Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, January 6th meeting of the Norton Planning Board. The public is welcome to participate in person and remotely. We are in person tonight at the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street in the crane room. You may also join by video as
listed in the agenda via the Zoom link. Please feel free to email questions you have to the board ahead of the meeting as listed in the agenda to town staff. I will call this meeting to order. We have a full board tonight. Every member is in person.
Planning board business and policies. We do not have anything specific to discuss right now. Tim, >> can we welcome Frank to the board officially? >> Did we do it last meeting? >> Did we? >> Yes. >> We can do it again. >> Welcome again. >> You're still welcome Frank. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. [laughter]
>> He's got you. Uh, we do not have any specific minutes to approve tonight. Um, >> I thought we did. >> And bills and warrants. Brian, you have some bills you would like to pass down. Thank you for our first public hearing of a remand for special permit 300 Mansfield Avenue.
The owner is Perm Homebuilders LLC. The applicant is Allen of Major Associates. The applicant seeks to construct two 36 unit apartment buildings. Uh this application has been randed back to the planning board by the Bristol County Superior Court. This applicant is
requesting continuence to the January 20th meeting. They are still waiting on a traffic study to be completed. So, the chair would entertain a motion. >> Have a motion to continue. >> Paul, did you want to chime in on something?
>> This was uh for the remand. >> Yes. >> Uh they the the reason is they're going to conservation commission and and the water and sewer commission. >> Gotcha. Sorry. >> Motion to continue. >> Wow. We have a motion to continue SP30 to
January 20th. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> opposed. Abstain. >> Want to go a little bit out of order here. We have special permit 280 Sturdy Street. The only applicant is Thomas Crossy. The applicant seeks to build a
duplex. This was continued for our December 2nd meeting. The applicant is seeking to withdraw his application. Paul, would you like to say anything else or >> um the So, even though the applicant is seeking to withdraw, you do need to take
an action. Um typically when you [clears throat] had a withdrawal, you know, withdrawal request, it's usually u withdrawal without prejudice. So that way it allows the an applicant the ability should they want to resubmit. >> What motion would we make >> to Mr. Chair
>> to agree? Can I did they say why they're withdrawing? Uh I I did uh they did I spoke with the applicant and they are u removing their request to build as a duplex and they're going to seek to try to go and build an
accessory dwelling unit with the with a single family home. >> Thank you. [sighs and gasps] >> Motion to allow to draw without prejudice. >> Seconded. So we have a motion a second to allow Zero Sturdy Street to withdraw
without prejudice. All in favor? We do have somebody in the audience who wants to speak. I'm not sure if we want to hear that. >> I apologize. >> Technically, is the meeting open? We never opened it. Did we open the meeting? >> You open the hearing, you mean?
>> Yeah. I mean, we never opened the public hearing. We only continued it. >> Correct. >> It was never officially opened. >> Correct. >> I guess it can't hurt if we have a >> No, I'd rather let him talk if he can. >> Yeah. So, [clears throat] we never officially
opened the meeting. Um, but name and address and >> uh Jim Slatterie, 3630 Street. Uh, it's more of a technical question in that the applicant isn't here. It would be unfair for me to bring up any kind of arguments and I'm not here to do that. The
technical question I have is should I think it's the wrong address. I think according to the applicant's plot plan, it should be 2 Emily Street and
myself, I live at 36. Mr. Gomes lives at 42. So, if it's going to be a Sturdy Street address, even though the house isn't facing >> Sturdy Street, it's facing Emily Street.
I just feel the address, however he got that address, if he's getting taxed at that address, then I guess it's up to some the somebody else, the assessors or something to change it. But to me, it's
the wrong address. There is no zero. How do you put a zero in the middle of 36 and 42? >> Usually, you do a zero if there's a project that doesn't hasn't been given an address yet. Um, that's pretty common. We see that a lot. That's common practice.
>> Yeah. So, it's zero before the fire department gives it a number. >> So, what's [clears throat] it it's taxed at is it the land must be taxed at some time. >> I think that's what's it taxed as >> zero sturdy. >> It's still it's taxes. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> The parcel itself has an ID number. It it doesn't seem to be right but >> well and it's possible as they if this gets approved through the per building permit process part of that will be
would need to construct a portion of Emily >> and it's possible the address could be Emily but that would be determined with the fire department and the assessor's office >> that leads to one of my arguments but I didn't want to get into that discussion it just was that I felt and then when he
came out with plot plan. It seemed even more logical to make it Emily Street rather than 030 630 Street, but that was my only question at the time. I
guess you've answered it. So, thank you. >> Thank you. So, we [clears throat] have a motion and a second. >> Correct. We had a second on that, Brian. >> We did. All in favor of zero sturdy street SP28 withdrawing without prejudice.
>> I I >> opposed. >> Abstain 7 nothing. Next item on our agenda is SP 33 and SPR18 for 61 West Main Street. The owner applicant is Corvo Properties. This
applicant seeks to approval for a four-story top and shop building and rebuilding an existing food and beverage retail store. This has been continued for since December 16th. This applicant is also seeking to continue to January 20th as
they are waiting for their traffic study. Yes. Still >> motion continue to January 20th. >> Second. We have a motion and a second to continue SP 33 and SPR18 to January 20th. All in favor?
>> I opposed >> abstain. 7 nothing street. [snorts] >> Last item on our agenda, definitive plan DEF4 and special permit 35 for one Abu Lane. The owner applicant is Marise
Legacy Real Estate. This applicant seeks to create three residential lots lots each with a duplex. >> Paul, we have someone on Zoom tonight. >> Yes. Yes, we do. Uh I see that we have uh Courtney Beckwith with PMP
Consulting. >> Good evening. >> Hello. Good evening. >> Yes. Um, I was hoping I'd be able to share my screen and sort of go through the project plans while explaining um our our proposed project.
>> You should have access. >> Okay. >> All right. >> And we're seeing it. >> Perfect. Okay. So, uh, we're looking, uh, for two permits
tonight through the planning board. Um, a special permit for the construction of duplexes as a part of this project, and a definitive subdivision permit. Um, so this is on Aubru Lane, which is just south of the Norton Reservoir there, um,
along Elm Street. Thank you. Um, currently it's about a 7.5 acre uh parcel of land with an existing single family home. Um, and this paved driveway is uh the current Auburn lane. Um, and
it goes off onto Elm Street here. Uh there's overhead electric to the house and there is a water connection here, but as part of our proposal, we will um be proposing a a new larger water man for um Aubru Lane.
Um, we're proposing turning that lot into three individual lots, um, with a a drainage easement as part of this lot three, um, and extending Aubru Lane into a culde-sac here. Um, and removing the
existing house. Um this is our grading, drainage and utility plan showing the extent of uh the work that would be done as a part of um getting the the road built and the um
drainage areas [snorts] and the limit of tree disturbance. Um and you can see that there are wetlands here on this uh lot. um some buffer zones to a wetland on this lot for an offsite uh wetland area and another one across Elm Street
here. Um and these were all approved by the conservation commission. Um and an ORAD was issued in August um confirming those. Um and as a part of this project's efforts, we have uh submitted
a notice of intent with the conservation commission um and a storm water report which was peer-reviewed by PGB engineering. Um and we have continued the conservation meeting um until I believe the next one
is on 120 um because we wanted to come before the planning board and uh reconcile all of the issues we may run into um and have one set of plans that both boards um are are okay with.
[clears throat] [snorts] Um here is the sedimentation and control plan just again sort of showing the limit of work for constructing the road um and [snorts] some tree removal.
This is the profile for the road um showing the proposed and existing grades. And then here is the buildout plan um which is showing approximately what um having a a duplex
on each lot could look like. Um you can see that they're all about I believe they're about 4,000 um square feet um with their own driveways and each lot would have a septic system. And then here's where we get into some
of the the details um for what's been proposed. Um so that's a a quick overview of the project. Um it's a it it would be getting this uh the roads
about 500 ft long. Um, and it would have the the three lots. That's the definitive subdivision. Um, and then each individual lots building permit plan would have to be a a next step. Um, so these aren't
like set in stone footprints. Um, this is just a idea of what what it could look like. >> That house goes away, right? Mhm. Okay. All right. >> Are you looking to ask for questions now or do you have more that you wanted to
go over? [clears throat] I >> think she was looking. >> Um, I believe that was most of what I wanted to touch on. Um, [clears throat] yeah. Are there any any questions? >> So, Paul, we have three things we're going to be looking at tonight. We're
going to take this all in one at the same time, but our first action would be looking at the definitive plan and approving the lots. >> Correct. >> And then after that, we'll have two special permits. One for the duplex in this zone and one for the water resource
protection district. >> Correct. This is within zone three of the water resource protection district. And they also are asking for a waiver to the environmental impact study. Would >> would we we need [clears throat] to issue three special permits? There's
three three duplexes. All separate lots. >> I didn't I I didn't catch it first. >> Three Three special permits. There's three separate lots, three duplexes. >> Why would we separate them, Steve? >> Yeah, it's all together. >> Is it not It Are they >> It's the same site. So, it would still be the same special permit.
>> It's like unified plan of development. I mean, it's but it's not the same site once it's a separate lot, >> but currently it is. >> But we're not approving a duplex on one lot. We're approving duplexes after a subdivision.
They're separate things. We approve a subdivision not based on what's going to be used there. We approve a subdivision >> and then somebody applies for what they want to put there. >> Right? You'd want to approve the subdivision plan first
>> and then each lot would be its own special permit. >> You >> It's one It's one project. >> It's not It would be three separate ones after that. >> We We've It's never done like that. We've never done it like that. And it's >> There's only
It's one address. It's one project as far as as far as [clears throat] we're concerned. >> Is it going to be one address after we subdivide it? No, we just don't have the benefit of knowing what um what the address will be, what
the new lot numbers will be. And just just when Birch Lane was proposed, those were two lots that were created for a duplex on each lot and that was handled as as one vote uh for the for the
duplexes. I I mean I I think I'm being consistent that I've advocated for separate permits over multiple projects that we've had with the same situation. >> Should we ask council? >> I'm not fighting the project. I'm just
saying that's like I they're all separate lots. We're approving three individual. If if one was a duplex, one was a single family, and one was a multif family, they'd all be approved separately. >> But I think it's it's usually looked at um as one project. They're they're applying for it as one
project. That's generally how these go, >> but >> we're not looking at it. They're not applying for three separate projects, >> but they're not applying for a cluster development either. >> Correct. >> Which if they're applying for a duplexbased cluster development, I'd say we could approve it as one clump. It's
on one project. >> Point taken. I don't follow it, but it's in the record. Steve, are you looking for three separate votes or are you asking if there's a filing question that we need to rectify? >> I I believe that there each duplex needs its own vote because >> Okay.
>> the subdivision comes first and then each lot will be applying for a separate use. >> Are you saying then we should also do three water resource votes for each duplex? >> I suppose that would follow. Yes. It's it may be redundant in a lot of ways,
but it is per parcel. >> Okay. >> Should we ask town council >> or no? >> Why don't we proceed with my >> Oh, and you can I think we can proceed with the rest of the meeting and then we can decide how we want to vote on when
we get to that point in time. Is that >> seems fine with me. The only question on the site plan that I was going to ask you, Courtney, was uh two things. Screening for these first duplex right behind this existing house.
Do you have any plan that shows what any buffering or screening will be in between the new development and the existing >> this house on Elm Street here and lot one? >> Correct. Correct. >> All right. Um, so right now there's a
there's a big uh grade difference going from lot one um to the existing house. Um, we tried to push it a little further away from where the existing house is now. Um, but we put a a drainage basin
rain garden there. Um, I I wouldn't call that much screening. Um, but there would be distance. um it would be farther away than the the current house. Um and on this this portion where the the slope is
significantly less um we could we could propose some additional um screening trees on this side. Um but we we are leaving this um rain garden here.
So no trees, no nothing separating. It'll be clearcut basically from the property line back. There will be nothing in between the housing, the existing house and the new development other than the drainage basin.
>> Uh yes. Um this would just be lawn. Um which is it. It currently is lawn between the two. Um I think there are a couple trees. we wouldn't be touching any trees that they have on their side. Um but that's that's correct. We haven't
proposed any significant screening there. Um we can add a couple um if that's if that's a concern. >> Let's see what you've agreed to back in there. >> It's uh >> if any other board members want to chime
in on that. I >> I agree with you. >> I agree with screening as much as possible. We we always like any new development we need we we love buffering in between development and existing >> as much as possible. >> Um so we have the street trees here and
I know a question from Paul was um what what species we were proposing. Um and this icon normally means maple uh trees for us. Um but I I I was under the impression that you guys would let us
know what what species of tree to plant. um >> palms. >> So I guess that would be a similar question for the the screening here too. Um for what what species would be acceptable? >> Now Paul, this being a private road, correct? We're not
>> Yes, >> we don't really have design standards we can implement on a private road specifically. We can ask >> you still have sub uh in the subdivision regulations, you still have landscaping requirements that
>> correct. So there's no landscaping plan per se. >> Well, there's a requirement for the plan, but we don't list in the regulations specific species, but typically it's um species that are native or adaptable to Massachusetts. >> Yeah. 90% drought
>> tolerant. >> 90% of the time we just have a landscape engineer telling us what they're planning is what I'm getting at. >> Yeah. >> I would suggest we we do that here too is have a landscape architect. I I would definitely unless the board feels different, I would definitely like
something from a landscape architect because I'm not a tree guy. >> There there should be I I don't see the grade changing that much. >> Yeah. And potentially a little bit um and I I think the distance is
further, but 72 Elm is pretty far back in the lot there. So I'm not sure if the leftmost property whether it makes sense to screen over there as well. Um I think yeah we can
see that the landscape architect yeah the landscape architect recommends I think >> but uh I think our general guidance is not is deer resistant is uh >> there are lots of deer around in Norton. >> I spent the day with the coyote spray.
>> [snorts] >> I got a I got one more very I think integral part here. Uh in the subdivision code uh section 58 open spaces. Before approval of a plan, the board
shall require that the plan show a park or parks suitably located for recreation purposes. The park or parks shall not be unreasonable in area in relation to the land being subdivided into the prospective uses of the land. The
planning board shall by appropriate e endorsement on the plan require that no building be erected upon such land. We It needs a park. We're required. >> What section are you in? Sorry. >> 58. Thank you.
>> I don't know if that necessarily means it needs to be a dog park or a little playground or something. Okay, >> Paul, in your memo, we have I believe it's 1.4 goals. That's not from the subdivision, Rex, is
it? >> Uh, the goals that or there are from the subdivision. >> Those are from the subdivision. That's just a different chapter that Steve's reading from, >> right? >> That's what I was asking. >> So, definitely in the the goals in that it it definitely emphasizes open space.
Is there >> No, there's a section 5.8, >> right? There's a there's two two areas that address it. >> Yeah, the design standards and uh >> Yeah. >> So, is there anywhere in here, Courtney, that you could see there being
a open space for a park, uh >> anything like that? >> Yes. For the drainage. Um, we hadn't anticipated that. We could take a look to see if there's um are there any dimensional requirements um
for like a size of the park for how many lots >> that is that's up to the board. It doesn't say a size. It just says it has to be not unreasonably large for what you're doing. >> Yellowstone. >> Okay. >> It also doesn't specify that public
access is required. uh not public access but access for all all people there. >> Okay. So maybe >> provide adequate facilities for all the occupants of the subdivision that will provide a functional design for facilities, structures and site. Provide you know connections, bike trails, it's
all in there. >> Mhm. >> So every one of those rules should be abided by. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. I think we can look into adding um like a a dog park. Um
area it'll it'll have to take a minute to to to look at the areas that we have and see where it might be um nice. When I'm looking at it with the buildings on it, it's harder for me to drop a dog park on it. But we can we can sort that out and
include a park area to fulfill the open space requirements. My only other question was going to be in the question of the waiver um requested which was the um environmental study. Do we have any >> Paul any guidance from uh conservation
or director of the board if uh environmental study would be needed in this case? I know it's already open in front of conservation committee. >> Right. This is typically if it's a large enough project that it not necessarily
tra trips a a MEEPA with Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act, but usually there's like size threshold for it. You've typically waved this many times. Could we just ask the conservation director?
>> Sure. >> Because it can't hurt. Um, any other questions from the board at this time? >> I'm also >> I think you touched on it already, Alan, but this is planned to be a private way,
correct? And that'll be part of the operations and maintenance plan for what I assume is a homeowners association. >> Um, I believe there won't be a homeowners association with this. Um I
I'm not entirely sure um if the owner is planning on keeping it public or private um or if he'll be applying to have it public. Um >> but if it is private then we will be including the the operations and maintenance. >> Okay. >> Oh, go ahead. Yeah. So as I looked at
this, the width of the road this would com f would be a lo designated as a local road which our subdivision regulations say cannot be accepted. >> Okay. So it has to be private. >> It would have to remain private. I would
make sure that the owner applicant is aware of that and that it is my recommendation would be to make sure it is very clear in whatever homeowner docs or whatever governing documents go around it. Uh since the
town has had some challenges with private roads recently which have needed repairs and the town has been stuck not being able to do anything about it. >> Right. Chair, if I can ask Courtney, Courtney, if I'm reading the plans
right, the width, the paved width is 24 ft, >> correct? >> I believe. Yes. Yes. Right here. >> So, I was correct. Then the the regulations do say that the 24 foot pavement width is falls as a
private uh as a local road which cannot be accepted as a public way. >> Yeah. Unless [clears throat] they built out the road. >> That's how we would have to view it unless something changes. >> Yeah. Unless the road got built out, which >> um
>> and adding on to that, Paul, I don't believe there was an O andM plant in the packet. So, that would be something we require >> for storm water. There was, but >> there was one in the storm water plan. >> Yeah. If there's maintenance of the rain garden required or
>> catch basing and all that stuff. include the um the storm water operations and maintenance. Um >> it was in with the storm water review. [clears throat] >> Yeah, >> it's in the storm water report. Um
>> I just didn't see it as a separate document. So, >> okay. >> If Mr. Brennan approved it, then I'm sure it is perfect. Any other questions from the board before we open up to the public for questions?
>> Oh, chair, I just need to correct myself. Yes. >> Uh, this is designated that based on the right of way and the pavement width. It's actually a minor street, not a local bike, but which is a minor street is what cannot be accepted as a so my apologies, but a minor street cannot
[clears throat] be accepted. It must always remain private. So the town won't be responsible for any maintenance or snow plowing, nothing. >> No. Correct. >> Correct. >> Except for the water man because there's three separate septic systems.
>> So you'd have one water man coming up. Sorry. You'd have one water man coming up the street pick up all three properties properties >> and then three separate septics. >> Correct. >> Correct. Correct. Okay. >> It's a no loop on the water line for >> the curbing. Nothing. curving drainage,
nothing would be covered by the town. >> It would only be like you were saying the wa the town would own the water man as they do up to the water meter in any house. >> And there's a hydrant >> in a hydrant. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank [snorts] you. >> But I know for local roads, the town is
actually prohibited from making repairs. >> Yeah. Okay. >> We can't spend money on repairs other than like emergency emergency repairs. >> Yeah. guys going to see what happens when these folks call out and you know they are cuz we've have gotten that and they're calling to the town saying look at there's a crater in the middle of the
road we can't get in and out and >> if it's a private way then they can do an emergency repair otherwise it goes back to the that's why I want it make sure it's very clear in the homeowners docks cuz the select board had >> half a dozen meetings about King Phillip way in the past year and a half
>> so they should should they develop an HOA then >> they they should yeah that's Right. >> Okay. >> Otherwise, there would be no funds to do anything to the road. They have to. >> I just want the people who buy the condos to be very clear that they know it's a private way cuz that was I think part of the problem with King Phillip is
that people didn't know >> and they >> Yeah, >> I know. >> And I will say too before we do u public comment, the fire department has signed off um turning radius. The the ladder trucks can turn around no problem. And uh Deputy Robbins has signed off on this.
>> This the culdeac. So, we have a few people in the audience in person and a few online. Um, I'll take people back and forth. We can start here in person. If anyone wants to come up to the podium, please say your name and address and [clears throat] then uh we'll go to
the Zoom app after. >> Hi, Debbie Winston, 77 Elm Street. I am very concerned, not necessarily about this de development, but sitting here, it's concerning that
Paul can't answer Steve's question. It's like a slap in the face that so many of our town leaders sit on boards. I >> I won't take slander of anybody, [clears throat] please. >> Who's slandering anybody? I'm asking if
Paul can't answer Steve's question. Isn't he the head of the planning board? >> Do you have a question about this project? He is not the head of the planning board. He is the town planner in economic development. >> Okay. But as a town planner and a resident, my question is why doesn't our town
>> and my question is do you have a question about this project if not >> my question is why can't our town planner answer about this project? >> I do not recognize that as a valid question right now. I'm sorry. >> You don't recognize it? Yeah. And we have to recognize you who knows nothing
about planning. >> Thank you. >> On our board. >> It's obnoxious. >> I think you should run next election cycle. There's three seats available. You can run and sit up here every night. >> Mhm. Shake your head. >> I would do it. >> I think let's uh
>> Yeah, let's not go first. >> Is there anyone Mr. Ch just just uh take a second here and uh Yeah. >> No, it's out of line. Thank you. >> Is there anyone on the Zoom app that has a question? Please raise your hand. If not, I'll go to another member of the audience. Y
>> for those looking, the react function is right next to the share. It looks like a heart sometimes. >> Just name and address for the record, please. Sir, >> uh Joel Reahan, uh 53 Reservoir Street.
I'm in the upper left hand corner of your map as in a butter and my concern is only a matter of the uh I forgot the word you used a minute ago screening
uh between the developed properties and existing properties. Uh, and when I saw the square uh, footprint of lot number two, >> I saw it coming very close to what I
presume is the property line mine of my neighbors. >> And I was wondering if there is a guarantee that there will be some sort of natural buffer landscape that would be maintained along that
property line. There's a there's a setback in our zoning code that needs to be followed. So, the buildings will be kept as far away from the property line as anybody else's. As far as the landscaping, once somebody owns that, they can landscape
their yard. They can cut down all the trees if they want to. >> I thought that there was some uh aspect of the nature of a subdivision. the subdivision itself, it wouldn't be the the thing that destroys
the environment. The in in that regard, approving the subdivision doesn't tear down the trees. It just sets the the property lines. When an owner takes over that property, just like in your own yard, they have the right to cut down their trees, to farm it, whatever they
want to do for the most part with their landscaping. and there's nothing the board can do to prevent them from, you know, doing forestry agriculture on their own property. >> That being said, we can ask for screening. >> Yes, >> it is in our purview to ask for
screening. >> I would appreciate it. >> Anywhere on the >> west if you would ask for screening. >> Courtney, could you pull up um Sorry, this is the >> This is the screen. >> I was going to say it was a different locker. Is there are you able to show do
you have a plan that shows roughly the limit of tree work that you have planned on the site and how far away that is from the property lines above. [panting] Even if it's like the house layout and they're going to leave and you're going
to clear 50 ft behind the house, that would leave how much distance between those? Yeah. going up in that direction to those two two lots basically because obviously you don't want to cut down trees that you don't have to because all of that work
costs money that you don't earn anything for. So >> So based on a very very rough estimate with the scale um it looks like it's about 100 ft. Um but that again is very rough estimate. Um I could get a more
>> that that's so >> at the moment your approximate plan and if we can get and like overlaying the aerial over the map I think cuz that area right now is all fairly wooded. >> Mhm. >> So [snorts] that would be roughly 75 to
100 ft of the existing trees would stay between your lot and anything that is currently planned to be built on the plan in front of us. That is certainly satisfactory to me. U but you said that you had a term that you would you recommend you you had a term a minute
ago >> screening. >> Screening. Yeah. Yeah. But >> but if the trees are already there, there's no need to plant new ones, >> right? But you but you said that the board had a a preference, a recommendation. >> Yeah. >> You had the setback that Steve brought up. We have we in general we do have
for lack of a better term I'll say power to ask the applicant to provide screening to nearby properties where none exists or where they are performing work and the screening is going away. >> Okay >> Tim would >> those considerations are in effect as
you view this project. Would it be in our power to request a like a wide buffer >> like like a 25 foot or something 50ft buffer of no tree clearing? >> I I think there is a limit of clearing on there.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. My question is how long the >> until we say that in perpetu putting that in perpetuity seems >> draconian. [laughter] So >> I don't think you can make it in perpetuity. >> Right. So that's why I'm going to go from what we see here, the distance that
you have of not being cleared is this ultimately >> you have a good possibility of keeping the trees but it's not guaranteed. >> Okay. Perpetuity is a long time >> and and also consideration >> if there was no trees in between the development and you we would definitely
be >> adding trees. >> Adding trees. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. Didn't we already ask for screening also on the >> Yes. between the >> the other side. >> Yeah, the other side at the beginning of the road. >> Yeah, that's covered, too.
[snorts] >> So, I do not Paul, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see anyone with their hand raised on Zoom. >> I do not either. >> No, >> I don't. Is there any other questions for the applicant in the room?
I don't see anyone in the room. It sounds like we have some homework. Our next meeting is January 20th. I don't know if that gives you enough time. The meeting after that, I believe, is February 3rd. >> Okay. >> So, on my list, like we talked about, we
have the screening for that first lot. You have to kind of hammer down the on and m the private road issue. Um landscape plan. Talked to the conservation director about this waiver of the environmental
impact study. And that's all I have on my list. Paul, correct me if I'm wrong. >> That's what I have. >> The 20th looks like a full agenda, correct? >> Yes, it it's pretty big. >> So, I would steer you away from January 20th if possible. >> Okay.
>> At the at the risk of your own sleep. [laughter] >> So, aim for February 3rd. >> It's February 3rd or February 24th are the next two meetings. >> Um I think February 3rd um should be good. Um, that should be plenty of time
to to wrap us up and get it over to you. Um, do [clears throat] you need the planning board materials one week before or earlier? >> We generally ask please the Thursday before the meeting is preferable. >> Perfect.
>> But earlier never hurts. >> Earlier the better, but bare minimum the Thursday before please. >> Okay. A motion to continue to the third. >> So moved. >> We have a motion and a second to continue definitive plan 4 and special
permit 35 to February 3rd. All in favor? >> I opposed abstain. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Back to the top of our agenda. Paul, I don't believe there's any more planning board business or anything we need to
discuss tonight. >> Correct. >> If not, >> motion to adjurnn. >> Seconded. Have >> a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> I >> Good night. Thank you.