Good evening everybody. I'm going to call to order this meeting of the Tennis South Planning Board. Today is Tuesday, November 18, 2025. We are meeting here in person at the South Town Hall at 454 College Highway. We're also open for participation via Zoom. This meeting is
being recorded and will be available on the town website. If you're recording as well, that is fine. You just need to let us know. First thing we will do if we study roll call vote or excuse me roll call if everyone let's do that.
>> Good evening. My name is Alan secretary. >> Jessica Thor and planning board chair. >> Dave Spina vice chair >> member. >> Jason member >> Marcus Phelps member. >> Javan associate. >> Thank you. First on the agenda is town
planners report. >> All right then. town planners report for the next meeting. Our next meeting scheduled is December 2nd. However, we have no no new items. The following meeting will be December uh 16th. We have several items that are
upcoming. Uh one being South 6 South Luma Street, which is a stormwater permit. They did put in the application. However, um you know, it's my error that I did not um actually advertise for storm water permit. However, it kind of
worked out because um I've been asked to uh request third party peer review for the matter. But again, I I will uh post this for December 16th. Another item that will be upcoming will be 112 Sunnyside Road.
Uh this will be uh a request for exemptions from the storm water requirements and uh and in in regards to a single family uh new construction. Another matter that will be on for December 16th will be 32 Sheep Pasture
Road. Uh this will be for the construction of um uh a single family home within the AC uh zone. So uh anything within the agricultural conservation zone requires a special permit from the planning
board. Uh next matter is um so the town may be seeking a moratorum on large ground mounted uh solar um projects with with battery storage. Uh there's been some
examples across the state um most recently of Lamford last where they put on I believe a six-month uh moratorum as they rewrite their zoning. Um so there may be uh potential that something comes across um here in South Lake that um for
proposal to do so. And for my last item, I just wanted to introduce our inspector. You just want to give your name and >> that's all I have for the time. >> All right. Next on the agenda is public public
comment. This is is for any comments that you have on something that is not listed later on on the agenda. Anybody in person? Anybody online? Raise your hand or unmute
hearing and seeing none. First thing on our agenda this is we cannot open until 7:05. Jesse, would you like to come up? We're just going to jump ahead real quick to discussion items for the planning board review and revaluation of subdivision infrastructure security for
Nova Street. seed. Since the last meeting, we've installed the curbing on the west side of the crossing. And um this week, we started prepping
the catch basin covers and um manhole covers for um top coat paving in the first 900 ft, which will take place Thursday this week. >> The paving one. >> Yeah.
And um John was sick last week for the meeting for so we didn't have a meeting but we'll have another meeting next Wednesday >> day before Thanksgiving you guys will meet. >> Yeah confirmed today
what day it is what day it is. Haven't confirmed it today. So, >> anything to add? >> So, yeah. Again, we will meet next Wednesday. Uh John and I will meet with
you. Nicole, I don't believe will be in that meeting, but John and I will for updates. >> Any board member questions? >> No. >> Good. >> All right. Thank you. Have a good day.
>> You too. All right. Now, we're going to open a new public hearing for 6 South Lumis Street. I'll read the notice of public hearing into the record. Notice is hereby given in accordance
with the provisions of Mass General Law, Chapter 4A, Section 11, and the Town of South bylaws that the planning board will hold a hybrid public hearing on Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 at 7:05 p.m. online via Zoom and at Town Hall 454 College Highway Southwick. An
application by Vladimiri for an estate lot and common driveway special permit for property located at 6 South Luna Street in the residential R40 zone. property is shown on current assessor's map 129 parcel 21. The applicant proposes to modify an existing special
permit to create two estate lots, one of which will have a common driveway. However, this will decrease the original request of five total lots to four in accordance with the code of Southwick zoning bylaws, chapter 185, sections 9, 10, 12, 21, and 30.1.
Zoom meeting information is listed. A copy of the application may be inspected by contacting Alvin Allen, the town planner, at his phone or email. Any person interested or wishing to be heard on the matter should appear at the time and manner designated. Jessica Thornton, chairperson, Southwick Planning Board.
>> Hello. >> Hi. >> For the record, Ryan Nelson from RVC Associates. Um, legal notice summed it up pretty well. Um, this is an amendment to an existing special permit that was previously issued. Um, as Alvin had stated, we're awaiting storm water
review still. Um, so we don't obviously we expect a continuence tonight on this. Um, but just here to go over any any questions or if need in you know overview I can present the plan here to answer any questions you guys
might have. Well, just real quick to clarify, because we didn't advertise for the storm water management component, there won't be a continuence on that piece. Um, if the board is satisfied with what we have here in front of us on the
estate lots in the common driveway, we can close this. Okay. advertise public hearing um issue a modified special permit which could be similar to what was previously issued which included a condition for a completed and approved storm water management permit.
>> Okay. Down the road. So just make sure that that is clear. Um do you want to pull up the plan for everybody here and online? No problem. She was Diane, can you still hear us online?
>> I can hear you, but I can't see you. >> Okay, >> you will continue on so long as there's recording. We can see that. >> Awesome. Cool. >> Can't quite remember who was here prior
on this previous application, but this plot should be familiar to some of us. It looks like the majority of the changes were the elimination of the third >> correct lot at the front
>> um where we've added that >> to the existing lot really that's where the existing house is in that estate lot. >> Yep. >> Yep. There's an existing house that's going to stay that will be its own separate lot. Uh that lot will also
contain the stormwater pyro retention area bottom left corner of that parcel. Um common driveway and northern part of the property to access those two northerly lots.
We are providing storm water management up to 100year storm event. Um so storm water drainage report was submitted. We do have a notice of intent right now before conservation commission. We had a meeting last night. We're doing a site visit next Monday, I believe. Um, so
that's still pending. >> So, do we need that friend? >> Uh, yes. >> All right. So, we won't be able to post them this evening. >> What exactly are we getting on from them? >> Uh, I don't know. I'm not quite sure
myself if they need to issue an order of conditions first. I would assume that you could probably make it conditional. You know that >> um conservation commission would have to issue an order of conditions of this >> affirmative so
>> they didn't seem to have any concerns at the meeting last night. There's very minimal buffer zone where really just the entrance of the southerntherly driveway on the north southerntherly lot, some of the uh storm water bio retention areas in the buffer zone and then the a portion of the
common driveway on the north end of the sites in the buffer zone, but the houses themselves are all outside the buffer zones. to board members for questions. >> Comments. >> Uh what specific changes were made between the last approved special permit and this one?
>> Yeah, so previously there was a total of five lots uh proposed and that required a fire system. So the applicant uh didn't want to go through with that. So we reduced the total number of lots to four um which no longer triggers the need for a fire system.
>> And that's the only change. Yes. So lock configuration essentially. Yep. >> Dimensions. Dimensions. Uh we're okay on the uh required frontage.
We have to have 50 ft of frontage for each state law. So I guess that frontage is where the common driveway comes to South Lumis. >> Um so the proposed lot one has legal or
enough frontage along South Lumis Street, but due to the wetlands it's being accessed by the common driveway. Um it's a state lot A that has the 50 ft of frontage where you see the common driveway meeting South Lumis. So that's the one in the back.
>> Yes. >> Yep. Farthest one. Y >> and the setbacks 75 ft >> correct. >> Side back front all the buildings.
>> Yep. I believe for a state lots it's 75 from all property. So the existing structure doesn't have to be that distance or >> um if you page down just a little bit on the screen. Yeah. The existing structure
conforms to that. >> Which is that? Okay. The one where the arrow is. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. There's a shed >> in the upper right that may be confusing, but the house is where the cursor is now. The only other item was I listened to
the conservation commission meeting last night and there was some discussion or concern about the storm water drainage system. It seemed to be involved in the sense that it was
crossing some properties and if there's going to be easements or uh some agreement for maintenance, that's one of the concerns or things we run into. sometimes >> the uh basins, you know, aren't
maintained and and no one is responsible for that. So, is there a thought that there will be some kind of a >> Yeah, since the uh proposed surface storm water soils traverts several parcels to get to the bio retention
area. Um perhaps similar to whatever maintenance agreement is for a common driveway should maybe incorporate the storm water management system um to delegate who's responsible for maintaining what would make sense I think.
>> Yeah. You may have to have two separate ones. >> Uh the common driveway will be for those locks up there to the north. But you've got what down on the south end you have the retention area or whatever.
>> Yeah. Is it possible to flip the next sheet out? >> Yeah. There you can see the grading. Um let's see. Storm water being collected by a swale on both sides of the driveway that goes to a yard drain. Then can they be a swale down here? Another yard drain
under the driveway to the basin. Same thing over here. Here's some drains across culverts on the driveways get to the basin. So all of those will have to function and be maintained over time for the whole site to work properly for storm water.
>> So we'll have to set up some kind of >> Yeah. So it's >> a legal agreement I don't attach to the deed or it's a separate >> document that's recorded. As part of our storm water drainage report, we have a long-term operation maintenance plan that specifies how these should be
maintained, but maybe that agreement can reference that storm water document. >> Yeah. >> Do you have any questions? >> Are there any uh staff or representative questions or comments?
>> Good evening. Richard Stan fire chief kind of southwick. Um a couple of concerns here. Um first is regarding the systems. So initially this was a five unit development which would have triggered the system requirement. It's now been reduced to four. My concern is
that approval happens, the four get built, and then the other lot just gets sold and the fifth house gets built on it or later on down the road, the fifth house is built at another time just to try to get around the the upfront requirement when the approval process happens. So, however the board sees fit,
I'd like to see some type of trigger or restriction that that not happen. Okay. Um, again, this is done with the eye towards public safety. This is the furthest point in town from the fire station. you could possibly get to and it certainly would serve the residents there well. The second part is the fire
department just wants to go on record by saying that we are not fans of of shared common right place. The distance traveled the maintenance of those um definitely impede our operations if we were ever to have to go there for an emergency you know event. Um, and that includes EMS, not just fire. Um, so
again, we serious concern should be given to the the amount of development that's happening off of shared drive with town. Um, again, trying to build for the future. I know it's been done in the past and there are a couple of examples throughout the town where these exist. Um, but we'd really like to say
we'd rather have a maintained road versus a private driveway except, you know, for access to four or five. Did you review the sizing and turnaround and access for this for the common driveway? >> Well, this is the problem. You get a
common drive private property afterwards. >> So, I'm not sure what the strength is behind this to say this must be this way and it must be maintained this way versus a public road. So, as far as what we're looking at right now in details,
we're it's not like we have a full road there back around. there's cars parked there or whatever else happens there property we want it's going to be restricted anyway so and I think it's going to always come in fall weather it won't really happen then we so if there
was some type of storm significant storm or something or we can have access to that property probably but it didn't go so that's kind of where that behind that that's the front behind that making sure that we have access down there and it is maintained at some level
>> any Other public comments from town officials or staff? Any public comment either in person or online? >> Hearing none. Another comment then uh based on the
chief's input, the surface of that common driveway uh normally we don't require it to be paved. You know that the tumin is concrete. We usually require it maybe 20
25 ft in from the road. I'm wondering if we if we required it all the way up if that would make any difference as far as access be easier to plow
in the winter. But anyway, just a thought. >> It's a point of conversation. We can we condition always that the first 25 ft or that the apron is compacted it's about 2
minutes and then compacted gravel up the rest of the way. If we want to include that condition on the advice of the fire chief for safe access we can do that. We can enforce that the
site plan matches when it's built. What was the thinking of the the owner on that surface of that common drive? >> I I haven't talked to him specifically about that. Obviously, the previous permit was for a gravel driveway beyond
the paved room and I entering on some components and ask. >> So, the other the one that you decided on before you just had a fiverr, >> right? So, I mean it would be a
questionable change to the special permit at this point, but >> yeah. >> Um, >> did and you had in the same input on I mean was the design similar? >> The design the design was similar I believe on the common driveway. I think
it might not have been as big of a concern with the idea that at that point in time there would have been a fire system on property to >> Oh, there would have been. That's right. There would you had the sistern included. >> Okay. Right.
So, that condition has changed or that >> whatever environment, right? >> Yeah. Are there any other public comments or comments, Mr. Allen, that you want to add? >> What is the appetite of the board at
this point? Would you like a continuence to consider? >> That would be my recommendation. >> Myself, yes, I would. So, >> I want to consider what the fire chief says. All right. What we will do is continue
this we'll have a little bit more solid input then from Tomcom and make sure that we have the right information and that this matches what they're going to be looking for out of that >> um and the board will give some thought
about the common driveway. >> You can reach out to the applicant and just kind of let them know that >> we're the application is to modify what's already there, right? So, you know, it's not a guarantee to get an
approval of the modification, right? Um, and what's clearly the attempt here is to bring down the number of lots to avoid >> the fire suppression support. So, I'm going to look at that a little bit more closely. >> Y, fair enough. Those are good points.
Yep. >> All right. Then, do I hear a motion to continue this public hearing to 7:05 p.m. on December 2nd? Dave Spina. So moved. Dian second. We'll call vote. Just an I. >> Dave Spina. I Dian Joseph. I
>> Jason I. Parks. I >> thank you very much. >> Next on the agenda for 710 is 157 Feeding Hills Road Grapes Tea House as in a butter. Miss Joseph will be abstaining. This is on a request to modify a special
permit, a wildfire protection district special permit, a non-conforming use special permit, flood hazard and wetlands district special permit, and site plan approval. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, Steve Si from Sven Associates. Um, I
emailed in qu resp responses to some of the questions and they are as follows that the the applicant is going to go forward with a pre-manufactured aluminum ramp that will be built according to building code for
handicap accessibility. They'll have to make an addition to the deck that's there to make it a little wider, but the building inspector will ultimately have to sign off on it. Um, the maximum distance allowed to travel to a bathroom is 400 ft. If you've ever been in a Home
Depot, you can understand what 400 feet is. So, the uh distance for this particular scenario from the gazebo is to go up around the front to the second entrance that is handicapped
accessible. And that distance to the to the bathroom is 290 ft culture. the this grade going up is 2 point two two and a quarter percent two and a half% which is way below the maximum
allowed of 8% for handicapped brands. Um the other thing is has been stated on the plan that there are 53 seats in the restroom. There will be 20 seats in the deck which then leaves 20 seats for the
gazebo which falls under the falls within the 93 seating capacity for the current status of the restaurant and that can all be uh verified by the building inspector as any other facility
would be. Um the gazebo has a fire extinguisher in it currently and is subject to inspection as all other fire extinguishers are anywhere else. Um if a smoke detector needs to be installed like when you have
a house fire guy comes out and says you need a fire uh smoke detector here you need one there. And then once that's happened then the building inspector signs off and gives you your certificate of occupy occupancy. And so this is no different than any of those applications.
Um, lastly for the conservation commission, we're we know we had to go before them, but I didn't want to waste more of the client's time and money going to them if we weren't going to get past this first. So, and putting an aluminum handicap
ramp is not going to affect a flood plane. And I don't see the conservation having a problem with it. and they want him to move the the dumpster, which is no big deal. So, you don't foresee a problem with conservation. So, most of these questions that you ask
are really building inspector questions that would fall under normal uh construction as you were building a house. You have to have a building inspector come out, inspect it, make sure everything was done according to code before he gives you your building uh occupancy thing. And this falls under
nothing different than that. Okay. >> Any questions? >> Mr. Do you have uh anything to add to the narrative? >> Uh that's pretty much um um what we have
um know I sent out the questions um just to make sure we have proper answers for you guys for today. I did go out last week with our our food building inspector Joe just to so he could have eyes on the property and understand sort
of uh the issues um in regard and I think we were looking at mostly ADA compliance um just to make sure um uh they have proper you know riseable running and that they were okay uh building the inspector was okay with the particular ramp that he's looking to
use. Um we also looked at um sort of the the um occupancy um and just ensuring that those numbers were were correct. Um, we didn't actually uh well, we know that the the maximum number is 93, but we didn't actually go
through the the main structure to see exactly where um the seats will be taken from. But we I mean we have an understanding that they would be taking at least 20 seats from from the from the main structure. Uh I believe from the bar area, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
>> Right. Primarily from there, but again, that would be verified by the building department before they got an occupancy permit. Yep. I think Steve has answered the majority of our questions that we had in regards to occupancy and ADA compliance and
such. >> Board member questions. >> Is the intent for the gazebo and the deck to be seasonal or >> realistically the probably right. I mean realistically. So seats can be moved back and forth or
>> the gazebo is by special request only. If you want to take your wife out Yeah. on a Friday or Saturday night and say, "Hey, can we go eat a gazebo?" Uh, no. >> That's not how it works. >> So when they when they rent to this, they're going to know who's going to be there and what the special needs of the
people there are going to be. So they can cater to those those needs as required. And uh unless they put heating and insulation in there, I they're not going to do it in the winter time. And then if they do that, they've got to go through
the building inspector for that. Uh so the the gazebo would be seasonal. Um I'm going to assume and Art could answer that more clearly, but I believe the deck is probably seasonal as well. Um,
>> so >> I guess what I'm getting at is are do you envision that seats are going to be moved from gazebo deck or to the restaurant and back and forth? >> They can only have 93 people in that facility, however they arrange those
is how that gets arranged. >> Oh yes. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I mean, if they're not going to use the gazebo January through March. >> Yep. split seats >> places not occupied. They're not going to use it. It's not heated. Who's going to rent today? >> Right.
>> So, it is seasonal at this point. And before I >> say too much, I'm going to ask or to to verify that. >> Is that the intention, Mr. >> Whatever you guys elect. >> So,
>> yes. I mean you know summer as though and slow we use as long as we can. So whatever it may not only can cover for wind and glass whatever glass
and again that is more regulated by the building code or occupancy board of health code and building inspector code
>> and So if it is not in use, they still have a 93 seat capacity. >> So I think probably what our concern is speak for you Mr. Spina
um but the idea of whatever we permit and the idea that you know when it gets cold outside the seats will move back in potentially right off of the deck off of the gazebo. Our concern is if that that's going to happen. Our concern is that come
springtime, 20 more seats are going to go back out to the gazebo, back onto the deck, and there will still be 40 additional seats on the inside unless we have an agreement of when exactly the chair seating would be moved and
confirmed by the building inspector. And I will say real quick, I might be jumping out of order here, but Mr. Rabinska says, you know, we'll do whatever we permit. We've permitted you to cook once a week outside and approved location and you have to follow that at
all times. >> So, well, you do. We've got a letter here from our health inspector from when you cooked outside of your permitted one day a week and did it inside an enclosed unit which was not safe and against code.
>> This unit was created while they cooking. This is unit we we went to health department. We went to >> I don't need a history lesson on it. I'm saying that your assurance to us is that you're going to meet always your 93 seat
capacity because we can trust that you're going to move seats back and forth. Here it was. You were permitted to do certain things and we weren't able to trust you to do that. >> So, so >> I'm just I'm just pointing that out there. >> Why don't we Why don't we to eliminate
the bad and move this forward? Why don't we put a seasonality on it? And then if they want to come forward at a later date and modify that, they can. Uh but for now, why not put a season on the gazebo so that they can at least have a
time frame where they say this is now available for use. And I would say art take three, three, four months when it's not going to be used.
January, February, March, April, >> winter months. >> Winter months. >> So, >> we'll consider it. It's not banter. >> No, no, I understand. But I mean, >> it's following the course. You're asking for something special. You're asking for
an adjustment. You're asking for us to consider something outside the non-conforming >> usage. Right. >> So, making the point. more questions, comments from board members. >> I'm aligned. Um, my primary concern was
the sect, the occupancy, and the location of the screen. If we maintain 93, then I'm on board. Okay. Um, I I think there should be a condition that we do not if we violate the 93 that we terminate the special.
If we have a condition on schedule and a plan and a if we do not follow this then we terminate the permit now I'm in mile if in the summer we've got 20 seats out on the deck and we're operating at full
capacity and we're well over our 93 then that's a problem and I have based on that letter I have concerns that we're not going to follow us >> I'm happy if we follow Mr. Phillips, >> no comments.
>> Mr. Osa, >> no. >> Are there any staff um or town official comments? >> Well, good afternoon, Richard. Fire chief. Um we had asked for uh the fire
plan, a fire prevention plan. Um, we received from the original builder um, a lengthy email trying to classify this building differently than we perceive it to be. So, because this is our first
engagement with anything like this in town, um we've deferred to the state and so we're currently waiting for the Department of Fire Services get back to us with a clarification on the building type, the
intended use, the intended occupancy, and then the prior requirements that would be necessary given the layout of the property and what the buildings are currently. So, we're just going to have to ask for some time for that to happen. Um, unfortunately, it's the state and they move at one pace and it's even
slower than the town. So, you I'm hoping that they have some answers for us. We've been in constant contact with them. They've come back with a couple of questions and hopefully we'll be able to come up with some clear and concise answers to what this is and what the requirements will be. >> Do you need anything further from the
applicant in order to continue those discussions? take given the information that we've been provided and again we're sharing the plans and all of that with the state for them to review and they ask us questions and we try to answer them as
as best we possibly can. >> Okay. >> Any other staff or official comments either in person or online? >> Yes. I just want to say, you know, the email salvation >> kind of answered all my questions and I
think those could be overcome. >> The the only other thing is I think we forgot to mention is there are some operable sliding doors on the inside and there's a quite a drop off. So that would need, you know, permanent guard rails. Right now there's a couple votes
and those won't pass but certainly not certainly doable that they can come up with a plan. >> Okay. >> That's really all I think. >> Okay. Thank you. Right.
Anything? >> I think I covered everything I got. >> Any other public comments? Yes, >> thank you. Diane Jasma 145 Beating Hills Road. As an auteron
honesty, we all know that. Like if gazeos were not what were originally planned, the cooking outside. I was the one that saw the smoke coming out of that enclosed trailer. I'm going
to call every time because that is not safe. Um the former build uh no the health director, I'm sorry, u Mr. Hilbert had sent an email dated um September 9th
saying that regarding the seats um the seating capacity and everything else that the change would need to be permanent. They didn't talk about inside outside moving them from one season to the next. He stated that the change
would need to be permanent. Um, I wholeheartedly agree with that because I don't have a lot of faith in the fact that if they move the seats outside and then again when it gets cold they move them back inside that come spring as you
alluded to that they're going to not change the seating capacity. I don't have a lot of faith in that. Um, and in addition to the ADA compliance, while I appreciate the the um handicap ramp, um,
there's still the issue of making sure there's enough clearance between tables and around the seating inside that gazebo. So, there has to be a certain amount of area around the tables, in between tables, and access around that
gazebo for a wheelchair. So, I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. >> We did submit a seating plan to the building inspector. >> Yes, >> Mr. Mro. Did you see the seating plan for inside the gazebo? And
>> I did. I I think it would be compliance because there's there's plenty of room on the least side. So, I believe I believe the the dimension I don't believe was on there. says 36. >> Mr. Allen is going to share it on the
screen. >> And that that is sufficient for you. Well, they don't have the dimen, you know, they have the overall dimensions of the building, >> you know, but you know, on one side, as long as they have 36 in, you know, and
the whole thing doesn't have to comply. They just have to have, you know, seating. >> Okay. >> Any more follow-up questions from board members or any other public comments?
Then it seems we need to wait for information and fire. We are going to need to check in with our new health inspector
and um solicit their opinion going forward. So the board may properly consider whether we can include a condition or not for variable seating in some catch.
>> I don't believe the original letter from the building or the health department said that it was a mandatory but it was a consideration that he had. So, what we'll do is get a fresh >> sure >> set of eyes on it and make sure that we
have a current the person who's going to look at it and approve it for you is going to say, "Okay, yeah, this is what I would look at and approve." >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Um then do I hear a motion unless you do you have anything else? >> Okay. >> Uh do I hear a motion to continue this
public hearing to 7:10 p.m. on December 2nd? >> Dave Space second. >> Roll call vote. Jessica and I >> Dispel I >> Marcus Phelps I >> I
>> thank you very much. Good turkey. >> Next on the agenda is the review of plans not requiring approval under subdivision control law. The first on the agenda is the ANR plan
for 32 sheep plaster road map 147 parcel 3. you didn't fun, but I figured I don't know if you can see it on the screen or if you can see it on the table, but um
essentially you have one complete lot that is going to separate into two separate lots. Um there's split zone between the two lots uh AC as well as uh I want to say R20. I want to say this
lot majority is AC. Can you get >> Yeah, lines right there. Yep. Okay. So, yes, both parcels are majority AC. Um, assuming future intention of single family homes, it's probably possible to site a home in the R20 here, but
probably not possible on this lot. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And and the developers just looking for single family homes on each lot, >> I believe. So, okay. Yep. Um, we did a wetland delineation. Um and RDA was approved by the commission last night.
We've done perk testing on both lots which passed. So >> I just officially Ryan Nelson. >> Yes. >> Right. Do board members have any questions on the ANR plan in front of us? >> Both meet requirements? Yes.
>> Yes. meets the dimensional requirements for >> any questions or comments from the audience. Then um else do I hear a motion to endorse the ANR plan for 32 sheet Cra been so moved
>> and Jesus second? A roll call vote. Jessa Thornton. I >> Tina I. >> Dian Chesa. I >> Jason I. >> Marcus Phelps I >> thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> Next on the agenda is the ANR plan for 88-94
North Longyard Road map 44 parcels 15 and 15.1. 15. Just put this one for a little more complicated All right. So, this is a plan that was actually
previously approved by the planning board back in March. Uh, it was approved and signed. However, um the applicant um cannot source um the plan with the signatures and I I don't have a copy or
you know I try to reach out to John but we couldn't uh find um a signed plan uh in house either. So essentially they're coming back to get the same approval which they've received previously. So, by explaining this lot, so it's a it's
one huge lot that um has um looks like they're they're creating a new lot here um which sits a house. However, they're giving a portion of this land to lot one.
>> So, lot one gave it to lot two. >> So, I think they're giving up this portion here to lot one. to even closing ch. >> If I remember correctly,
>> the movement here is of the property line that was really close >> driveway >> to that long driveway. Okay. >> So, the line is being moved south to provide more of a buffer and space for
that driveway. So, lot two was increased slightly. That makes sense. >> Thanks. >> Regular lingo. >> So that's what we have. And again, this was previously approved. It just need new signatures.
>> Any board member questions or comments? You good, Marcus? >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Good. >> All right. Then do I hear a motion to endorse the ANR plan for 88-94 North Long Road? >> Dave Spina moved. >> Dian Jespa second. Roll call vote.
Jessica Thornton. I >> J I. >> Dian Jespa I. >> Jason I. Marcus Phelps I >> were there any late submitt a >> and next on our agenda is the meeting minutes approval board members have in
front of them the meeting minutes for October 21st 2025 and November 4th 2025 Five. I say October 21st. Questions, comments, edits.
>> Do I hear a motion to approve the meeting minutes for October 21st, 2025? >> Dave Spina moved. >> Dian just second. Roll call vote. Jessica Thor and I. >> Dina I. >> Dian Ja. I >> Jason Gwald. I >> Marcus Phelps. Yes.
>> You also have I. Next we have the November 4th minutes. I thought I'd done it, but I didn't. The last uh thing, Mr. Planner, the roll call vote was unanimous in favor to the meeting. It's never a roll call vote. So, it's just the vote.
All right. Any other edits or questions, comments? Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve the meeting minutes for November 4th, 2025? >> Dispos vote for I >> D. I
>> Jason. >> Marcus Phelps. Yes. >> Davany. >> I next on the agenda is planning board member or staff comments. uh any >> we have not had an EPIC meeting since our last planning
board meeting. >> Okay. >> I know we're still looking for um going forward plans, if you will, for implementation of u actions for the planning board. >> The joint meeting with the um SL board.
>> I don't know if anybody reached out officially for that. >> December. >> December 8th. Yeah. Monday, December 8th. >> All right. So, board members, you can either in person or online um attend the select board meeting on
December 8th or the joint meeting to review the MIC. See how we are at that time? Get the update. Any else from you? >> In the meantime, I'll try to get that out
meeting. Yeah. reminder the updates for the epic. >> Yeah, for the epic. >> Also, another reminder. >> And then also, I just kind of want to touch base on what was brought up during
the town planners report in regards to a large solar battery energy storage moratorum. That is something that you know it could be accomplished on the
recommendation of the planning board and sent to a special town meeting which is currently look being looked at for January. Um if that is something board members have
an appetite for we can add it to discussion. Have to advertise it as a public hearing. potentially. >> Not sure. >> We'll figure out the mechanisms to me. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um >> yeah, >> we need a public I mean we'd have to
propose some language >> or someone would someone would have to propose you know language. >> Yeah. What have we We must have some history of a moratorum, but it was a long time ago. Maybe a
moratorum on the last marijuana >> marijuana dispensaries >> until until the board was able to put together their bylaw and pass it a town meeting. There was a moratorum. Um so we can look into that only if
there's reasonable appetite here. Right. >> I'm most I'm in favor of it. I think the moratorium is something worth look at. I think we've >> received a lot of applications for them. I know they're going in a lot of other towns too
>> and I think I'm kind of echoing the sentiment from the fire department and I'm not super familiar with it, but >> seems to be fire concerns, seems to be >> potential environmental hazard concerns with the storage and leakage and into the water. Um, again, I'm not an expert
on it, but I think we should entertain that. >> So, the general thoughts that I have on it, I I'm in agreement. At the very least, we should have a discussion based upon the number of applications that have been received based upon the
purchases of larger parcels that have been happening, especially since Westfield declined their application. Um, I would suggest that if we were to do it
ourselves that we would look to do it for a longer period of time than 6 months as Blandford had done. Uh, simply for the practical reason of if we are going to update it, we are certainly not going to be able to update it prior to
the completion of the entire chapter 185 update. um or even I would say concurrently between now and the annual town meeting this May. Um, so in my mind, we would be looking to put a
moratorum on it until May of 2027 because that would be the first town meeting barring a special town meeting where this planning board will have had the ability to review our thoughts on it, propose a new
bylaw, and have public hearings on it, and have it ready for an annual town meeting vote. So, um, we will do the research to see exactly what sort of procedures we would have to do to do that and we will
put it on the agenda for the next meeting at the very least for a discussion point. um if not you know if we have to do a public hearing obvious we won't be able to make it I don't think in time for that but um we will
have an update for the board at that point and in the interim maybe consider researching what other communities have done um Blandford like we said was the most recent one and see if there's bits of that that you like don't like that
way when we have our discussion on it we'll be as knowledgeable as possible and we can reach out to Chief Stfanowitz and make sure that he knows that we're taking undertaking this and we'll seek his input as best as he can give us.
>> Anything else? >> The uh whole discussion I think also includes what's happening at the state level I think >> which is another reason why I think if we won't get it done anytime soon. policies
favoring that kind of thing. Battery storage, so solar facilities could have a continuous flow of electricity to the grid >> even though the sun's not out. >> So, there's some balance there. And I
don't know whether towns and cities get overridden. I you Westfield was successful in uh denying >> that application >> and it was based on maybe there you go. Okay.
>> And so for us especially the m vast majority of our industrial land where these can go without question but then also our AC lands that you know they have enough acreage they can put them there. uh a
good majority of that is over our aquifer. So so it's part of our wetland protection district. We have a lot of wetland delineations to consider and um you know we were charged to look at energy policies in the master plan and
try to make them more environmentally friendly with an eye towards that. So I think this falls under that as well. And this will give us some time to get state input and
yeah get us a little bit more tight on our regulations and do what we can within state allowances going forward. Okay. All right. Well then if there's nothing >> I had another
>> we don't meet that often so you know. No. Uh >> were we going to discuss uh besides the bylaws bylaw review and so forth, you know, that Iron Valley Planning Commission is doing, were we going to look at any zone
changes in a minimal way? I know we don't we didn't want to wade into that swamp uh too much, but there are a couple locations in town where it might be conducive to try to get a little more
business zoning because our area that's available on the map is not much. And then in reality, it's even less than that because of some of the properties, the ownership of certain properties, >> right?
>> Uh so it might be interesting to try to have a discussion, but I don't know if that's going to come up as part of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission work or if we're going to do it on our own. that is part of the discussion and part
of the prep work that PVPC is willing to engage with us on. Um, anything we would do in regards to that like changing the zones and the locations would be something separate from the wholesale chapter 185 update.
um and would need to be carefully considered with what the new chapter 185 table of uses for zones will provide for. So it may be difficult to have
a conversation at town meeting where we are asking for additional allowable uses by right in the business zone and then additionally expand said business zone at the time. So >> yeah, >> it
>> it's a heavy lift. >> I you know, I can maybe envision it, but asking the public to to envision that the twostep of we're going to expand what is business here in town and then simultaneously expand where they can go by right
and then how do we have that discussion about where that zone change happens until we have what the zones mean >> allows you allow. So, >> but it it is definitely in our sites and part of the main
discussion and the timeline for their involvement with us provides for them to kind of have some time post annual town meeting to either clean up what was done at town meeting, fix what might not have
gone right, and also use those results to help prepare us and move us forward. So if there's, you know, other bylaw changes and updates and things we're looking to do, they can help prep us as much as possible so that we can take it
up maybe next fall and move those different pieces along once we have the framework of chapter 185 settled. Is that all? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Good.
With nothing else, >> do I hear a motion to close the meeting? >> Dina moved. >> Okay. In just a second. >> All right. Everybody in favor say I. >> I. No.
>> Thank you very much.