Good evening everybody. My name is Andrew Shepard, chair of the Towns and Planning Board. I call this meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. I'd like to have a roll call of all the board members present. So please say your name for the record. >> Cindy King is present. >> Presenting
present and Shepard. Would you please join me in the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all
>> I would like to thank all of our veterans those who are currently serving here and abroad their families and those who contributed their time to public service and we owe them our gratitude. This meeting is being recorded and will be uploaded to the town councils and YouTube channel. I'd like we've got some public hearings
tonight starting at 6:45. Let's see if we can jump into anything else. [clears throat] >> [clears throat] >> So um for 3.1 which is discuss review edit proposed draft amendments to chapter 175 towns and planning board
regulations a memorandum to towns and planning board from Joseph Bole. Um believe MRPC has reached out and said that Mr. Bole is no longer with MRPC so they asked for this to be continued till the next meeting. Oh,
>> so we'll skip that one and we'll wait and see. Did everyone get a chance? Or if you haven't had a chance to review your homework, we've got a little more time. Um, see, we got the invoices for the peer review. We've got the
new list of engineering peerreview consultants the boy the board may employ. Let's jump to 3.3. >> [clears throat] [clears throat] >> That's 3.3. three. It looks like it's just two, which would be Graves
and then Royal Panner. I don't know if the board has any thoughts or questions. I don't I'd like to be able to get three >> under three. Oh, wait. >> Yeah, we we need to get some more. We
can't just We can't just have two. I mean, there's got to be other engineers that are willing to >> to do it. I would think like I think you know Beth or somebody should call a few firms that half a dozen guys I know won't pull back.
>> True. >> I'd like to have more than two at least in our experience the two have been one for bigger projects and one for so you kind of only have one one each. >> Anybody else have any other thoughts?
>> No. If there's plenty of them out there, then we should probably have >> goodness at least three. >> Should we approach and get more folks? >> Yeah, I guess uh [clears throat] maybe we'll make it a um see if we can make it an action item for Beth. I know she sounds
>> do an invitation. >> I mean, I think we could, but someone's going to send out the invitation to certain people. Make sure that they respond. And I think Andrew, we should get documentation that we ask them and they deny too because if anybody ever says, "Well, you only have two." You can say,
"Well, yeah, but we've reached out to six." >> Sure. >> We tried. It's not interesting. >> Yeah. >> I think we should try to get at least three. >> Sure. >> At least three. >> Sure. >> Okay. Uh I'm going to ask Beth as an action item if she can look into adding
a few more. And if not, then we'll have to come up with something. I know she reduced her hours or has less hours a little bit less time. Okay, so that covers 3.3. Let's get to 3.5 uh which is the marijuana zoning bylaws
review consolidation and potential amendments. Review existing medical and recreational bylaws for consistency with current Massachusetts law, consider consolidation, and evaluate updates to benefit the plan. [laughter] We got an email.
I had an email from Colby. I did quote I did pull down the bylaws from Groten and Pero and Ashby for marijuana prep has a very comprehensive bylaw. Um
it's a 13page terminal. Rotten is not quite as extensive as Prol and Ashby is probably the least
um I was going to well I didn't have time but I was going to take look at our bylaw and look at these bylaws and the books totally different. >> Did uh so you didn't have a chance to go
through the town forms yet, >> but [clears throat] you pulled them. >> I read them. Yeah, >> I pulled them. >> Do you have any big takeaways from? Um they they are I believe they use they go with the state with the
I believe they still use the 500. No. Um I think Bratton uses the 500 foot which is the state. Pepper went down to 300 ft. >> But when they measure they actually go into detail of how they measure the 300
ft. um both Groten and Pedro. Um and then um Groten is more restrictive on where the actual buildings can be. They also include not only you know the local schools and stuff they threw in colleges
and junior colleges. I don't even know if Grton has any of that but um >> old got a lot of private schools too. in in all these schools. And um so those were the biggest takeaways
on the restrictions of where they can be and and how they measure from. >> So is our current bylaw weak or anything or this is in response to a citizen petition we had. >> Oh yeah. That came before us.
>> Yeah. He wanted to change our current bylaw. So [clears throat] >> we said we would be willing to consider it. >> So that's I was looking at other um to see especially where Brtton and Pepper both have. >> Do you remember what he was trying to change? Um
>> the footage was one >> the distance >> the I think I think >> in some you could probably explain it better but in summary I think it at at present the rest the the towns and zoning laws for marijuana is just not scales lane which given the businesses
that occupy it there's um in some opinions little to no opportunity for any uh potential businesses in that realm which some have argued would be if you're able to have some could generate town income. So I think the citizens
petition at the time was to try to decrease the uh to to broaden the area that it could and decrease the >> the argument was generate more revenue for the town and
>> yeah make opportunities for the town's people. >> Sure. So everybody's going to all the our bordering communities and >> it's not fair to our residents and it's not fair to we could get more money just for reg whatever the minimum sales taxes
without regarding to all these extra fees that they had tacked on years ago. But um I think we had just we had talked about this that we committed to be on the petition didn't pass because it just wasn't prepared for prime time. Right. So, I think we we committed to continue
to work on >> the potential honoral, you know, without being directed to by petitions or anything that that we would be open to looking at our zoning bylaws to see if we could make some adjustments to make it more reasonable because effectively
our our zoning bylaw prohibits it. it it's banned pretty much that you can't we just probably don't meet that law that we're banning it but we're pretty close that there's no place you can really put it. So,
we're we've kind of committed to just review not committed to making it so, but to >> review and make some recommendations, >> see if we can make some adjustments to make it reasonable that even if properties might not be available for somebody, but that should they become
>> there was a question about what kind of business commercial and business areas that would be inclusive. I remember that. >> Yeah. And >> the state laws change, >> too. The state law has changed even recently, >> right? Um, so even our bylaws, I think
we probably should I've been really busy, so I really haven't had a chance to really do a deep dive on this, but I think looking we should probably look at our state laws to see what the changes are and see how that impacts our our bylaws because we might be completely
out of compliance, too, or we might need to make adjustments without regard to any great changes, but there's more allowances. There's more different things people can do. And when this was passed, what year was this?
>> Is that the original towns and bylaw or is that >> Oh, this Oh, passed it 2018. So, >> is that town? >> Yeah. >> Right. Um, >> recreational was 2018. >> Yeah, I remember there was a discussion on medical versus recreational. Yeah, I
think it's all kind of combined now more more so at the state level. But >> yeah, the ones I found on the different towns, they don't separate. >> They don't separate them, >> right? I think I I think that was the issue. Ours separates them. Yeah. >> Which at the time that was
>> appropriate. >> That was the thing, right? >> In fact, I think you were prohibited from combining. No, that's the thing >> because it's well, [clears throat] I think at the state level it's almost silly. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Um Cindy, I know you were sharing some thoughts, but I know you said you didn't have a lot of time to dig. >> Yeah, I haven't had a chance to do that deep dive, so I'm hoping to to find some time. >> Well, luckily, we're not under a time pressure for it. Just something we were willing to consider and have have time
to do. [clears throat] Would you guys pass me a pen? >> Do what? Just pass me. Okay. Yeah. So I'll I'll try to find some time before our next meeting or the next time we have it on the agenda or if other
people can kind of look at whatever interests to do it too. [laughter] And we had also mentioned last time um [clears throat] that we could talk to not just look at the bylaws of our area but contact whomever I don't know
somebody at planning or town administrators in the other towns to see if they can give us you know their >> well we can get we should have done this or >> right so >> the problems that they wish they had foreseen or or the things that worked
really well >> so 49 minutes ago. Um Colby, who was the main proponent for the ballot initiative that did not go through, um who is also the conservation agent, shared a forwarded an email with I believe it was the contact, it might have been for the
woman who came and did a little bit of talking um and then she supplied a state of Massachusetts cannabis PowerPoint presentation. So, I'll ask Beth to share it with everybody or put it in her folder. I haven't looked
through it. I don't know. I presume it's applicable to zoning uh and what what embarking on just a resource for us as we're considering. Okay. So, we got 643. We still got two minutes.
Happy to entertain any more thoughts on marijuana if anyone on the board hasn't that where maybe we get into notices from >> right now. >> Yeah. Or we could probably read one or two. >> There's a bunch of them.
>> Knock one off the list. Maybe. [laughter] >> Okay. Let me know when my time is up. Okay. We have a notice of decision from the town of Luenberg planning board site plan approval for 1325 Massad
um for an office. They're putting an office building in there. Let's see. Lunenburgg also is they're having a public hearing on July 27th at town hall to hear about a state site
plan approval application for change of use at 475 Leester Shirley Road change use to man from distribution to manufacturing notice of decision for the town of
Lindenburgg 30 summer street uh special permit site plan approval and storm water permit approval with conditions. >> We need all the details or >> No, I don't. And when you finish that, we'll jump into the >> Okay.
>> All right. Excellent. Um, okay. 6:45 p.m. We'd like to [clears throat] continue the public hearing for zero sour application for a definitive subdivision approval and associated major storm water management permit. I
would like to introduce the board members chairman >> K Robert the Andrew Shepard and Robert did you have something that you wanted to >> yes um uh just for the record here um
after the last meeting on this um I was approached by an individual in town uh in the town hall after the meeting and which resulted in a public hearing complaint filed against me.
Um, we addressed that, the board addressed that. We had a special meeting here. The board reviewed the findings, determined no public meeting existed
and um therefore there was no violation. Um so I just wanted to disclose that history before we entered this topic and even again today I called the
uh state ethics commission and um I spoke with the town clerk and they both agreed it be wise for me to make this statement now. >> Thank you Robert. >> Thank you. Um, so a public signin sheet
is circulating if uh it's over on this desk if you haven't already signed in. I think most people here have. Um, Cindy, would you could you read the legal ad for the record? >> Um, okay. >> If you haven't
do that, I'm going to pass out these documents on the See if I can find it [clears throat] inside [laughter] the folder. >> Is it? This is 22. Okay. [laughter] I'm trying to get to the right.
>> Yeah, it's the paper. That's the paper one. [clears throat] not in here. >> No, that's just I'll be here. Robert, if you don't mind passing
passing these down as well. I got >> Yeah, I don't have [laughter] this at all. >> I think [snorts] that's [laughter] true. >> [laughter] >> Okay. [clears throat] Legal notice in
accordance with MGL chapter 4A section 11 the subdivision control law MGL chapter 41 section section 81K-81 GG including section 81T [clears throat]
towns in general bylaw chapter 85 NDES phase 2 storm water management chapter 175 article five storm water regulations the towns and zoning bylaw and the planning board subdivision rules and
regulations. The planning board will hold a public hearing on Monday, May of 2026 at 6:45 p.m. from the Towns and Select Board Chambers, Memorial Hall, 272 Main Street, Towns and Mass, and via
Zoom on two applications submitted by Belvadier Capital LLC for approval of a definite plan of a subdivision entitled definite plan for Sver Road Extension for a proposed three lot single family
residential subdivision and roadway extension of 560 ft [clears throat] Located at 0 Sber Road, towns of Mass Accessor Accessor's map 23, block 4, lot zero, a parcel ID 23-4-0,
and a major storm water management permit for the associated land disturbance activities and storm water management system. The applications and all supporting documents are available for public review at the town clerk's office and the land use departments
department during regular business hours. Electronic copies may be requested by emailing planning townsm.gov. Zoom meeting information will be posted on the town of towns and website www.townsmma.gov
calendar prior to the hearing. Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard either in person or remotely via Zoom. Written comments may be submitted in advance to the planning board office 272 main street second floor towns and mass 01469
or emailed to planning towns andmma.gov Andrew Shepard chair town of towns and planning board. This was published in the Grten Herald on April 3rd and April 10th and it was CC to the Butters the applicant assessor's office select forward board of health building
commissioner con fire department highway department police department water department zoning board of appeals of budding towns of Ashby Rton Lunberg Shirley Brookline New Hampshire and Mason Newampshire. Okay,
one of these is [clears throat] would also like to note that the con is holding a public hearing on July 22nd for the notice of intent for zero zero road due to a former lack of notification on air. So now
let's do our checklist. View timesensitive materials received which is the planning board request and grant of extension 0 road 6126 note of relevance the 72726 July 27th 2026 our next meeting board
action required. So in the portal um I believe we're approaching our statutory timeline to which a decision needs to be made. So it seems uh that we as a planning board reached out to the applicant and requested an extension and
the applicant replied uh accepting such extension. Try to find it in here. Uh you guys get a chance to look it over if you have any questions or comments. >> I guess would the applicant like to
comment on it? >> Mr. Chairman for the record David Plunkett for representing the African capital LLC and with me tonight is John Melo who's a principal of the uh limited
liability company that's applying for the matters before recording it tonight. Uh Mr. Chairman Wayne Bell is online and he'll I'll be turning it over to Wayne to make his presentation relative to [clears throat] changes he's made and responses that
have been profited for uh the peer review uh group and we're still waiting for a final analysis or final response from that. But everything has been submitted. Uh basically, you know, we've provided everything that's been
requested and still, you know, ready to provide to the uh town and the board and anyone with any questions, responses to any inquiries you may have. Uh you again with the uh with the conservation
commission, you know, is going to acknowledgement on their part. I'm very thankful that they've acted quickly that they're going to rectify the situation and we're set to move forward with that. It should be, you know, nothing different is going to be presented at
the hearing for full conservation. But at this point, I'd like to turn it over to Wayne and Wayne can take you through the steps in terms of what he's done relative to the revised plans and submitted to the peerreview group. uh in
his responses that is provided to >> so I'd like to I appreciate that. Uh do you have any direct comments on the letter of extension? >> There's no no issue pertaining to it. So >> whatever you need if you need something else signed there's no question that you
know whatever you want in terms of extending the time here. >> We appreciate that. Uh, I think before we turn it over to Wayne and have David as well and Tanner, I think because of the the length of time between the last
meetings, um, and cutting it short at the very beginning, I'd like to open it up to public comment. But there's a few other items that I want to go through on our checklist before we do that and then before we get to the peer review comments and the response from the applicant and then the peer review
consultant. So um so you note the the extension request uh received in the portal to Sver road extension response to peer review letter. So we have that that'll get
talked upon by oil and Tanner and Wayne. And then we've received some written letters received for the Caesar Road extension. We'll read those.
One is a letter from a Jolene Z road. And then we have a SE road extension response to peer review. Okay, we'll cover that. Um, so what I'd like to do just because we uh we limited public comment at our last
hearing, I would like to start with public comment at this uh meeting and then uh finish with the um back and forth from the applicant. Uh I believe at this point be Wayne and then David from Tanner to go back and forth on the
group. So uh any neighbors of the public present that would like to speak? Um please um raise your hand. Um my name is Boba 38 Cro. Um my understanding is that the
discontinuation of C road was officially voted by the town back in 1973 at a town meeting. And my question is, can the board act alone to make a decision that affects that previous vote or does it
have to come before the time? >> Um, appreciate the question. I think uh in the nature of public comment, I don't think we're going back and forth, but I think when we get to the discussion on the peer review, that's one of uh there's a question that's kind of in that uh in some of the documents. So, I
think that'll come up. Anybody else? Michael Brown. Um, just a couple of things briefly. Um, Mr. M spoke at length at the last meeting. Um, so I just want to say I
agree with the bulk of his comments that, you know, this proposed development um does not conform to many subdivision regulations such as, you know, being at the end of the law, dead street, so on and other things that he
spoke in more detail than I could muster. So that I'm equally concerned about. Um, just on a personal note, we've lived in our uh on our property for 29 years. when we moved there, you know, we were aware that we had behind
us an area of undeveloped woods. Uh that parcel of land was uh noted on zoning maps as undevelopable and stayed that way until three years ago when at least to me without explanation or without any warning, it
was suddenly residential land. um and its assessed value went up by a factor of six from $20,000 to $120,000. Um I was just, you know, concerned and curious about that. Um I went into town
hall and went to the accessories office and asked how can you explain what happened with this property that it would now be worth six times as much. And basically nobody knew. Um, people said they would find out, get back to
me. You know, that was three years ago and I'm still waiting. So I, you know, maybe there was some process, maybe I imagine it was somehow related to the plans for this property by a new owner, preliminary plans, but
if anybody could explain um how that sudden change occurred and uh maybe it isn't something that requires notice to the public, you know, how that occurred. It might be something of
interest to you >> and us >> and us. >> Good question. >> Any uh >> do you do you think that affected your property values? >> I had had no idea. It's just I guess my
concern obviously is that I you know have a preference for this this area of undeveloped woods right next to me on two sides of my property not to suddenly develop with houses. Um and that you know made it appear that that was going
to be easier or more likely when all of a sudden without explanation you know the classification changes value change nobody can nobody can or will explain why that happened. So are you opposed or
>> I am opposed. Yes. Because I feel that uh it was undeveloped. You know it's been uh similar developments have been rejected previously at least two occasions by the same board. Um and there are many subdivision control
regulations that have to be waved in order for this this development to occur unless there was some really really compelling reason which I don't believe there is. So I'm states if that wasn't clear I'm sorry and I apologize if this was as last
meeting I did not know there was another meeting unfortunately I'm not so um I have a lot of concern about the road itself um adding additional traffic on that road when I I've been for 31
years and when we started it was a two-lane road it was no longer a two-way road. We have to physically pull our cars over if another car is coming towards us in order to let anybody buy in that road whatsoever. We had a fire
last year on the road. It was very difficult for the firefighters to get down there and they did a good job. Nothing against that, but it was very difficult because we don't have water on that road. I think they they had four or five towns in order to go down there.
anything else happened on that road. Nobody was getting in or out and the road is a mess as it is. The town is as best they can. We know we're kind of like the forgotten road. Um but past my house is pretty much down to dirt at
this point and more traffic going back and forth. I don't know how we're going to be able to manage that. that Michael Sigman trustee my wife can't be here who submitted a
letter I understand it's not a demand but I do have a quick question uh it's public meeting you had mentioned the extension of statuto date is it possible at the public meeting to disclose without extension is >> u yeah I think uh I'm happy to read it
>> just looking for the Oh. Uh, it' be the next schedule meeting to the 27th. >> Thank you. Um, regarding the substantive comments, uh, I suspect you're surprised at the, um, number of people have shown up. As indicated in our letter, one
reason is there's an ongoing dispute regarding the property between the applicant and several of the letters. It was not disclosed anywhere in the application materials. I do not understand my understanding of it under the law there's a subdivision whose
boundaries are under cannot be approved and given the ongoing issues the town's having with clerk public notice etc. I do not think it makes sense for this board to go ahead and approve any subdivision even if it technically meets
any requirements with the likelihood that it could very well be undone in any subsequent property dispute [clears throat] between the applicant and the voters. >> Anybody else? I do have one more question
38. Um with the the amount of uh engineering work that's been done for the storm water management and environmental is very necessary and diligently done. So um it it leads me to
question whether or not the three houses proposed could grow into something bigger and larger in the future. It seems that there's an awful lot of work being done and and maybe necessarily so
uh but for three houses it raises some suspicion uh in my mind that this may grow much beyond three houses. Yeah. So u my concern is as stated before u you know it basically there's
uh so much circum so many regulations have been circumvented to make this supposed development possible. Uh many of us moved in uh expecting a rural character. Uh now
they're talking about building a house practically on our net. Uh which isn't the way any of the properties were before and as mentioned there was no transparency as to how it suddenly became uh developable land where all
this time it was considered undevelopable and [clears throat] that's the reason why some of people bought their properties here because it was undevelopable. um a road was completely changed. Uh if
they tried widening it, these huge trees would all get destroyed. The road would not look the same at [clears throat] all. our property would not look the same because it's, you know,
it will change if they start building three or possibly more houses right on our necks. Um, and and how could they have done this with no transparency, all these uh
regulations being circumvented? >> Thank you. All right. Anybody else public? >> I know it's not back and forth. We might not be able to answer these two questions and sorry, but um how does
land that supposedly was undevelopable all of a sudden become you know or we can develop on it now. And then my other question is if nothing's been approved, how is there being again
question? >> Um I think technically the way that we're taking public comment is more uh everyone has a chance to say how they feel or their concerns and we take it under advisement at the board. And then
I think part of my goal um you know unfortunately having shut public comment comment off earlier in the previous meeting um is as we go into the uh section where Wayne and David go back and forth on more of the technicalities
of the uh peer review which some of these I do think uh are kind of covered. Um they may be able to speak to some of these questions directly. Um I I my own I have no concept for how uh town appra
like the appraisal department you know says this is or is not developed aable and then uses that as a category and designation and how that may or may not have any standing uh legally it may just I don't know so but we'll see if we come
up with any answers so >> there so The property in question that they were looking to build on that was owned by a builder and they built two houses and the town refused to let them build there because they said you don't
have the road frontage. It didn't meet a lot of the regulations. That's when it became so that it changed mysteriously makes people scratch their heads.
[laughter] >> Hi. um Carol Burg 41 road. So we're we're on this topic. How did this land change? So is there a way that we can get an answer for this? Because it seems like many of us in here would like to
know that. And I'm going to ask I really don't know how these meetings can be held, but I see some people zooming in. And I'm thinking perhaps Laura Shiffren could shine some light on how this land
was changed from undevelopable to residential land since she was involved in the assessor's office at the time when it happened. Is that correct, John? >> I thought yes.
>> Yes. So perhaps can she maybe give us some information about how that can happen, how that happened now instead of everyone just nodding their heads. >> I don't I don't know.
>> Robert, um well I don't know anywhere where there's a real legal term that says developable or undevelopable. um in anything I've seen.
I think it's more of an opinion at the time and it might have been a product of the land owner at the time trying to reduce his tax base. I mean those are possible reasons. Um the [clears throat]
other possible reason is the economics of developing that property would have been could have been viewed in the past as prohibitive um based on the land values at that time. Um and now obviously somebody
thinks it's worth spending that kind of money to get three lots. So I don't know if there's a definitive answer for you, but those are some probabilities as to
and the term legal developable or not might have been totally a tax basis assessment at the time the property owner had that property and probably wanted an abatement or whatever and
therefore was determined unbuildable. and they got a tax relief on that. So, those are some probable things that could have happened to explain that. Um, I don't have a definitive answer for
you. Um, and I don't know if there's a real legal definition of that. Um, it's more of an opinion, I think. So I >> I don't think so >> I do want to you know I don't want to go you know I think the point has been made
about public concern regarding developable or non-developable land. I don't want to if there's a new point or a different point on that matter I'm happy to hear it but uh I I do want to >> those are all helpful changes. Uh on the
other hand how much impact would uh the zoning and other regulations have on the term whether or not it's developable versus undeveloped that I wonder. >> Sure. >> Sure. I don't if you're looking for an answer, this board can't [clears throat]
give you an answer on that. Okay, it we we are looking at the plans that are in front of us. I don't if you someone said we're nodding our heads. There's nothing else we can do. We can't give you an answer how that changed. You know, we haven't set up in front of
us and that's what we'll make decision right now. We're hearing public comment and we're happy to continue hearing public comment and new thoughts and um >> we have a number of people online too. Do we have anyone online that's got a comment they'd like to share?
>> Not at this time. Sorry. Sorry. >> Just it's a question. It's kind of related to one previous comments, but um what precisely are you being asked to approve? Are you approving this proposed subdivision and the
development that's going to contain three houses or is in other words three houses specifically what you are approving or is it just like the roadway extension or is it all of that? In other words, and maybe another way of putting
it after it's this is approved, [cough and clears throat] is it going to be possible to change it? maybe maybe expand it or billboard that >> I I do think that we'll get into that a little bit in the peer review. Um so if there's no more public comment I would
like question set comments with some written comments. You want me to read those when we get to read it as long as you tell me? >> We should we need to read them into the record anyway. >> It was a second letter. I do think we
have it. And if we don't, I'm okay with you interrupting us and making sure. >> Yeah. >> Sydney's going to read through them. I think we are going to read all the >> We have We have five. I have five letters, sir.
>> You have one from John the Ma. [snorts] >> I have at least one. >> This might be the new one. >> You see? Well, it was posted around June 29th. I don't know. Yeah, >> if there's another one. >> So, I know we read your May one into the record. >> Oh, okay.
>> So, if there's no other public comment, I'd like to read these into the record and then have uh I I think we'll go with oil caner first and then we'll have Wayne uh finish it next. So, go ahead. >> All right. This one is
from Bob A lot and Steve um I am butchering these names. Steve Desolates. >> That's correct. Yes. Okay. Um, [clears throat] we are writing regarding the legal notice pertaining to the definitive plan for SAR road extension by Belvadier Capital for a residential
subdivision at the end of SAR road in Townsen. As its subject property, we respectfully submit our strong opposition to the proposed plan. In addition, our concern that the proposal appears inconsistent with applicable subdivision control requirements, prior
town voting decisions, and previous planning board determinations involving similar development proposals. We also have significant concerns regarding public safety, roadway access, traffic impacts, and the preservation of the surrounding residential and rural
character of the neighborhood. Our concerns include, but are not limited to the following: roadway conditions and access. Sber Road is currently inadequate to support additional residential development and associated traffic volume. The roadway is narrow in
width with existing stone walls, vegetation, and topographical constraints that prevent two vehicles from safely passing simultaneously. Vehicles are frequently required to pull onto private property in order to allow opposing traffic to pass, creating both
safety concerns and potential property impacts. The roadway is presently in poor condition and in need of resurfacing due to numerous potholes and deteriorated pavement. Existing limitations related to in ingress, egress, and vehicle turnaround capacity
raise additional concerns regarding safe access. Emergency and public safety concerns. We have serious concerns regarding the ability of emergency response vehicles, including fire apparatus and ambulances, to safely and efficiently access properties along SVER
Road in the event of a fire, medical emergency, or other public safety incident. This in and of itself [clears throat] is creating doubt and alarm as to whether we are safe in our own home. These concerns are further heightened during winter conditions when snow accumulation
and ice significantly reduce the usable width of the roadway. Traffic and pedestrian safety. The proposed development would substantially increase vehicular traffic on an already lengthy and too busy deadend road not designed to accommodate additional density. The
roadway is regularly used by residents, children and pedestrians, dog walkers and horseback riders, creating additional safety concerns. associated with increased traffic volume and congestion. Environmental and community impact. The proposed development may result in
wildlife displacement and disruption of the natural environment surrounding the neighborhood. We are also concerned about the impact of such development may have on the established rural character and small town identity of the area. Given the foregoing concerns, we respectfully request that the planning
board carefully consider the substantial safety, infrastructure, environmental, and community impacts associated with this proposal before taking further action. Thank [clears throat] you for your time and consideration on this matter. Okay. Then we have
this is [clears throat] from Diane Sours. Um, chairperson, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sable Road extension and housing development plan. As a 14-year resident of Sab Road, I believe the development is inappropriate for such a rural narrow road. It will
have a negative impact on our small community. As Sever Road is so narrow, it is not designed to handle the increased volume of construction traffic for two plus years. It will also directly create a safety risk for residents walking and cycling along the
roadway with [clears throat] traffic navigating the narrow width of Sver Road. In most cases, cars must pull over to let other cars pass when meeting on Sver road. Also, parts of Sver are often blocked by delivery or service vehicles, and additional vehicles will make this
situation even worse. The existing road is simply unable to handle additional vehicles, especially heavy construction vehicles. SA road is in poor shape and deteriorating yearbyear, thus unable to handle increased construction traffic. At this point, the roadway is just one
big pothole that gets filled in every spring. I have not seen anything mentioned in the proposed in the proposal regarding paving SA road or anything that addresses the poor condition of the roadway leading to these houses. The proposed housing plan and ensuing traffic increase will
negatively impact our peaceful rural community. I request that the planning board reject this proposal as unsuitable for our role. As a longtime resident of Saber Road, I appreciate you considering all of my concerns. This is from Michael and Ona Brown.
Dear Mr. Shepard, we are writing to express concern with the proposed subdivision on a 13acre parcel [clears throat] up road. This parcel would the west and south sides of our property. [clears throat] The planning board first rejected development of this property in 1989. In 2020, the board
again rejected a development substantially similar to the one currently proposed. At that time, multiple area residents opposed the development largely because let's increase this. I can't see it. [cough and clears throat] Yeah, that's better. [clears throat] Um,
all right. The planning board first rejected development. The board again rejected development substantially similar to the one currently proposed. Um, these issues were documented, discussed extensively in 2020. For example, the existing dead end street is already much longer than the maximum
length for such a street and the new development would involve extending the street another 500 ft. Moreover, the parcel is not currently located on a public way. Nothing has changed since 2020 that would just justify approval of the development that the board already
rejected twice before. Allowing such a project could set a precedent for subdivision and development of many other large lots that similarly do not conform to zoning requirements for development. This would be contrary to the town's objectives of preserving open
space and ensuring that growth occurs in a controlled manner. When we purchased our house in 1997, this parcel was undeveloped for woods. The resulting privacy and a significant part of the appeal of our own property given that the parcel does not border a public road
was classified on land records as undevelopable. We could reasonably expect that the land would not be divided into housewives. If this subdivision were to occur, our house would be surrounded on all sides by other houses. One of the proposed houses is only about 100 ft from our
property line. Moreover, since the whole lot had recently been heavily logged and unsheltered trees were later felled by the wind, developing this lot by cutting additional trees may be problematic. Finally, a particular concern for us is
outdoor lighting. We enjoy the view of the night sky from our yard. If if any development ever occurs on the parcel, it would be imperative that any associated outdoor lighting follow the relevant town bylaws. We note that the plan provides for judiciously
minimal outdoor lighting. However, any list any lighting should specifically be required to conform to section 145-52 of the zoning bylaws outdoor lighting, including the use of full cutff lights. We appreciate your consideration of our
concerns. Oops. Okay, this is from this is um [clears throat] Jolene Sigman. this trying to see what this says 11 pages
some of its attachments. Um, okay. It's got a lot. I got to read a lot. >> [clears throat] >> I'm ready. Dear members of the planning board, as trustee of my mother's home at 40 SV Road, abuing this proposed subdivision, I have numerous concerns.
Given your mission of an open, informed, and inclusive public decision-making pro process. I know that you will take these concerns into consideration. The planning board appeared to be trying to approve this plan was allowed without allowing informed about her input as required for Massachusetts open meeting
laws. My mother, I understand she is not alone, has not received any notice of what I now understand have been numerous meetings on this proposed subdivision. Isn't this a requirement of the state of meeting law and subdivision law? I'm try in trying to figure out what has
transpired in meetings we missed due to this lack of notice. We have been hobbled by the absence of minutes from the meetings of the conservation commission on March 11th and March 25th and the planning board on May 11th. This issue was raised by numerous abuters at
the May 11th meeting and the minutes of the March and May 11th meetings still are not posted well more than 10 days later as required by the open meeting law. There are also no minutes available from the May 4th
planning board meeting where understanding exparte communications and planning board member responsibilities Q&A was identified as item 3.4. One planning board member has continually praised the quality of applicants engineer his site plan and
his discussing items we never thought of as if applicants willingness to spend money is relevant to compliance with the law. Those prejudicial comments on top of intimidating and predetermined comments made to an about raised in the open meeting law complaint
discussed at the June 1st meeting raise serious questions. Did the exparte advocacy and deliberations that occurred during the prior site visit prompt the need to educate the planning board on their responsibilities and did they stray from the open meeting last carve out for site visits not to include the
public. The planning board cannot approve applicant's plan because the subdivision boundaries are in dispute. Applicant and its partner and or pred predecessor in interest preliminary plan applicant NASA a land development LLC
have alleged that several opposing abutters cannot access SAR road without crossing its property. Specifically, they assert that part of what appears to be 40 and 41 SB Road is part of zero Sver Road. In an attempt to course non- opposition to the previous subdivision
plan, they forcibly remove mature hydrange hydrangeas from one property and were in the process of placing boulders on two properties, including blocking a driveway when the abuters intervene. The planning board cannot approve applicant subdivision plan while
its boundaries remain in dispute with some of all owners of the land included in the subdivision plan must be included in the application for it to be approved and this requirement cannot be waved according to Klinska versus planning
board of Wakefield 357 Mass 1231 1970 and cases that cite it. Indeed, Towns requires that subdivision applications must be signed by all property owners of all parcels involved in the application under section 175-10B1.
That the dispute regarding the boundaries of the subdivision and thus the ownership of all land within the subdivision continues is apparent from the applicant site plan. On sheet C-102 of the site plan, note four indicates
that easement A is intended for the benefit of 40,41 and 50 road for the purpose of access, egress, and utilities. Why is an easement needed when when what applicant describes as an existing gravel road? February 11, 2026
letter from Wayne M. Bale to Andrew Shepard, chair, planning board at page two. if there isn't already a boundary dispute. Indeed, we would be required to disclose the boundary dispute in any attempt to sell 40 road and we would be required to disclose a boundary dispute
in any attempt to reference the mortgage for 40 road. There are also obvious practical reasons why the planning board cannot approve subdivision plan while its boundaries are under dispute such that the subdivision includes land not owned by the applicant. A subsequent
decision in the abuter's favor would invalidate the planning board's decision because it would rest on incorrect finding that the applicant owned all of the land within the subdivision. That's especially the case here because the applicant asserts that the property in dispute establishes the foundational
access for the subdivision. February 11th, 2026 letter from Wayne Bell to Andrew Shepard, chair planning board page two. And the planning board should be particularly concerned about this as it is already it already must request town meeting to accept the public way
there where the dispute exists after town meeting affirm affirmatively abandoned eight years ago. The planning board certainly would not want to have to go back and ask town meeting to again abandon the public way because the subdivision was improperly approved.
applicant does not disclose the ongoing dispute in its application under towns and subdivision control law section 175-15 I one applicant was required to disclose any boundary dispute so the planning board could require a complete title
search by a professional title examiner applicant did not disclose its ongoing disputes with 40 and 41 s road under towns and subdivision control law 175-50 15 H5 and 9 applicant was also required
to include a community impact statement which itself was required to include a community element including existing neighborhood land use and compatibility with adjacent or nearby existing land uses. Applicant did not include in its community impact element a discussion of
either the existing neighborhood land use or the compatibility with adjacent or nearby existing land uses. If it had, it would have been required under section 175-15H9 to detail the reasons why its proposed
was not its proposal was not compatible with existing neighborhood land use by 40 and 41 Sver Road of the Terminus of Sver Road involving involved in the boundary dispute. And if those specific sections that require applicant to
disclose the boundary dispute were not enough, subdivision control law section 175-3 C6 states applicants are required to furnish any information known to them or their agents that could reasonably expect it to influence the planning
board's decision whether or not such data is explicitly explicitly required by these rules and regulations and whether or not such data is favorable. or unfavorable emphasis added. There can be no doubt that knowledge that that
applicant may not own all the property within the subdivision due to the ongoing border dispute could reasonably be expected to influence the planning board's decision. Applicant hides this ongoing dispute in its site plan by misrepresenting 40 road. Again,
applicant believes 40 SE road the only aut butter shown on all the sheets cannot access SE road without traversing applicant's property because its driveway ends on the applicant's property that is evident in the following photo which shows the new facing south down
south down the terminus of SVER road applicants first state for its proposed subdivision appears north of drive of the driveway of 40 Sver road placing the driveway of 40 SER road in applicant subdivision Um
a picture couple of pictures is included. Um confirming that this is not however what applicant shows on its site plan on C on sheet ex-101. Applicant shows the driveway for 40 SV
road curving to the northwest through 38 SER road and terminating on the existing SVER road con conveniently just north of Africa's property. If that were the case, there would be no dispute, but the drawings are incorrect, as clearly shown
by the above photo. Indeed, a post-examination of sheet ex 101 shows the stub of a driveway pointing to the southeast as two dashed parallel lines, also drawn for 40 Sver Road, a little south of the full driveway. Perhaps this
is supposed to correspond to the turnaround installed by 38 Sver Road. However, as the above photos show, that turnaround is north of the driveway for 40 Sver Road at 38 Sver Road to the left of the applicant's last stake and
outside its proposed subdivision. Applicants applicant transposed 38 Sver Road's turnaround with 40 SE roads driveway. Perhaps this was an innocent mistake in the site plan which has been repeatedly praised by the planning board for its
thoroughess. Isn't this an interesting coincidence? However, that such innocent mistake would place 40 Sver Road's driveway outside the applicant's property, concealing the boundary dispute. It's not like it is hard to draw 40 SE roads driveway in the correct
relative space. Applicants partner preliminary plan applicant mass development LLC had no problem doing May 13, 2020 letter from Michael Duran to Thomas Milligan and Madonna Milligan, exhibit A. Moreover,
while this mistake appears nine times in the site plan, it oddly does not appear in two important places. When showing the loading plan sheet C-101 and the easement plan sheet C102, applicant completely omits the driveway
for 40 SE road as well as the turnaround at 38 SE road. Having misrepresented the location of the driveway for 40 Sver Road, isn't it odd applicant omitted it entirely from the two sheets that are the basis for [clears throat] the planning board to accept applicants
complicated maneuver? Approving the subdivision would violate national law chapter 41 section 81m. The planning board is required to apply [clears throat] the subdivision control law for the purpose of protecting the safety, convenience, and welfare of the
inhabitants of towns and under master law chapter 41 section 81. Planning board approval accepting the premise that 40 and 41 SE road require easements for access eress and utilities would be contrary to the safety,
convenience, and welfare of those residents. Similarly, the planning board's powers under the supervision control law shall be exercised with due regard for ensuring compliance with the applicable zoning ordinances or bylaws under section 81m. Planning board
approval of this plan would ensure non-compliance with the applicable zoning ordinance or bylaws by finding that 40 and 41 Saber Road did not have the require legally required means of access or egress nor access for utilities. Approving this plan requires the planning board to ask Tom Meeting to
reverse Tom Meeting's previous decision as set foot in John Dea's letter of May 4th, 2026. Server vote once continued through the terminus applicant proposes to become a public way. Town meeting abandoned that portion years ago,
seeking a loophole to obtain approval of a plan the planning board rejected more than once. Applicant now proposes that the planning board request town meeting reverse its previous decision and vote to accept it as a public way the terminus of sever road it previously
abandoned. Applicants proposed procedural hy jinks should not be allowed to place the planning board in this untenable position. This is especially the case because they depend on granting and then discontinuing the easements to 40 41 and 50 sabber road.
Why would 40 41 and 50 SA road accept these temporary easements? And how does the planning board expect to convince town meeting to accept the proposed SA road extension when Tom meeting per previously affirmatively abandon it? Nothing has changed since the planning
board rejected the last subdivision plan. applicants council is correct that this is not some kind of appeal or reconsideration of the previous decisions by the planning board to reject what appears to be essentially the same subdivision plan. He is not
correct that approval of the preliminary plan is in any way relevant. The subdivision control law provisions are not applicable to preliminary plans under section 81S. S is in Sierra of master law 41 and
preliminary subdivision approval in towns and is tentative and is non-binding upon under section 175-12A 1 as explained in John Mita's letter letter of May 4th 2026 the planning
board rejected a highly similar subdivision plan by a applicant's partner and or pred predecessor in or in interest approve ing the plan now would be in be arbitrary and capricious. Nothing has changed in the neighborhood
and nothing has changed in the town. Indeed, when directly asked by the planning board during the May 11th hearing, applicants council did not point to a single factor law that has changed since the last plan. The silence speaks volume.
The town has no assurance the overengineered drainage system will be maintained. Sheet C-211 of the March 11th revision to the their definitive plan contains the lot development plan. That sheet contains the qualifications
that lot development shown here on is schematic final locations and configuration of the development of each lot is subject to approvals by the board of health and conservation commission as applicable. In other words, the purported three houses of four of four
bedrooms each could change drastically if this subdivision plan is approved. This is the most likely explanation for the overengineered drainage plan on the grading and drainage plan sheet C-202 that so impressed one planning board
member which does nothing to minimize the site disturbance nor the use of nonstructural storm water management practices or low impact development practices were ever practicable under towns and bylaws chapter 8. The
sediment basin, vegetated rip wrap, flat bottom swale, and plunge pool level spreader along north border of zero sub zero road. as well as the plunge pool. Two punch pool level spreaders. Two 12in HDP cover culverts.
Two 18in HDP culverts. Four 24in HDP covers. Two infiltration detention basins draw down device rip wrap overflows spillway sediment for bay and 10 flared end sections appearing on
sheet C-202 are not the drainage system of a three lot development. nor is the storm water basin access drive to allow this complex system to be maintained the infrastructure of a three lot development. The storm water report
indicates Belvadier Capital LLC will be responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of this complicated drainage system. It does not indicate builder capital has any experience maintaining drainage systems, let alone such a complex one whose maintenance
schedule requires numerous monthly, quarterly and and annual maintenance and inspection procedures. Storm water management report at PDF page 119. Rather, Belvadier Capital appears to have previously been involved in
financing multifamily buildings. Can the applicant's engineer state on the record whether the storm water management system has been sized exclusively for the three proposed houses and whether any further development of this land was considered in the design assumption and
storm water and maintenance plan? Conclusion. The planning board cannot approve the subdivision plan because the subdivision includes property applicant does not own. Applicant has misrepresented but is property involved in the boundary dispute in its site
plan. The application violates numerous provisions both the Massachusetts and towns of subdivision control laws. Approval would depend upon boundaries that are subject to an ongoing boundary dispute between applicant and abutters. approval would be an arbitrary and
capricious change from prior decisions and the planning board has no assurance that Belvver Capital LLC has the experience and ability to maintain such a complex drainage system in perpetuity. Thus, the planning board should deny the application. Thank you for your time in
public service. Best regards, Jelene Seman. >> Thank you, Cindy. If you'd like to take a drink or >> Yes, I'll take a drink. And then I have one more. >> What was that letter from? Who? Um Jolene Sieman S I E K M-
>> F >> um S as in Sam I E K M A >> we have it in our portal and Beth Beth has copies of it. Um there is attachments. I'll just go through those briefly. >> Um then Cindy has one more letter and
then I'd like it to open it up to foil Tanner and Wayne. Um but the there's a 2020 letter attached. Um, granted this is 2020, but it uh it's in reference to it seems uh a Mr. Gardener
and um a dispute around going over the property um and such. And then there is there is an exhibit and a map. All right, Cindy. >> Okay, [laughter] I'll try.
>> Okay, let me I got to expand this a little bit so I can see it. Okay, this one is Oh, boy. That's six pages. >> John's letter. >> This is John's letter. John John and
John Ma and Cheryl Burgess 41. [clears throat] >> Oh, this is May 4th. >> Scroll down all the way. Maybe there's Is it on? >> This is the only one. >> Um, when did you send your letter, John? >> I
When was it uploaded? >> It was uploaded June 29th. >> I'm thinking she uploaded the wrong one. >> I do think it's possible that the wrong one was uploaded uh given that you already have one. Um I don't know what
proper decorum or process is, but I'm if you have >> you have a copy. >> I do. I guess I don't mind delegating you to read it or if you want we can have Zindy read it. >> It's up to you. >> No, I Beth is not here. Beth is our planning board admin. She's her hours
have been reduced. I think it's possible given that John had an other letter, an initial letter that maybe while she was uploading our portal with letters, maybe she uploaded that first one instead of the second. So, you haven't seen this on the
planning? >> I don't I don't see it in here. Um, but John's going to read it and we're going to ask Beth to follow up. >> I'll submit it again. >> I'm going to I'll reach out to as well. Please go ahead. >> Your plan. I am following up on my
previous comments submitted on May 4th [clears throat and cough] regarding the proposal on the plan submitted by Beline to develop land. I want to both emphasize and provide additional context to the two two main points made in the earlier submission
which are 100% supported by all facts and relevant data. Number one, the plan the plan clearly and substantially violates the intent of the town division control regulations. Number two, the proposed development provides no public
interest benefit whatsoever. With regard to the first point, my earlier comments outline many specific regulations within the subdivision control law at the plan. As noted, those regulations form a clear definition of what qualifies as a
subdivision. This plan clearly does not meet that definition. There's no way around this. As such, there is no possible way to claim that this plan does not violate the intent of the submission control. With regard to the second point, the
plan serves no conceivable public interest. In fact, it is actually contrary to the public interest because it establishes a dangerous and destructive standard that would allow every property in town that has more than 4 acres to be converted into any sub.
[clears throat] This would demolish the rural small town character of town and is explicitly the people of Towns do not want. As part of the current deliberations, we have not heard a single claim of public interest in favor of a proposal. That is
simply because there isn't. We did hear various attempts to portray some item of public interest the last time this proposal was submitted in 2020. All of these attempts were fully refuted by the facts. Invalid public interest. Number one, the town needs
more houses. This is a popular catchphrase, but the data show that this simply is not true. Data taken from the census shown in figure one below and a half clearly demonstrate that while the population of town has remained flat since 2000 the number of housing units
has increased by almost 20%. So the population is the same number of houses. Further the town housing production plan for FY2022 to 2026 states in quotes. Quoting from thection
Townson's population is relatively stable with a very slight fluctuation since 2000 and a projected slight decline over the next several decades. And I have a graph to show that
invalid publication. Number two, tax revenue from the three properties will benefit the town. This is an invalid assertion for multiple reasons. First, the data regarding residential tax revenue versus expenses refute this notion. Based on FY20 expenses, town
pays approximately $13,000 per education costs. If there are just three school age children across three houses, the education cost alone would exceed the tax rate. Second, such financial considerations should not be part of the deliberation.
The town is not a business money invalid public interest. Number three, the current proposal is better than a 40B development. The last applicant issued this, which is nothing more than a scare tactic rather than a valid
publication. First, it presents the decision regarding the current plan as a choice between two alternate proposals, both of which are bad or one is worse than the other, and it's better to choose the lesser of the two either. But that's an entirely improper approach. There are not two proposals. There's
only one current proposal, and it must be evaluated on its own merits, not in comparison to a non-existent hypothetical far. Second, the claim is rather preposterous. A large-scale apartment style building would be the units at the end of long narrow dead road with no
other means of access at the precipice of sensitive wetland and runway protection areas with no public water, no public, no public such and no ready access to any kind of public transition. There is probably not a less suitable location for such a facility in the
entire conclusion. In evaluating the current proposal, the board must primarily consider two fundamental questions. Is the plan consistent with the subdivision control law as irrefutably established? The answer is a resounding no.
Two, does the plan serve an overriding public interest? Once again, the facts clearly and irrefutably say no. Doing disputable facts, we implore the board to follow the rules and do what's intended for the people generally.
Um, okay. We've wr we've read um our written comments from uh the public. We've had public comment and now I appreciate everyone's patience as we did it slightly out of order in response to having not had the opportunity at the previous meeting. I'd like to open it up
to uh David from Hil and Tanner and Wayne as well. Um and of course council if you see the need to interject or comment as representative but uh David if you want to start off by >> Sure. Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Can
everyone hear me? All right. >> Okay. Um we did receive the u the second application from Wayne and the applicant about two weeks ago. Unfortunately, we had staff members who were out on vacation. We were not able
to get the review done until today. So, that review letter did go out just before the meeting. Uh Beth did receive it, but I don't know if any other members there received it. Okay. So, we do have uh pointby-point responses for what was submitted. I can read through
those for you this evening if you would like. I'm not sure if that's admissible or not. If not, then we can have Wayne go through uh what he sent and um his responses and then you will have my responses to review after afterward.
>> I I would uh maybe maybe it's a fair time to have Wayne comment on each uh each item and then I'm not opposed, David, to have you follow and share what your comment. I mean, we have not seen it. Okay. With us, I think that would be
okay. Is this what [laughter] you're referring to? >> No, that I believe is the letter um I had in front of me as well. Um >> there's another letter that just came. >> Yeah, late afternoon. >> All right. Yeah. Okay. I've got you got the one June 24th.
>> So Wayne, um turn turn it over to you and and you guys' comments on on the initial peer review letter. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wayne Bell Design Collaborative. Um yeah, so we didn't receive a co a copy of the letter. So, if when Beth is in tomorrow, we'd appreciate uh a copy of that that
letter. Uh what we found in the Hoy Tanner uh extremely thorough review which uh we appreciate uh being peer reviewers ourselves is that a lot of the information or a lot of the comments um
and I'll let Dave speak to this uh after I do, but a lot of the comments were with respect to uh subdivision rules and regs sheet numbering things of of that nature. Um they did raise some questions uh that I think are worth pointing out.
Um basically they did uh a lot of the comments that they had raised we simply responded acknowledged. Um they did defer to the board uh on some things. Uh and so they talk about uh comment number four which is on uh the third page of
the PDF. Um they did talk about the road not being labeled as a a SVA road extension is not being labeled as a public or private way. I think this will answer some of the concerns raised by uh the abuter uh the abuters. Um so just
just uh for the record our client intends to seek uh public road acceptance of uh SVA road extension. At that point its status would be determined at this point. SA road is is not does not have a uh a status private
or public. I guess it would be private, but it becomes private when the plan is approved by the planning board and recorded at the registry of deeds. Until then, it's nothing but line work on on the piece of paper. So it requires the board's endorsements in the recordordation at the registry of deeds
at which point it is owned by Belvadier Capital until such time should the town by an action of town meeting vote uh decide to accept it as a public way then it becomes a public way. So that's where the status comes into play. Once it's recorded at the registry of deeds it
earns the status of a private way. uh once it's uh accepted by the town at town meeting it becomes uh a public way. Um he uh uh made another comment uh uh about the easements uh and the potential
development. So they state that uh 50 Sver road and easements and potential development which relate to whether or not that bush and extended to the culde-sac will be a public or private way. Uh so that would and then in addition um uh these lots have frontage
and they put that in quotes uh to see a road extension and therefore the applicant should provide further documentation. So currently that that property as is today the comments have been raised about it not being buildable. It doesn't meet the
frontage requirement and by not meeting the frontage requirement has more than enough area. It's not deemed a buildable lot because it lacks frontage. The roadway creates frontage for new lots which would then comply with the
subdivision rules and regs and meet the lottery area requirements. So, as I stated in the in the filing, the only difference between this and the ANR process is that this is because we have to go through the public uh the definitive process to create the lots.
Um this these are simply these could be viewed if this road was a a private. So it it is if this road uh remained a private way and not an easement over the property. There are many communities in the Commonwealth that allow lots to be
developed off of private ways. In this case the town doesn't. So it has forced the land owner to go through the definitive process. That's why we're here today. So with that said, nothing changes for 50 Sver Road. The only thing that changes, so he still has the
easement. Those properties in in in Lunberg still have the easement, same services, the P right to pass and repass over the land. Their frontage for their lots are are are from other roads. So they don't have frontage on uh Sver
road. The only lot in the application that has frontage on Sver road is zero SEAR road non-conforming frontage which has now triggered this definitive process. So with that said uh it'll be that portion of the road that's currently uh maintained by Mr. Cohen uh
will continue to be maintained by him. The only portion of the road that will not be maintained by Mr. Co Cohen or any of the new homes would be the new SVER road extension if it's accepted as a public way. Um if it's a private way um
then they would share in that maintenance of of of the roadway. Uh the other question that had come up so like I said Mr. Chairman, everything is is uh basically, you know, going back to the rules and regs, reing pages to comply uh
with the requirements. Um landscaping plan for any area. So, this is uh on page seven of the uh PDF. Uh they talk about a plan you show landscape for any uh area used for earth
removal or other damage by human activity. uh only the area within the rightway is proposed for landscaping. So the areas that were previously disturbed have been for the purposes of soil testing. There was some um uh foresting done and I
understand uh there was a foresting permit to do that, a legal foresting permit. Um so we actually requested a waiver from uh uh this requirement to reveate those areas until we know how
the lots are going to be developed. Um there are going to be three homes up there. There's not going to be 50 homes. There's going to be three homes. That is the intent. Storm water management system is designed in accordance with the regulations to to to size uh for for three homes. The other thing they
brought up, Mr. chairman was uh this was an interesting one reservation strips. So in your subdivision in your zoning bylaw uh you folks have a requirement and in your subdivision rules and regs
that if this road as it's created you will note that as we come across the frontage uh for for Mr. Ma's piece. Um, and for 40 uh, SA road, you'll note there's a strip of land that's 3/4 of a
foot wide on either side of the proposed layout of the road that is required under your subdivision rules and Rex. It's something that we typically don't do. And the reason it's it's uh provided
there is to um uh ensure that none of the abuing properties tie into the proposed road. That's the intent. So the question that Hannah raised was that the the reserve strip thing and there was some confusion
in that because reserve strips are are referred to as spite strips. You have a couple definitions in your uh subdivision rules and regs and your bylaws. One of them is the extension of the road to continue to to other properties that you cannot create a
piece of property, a parcel that prevents the road from continuing to another piece of property. And this particular case is shown on the the site vicinity map. We'd have to cross wetlands to get to the other other properties which are currently developed. Topographically, it becomes
challenging. So that may that answers that question, you know, with respect to, you know, the reserve strip beyond the subdivision road and the the reserve strips uh or I call them spite strips and they're commonly referred to as spite strips on either side of the road
in front of uh number 40. Um so the other question was the projection of uh the proposed ways. Again, this is at uh toward the end of uh sheet 11 of the PDF. Um this is item E. uh this is what I was just talking about the projection
of uh the the roadway and seek clarification as to whether or not these conditions are satisfied for proposed access to 50 Sver road. Um so as I noted uh the there are some environmental challenges if a road would be to go
through there. Um so that really isn't uh uh something that um would make any sense to to allow for the road to project through. Uh on sheet 13 toward the the top uh I um developments more
than 500 ft outside the current geographical area served other municipal water systems considered in feasible to connect to must have a water supply for the fire department to use. The applicant should indicate on the plans where the development lies in regards to the mun municipal water system. Uh we
reached out to uh fire captain Michael Grimley who reviews these the fire systems in town to discuss the comment that was raised and he indicated that um the the department uh responds to uh situations with the aid of um several
2,000galon uh water tankers in their fleet operating in unison and rotation to collect the additional water uh if necessary. um consistent with other communities in Massachusetts, the fire department will call upon neighboring communities uh for assistance is necessary. That's what he had stated as
well. Um the other thing was 8B that a little further down the sheet um was a discussion about the pavement being 26 foot wide required uh for a 40 foot right of way in that it is 18t wide which was approved by uh the planning
board and the 2022 um preliminary plan um and the towns and uh it's way they asked that uh we reach out to the fire department to confirm that the proposed cross-section adequately provid by the 20 ft of clearance required by 527 CMR.
Um, basically what that is looking at is the overhang of the vehicle, whether or not if the the vehicle is traveling down an 18t wide, your typical vehicle, the the tires outside to outside are 8 ft wide, 8 to 8 1/2 ft wide. when you look
at the vehicle swing, they want to make sure that the vehicle swing has enough width 20 foot wide to make those uh those maneuvers. So, in speaking with the uh the captain again uh to discuss this, uh he stated that consistent with
the department's position on the preliminary plan that the department is accepting of the 18t wide travel service with puminous concrete uh curving provided that the vehicle body swing can be accommodated, which it can. and as demonstrated on the on the plans in the
uh fire manu uh fire apparatus maneuvering exhibit. Um and we stayed and he stated his strong opposition. The town does require granite curving. The fire department st consistent with others and many DPWs stated his strong
opposition uh to granite curbing. Um the other uh thing was uh on the next uh other comment number 14 catch basins to have granite gutter inlets. Again consistent with the fire department. He'd rather
not see uh granite uh out there. Um proper projection of storm water management structures which is on uh PDF sheet 16 item 11A. So that basically so we're requesting a
waiver for that because if we were to project the uh storm water structures uh out to the property uh the perimeter of the property as as required under the subdivision rules and rags. Basically we would take be taking concentrated runoff
and directing it to private properties downstream of us. Um we'd also require wetland alteration which is not good design. Basically what we have is it discharges and then gently sheet flows uh out of the basin. Uh and that was it Mr. Chairman in terms of the the
comments that I thought needed addressing. David may uh feel differently but like I said a lot of the comments that were raised uh by oil tanner uh were with respect to the subdivision rules and rags compliance with some of the protocols and and the
regs. Um and we felt and we addressed that uh to to and again I haven't seen the letter but we feel that we've addressed those adequately for them. I will defer to David or to you Mr. Chairman on however you want to uh handle my responses.
>> Thank you Wayne. Um, David, do you have um, you know, I guess I guess out of respect for the applicant, I I do think if you have comments based on the letter you submitted today, but I don't they have not seen it either. Um, and I I don't love surprises or I'm not trying
to ambush anybody. U, but maybe David, if you could take some time to just comment maybe on what you heard or uh, you know, briefly outline some of the the comments you had in your letter today. Uh, sure. Um, let me see.
[clears throat] So, I I for the most part I agree with um Wayne uh what they submitted uh did address a lot of what were um detailoriented type comments. Again, you know, with these plans coming together, with the amount of people that review them and where they turn out after this
review process is done, we want to make sure that the eyes are dotted, the tees are crossed, and that um all of the areas of concern are addressed so that when anyone looks at it, they can see all the information. Um, a lot of our comments we addressed is saying that um
the comments that we had requested were um handled. Um, I'm going to look through my comments right now and see what some of the uh more critical ones were. Uh, comment number 1A.
Um, our request was per subsection C4, the emergency vehicle turnout has been provided on sheet 10 of 17. Turnout dimensions are 20t wide by 40t long with a 20ft radius. And [clears throat] uh we defer to the building inspector, the
highway superintendent and or fire department if the turnout configuration is sufficient for that. We had a question about uh item number 3A with regards to the showing of an area of disturbance that's on a slope
that's steeper than 15%. Uh they did show where slopes were that were 15% or greater. Um and they did show their area of disturbance, but what we're finding is the two aren't quite lining up. [clears throat] Excuse me. What we would like to see in is an overlay of anywhere
there's 15% slope or more disturbance in the in the proposed condition. The idea being that when you have an area that's either um being stripped or being constructed um that's 15% or more, that's going to be one of your areas of concentration of
storm water flow in the interim condition. And or when you're trying to establish your slope, when the grass is trying to grow, you're trying to um establish whatever your slope is that's going to not erode away. We want to make sure that um those areas have special
care taken to them. >> [clears throat] >> Let's see. Uh qu uh comment for comment five. Um, comment 5M. Per subsection I4, the soil test map
shall include all sites for proposed primary and secondary leech fields clearing clearly distinguishing those for which tests have been completed and passed from others. Furthermore, if any such site is within 100 ft of a buffer zone, the minimum
distances to such buffers uh shall be shown. The applicant has shown the proposed primary and secondary leech fields. However, minimum distances to the 100 foot buffer zone are not shown, which is required for lot two and lot three. So, we'd like to see that
measured. We we can excuse [clears throat] me, we can see it on the plan. We would like that um distinctly measured so that uh those who need to see that um clearly understand um we just briefly talked about comment
O regarding the landscaping and I think there's a bit of a um misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what we're trying to get at here. So, per subsection K4, the landscaping plan shall show landscaping for any area of the parcel previously used for earth
remove removal or otherwise damaged by human activity. Only the area within the rightway is shown to provide landscaping. The applicants requested a waiver with the following remarks. We respectfully request a waiver from this requirement
as the final development of the lots which set the stage for the landscaping has yet to be finalized. Granting a waiver would not be a detriment to the public interest. Uh we understand you know what the intent here our our intent is to make
sure that there's no other requirements by the town for any sort of uh uh shade type um shielding type protection type landscaping from the roadway to the the houses whether it be landscaping whether it be fencing or things like that. Um if
the town is okay with granting the waiver that uh other landscaping outside of the rightway is okay we're fine with that. We just want to make sure that any town concerns are addressed previously. There's any sort of screening or shading that the town requires.
Let's see. Um, comment S under there. Uh, per subsection L2I, the proposed layout of storm water management structures must be in accordance with the storm water bylaws. Chapter 85, rip wrap outlets, level spreaders, and spillways have been
clarif clarified and detailed on the plans and storm water management report. plans ensure proper depth of cover to storm water for piping with the exception of the outlet of uh DO4 into structure DMH2
at that structure there's 3 ft of cover what we can see on the plan uh according to ASHTTO and the manufacturer's recommendations this is sufficient cover it just it does not agree with the four feet that's required and uh my comment
7G has further detail on on Uh there's an outstanding question regarding um [clears throat] chapter 176-16 subsection K which neither the applicant nor our office was able to able to find
within the town records. It's our understanding that as of June 1st 2026 the town has this chapter in subsection under review. It talks something about showing the lo location of all required basements. We're unclear what that means
as is the applicant. uh requesting further detail with uh comment uh 5 W um with regards to the bearing and distances for each straight portion of the center line um
of the road. It's required by uh subsection N4C. There [clears throat] was a question about um maintaining the rural character of the road. I had heard in the room earlier we also had that question where it comes
into uh street lights per our comment 5A per subsection N5H. Street light locations are required in the roadway profile plan. The applicant has requested a waiver to remove the
street lights as related to chapter 175-16 subsection H1. See further details regarding the waiver request in chapter 175-16 comments below. And I [clears throat] believe those will
state similarly that um they believe as it sounds like the butters do that not having the the street lights would accommodate the rural character and nature of the current road. Um, a question. I did hear a question or
comment earlier about um the drives and where they're shown. Our comment 5BB per subsection N5i, all intersecting intersecting walks and driveways must be included on the
roadway profile plan. Only the 50 Sver Road beginning center line realign drive call out with station and offset from the center line of SVER road extension is shown. The applicant should include a smaller station and offset call out along the SVER road extension center line
declaring the beginning center line of the three proposed lot driveways as well for completeness. Oh, I'm sorry. These are just for what's on the road on on the extension. >> [clears throat]
>> Uh there's an outstanding request comment six. According to chapter 175-15 subsection one uh sorry J2, soil test data must be provided every 200 f feet along the center line of proposed
street. The applicant has requested a waiver with the following justification. A comprehensive soil testing plan documenting the locations and results of observed test pits indicates the subsurface material across the site is highly suitable and conducive for the
proposed subdivision development. Specifically, the observed conditions support the construction of the subdivision roadway and associated improvements with proposed alignment requiring only minor fill along its length rather than excessive cuts. Our
comment is uh the applicant intends for this road to be a public way in the future. Therefore, we defer decision on this waiver to the planning board and other respective boards. And a side comment to that, while I can appreciate their statement and I've I've seen that uh used in the past and I I uh agree
with it, um there are other boards in communities that I've worked with who prefer to have the final say uh such as the um highway department or the road commission. And therefore, I leave it to their discretion and decision if andor this
board's decision um as to whether or not they find that suitable. Uh there there's been comment a lot of comment between the public and private way and some of the questions we had before to clarify that now since it was brought up um the reason why we had so
many comments and questions about whether or not it's a public or private way basically has to do with the town's acceptance in the future as Wayne had stated. Um that does have to go through a a process with the community. Um however, if the intent was to make it a private way, there are some things that
um by default they could uh decide to do on their own because the town they wouldn't be looking for approval in the future. Um so some of the waiverss they're requesting have to do with things that are required by the town. Um that if they decided to make this a private way, they could uh choose their
option as far as what they would prefer to do and what works best uh for their site. So in looking out for the town's interests, it it was important for us to know that important for us to know now if it was a intended to be a public way so we could stem what could be some issues for approving it as a public way
in the future. >> Can I ask a question? >> You may ask. Yes. In your opinion, the town's roadway ends several feet hundred feet before this
proposed. So, there's an extension being proposed on the current public way. >> Yes. >> So, Would I be correct in thinking that
the former fever road doesn't exist? >> I believe I addressed that. I can I can find that comment. That might actually be my next one. Um or it might be further in. But I do I do have comment
on that here. So, if you'd allow me to to take a look, I'll I'll see if I can find it. And if I haven't satisfied your question, um I will uh gladly take a look further in and see if I can find it. But I do know that that is something that we addressed.
Um let me see. This next one here is our comment 7B. per subsection A5 reservation strips are prohibited unless deemed by the board to be beneficial to the town. I know this was a hot topic with with uh people and
uh Wayne did talk about it and I will further clarify here. The applicant acknowledged this as follows. We offer clarification to this comment. We concur with Hoy Tanner's interpretation of subsection A5 and have not included any provisions requiring a
reservation strip which would prevent further extension of the development. We note that the subdivision rules and regs have a provision which is not consistent with and in fact conflicts with many other communities in the Commonwealth. This provision to which we have referred
to as a reserve strip is also commonly referred to as a spite strip which uh Wayne had stated. This reference provision in the subdivision rules and regulations is as follows. Subsection 175-16B15.
Streets may not be laid out to provide frontage or access to land that is not part of the subdivision in a manner that would allow new ANR lots to be created outside the subdivision. It is this requirement to which we
commonly refer to as reserve strips and has designed the subdivision to comply. So in other words, and as Wayne had stated, because this is currently a private way, there can't be access granted to uh the abuters on the
private way until it becomes public. So that's where the conflict is between the reserve strips, spite strip, and um where the property is. So that wasn't it, but I'm I'm let me see if I can find it further.
We agree with this comment about the um projection, although there are other ways to accomplish it. Um our intent was not to have the drainage dump into the other property, but rather to provide an extension to the drainage or I should say not our intention. The intention of
an extension is to provide access for future development. However, uh as has been presented, the the abuing lands in Lunenburgg are um extremely prohibitive for future development given the the nature of the
wetlands, where they're where, uh the properties are located, uh who the ownership is by, which is have been provided on some of the additional plans that were submitted um by the applicant. Okay, I think I think this will address
your uh question. This is 7 F. Per subsection B16, dead end streets shall not be longer than 500 ft. It is understood that the proposed rightaway is an extension of an existing
deadend street that is over 500 ft long. The applicant has therefore provided a circular turnaround and included turning movements of a fire apparatus in the plans which appear to be sufficient. So, I think that answers your question.
Um, that it's already a deadend street that's already over 500 ft long. And so, this is a continued extension of that street where the previous street was abandoned.
So my question is, is this even a subject for the board to consider when it's not a public way? No. And
in other words, it's not a public roadway. It's a rideway that people have. It's an abandoned road. And
what's being asked here is to extend an existing dead end road. I don't know how many distance longer than it already exceeds the maximum
distance. In other words, the maximum distance is 500 ft. The current road there now exceeds that and this extension would even make that
far even greater. So, I don't see how this board can consider this a subdivision. [clears throat] Appreciate your question, Robert. I think that's part of the discussion we'll have as a board, >> right?
>> Um >> Well, that's why I asked that question. >> Sure. Uh but David, I know I we haven't seen this letter of responses. I um I know Wayne hasn't seen it yet. I I don't know how much more you have to it. Um
maybe if you want to hit some high points on it that's remaining and and we'll make sure that Wayne gets a time to see it and and review it. um if you happen to have high points. I'm not I'm just not sure. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And after David responds, I'd like to just respond to
the the length of the road and where it stands with respect to the abandoned Sver road, the new road compared to that in light. Thank you. >> Sure. Yep. I have a few more high points. I I think I found the comment I had before about the street lights. Um
they did state here the overarching design objective for SVER road extension is to accurately preserve its inherent rural character a principle that extends critically to the consideration of roadway lighting given that this section of the roadway is previously devoid of street lights. Their introduction would
demonstraably alter the established residential aesthetic and environmental ambiencece of the homes along the street. This approach ensures a harmonious balance between upholding the desired rural character and fulfilling all necessary planning requirements for potential future development.
And our response is that we agree with the applicant's assessment and request that the board consider the existing character SV road in its decision as to whether or not to grant the lighting waiver. See >> [clears throat]
>> We commented on what was stated about the um fire system 2,000galon fire system stating that um that should be submitted as a waiver where they did speak with the fire the
fire chief and the fire chief stated that they you know their process for fighting fires in that area that um if they want to wave the requirement for a 2,000 Galler uh sistern that that should be requested in formally as a as a waiver.
Let's see. [clears throat] That's it. Those are the those are the highle comments we have. The other ones again are detail oriented comments um for just a few minor things that still haven't been provided on the plan but nothing that's nothing earthshattery.
>> Thank you David and Wayne. >> Thank you David. Thank you Mr. chairman. So, with respect to the length of the the culde-sac, you can see it on the plans. Um, if you folks take a look at the plans next time you take a look at it, uh, I would encourage you to take a look at, um, a couple of the sheets and
you can very clearly see that the proposed culde-sac in its length is about half the length of that abandoned portion of SA Road. I think that the other important thing to note too is as part of this design
um where there is a turnout on SVER road um for fire apparatus purposes at uh number 40. It really isn't adequate to turn around uh a vehicle. Uh I've looked at it. It's a very narrow turnaround. This here will provide a full culde-sac
turnaround of 80 ft diameter. more than enough for the vehicle to make its its maneuvers as we've uh shown in our exhibits uh at the exhibit at the end of the plan set sheet 17 and 17. Thank you. >> My drawing says 70 ft.
>> I'm sorry. >> My drawing says 70 ft. >> Yep. 70. Yep. I was just going by on recollection, Mr. Chairman. But nonetheless, it still demonstrates that the fire apparatus uh can still
make that maneuver. And as demonstrated there too in green, that's the body overhang. And the body overhang does not uh extend over the edge of the curb, which is what the fire chief was looking for. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Wayne. Council, I don't know if you have any comments you'd like to make. Um at this time [clears throat] I just you know I I think that Wayne and David the peer consultant
made a very thorough presentation and I know that we look forward to reviewing the peer review work respond to that. Um bottom line is that this is a pos by the applicant. Uh it's a three watt uh
subdivision. It's been engineered appropriately for the submitt response to what's necessary for creation of these three lots of response to the feedback received from the uh town and
the peer consultant and uh it's going to be it's it's actually going to be a beautiful subdivision uh you know it's going to provide housing uh com Massachusetts has identified the production of housing in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as one of the biggest issues faced with Obama. So, you know, there is uh you know, it doesn't address a public need. It doesn't address a public need in terms of what uh Wayne just referred to in
regards to the ability of the emergency vehicles to turn around, which is not present in the current public way that exists. public way which is controlled and maintained by the uh by the town of towns at this point in time. So we look
forward to further review. Uh we look forward to further discussion and we hope that we're close to wrapping this up and uh having the vote on the propos. >> All right. Now we're at the point of board discussion.
I uh can I ask you to address the concern from that letter that I asked you about property disputes? >> Yeah, the land dispute and being inaccurate the bounds and things. Are you aware of that?
>> There there are no boundary disputes present. >> We don't know where they're getting. >> There are none. >> There are none. >> [clears throat] >> So what was what was
Miss Sym referring to? >> I have no idea. The only thing that I've ever been made aware of is there's currently and I forget which which lot on SA road, but we actually received a
call from an attorney for the title company that lot. They had called to see if we would be open to granting that property owner an easement because their driveway currently crosses over uh our land. So,
as far as property dispute, I don't think anybody's claiming that our land is their land, but there is a driveway that currently sits on our land. >> On your way. >> Yeah. And our response to Kat was we would be more than happy to grant an easement giving that property owner the
right to pass over so that they don't have to take up any asphalt or reconfigure their driveway. That's the only property. It's not a dispute, but that's the only I guess boundary issue that I've ever been with. >> Okay.
>> We have limited We have ended public comment. Um I can understand you have a view. I'd like to continue with the board's comment for the moment. Go ahead, Brett. >> Have you engaged an attorney? >> Have we engaged an attorney? Yeah.
Company is looking at it right now, but This is news to me. There's not a dispute. You have a letter. It's in the record. >> Okay. Continued board discussion. Go clockwise. >> I'm thinking >> Cindy's thinking.
>> Pass for a moment. >> Pass for a moment. Carol, any thoughts? >> Um, I was just curious about the dispute. Robin already addressed that. >> Yeah. Brett, thoughts, comments? >> Okay. >> Okay. Please share. Um, I think my first
one would be to Wayne. Wayne, if this um is not accepted as a town road, does it then become a private road, a common driveway, what would it be categorized as? >> Yes, the chairman, it would be a private road. >> My experience with private roads too is
that um when the board um makes its decision, there is a covenant that typically goes with the board's decision. Um, and you'd have to work within that that covenant in the development of the road. To to uh David's point earlier, um, if it is a
private way, um, it's not like they would necessarily have to, um, construct it per the subdivision rules and regs uh, or per the the, uh, the planning board's decision. My
experience, I I haven't seen that done. I'm not sure how the previous applicant operated, but um I haven't seen it done. I've had roads accepted both as private ways and public ways, and they've been designed or constructed in full compliance. Um as part of that, we would
do um and and the board could condition as part of um the construction of the roadway that it would be subject to inspections at various stages. So typically you'd strip down the top soil and subs soil, get a compatible subbase, make sure it's uh uh properly compacted
with a vibratory compactor, and then the the gravel subbase installed in lifts. So there's a process of inspections during construction. So that would be something that we look at it if the owner were to m keep it as a public way,
a private way, it would be in his best interest to make sure it's properly constructed because he's going to be shelling money out the nose to keep it, you know, from collapsing and and undermining. So >> to support Wayne's point, um that's one of the issues I've seen in several
communities. That's the reason why uh several streets have not been accepted is because the municipality was not involved in the inspection process during the uh construction of the road and therefore they did not want to assume any liability for it or conversely they were involved and they
did not like what they saw and therefore they rejected it and the roads are maintained as private ways in which case you would have an HOA that would be responsible for plowing, trash pickup, whatever services would be associated with it u being a public way now being private. that would have to be part of
an HOA to make sure that those services are maintained uh within that that area. >> So David, if this ends up being a private road, does it meet all of our rules and ranks? Are they the same rules and rights? >> Yes. Yes. At this point, it does. And
and that that was the point of why I was stressing that was to make sure that it met them because if they decided if there were some that they couldn't meet for whatever reason or they they chose not to meet, then they would have to make it a private way. Um otherwise, you know, it would be non-conforming and therefore would have to be a private
way. But everything to this point meets uh this the town standards and therefore would be acceptable to be a public way. >> Okay. In your review, you said that the fire department saw the preliminary plan. Did the fire department see this
plan or did they see another plan? What plan did the fire department review? Wait, I believe that's a question to you. >> Oh, I see how this works now. Yeah. So, to respond to that, so I know they
reviewed the preliminary plan. Um, I did speak to them to this plan. When we file the plans with the town, my understanding is that whenever we file a definitive plan, the plans go to various departments uh including fire uh board of health uh conservation gets it
initially for let's say for preliminary um and for the definitive when we file the notice of intent. But either way, all the boards and department heads receive a copy of the plans. So I am sure that the uh the fire department has reviewed this. Like I said in my discussions with him, I would en
encourage the town or the the board uh should you have any questions of uh the captain, give him a shout. Give him a shout. Um he told me I asked him specifically if I could take the conversation that we had and incorporate it into the letter and he said yes. And
that's why I incorporated his comments. >> Um in your details, I was looking at your crosssection. And I do not see any sidewalks. >> Isn't it a requirement by the town of Townsen to have sidewalks? >> So, we didn't we didn't include uh sidewalks given um that there are no
sidewalks currently along SA road. Um so, a couple a couple things here. So, to maintain that that that rural character and to provide for the safe turnaround for fire apparatus, this is why we have uh the road as designed as
is. The other thing is that uh as we laid out the road, there was a question about the um the removal of trees along the sideline of the road. I think if you folks take a look at um the site preparation plan, uh which would be one
of the earliest sheets, uh in fact, it's sheet 8 of 17. It shows that we're maintaining and protecting uh the the specimen specimen trees along the roadway. Um, and that was in part why we wanted to keep the the shoulders really
nice and tight. And I think that was the the intent of the uh original engineer that that did the plan as well was to maintain that treeline corridor and that tree canopy over the roadway. Um, so like I said, because of the nature of the road, it's a 500t culde-sac coming
off of uh another road uh that has no sidewalk. Um, and that's typically how we would handle something like that. It's almost like so the only time let's say if I could uh if this were a culde-sac coming out to let's say Route 2A or something, okay, and Route 2A was
absent of a sidewalk, the last thing I want to do is have pedestrians walk out on the route 2A if there is no sidewalk. So in this particular case, we've got Sver Road with its its it's its length as is uh and the proposed Sver Road extension. There is no sidewalk proposed
because there really isn't anything on Sber Road and we want to maintain that character of the existing trees. Preserve those trees. >> I may be mistaken, but >> I believe this was also addressed in the preliminary subdivision plan and I believe a waiver was requested waiver
was requested at that point and granted. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you for the preliminary point in front of us. Uh, I think it was prior. Yeah, I may have just been on the board. I may not have been on the board. You weren't
on the board. >> It was a while >> with them before. I think >> it was a while ago. >> The preliminary plan predates me as well, but I did uh request a copy and receive a copy of it because again, there were questions like this that are outstanding that we wanted to make sure we weren't rehashing something that had
already been addressed. >> [clears throat] >> No, we we waved them before and I thought we were going to revise the bylaw on that. >> Um, we have not >> say what we have not probably revised that bylaw yet.
>> We have not. >> The bylaw provides the planning board an opportunity >> to waiver >> to no to either. It doesn't say that they're required or not required. It it says that we can require them or or not require them. We have that opportunity
in the in the bylaw. And >> let's wait. >> Yeah, >> I got a few more. Wayne, everybody talks about your elaborate drainage system. I take it that um it meets the total suspended solid removal. >> Oh, it sure does.
>> So, through the chair, um I've heard a lot about the drainage system. Um did I like to design the drainage system? No. But unfortunately 40, 50 years ago, and I'm sure David can would agree with this, there were no
regulations in place. So each developer did their own thing. It was because of that that we've got these regulations. Some of them are ridiculous, but I understand the intent. So when we design these systems we have to mitigate the storm water runoff the the the rate at
which it leaves the site the quality of the the runoff the quality of the runoff has come into play within the last 20 20 25 years maybe 30 years uh but prior to that it was just the the peak rate of runoff so we have to mitigate for a lot of things and that's basically why we
have the system we have in a perfect world as I said uh to you folks into the conservation commission looking at the preliminary plan. I appreciate what was presented by the the other firm, but it was an open drainage system with a
roadside swale. When you're looking at slopes of 7% with a roadside swale, that just begs for erosion. Erosion. I have seen it. I sit on the town board. I've done inspections. I've seen it. Um, and so we went with the the curb system. Is
it more expensive to the to the client? Yes. Does he like it? No. But unfortunately, it's the regulations that put us in this this uh position in terms of looking at uh you know to construct a road like this and to
construct these homes, it's very costly. It's very costly. And as much as they're getting for these homes these days, um, in in many communities, when you look at the construction costs, ever since co and a couple years ago when materials with the the embargos overseas, the
construction costs have gone through the roof. Um, so when you're looking at something like this, what the drainage system is what it has to be. I don't like it. I don't like it, but it does its job. And it passed muster with the peering consultant. Um, it's is it
overdesigned? No, it design it's designed in compliance with regulations. >> You mean with no pre-treatment? >> I'm sorry. >> You mean total suspended solid without pre-treatment? >> No, we we do have we have pre-treatment. We do have in our system we have a
treatment train in our hydraologic analysis uh that shows um the treatment train where we get 90% TSS removal. The state requirement is 80%. were able to achieve 90% TSS removal with the system
as required by the local storm water regulations. Um, and in terms of the phosphorus removal, the town requires a 60% phosphorous removal rate. This was as a result of their recently implemented uh storm water regulations,
which by the way went into effect after we filed our plans. Quite honestly, I wasn't happy about it because we had to go back in and redesign the system after we had already designed it to comply with the previous regulations. So, with
that, when you look at your local requirements in terms of storm water, what you folks recently did in with your storm water bylaws is is consistent with what a lot of communities are doing more stringent than what the state requires under the state water regulations. I
hope that answers your question. >> Yep. Um, I only have an 8 and 1 half by 11 here. Did you do any test tools for any of the drainage? I see some on here. Are they probably for >> you in all the basins, all the swailes?
>> Oh, we did. Yep. So, we did uh we have on the plans uh soil evaluation holes. And on sheet two of 17, uh we have soil test pits uh for the storm water basins. Um that's where we're we're seeking some
uh infiltration. Um so we provided and we want to make sure that we met the groundwater offset and we had the soil so that we modeled it. Uh we were modeling the right soils and we have the soil testing uh for the um the uh uh
sewage disposal systems as well. >> Do you have them overlaid on the grading plan or on the drainage plan so we can see where they fall or Yep. I can get you right there. >> Sure. >> Yep. So on the full set, you will see on
sheet uh nine of 17 where we have the uh uh grading and drainage plan. It shows the uh the the test pits. They're a little screened back because on this it's a proposed thing. So the proposed features are bolder than the the existing but you can see where test pits
are proposed or were were dug for both the sewage disposal systems and uh the storm water systems. That particular sheet 9 of 17 because its intent is purely for grading and drainage. We only put the soil test pits uh specific to
grading and drainage. Um if you look at the the lot development plan as well uh you will see that uh that plan uh also has the test pits and that would be sheet 1017. >> If I may one other comment that was made earlier was about uh low impact design
where practicable. Um and so the inf infiltration system is a low impact concept. It's a low impact design where practical one of the the criteria of that would be you have to be able to infiltrate the water into the the soils below. And so therefore if if the soils
are too wet or if they're too dense, if they're clay or silty type soils and you can't do that, then you can't use uh certain types of low impact. >> Yep. I do appreciate that comment, Mr. Chairman, of of David. Um there are sites to do true low impact development.
I've done systems um where it's been a a true lid system. I did an open space development in Sutton a while ago. A true lid system. It had great soils, fairly flat topography. It screamed low impact development. We did it. I've done
hybrid systems. The thing that that that works for low impact development is flatter topography and great soils. The topography, like I said, coming down this roadway, you're at about 7%. That's not conducive to roadside soils as I've indicated earlier. And secondly, the
soils out here are hydraologic soils group C which are they do have some silt in it rather than a coarse sand that has some silt. So it doesn't allow the water to permeate through it as as well. So we would have loved to have used it. Um we have as as David said we we do have it
in terms of the um the infiltration um and it's to the greatest extent practicable as as noted in the in the storm water regulations. You will note to the north side of the site along uh the property line uh of number 40 we do
have that elongated swale. So why so the low impact development principles you know if you want to mimic existing hydraology that's what we've done there. So as it flows through that that that swale and everything's intercepted there and then it's released through the level
spreader it begins the process of beginning to flow again as a sheet flow rather than a shallow concentrated flow which scour creates scouring velocities. So we implemented it as best we could given the site conditions.
Thank you, Wayne. Brett, is that >> I think that's most of them there. Um, Robert, I did think we started with you and Cindy, you were thinking I don't know. >> I think I'm good. >> Okay. Um, so the applicant has received
the comments from or will will receive the response letter from Oil and Tanner. Uh, they'll need a chance to respond to that. Um, we Oh, you know what? We have um comments, mandatory referral comments.
We need to read into the record. Cindy, would you read the uh the one you wrote? >> I got to find it. >> Okay. I can I can I got them up right now. >> You got it. Okay. >> Um so I I'll give it out. Um May 11th,
this is for the Commission on Disability. uh reviewed the information for the zero Sver Road subdivision extension application for the public hearing on Monday, May 11, 2026. The Commission on Disability recommends sidewalks be provided AW chapter 175
article 2 chapter sidewalks of the Townson subdivision control bylaw to provide mobility, safety, and accessibility for residents. We noticed that the preliminary plan approved by the planning board in 2022 approved a
waiver of sidewalks for the subdivision. For four future applications, the Cood recommends sidewalks be required and constructed IAW521 CMR20 accessible route and 21 curb cuts.
on behalf of the Commission on Disability respectfully submitted. Cindy Marie King, chair, commission on disability. We have one more. This is from the I think it's the highway department. Highway department
comments. I I would request that the HMA binder course be no less than 2.5 in of the tumamus concrete and the HMA surface course be no less than 1.5 in of the tumous
concrete when constructing the roadway. I would like copies of all paving slips for the roadway during construction and would like to be notified when the gravel is being installed as well as the roadway paving for inspections. Jim Smith.
Oh, [clears throat] that's his old. I guess that's not okay. We'll reread them if we had board of health. Um comment see attached. Okay. The towns I think I
think these have already been read but we're going to read them again. The board of health has reviewed the definitive subdivision plan for sele extension and approves the plan subject to the following conditions. Each lot must have a source of portable water as defined by the county board of health well regulations. Each lot must be
served by a sewage disposal system in full compliance with title 5 in the town and BOH sewage disposal system regulation. No burying of wood waste from lot clearing operation is allowed without compliance with 310 CMR16
site assignment regulations. Any plastic materials shall not be percolate percolate based coralate based. All detention retention structures shall minimize standing water. All phase of construction shall be done to minimize noise, odor and dust
that would be injurious to public health and or cause conditions of air pollution. Ask about previous land uses on the property, landfills, orchard businesses. Page six of the preamble submitted with form C application statement
of other permits is missing and requirement to obtain a wealth permit for each slot of the board of health accepted proposed to serve lot three is within 100 ft. So these are comments that have already been addressed. Um this one is the select board. The select
board says we trust the planning board to make an informed decision from all department heads of public safety. Cold distribation commission [clears throat] building commissioner building zoning. Okay. Permitments for buildings earth
removal storm water needed. These were the original comments from Captain Grimley on April 1st. I believe the comments Wayne shares superseded these
zoning boards of no comment. Okay. So, I think we've covered everything on our checklist in an exhaustive and pretty thorough uh public hearing at this time. Um, >> I did think of I just thought of something that I wanted to ask about. >> Okay.
>> Um, sorry, I'll try to keep it brief. >> I we were talking about uh private roads into public roads. I know previous other developments that we've we've had over the years in town um in keeping the road private prior to and then with the
intent of making it a public road. A lot of time, a few times we've had um developers drop off the drop off the map and leave the road being the last thing that's usually completed incomplete. And we've been the town's been kind of stuck
holding the bag on on even making the road plowable or we needed to provide a lot of work in order to at the town's expense to make the road feasible as a public road. And I I think in in the past we've had a requirement for um for
bonds in order to make sure that the bond is large enough to cover those expenses into the future. Um is that would that be something that we would be I might be premature in my comment, but is that something that we'd be we'd be talking about either now or in the
future as as if in the in the event that this were approved that it's some is that something in the final thing or is that something we should be talking about now? I I do think I remember reading that. I don't remember which document I was reading in. I'm not sure if the applicant has any comment on the
prospect of um a bond, but >> it would definitely have to be a bond. So, yeah, for sure. >> The intent is to build [clears throat] up the roadway, the current town specs per road and typical that you'd have
on for the purpose of the work to be done. And then as work has progressed, we can generally there's a provision that we can come in and get lease on bond money as workers as work is completed. So I think >> yeah I think make sure like sometimes [clears throat]
not to say that you're going to go bankrupt but some developers have at at the in the final stages and they've not been able to because they just don't even barely don't exist and the money's they don't have the money anymore to take each of those steps. So, we would
require a bond earlier in the process so that in the event that something unbeknownst to us or any of us happens and in the ending phases of the process that we've already got the bond money that we can complete the roadway with that money.
>> I concur. We did this in a relatively adjacent community. Um same similar situation. And this was an 11 lot subdivision and uh the town did request a a bond for the road that eventually will eventually become theirs for the
exact same reasons. U so there's usually shy written written into um one of your rules and regulations bylaws. Um start by finding that following following those rules. >> Thank you. Um so there's we have the
statutory deadline to make a decision at the next meeting is my understanding. Um that would leave two weeks for um for Wayne to respond to David's comments to us to potentially be
satisfied um or not. Um I my opinion it might be worth asking the applicant if they would uh consider a extension just to be safe till the 10th which would be to our following meeting
but I' I'd ask the board um what you had for thoughts I mean that's was they continue to to work with the board whenever was [clears throat] appropriate and that that's a
appropriate request and we have no objection to it. >> We want the board to be completely satisfied. So an extension >> well >> I think an ext I mean I I would feel comfortable if there's an extension so that we better there's a lot of I mean this is a lot of and [clears throat] you
know in each meeting we between the public comments and between the the different things that everyone is testifying to that it's a lot to think about and to put together and then back go back and review the plans and things it would be helpful to have a couple
>> I think too with the possible property line dispute even though council doesn't know about it. I think that that's going to be investigated. >> I I think [clears throat] a lot of this um is
related to subdivision standards based on a public road. So, I don't want this to go on and on forever.
And I would like some comfort level about approving a subdivision on a road that's a right of way and not a public way.
And I need some legal confidence that we have that that we have that authority. And then the other question is um
to make it a town road or extension. Um we don't have that right either because that would have to go to town meeting to have them accept a road. So
my big question here is um is it inappropriate to approve a subdivision on a right of way?
>> Robert, I I feel like there has been um I think council would like to speak. I feel like that's largely been addressed. Um, I mean, bottom line is we're going to get approval based upon the buildout of the roadway fully compliant with the town's
requirement for public land. Uh, the process is generally that you then have to submit that for fun as built plans and presented with it being a town that you have to go back to the town. That's all requested. >> That's all very clear to me. What what
is not clear to me is I don't want to be voting on something that I don't have just, you know, I don't have the authorization to vote on.
>> I mean, I don't think the planning board can say that the town's going to accept this as an extension or not. I mean, the whole reason this is going
as a subdivision is based on a set on a subdivision requirement of frontage and all the other standards based on a public way. And I'm not convinced this is a public way. And so if that's the
case, then the the property owner is no different than any other property owner along that right of way.
Um, and so the question is, the subdivision laws apply to public ways. That's the question. >> I understand your question. >> Can we get a legal answer on that? >> I I I'll ask Beth to reach out to town council. I recognize council here.
>> I mean, everybody needs that answer before we keep control laws pertain to subdivision of apostle. >> It makes certain that there's safe ingress and ingress to that possible land that is subdivided. There's nothing preventing the planning board from
approving a a subdivision of land if even if that way that's created is then going to be maintained under a uh under a homeowners association or it's going to be submitted to the town to the town meeting and after the fact for approval
as a public way with an asbuilt plan and proof of the compliance with all the terms and conditions of the approved local board relative on the roadway. The intent here is not to build this roadway any different from
any roadway that it would be built within the town to town. >> We understand that we saw all the documents documenting that. Okay. So, and everything I've seen I I know it was going to be
would work. I feel confident would with a couple of other questions but um I think that was a very comprehensive presentation and um so I just don't know personally
what if we [clears throat] can approve this legally. >> Understand your question Robert. I think what Attorney Plunkett is saying is that the planning board has the authority to approve a subdivision >> on a private way.
>> I think that's your question. >> That's my question. >> Yes, you do have the authority to approve a subdivision on a private way. >> Who who determined that? >> Most of our subdivisions have been built on private waste which led to my question to making sure we have a bond so that if it's going to go to a public way that that the money's there one way
or the other to make sure it happen. I mean we that's the those are the subdivisions that we we've had. Copper Smith Way is the one that I was really referring to where the road was not complete and we ended up spending >> well most have an entrance on a public way and
then they're subdivided within it. You know, >> but the town would decide never to the town could say no on accepting the road as a public way >> and it would remain the sub there's nothing wrong with the subdivision. The subdivision can survive on the private
way indefinitely and we have Jonathan Way is the same at least right now question they have 36 ft of frontage and we're allowing them to create their own frontage 36 ft of frontage I believe on that parcel. >> No 34 through this construction.
>> I think he made the >> So, I don't want to spiral out of control. I recognize the public has raised their hand. We already had public comment. I I I don't expect that this an question will be answered in it totality tonight. For those that have concerns or are still unsure about it. So, I I will
ask Beth to reach out to our town council to potentially opine. I recognize there been budget cuts in the towns and town council is less interested in ad certain matters. But what I'd like to do right now is uh entertain a motion to continue this public hearing to the
um what's our date? The July 27th meeting and then after I'd like to entertain a motion to request an extension uh a statutory extension that we have of the applicant. So first motion is to continue the public
hearing to July 27th. I make a motion that we continue the public hearing until um July 27th. I'll second it. >> Second. Roll call. >> Cinder King. Yes. >> H says yes. >> King. Yes. >> Yes. >> Andrew Shepard. Yes. Public hearing been
continued. And then I'd like to I'm not sure what the official language should be. Um but just to be safe. Um maybe I can base it off the letter. Um I would like [clears throat] to request an extension
in of from the applicant for zero sour road in accordance with MGL chapter 41 section [clears throat] maybe section section 81-T and section section 81-U
um till let's say August 10 record something. >> Second. >> Second. Roll call vote. >> Syndicating. Yes. >> Officers. Yes. >> King. Yes. >> Hearing. Yes. Andrew. Yes. Okay. Thank
you very much everyone for zero s road. And now we'll move to our 7:15 >> public hearing which is for 22 West Meadow Road application for modification to the site plan approval lock
roof solar array. But this one I will be abstaining. >> And while you're going to obtain, can I ask for um a recess for a few minutes? >> Um I do think it would be appropriate to have a few minute recess. I'd like us to
all be mindful not to talk to anybody out in the hall >> to just take the recess as you need to recess and then >> um motion to recess. >> Oh, so move. >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Yes. Yes.
>> Yes. Robert Daring. Yes. >> Andrew Shepard. Yes. No more than five minutes. Not three minutes. >> I'm going to I'm going to wait. I'm going to let them get out in case anybody uses the restroom and stuff. And then >> Robert, be careful. >> And the downstairs ladies are >> And they're done. Okay. >> Oh,
>> so we only have this one. So, some of these folks might be using it. So, >> I just got to stretch and nothing else because my artificial heads like the >> You have those? >> Yeah, I do have those. So, they stiff it up like the T.
>> She wish I could wear them. [laughter] >> You know, you don't have to read. um [laughter] appreciate uh that I we did not I don't not sure
>> yeah we did not have extensive public comment at the former one >> and uh this one we did >> so complain >> I I think that has been that box has been thoroughly checked [laughter] >> I think it I think it goes >> yeah you want to do it sometimes you
know it's one of >> I appreciate yeah I see A lot of times with boards they they think they have to but you don't you don't have to. >> I can't. >> I will admit I thought that a number of times as we were reading but >> Cindy said this is an extensive one.
>> I was following along and I was like >> well you started you couldn't stop. >> I know. It's like oh boy >> you did well. I mean >> yeah you did good. >> I was trying not to stutter skip or you know get you know. >> No that was that was a good 45 minutes. Thank you. [laughter] >> You you did good reading that.
>> Have you thought about voice acting? Not till now. [laughter] >> Oh, you better take over this one. Okay. >> Um, I guess I'll >> You want to go first? >> Wait until Robert, please. Or Robert returns. I don't know if it really matters.
[clears throat] We didn't necessarily cover everything on the agenda. >> We've got a bunch of stuff left though. >> But um >> we've got an invoice to pay. >> Do we pay? Is it Do we have to authorize to pay? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Review. >> I think so. I felt like that was >> there's a couple >> thought that that I didn't think that we needed to vote on the >> Yes, we do. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Just two of them. One for oil and dinner and one for gra.
>> Oh, is there anything else that is utterly essential for later? Um, >> that may be it. >> Oh, 3.4. There's something else.
Uh my personal preference would be advocating we do that at a different time, but I entertain the will of the board at that time once the other items are >> there's one item that has a timing >> in 3.4.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. The same thing for these next two and forgoing everything else. >> Um I want to be I I don't remember. I think while we're in recess, we can't even though I'm sharing maybe vague
personal opinions. I don't know if we're I don't know. I want to stop talking and I do everything. >> Well, is there I guess what I'm getting at. Is there anything else on here that's part >> Well, I think that's what I'm trying to figure out. Okay. >> Which there's uh two invoices at the very least we need to vote on. >> Yeah, we've got to do that.
>> Okay. And the rest would be subject to discussion of the He discussed before I bet [clears throat] she >> might do idea if I go up here right
totally up to you. >> Okay. When >> when did we set that point? Was it August 10th? Um or is it next meeting? >> We extended the deadline till the August 10th one. Um
originally is for next meeting. >> Okay. >> Is this >> Do we have a thing for >> this? Let's just take >> this is Yeah. Okay. [laughter]
Oh, these might be Cindies. [clears throat] >> Um, it's not in that pile, is it? Well, >> maybe this is it. >> Yeah. 22 West Meadows right here. And I would presume that the
>> Did you cause any trouble out there? >> No. >> No. >> I had to dodge it. They're all out there. >> Probably waiting for you. >> And Cindy should be back soon. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Okay, >> can we get this one done tonight? Jeez. [clears throat] [clears throat] >> Everyone's paparazzi. [laughter] >> What's that? >> The paparazzi. No, nobody tried to talk to me.
>> The question is, did you talk to anybody? >> No, I didn't talk to anyone out there. >> No, I didn't me. I didn't even look at the [laughter] Oh, we all back and all ready. All right. >> Let's go, Carol. >> Good evening. Mrs. Carol Hes, um, vice
chair of the planning board, and I would like to call, um, [clears throat] the continuation of the public hearing for 22 West Middle Road. And >> can I take a roll call vote?
>> Um, Cindy King [clears throat] here. >> Robert here. >> Carol and [clears throat] I believe this is your letter. >> Yeah, I I don't represent the operator. I represent the property owner. So, I'm
not going to make any comments in whatever their letter says. >> Okay. So I for next year this letter is to the town of towns and planning board regarding 22 west road application for modification to site plan approval. Dear
members of the town planning board, thank you for your continued attention to the screening requirements for the solar facility at 22 West B Road. It is our understanding that republication is necessary due to changes in board
membership. As we wait this republication, we expect the me the next session to be held August 10th following republication. Sincerely, excuse me, Lawrence Provost Lock Solar
LLC 101 Summer Street, second floor, Boston, Mass. We know what republication means. Um, just said, sorry, for the record, attorney Christopher Alen, uh, I got an email from Beth along the same lines that because of the new membership that
they just wanted to renotice the hearing so that there wouldn't be any problems with the notice requirement with the new membership. So, that's all. It's just a continuence. >> Okay. We talked last minute because of everything we talked about. Okay. So people not making
we have to close this and then reopen a new one. Is that voting? >> Oh, >> I don't think we have to continue >> because we don't have we don't have the original members to begin with. So >> So voting we can't make any votes. >> I don't want to make a decision here
because I'm not I don't represent you the board. Um, >> there's no harm in continuing this and then deciding later how procedurally it should be done. >> Okay. So, we're just going to continue. I think that's what they're asking. They're asking continue to August 10th.
>> August 10th. >> We're going to continue it. >> So, that's what they're asking. >> They're asking. So, >> Oh, they're asking the applicant is asking. Okay. So, can we have a motion to um >> hold the next session to continue to
August 10th? Um, I make a motion to um continue the um public hearing on 22 West Meadow Road for modification of site plan approval large scale ground mounted solar installation um be continued until
August to be republished and um continued to August 10th, 2026. >> August what? >> 10 at 6:45. 86. >> I second.
>> Cindy King, yes. >> King, yes. Robert, yes. >> Yes. >> Thanks for coming. >> I'm here for the next one. >> Oh, for the next one. >> I didn't wait for that. >> Okay. [laughter]
Um, next this guy. So, this is the Three wheel. >> Yeah. [laughter] So, I guess I do that one, too. [clears throat] This
>> This is Is [clears throat] this three wheel? Yeah. Which one? This one. Oh, this is the old one. This is >> Why are you saying that? >> Because it's
No, this >> contined July 13th. >> That's what this one. Which one is Oh, okay. They're so identical. Okay, never mind. I thought they said different things. >> It's getting late. >> No, I know. I think it's just I think >> I thought they were different. They
looked >> think it's just for us. >> Oh, it's different. >> They're not. I was hallucinating. >> They just [laughter] they're just >> I understand. >> They're just copies. [laughter] >> That's okay. I get it.
>> Um, what did I do with that? Oh, maybe I didn't bring it, but that's okay. So, we're going to do [laughter] this. Okay. So, this is Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
Everything. >> This is supposed to do. >> Is that it? No, this is all 22 West Meadow. [laughter] This is 22. So, this is all of This looks like three Wheeler Road. >> Yes, I think it is.
>> Three wheel [clears throat] Okay. Good evening. This is Carol Boxes, vice chair of the planning board, and I'd like to um continue the um public hearing for free.
All those present read it. Um, introduction board members >> King here. >> Okay, >> Robert. >> Robert, they're in here. >> Carol is present. >> Okay, second sheet is circulating.
>> Um, legal ad. Do we have [clears throat] a legal While you're looking for that, I'll just introduce myself. Attorney Christopher Alen [clears throat] Blackmani Aberdy Council for the property owner. Um, just to sort of remind the board, this has
been on your docket for quite some time. Um, and the last correspondence before I was involved in this was that the board requested a peerreview report on this because um, if you recall, there's nothing really controversial about this project. It was we were making changes
to the sites than what was originally approved on a storm water permit. >> It was we're no longer removing one of the barns >> and we're taking less material. But since I can't participate
my computer and so the board just asked for a peer review report on that and we've got it >> a letter dated June 23rd 26 I'm sure the board's reviewed that but there wasn't any comments there wasn't any issues with the peer review
so we can proceed. Okay, I have a legal notice in accordance with Mass General Law Chapter 40A in the towns and general bylaws chapter 85 MPD phase 2 storm water management in
chapter 175 article 5 storm water regulations the planning board will hold a public hearing on Monday February 23 [clears throat] this [laughter] 2026 at 7:15 p.m. in the selectable chamber memorial hall 272
Main Street. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application submitted by Gary Sheffer for modification of existing storm water management permit SM 2022-02. The proposed modification [laughter] seeks approval to reconstruct the
building in an area previously designated as a restoration area under a concurrently created earth exploration special permit. The project involves disturbance of a park that owns [laughter] 264,000 square ft of land including areas with
slopes greater than 15% located at three-wheeler road assessment 4 block 9 block zero in the RB2 zoning district in the protection overlay district. The hearing will be held in person with virtual Zoom for remote access
and the application have the contract planning for review. >> Thank you. >> Madam Chair, I'll just I'll repeat myself what I was speaking to the other board members. This has been on your docket for quite some time. This was a
modification to an existing storm water uh permit. And the reason why we need a modification is because the changes is we're no longer removing one of the barns on the site and we're doing less earth removal. So even though we're doing less, the storm water infiltration
system made some modifications and therefore we needed a modification to the original permit. If you recall, one of the discussions this board had was about whether there should be a peer review or not. And uh we there was a peer review actually done and that was
[clears throat] submitted uh by Jarvis engineering dated June 23rd 2026. Uh our we and our project engineer reviewed the peer review and there are no issues in the peer
get approval to allow this modification. >> Do we have a copy of the peer review here? >> I have one copy here. Yeah, that um I thought I had brought a copy. The are these the same?
>> Yes, that that was >> the dated June 23rd, 2026. >> Yeah, there was June 5th, June 22nd. We have both of them. Did you you looked at them? >> Was it in the portal? >> Yeah, it was.
>> I thought it was. Yeah. >> Yeah, they they both were. >> Yeah, I thought it was. >> Yeah, I read. We tried to have this meeting a month ago or whatever it was, but we had an issue with not we had a >> a war machine. So,
[laughter] >> so you may have read this letter a month ago and forgotten. >> Did you [clears throat] have a change? >> I'm sorry. Do you have any issues with the uh peer review? >> Um I think I'm happy with the peer review.
>> I'm disturbed about one a couple of things. Um [clears throat] the request was to reconstruct a building.
>> [clears throat] >> So, what disturbs me is a new building has been built and it's considerably bigger than what was originally improved.
Um, it >> wasn't approved. It was going to be demolished. >> No. The original the original application for the original scope of work
had a different building that's there now. [clears throat] >> No, the building was going to be demolished. >> It was going to be demolished. And what's here now is much larger than what
was originally approved. I believe it's built in the same footprint from what the plan. >> We didn't approve a building. >> We approved to demolish the original plan was to demolish the building. >> We're not approving any building. That was a building inspector. He's the one that issued the permits and that has
nothing to do with us. >> The building looking at the storm water, >> right? The original building was supposed to come down and it did come down. They reconstructed the building. As far as I know, permits were granted by the building inspector. Otherwise, there'd be problems there. >> That's why this is a housekeeping exercise. Yeah.
>> Well, and the only I can remember that one of the issues I had was the I think it said by retaining the building or reconstructing the building and increasing material, whatever. >> That's what someone had said. Yeah.
>> And that's why I had to go back to peer review. And then when I read the peer review, they it's all I don't have any more issues. >> Well, here to the storm water management or
not, not the building. >> I don't have any pro problem with the project at all. I'm just have a pro problem with how this happened. And um so
a building was built based on drawings earlier and that building is different than what those earlier drawings were. >> We don't >> and that's not the case. A building was not a building was supposed to be
demolish demo, right? and said it was rebuilt on the same footprint. >> No, it's larger. >> I do not believe so, council. >> I don't know the extra, but >> significantly larger, but not on the drawing,
>> but more importantly, [clears throat] >> it is on the last one I saw. Yeah, >> just just I I appreciate the board members comments, but again, this is just a modification to the storm water permit and the plans that have been
submitted to you modification is what is before you and any issues with what was built there is a zoning issue that the building commissioner take care of. So, it's not something that I nor the board needs to be investigated.
Well, anyway, those were my comments. >> So, are we do we have enough information to vote tonight? >> I suppose I mean, we've been all through this project
>> and >> Okay. So, I >> And this is storm water. This is >> Okay. So I'm going to I'm going to read the conclusion. So based on the information presented, the storm water authority which is the planning board finds that the applicant did satisfy the
standards for issuance of a modification to major storm water management permit number SM 2022-2 under the towns and zoning bylaws planning board rules and regulations as outlined above. This quantification of
the small water management permit is issued to Gary Sheffy on July 13, 2026. So, um, so I need a motion to issue a
modification to the major storm water management permit SN2022-2 to Gary Sheffer for three road for a period of two years according to the plan and report submitted. Do I have a motion?
>> I make that motion. >> Okay. And do I have a second? I can't participate. >> I'll second it >> then. Okay. So then I'll have to take um you vote,
right? How do you vote? >> Yes. >> Well, how do you vote? >> I'm going to make one statement. I'm going to vote favorably. All right. Um, but my statement is what's built
there as a building is not what the building department records show. [clears throat] So, I'm voting in favor of the site modification and car. Yes.
So the motion carried in the modifications for storm water management permit SM 2022-02 is hereby granted. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. So we can get Andrew get this. >> Okay. Yes.
>> The show down the road. >> Yes. Yes. >> You must have driven by there. driven by there and I looked at the drawings in the building department not the same >> to be up
>> and they don't match what was approved earlier so >> so what's the building department doing very discerning [clears throat] you can stay there if you'd >> [clears throat] >> Are we ready to retire?
>> Um, is it seems there's uh unless you guys have already dealt with it. Anything outside of >> We have So, >> what else do we have left? >> I got a few things. >> Okay. >> I do not have the agenda in front of me. I think
>> there's one there. There's one there somewhere. >> 3.3 >> 3 >> 4 3.2. >> No. >> We did. >> Yes. 3.2. >> Oh, yeah. You had a few. You had a few
more. >> 3.2 is we got to pay some bills. >> So, our bills, right? >> Our faithful clerk, would you mind briefly describing? You don't need to read in full but what you have in front of what you have in front of you >> proposal for two invoices.
>> Yes, we have two invoices. One from Coinland Tanner uh for engineering services for several road extension definitive blah blah blah and new major storm water management review project 26.218601.00
00 and that is for it looks like it's a detailed itemized bill for9,92545 >> 9,000 >> 9 this bill >> my understanding is this comes from a
fund uh yes me personally uh no this comes from a fund that the applicant has paid into that is overseen by the town so we just have to approve and take it out of that applicant fund. >> That's what I understand. >> I just don't want to I don't want you to
say that. >> No, no, it comes out of a revolving fund of >> the applicants fund. Okay. >> Cindy, would you be willing to make a motion and reference whatever invoice number? >> Yes. I move that we we approve the invoice number um 0075813
from H and Danner dated June 10th 2026 in the amount of $9,92545. >> Seconded we'll do a roll call and we'll start from here. >> Yes. >> Robert. Yes. >> Yes. [laughter] Yes.
>> Andrew Shepard. Yes. Excellent. Another one. >> Okay. Um, I move that we approve the invoice submitted by Graves Engineering for 1451.75 for invoice number 40866
dated through dated um the invoice date is June 12, 2026 and this is for three1 >> that was additional service or >> different project >> different project. So motion made, motion and seconded. Roll call vote. >> Yes.
>> Robert, there I'm going to abstain assuming I think I know what the project's about. [laughter] >> Okay, >> that still passes. >> It still passes. >> Um Okay. So that covers I think what is the most pressing and important business that is before us tonight. Um
>> I just have one. >> Sure. Um, we have, um, this is actually is currently under 3.4 partially. I think there's more under 3.4 that we're supposed to be talking about, but there's something has a date certain
that I want to make sure everybody knows about. um at some point in the fall. Well, at some point, yeah, we we're required to do um to change our bylaws or I think we have to change our bylaws to allow um sighting for energy sighting. There's a
new >> state law required. I don't know what what our status is with that. >> Um our consultant has been working. >> We have an energy energy sighting. Okay. But we have an energy
guru or something. >> There's a Yeah, but we're >> No, no, this is something different. >> This is zoning. This is for zoning. We have to have a a zoning, >> right, for the ADU. >> So, no, no, no energy sighting >> so that people can buy, right? We
required to change our bylaws no later than October. [clears throat and cough] So anyway, there is a meeting um eight it's well I'm going to there's I'm going to read this whole thing. >> Thank you >> because it's two there's two meetings in
one and this and you'll enjoy it. Maybe it will entice you to go >> the whole 14 days. >> Is it No, it's not only 11. Is it online or in in person? >> It's in person. >> Oh, >> this is in person. It's in it's um I'll read it. The APA Mass West summer social
is coming to Metro West at the Barrels and Vines wine bar in [clears throat] Mayard on July 23rd from 4:30 to 6:30. The social immediately follows the APA mass CM event musical requirements for and factors for sighting and permitting
clean energy and bees located at 115 Main Street in Mayor um which is um near the library. There's there's two different locations in Mayard. I unfortunately I'm looking at I got the
I'm only got the social but there's the the there's a meeting I I can send it to Beth or send it to all of you. >> Okay. >> It's not a virus. >> This or this part of it? >> This is an email I have. >> Oh, okay. >> That but this is not specifically but there's a there's a training or it's a
discussion on July 23rd. I think it's at 2:00. I pulled up the wrong email, but there's a social afterwards at 4:30. So, if you go, but you got to register for that. But there's a meeting in Metro West in Mayor to to learn about what the what
the latest and greatest is and what we need to do and what other communities are doing on um on the sighting, the municipal requirements and factors for sighting, permanent, clean energy, and BESS. So, um I just >> Okay. Thank you. and make sure everybody
knows about I have registered and I am going to be attending both of that. So, okay. Um, but it's I think I I there was another training I attended a month or so ago since I got on the board, but it was like new and overwhelming and so I
feel kind of overwhelmed on the information. So, I would really like it if somebody else would join me on this. So, that >> send it to me and if I if I can go I'll go >> share with Beth and have her send it out. Yeah. Okay. >> I'm just going to check my calendar to
see Robert. >> Yeah, I think it starts at 2:00 at the I think it's at the library. Yes, the the meeting itself is at the Maynard Library which is down the street from this social event. >> Do you have a question or thought? >> I just uh wanted to bring up a topic.
Um remember at the previous boards that uh we were talking about wellness and design. So I went ahead and prepared a bylaw thing that I'd like to have the board
have available and review um and comment on or modify or whatever. >> [clears throat] >> So, I made that available to Beth. She just didn't have time to get it on an agenda. Okay. >> So, I'd like to get it on.
>> I um my advice to her would be that preferably when we don't have >> a subdivision public hearing on the agenda >> would be my preference. um which I don't think would be next meeting but I am uh
happy as a fellow board member of yours to consider it and to have us all look at it. >> I know I just the idea was get something on paper and we can look at it. >> Um I would think when this hopefully when the schedule lightens up a little bit and I think it's somewhat directly in um connected to what we've been
working formerly with Joe Bole or MRPC. Um so I I think that's more than reasonable. >> I think the tent is already booked because Um, West Meadow as continuous to the 10th. I know we can't talk about it, but sure. >> Between SA Road and
>> Yeah, >> that I mean that's probably >> should be getting through all those. >> Yeah. Yeah. Who knows? >> We're getting rid of them, but >> So, uh, so I think arguably 3.4 we haven't covered. I'm going to ask Beth
to move that to an additional meeting. I think we've um uh we identified 3.1 3.2 we've completed um 3.3 we addressed in the very beginning and 3.5 marijuana will continue uh slowly noticing from
abudding towns I you know I I wish we could just we'll just do those at the subsequent meeting. So we'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn. >> Make a motion to adjourn at 9:42 p.m. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor roll call. Hi
>> King. Yes. >> Probably therein. Yes. >> Cindy King. Yes. >> And Jeeper. Yes. You guys have it. Thank you, Tam.