of flexibility to make it look a little more natural since it is in a a nicely wooded area. >> Yeah. From a like planning and development perspective, Paul, do you have any objection to that or would you
kind of is this one of those where like it's in the law, let's do it, or is this kind of a more of a common sense flexibility kind of thing or somewhere in the middle? you have the flexibility to grant waiverss on this and
so you know you can grant you know we don't have to be that rigid you know in certain areas it might make sense if you're trying to create some uniform look on a corridor whatnot it you might be able to but you know these
are going to be people's homes might be a good idea to let them have a chance how you know where where they go I'm fine with doing >> if you divide 150 feet by 40, it's about 3.75. So
>> three, you might want to say four. >> Not a problem. I'm fine with an objective. >> I I like it personally. >> Three, four, five. What are we >> three? Three is fine. >> I'm very comfortable with three. That seems like a normal frontage. Yeah,
>> the black forest. >> So the wording would be minimum of three. Is that >> minimum? Minimum of three three plantings per lot >> in the 10 foot wide tree planting easement. Any other questions on the waiverss? So we do have a few conditions also um
other than our standard conditions. First want to be coordinate with public works regarding water and sewer connections. We had talked about screening multiple times for the neighbors across the street on Pine Street. Um I believe the three houses were 94 98 and 116. Did you correct?
>> I think you made some contacts at some point. >> Yes. Mr. Andrunis has met with them. We staked out the roadways and he's met with those uh two at least two of those neighbors. Yeah. who are the neighbors. >> Um, so that's positive for me. Open space accessible to the public. I think
we covered that multiple times and we're all comfortable with that. >> Yeah, we're happy with that. >> Yeah. Roads to remain private in perpetuity. Um, the lantern lights again, downward facing. Um, this is kind of something I brought up. If we can at least have a quick
discussion meeting or anything we can with the traffic safety committee, we know there's signs out on that road. if there's anything we can do to add or help. Um, it doesn't hurt looking at it again. Um, if there's anything else they can do to
slow traffic on that road. Is there any grants for anything for flashing? I don't know what it is, but maybe there's something. So, it can't hurt to ask them and keep a discussion open about uh speeding and traffic on the road.
uh drainage area mark sign marks signs showing access to the open space. So we discussed like a labeling the path going around the drainage area. Um definitive plan and covenant sign when the final plan is after the 20-day appeal. Yeah, that's just
>> just like you did correct today on that other one. >> So after 20 days, we'll have to sign their covenant release like we did for the other project. Any other questions, comments, concerns regarding anything to do with our standard conditions or our specific conditions as
we've listed and talked about? >> Mr. Forbes, anything like >> No, I have not. Thank you. >> So, if we think we're all set, we can Tim I do want to ask if there's any uh final public comments or not sure.
Everyone's tired from last week's two weeks ago. >> I do not see anybody on Zoom raising their hands. I do not see anybody looking to push Mr. Forbes off the podium. >> Oh, motion to close the public hearing. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second to close a public hearing for SPR9 and special permit. Sorry. Definitive plan three in special permit 36 for zero Pine Street and Zer R Pine Street Weaten Place. All in favor? >> I
>> I opposed abstain. So the public hearing's closed. We can now discuss anything or we can chair would entertain any motion. I'm just going to repeat my comment from before that this is a pick your poison situation. I know there's people that
love to see that remain woods. um you have to assume that's not an option. Um something's going to get built there. And as far as things that could get built there, this is probably one of our better scenarios. >> I agree with Rob. He's got it exactly right. The cluster development is
generally better than the subdivision alternative and we get a public space out of it. So again, the three votes we're going to be taking are special permit for a residential cluster development, special permit for water resource protection
district, and a special permit for our affordable housing bylaw, which we are taking no action on. >> And and chair, >> yes, >> you also have to vote on the definitive plan the waiverss. >> Yep. I think the uh definitive plan would be
the uh place to start if somebody would like to make a motion. >> Motion to approve definitive plan three. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to approve approve definitive plan three for zero Pine Street and zero R Pine Street. All in favor?
>> I opposed. Abstain. Next on the agenda will be a special permit for the cluster development >> for SP36. >> Motion to approve SP36 for the cluster development. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second to approve the cluster development for SP36 for zero pine street. >> Can I have a Yeah, >> that's are we where are we attaching the uh conditions to the special permit to the site plan? >> There's no real site plan. So that should have been definitive plan. or
sorry it it's it's already drafted them. Most of them are going to go into the special permit but some are required to go into the definitive plan. >> I'll make my motion to include the special conditions. >> Second.
>> So we have a motion to approve the special permit for the cluster development with our standard conditions and specific conditions as we discussed. Any other discussion? All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. Abstain.
6 nothing. >> Last vote would be special permit for the water resource protection district for SP 360 Pine Street with standard conditions and our specific conditions. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Abstain. Six. Nothing. We got We get got you out of here before 10:00. >> Thank you. >> How we going? >> Um, also I amend my motion to include
the special conditions for the definitive plan as well. >> Okay. >> I didn't see that. Don't open. >> Do you want to revote the definitive plan, Paul, for the >> And we do need to get to the waivers, too. >> You need to do the waivers as well. Oh, >> we have to vote all the waivers.
>> Typically, you all do them individually. I think you did for the last project which is why uh the tree plantings were >> denied >> right >> so can we take them >> right >> want to take them all as a unit
>> and they've been drafted that way but you don't have to well you as Brian said we have in the past even after that we did with uh I believe Abrew and uh 125 Nuland that you voted individually on each waiver
>> but can we do them as a group No. >> Um, >> does anybody have a waiver that they don't feel they vote for? If we take them as a group? >> No, >> I think you can. I mean, if you >> Okay. >> If you're >> We went through them one by one. >> We read addressed them one by one. I think we're fine. >> Yeah.
>> So, >> whoever was the chair for the last one was an idiot >> 100%. >> Motion to approve um 1 through 4. That's 4.2 4.2D 2D 5.3 and 5.3 and 5.6. >> It goes all the way to 12. >> All the way.
>> Yeah. >> 54. Yep. >> Yeah. Wavers 1 through 12. >> I have to read them all off or can I say just all of them? >> I'd say 1 through 12 as discussed. >> Okay. 1 through 12 as discussed. >> So moved. >> Was that was that okay? >> That's Rob motion and Steve with a
second. Any other discussion >> now that we've butchered that completely? All in favor? >> Opposed? See, I tried to get him out of here too quick and we missed the waiverss. >> I'll bet you he doesn't complain.
>> I don't think so. Next item on the agenda, SPR9 and special permit 17 for 0 West Main Street. The owner applicant is SRO Development LLC. The applicant is seeking to construct two top of the shop buildings with a combined lot combined
total of 35 units and 65 parking spaces. This has been continued several times and the last time we talked about this was March 17th. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, Michael Locker for the applicant. >> Good evening. >> Um so we followed your direction last time we met with the various departments. They're going to
incorporate that into the plan set. The one thing we did do is as the board member Warshell talked about is the parking matrix and my group just want to clarify that the matrix was get a determination from the board that was what the count would be. I think I
talked to Paul and he said based on the numbers he's reviewed it does meet those requirements. I want to make sure with the board if that's the case. If that's the case, then the architect and engineer can finalize all our plans, do a final presentation to you guys to meet those requirements as as needed.
>> Yeah, it's more helpful to see them on a site plan. Um I I don't Paul, do you want to pull up the uh his email with the parking matrix? >> I think maybe this like the table might
be easier to see it that way. Pull the parking table. >> Yeah, >> already got it. Paul, >> got it. Good. >> Great. >> So, ultimately with the breakdown, the the initial number of units is now decreased down to 26 with uh 10 in
building one and 16 in building two and with the commercial parking space as we talked about breaking that down with common area, net area, then the reduction of the 40%. So, we'd have the seven parking spots in building number one for commercial, 14 for residential,
and then there'll be two additional units on the first floor and a total of 24.5 parking spots. And the same calculations on the building number two for a total of 64.5 parking spots which we have provided 65. So what if this is
the ultimate we believe the correct calculations then the engineer will then assign then designate the parking spots as as as needed. >> I'm not going to do the math for you but do I don't see handicap spots broken out anywhere. Am I missing that?
>> And he will he's going to designate those spots as part of it. >> Okay. We're also >> So, so handicap spots is normally for 65 spots like this, they would need three, but I'm determined as talk to engineer if it's two buildings, he'd probably recommend two two handicap spots per
building rather than a two and a one. Doesn't make sense. We do two handicap spots per building. >> Do we need EV? >> And we're going to need uh I believe you have to do EV EV ready parking spots also. We'll need a stretch code as well. Yeah, >> correct.
Uh do do we have a a layout of the parking available? >> We do not have a new one >> and that's and so if the if this calculations are corrected which I think believe they're Paul they're correct. I'll have a full layout for you guys breaking all this down with the EV spots with the handicap spots. I just want to confirm that this is what it is and then
they can you know finish those final architecturals finish the final plan and give you a clear presentation for you guys to make a determination. Uh would it would it be appropriate right now to give some sort of like guide guidance to >> I think they need as much guidance as possible because we have one more
meeting before we lose a few members. So >> Okay. Um as far as parking, could we make it so that residential parking is separated from like clients and employee parking and the loading zone? >> Oh, makes sense. Yes.
>> Okay. Um, preferably, you know, somebody coming right in should be able to access the commercial parking immediately where the residential would be tucked away. >> Yeah, I think as as you described, so we had the building, if say the 60% was to the left and the 40% is the right, that would just keep all those commercial
parking spots to the left and those residential spots to the right. So that would make sense. >> So do we have Do we have parking inside the building? >> No, this is talking about outside. So someone could park in front of the building and then walk in. >> Okay. Okay.
>> He's proposing a few units on the first floor on the back side. >> Is that in the plan? >> It's in the memo. Yeah, it's in the >> part of the final. >> Okay. So, we need a new plan. >> We correct. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. I was going to say there's um on
the plan that I saw previously, the second floor of the large building is also inaccessible from the stairwells. There's no doors. >> Yeah. A I'll have that. He's gonna he's going to revise on that correctly. >> Just >> um Yeah, I think I'm I'm good for now.
>> Do we have anything? Sorry, Tim. Cut you off. Do we What did we have for a uh traffic study done, Paul? Anything or just counts or what? What did we have in there? I forget. I >> think we have a traffic study from before. >> So, >> yeah. >> Yeah, counts. That's where I got a bunch
of question marks right now because it's completely new project and traffic's going to change. Uses changed. Everything's changed. So, I don't know if they're going to have time to update their traffic study. We definitely haven't had it peer reviewed. Right.
>> Not traffic storm water. Yes. But >> Michael, that's one thing keep in mind. If you're changing parking >> Yeah. Parking, >> avoid changing the drainage. >> Oh, yeah. We're not changing. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, if the board wants a peer review,
then we'll just have to get that taken taken into consideration there. I >> I guess bare minimum it has to be the traffic study has to be updated for the new plans. >> At a minimum, I I would like to see the new building, the new parking lot,
some of the updates we've mentioned. >> Again, that's what I was looking for guys for the board to get a clarification of the, you know, the breakdown. And once that's done, then that that can be definitely re uh clarified and redone. >> Tim, uh yeah, to those a couple of points to that, yeah, I think this is
going to sound like a s a obvious statement, but when we looked at the parking matrix, um the expectation, at least from my perspective, is that the required building parking for each building will be adjacent to that specific building and not just accounted
for in the lot as a whole. Um, so it's not one building has all the parking and one building makes people walk across a giant area to park and get to their apartment. I thought >> um and then from a traffic study perspective,
I don't know if if there was a traffic study which was done and we've now adjusted uses, I would be fine accepting that if it calculations further revised combined
uses were >> no greater than 5% higher than what was accounted for in the previous study or something like that. Yeah, I believe. >> So, if it's as high or lower or give or take a margin, I'm okay with that. If
it's 10 or 15% higher, then maybe somebody looks at the numbers again. Is that >> Does that make sense to everybody? >> Yes, sure. >> The only thing that doesn't make sense to me with this is the time >> the time to get it done. >> 7:53,
>> April 7th, next meeting. Um that doesn't mean we have to >> close you out that meeting. You're just going to be down to five members. >> Correct. >> I think Mr. And the special permit is for water resource
>> affordable housing and >> affordable housing >> and uh site plan review. In theory, the special the site plan could continue after the election with the special permit closed with the current board since that's the one that needs the
supermajority. >> Good point. It's not ideal. >> I I wouldn't want to close it until I've seen all the units that are being >> Oh, we're not closing it tonight. We would definitely be waiting till next meeting. The affordable housing one would just be you have to comply with
the affordable housing bylaw and these are the number of units that you would need. I assume I so >> that one's less of one that requires the site plan for an obvious statement >> and I think you got to get it quickly
back to the fire department too as quick as possible. >> Yeah, they've already worked on the fire. >> They need to sign off. Y >> we need them signed off in our system. Um it's something we've conditioned in the past. We don't like it. We at least at least want to know they've looked at it before we voted on something. So, you're not coming back.
Any other direction? There was uh a new narrative and some things submitted. I don't know if everyone got a chance to go through it. Um if we can go through open gov in the next day or two and any more direction or opinions
or anything we can give Mr. Larkin. Um just knowing time is of the essence. I covered the few things that I had written down that was missing. I don't have anything else. Anybody else have anything? >> Yeah, I just had one question. I'm
looking at the um the plan and it says the uh drawing um A109. You're showing a washer and dryer in every unit. Is that correct? I know this is a plumbing question, but >> at that at that time, yes. >> Okay. And then in plan 101 shows that's
the washer and dryer. And then it shows on another plan there's a laundry on the first floor. Are you doing >> I I'll clarify with the architect. >> Okay. Just I didn't know if you're doing is that like a business. Would that be the business in a commercial space or are you eliminating the washer and
dryers and making a laundry room down there? That was the only conflict I saw. >> Let me I'll confirm on that. >> Thank you. I think that may be something that Steve touched on in the last meeting is that >> some of these plans are similar to things that we looked at a year and a
half ago. I'm throwing a number out there. I can't remember. >> Okay. Three years ago. Wow. >> Um, so there's some carryover there in terms of what's on what document, I think. So it's uh you're not crazy for this reason.
>> Golf. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> So, Mr. Lock, unless you have anything else that uh you want to put in front of us, the uh chair would entertain a motion to continue SPR9 and special permit 17 till April 7th.
>> Can I? >> Yes, Tim. >> I don't know if we want to see if anybody wants to do public comment here. I know we had there was one at least one email exchange about the project, right? >> Maybe. >> Wasn't there one that you responded to? There was one I responded to.
>> There's one regarding screening as well. >> Yeah, we have one comment from originally about screening the neighbor across the street. Is there anyone in the room? >> Special permit 9. >> Zero West Main. No one's jumping up.
Mr. Jacobe really wants to jump up. I can see it in his face. >> So, I can >> Thank you, Tim. >> Doesn't hurt to ask. doesn't I'm just rushing tonight for obvious reasons >> trying to make up from the last time >> we're a little feeling a little burned still
>> 100% >> still tired >> the chair to detain a motion to continue public hearing for SPR9 and SP70 West Main Street till April 7th >> so moved >> second >> we have a motion second all in favor >> I I
>> thank you for your comments appreciated thank you >> thank you >> thank you >> Paul do we have anything else next meeting >> just that Listen, >> I mean, if we closed it tonight, we could have just cancelled it. >> Well, the motion was made. >> Motion, not getting you're not getting
it out that easy. Sorry. >> Last public hearing on our agenda. You all right? Yeah, he wanted >> we got Eric here now. >> Sorry. >> Hey, >> perfect timing. >> Sorry. >> What do you mean? We're on our last application.
>> I've already I've already been a couple hours. >> Eric's already been sitting in meetings for two hours with another committee. So, >> yeah, I know. >> Thank you for joining us. >> He's in a good mood. >> I kind of do, actually.
the public hearing for special permit 33 and site plan approval 18 for 61 West Main Street. The owner applicant is Corvo Properties. The applicant seeks approval for a four-story top of the shop building and rebuilding an existing food and beverage retail store. This has
been continued multiple times. The last time we talked about this was March 17th. >> Good evening. >> Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Jack Chakovi, 144 Bank Street, Attboro, representing the applicant. Uh there were two issues that
were uh semiopen last time. One was that you asked us to uh get some pictures of what how we might alter the uh exterior look of the building. Uh and I think Paul has those. >> Do you want them? Right.
>> Um, you had indicated that it was probably impractical to have our architect completely redesign it, but we told you we would get some pictures of what we thought might be more in keeping with what you were looking for. Uh, we did file those and we were hoping to get
uh some feedback as to whether we were going in the right direction on that. While they're looking for that, I can also tell you that the other question was concerning the water resource uh special permit. Uh so uh the question
was uh how much area was impervious and um the uh previous iteration of this site had 26.2% 2% um which is above the 15%
that's otherwise mandated. This plan has 37 excuse me 32.07%. So it is an increase uh of uh 6 12% or so. Uh but I would point out to you that
um 13.6% six% now of that. Uh >> these pictures, Jack, or >> are those the pictures? Those are the pictures. Okay. >> That's the start of them. >> So, I'll stop and go back to since you
have the picture and say that um we've uh tried to um uh give it a little more variation to uh have different planes to have different materials, different colors. Uh, and uh, we think this is
more along the lines of what you were looking for. >> I had a question. Do do you have the other side of the building >> from the other view from coming from the center? >> No, >> we
>> coming. >> No, >> it'll look almost mean. You mean this? >> Yeah, you have to identify yourself. Antonio Rito, Kovville Properties. If you could pull up the first one that was the rendering so I can start and kind of
explain how we got here. >> Oh, uh, just a minute. >> Is that uh number one? >> Uh, no. It was just the rendering. >> Oh, the rendering. >> It's a different attachment. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Let's put them all together. >> Yeah. >> Elevation. >> I'm sorry. Yeah, that's it. Perfect.
Elevation. Sorry. My fault. No, >> it's fine. I just want to make sure. So this is what the architect actually drew. Uh we were kicking around obviously uh we were discussing multiple uh different designs and and we kind of went to a kind of a pitched roof but
then worrying about height. I wanted to bring it back down to a flat roof so it appeared lower when you were coming down. That's what I was worried about was being too high. Um so we came up with this and this literally came out yesterday I think cuz we've been kicking around. so many different designs,
different buildings, trying to get trying to meet the criteria and kind of the spirit of what you folks meant with the area. Um, the reason why I brought this up is this was actually drawn by the architect, which is again a little bit closer. The other pictures you saw
literally were me dropping it into chat GPT and saying, "Give me some colored rendering." So, you folks had something that you could see that was visual. So, you're going to see a lot of things on it that aren't real or kind of wonky. >> Uh, but that's overall what it'll be. As far as from the other side, it'll look
identical to this. It'll just be flip-flopped and you'll be missing like minor things like the garage door and things of that nature. >> The rest of all those windows like on the bottom from uh the retail back >> are all faux windows cuz it's the garage. So, it's just let air pass through and things like that. So, it'll
look similar on the other side. Um, the body of the building will be stepped in, stepped out. Uh the top will play with parapit walls a foot up, a foot down just to kind of give you a a feeling of different buildings to make it appear smaller as well as maintain the historic look that we're trying to achieve in or
that you folks are trying to achieve in that area. >> So that's where that all came from. >> You can you can roll through the different uh pictures just to kind of show you um the rest were kind of the color schemes. This is probably my least favorite. Well, that's my least favorite, but my favorite color is that one
>> number three. That's kind of where I'm That's where I'm I think >> obviously I'm willing to >> work with anybody, but it's I was kind of looking for more muted um earth tones, darker that type. >> And when you're talking bumping out, we're going to bump out in between the different colors is set in. So that
lighter colors set in, the darker grays bumped out. >> Exactly. So they're all they appear to be >> My biggest thing I hate is like straight looking boxy. >> Yeah. >> Like that. >> What we would probably just our biggest problem with the thing. So, >> does that hit what you were looking for? >> Much better.
>> I'm liking this elevation a lot better. >> Oh, cool. >> Good job, Chap PT. It's >> Maybe this front one. Are you a cat? You want to chase it? Is that what's >> I didn't know where it was coming from. >> Um, if you could break this up somehow. I don't necessarily want to tell you
what color to do it, what finishes to use. I think is this showing brick? Um, >> that's showing some brick. Yeah. Yeah, I I definitely like the brick on the on it, but if we could break up the linearness of it for me, that's >> that's the biggest thing I hate with >> What do you mean exactly on that? If you
could >> So, to me, when I'm seeing it, I'm I'm seeing just a box. >> So, here we've got some bumping in and out. >> Oh, that white part on the front is stepped in. >> Is it? >> That's going to be stepped in about a foot. And then the blue part with the brick is going to be above it about a foot higher.
>> So, it's kind of hard to see in Yeah, it's kind of hard to see. You're right. But that will be stepped and then it kind of from the third to fourth floor there's like a little shelf to kind of it'll appear recessed in the top floor but it's not. >> I can kind of get that. >> I had sent Paul some pictures and I think he said you knew the project in
Westwood. >> So the same a friend of mine built that and the one up the road. So both I was looking at the problem. I love that building but it's like a it's like a wedding cake. He's got so much land that he's able to step back. >> Mhm. >> That's part of their bylaw. Oh, is it the step back was part of the B,
>> which makes sense in a downtown, but on a site like that didn't I mean it's usually when you get shadowing and issues like that, but yeah, I mean um I don't know. I I can I tried playing with it. I had roof line issues and um I don't I don't I tried
>> No, I I I think you did well just getting us something just to >> know we're working towards >> Yeah. palatable even like like plants on the facade. break that up a little bit. Like some people do the vines climbing up like
>> it turns into a maintenance question. >> Definitely want. >> So that was another part of the whole design was looking at maintenance. It's nice to design things that look good on day one. >> I could be dead in a year. Someone buys it. This could look like hell. So you want to kind of be careful as to how far you go. >> Um
>> tragic story >> with uh those type of things. the commercial open the commercial space with the awnings and then the lighting above the awnings is definitely better because we definitely want to try to draw your attention to the commercial space. >> Yep. >> Um >> and we even changed the stone sorry we
changed a stone around that as well a little bit to make it a different color stone to kind of give it uh just a different um attract your eye basically. >> So I think you definitely know what we're kind of intended. I think you kind of get the gist of what the bylaws kind of intended. I still think we should put
in since we don't have final plans and I'll leave it's up to you and Paul. I believe it would be left up to staff to we've had conditions like this before. Sign off on final renderings or work with town staff to sign off on final
renderings. Something >> I'm open to that of course like that. Yeah, we we discussed >> he's not going to be Yeah, we like we discussed he's not going to be picking out colors for you. But >> yeah, to get an overall feeling of course it should fit with what everyone wants in the area. I'm fine with that. And you could say prior to applying for a building permit or whatever time frame
you wanted to put on it. >> I think the roof looks much better. >> Yeah. >> Just want to say that >> the Are you fine with that power? >> I know it's flat still, but I see what you're saying with it's not It doesn't It looks much better than the last >> If I went with like a pitch, I would have another 10 ft. >> No, I I agree with you there because it
does >> that guy. >> Yeah, but it's it's a creative solution. Yeah. >> You've done a good job. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. It looks like when Anthony showed this to me yesterday, I was like, "This is again one of the things when we were working on this we were thinking of."
>> It's nice too because it looks like multiple buildings. It doesn't look like one blocky building and one building. So the massing looks different. It looks like, you know, if you were in some other some old cities, you you could actually see these buildings owned by,
you know, different people even though they're all connected. But um it just looks like it's uh you know very traditional downtown and uh they all you can see it how it lines up vertically but it it
creates just a you know four or five different buildings. >> I believe one of the words you're looking for is it has character. We have a lot of lack of character lately but we're getting back into a lot more character. So >> well again that was the that's one of the conditions we were trying to get
with this whole zoning district was you know in exchange for additional height and reduction in uses in commercial or non-residential uses was this were there with the design standards that we could negotiate and fortunately you know
working with Anthony had a lot of ideas. >> Anybody else have any questions or comments on the renderings? If not, we'll move on. >> Okay. We have Paul, no waivers I don't have written down to go over for this. They're not requesting any waivers. >> Right. Correct. Correct.
>> We do have a bunch of conditions, but Steve, did you have something you want to bring up before we get too too much farther? >> Yeah. Yeah, please. Um, I wanted to see how the the board feels about this. uh the ground floor uh in the village center core district
can't can't exceed 40% for residential purposes. The other 60% of the ground floor has to be non-residential purposes. Our definition for ground floor excludes
parking garages. I'm just putting it up to see if that helps. Do you want me to go to the definition? >> Sure. Both of them would be useful. Um, but my question is if this parking garage is for the residents,
is it part of the residential purposes? Does it fit in that 40% or even that 15% of the 40% for residential purposes for required associated uses?
If I may, the definition says uh for floor area uh excluding common hallways, parking garages, and portions of buildings used for building services or maintenance. I think it's clear that um
the parking garage does not count for floor area. Um but I think it was a a reasonable question to ask and I you know immediately read that the the the section 4.1 and then I said is there a definition?
Surprisingly your Bible had a definition. >> You couldn't be more accurate. >> Thank you. >> Surprisingly. Um so I guess yeah so far yeah I agree like the definition says that and in any district normally I would say that
applies. Does the village center core supersede with having a stricter regulation cuz we have under article two I think purpose and scope for
>> for the village center corp. No. In our main bylaw, let me um pull it up. Exactly. So, art sorry, article one purpose and scope uh interpretation it's 1751.3. >> Okay.
>> Uh whenever any other bylaw of the town of Norton imposes a greater restriction than this bylaw, such other bylaw, law or regulation shall prevail to the extent of such greater restriction. So, does the village center core rules
supersede the standard? >> Let's see. >> Go ahead. If you >> I would say to to as we talked earlier Steve I think it does but I would say when you look at the again at that provision in uh 4.1
the um it first that that does not call out parking and typically uh parking is an accessory use and I would say in this case and in most cases parking is accessory to the entire building and not just residential.
So I I you know this is this is really just talking about residential uses and I I know you know what you're saying is there are things that we call for here like stairs and elevator elevators for purposes related to the residential
use but I I don't think parking parking typically is not in the same category as stairs and elevators. Um and again I think here that um >> parking >> if if I could again like so you it's
it's kind of in a gray area and it like in a way it says you know in my mind whatever required parking for a residential use would be under that category of required other purposes related to the residential use. But
if we interpret it that way, how do we get our 60% of the ground floor to be nonresidential? Because then any amount of parking can use the bottom floor and it's that 40% is shrunk to
>> Well, I think the definition of of floor area gets to that answer because you don't count it toward your you don't count parking toward your floor area. I think I think I get what you're I think >> Steve is your is your point that
somebody could make the ground floor 90% parking and put a little bit of commercial at the end and say look 100% of my ground floor area is commercial even though your floor area is now a broom closet. >> Right.
>> And it's defeating the intent of having significant commercial space on the ground floor. >> Yes. So I guess so I get why we want to interpret
the ground floor in this case having more commercial space available is a benefit. >> I I believe that's the only purpose of this. So if we look at this, what is the what is the pie chart of the ground
floor parking commercial other? >> It was I know what 4,000 ft of commercial >> 4,400 I believe it's so it's 100% of the ground floor is commercial. Uh and I understand your point that somebody
could have 20 square ft and say it's 100%. Um, that's probably something that if you do get another chance to address your bylaw, you might want to take into account. Uh, but the idea of a floor is
something like this. It's something that, you know, is is part of this the structure as opposed to just concrete pavement that's down there. And there is a clear exclusion here for parking garages. Uh so uh I would submit to you
that that we do meet the standard. We have 100% and at some point you might want to say that uh you know you you have to have a certain percentage of the of the area rather than of the
floor. You know that's but you could certainly work with your your drafting council on that. But but that's what your bylaw says. >> And >> which is the thing we always we've faced numerous times is questioning what the bylaw says and what it means because
sometimes they're two different things. But here I think it's pretty clear. >> Yeah. And how much square footage is devoted to the parking on the first floor? >> I don't know off the top of my head, but
clearly more than the 4,000 square feet. for commercial >> I would say like roughly twothirds of it is parking. >> Okay. >> If you go by the rendering guess. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's all rounding. >> That's fine. Yeah. That's
>> that's that's accurate. >> Um and also part of that is well okay. So if the parking is residential again like I like I said what what is is it all in encapsulated in the building the entirety of the residential parking or is there parking outside also for
residents? >> There's parking outside. There's parking outside because we have 39 units and there's >> 4400 in the new structure and 1500 >> right but what I was saying is that um
the number of parking spaces um I have to go back to my notes here um see if I've got that but uh the um yeah there If I can ask our engineer, Eric Diaz is
on the line. Can you help us out, Eric, uh, with the number >> before he goes to that? I I've been kicking this around in my head about 10 times today. Um, then I had asked Paul if he had run it by the building inspector, Mr. Bailey. And Paul, you said you did run this by him or didn't. I forgot what you said.
>> We spoke. Unfortunately, he he had to leave early, so he didn't respond. But you know he you know first he you know agreed with the we I showed him the definition and he said also if it's
you know if people you know pay for parking or if it's any parking is set aside for commercial it be the parking becomes a commercial structure. If he made a if it was from the get-go
labeled as a commercial parking area that was not for the residents, they would also have to include all of the required parking for the residents outside of that parking garage. >> Well, his his well, I I'll clarify his
comment. It was even if it's, you know, a lot of places like this, you'll pay an extra monthly fee, you know, if you're a resident to park. and he and he said that that would qualify that then as a commercial lot >> because the residents are paying
>> seems seems like it's just part of the residence >> and and that in fact is going to be the case here that if you want to park underneath rather than outside there's a a premium >> so anyone can park there >> no >> no the parking spaces will be assigned
>> so being just for residents >> residents are allowed to pay to park in the garage. >> Oh, I I know I know that. >> So, but I'm just >> you you you folks talked spoke about a couple things. Um, some of the commercial users could have a spot in the garage as well, some of the business owners. Um, we're going to be charging
for some of the parking. Some some of the commercial people park inside, some will park in outside. So, it's kind of going to be a medley of everything. Um, >> okay. >> I don't have like a straight answer. If things don't go well, I might give them some away for free. So, I don't know. I
guess telling you exactly what I'm going to do wouldn't be truthful. I don't >> attempt to park to charge them for it. >> You're in a number of the parking spaces and they will be assigned >> but you you folks are talking about whether commercial or residential. It could be either. >> Okay. >> Depends on how you want to what you want
to call it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I >> think we talked ourselves in circles on that with no clear answer. It's It's still right back to another gray area in VCC >> that we'll have to
>> Yeah. Yeah. Go for uh >> clarify >> clarifying in the future, but >> I I feel like it violates the intention. I think the expectation is that the ground floor is supposed to be 60%.
We're losing a lot of square footage there by allowing a a larger building on top. >> Do you want to pull up VCC, Paul, please? >> I'm sorry. What aspect of it? >> Could you pull up um the zoning the bylaw itself to start and go right to where
>> district? >> Yeah, go right to the district. And >> it's right there where it says >> the language to VCC. >> Correct. to that further back. >> Yeah. To Steve's point, from a ballpark math, it should be roughly twice the commercial square footage that's there, give or take,
depending on how you interpret the words. But yeah, and again, if parking is part of what we include as like other associated residential purposes, it should only be 15% of the 40.
The other 40 would have to be like a a lobby or something. you know to to one point though going back to this um one of our primary focuses was on making sure the frontage the frontage was the most critical area
of all of this and so that's why you know again initially when we proposed this u we had proposed that the entire floor would just be for commercial use but at the time the planning board wanted to give some flexibility but recognizing it still critical to create
more life on the streets. We ended up with this so that you're still just getting all of those all of those um bays on the first floor to be a commercial use. At the end of the day, I'm not sure that the size I mean, I get
the issue of the size, the size of the dimensions of this, but the main point I'm trying to make is that I think this meets the spirit of the intent, which was to really activate the frontage space here.
>> Um, and so Alan, um, what what aspect of >> No, you you you've got it. Yeah, I just wanted to read the >> exactly how it was phrased out. >> Can you minimize the cameras on your screen there, Paul? Just so we could >> We have to get >> We can't do that. Never mind.
>> Yeah, I got nothing then. >> You can see it here if you want. >> Oh, yeah. No, I >> I I I think we're definitely >> I mean I I I certainly understand where Steve's coming from and he you know, as often >> I I can't say I disagree with him at this point. It's hard to disagree with,
>> right? But I would just say that that was we recognize that, you know, parking does happen in in spaces like this. This was really to just try to prevent more of the pro the uh ground floor
being residential. >> That was definitely a discussion of not having the whole >> 3/4 of the ground floor residential and like we've talked about having you know tenth a small office out front and the rest of its apartments. That's what we did not want.
>> Right. this being so late in this process, what's the appetite for the board to discuss a waiver to this section? That's the only way I think we can easily clear this up right now.
Um, we'd have to come up with some type of language quick, but is that possible opinion? Anybody? Tim, Paul, >> are we going to set a precedence?
>> I think that's is Alan, is that your precedence that our position >> I'm just trying to look for a way to move forward? If I may, in zoning, there is no such thing as a president. Every case stands on its own. The law is very very clear on that
>> and you have the discretion in granting waiverss on one project and it doesn't mean you have to grant it on the next project. So just just to be clear about that, but I would suggest to you that that the language here which says that floor does not include a parking garage
is clear. So I don't know that you need a waiver here. Um but uh certainly >> that word >> yeah I think I think Mr. Jacob's point is correct.
But I also think that when we look at wording and decide how we're going to interpret it, if we interpret it one way for you and another way for somebody else, we would completely be >> correct. >> Somebody would completely call us on
that and be justified in doing so. If we were to grant a waiver and move this ahead in theory, our position could be that our in how we intend the bylaw to be read is one way
or is that it should be a sufficient volume >> could add to this. Yeah, that's a lot. >> The the request for the waiver for this would be so that a special permit can be granted for them to exceed the size
already allowed in that district >> if you're if you're interpreted. >> So they're already asking to go beyond the size allowed and now they want a waiver >> depending on how you interpret space. >> Yeah, I think that that definitely depends on how you're interpreting it
and I can see it both ways. That's what >> if you go to the definition of floor area, it says do not include parking garages. >> Well, just even the water resource district, any building over 2500 ft.
Just that alone is already them well exceeding what the district says. And they're asking for a special permit just to exceed that. >> Mhm. So, a waiver from the criteria just to meet the special permit requirements.
>> I'm less liking the waiver now and I'm more leaning. I've gone all day like both both ways on this back and forth. >> Um, the way I'm leading now, I can't get past in my head no more than 40% of the gross floor area
going right to the definition. Can't take parking garages into consideration. Therefore, you can't take that parking garage into consideration for gross floor area. I I >> I don't see how that could be. >> I can't make an argument past that in my
head. I've been and I've been back and forth all afternoon on this in my head. I can't keep it straight. That's why I asked if Mr. Bailey looked at it. I wanted Paul's opinion. Um it's a it's where definitions and bylaw, spirit of the law, it's all mumble jumble together
and it's that's why we're here. And there is a a preceding part to the granting of any special permit that they are not granted by any matter of right and are a privilege when certain specific circumstances are met.
So even if they do technically meet the qualifications, >> but we're not this wouldn't be tied to a special permit. This what we're talking about right now isn't the special permits they're applying for is affordable housing and water resource protection district. This would really
be site plan. That would be it would. >> Yeah, that is correct. >> So, you would be applying this. >> We would also need a special permit to alter the non-conforming use by reconstructing the honeydew donuts. So, there are three special permits and one site plan review that we're asking for.
>> Correct. >> And I I can address the percentages if you want on the water resource protection district, which we had started to do and then we got sidetracked. So uh in the current condition the roof area is 2.2%.
In the proposed condition the roof area is 13.6%. And that is considered uh to be clean water on the roof. Uh and so actually even though we're going up 6 12% uh
overall we're actually going down 11.4% in the clean water. But the most important thing is is that we completely redesigned the storm water system out here. And that storm water system meets all of the modern standards, not what
was there when this development was originally built. The conservation commission approved it, had it peer-reviewed, and you know, they accepted that that what we're doing now is actually treating the water and it makes it a better uh situation than
what's out there today. Yeah. So, I would suggest to you that the water resource protection special district uh special permit uh that that even though we're going up 6 12% one way, we're really going down 11.4% in another way and then treating everything.
>> And your water coming off your roof is going directly into the storm water system and being treated. Correct. >> Even though it's clean, >> even though it's clean, it still get goes into the system and gets treated. >> Did Paul, is that because people don't walk on the roof essentially? Most people don't. >> Yeah. But that's basically the point is
that water, anything coming off the roof is cleaner than what comes off a parking lot, >> right? Cars and trash. >> It doesn't pick up the salt and the sand and all the rest of the stuff that you find in a parking lot, especially here in New England in the winter. So, uh,
it's considered for storm water purposes to be clean water. >> So, for me personally, I think we're back to that original question. I don't have a problem with the water resource protection district special permit personally. It's the site plan and
does this comply with our BCC bylaw I guess is what we're the only it's different criteria I guess is what I'm saying. It's not special permit criteria we're going by for the site plan. Paul do you want to pull up our
site plan approval criteria please? Oh, we're already there. >> You mean for uh for the board's approve uh >> Yeah, correct. >> The just so we have it in front of us because it >> Okay. >> We're not looking to approve a special permit for this parking is what I'm trying to get at. We're
>> Let me >> What we're using is our site plan approval criteria. >> Sure. I'm going to pull up again. I've drafted the decision. Um it's just a template. >> Yes. Which has all the >> right >> criteria. So I'll have the criteria for
all of it. >> Okay. Um >> which is good anyway because we have to go over the conditions after anyway. >> So here are the ones for affordable housing. I know you're asking for site plan, but >> that's fine. So again this is important
because affordable housing it's essentially did they provide 10% of the units uh then the unit shall be uh situated within the development so not to be clustered and um
water resource protection district essentially the last two bullets uh that it does not adversely affect the existing or potential quality or quantity of water and that it's designed to avoid substantial disturbance of the soil's topography, drainage, vegetation.
And then the site plan criteria is right here. These four points that you've you would review it against the adequacy of impacts to the natural environment, adequacy of traffic and pedestrian circulation as well as parking. uh the adequacy of design to enhance the
natural and aesthetic qualities of the town, conserve the value of land and buildings, and protect the his uh preserve the historic and cultural heritage of the town. And that you reviewed the adequacy of landscaping and existing vegetation. So I guess in my head if if a similar
project came in tomorrow and the same exact situation was put in front of us, would it be any different now that we have had this conversation and we're all aware of it? If you know where I'm
trying to get at. Um it's more that the it doesn't comply with our VCC standards. >> It doesn't comply >> not with our special >> my interpretation of the standards in
the VCC nor the intent I believe of why we have those standards. So, it can't be tied, like I said three times now, to either of the special permits. Anything regarding what we're talking about in
this situation would have to be with regards to the site plan >> which takes into regard all the zoning. And >> so, it would be zone. That's the >> in the site plan review. We have approval over the parking arrangement.
Correct. as opposed to some other criteria specifically for the village center core. >> Um, let me bring that one up. Yeah, the standard is the adequacy of traffic and pedestrian circulation
within the site. Um, and uh, that was our professional addressed that and your professional peer-reviewed it and found that it met the standards. I mean, I I suppose again, I don't actually have much of a problem with almost this
entire project. It's overall coming along pretty well, but I do think there's an issue with the 4060 ground floor thing going on right now. >> And I don't think there's not an issue, but going back to the definition, it says you can't you don't take into
consideration garages, and I can't get past that. That's where I'm stuck on, >> right? But then >> if I have to weigh it e either way that's what I can't get by to weigh me to the other way >> ex except >> no matter what district you still refer
to the definitions there's no separate definitions in >> but the interpretation says that if there's a stricter guideline that's what shall apply which means adding dcc is now a stricter
rule than the original >> well it's a definition we're having some differences of of of of opinion here about what that provision means. And I I would just fall back on that provision was written to try to manage
the amount of residential. It wasn't we didn't explicitly call out parking and parking has you know typically is an accessory use to the building itself >> and I don't remember I know that was a
long time ago. I can't specifically remember in all those conversations if we had a lot of conversations about having parking inside >> what parking I don't specifically remember but I do it is very common right now that's how a lot of developments are going exactly >> three or four projects I got one more
question then >> so the the 40% that could be residential purposes can that be parking parking I'm sorry, Steve. It >> if it was >> That's what we're saying. It is parking.
We're >> Well, no. What they're saying is that the parking doesn't count for the 40 or 60%. That's what's being said, >> right? Correct. >> And I'm saying so if they want to put parking in that 40, does it count as that?
>> Well, that's what the decision we're making really. That's kind of our sticking point either way. >> Yeah. >> Not really. Like there there's the whole ground floor that's either 100%. Or they think
parking doesn't count and only this box is 100%. >> And >> can they put parking inside that box also as part of the their 40% residential? >> Yeah. And then once they put parking in there, does that count as part of the not
counting part? >> In my opinion, um I think bylaw as written, um there is no definition and that's where the this all this tension is coming from cuz in the law itself it wasn't it wasn't thought of at the time.
So if we're going by by law as written, then they're fine. However, if we want to fix that, that is a a town meeting in fall thing. We need an update and that's but that's not the applicant's issue. That's ours. That is my opinion.
And would it not be possibly to interpret this as parking garages are permitted as not part of that percentage except as further defined within the VCC as a residential use. and
other residential associated use and required >> like I said as of right now I don't think we can >> but then again beyond that also one more if they do interpret that as parking that can be rented out to anybody including non-residents then they also have to include enough parking outside
of that space for all the residents >> yes >> which means we need an update to the outside parking >> we meet the parking requirements under the bylaw >> yeah they're not they're not >> doing that >> exactly they're not saying what parking who's parking where right now at all they're saying this is our total parking
and this total satisfies the by requirements >> right and again if it helps I'm still stuck on the definition >> that that's what I was kind of saying there is >> that's what I can't get past
okay Um, >> and if we want to do a straw poll, however you guys want. I don't want to beat this issue to death, but it's still up in the air. I think >> I can't. >> Can I >> Tim? >> I'm going to throw something out there and Paul, you can tell me if I'm going into dangerous ground or whether you
think this is something that is not appropriate for the decision. um the potential for the board to include a finding in the decision. finding stating that
the applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements under the section of the Phil VCC commercial floor area
requirement given questions given questions about the applicability of parking garage towards floor calculations. So we're saying they have made a good faith effort to comply with this
requirement >> and the language needs to be updated. That's where you're going to >> basically saying it was murky. They made a good faith effort to comply and that's what we're finding here. We're not necessarily,
even though the applicant feels it's fairly black and white, parking doesn't count against your glory and you just make a smaller pie to look at your 60/40 split. We're saying our finding is
despite ambiguity, they made a good faith effort to comply. They didn't give us a broom closet and say it was a least space. So basically t the language into the decision just so the next person can see that >> that's that's my copout. I'm not sure Paul if you feel that's appropriate. Do
you feel that's helpful? Do you feel that's >> if if the board agrees to that that's a finding >> if you're concerned about somebody coming in and pushing you to the 99% limit. I understand where you're coming
from and it it would be helpful for a future applicant to understand that in my opinion. >> I know that's not what you want, Steve. Better than nothing. >> No, it's more clear than I'm I'm trying to think now and this might be getting ahead. Just I'll try to get this one
quick. After this town meeting, we update our definition. Now, if somebody wants to put commercial parking in the bottom, do they have to comply with the percentage
>> unless we update the make it clearer >> to hang on? >> I'm not sure thinking about it this long. I would I'm not sure I would interpret it >> where I was going. If someone applies tomorrow, am I going to interpret this different with all the facts that we've talked about now? >> Completely different. Completely similar
project. >> Yeah. Would we treat it any different? How would how would we go about it? Reading the definitions, reading the zoning. >> Yeah. >> And I'd probably I think I'd still be stuck on the definition of can't
>> can't factor in the parking garage. That's why I made my own option C. >> I like it. >> And somebody comes and pushes with a broom closet. We say this isn't a good faith effort to comply with this. I don't know if it would hold up, but it would be consistent at least. So,
>> do we have to use the word comply or is there like cuz I feel like the definitions where I'm hung up as well and technically in my interpretation of the definition that I can't get past, they're in compliance with it, but like can it be that they showed a good faith
to how is it to say not do a broom closet >> in the spirit of the law? >> Yeah. Like like the intent of it was like more but I don't want to give other people ideas that there's a less I don't know. They didn't maximally avoid it. >> Yeah, like that basically
>> because I would I would say like if we're talking about the 1% >> I'm not sure what that building looks like, >> but that sounds like you have a very small space up front and that would not meet the intent of it because you have all commercial on your frontage.
>> It could be a very skinny frontage >> like a wraparound building. >> You could put a FedEx locker in front >> a showroom. You could put a 5 foot wide FedEx drop off locker in front >> and call that commercial and have
everything behind it be parking >> or an HOA. >> I am nothing if not a cynic and a devil's advocate here >> or an HOA lobby. >> Yeah. The only other thing that that I always get tripped up on in these types of projects and these type of buildings is
I know we don't consider I consider this whole building commercial myself. I know it's a residential use. I consider the parking commercial. I consider in my mind that that's a commercial building. >> Yeah. >> If that were the case, >> it is the case. >> Well, if that is the case, then it is
not allowed by the the criteria in the wetland the water protect protection water resource protection district cuz it only allows residential purposes. It doesn't make any criteria for commercial purposes. It just has further restrictions, but it explicitly states
residential's unallowed use. I'm interpreting that this has residential. So, it's a residential purpose. >> If it's all a commercial purpose, >> it's a residential use. I guess it's the same but different. It's a res definitely a residential use, but it's a commercial building.
>> So, >> yeah, it's kind of Bridget, how do you feel about the word follow? >> How about obey? >> No, I do not like the word obey. Thank you. Um, follow could I have it in the sentence, please? >> See, I'll just go with the full motion then. I would I would motion that the
board make a finding that the applicant has made a good faith effort to follow >> Yeah, follows better >> the commercial space requirements as defined under >> our section to be noted in later cuz I
don't remember the numbers. >> 4.1 4.1 >> I think follow sounds much better. this given ambiguity around parking requirements and floor area calculations >> and definition of such.
>> Yeah, that's >> however we want to polish it. >> So >> second people can there's a motion a second if anybody wants to. >> That was a motion. >> That was a motion. >> I just went for the full on motion. >> He went through a motion. I seconded it to any any other discussion on making
that a finding of a facts in this case. >> I like the word follow. >> I I don't actually think they tried to meet the full criteria. Like in my mind it beats the bylaw. I know like they found a good loophole and it works. It's
okay. Not mad at you, but like we need to clear up our language, but I don't actually think No, it's like it's a third of the building. It's supposed to be at least double that size. So one other aspect of this um is you know these are in in this district
are largely pretty tight lots. So parking is at a premium and in this case based on what they were proposing they needed to park and this pro may not be the only one and it may not be the only one in this area. Um so from that perspective
you know they're working with the constraints of that site to provide meet our code and provide adequate parking and it doesn't get directly to that question of the the language but I think this is a reality of a lot of West Main
Street which are some pretty small lots and we have to be a little more flexible to allow parking. to if if someone's trying to develop it. >> It'd be a lot easier if this was the first meeting also. >> Sure. Yeah. We're limited. Yeah.
>> Yes. >> Uh we have a motion in a second. Any other discussion? >> Could you repeat the motion? >> Yeah. >> Going around. >> I find that the board finds that the applicant has made a good faith effort to follow
section >> I can't remember the number again. 4.1 >> as it relates to the division of gross floor area between parking and commercial space. >> Second. >> There's already a second.
>> Okay. >> All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. >> I know. Two nos. Okay. >> Two nos. So even if we use the supermajority finding passes. Uh let's move on to
conditions. Paul, can you pull back up the conditions, please? >> In situations like that is exactly why we do not estimate time ever. >> Sorry about that. >> I didn't do it. >> I told you. >> Never happened again. >> Frank did it. >> Yep. >> You estimated going to buy the first
round the goat. I I I told >> 109 the last time I >> take time to talk to Tim hearings >> we were here I have a timestamp photo from 12:32 a.m. >> Mhm. >> Taco Bell started presenting at 12:02. >> Yeah. >> The screen went up at midnight automatically.
>> Yeah, they did. Everything went up. >> That's the second time we've done that. >> Well, I commend you for your service. >> Thank you. >> Oh, conditions. Sorry. >> Conditions, please. >> Sorry. >> Come on. >> Well, okay. We I think this first one we
can change because this was about the design, but you had mentioned that we could put a condition in that the staff would work with the applicant to finalize design. >> Correct. Um second one, traffic peer reviewer
recommending the flashing beacon at uh the crosswalk. uh traffic assign a transportation coordinator to coordinate the TDM strategy. Tim >> the condition number two would be dependent on coordination with mastad
right on that area. Masto owns that part of 123. >> Yeah. >> So I would just note that that it's persuant to >> mast approval, >> right? But this is a recommendation which is I think all that you have the
legal authority to do. Um, Mass Dot would have to approve it. >> Yeah. But if we if we say it's pursuant to Mass DOT, then the building commissioner can't tell you it's a requirement. That was the >> Okay. >> Not that he's not a nice guy, but
>> assign a transportation coordinator to coate the TDM strategy. What's the TDM strategy? What's that abbreviation? >> Transportation demand management. So it's how do you handle these are all strategies that their uh traffic consultant came up with to try to help
with you know with the flow of traffic. So for example that first one assign a transportation coordinator to coordinate uh of course I'm blocked here. Uh >> we took this all out of their >> yeah this comes right out of out of
their uh traffic study. This is about, you know, providing information to to residents about gatra routes and times and so forth. Trying to promote >> trying to promote other means of getting around other than by the car.
These are fairly standard uh uh actions for uh tra uh transportation demand management. a central mail room. Commercial tenants will be encouraged to offer specific amenities, discourage off-site trips, secure bicycle parking. Anybody have a
problem with any these conditions with our standard conditions? Also, this would be tied to the special permits and the site plan. That's all I have for conditions, waiverss, >> questions. I think unless Mr. Jacobe you
have anything else. I'll go to the public see if there's any other questions or comments from the member of the public. I do not see anybody with their hand raised on Zoom. I'll give them a minute to pop up if anybody wants to ask a question. Anybody in the audience?
>> No, >> you do. >> Name and address for the record. We spent so long talking about parking. Carol will be 25 New Totten. Um, so >> can you just get right to the microphone so that the people on >> No, no, I'm up here. You can hear it.
>> I can, but the people there can't. >> No, the what? People >> the recording. >> And the recording. >> This is difficult. Any I um I'm here tonight because I thought you guys were going to tonight look at the um the site plan and what what it looks like. And I
apologize I don't have the right language here. So, I appreciate the the addition to the roof line and the colors. Um, but in my opinion, it still does not meet, I think, what the U Village commercial
district should be. Um, I think honestly the only way a project like this could meet that would be to lop off that third layer and now you've got the clearance to make a nice roof and make a nice thing for everybody to have to look at
forever and ever and ever, but right now it's just a modified box. And um so with all due respect to parking and all the other important things you guys are talking about um what it really is going to boil down to is what we all are going
to have to look at. And um you know it's nice. It's nice but it's really not nice enough. And um I heard you mention Westwood. You know I grew up there. It's a great place. They have great laws. We don't have that. But that doesn't mean that we can't have nice things too.
And I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Would you like to see the site plan? We we just didn't pull it up this >> you you mentioned the site plan. I didn't know if you wanted to see the site plan. >> Yes. I mean we >> I saw it once. >> Okay. You had mentioned you didn't know if we're going to be talking about it
tonight. I didn't know. >> Well, I thought Yeah. I didn't know if you had but you just kind of went over it and then you got all bogged down in all this other stuff. I thought that was going to kind of be like the focus. But I guess these other things are more important than what people are going to look at. I Yeah, just in my own head.
But um but no, I don't need to see it again. I you I saw it then, I saw it tonight. I see the differences again. Some improvement >> and with regard to what you said about lopping the top off and that's what you obviously know about >> lopping well because you've got the what is it top of the shop or you got your
shops on the bottom then you have one, two, three layers of of res residential or apartments. >> That's what's allowed currently. Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I think um in order for a project like this to meet what I
interpret the village commercial to be would be you you couldn't have the three. You could only have two because then you'd have the room to make a nice roof and make it look more villigy. >> Does that make sense? >> We do have maximum heights on.
>> Right. So, right. I get that. So, >> so that's what that's what's in front of town meeting knocking these down to three stories as opposed to four. >> There's an article at meeting to do what you're asking. >> Yes. >> Oh, so you're count so your bottom one is is one, two, three, four.
>> That's what this project is. In front of the next town meeting. >> Oh, all right. See, like I don't All right. No, I get >> front of the next town meeting. There's a proposal to eliminate four stories and only allow three stories in VCC. >> But but they're coming in under the four stories which is currently allowed. >> Currently, they're allowed. Well, they
can be allowed, but then there's what's right, I guess. I don't Right. Just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean you should, >> but um but I'm not the developer. >> Yeah, I think it's ugly and I don't like
it. Yeah, I I think in this in this case the the height and the configuration and this number of stories as is is something that they can do by right under the existing bylaws. >> Correct.
>> It doesn't mean that they have to >> if I could that is true. What what is the height right now with the building Paul? >> Yeah, I was just thinking of that >> roughly. >> Well, it's um this allows >> is it? It's 45.5. >> All right. So, they're at 45.5. They're
allowed to go up to 60 ft right now. They're already below where they could go. >> Just >> 65, >> which is actually the height of a threetory building. Towers are 65 through most. >> Yes.
>> Anybody else in the room like to speak? Mr. Wiggins, you're awful quiet. The Honeydew Donuts was built in 1980 and it was the second shop in the Honeydew Donuts franchise. >> Happy birthday, by the way. >> Oh my gosh. April 12th,
April 14th. Birthday party. >> Thank you for letting us know that you know about it, Peter. Now we don't have to tiptoe around it for >> I've got nothing else on my checklist for this project. There's nothing else.
No one else wants to speak. Any other questions, comments, concerns to the board? If not, Mr. Jacobe, we'll be looking to close the public hearing if you you sure >> you want to go for a pitch truth?
>> It's only 9:00. >> Don't even tempt us. >> I was going to say don't tempt us. Don't touch me with good time. >> The chair to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for special permit 33 and site plan approval 18 for 61 West Main Street. >> So moved. >> Second,
>> Eric and then Rob with the second. I think >> I agree. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> So, as we've talked about, we have three votes on this. First vote, we'd be looking for a special permit for the affordable housing bylaw, which is basically saying
they're abiding by our affordable housing bylaw, which they are. Um, so the chair would entertain a motion to approve the affordable housing bylaw for SP 33. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I I opposed.
That's unanimous. Second. Special permit. special permit in the water resource protection district for SP33. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed.
That's seven. Does it? >> Last vote. Site plan approval. Site plan review for 61 SPR18 for 61 West Main Street. >> Motion to approve
SP. what you just said >> with our conditions >> with our standard conditions and >> conditions as listed. >> Conditions as listed. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? >> No.
>> All in favor? >> I I opposed. >> I one nay. >> Yeah. >> 61. Uh, do you also need to vote on special permit to um alter the non-conforming
use to reconstruct the honey? >> So, we already did a straw vote and we voted 7 nothing um that were allowed for the expansion and the size of the scoop uh scope for the non-conforming use of the honeydew basically to move the honeydew.
Um like I said, it's the chapter and verses 1.6.E E or F. Um we already voted 7 nothing under saying that we agree that's under our jurisdiction. Um as opposed to a jurisdiction of the
zoning board and now we just have to vote if we agree that we're not making it any less non-conforming than it already is. They're making Honeydew smaller and moving it to the left basically. So the chair would entertain a motion to
approve SP 331.6E and F. So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion, a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? >> I I opposed. >> That'll do it.
>> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> You're as well. That concludes our public hearings for tonight. We have some planning board business and policies to go over and some uh minutes if anyone's interested. Um if we can do some meeting dates. I
know there's only >> some of us that are going to be here, but we have nothing scheduled past April 7th. >> I had just thrown some dates out there. Our town election is the April 11th. Town meetings May 18th. Um, my idea
going forward, have a meeting on April 21st with no public hearings at all. Just meet the new board, digest some information, maybe some training, review of policies, code of conduct procedures, read and go through our special permit
criteria, maybe like almost a >> yeah, >> hoping we have at least two more people or assuming we're going to have more people and it never hurts to refresh. Um also want to discuss we'll have on there town meeting um what we have going in front of town
meeting just so the new board can discuss it and maybe um strategy and plans going forward for fall town meeting starting to think about what we want to put on fall town meeting. Um, between all that, that's more than enough for a full hearing and not having
a bunch of board members that just got elected come right in and have to digest, you know, they you know all about it. You got to learn your email. You got to learn getting in. So, if we give them a little bit of buffer, >> um, that's my idea for that. So, that would be April 21st if
>> and then I just kind of did every other Tuesday like we've been doing. It would be May 5th, May 19th, June 2nd, and June 16th. in Chicago. >> I had no issue with any of those dates and um I think you also mentioned that once we had new people and we would just double check with them. >> Absolutely. I mean we can just pencil
these in for now. We want Paul to have >> I think it's a good call. Yeah, >> we could have if we have one other thing that might be going on like a May 5th date possibly. Um >> yeah, and just >> but there's not like there's 10 things in the system right now backing up, >> right? We just have one at this point, but I guess I wouldn't caution about the
having a meeting the night after town meeting, >> which is >> the 19th. >> We've done that before. >> Yes, we have. >> Several times. >> Yep. Um, so we'll take May 9th. >> We'll take May 19th out there for now. >> Was it April 21st? What's the next one?
May >> May 5th. >> May 5th. >> And do you want to do the >> May 19th? >> 26th? No, we just took out the 19th. >> Take out the 19th cuz that's after town meeting. Maybe the 26th. >> That would be the day after Memorial Day. >> Okay, maybe not the 26th.
>> I'd rather do day after town meeting than >> I mean we don't have to schedule for now. We can we can pencil in June 2nd and June 16th for now if we want. >> Okay. >> Um tentatively and like I said we can review this again on >> April 21st.
>> Yeah. At least think we just have to have the fifth in there just for something. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. And just so everybody knows, the 23rd of June, which you don't have now, is the last day of school currently for uh most of most kids.
>> Okay. >> Be free to serve on the planet again. >> I was going to say someone may be flying away >> and and also on the 21st, we'll be having I don't know if remember if you mentioned elections. You're the board. If I didn't
>> catch that, my apologies. >> Elections for board positions. board positions and uh representative to committees etc. We're just going to vote Eric on all the committees again whether or not >> ask if you're amendable to continuing in your role. >> Don't mind having five jobs. >> What' you say Rob? Sorry.
>> Do you mind if I ask if you're amendable to continuing your role? >> I don't even know who you are. >> Yeah, we we shouldn't talk about that one right now. >> I'll talk about it that night. >> So, you do want me asking. Okay. >> Um we've got some minutes that Brian was
told are outstanding. Um, a lot of them we can't all vote on. >> Yeah. >> Um, what we're going to do, I got a list of them. We're going to go through them, um, one by one. Brian's going to >> double check us who can vote on them. He should have that teed up. Um, we'll just get through these so we can have as much
cleared up as possible and then we're almost caught up. Uh, so first missing set of minutes was September 15th of 2020. I was on ZBA. I wasn't on Planning Void. Tim, you were on. I think you were the only one. >> Okay. Yeah, I wasn't there. Yeah.
>> So, I was chair then. So, well, that's depressing. >> Yes. Took over in the middle of 2020. That was fun. >> Um, >> Eric, were you here? >> No, I only member there was moved in
like a few months before that. >> Only member was Tim and I was on ZBA at the time. So, Tim's the only one that can vote on him, but anyone can make a motion in a second, I believe. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. So all in favor >> I and then the rest of us will abstain
because we weren't there. I >> abain abstain. >> February 27th, 2020. Um >> motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion, a second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> No. >> You abain.
>> You abstain. >> February 7th. >> No. 2020. >> 20. Oh, okay. >> The only one you can vote in is the last one for >> Steve Hornsby also approves. Next set of minutes. November 15, 2022. Brian, I believe I was there.
>> Can you repeat the date? >> November 15th, 2022. >> Yes. You joined in 2021. >> So motion to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> abstain. I Oh, abstain.
>> Sorry, I thought you were asked. Either way, >> that's two four the rest abstain. October f uh October 25th, 2022. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I approve. >> Abstain.
>> I abain. >> October 18th, 2022. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> abstain. >> Abstain. June 21st, 2022.
>> Motion to approve. >> Yeah, you heard 2023. >> We have a motion in a second. All in favor? >> I >> I abstain. >> Oops. >> I swear we did these before. >> Oh, that's okay. We're doing them again. >> We did a whole bunch of them, but they're like 2024, 2025.
>> No, clerk has these are missing, so we're just going to do it and be done with it. >> Mhm. >> November 14th, 2023. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion a second. All in favor? I >> I >> abstain. >> I abstain. >> I think other people could vote on that
one, right? >> I voted. >> Steve did. >> Well, that's Eric could as well, right? >> No. >> Yeah, >> I got confused. >> It's 2026 now and you have a three-year term. So, >> I was told there was no math. >> It feels a lot longer today. Okay.
>> So, yeah, Eric and Steve, you can both vote on these. They all look like well when did the election would have been? We have from March 20 coming up we have March 28th and March sorry we have March 14th and March 28th.
>> It would have been April of 2023. >> So they're not going to be able to vote on those two. So that was November 14th. That's four four yeses. The rest are abstain. >> Correct. October 17th, 2023.
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> abstain. >> I >> So, going backwards in time. November 28th, 2023. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> I believe that's March 28th. Wait, did Wait, I'm so sorry. Where'd you go? >> March 28th. >> You said November 28th. Like I said, March 28th. >> Okay, perfect. >> All right. >> So, I can't vote on this one.
>> No, >> these the >> that one and the next one you cannot vote on. You and Eric. >> Uh March 14th, 2023. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I abstain.
>> October 8th, 2024. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor? I I October 28th, 24. >> Yeah, we skipped. Y >> you keep >> It's No, you did. You do March 14th. >> Yes, he did.
>> Okay. It's October 8th, 2024. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. >> So, I was here for that one, right? I >> Yes. >> Yeah, I was >> approved by the next two up to March. You meant the two March. Yes, sir. >> Let's do that vote again. So, October
8th, 2024. All in favor? >> I >> I >> abstain. I >> the last one I have is February 25th, 2026th. We should be able to remember that one. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in
favor? >> I >> I opposed. Abstain. Ryan, you good? Miss one? No. >> Did you follow that? >> You're not good. >> We all get Jill's gold star or do we just get off the naughty list? >> I think we just get off the naughty
list. >> Yeah. No, >> Brian. No more bills. I didn't see any bills yet to pass down. Do you have any bills? >> I have >> Brian's got some bills to pass down. We started signing some myars and some plans at the back of the building. >> I don't know if anyone >> You need us to sign on these? >> Yes. So, we also have um for wheat in
place. We need you to sign the uh certificate of action. And then Eric, I have a bunch of things for you to sign, >> but I've already been here for hours. >> Oh, this will be fun. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Did you sign all the things in the back, Eric?
>> What? >> Sign all those papers up there. >> Sign. >> Uh, no. No, I haven't. >> Oh, okay. >> I'm going to >> have fun. >> All the sheets, the decisions. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, that's fine. >> Oh, uh, let me make sure.
>> Oh, how we how busy are we next week? >> Just just it brings us to the conclusion of our agenda. Anything else the planning board members want to bring up? Questions, comments, concerns? If not, >> uh, Mr. Chair, would you mind if, uh, next session, since it's a quieter
session, I just take like maybe 5 minutes to have a few words for the next board? >> Yes. April 7th. >> April 7th. Yep. Thank you. So, our next meeting is April 7th. Motion to adjurnn. >> Seconded. >> We have a motion to second. All in
favor? >> I opposed. Good night. Thank you. >> Thank you. Messy.