Okay. So that's anyone else yet. >> I don't know. You can do it. >> So the question is we're all here. So, I guess you won't know if it's working unless you admit. >> Well, this is uh you know, we got this
back. So, Schaefer's in here. >> So, you're invite the room, >> I think. I guess no, >> it's all right. That's not This is unrelated to like the Sure. >> Yeah.
>> join. Oh, now >> meeting ID. >> Okay, look at you. >> Meeting ID 8 74 7459 8 972 right
chill. Oh yeah, you're just cruising. You don't need me. >> Now that I got this far, I think I need 92657. >> Yeah, they don't. Well, they have a separate whereas Matteo does conser
>> there. They have a shared plan for health. Yeah. >> Oh, that's interesting. And I need to turn All right. Now, you get I need to Okay,
now uh let's see. Let's admit someone >> I really like just tech. >> Steve, can you hear us? >> We could do in person or Zoom. Steve, can you hear us? >> What about now?
>> No, I can hear you. I can hear you. >> Oh, you could before. >> I That's because I was I was muted. I That's why >> you were just messing with them. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I was I I actually was trying to, but I I didn't succeed. So,
>> all right. Now, I think we are in business. 7 o'clock. I want to know we're not we have a quorum. All right. Cool. All right. Um it being 7 o'clock in this name of Shootsbury planning board. I'll call
this meeting on the Shootsberry plane board to order. We are having a hybrid meeting with people located in town hall and uh participating remotely on Zoom. In town
hall we have myself, Nathan Murphy, Tom Seaffort, Keith Hasty, Michael Deierra. Remote we have Steve Breler. We have at least uh one or two more folks that may be joining in.
Lamb as clerk is absent for tonight. All right. So now I'll take peek at our agenda. Give us a minute here while we get situated. >> Kicks. Saw a little surveillance. I
tucked my shoes in, left my pants outside when I came back in. >> I think something. there >> at my yard. Yeah, I don't know if I mean I don't usually see them tick every time I let the dog out.
I go out walking around the area. >> So I I guess I'll just see if there Okay, I'm going to look in the waiting room. We have a few people Jane Ashley. Asha, can you hear us?
Oh, she's not showing up yet. Ashley, can you hear us? You're muted. Ashley, you really appreciate Bren like behind the scenes making it happen. >> Is that right? >> Yeah. He's just floating out and making sure people come and go.
>> Yeah. I haven't used this uh interface. I think once you do it, it's pretty straightforward. I've seen a lot of people get caught up at their first go. >> Yeah. >> And I'm nervous to do my first go. Oh, last last >> Ashley, if you if you could try and unmute just to make sure we can hear you.
>> She's having the same problem as last time, I think. >> Oh, no. >> Yeah. >> Right. It was on her end. >> So, we'll say you're on about five with me, >> right? >> What's this? >> Last time she drove weren't here, she had to leave home and come here because
her camera or microphone at home was an issue. >> Okay. >> And it wasn't on It was there, it seemed. But her All right. Well, um I'll ask if anyone wants to make public comment >> hearing and seeing none, we'll move on
to uh landowner education and guidance. Is anyone here for landowner education and guidance? >> I had something but >> that the issue I emailed you about concerning >> uh I was going to cover that under
updates. Oh, okay. I thought you said it might be under land use. >> Well, if they were >> Gotcha. Yeah. Okay. >> We cannot come in. >> Okay. >> So, I told her to keep trying. >> Yeah. I mean, if her microphone is busted, then you know, >> she could tell us.
>> She could call in. Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. That's right. >> She Well, that's I think she can maybe hear us. Well, if she, you know, if she calls in, she can turn down the volume on her computer or turn off the audio and so she'll hear the audio on the telephone. She'll be able to see the
visual um through her um computer login, right? >> Yeah. Or she can use the phone. >> Yeah. So, the plaza is out there. I know you're here for uh some business. Thank you for your patience. We're just uh you know after the pandemic there's only
been a handful of times we've been in here in town hall to do meetings and we've got some new technology here. So we're a little befuddled but we're making our way through it and uh at this point being that there's no one here for public comment and no one here for
landowner education and guidance we'll move on to the uh Plaza ANR 314 Wendle Road and 8 uh 282 Wendle Road. We've got some some maps here. >> I got my digitation guys to share.
>> Yeah, I was looking at one, but it'll be nicely sele format. This is a my >> That's cool. Looks just like that. Yeah. How about this? I hope >> this is the way they used to do it back
in the 20th century. Used to be They used to be handdrawn. Not that long. >> Now, as I understand with these, we've had um we've received two forms. These all the same copy?
>> Yes, they're all the same copy. >> There should be three of those four. And we've got the forms here. Michael's looking. Oh, okay. if I need something. >> Yeah. >> So, we've got a choppy
one signed by the plazas and I think the one from uh Twberry Athletic Club was signed digitally in the first place. So, there's no really such thing as a uh you know wet signature for the one anyway. But here's
these. You can pass them around if you guys want to look at those energy. So, the the request covers parcels of land that are under different ownership, which makes it slightly unusual for us. >> If you'd like, uh, this is Mike Schaefer
from Huntley Associates. We are the surveyors of record there on the plan that you have. I'd be more than willing to share my screen and take you through it if you'd like. >> Yeah, sure. Let me see if I can I just sent a I just sent a request.
>> Okay, I'm >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Hey All right, Michael, you should be able to share now. >> All right. >> Yep.
Is this the format? Okay, there we are. >> Okay, beautiful. >> All right. >> Okay. Okay. Michael Schaefer. Hey, good evening everyone and thanks you for uh allowing us to submit this tonight. We're actually uh going to be asking
>> uh for a continuence on this because we we encountered a potential problem uh this morning and we may end up actually giving you a revised plan. So please don't sign that plan that you have tonight. I know that the next meeting is
July 13th. uh we will have we will know for sure whether that plan I mean obviously if the plan has changed or needs to change and I'll show you what we're talking about in a minute uh you'll get an updated plan but if not then this plan will hold but I would just say at this point probably just
hold off until we've uh verified something to make sure but I can take you through the main I mean everything you see here is predominantly the way it's going to be uh and I'll show you the one change that we might make uh based on us doing a field check on
something. So, I'm going to zoom in a little bit, but this uh this parcel that you see here basically, and I can kind of outline a little bit for you here if you just bear with me so it's for the viewers so that they can see it as well.
Currently, the parcel that is owned by the plazas kind of stretches from here like hey >> that's 56 right
>> uh yeah this is the correct this is this house right here where they live right now okay so that's the parcel that they currently own and we actually approached the planning board
What do you say, Jim? About three, four months ago, something like that. >> And the reason we had approached you back then is because we had some questions about this corner down here about not having the proper frontage or
having not enough frontage and that the plaza eventually were thinking about or are planning on moving in this area here. And uh and so we've had multiple discussions about uh obtaining a small
piece of the Shootsbury Athletic Club, all of which this land was originally donated uh by the Plazas, the Plaza family uh for the creation of this club. and and after some iterations back and forth with the club
um of this line basically moving rotating about this 10 ft point here, we needed an extra 10 ft. I'm going to zoom in. We needed an extra 10 ft here to make sure that we had the 250 ft uh frontage that we needed. We were just
shy of it. So, we were able to work out getting 10 more feet and 20 ft on the other end. That's just the way it worked out because we have some monitoring wells here that we wanted to keep uh some distance from.
So lot A that you see here uh is basically about 3600 square ft. That's this little sliver of land here that we're acquiring from the Shootsbury Athletic Club. And that is one of the form A's that you have in front of you
that was signed by Mark who is the president of the Shootsberry Club. We present he presented plans to the club. They looked at it and they basically have agreed >> to this small sliver so that we can get the 250 ft road frontage that we have
here. That's what lot A encompasses is this tiny sliver. Okay. Any questions specifically about that at the moment? >> I think we're good. >> Okay. Then um
the plaza ask you one question just on the looking at the map the thing that's it's not clear where the let's see I guess it would be the northernmost boundary of lot A is it's a is it
straight up >> so this is this little piece here you see my hand >> that's the piece that we're acquiring Right. Is Oh, I got it. I see the line now. So, line A is the sliver. Got it. Okay.
>> Correct. A is just the sliver. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Y >> um the plazas also wanted to assist the Kilibrus because the Kilibru shed is currently on their parcel. Um so we're basically giving the
Kilibrus a uh a sliver here of well about 18.66 66 ft along Wendell Road ending to about 1793 ft. It's basically running parallel to the shed uh side of the shed. So that there's some distance
between the property and where the Kilibru shed is located. Now it's still not within the offset because typically there's an offset requirement I believe. I don't know what that is off the top of my head. Maybe you guys know off top of your head. But
right now the sh take us 25 for sure. >> The shed was sitting on their property. So, we wanted to at least get the property line on the other side of the shed versus where it is now.
That still leaves us uh a little bit more uh leaves us a little more than 250 ft for road frontage on lot 2, which I will take to you in a minute, and 280 ft uh 284 ft for where their current house
is. So if you can imagine for a moment if I now just move these lines encompassing both lot a come on now. >> Okay. So now this would be the new
uh property lines if you will, if you will, of um of their property um with the two parcels, assuming that they were, you know, approved. Then basically this would be the the
perimeter, if you will, of their current of their new property. Okay. Then what they're looking to do and which is the the second uh form a that you have not only encompasses the the land that we're uh that the plazas were planning on
giving the kilobus but they're also looking then to subdivide their property into three lots. Lot one, lot two, and lot three. And rather than trying to draw more lines in here, making things even more complicated, but basically the
dividing line is where my hand is. I don't know if you can see it. This is lot one. Okay. Meets the requirements both on regards to frontage as well as the amount of acreage. Then lot two uh basically is this piece
here again meets the required acreage and the lot frontage uh on the road. And then lot three is the remaining lot which is the bigger lot which basically now had
obviously has more than enough for the acreage and now has the road frontage of 250 plus uh that we needed along plows road. So the two ANRs that you have there in front of you won't change even if we
should push the meet, you know, push the signing off of this plan uh until the next meeting because the first one encompasses lot two from signed by Mark from the athletic club and the second one is signed by the plazas that
encompasses the sliver that they want to give the Kilibrus as well as breaking up the remainder of their lot into three lots. Does that did I do okay there? Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> One question. Lot three, does lot three belong to lot A? I mean, uh because there's no buildable, there's no frontage on lot three. >> No, no. Lot three is not a buildable lot. >> Okay. >> Lot lot three is the lot. So, basically, lot A will be encompassed into lot
three. >> That's that. Thank you. That answers my question. Yeah. >> Could you tell us what the problem you might be running into is since you're doing such a great job of explaining >> I'm sorry. What was the question?
>> What's the potential change with a move? >> Oh, thank you. So, um, uh, in the process of moving these this over for the killer brewers, originally we had 10 ft here. And then when we had when we only gave them 10 ft, basically
the location of their shed is such that it wasn't enough to be able to be on their property. We were still cutting through the shed. So, we had to make an adjustment. And in doing so, we forgot about the shed that was here. There is a shed here that's owned by the plazas
that may fall on this property line. So there is a potential that if let me pan out here a little bit that this property line let me draw another line here. I'm going to stay away from that line
because I'm going to so that it may be something it may end up coming something like this. I'll do it in green here so it's different. And I'm I'm exaggerating right now. It's really not that much, but I'm just doing it for exaggeration purposes.
Uh so that you see what we're trying to do. It's probably going to be if anything, it's going to be something like that. Pretty narrow, pretty narrow, >> you know. Michael, I think uh we get the idea. So you might tweak the lines there around the sheds to uh better accommodate your intent. >> Um
>> correct. >> Yeah. And what'll end up what'll end up happening, what that'll do is that'll end up then, you know, we'll probably end up having to come out here like this a little bit to make up the difference to make sure that we get the two feet that we need some kind of configuration.
Not exactly sure at this point. And again, we may not have to do anything, but we just felt it appropriate at this point to basically ask for continuance till next month so that we can verify whether or not we have to change it versus having this approved and having
to submit another one later. Um, thanks. I wanted to ask a question maybe for you, Michael, but also the first one for the board. Um, if there are setback issues at all, do we consider those in an ANR um endorsement
request or those not part of the ANR? If I understood it correctly, would there be setback issues with the SHVs? Oh. Seems like a new parcel would have to comply with setbacks, right?
>> Does the setback requirements include accessory structures is nor that is not always the case. I didn't I didn't look myself to be honest with you. Well, it does, but there's the the uh so in one case in the shed that's shown on the
um the sheds are both set back to the appropriate distance. When we when we put our shed in, we had to move it further back to comply. And the Kilibru shed is back even further. So, are you talking about >> We're talking about setbacks from the uh
the >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> Which are the the rule is 25 ft. Um any idea when these sheds were constructed? >> The the shed on our property on our line.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. That was um around 2008. >> Okay. So that's current. Um well yeah the the question about u the setbacks >> got it in here
>> good one um but it's uh yeah you know I think uh It it could be an issue for uh for lot because you are you know creating a new
side lot line that puts lot one into non-conformance. So that's >> we would be doing the same thing with the killers, >> right? Yeah. Well, you would not be doing the same thing with the Kilgru because as of now, the shed is actually
not located on the property and you would at least be getting it on the right side of the lot. >> Um, that's that's a different that's a different thing. Um it was you know but you know additionally uh you know lot um
the code group loud is not um you know they don't request the uh yeah I I don't see that as much of an issue um because it's yeah um objectively It's non-compliance.
They're not asking for ANR, >> right? They're not >> It's almost as if there's three people need to >> Well, I don't think they do because Yeah. the land belongs to the plazas currently and they're looking to convey it to uh their neighbors, which the ANR
process provides >> for them to do. And and I and I I think that you know when you do an ANR and you have lots that are called buildable lots I I don't think
planning board would endorse that if the lots were uh not did not meet zoning. Uh none of the newly created buildable lots have any issues with some but the existing lot one I mean that's kind of new it's not
newly created but it's altered and uh the alteration to create lot two creates that nonconformance. So one thing you can consider if you're going to be changing it anyway is uh potentially trying to create that 25
foot setback from the plaza shed to the lot line and and you can do that with a very, you know, you can literally just do a little half circle right there and not do anything too fancy. I mean, you know, I don't
know the rules of uh surveying and u I don't know if you have to use straight lines. Uh but you know what I'm saying? You know, it doesn't >> Yeah, I mean there there are some creative ways that we can we can do things. I think it really it's going to
fall on, you know, what that might look like once we locate it. And Jim, I I don't I think you're on the line, right? I can't see. Hold on. Let me see your face here for a minute. >> The only thing I would differ from, I think, is
in in creating these, the net result would be that both sheds could be in non-compliance. So if there was proactive redesign be best to have them have the 25 foot setbacks just to avoid any discussion of non-compliance. >> Yeah.
>> Because I mean I don't think we know about luau. It could be currently the kilogru shed could be in compliance for the plaza law which is correct sort of upside down backwards kind of way but it might actually be in compliance for the wrong plot um but by moving it. So I
think the safe thing would be to do is just sort of assume that for the new plot lines both for the killer blue shed and the plaza shed that there's 25 feet of setback and then you everything's >> is that is that line moved eight is that 18.66 ft and 17.95 ft.
>> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So >> I mean there's there's lots of things that we could do. I think we were trying to do straight lines. You know again trying to keep it consistent, trying to keep jagged edges out. Uh but you know we may not be able to do that >> like an asteris
>> you know in the sense that uh >> certainly you know there's things that we can do like you know originally we were back at 10 ft right so I mean theoretically we could do something right >> you know like this right >> there's lots of things that we could do
I guess we'll just have to decide I guess you know it's it's going to be kind of important for and maybe that's one of the reasons why we still wanted to discuss it with you today even though we were prepared to submit this as an official ANR, uh, you know, we wanted to kind of hammer out, I think, exactly
what you were thinking. Uh, and if that if it truly is going to be an issue, then the plazas will have to rethink of how we want to give property to uh the Killibus in order to accommodate the
required offset for that as well as a decision on what to do with their own shed, whether we move whether we, you know, move this green property line or whether we move the shed, you know. So, I mean, I think we have to make some
decisions collectively on, you know, I I don't think it's I don't I don't think these are showstoppers either way. I think we just like to hear from the board as to what it is you want us to do so that the next time we come, we'll have a plan uh that can be fully approvable, if that makes any sense.
>> Yeah. And I mean what I what I would say is uh the best thing for you to do is to you know do some research into the case law around this. You know the the the statute says you know it contains a phrase along the lines of you know the
the planning board you know will endorse the plan unless it shows a subdivision. Okay. So these are this is not an issue that's is going to lead us to believe that the plan shows a subdivision. Okay. So, I don't think,
you know, I'm not u offhand, I would certainly not bet that uh we would be uh within our authority to decline endorsing this plan because of these setback issues, Steve. >> Correct. >> Maybe maybe especially on the plaza,
>> but uh >> no, I think we recognize that. I mean, >> kill brushed too. I I don't know. I I I it's these are inter these are like really nitty-gritty questions as far as an an ANR goes. You know, like I said, most of the time these are
straightforward, but not always. So, >> yeah, I mean, I we went we went through your bylaws uh pretty extensively and there was nothing, you know, typical ANRs are just a subdivision of land. Uh and the key requirement is that it has to meet the zoning requirements. Has to
basically be uh if it's going to be of a certain size, a buildable size. is I mean this just because we do an aer doesn't mean it has to be buildable but in order for it to be sold as a buildable lot uh it has to be meet the certain requirements for the zoning regulations obviously you know whoops
hold on what did I just do there we go obviously you know these these small slivers are not buildable lots and the intent is uh you know ba basically we did this based on our meeting with you guys you know three four five months ago whatever it was that you know because we
were asking for a poss potential variance Uh, and then he said, "Well, you know, you should really try to get the extra 10 ft." So, that's kind of what we did. Uh, it generally was not really an issue since Plaza owned all this land anyway at one point. Um, but, you know, and
then in the process, we're trying to help the Killer Brewers out and things like that. So, I think we recognized that, uh, even though the, uh, this is really a I mean, we don't re we didn't even really show these, we didn't really really need to show these. We did them
really just out of honesty and just to show you what we're dealing and what we're dealing with. Uh but I know that according you know to typically ANRS that we do pretty much all over Western Mass whoop all over Western Massachusetts that um you know typically you're just looking for the buildable
but we wanted to be straightforward with you why we were doing it. Now certainly that doesn't mean that the building department couldn't come back here later and say something to the Killer Brews and say, "Hey, you only got 3 ft. You got to move the shed." Or if the same situation were over here, uh, you know,
the plazas would have to move their shed, if you will. So, I think we were since we were basically not really going to be asking for approval because we wanted to check this shed just to be assured. Um, that's really what why we're holding back right now. Um, but if
you if you're if you feel that, you know, this is really kind of out of the jurisdiction for the ANR, which it typically is, but we want to give you that opportunity, then we could move forward and deal with the shed accordingly and submit the plan. And if the shed is in fact uh too close, you
know, if the plazas decided they wanted to move it at that point, they could do so. Or if the building department came around and cited them, you know, whatever. I mean, it's pretty much open out there. There's nothing out there. But so I don't know how much of a deal you want to make it. It's up to you. That's why we bring it up to you.
>> Have Have you checked with the ZBA at all regarding the sheds and setbacks? >> We have not. >> Because it really is a ZBA issue, not so much a planning board issue regarding the ANR. >> Okay.
they you you could make a case for a waiver since these are existing structures and all you're doing is moving the property line, but that's out of my wheelhouse because I'm not on the ZBA. >> Understood. >> Well, if I So, let me I want to kind of
clarify what Steve is saying. You know, there's a provision in the zoning bylaw that says that accessory structures can be located, you know, less than 25 ft from a side lot line or rear lot
line if a special permit uh you know, if you request a special permit from the ZBA. Um, >> I'm not sure that touches on a scenario like this where an ANR creates it, but that is uh,
>> so that is something normally a special permit is for the placement of a structure, not I mean exactly what you said of an ANR doesn't really so I mean but >> I guess certainly if if the plazas decide to leave the struct let's say we
find out the shed is you So, let's say it's just right here. Okay. Uh, but it's still within, you know, within the 25 ft setback of the newly created ANR line. We could certainly go to the ZBA and see what they say about it. Not only that,
but also over here at the Kilibru's end of things. Uh, if so, when is the ZBA meeting you? >> Oh, they meet um periodically. But Michael, uh, you know, before you get too carried away with going to the ZBA, um, you know, I don't know if you need
to go to the ZBA for this, but and you know, just the, uh, consideration could be, you know, depending on, you know, on the size of the shed, it may or may not require a building permit even to put up a structure like that. Um
that's not to say that it doesn't that the setback's not applicable to it, but if if it is big enough to require a building permit. Uh so that's just a consideration for down the line if you you know need to you know make repairs to the shed or you
know do any work on the shed that would require a building permit. Um that would be a situation where now you're no longer comp compliant with zoning and that's where you start running into issues. um in the future if you never need to do any work in the shed or if
it's small enough that you don't need a building permit for it, that's kind of like a different scenario, right? >> Um >> Right. Right. >> And as far as, you know, whether or not the planning board should endorse a plan that creates this kind of a uh zoning
nonconformance, that's a question that we need to look into and we don't have the answer right now. I mean, um, you know, I would suggest you try and do that due diligence as well. Um, but it's, uh, I mean, it's a it's a valid question. I
I don't know the answer to it. I mean, that's all I can say is I don't know the answer. >> First time I come across this. Go ahead. Could I please Michael just ask for you to um illustrate all of the structures when you resubmit the ANR
like the one on the plaza property that's not there now? >> Sure. Thanks. >> Asking >> can I ask? I mean the only the only thing that would obviously you know if I
think at this point the question really was relative to to the plazas is whether or not you know I think we were I mean this came this came up kind of kind of quickly on us here and so wasn't really sure if if moving this building uh assuming it's in the way uh it um if
this building would be open to be moved if it were and I don't know Jim if that's something you can answer at this point or you'd really want to see where it is first before making that decision. That's up to you. Uh I guess my question would be is if the plazas decided that
they, you know, let's say they wanted to move the shed up here, right? So that we could be assured that it would be outside of the 25 ft uh set uh setback from this new property line. Would that be enough for the board
to approve this tonight or is there still concern about the Kilibru shed? It seems like I mean if it's not a burden being able to sort of think it through on your end then come back next month it's probably better to have
something thought out as so the question is would we approve it tonight with uh some assurance >> basically as is um you know if you if you didn't come and say that we had this potential issue with the kill shed
Correct. >> I I think we would claim that we have until the next meeting because this was submitted like, you know, it's you know, we don't even have the check yet and uh and we just got, you know, it's been basically this week. So, it's uh
it has to be, you know, so here's what the uh regulations governing the subdivision of land say about it. And this is um >> Yeah. I mean, I I know it's 21 days. I get it. Um, you know, I mean, the next meeting's 30 30 days away, but we're not
going to hold >> this. Let me read this. Let me read this, Michael. For the purposes of this section, the date of submission to the planning board shall mean the date of the first regular or special planning board meeting following delivery of all copies of the items specified in section 2.B1A
through 2.B1D above to the town clerk. In order for a plan to be deemed so submitted, the delivery to the town clerk must occur no later than seven days prior to said planning board meeting, which this does not meet. Therefore, it would not be properly submitted until the next planning board meeting, at which time the 21day clock
would start. So, um, that's what we would do if we were opposed to the question of whether or not we would endorse this this night. We would say, well, we're we're not going to we don't start the 21day clock until next to meeting anyway. Um, but, uh, being in
the case that you do need to go and look at these, uh, items, uh, we're going to have time, you're going to have time to, uh, figure this question out, um, and, uh, do the right thing. Now, I know that may be uh
you know, of some uh making this less easy than uh it might normally be if there were not any sheds on any of these lots, but I mean that's just the way it goes. So, uh you know, we we're going to do our research and we'll uh be happy to
revisit this in July. And I just wanted clarification for myself and maybe we can find it out outside of the meeting so that we can go on, but is this one ANR or two and how does it work where an apple can is or is
not the owner and I just wanted to be able >> that would be another element of our due diligence. I do have inquiry with Donna or actually I asked the clerk to do it. So yeah, we'll we'll have uh some I mean honestly I don't think that this is a problem. >> Uhuh. I'm >> because uh
>> curious >> you know the the statute doesn't state that the >> you know it says anyone you know make anyone can make a plan of land and uh and have it endorsed by the planning board if it's not a subdivision. You know, it doesn't, you know, you could make it I could do it on your lot
>> if the owner just requires it just requires the >> appropriate signature. >> The form A states the owner signature, >> right? That's what I'm thinking. So, okay. Yeah. So, that's a super form. I mean, it's I don't know if the regulation the regulations uh >> I don't know if they mentioned the owner in there. The form has the owner on it,
but the uh there's no mention of the owner of the land in the statute in the sub division control law um that I've seen. Mhm. >> The one thing I would ask I just since we're in public meeting rather than later is yeah I think the question comes up for me that Keith was also asking is
if we did a waiver around the setbacks does that all of a sudden trigger it not being an ANR you know what an ANR is approval not required and if you do a waiver does that change the characteristic >> there's no uh mechanism for a waiver
within site you know for a waiver they would you know they could approach the ZBA PA and say um I don't know I mean I said that's like you know it's outside the scope of like the current framework right you know you would do that if you're building a new shed um if uh if you do the ANR and we
endorse it and now you've got a non-conformance you could submit a waiver request to the ZBA to get inconformance >> but if it was out of conformance we not we might not endorse it and then they would go to the CBA
It's It's sort of like >> Well, yeah. It's like what comes first, the chicken or the egg? >> Yeah. It's a little confusing. >> Yeah. Um I mean, I'm I'm somewhat inclined to think that we would not have a reason to decline endorsing it being
that it doesn't show a subdivision, but there is I mean it's uh I'm not 100% on that, you know. How are you? >> Well, I mean the extreme would be which is not this case, but just say they had
a 100 they had 100 foot of frontage and it was 225. There still wasn't a subdivision, but it was out of appliance because of lack of frontage, we would be having a different conversation. Right. >> So, if they're doing an ANR that did not if they if they say that it's a
buildable lot, but it doesn't meet like the frontage Yeah. >> or the area. >> Yeah. Then I think we could say that, you know, we're going to decline to endorse because it's uh because the plan is like, you know, I mean, I think the >> significance is totally different, but
it would also be out of compliance. It's just more extreme that, >> right? Yeah. So, no, I mean, it's it's definitely a valid thing and it might not be we not might not be able to do might not be able to endorse it due to the issues with the shed and potentially
the driveway for that matter. Um, the driveways don't really fall under the setback requirements >> really structures. I mean honestly if you know and not I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything. I'm just discussing it out with you. Normally we wouldn't have even shown sheds. Um I
mean it would have been a responsibility of the property owner to I mean an ANR is simply a division of land. uh if for some reason, let's just hypothetically say if for some reason, you know, in this particular case, I mean, we showed
the shed because we were trying to do the right thing here, but if we didn't show the shed, none would have been the wiser, right? So, if for some reason the building inspector or they decided they were going to make some improvements on there and they needed to submit this plan and they just show this, then they would have been out of they would have been out of compliance and they would
have had to basically move it. Same thing would have been with with with the with the uh uh with the plazas here. You know, that's why I was kind of asking uh you know, Jim and I were kind of talking about, you know, would you move the shed type of thing and and you know, he may
end up deciding him and Jan may end up deciding just to move the shed, you know, so this this be this issue doesn't become an issue anymore. So, I mean, I know what you're trying to do and I and I respect that and appreciate that. And I think we were just trying to be straightforward and honest with what our representation was of what was here.
Um, and I think at this point, you know, we'll just go back to the plazas and we'll we'll sit down and we'll have a discussion about uh, you know, what do you want to do here? Do you want to bend this line to make sure this shed doesn't fall on this proposed line? But I think you know one
thing it would be very important to know for us is if you feel that this ANR uh needs to comply or needs to show that it's in compliance with all the zoning
regulations on top of it. Um which I don't think is the case. But if that's what you think it is, then we need to know that so that we can go back and make the appropriate changes to make sure that if they decide to give more land to the Kilibrus to make sure
there's a 25 ft offset here, then we kind of need to know that. Does that make sense? >> Otherwise, we're going to be back here in August, >> right? I I'm I'm going to tell you say again what I said before. I would check with the ZBA. Okay. I'm not convinced
the shed and setback is a plan. I'm not convinced that it may be, but I'm not convinced it's a planning board issue. >> Okay. >> So, I can tell you a little bit about what we did in Holland. We were doing a major subdivision there. Now, that was a
subdivision, not an ANR. However, um there is a portion of property along the road that we're planning on dividing some properties up and we need to go in front of the ZBA um excuse me, yeah, in
front of the ZBA there to um to get a variance on the lot frontage and the size of the lot because of the it's got a very unique applicability there. Uh but in that particular case, we don't have any structures or anything like that. So, we're just basically saying,
can we get away with 200 feet instead of 250, let's say, for example, right? Um, but we can certainly see about going to the ZBA or we can, you know, I'll talk to the plazas. Maybe we resolve it right now and there and just show you that we got the setback,
maybe we move this, whatever it is we got to do. I just, I guess I was just kind of curious from your perspective. Um, and I think you said it now. Just go to the ZBA and see what they say. is in a butter >> if if a uh >> Yeah, thank you, Michael. We got a
question over here. If if an ab butter if there's a a an out of compliance accessory structure the shed is within a setback can a and a butter
make a claim like the shed the kilibru shed it's been over the poverty line um what I'm saying if somebody buys lot two and we've approved approved this ANR the the division of
land. But then the owner, the new owner of lot two has now two sheds that are within the setback to violate the setback rule. But we've approved that plan.
Have we somehow taken away the new owner of lot 2's right to somehow uh adjudicate that that violation of the setback rule? >> Well, the uh the new owner, they could uh make a complaint with the uh building inspector.
Um they could I suppose they could sue us in land court and say that we exceeded our authority in endorsing this plan because it uh you know we knew it had these potential separate. >> Um I don't know if that would have any merit.
Um but I mean it would depend on you know I mean I think we'll figure it out one way or the other and then we'll like take the correct action so that we wouldn't encounter that situation if it was um thing. I mean, there's, you know, there's a lot of nonconformity out there. You know, it's not like
>> Oh, yeah. issue. Um, >> but it doesn't have our stamp on it. Something that we knew about and then >> Yeah. I mean, it's kind of like though, you know, at some point we changed the zoning bylaw that made it non-conforming when we did that. So, I mean, it's >> I know we want to move on to cash.
Another question. >> Yeah, we do want to move on. >> Yeah. Can you just zoom out a little bit for a second? I just have a question before we wrap this up. So yeah, I always want to see the um
so when we're when you're creating the new bigger lot that's running at the dotted line sort of below the words lot three, right? Is that where it's going? >> You say the bigger dot the bigger lot
>> the the bigger lot. Yeah, >> lot three. which would subsume the new law three is what's the okay so not to solve your problems but I guess one thing just to question is if all you
did was the lot a creation and then the plazas gave a um an easement for the shed you don't have to change the other property line. So then you don't have to mess with anything. So that's something to ponder, I guess. >> Yeah. So basically what you're saying is
we just left it like this. >> Yeah. Because right now there's just keep the status quo between the plazas and the Kilibers Kilibers and do an easement for the shed. >> For a shed. >> I don't Why not?
>> I just I've not seen easements for structures. This came up in Wendle recently where a neighbor wanted to put a shed where they had an easement for parking and um the building commissioner came back with doesn't compute you have easements for structures. That would mean they'd have to kind of rent that
structure from the or potential like it's >> it may not be as simple as an ement for a structure. >> Okay. So that would have been an existing easement that may have had, you know, language that specified its uses or >> it it was it was but he was hardressed
to think of ease on structures. I'm just saying it as a warning. >> Yeah. No, I mean if you get permission without changing lines that would be a lot easier. >> I would like to see one because we could we couldn't find one. >> Okay. So >> norm normally normally easements are for
land and not structures. I have never seen one in my entire career. >> I am scared. >> I'm not going to tell you how old I am. So, >> been a while. >> I'm just looking to see um
>> uh do you have any any issues with lot three or anything like that at this point? I mean obviously whatever changes we're going to make are going to be down here around lot two >> if we make any changes at all you know let's face say for example if the plazas end up deciding to move their structure out then that line doesn't become an
issue anymore and then we'll just have to address the kilibru >> but what about uh let me close this up a little bit >> hold it >> so we're creating identifying we're creating three lots right we're creating one two and then three
>> you have any you see any issues with with at least the general scope of the lots. >> Yeah. And Michael, I've just been trying to do a little bit of research on the fly here. You know, >> sure. >> Your point about not normally not including sheds. I don't
you might be right on, you know, I got to look a little bit more about not seeing anything that says you have to include all the structures on the P, which you know, tends to uh drive us in a certain direction. Um, >> I'm sorry. I didn't quite understand what you're trying to say. Would you mind repeating that? Well, >> what what I'm saying is, you know, you
might be right. You know, like um what what I'm trying to look at regulations and and subdivision control uh you know, definitions about, you know, what a plan is and what it must include. And I'm not seeing anything contrary to your statement that we wouldn't normally
include sheds on these. >> Correct. So, um, we may do a little bit more of a thorough look in the interim, but I think for now we're in a good place to move on. Yes. Anyone else have anything else they need to say on this, uh, topic?
>> Mike, any questions? >> No, I don't have any other statement to make at this point. All right, we'll take a look at this uh for next for July and uh I'm sure we'll get it worked out. If we need to have an interimm conversation about what your findings were versus what our findings
were, we can do that. But then we'll do a presentation one more time in July and hopefully that'll be the end of it. >> Yeah, you know, I would definitely say, you know, yeah, communicate with uh the land use clerk. Um, you know, we've got a a chain already going, uh, Michael,
>> and and and like I said, I've also got the u, you know, we are asking our our town attorney about the, uh, the submission situation, which, you know, I think is fine, but she said she has some questions on it as well. So, we have probably all the answers we need
for her now, and we, you know, we'll be in touch with what we find. So, >> all right, sounds great. Thank you so much for your time, everybody. I really do appreciate it. >> Thanks. You, too. Have a good night. >> Karen and her attorney are on. >> Excellent. >> Want to be let in. >> Um I thought
>> there she is right there. >> Yeah. Okay. And sorry if you're in the waiting room there for a few minutes. We have I see Karen and uh Peter. Welcome. Good to see you. You're both muted. So, if any of you are thinking about talking, um, but before
before you do, I'll just uh quickly uh just give a rundown for the board that uh obviously the Jewish community of Amoris already has a cemetery in town. They're looking to do an expansion. WD Kohl's has apparently indicated that they are going to donate a parcel.
They're in the process of potentially acquiring said parcel. They wanted to have a conversation with us. Now, uh, we received an email from Karen a couple days ago that, uh, the the point was more or less we do not believe we'll
require a special permit. And, uh, I think, you know, if anyone, uh, went and looked at that, they might say, huh, okay. But, you know, we've done some research and uh when you look in our bylaw
under the use table actually um Michael, are you logged in? >> Yeah. >> Are you able to share the uh >> Oh, I'm not logged in. >> Oh, you're okay. That's all right. >> But I will. >> No, it's all right. I I can do it. Um I'm just going to get to it real quick. >> Sorry about that.
>> No, no, it's better. technologies. Where the heck Okay. So, we right right here we were looking at our our zoning bylaw and then we have community uses. We have cemetery, special permit across the board. And then you've got this weird
line here, education, charitable, and religious. And I call it weird because it doesn't have any designation under any of the zoning districts and it has this little reference over here 8.5-3 and it almost kind of looks like it's
maybe meant to go with healthc care facility and it has all these uh you know special permit you know >> four it's got footnote four right um which uh subject to limitations of uh the uh do amendment Okay. But if we go
down to uh 8.5-3, education, religious or child care use, educational use, religious uses, family daycare homes, daycare centers, and school age child care programs as described in MGL chapter 48. A section 3
are permitted by right subject to all applicable provisions of this Bible. The review of such uses by the building inspector is limited to reasonable regulation of the bulk and height of structures and consideration of lot
area, yard size, setbacks, open space, building coverage and parking. Any questions? I had I have one but I can't I can't find the I was looking at the handout the AG is handout. >> Yeah.
>> And when I was trying to um I mean I think we can you know have Karen and Peter present but just the difference between the do amendment protections and our bylaw seems to be
what kind of cemetery. So if it's a religious cemetery, then it's stove amendment. If it's a secular cemetery, then we can require a special permit. So I think it's because in our bylaws just a cemetery. Um I believe >> so.
>> So I think that's I think that's the >> I think the word use was meant to be understood after the education religious in our bylaw table that you just displayed. So like you know there was cemetery use there was religious educational blank use there was this use
so >> yeah like there's a cemetery and then there's educational charitable religious is another line of use >> right yeah right >> doesn't >> so I think that would explain why >> in our zoning bylaw cemetery requires a
special permit and then if it's a religious cemetery then falls under the do amendment that's that's how I was understanding it >> okay just to get on the same page Yeah, absolutely. And I think >> for a hierarchy of where the by right ones were on top and then there was kind
of accept or something or or they were at the bottom. But to have them placed in the table where they are Yeah. >> is for me kind of the logic break that makes it hard to read it. >> Well, for me the logic break was the absence of the P for permitted by RE. >> Oh, that too. Yeah. Why was there
nothing across the board? Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Now, um, you know, I know you guys maybe had like a little bit to say, but, um, I don't know if maybe you'd rather us just, uh, take a, you know, I'll see if anyone would make a motion that we, uh, are in agreement that it's a religious, it qualifies as a
religious use and tell you to go see the building inspector. Would that make you happy? >> Well, before you do that, I mean, do that. >> Yeah. I mean, >> I think Ashley pointed it out something that it's a question of the driveway, right? the driveway is more like I don't
it's unclear if because that's a frontage issue maybe where it comes out like it seems like I'm not adverse to agreeing that it's an overmened protection but I don't know if where the driveway comes out fits into
the things that we could regulate and if we could regulate it if we had an opinion about it that make sense because my understanding it could come out on 11 road normally but you guys are looking come out on Montere Road. Is that correct? >> No, we're looking for it to come out on
Lebert Road. The question was whether the piece of land that Kohl's has is 50 acres. They're not giving us the whole thing. They're giving us a chunk. And the question was whether that chunk needs to include frontage or not. If it does not need to include frontage, they'll give us a chunk in the middle
and a um like an ease a permanent easement with permission to put a a driveway wherever best suits us, which would be on Lever Road because that creates a feeling of continuity with our existing cemetery. Um if it did require
frontage, then that's where there are two different options of where that frontage could be. Um, but it's our our opinion that and by by my research at least in from um Attorney Lane that that it probably doesn't require frontage and so therefore they can just give us the
chunk in the middle that makes the most sense to be a cemetery. >> So that was very helpful. So there would be very little frontage and you would have like frontage sufficient for access and then there would be the chunk in the m and then it would open up and you'd have a clearing
where you'd be able to have a cemetery more or less. >> Yeah. I'm not even sure that we would have frontage. It would just be an easement like our our the borders of ours wouldn't have frontage at all and then we would have an agreement with Kohl's for um permanent access. Yeah.
>> But they would technically own it. >> Okay. area still a question or something like covers and parts of I mean furniture is not in there right >> lot area yard size setbacks
open space let me >> it's going to be all open face. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm inclined to let um the building inspect to figure this out. I mean, unless there's something where, you know, uh
I don't know. I mean, you know, at first at first when you know, you you sent the email, I was unaware of this clause in our B. You know, the bylaw is very long obviously and like you know, every now and again you just come across, oh, there's that little thing in there that does this and
it says, you know, it's basically permanent by right and um you know, you talk to the building inspector. This is unusual because there's no structures, >> right? >> Correct. there's no building. And in fact, the type of
um headstone or or monument that it would go there per our rules, our internal rules, um is a flat piece that's basically flush with the ground. And it even specifically says um no uh
foundation, no concrete for our internal rules of how we do our cemetery. So there's like no construction or anything that I it's it's given the explanation and
the fact that we in the middle of the lot it's it seems like one of I don't think there's a role for us like >> I I don't think so. I mean I I don't I would um I would be very cautious about
trying to assume any role in this. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think even practically I mean I Karen I get your >> your point about coming off a lever road so it sort of feels like it's connected to the other one. I even from aside from
the sense of community and connectedness from practicality if there was you know more traffic because there's a service going on coming off 11 road which is paid as opposed to Montigue which is not as beneficial I think. >> So would anyone uh you have a question?
Yeah, I just wanted to throw into the mix for you know understanding better for my part >> um how we would parse out or whether we even need to go to the question of drivewayness or is it just a question of crossing over like for the easement that
you uh might uh end up using? Would it be like this is an easement to cross over this land in order to get to the cemetery or would the easement create a functioning driveway and would it therefore be a common driveway which again because of the
religious use might be exempt from any sort of permitting but there is a special permitting procedure for common driveways and I just wanted to make sure we know what we are exempting our >> be a common driveway because there's no dwellings there >> and I wanted to ask that too. Is this
only relevant for residential purposes? >> Uh when you get into that >> you could call a shared dwelling among you know your your many uh departed um but uh other than that I >> sure and I wasn't sure because it was it just says every lot shall have access um
from its frontage by a driveway and so that's why I was confused is it every residential lot or not because clearly not every lot >> that is their driveway is not a but >> so thank you for letting me say it. I just wanted to because I'm also learning >> and if it's helpful there there would be a driveway. Um but I think part of the
reason that Kohl's wanted to know this the answer to this question we wanted to know the answer to this question. The reason they don't want to give us the frontage if they don't have to is they want to hang on to it to be able to develop other pieces of this 50 acres down the road. So, I would assume that if they did and it was going to use this
driveway at that point, maybe you would have a say on it being a common driveway in relation to whatever they're putting in, but not in relation to us. I don't know. >> Cemetery. >> Yeah. So, listen. Yeah. So, so here here's what I would like to do. I I
would like to say nothing except that we see that this is a uh clearly a religious use covered under section 8.5-3 of the Shootsberry zoning bylaw and uh to refer our friends from the JCA to the building inspector.
Would someone I would be happy if someone would make a motion to that effect. >> Why would we speak to the building inspector if we're not building anything? Um because the building inspector uh would uh review such news um as uh
>> well I mean >> we're planning on talking to the the the board of health obviously >> right but what what what would the building inspector weigh in on if there's no buildings? Well, um for example, the um
curb cuts done, you know, is there a curb cut involved? Is there an existing access uh road there? >> Is there what >> is there an existing access uh to the area where you would have the cemetery? >> There's like some trails right now.
There's no there's no uh driveway or anything right now. Um I don't it doesn't seem like the building inspector would be involved. Board of health for sure but approves the current I would
>> I would >> I I've had a conversation with the board of health. I know what they want from us the geologic and water testing and all of that's in the works. Um and and and we've had communications about that and they've laid that out clearly. So I that is happening and that is clear what they
require. Um >> I can make a motion that's probably doesn't get into the quagmire of building inspector. >> Well yeah we can just the determination uh yeah leave out the part about referring them to the building inspector. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll move that the
Shitzbury planning board recognizes uh the JC JCA's proposed plan is falling under um doed protections as a religious activity or religious cemetery. Um and therefore the planning board has no role
in regulation >> citing uh section 8.5-3. Um and we'll leave it at that. Okay, we have a motion on the table. Okay, we have a second. So, the motion is that the plane board believes that
the proposed uh you know cemetery from the JCA qualifies as a religious use u under section 8.5-3 of our zoning by >> and uh is there any further discussion?
Okay, I will actually >> I have and just something that's coming up in my head multiple times is uh parking lot like which looking at the do >> the documents that you all sent earlier
today. It does say that that is one thing if it's reasonable and if it's not restrictive that we could potentially regulate and I'm not saying I want to do that. I'm just curious, Karen. Um, you know, we haven't seen any plans or
anything. Like, is there are you planning to have a lot back there? Is there going to be paving? Is it going to be gravel? >> Yeah. So, we we're not that far into the process yet. Um, we're going to be working with the Conway school students to develop an initial plan in the fall.
But, um, I imagine it would be similar to our existing cemetery where there's a gravel driveway and then what we use is extra grassy space for parking because really parking only is needed when there's a funeral once in a great while. The rest of the time it's like one car at a time. So, I don't imagine having a
lot per se. And definitely our whole uh purpose is to stay away from concrete and cement and adding to the environmental load. Um so I cannot imagine that we would pave. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate hearing that.
>> And in fact, if for what it's worth, we're not even going to cut down the trees. Um most of them the the whole thing is to be buried in the woods. So, we'll get rid of some of the brush and stuff, but most of the large trees are gonna stay because that's actually what people are looking for in our community.
>> That's beautiful. >> Yeah. Um, if if >> Great. >> Yeah. I just I don't I don't want to add more than is needed here. I just want to stress Karen and JCA's purpose, you know, was really to to to be good
neighbors. um bring this to you all now to have this conversation. Um legally uh I do not think that the Shootsbury Planning Board has any role to play in this because of the Dover amendment. Arguably
parking concerns may arise and that is definitely one of the exceptions to the exemption. Um, and I appreciate how well the Shootsbury uh zoning bylaw tracks the language of uh MGL chapter uh 48
section 3, the Dover Amendment, um to just spell out what it is you can regulate and that when it comes to religious land use, everything else is um is exempt from the bylaws. So, I don't think frontage comes into play. Um
um and uh otherwise I agree with Ashley perhaps parking and that could be a further conversation. Of course JCA does not even own this land yet and so there's no permit before you. We just wanted to have this conversation now so that you understand once perhaps we do p
they do purchase there will not be application for a special permit um uh because we just don't believe that the bylaws apply. Outside of that, of course, the Board of Health Conservation Commission, of course, uh there will be
applications to them as required um um and potentially down the road there may even be a um town meeting um for the final approval of cemetery land. Um otherwise, yes, this is a religious land
use and we believe it fully exempt from the bylaws. That said, I think Karen has expressed this in her letter. Um, you know, JCA is just grateful for the opportunity to chat with you all. Um, and um, front the issue as really part
of the due diligence for the transaction. Um, not to go down the road of acquiring the land from Kohl's only to find out um, you know, there's going to be zoning enforcement restrictions. Um but um it sounds like we all are on
the same page and on behalf of JCA I also appreciate this opportunity. So thank you. >> Thank you. Now did uh you have a question too? >> Yeah thanks. I just wanted to ask the question of um should we pass this motion? um what would be the mechanism
for looking at uh parking in the future if they weren't required to ask for a permit or anything like how would it come across each other's radar? Well, I am going to suggest that they do uh check in with the building inspector
when you have a plan to see if uh the building inspector uh believes that there is any that that they have any uh reason to um you know put reg uh you know regulate any of the things listed in the dober amendment based on your
plan. Um and if they don't then then you have that determination from them as well that there's no uh permit required. Right. I would also propose to you that um like Peter said, this is going to end up having to go before a town meeting
possibly next spring. And part of what we're going to have to bring is full-fledged plans, site plans. And so in preparation with the town for preparing for town meeting, include, you know, creating the materials and all of that, like I feel like there'll be lots of points along
the way for someone to say, "Hey, you're putting a parking lot in. You should come back to the planning board." You know, like I mean I I I don't think that there's there's it's permitted by right you're not going to come back to the plan. If anything
>> if they if they put in a asphalt parking lot that was like 10 acres we would want to regulate that. But >> so >> if we decide to do that I'll voluntarily come back and talk to >> I just an example >> with with plague lights.
I mean because what Tom's saying is basically the motion the way I presented it basically says we agree that we have no role end of story but if there was an egregious parking lot and we said hey wait a second we actually want to have a
voice in that I think your question is what's the mechanism saying hey but >> right like maybe the motion should just say we recognize that under 8.5-3 but that leaves >> presented because Karen explain couldn't be grasped. So, as presented,
we we're determining that we don't have a role. >> Well, in and uh section 8.5-3 uh specifies that the uh review of uh such uses by the building inspector is limited to reasonable regulation of the bula and height of structures and and it
would be entirely on them whether or not they include the building inspector in their process. Um that's that's their decision to make. And um if something comes up on the lot that uh you know either you know something uh causes us
or any member of town reason to believe that there's uh something going on on the lot that either doesn't c you know meet the category of an educational religious or child care use or or is not being properly regulated um by the
building inspector uh to meet the uh bylaw requirements. ments for um you know for the things laid out in the do amendment then uh they would you know there are enforcement vehicles in place to uh address it
>> right >> yeah I have one comment it's not about >> okay >> just given what I think the prior proposed purpose of the slot was I'm really thrilled that this is so >> indeed
>> we're kind of hoping Many in the town might feel that way, >> right? Right. Um, so you know, and as I said, you know, like I I once you have the the the plans from U Conway School, you know, I uh
if it were me, I would probably just, you know, ask the building inspector for a determination of whether, you know, they have any uh input on that or not. you know, they they might say the same thing, especially if you're just doing gravel and uh or you know, >> grass or Yeah, grass. I mean, you know,
whatever. So, anyway, um I I've said everything that needs to be said. I'm going to call the role here. Um >> Dear, >> hi. >> Hy, >> I >> stand it up. >> Presley, >> hi.
Seaffort I Weston >> I'm a member of the JCA so perhaps I should have stayed I'm not sure >> that's uh perfectly fine and uh I'm an I the motion carries um and that's uh that's that unless you have any uh th follow follow-up questions that would conclude our business
>> say thank you very much yeah thank you for reaching out and having a conversation with us we're grateful as well >> thank you wonderful evening and best of luck in your endeavors >> thanks good Hey, >> good night.
All right, moving right along. Social >> is it is it 7:45? No, it's not >> on the agenda. It is >> that too. >> I know. >> Oh, >> I I have the next item that uh >> got it.
>> The time was supposed to be 7:45. I had a placeholder for associate member applicants being hopeful that we received an application. I put in no vote because uh you know basically if they're going to do a vote we need to have a name right >> review and approve minutes from May
11th. >> I'll move to approve the minutes of May 11th 2026. So, you have a second? >> A second. I had one correction I sent to Matteo. Should I mention it or it was just a typo?
>> Um, >> I wrote it to him today. So, >> So, we don't we don't think that it's uh in there. Yeah. >> Top of page two, it said for Hold on. >> Hold on. Give me Give me one second. I'm gonna actually just bring it up.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah. Thank you. Don't die on us, Josh. >> Don't die on us over there. >> Well, I I just got back from Boston. My daughter just became a rabbi. >> Really? Congratulations. Muscle. >> So, it was a big deal. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm a little tired.
>> You're saying for coming? >> No, no, no. But thanks. Is it is it um sweetened or or >> it's got someone >> if it doesn't have anything in it just >> Okay, I'll accept that. Thank you so
much. >> I don't fall asleep. >> I got some tea. You can have me. >> Okay. the very top line of page two for plowing the permit should say for plowing the road.
>> It's a nice metaphor. >> Plowing the permit. >> Okay. >> So, add a few small ones. So, uh, far the Oh, actually, >> no, you said the bean. >> I did, >> but I can just It's only three things I can
>> Okay. >> Uh, go down that page just a little bit. It's the uh Come back. Go back up. It's the last sentence. It's consolidated process starts with
that page two. Oh, just a smidge more. Yeah, there you go. It's consolidated. So, ask me as the question um if the applicant could restart a a rejected project and take care explains that it would have to be appealed by DOE. I
might have said that, but I don't actually know if that's true. So, we can keep it, but I just wanted to flag it. Like I if it's a rejected project, like if if it's formally been rejected, I'm not quite sure what happens. >> Do you want to change the would to a might? >> I would just scrap the whole sentence.
>> Oh, okay. >> But I I don't feel like strongly. I just wanted everyone to know that. Um, if you if we're up for scrapping it, that's fine. But it's really sort of Ashley asked the question. Why don't we do uh
>> I'm gonna attach to that one. >> You want to just make a note that says uh during approval it was noted that this may not be accurate. Do you have an answer? >> No, because it it's it's about rejecting a the way I >> so resubmitting a project that's
rejected. >> Yeah. under the new process and I have I don't I don't think the state even knows >> like you know so if we rejected something and it's been rejected it would come back as a new project so I think it would just reinitiate a new project but I don't know like you know
how there's in legal context you can't get >> but this isn't binding like this is what you said and this just what you said >> it became free >> yeah I just wanted to let know I didn't I didn't know what the answer was I didn't think that was accurate so I don't need to edit that um the thing I
do want you want me to make a note that's fine no just feel educated um the very bottom page three I do I have two edits that are worth doing the second to last sentence on page three keep going
down all the way to the bottom um so right the second sentence said the proposed project on a low site suitability score see that is in the second parag section five second from the bottom a project. So it says low site suitability score.
>> Oh yeah, >> it's actually should be poor because low is good and high is bad. So just put >> so no it's it's poor poor site suitability score. >> Instead of the word low >> take low out put in.
And then the last thing on the top of page five, first paragraph um where it says and notes that Oh, went too far. Oh, no, there you are. Okay. Yeah. And notes that none municipalities were consulted. I would take that out because they did I don't I don't know
what Matteo interpreted, but um I think he conflated the two concepts. So I would just end it at municipalities. The second is no no go previous. Don't go earlier in the sentence from municipalities earlier here.
>> Okay. I got I know I'm I'm >> just strike the rest because they did go around the state and get input from lots of people during the regulatory process. They did not get input in the statutory process. >> So right here. >> Yeah. Just delete that whole sucker. >> Cool.
>> Okay. >> I'm good. >> And that's it. >> Yeah. >> You don't now. Um any other uh edits or discussion? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um
I'll call the role then. Uh Brassler. >> Hi. >> Dave Carer. >> Hi. >> Hy. >> I >> Weston. >> Hi. >> I'll abstain. The motion carries. The minutes from
May 11th have been approved. Yahoo. Stop sharing. Just quickly note to Clear. Yeah, I was going to ask Male to uh
clean up the draft minutes folder, but I think I don't know like we got to check on it again. I think for a while after Grace left, you know, there may have been a gap in anyone having access to actually post the minutes on the town
website. you know, anyone with access to my town government can go and post them there with the meeting. Um, but the step of posting them on the town website has not been done for most of the minutes that are in there, which maybe if anyone else was kind of looking at that wondering what's going on,
>> right? >> Um, and now I don't even know where we are anymore because for a while Matteo was the interim town clerk. >> He isn't anymore. >> He isn't anymore. Right. >> There was someone elected written in, right? >> Does anyone know?
>> She didn't. I don't think she accepted it. >> Was it Wesley? >> Leslie Grace. >> Yeah, she was written in, but as far as I know, she didn't accept it. >> Okay. And so now, yeah, we can >> we have our >> we have our assistant town Janette Key
and then Lisa Stepp with the inter hire someone. Yeah. Yeah, we'll uh might speak with uh Gail and see if I can get tax on the website to do that.
>> She's doing >> You don't have Shootsberry.org website access. >> You don't have Shootsberry.org website access. >> I do. >> Oh. Oh, >> but the uh access is there's different tiers of access >> and I may have the access and just not
>> have a little limit. You mean >> right? Um okay. Yeah, I don't know how that I I looked at it once and it didn't seem straightforward to me. So, I'm not I'm not going to like, you know, guess. >> Um I might try and just connect with uh
Gail. I mean, you >> will just do it. >> Yeah, she might just do it. We could probably ask her to do it. >> She would prefer to do it, I'm sure. >> Yeah, she might. Um >> I could do it, but I'd rather have Gail do it. >> Yeah.
Oh, yeah. I got an email from Karen that uh they were in the way. >> All right. >> Actually, she texted me. >> Yeah. >> And I >> I wonder how long >> um she said 20 minutes. >> 20 minutes.
>> Okay. This is why we need uh >> second driver. >> It's hard being the host >> second driver. >> Yeah. >> Are you're not logged into the Zoom meeting on your laptop? Not currently. It doesn't matter anymore. But >> yeah, we're we're probably not expecting anybody.
It's just us now until we get posted on the internet and go to the ether forever. >> Yeah. I All right. Next on the agenda is it discuss economic development.
>> Yeah, that's me. >> All right. >> Cool. So, want to jump in? >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, you can start. Yeah. I mean, >> so I can't remember if I mentioned this last meeting, but um
Oh, goodness. There was some conversation we had and Keith raised this point about looking at the different districts which got me thinking because I think the two the two thoughts I wanted to pitch one was
you know set from the data center discussion was what kind of you know what kind of development do we want to have in town I don't think this is I said this in a couple of settings but it seems Like what would be really
productive would be to figure out how to incentivize development for sheets that's consistent with sheets and you know we're a small rural town that's really pretty and has lots of open space and so that's our strength. So like coming up with economic development that plays to our strength and so the two
examples I have which don't 100% mesh with spray but the first one I had was listening to was a story about Charlton. Bland has Berkshire East, it has Zor, it has a zip line, you know, it's has big mountains, it has a river, it plays to that. Um,
and then I think about, you know, Ralo, for example. You know, people from Boston and New York are going to propo for weekends and whenever I think, "Oh, I'm stressed out. I should go there." And they'll read a little blurb that says, "You could walk around and look at the pond and go take a kayak out." It's
like, I could do that at home. I have a beautiful place. Um and so like but yet all these people are blocking there and so it seems like if we can come up with distinctions whether it's you know we already have two camps we have Morris and we have Pine Brook but we could have
another camp maybe and you know the caveat is you don't make problem tax revenue if they're nonprofit. So that's sort of you know the caveat but you know you could have an art center you can have or we could have just have commercial like you don't have commercial and I mean my personal
feeling having gone through the last couple years now is I I don't think you can explain anything the nonfit is industrial to have commercial and to have you know these rurally oriented attractive places whether it's a hotel or an Airbnb or like those are things
that would fit um so that was sort of my concept and then I sort looked into something Keith said at some meeting about looking at the different districts and what I realized was, you know, Steve, you might know the answer to
this. Um, but like when the laws got redone, you know, it seemed like the big priority was introducing open space design. Like that was the innovation. We were the first in the state, so it's protecting open space.
I'm I haven't done my due diligence enough to look at the old zoning bylaws to figure out what carried forward, but our four districts are somewhat undifferentiated, you know, in terms of frontage. Um, and
like Keith and I discussed this a couple of weeks ago, if you look at the purpose of our districts, like what's in the zoning bylaws are the parameters, whether it's frontage or whatever, don't play out to the purpose. like just
as an example. So for FC it says, you know, they're there to maintain commercial forestry is a viable habitat. Um it's intended to protect uh let's see
rural agricultural activity, protect waterheds, recreational land, natural resources and wildlife habitat. So that's what it was there for. That's the place where we could put industrial uses based on our previous conversation which is antithetical to what we're saying the purpose is. Um in a similar way for town
center it says to enable the town center area of Shootsbury um to maintain its existing character um and settlement pattern um and to allow centrally located residential civic commercial uses with a mix of those uses to serve the local community. So like right now
we're not fostering community uh commercial rather because we have the same kind of frontage requirements. So my thought was like this is this would be a process but and oh the last part I think when I think about rural rural residential although I like the concept
of preserving it it's not really a district. It's like a characteristic. I mean it's everywhere that we live in town along a roadway. It's not when I think of districts, it's sort of like, you know, you have a district for this and a district for that. So, it seemed
like coming off of the last few years, it would be worthwhile to think, what do we want to incentivize and how do we want to think about that? And, you know, would we want to tweak our four districts in any kind of way? Um, would we want to add a different district? fair of the answers, but it seems like
if the goal is to sort of come up with things that we can incentivize because that's what I'm supposed to be, you know, descent disincentivize and incentivize things. So, it might be worth looking at that. So, that's that's my thought. Oh, Keith, you you and I talking.
>> I mean, I think it it's worth again, I made the connection then a lot of the stuff that in our in the the master plan that isn't really the master plan. And then in the bylaw, we talk there's a lot of emphasis on open space and natural
areas and whatnot. And yet the use table pushes a lot of stuff into the forest conservation things. We should not be pushing, you know, requiring things to be 500 feet back from the roadway.
>> Tesla solar, >> pardon. >> Solar. >> Solar. Solar is one of those that we >> Is there anything else that comes from setback? >> I think there's I think just light industry and I think there's several things categories. >> Light industry had a sun or
>> Oh, send back. No, I'm just saying where the where it's permitted. uh light industry is a rural residential for yeah >> you know I think it's like uh did the thousand driveway thousand foot
limitation go in immediately or did that get added >> it was always in whether it was carried over I don't know >> yeah I that's Steve do you remember how much of the old bylaw got carried over into the new bylaw. >> Very, very little, quite frankly.
>> Oh. >> Um I think we may have had shared driveway, but not open space design and flexible flexible frontage, you know, that combination. >> Yeah, that was that was the big push.
Jeff was really sort of creating that, >> right? You mean 2008 when you say the new Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I mean, consider Michael, if you remember,
>> if you remember prior to 2008, we had one one zone in in Shootsbury, 250 frontage, you know, and two acres, right? >> I didn't know that. That's great to know. >> Yeah. And and one other thing I'll just
This is coming going back a ways. Um originally I do remember Town Center making an effort during our kind of research phase of allowing smaller lot sizes to encourage the kind
of you know some kind of businesses to come in and I don't remember but it was not popular that's what I as we had the at public hearings I think there was a lot of concern about that >> from people who live in town center I presume
>> yes but you know things things change and I'm not I I'm not telling I'm not saying that because it's prescriptive. I'm saying it's it's always worth revisiting, you know. >> Yeah. >> The people in town center have changed, right? So maybe, who knows?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I thought about that more because I think Ethan mentioned that, you know, it's sort of like if you wanted to encourage commercial, you one way to do it is shred the frontage in town center and then you reduce the burden of being able to build something there. And so it's
like I I don't have any preconceived ideas of what we should do so much. It seems like having the intellectual exchange to say what what would we want to encourage and if we didn't how would we do it and then there's the political part of we come up with a plan and then we have to engage people to see what
they think. Um but we haven't done it since 2008. >> Did you all read the uh New York Times opinion piece? I might have been their editorial board. it was yesterday or today about um uh getting housing like really
affordable and on the table more, but it was all about Massachusetts and this potential 5,000 square foot um regulation for buildability. And um it did bring up the point that there are exemptions for well and septic sourced
places such as where we live. >> And that's one of the biggest like you know duh moments when you're reading it. But um it was fascinating though and I think it also gets at what we're talking about tonight in terms of um that sort of development as opposed to commercial
residential development or you might >> limitations on uh >> but the well and septic stuff keeps haunting it just I don't know yeah I don't know how to get around >> again I don't know what the limitation so my when I first got involved and I started reading his own blog and my
first impression was um with the 250T frontage and the 90,000 ft 2acre lot size is that what that does is encourages sprawl that
we are a very low density sprawling subdivision. uh with the exception of town center I think that does have smaller lot size and and the other thing was again repeatedly in the master plan in this it talks about rural character New England
character whatever in my vision of rural New England are small village centers town centers with a bunch of egg land in between almost like Europe and then another town center where the the house is again setbacks I think we have a minimum setback from
the road so We basically require residences to be pushed back into the woods farther when if you look at any historical New England village, the houses are pretty close to the roads. Uh so if we really wanted a New England
character, rural character, it would be smaller lot sizes, houses closer together, >> closer to the roads, um with a lot of open space in between. But we've kind of and again I don't know what Al what the origin of uh Al Shootsbury zoning bylaw
was. >> If I can I can shed a little bit of light on that. That's where the open space design and uh flexible frontage comes in to allow smaller lot sizes so to get around to um make sure we don't have just 250 foot you know frontage
2acre lots along the road. Um the idea was originally encourage open space if you know encourage people who don't have enough frontage to do something creative with their their property to allow um houses to be clustered closer together
as you're suggesting that really was the motivating a major motivation um in in the 2008 effort. I think another part of that if my reading is correct of you know what the
bylaw does is it requires open space design with subdivisions >> right >> particularly in forest conservation. So it prevents a developer from coming in and doing a subdivision and basically occupying all of the
forest conservation the subdivision because if you do it there you have to do open space design. >> Right. Say that again. >> So I think you know the bylaw requires u open space design for uh
any subdivision applications and the forest that are in the forest conservation zoning district. >> Yeah, that part I got. >> Yeah. So in doing so it it prevents developers from basically buying one of these like whole parcels from WD goals and put
making the whole thing a subdivision with like a sprawling row >> like traditional traditional sub right >> because you have to abide by the formula laid out in article five >> right >> conservation >> so that's that's another part >> yeah I think that was the yeah that was
the explicit intent I think was yeah we have statistics on who's taken up open space opportunities. >> I think there were like three, right? >> I mean, is there an assessment process to see whether this is actually doing what it was meant to?
>> That would be you. >> Okay. I I won't say with any certainty, but there have been probably four or five projects over the years that have made use of open space design and um flexible
frontage. I think um not many people have come before the planning. I mean, look guys, construction alone in the last how many years? 17 years hasn't been a boom town. Shootsbury has not been a boom town. So these kinds of other u creative
options hasn't also kind of taken off but they're available to land owners and it's part of it is on us to inform a landowner when they come forward with a large piece of property that they have options if they haven't read our zoning bylaws.
So it's not because it's worked or not worked. It's just because there's not been many people who have even thought about doing this with their property that's come to the come to the planning board. So I wouldn't gauge success or failure failure by numbers of projects.
>> And my good is I I don't I don't feel the need to mess with all space design because I think it's innovative and sort of points us in the right direction. >> Yeah. Well, it's more about like to your point like we we've driven discussion of industrial sighting into forest land
because that's where the space is which is not what we want to do. So like just noted we say we want this but this is where they're where they're focused on and then the town center I the town center one like I I thought oh you know
everyone at some point has said oh if you could buy milk or get coffee in the middle of town wouldn't that be cool you know it used to be the case but if someone was going to actually do it they probably don't want a 250 foot frontage they want to sort of it's going to be hard enough to make money anyway so can
you have a smaller parcel with a all doing it and encourage that kind of uh you know it's and I don't and the rural residential it's it I don't I don't know what to think about it yet but >> another piece of that >> and this is uh
you know some someone kind of just said to me recently um they also I think uh commented on data centers as Um, but you know, they had picked up on what you said, Michael, about Yeah. You know, trying to play to
our strength in terms of, you know, looking at recreation and that sort of thing. >> Yeah. >> And, you know, the other thing we have aside from town center is Lake Wyola. >> Yeah. >> Right. And there's the u there's the lot and then there's that uh
that white building >> right next to it. >> Yeah. >> And I don't know exactly what it is. I know it's owned by the states. >> Yeah, I think it's it's in the historic curatorship program where if you um apply to DCR with the right business
plan, um you can end up being able to use it essentially for zero rent or like a a perpetual lease. And there are a couple of requirements about public access to it
at least once a year. Some of these cur historic curatorship programs turn into private residences um and then they just have like a day every year where they invite the public to visit this historic spot. But this one DCR would probably encourage a use
much like its previous use of a lodge and um whatnot. And you could probably have a retail or a food establishment there as well. >> Was there a name for that property? the Carol Holmes Holmes M- Homestead. And if you Google DCR historic here [ __ ] there
are only I think about a dozen in Massachusetts or fewer. It's pretty easy to find. >> That building's in bad shape. >> I have looking into that and finding out that >> they were estimating $600,000 in renovations if you were to bring it back to just being its former lodge or
something. >> This was what DCR in 2016, I think. So, I'm imagining the estimated renovations now to bring it back to a similar thing of what it was, let alone a brand new type of business plan would probably be like a million. You know, >> what was it in?
>> It was it was over 600,000 for like the electrical and other updating you would need to do. I mean, not just electric, >> but it's a it's they really would love her. They were very um glad to hear
somebody inquiring about it. Well, it was just like that's a logic. I mean, that's the barrier. >> But there there are there are so many creative ways like where a town could even become a sponsor or get involved. It doesn't have to be on an entrepreneur. >> Is that >> to do it? Well, there are many ways for entrepreneurial
businesses to occur, you know, depending on the backing you get. So, I I've wanted to look into it. I wondered if CPC could be involved or what, but I have no idea. And thank you for mentioning it because I've looked into it. >> Well, I'm glad. Yeah, you know what I
would like to do is um you know if not the planning board at least uh you know kick off a conversation in the town to try and get you know a document that lays out the pathways which you know more or less is
probably just there in the DCR website but maybe you know maybe uh summarize uh or you know uh whatever, get it a little bit uh more readable and then uh you know, repost on
our website to just say, "Hey, you know, we've got this. We're interested in that." Um uh but that's uh that's one thing. You know, the the broader idea is just like, you know, Lake Wyola is recreation and there's nothing cashing out. You've got the Lever Co-op down the road, but you
can't even get like a 30 pack of Bud Light there. You know, they've got like weird boutique studs. >> I don't mean to like bash a Lever Co-op. I'm kind of paraphrasing what someone said to me in justest, right? But you know, you know what I mean? It's it's not necessarily and that's not ne
necessarily what Shoots is going to want to do in terms of like, oh yeah, let's make sure the people on the lake and speedos have lots of beer, you know, understood, right? But I mean the point is you know uh that there may be uh
you know better ways for you know businesses to kind of cater to recreation on the lake whether whether it's you know trying to use the Carol homestead or or some other kind of uh thing. So you know Lake Wy district would be another area where we can
consider that sort of thing. >> Yeah. brought up. Did you bring up a little like a locality tax or whatever for like Airbnbs? >> I think Jeff actually raised it. Someone talked to me recently about it. >> Yeah. >> Could that be an Airbnbs? >> No. No. Just I I'm I'm sure there's more
Airbnbs. >> I think it exists. I know there's a statute. I think we already received money from >> Oh, I know it was Melissa. Thank you about that. She said we we should be charging, you know, Airbnb's a tax.
>> There may be an option. you have a local option to do it. >> Yes, we do. And I'm I'm confused about I feel like I've heard things that are almost a little bit conflicting. Um, you know, be that as it may, that's
another thing to look into. Right. So, we've got two uh two districts and a uh an Airbnb tax to consider. >> It was it wasn't me. No. Yeah, it was it was awesome. Mentioned it. >> Do you mean property tax
>> or as like a >> personal property tax or as a um a real estate tax? >> Yeah. You know, like if you if we lod >> it's like a lodging tax. >> I I didn't know if what you maybe were talking about is a different tax rate
depending on occupancy >> for the use of the lodge to I get it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's um you know if you look at the uh the stuff that came out for ADUs uh the reference the statute I think where it's laid out
>> which I'm not going to look up right now >> so we can get some ideas. So, how do we go about like flushing this out or like taking action on this? Right. >> Something else to just throw out there while we're having this conversation is the trail systems that we have in this town and the connections that they make
to other towns and um you know, it's a conversation for a broader community conversation, but the Kingdom Trails up in northern Vermont, I don't know, have any of you ever been there? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. like it's just this giant mountain
bike network that's all on private trails and there is a whole set of Airbnbs and little cafes and stuff like that in a very rural place like there's not much going on um in that part of Vermont where people are coming
from all over the country and really all over the world and spending money to be there and to use the trails and I don't know I feel like that's something that that um Koh's land would be great for it's already happening. Uh and just just
another thing to consider. I mean that that's something that obviously would preserve our rural character and also sorry um money could be made in town as well by people. >> Yeah. And to that point actually like
I've thought about you get all these people amazing as it is that can bike up the S-curves. They get to the top of the S-curves there's nothing there. You can't buy with water. You can't get >> Yeah, totally. >> Get an ice cream cone. You just got killed yourself.
>> There was this sweet little place there with you could get either um you know, an espresso or a beer. Like >> Yeah. >> And and a bike shop as well, you know, all in one little place. And it's uh it's very rural there. Like there's like
one restaurant and one general store in a 50 mile radius. So >> be interesting to talk to other towns too and you know make that a broader conversation. >> I'll answer your question but I just want to say I mean the interesting thing is those kind of things build on itself
you know so like if you're bike hospitable then you're going to somewhere's going to have a bike shop and then people are going to like if you're coming up to do you know to the northeast kingdom you want to stay someplace if you're coming from New York City so you need places to stay. So it's all nested in a rural community, but you
get a little micro ecosystem of stuff going on. What what I was seeing for process is now that you sort of raised it as an issue is if we spend the next few months sort of digging in. I mean, I think we can all look at our zoning bylaws and say these are places we can
discuss from, you know, like mine, just as an example, some staring at it like, okay, so all four districts now have 250 ft required frontage. Like that's a conversation >> 90 square foot. >> Yeah. And if we just say, oh, how would
we want to change that? What would that look like? So you know and there's different levels but if we sort of you know work through it at some point if we start feeling like there's some traction there we can come up with you know a concept something and I don't know how
we propose to the town I mean ultimately we'd want it you know be officially changing but I think there's lots of engagement in between our thinking and putting anything out but just to start a conversation. Yeah, I think also probably at some point, you know, the board of health, you know, if you're
talking about little cafes and stuff, right, or or food trucks or what have you. Um and potentially uh general bylaws to you know any extent that some of these things are not so much of a land use as they are like something that
would need to be permitted by a gym um or or or at least uh you know properly regulated by the board of health if it's not if there's not already regulations uh there. >> Okay. >> Um but that's you know that I that I think is down the road. So I mean I
think you know if anyone um you know is uh willing to take on a little bit of initiative if we don't need like you know to name volunteers at this point I mean it's kind of uh >> volunteer >> um like a standard conversation.
>> Well yeah you know if anyone wants to go out and grab something you know a piece of information or put some information together you know for us to look at that would be helpful. Well, we have to Tom's point if we just have a standing agenda item for the next few months and then definitely
>> any whoever has thought we'd just be prepared to bring it to the conversation or should we talk about so I could talk about frontage and Keith could say you know FC blah blah blah and you know I think collectively we all might
gravitate for some to something different >> and you know we could also talk about forming a subcommittee that could meet uh on some schedule or invariably to kind
of uh you know have you know less I say working sections where you know instead of going through agenda items you might just sit here and like you know look up things and kind of talk about it you know whatever but that's you know I wouldn't
wouldn't necessarily want to go to that right now. >> But certainly if we get any traction on that'll be something to think about doing. >> Yeah. >> Um so yeah, I mean I think this is a good start. We'll see. You know, Michael has indicated that he's going to uh
willing to look up uh some information and put it together. And anyone else, you know, everyone's obviously free to do that, right? Just uh you know, get it to us. you know, we can make sure everyone has it. I mean, I
think I think you can feel free if uh if you're just pulling information together, you can feel free to share that with the board, right? That's not um I kind of prefer it to like come through uh the chair so that we make sure that we're not uh
running a foul of open meeting law. I I don't have a lot of concern about it. It's just more of like a brainstorming lady. Not really doing anything. We're just >> Yeah. As long as people don't respond. >> What about 33? >> Well, you can do that as well, right? Oh, okay. It's uh >> I don't think we have to worry about
that. I mean, if we're just putting out research, as long as no one everyone knows not to respond and the idea is to share information so you can percolate before the next meeting, that's >> I'm like I said, I'm not overly concerned about it. I I think it's just uh
it's just more uh uh belt and suspenders having it not go out to everyone. But I like I said, I'm not uh overly concerned about that as long as uh you know, no one's expressing opinions. Now, um so that's that. I think we can
leave that there. Unless anyone has any more comments on the other topic before we move on. Um I guess I do I just uh it's part of the data center thing. You know what's really kind of for me I feel like
that whole process led me to believe that you know our financial goals are not going to be resolved through any zoning changes that we can do. you know, we can we can do good things with this conversation we're having and, you know,
engaging stakeholders in town, other boards, possibly other towns in the in the region. Um, but I think, you know, for the most part, uh, you know, working with the legislature to secure funding is
>> equitable. >> Equitable funding, >> right? Yes. equitable funding is uh is going to be the way um forward to try and kind of protect us financially uh because we don't want to uh sell our
rural soul if you will. But, uh, if we can, I mean, I think I think it would improve the town regardless of, uh, financial benefits to like have maybe have an ice cream place where you can
get ice cream or whatever. >> But, >> makes every community better. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Yeah. You know, it just makes the community more vibrant. >> No, the uh, too bad the library, the old library doesn't have water. It would be a great place for a coffee ice cream
shop. >> Interesting. >> Okay. >> They're talking >> or a bathroom for that matter. >> Yeah, they were talking about putting in I don't know. Yeah, I don't know what they decide on it. >> shared a really cool idea. I just
mentioned it. I think you might know this because you seem to know these things, but apparently >> there's a building between the spear going down the hill that best got given to the town
and it needs some work, but it has running water, it has a bathroom, it has all that stuff. And so that's one thing. And then the reason we can't use old town hall is because there's no room to make an accessible ramp. And so he had he
told me this sort of nifty kind of thing where you could make that new building maybe the police station and somehow do I buy the post oh by the post office
building so we could have the post office like the town can own the building that leases to the post office and if we own that building then we could have the land in between and then we can accessory ramps would use the old town hall for actual buildings and
meetings and stuff. It was really that would be neat. So you'd have to ask him for all the details, but that was my brutal brutalization of concept. >> Interesting. >> Yeah. >> Then we could sell extra, >> right?
>> That was just general store again. Yeah. Yeah. >> I put master plan on here. I think we're going to skip it, but I just uh we don't truly have a master plan apparently as we've uh raised many times. So that'll be on the agenda next
time. >> Can I share a quick opinion? >> Sure. >> So I mean I think Keith and I have talked for over a few years that like you know it'd be nice to add a chapter on climate resiliency at least. I think at this point I don't believe in master
plans anymore because the state blows things away. Like you can come up with a master plan, you can have community engagement, you can write this document and the state comes in with a law says you have to do X, you have to do Y. I mean it just blows away master plans. It
sort of you know it seems like one should have an engagement process and get a pulse of the town and try to understand where it's at. But to spend the money and that time and then the state decides this is the new best thing to sliced bread and override your attention.
>> A lot of overlap between the open space plan too >> as I recall when I read >> most recently. >> Yeah. When I read them I'm like it's I mean >> a lot of similarly surprising I guess over the open space plan
>> as far as like community sentiments and >> was that the recreation committee or who did that? Uh, who took the lead on it? Um, it might have been recreation. >> Kenny was involved with it, Steve. Right. >> You're muted.
>> Say, say again, Michael. Repeat what you just said. Ask >> Kenny. You're Kenny was involved with the open space >> long time ago. Long time ago. Yeah. >> Like if like in the last five years or so report >> I think pre prior to that then 10 years.
>> Okay. 10 years. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. So, I mean, >> we can have a discussion, but I've I used to be a booster for it because I thought it'd be good. It's like >> Well, I I I admit that I'm uh actually
pretty fuzzy on how it fits like, you know, via statute, what the treatment of it and statute is. And >> I I don't know if I I might have missed that class at the, you know, the my understanding it's a carrot. So like
if you want to there are some state programs that if you want to participate you have to have a master plan and so well we we could vote to approve our master plan just to say we have one but I think if you know some towns don't
have them so maybe they can't get in the door for X Y and Z but I don't know what it is. >> Yeah, >> I don't think we're required statutoily to have them both. All right. So, uh I've got I've got we lock site PV battery project discuss
most recent national annual report consider site visit or other action with respect to special permits issue for the project. >> Ashley and now and I I I glanced over the minutes and I I see that he actually talked about this at the last meeting.
Um so is the board going to do a site visit? Did we >> I have not reached out to them yet since our last meeting. I apologize. I just haven't gotten to it. But I I would like I think the sentiment was that we would
like to. Um and I'm wondering if it would make sense to to get dates that we know we can't. And I'm happy to reach out to them, you know, within the next few days. I've
been in perpetual grading hell for the last >> two and a half weeks basically, but I'm I'm out of it momentarily until I get into it again. So, I could do something this week, you know, and reach out to them. And I don't know if I don't
remember last time how long it took for us to get it all together. I'm sure it took forever, but um I mean, obviously summer's best for me. Do you guys have times that you know you're going to be away? Is it worth having this conversation right now? What do you
think? >> Well, I think we'll do that over email. >> Yeah. >> Oh, we can. Okay. >> I'll just send an email then and solicit dates from you. And um and yeah, as far as So, so I'll do that. And then the other piece was um
uh reaching out to them and asking about clearing the land. Um I'm pretty brain dead at this point, but Jeeoff, I read your email and your wording seems fine and makes sense. And I would just share that with them. Just say, you know, we have people on the board who are
concerned about fire spreading quickly in our forested town and could we could could you all consider like how should we proceed? We'd like to see some land cleared. um a radius on the battery storage, >> right? >> They they agreed to it last time. I
think it's more a followup to see if they did it. >> Did they What was that? >> The site visit whenever that was. >> I guess there was a site visit go on. >> Yeah. I don't know two years ago. What I sent to you was just from AI in
terms of the AI recommendation of actually 30 feet of nonflammable things from a lithium battery. So, we could just uh maybe maybe you could if you wanted to send or I could resend what I sent to you. Um, and then maybe elicit
feedback from everyone to see if that's okay and see how they respond because um, remember there's a section in the middle that has possible historical material and that's why it was there and so and the grass leads right into that
middle section and that in the summertime when it's dry that could be a tremendous fire. I know that lithium batteries don't often catch on fire, but why not try to mitigate any possible horrific event, you know, by the by
simply eliminating the grass that leads to that um that forested area or covering it up with gravel or something. >> Yeah. >> Did the vote on that? >> No, we did not. Well, we we voted on I think I was asked to send something to
Ashley and then Ashley was going to send that to them. >> So vote. >> Yes. So we just go out and look again. >> Okay. >> Before we maybe they did it, maybe they didn't. But then we can say, "Hey, two years ago we we suggested you do this. You fine that
>> because I remember them saying, "Sure, sure. We could do that. That's easy." >> Right. >> Yeah. It's it's a simple way, you know, it's just makes logical sense. We want to eliminate, you know, that possibility of a fast spread considering that we have limited fire resources. You know,
>> I I I can't imagine they would object. It's just a matter of did they follow through or not? >> It's not sure that it was suggested last time when you all did the site visit like maybe some gravel should be put down here. Somebody said that or
>> we verball we talked about it when we were visiting with Joel, I think was his name. Yeah. >> And in our report that we put out, >> we mentioned it, but I don't know that we said >> I don't know that we said we want you we we pointed out around both things.
>> Actually, mainly the one that's a little bit higher and elevation the one around it. The one that was lower actually was >> was less >> and also further away from that that center area that had protection zone is what that is. We
mandated that be there because it was over 15% slow supposedly. So >> I just, you know, want to know um something quick here. Uh I'm going to
bring up the special permit decision. Share. There's a there's a climate connection, too. Every one degree Celsius, the air can hold 7% more water. I Yeah. So, so what happens is if the
air is holding more water, that means it's taking it up from the um from the ground. So, the the ground is actually drier now than it was, you know, 20 years ago because of the um >> increased temperature. the ground the
state geology geologist there's some news out there about our groundwater table rising. >> Oh, interesting. >> Uh that Massachusetts is getting wetter with climate change that we're getting warmer and wetter. >> Okay.
>> So the ground I don't know the ground is drier than it was before. >> Yeah. So >> well I now the thing I wanted to point out here is uh There's a condition in here that limits
their ability to manage vegetation to twice a year. >> Yeah. >> And and prohibits uh mechanical uh prohibit well they've agreed to only use mechanical means to mow it in the fall.
Um, and I think that there are annual reports. I think they say they typically they might do spot clearing around the equipment with weeding and stuff, >> but then actual mowing between the rows. I think they said they do that and the permit says somewhere will be done in
the fall like September, October I think. >> The solar ratio occur no more than once per year, >> October and November only. Occasionally cutting of plants that shade the solar system is permitted but done by handheld machine and not by a mower or tractor.
>> It's not mutually exclusive. >> Well, I uh I I not necessarily, but it it certainly doesn't uh help your >> Oh, what? >> This this condition and the special
permit certainly doesn't help yours. >> Well, if we put gravel down, then they don't have to mow >> gravel down. I mean, you know, that's >> they agreed to it. I mean, they verbally agreed to it. They >> verbally agreed. I mean, >> no, but they were like I mean, when we're >> I was verbally agreed, too. And then cool. >> We can go back and look and let's Why
don't we go? I mean, if we can if we have the opportunity. >> Yeah. So, >> my point is only like they didn't say, "Oh, we can't do it." They're like, "Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah." >> Yeah. And it's not a big expense. I mean, whatever. It's some expense. You bring in a dump truck with gravel and you someone breaks it over, you know.
>> Yeah. But I mean, uh, I don't if I said, "All right, well, you know, you're asking me to spend money here, but there's nothing in this, uh, permit that, you know, um, >> to be honest, they could burn." >> Yeah, sure. Yeah. >> They could control. Yep.
>> Yeah. No, you know, I'm just uh you know, I want to caution you to uh not exceed any uh authorities that we might have based on our u special permit decision. >> So, I I will tell you my what I would
like to monitor because I hear I still hear >> concerns from our neighbors >> about the vegetation community that's growing there. Mhm. >> And I think erosion, excessive erosion
was a concern. So I particularly would like to see again what the vegetation community is. >> Yeah. >> Uh percent ground cover and then how the uh storm water management structures, ponds, ditches are are
working. >> Yeah. I mean, no, you know, so the site I think yeah, you know, site visit seems reasonable. You know, I just, you know, I think, um, you know, additionally, uh, you know, we could consider, um, you
know, lifting, uh, a restriction on, you know, weed whackers or something like that. >> Well, the idea was to have it, you know, as >> No, no, no, no. I mean, we we learned that we actually can't regulate herbicides and pesticides. Only state can do that, right?
>> But they agreed to it >> and so that's in there. So the whole idea of mechanical, >> they agreed to it during the uh permitting process. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And every every one of these annual reports they say we haven't used herbicides, right? So I don't think they're anxious to
>> Well, I mean, you know, yeah, that would be another, you know, allowing herbicides uh for that purpose. I mean, could be reasonable as well. That's not my suggestion, but um anyway, that's just some food for thought. Yes. Um, in that process,
>> we could always request it and they could deny it, you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, that's that's true. Uh, as long as we don't appear to uh >> as long as it's clear it's a request and not a uh >> source for asking. >> I don't know. I don't know. I mean, you
know, I just uh Yeah, I don't know uh >> if there is anybody going to ask unreasonable thing. So I if we if we agree to do another site visit and and
arrange it um because I am not a botnist or a plant ecologist but I would like >> Yeah. You want to bring someone? I would like to bring somebody if we can recruit somebody if we can come up with like a small stipen maybe for I'm sure UMass we can find somebody uh that can do again
not not a a survey not any but just a a general oversight of what they're seeing what their impressions are >> might be someone they have that expertise >> uh maybe >> I don't know who they are but >> yeah there may be but I I figured
somebody with no affiliation with the town somebody Well, the the Conway school, they're doing this thing for the JCA. You know, maybe there's someone who could do that. >> We also potentially reach out to the local high school. There's a lot of kids
who are really awesome with uh you know, the the native vegetation and management and stuff like that. It's a possibility. >> I was going to reach out to UMass and and see if there was somebody that would be great to share. Yeah.
>> Uh if if again if we can if we agree to that and if we there's no I mean I assume that if we bring a representative with us that next era would be okay as far as
liability. Did we have to sign a release last time? >> We did. Yeah. I just went through there's a waiver that we all had to sign >> or I I didn't know I was away but that you all had to sign and they at the last minute he he wanted everyone to have
hard hats and I was like well I don't know if we all just have those around. So >> get the electrical cards. >> All right. So, we're going to have we'll get an email going and we'll uh you
know, we're going to uh inquire about bringing along a friend, a botist friend. >> Do you want me to resend to everyone here what I sent to Ashley or do you want can Ashley just send it to them?
>> Well, so I feel like what I'm hearing is that people would rather that we set up the site visit and then >> before Okay, that's fine. That's fine. >> Is that is that consensus or would we rather have that sent more immediately?
The particular concern about the vegetation around the battery. I I think once we get the date, >> it would be good to let them know of some of the things we're looking for like I mean the the water flow stuff we're going to re reevaluate the
erosion. >> So we sent them a copy of our little last. >> Yeah. So if we just resend or reate so that you know I mean hell they could look good if they do it before they show up. >> Right. >> Okay. So, I'm gonna send out an email to
you all with asking you for some dates and um also just I could get a list together of things that we would like to look at and accomplish as far as communication when we have our site visit. And and then once I have that
together, I can send that out to them. Ashley, Ashley, would it make more sense to get possible dates from them first and see which of those we could >> That's what I did last time. I mean, I it was interesting. I just checked out the whole email thread and um I said,
"We're interested in a visit. Can you give us some ideas of when that could work out?" And didn't hear anything. And then at one point he was like, "We're going to be there on Tuesday. Can you guys come?" No, no, we need a little bit of, you
know, uh, warning because we have to get all these people together. And then we set a date for August 8th and then he was like, "Actually, we're going to be there on the 6th. Can you guys come?" And I was like, "No, I tried. I'm sorry, but we're ready for the 8th." And then they came. So, it seems like
there's some uh there's some dynamic situations going on there that we could prepare for. But yeah, I mean, I can say that. and and it was around this time of year when I was reaching out to them and we ended up going in August. >> Yeah, I think it makes sense for you to
get dates from us and and and then you can give, you know, you know, like I don't know, two weeks in June, a week in July, no one's going to be around like, you know, you have you have date ranges you can give them that work. >> Okay. >> I think that's an email from me then. I'll send an email to
>> and if anyone uh would dig up whatever the report was from >> Oh, I just had it. >> Huh? >> I just had it up. I sent it to you. >> Okay. Yeah, I sent it to the board just so everyone has it. I mean, I'm sure everyone has what's the number we produced as a result >> on our website. >> Is it?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Gail to where you can actually find it now. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Ashley. Did we then? >> Yes, indeed. All right. So, we're good there. I think >> um I did not think we're going to go after nine tonight.
>> Oh, I do. I I I don't know why the Yeah, I don't know why some of these things took as long as they did, but >> always spent like 50 minutes on the first thing. >> I know the first thing. >> There's always this false sense that you have a lot of time and you just keep
talking. >> No, I know. >> Not you. Just generally speaking, >> I got I got to make people raise their hand and just say, but no talking unless you're acknowledged by the chair. That's not me. I get real strict. >> Be a lot of hand raising. >> I know. One minute time.
Yeah, I don't know. I I might have to >> I think you're running them fine. It was just It was just an expansive conversation. >> I think Yeah, I think the stuff's always a little bit There's always nuance. There's always complications, things that we don't anticipate. >> There is. There is. But I don't like having meetings at 9:22 p.m.
>> Now, uh, as I'm sitting here sputtering away, I'm like, what's our next agenda item? Um, >> member updates. >> All right, so member updates. I'm just going to quickly note that Cliff Reed had sent Don a little bit of an update and is willing to be reappointed.
Michael asked if we could vote to reappoint um and I don't think so. I I don't know if uh well because it's you know it wasn't put on the agenda. We don't have >> Yeah. Yeah. >> open meeting law. >> It's uh it's Yeah.
>> It's unanticipated. Now, you know, if we want to, we can have a quick meeting with uh you know, we can do uh CPC OWAC and uh and just do some some put some names on there and have some good votes. I can set that up. We can do
it fully remote and just uh do it. That's not a terrible idea. I forgot the date that was given, but um >> the select board will make appointments later this month. >> Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So, there's a there's a date in the email that uh >> well, Brennan wanted them by June 16th,
but the select for expecting to vote on June 23rd. >> Yeah. So, I mean, we would need a new support June 16. >> It's plenty of time, right? Um so, you know, >> what representative is that here? >> Okay.
Yeah. So with that, you know, um you know, Tom had asked about uh that shared driveway situation and I was kind of like, well, I really don't know what the planning board is, uh how it's going to evolve itself,
uh with that, right? So it sounds like I I saw when I looked at the minutes that it was discussed briefly at the last minute as well. So, uh, >> I'm happy to pursue that with the town administrator for right now because they're the ones who, um, wrote a letter
to a resident bringing it up >> if that would be the only >> that's Yeah. But I mean, I don't know. Uh, yeah. Yeah, that sounds uh, reasonable.
Um, I was thinking, you know, it would be good to kind of review uh Cliff's note about uh CPC kind of give an update. I don't want to do it now because it's so late. And also Sam, if
you want to maybe uh bring something or like trying to talk about >> Sorry to interrupt. Um, you guys are the last ones here. So, the back door is locked. If nobody has a code, just make sure the lights are off. >> Okay. Yeah, we're we're going to wrap it up in a minute here, but uh yeah, we're
going to be going out the Is the front door locked? >> The I go out the front door. I'll make sure that's locked. I just make sure this one is locked. >> Okay. >> So, like I said, just turn off the lights and the chief will be in in the morning. >> Cool. >> Okay. Beautiful. Thank you. >> Was he a police officer? Senior.
>> No, he's the uh person in Queens. >> Okay. Yeah, that's Chris. >> Does anyone else have any updates they want to share? >> Yeah. Um, I wanted to ask about the CPC um role and uh whether it is something
that a planning board member could actually fill um if the planning board member were willing to. It appears that it was the case in 2023 that no one was willing to and that ended up with a person who's not on the planning board being designated.
>> I I used to be and then >> right and then there was a person named Messier who was doing it apparently. I looked at the minutes in September 23. Um, and so I wanted to know if that's the case, if it's a conversation we could have about whether there were any
willing planning board members to do it first and then go to non-planning board members. >> Well, I don't know if it would necessarily be a precedence for planning board members, but I mean, we will could certainly
consider anyone that's interested in uh in doing it. It's not something that uh you we've advertised unless there's a a vacancy we might advertise it but if there's any any uh number of willing participants and uh being appointed then
we just uh recommend to the select board to reappoint or appoint um >> I guess that is my question whether planning board does have precedence >> I think for being a person fulfilling that role
>> I mean I would uh certainly preced it for consideration by the by the board. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, in other words, I wouldn't say that, you know, someone on the board expressed interest in serving on it. Uh
I want to say that oh, you know, Cliff is there and he's going to just be reappointed and that's that. I mean that's you know um I think that if someone else expressed interest we would say all right well you know >> are we going to ask that of anyone or are you going to make a request of any
planning board members whether they have interest in you? >> Well I uh do do any planning board members have interest on serving on CPC >> or yours? >> I do. >> Okay.
>> So uh All right. Yeah, we can um we can discuss that either that that could potentially So would the uh board would the board want to default to um a plan board member or uh >> Yes.
>> Yeah. I think that's how it was. >> Okay. >> I We only came up with Cliff because no one wanted to do it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, we can uh >> condolences. Oh. That didn't make it sound bad. Made it
sound pretty good actually. >> Yeah. I mean, I've enjoyed watching them over the years. >> The hardest part is getting people. >> Is anyone else interested in participating on >> the advisory committee? >> Bio advisory committee. >> That's a fun one.
>> Yeah. That I know enough about all that's a whole different world. Are you interested in dive in? I'm still trying to a little busy. >> Are you interested? >> I would be interested in continuing that if no one else wanted to. Sure. >> Makes sense.
>> Um, do we want to schedule a meeting before the 16th so we can uh do this? >> Yeah. Or can we do between the 16th and the 23rd? Brennan won't be happy, but we can figure out what date works for us. >> Um, why why not go? Well, I'm just uh
>> Yeah. Oh, you want to pick a date now? >> No, that's No, I don't. >> Oh, okay. >> No, but I mean, you know, just >> Sure. >> Yeah. Send us an email. Say yes. Yeah. >> Burk rep one, too. Was that >> Oh, yeah. I guess it's true. Yeah.
>> Yeah, it is. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But it's one of those appointments. >> Uh, >> Stephen Ashley, were you were you nodding your heads when I asked if we thought that if a planning board rep wanted to be appointed that you would? No. No, I was not nodding my head. If I was nodding my head, it's because I'm
falling asleep and not because of it. >> All right. Um, >> oh, and I had one other update. Um, if that's okay to bring up now, >> and I just want to throw it out there. Uh there is a term reconstruction in our zoning bylaw that comes up seven times
and it is a word being used in a narrative for a notice of intent in front of the conservation commission at the moment. But the building commissioner is not in agreement that it is a reconstruction necessarily. And so, long
story short, the zoning enforcement officer at Furkco thought it would be a great idea for the Shootsbury Planning Board to put a definition of reconstruction into their zoning bylaw. So, it's something I'd like to recommend we look at over the next, you know,
course of time for a potential edit to our bylaw. >> That's interesting. >> Yeah. >> That's for the conservation commission. >> Yes. What's the uh lot? >> It's lot A41,
36 South Laurel Drive and it's next to lot A50 and together they would have a building on them. >> Yeah. >> Is that um you're in a butter to >> I am in a butter. >> Yeah. All right. That's that's good. Um,
I also I'm gonna just ret retroactively uh designate Tom as a phone number for the whole meeting because I know you were sworn in. >> Did we not do that? >> No. >> No, we didn't. And uh but I I did it retroactively. >> Yeah, >> because you have power.
>> Yeah, that's uh we're noting that in um >> Yeah, somewhere in between member updates and unanticipated business. Uh because he won't be real until >> July 1. Yeah. >> So, um just glad I remember.
>> Thank you. I >> those you know uh we didn't vote on we we end up vote on the cemetery. That's all right. Um okay. Any other updates? No. All right. Unticipated business. No. All right. Uh
>> yeah. Okay. Any seconds? >> All right. Any discussion? All right. Call the ro breast. >> Hi. >> All right. Um, >> hi.
>> This committee is going to be asleep in five minutes. >> See, I motion carries unanimously. >> Hi. >> It's okay. >> Good night. >> Good night.
>> Ashley, when do you finish? When do you finish teaching? June 22nd. >> Oh my god, so late. I'm sorry. >> We're almost there. I'm sorry. >> Good luck. >> We're almost there. >> I think it's going to still be going on
next time we meet. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Good. >> Oh my god. >> Safe driving. Holy >> I'm good. I'm good. >> There's a launch in four days. >> So,
>> are we off? Yes, sir. Can you