Excellent. Okay. 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 board members present. So, please say your name for the record. >> Cindy Kang is present. >> Carol House present.
>> King present. >> Robert Theion present. And Andrew Shepard present. Would you please join me in the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation
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 contribute their time to public service. I believe we owe them our gratitude. This meeting is being
recorded and will be uploaded to the Town of Towns and YouTube channel. And let's jump in. Let's see. 1.4 4. Uh, as part of our annual organization, we need to appoint
a planning board member to the Monachus Regional Planning Commission and the Monach Choice Monachus Joint Transportation Committee. Um, Cindy, I know you tried and weren't able to make it. Yeah, I I had a conflict because my other meeting not over so I wasn't able
to attend last week but I am interested in if if the board agrees. I'm interested in appointment to both >> committee. >> I think we have no Beth, you're a member of the transportation. >> I'm a member of planning board rep to
MJTC which is a transportation um yeah >> committee. Okay. I mean I guess what does the board think? I I've been I have no issue with Beth on the MJTTC >> and wouldn't mind her continuing. >> That's fine. I don't mind if she wants
to continue. I was thinking that you didn't. So, >> do you have any interest, Robert? It's um there's a lot going on. I think Ezra would be great as well if you have any interest in it. It's a 2:30 virtual meeting uh once a month. It's not a it's
not a big, you know, commitment, but there's a lot going on and there's a lot of things, you know, that count really should be should have a seat at that table. >> I don't believe I have the time in the middle of the day. Fair enough. Is anybody else Brett or
>> I know 2:30 is not a good time for me because um I'm in school picking up kids at school. >> Sure. We'll work enjoying the day. Okay. >> So, I guess I I guess Beth, are you interested in continuing on the MJTC
transportation committee? Why don't you >> I can do it. Um I just have a lot of other things to be doing. I can do the meetings. Okay. So, yeah. >> Um because I mean with Cindy also being interested in both and willing to do both. >> I don't want to take it away from anybody, but >> Oh, no. I'm me. It's better to have a
planning board member seated there. Would you want to be on the MRPC or the MJTC or both? >> Both. Excellent. >> I'd be willing to do both. >> Perfect. Okay. Excellent. >> So, I I don't have any issues with that. I'd like to entertain a motion to appoint uh Cindy King as a
representative to the Monachus Regional Planning Commission and the Monachus Joint Transportation Committee. I make a motion that we appoint Cindy >> to the Monaches Regional Planning Commission and the Monacha Joint Transportation Committee. Okay.
>> And I'll second it. >> Excellent. I'd like to do a roll call vote further. Robert, >> yes. Go reverse clockwise. >> King, yes. >> Carol says, yes. Can I vote on myself? >> I think why not? >> I do. Okay. Yeah. Cindy King, yes.
>> That means you accept. >> I'll accept. Yes. >> Andrew. Yes. Thank you, Cindy. Appreciate it. So, we've got one minute until the um 6:30. Did anybody have any comment? I mean 1.5
on the planning board meeting minutes on 5-4. I don't know if I saw those. >> They weren't done. They weren't drafted yet. >> Okay. She thought I missed something. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> Well, in that case, we are at 6:35. I
will be uh recusing myself. So, we'll turn it over to Carol and I'll be >> Okay. >> I didn't know you were recusing yourself from two. >> Oh, yes. Uh so, just come get me when you when you get a chance. >> Good evening. Carol Hosa, vice chair of
the planning board and I'd like to call is Liz here. Do we need land? We don't need Lance. >> No. Um, so I'd like to continue reopen the public hearing for 22 West Meadow Road modification of cycling approval
large scale ground mounted solar installation. And can we introduce the board members? Uh Cindy King clerk >> King present. >> Robert Theorian present. >> Okay. And there's a public signin sheet
circulating if everyone can sign that. Um do I need to read the um legal notice? >> You don't have to read it again. >> I don't have to read it again. Okay. Um,
okay. So, so the applicant is here for 22 road, I mean, no, sorry, 22 West Meadow Road. And, uh, you want to go ahead and do your presentation? >> Um, sure. Uh, Madam Chair,
>> my name is Greg Roy with Dson Roy. I'm representing the owner, the land owner tonight. I just wanted to let you know that >> as a consultant to the owner. >> Yes. >> And what firm? >> Dilson Roy. >> What's the solar array? >> Uh my name is Palmer and Moore. I'm with
the uh the company that installed the solar array online is Skip Provos, my colleague. Uh so we've been involved with the project for uh a number of years. I was here with the planning board about uh gosh seven six or seven years ago when we originally brought
this project before the town and um you know I think I think everyone here has the the backstory here but we're trying to work with the landowner and the town to come up with a solution that addresses uh a number of objectives primarily being uh satisfying the town
bylaw requirements for screening the project uh but also obviously ly seeking to maximize the property's primary use as an agricultural operation. Uh so uh we have proposed uh a modification which I circulated uh to Miss Faxton before
the end of last week um to reduce the uh vegetative screening to still accomplish the goal as noted in the letter from 519 Main Street of addressing that viewshed corridor as you look across West Meadow Road. uh but also uh acknowledging the
fact that I think there's been general consensus from the town that um you know the project is well cited. It doesn't need to reestablish the entire planting schedule that was originally approved as long as it can satisfy the bylaw and so that's what we provided in our latest
submission last week and we'd love to discuss that today with the town. So >> I just have a question. So I'm assuming this is the fence line where the solar array is and those are the planting. >> Correct. that you're proposing then rather than out on the street, you got to do it along the fence line.
>> That's right. Yeah. Right. And do I let everybody speak if anybody has any questions? Board members, do you have any questions of the applicant? As far as the screening goes, there was a problem. Originally, the screening was
along the roadway. Okay. I believe the bylaw says that it could be done around the fence line. If I read the bylaw correctly, it could be along the fence line. >> And what is this? Where is the fence line? >> So, right now,
did I do ever been out there? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, so you have an idea of the road here, >> right? >> And then there is a perimeter fence all along the array. >> So, the new proposals instead of having keep putting >> where you're pointing now is that the
fence line >> right here. This is the new vegetation. >> The original fence line. >> No, >> no. The vegetation originally was on the roadway. >> On the roadway. >> Well, you said the bylaws said it's supposed to be on the fence line. >> Well, it says it can be along the fence line.
>> Oh, it can be. Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Now I understand. I thought it was All right. So, >> so now because there was issues with the vegetation along the roadway, >> right, >> being removed and different things. So, now they're proposing to put it along
the fence line as a street. >> Okay. >> Did you see the >> I did. I saw it. Yeah. here too. >> Um, can I ask you >> to present to the public what was original and what's being proposed now? So, there's a clear understanding.
>> You can ask, but I don't know the answer to that question >> because I wasn't my firm wasn't involved in the original the original application. >> Then, can you address that for us, please? >> Sure. I don't have uh the original plan. Um, I have it on my computer, but I don't have a print out. But, uh, basically, it was a planting schedule.
Um, I'll try to just roughly point out on the screen here, uh, right along West Meadow Road. So, from roughly just south of where the new driveway entrance is after the bridge was upgraded, uh, down to the southeast corner with a cluster of trees. You can actually see them here
in this aerial view that's back on the vegetation still existed. So, there were about 51 plantings in total. Um and what uh we you know this wasn't the first time they got mowed down. So we recognize that you know that is creating an issue for uh optimizing the
agricultural use of the property. So what we're proposing is the fence line which is tight to the array itself. uh doing a staggered planting right along that fence line so that it minimizes the impact of operating farm equipment around the perimeter of the project but
also satisfies the need to impact that viewshed that is most sensitive to 519 Main Street. Um there really aren't any other sensitive receptors in the area. It's far end well on all sides. So for the sake of the public um this was
presented to this board earlier this year and what was happening is the original vegetation um uh wasn't uh surviving
and um so at that time the planning board um really didn't feel that was there anything in the bylaw that we could
change to help you. Um so at that time the proposal was um we still need to keep the scenic highway requirement there and um
and then we have to find some alternative vegetation. Um so what's being proposed if I'm correct is um not replacing the vegetation along
the roadway where it was originally installed and now locating it closer to the solar array. And if I'm correct, they're proposing to put
five rodendum that uh about they go 5 to 15 ft high. Um,
and they're 5 to 12 ft apart and proposing six galpa, which I don't know what that is. >> Inkberry. >> It's what? >> Inkberry. >> Oh, Inkberry.
Um, and similar dimensions. Um, so that's uh what's being presented tonight. um for the board's consideration and
um >> any questions? >> Anybody else? Any questions? >> I I have a couple. Um okay, >> first I want to introduce myself as a a brand new member to the planning board. So I followed this a little bit on my own, but before coming on, but this is
my first time participating as as a planning board member with this this issue. Um my my question is about I know that there was a problem of some of these trees or their private excuse me vegetation being removed not just dying
>> and I'm wondering has that been solved that problem is this been sorted out with the person removing them is this are we just trying this to see if they stay or has there been some >> that that's exactly what this seeks to
address right is to move the plantings away from the roadside and some of the access points for the field. Move it immediately instance of the fence line. You know, a large piece of farming equipment is going to have turning radius to cut at a 90°ree angle and go right along the fence line. So, the
objective here is to bring that vegetation in um preserve some of the original intents that were established when we originally approved the project. These are native species. Uh these are species that are going to be okay with soil that can at times get a little damp
um and uh and try to provide a nice visual buffer while leaving as much open space as possible for farming operations. So something we've been discussing with the landowner uh and we feel confident that this is a solution that will address all parties
concerns. >> So is your is your confidence level 100%. Or >> uh it's never 100%. But do you you you're confident that >> we've had conversations about this being a solution. So we're trying to >> work I don't I didn't see the point of
continuing to well let's try this and see if they don't get mowed down. You have had those conversations and here >> most likely this is going to work out. >> So >> so we don't have to come back and do this again. >> Just so I fully understand the whole
situation here. Um, we have an owner of the property and then we have the leasing people for the solar. Is that correct? >> That's us. Correct. >> That's you. So, you have been working with the
owner. >> Yes. >> And trying to find a remedy. >> Correct. >> The owner. The problem has been generated because of the owner's farm operations. >> Correct. that's why the vegetation hasn't been able to survive.
>> Uh I think it's fair to say that um it was a mix of vegetation being removed and vegetation just not surviving on its own and the conditions that are there along the roadway. >> Um I I'm just trying to get whole perspective of who's who and what's
going on. Um the new vegetation that's being proposed the species were selected by who? >> Uh Bills and Thomas who's been our civil engineer and landscape architect for the
duration of the project. So they >> they were the ones that originally proposed the plan back in 2019 and they're the ones that are continuing to work with us on a revision. So they selected these based on survival or the ground conditions and all that.
>> Yeah, they're aware like we have a shallow, if you recall, there's a shallow basin there, detention basin. Uh so there's the possibility and obviously this whole property is in a flood zone. So there's a possibility that the soils are are wet. of these these species um
you know number one native species number two uh hope to be able to establish well in these types of soil conditions that are specific to this site. >> So the landscape architect prepared this plan >> correct >> and stamps on it?
>> No stamp. >> Um >> it's in progress. Um, and if the new proposal was accepted,
um, how tall were the initial plants be? >> Uh, when we originally installed our plants on the site, uh, they were, uh, typically like five gallon uh, plants. >> I would say somewhere in like a 5 to
seven gallon plant size to start. Um I think the goal there is to make sure that they establish well uh at a young size so they can then grow efficiently from there. When we have tried to plant larger things on sites uh they typically
stall out and have more difficulty establishing. Um so our landscape architect in this case was selecting not just species but plant size to try to give them the best odds of being successful. >> All right. I'm asking questions for the public. Okay. Um,
>> so where the original plants are were, >> what would be the end product of that? >> Uh, where the original plants were the I mean the end product that sits there
today is working agricultural land. >> It's a what? >> Working agricultural land. It's been cleared all the way to the road. So right up to West Meadow Road now is >> so >> that would be generally considered farmland.
>> Not for me to define but yes I would I would call that farmland. >> Okay. So is that a restoration of farmland or is that some new material or >> uh I I can't speak to the the property
owner. I know when when I became initially involved in the site years and years ago, it was a mix of just weeds, invasives, and other things. I know the site owner has been putting some effort into cleaning up the land adjacent to the roadway, and I just drove by it this afternoon, and it's just hayfield.
>> Does anyone know what the natural vegetation is in that area? >> It's been hayfield since I remember. I mean like >> the previous owner >> maple trees or pine trees or >> hay? >> You mean >> I'm sorry. >> 40 years that I know that it's been a
hay field or a horse pasture. I don't really there's ever been any. >> Okay. >> Prior to the solar field. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Carol, not to kick the can down the road, but this has been I've been on a year and this has been talked about for a year. Yes. Is it is it worth going up
and having a site visit and so we fully understand everything that's going on and proposed versus having these folks spend money on something that may or may not work. >> Yeah, the owner thinks so. >> The owner thinks
>> the owner thinks that that might be appropriate before you act. >> Okay. Could go on a site visit. Yeah, I mean that's fine. Um, I've been up there before. I I kind of know where these plantings are going to be or they know where the plantings were
along the roadway. Um, but I have no problem. >> I mean, he's you're representing the homeowner. >> I mean, the property owner, not the homeowners. >> Is there something that we should know that's not >> the owner hasn't had a chance to review this and doesn't doesn't is not on board
with this necessarily in its current configuration. So, okay. We um so um >> a site visit would >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Great. Is that your opinion of what the land owner would want or >> I talked to him I talked to him >> 45 minutes ago.
>> Okay. So um I had one more question. Um the landowner would not would would not like you to act. Um, we would would appreciate you not acting on this this evening because he's not necessarily stole wise,
>> but what was presented tonight was the part of the problem with the original vegetation was that the farmer
um was cutting by accident or whatever the vegetation down. What's going to prevent that from happening here? >> Well, that's why I was suggesting a site visit so we can actually see.
>> Yeah. >> What would What do we need to do to do that? >> Is there an alternate >> just proposal out there that >> I'm not sure at this point >> that the planning board just keep in mind can't wave that part of the bylaw. It's not within your right to wave it.
There will be some vegetation. He has to plant something somewhere >> to be compliant. >> Yeah. I mean, >> can the property owner come to this meeting? >> Yeah. I mean, it sounds like the property owner hasn't necessarily agreed
with this. >> That's correct. >> Is that right? >> That's correct. >> Does he realize >> I don't think any action that they that the bylaw says they have to plant vegetation. I think the property owner is aware of the situation, but he's not
in agreement with us. >> Okay. >> I'd like to ask I mean the site is fine. >> Yeah. >> If that's what everybody wants, but I mean can we invite the the property owner to meeting to for the next meeting that we're going to discuss this on and
see how many I'm not going to be but yeah, it's the next meeting that we're going to hopefully finalize this. >> I think the property owner knows that he's invited to attend on on land. But I mean specifically cuz this is just going on and on and on. >> Made a decision based on a lot of non
>> Okay. So let me ask does the owner have a like we he would like to see the vegetation. >> I'll have to I'm not sure. >> Okay. I do not have an alter plan this evening but I'm to tell you that he's not with this. >> We great. We will be able to do a site
visit. Right. There's not going to be a problem. owner asked asked thought that might be inappropriate. >> I I think before we do anything formal here >> before >> we need a definitive plan that both the
owner and the the solar company agree to >> to review. You know this because this this is not necessarily accepted with the owner yet. for a year. >> Well, yeah. So, we Yes, I agree with
you, Robert. Before you start spending money planting and it's going to be dug up or mowed down, >> we need to go out and look at the site and then the two parties need to come up with a plan that follows the bylaw
that's in compliance with the bylaw, >> right? >> We we can't give you a plan. you have to give us one to evaluate. And um I'm kind of disappointed
to know that what's being presented here hasn't necessarily been acceptable to all parties. >> So I don't think we can do much at this point.
>> Thank you. I just don't appreciate personally I just don't appreciate the delay delay delay. I mean there needs to be definitive conversation maybe even written down between the person leasing the property and the property owner just
to to come here you know and just winging it is wasting our time and yours >> and it's costing somebody money I'm certain. Take that. >> Is there um any kind of time criteria on
having this resolved? >> Yeah, you can continue it as long as you need. You know, if you want more information, the board is welcome to continue it in, you know, I don't know if it's indefinite, but until you have what you need. If you don't get what you need, then you can decide. You can close
the public hearing at any time. It's your discretion. So, do we need to coordinate with you to do the site visit? >> Please, please. Yeah. >> Okay. If we Dates, we could go. >> Yeah. If he wants to schedule it, just
let me schedule it now. >> Yeah. Um, when do people have free time? >> Um, do we want to continue this or do we want the applicant to resubmit a new proposal?
>> I mean, I think there's only two choices. We can >> take no action or we can >> Yeah, I don't think we take any action. And if we're going to have a site visit, it probably should be based upon a proposal. Don't you agree?
>> I know. >> You can view what it looks like today and then you'll have a >> Yeah. >> Well, it might be more beneficial >> to see what's there. >> I mean, this is their this is their proposal. I mean, what's >> Well, it's not a unified proposal. That's the problem there.
>> So, if we came with you, do you have an idea where the owner would like to see the vegetation? So if we go out to the site visit, we we we have they they have planned. We have the solar array >> pl just just schedule a meeting and check meeting so we'll make sure we're there.
>> Yeah, it it seems to me to do this properly. >> We need a proposal prepared by the owner and the leasey that they agreed would be what would
they like to do. and then we can have a site visit and see what's there and see what's being proposed and see if that all works. >> Yeah, that's fine. But I mean, even with
a plan in place, you're still going to be looking at how it is today. So, I mean, I think you could you could check the box and just go out and take a site visit. >> Well, a site visit is a formal site visit with the planning board. Each member of the planning board can go
by now and see what's there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, >> independently. >> Those are my thoughts. >> So, to his question, um the requested modification, um I'll just read it to the board
because this is what you have to decide on. And this is the thing that, you know, I think this is what you're getting at. Should they possibly withdraw this request? >> That's right. >> The way it's written. So, if you'll allow me just to read it to the board just because I know we have new members.
The requested modification pertains to the removal of the vegetative screening south of the access road and along West Meadow Road and the associated conditions outlined in the original permit. We have included in the package an updated site plan to reflect the
removal of the landscaping screening. We also request one of two modifications to the formal site plan approval. Number one deletes section seven and 8 entirely and I won't read those two but those are conditions of approval that basically
require the vegetative screening or add the below sentence to the end of section 7 and section 8 to allow for the non-existence of landscape screening. Additionally, the planning board may forego the requirement of the landscaping screening if the site is
maintained to the town standards. So, this is the actual modification that is for the planning board and that's what you have to decide on. Will you grant that mod, you know, that modification as written or or will you not? And if
you're not going to, I would recommend that the applicant withdraw a denial. >> Yeah. withdraw rather than get denied. Because if you took a vote on this right now, you would be voting on something that would not be consistent with the
bylaw that you don't have the ability to wave as a board >> or take no action. Right. >> The owner is not asking you to the owner is not asking you to act. The owner is not asking you to uh to withdraw. The owner is just asking for additional time to work the matter out. That's I want
>> No, that's irrelevant. That's >> I want to be clear. the owner >> not asking to do any of those things. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> so does the applicant want to withdraw? >> Um I mean can we walk through again with
I mean why aren't we asking >> that is written it doesn't comply with the bylaw. >> If you approve this yeah you will be approving a modification that is not >> signing sheet. Yeah, you can decide. You're the chair. This is the
modification they're asking for. >> That's all in your packet. >> Section, >> but it's been a while because this has been continued both with the boards. >> I don't know if you can amend that modification. It was already posted and
published as such. So >> you can Yeah, you can you can add testimony during the public hearing process at any point. >> Can I ask who are the seated members on this that are that are able to vote on this matter? >> That's everybody.
>> Everybody here. >> When was the application? >> There's a stamp on there. Do you have an authorization to represent the property? I haven't seen it. I was just >> I spoke to the to the owner last copy
the agenda. >> Okay. So, you're right. We can't um we don't have the ability. >> Thank you. >> That's in the bylaw. So, we we can't do
that. uh seven and eight. >> It's unfortunate because it has to go back through uh legal legal notification a butter notification but
>> just continue the the owner is not asking not necessarily saying no on the vegetation. He's just saying he's not necessarily in agreement with how it's presented this evening. I just would like to ask you to continue the matter. Don't don't don't ask for withdrawal. Just continue the matter. You're going
to get to the same place so that we have more time to uh to >> Can we just continue it or Well, I would >> I would You can't approve that. No, >> you don't have to. We're not asking to approve it. >> No, we can't. >> You're not You're not the applicant. The applicant is asking us to approve a
modification which you're not even responding to right now. >> So, we can't >> I would like an answer to my question. Who are the seated members that are authorized to vote? >> We do right here. All of us out here. >> When was the application filed? >> This one there's a stamp on it. January
15th. >> Who are the members here present that were seated members? >> Everyone except so there's three members. So they're here today. So and that you need three members to vote on this in favor. >> Yeah. But we can vote on this as is presented.
>> I understand that. I'm just asking for the record. So three of you are are allowed to vote on this. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So we would like to do a site visit and take no action on this. Is that what we want to do? >> My suggestion.
>> I would give them the option to >> or if you want to withdraw the application or we just do the site visit and take the election on this modification tonight. >> Yeah, you can. >> I suggest that the applicant withdraw
and resubmit. I'm fine with that if that's >> what would so withdraw and resubmit >> if he withdraws >> after talking to the land owner and coming up with something >> right so he withdraws without president
you know president >> this plan that we have >> and so it's like it an application did not exist and he can reapply And that gives them an opportunity
to uh you know work it out with the the owner and the lease and come up with a proposal that they're asking us to look and approve and then if it's necessary um we can have a site visit prior to
that hearing or after that hearing. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that makes sense that the two of you need to >> the owner and the ley need to get together come up with a mutual agreement. >> I think that's to be clear the owner is
not asking that the withdrawal this application >> but be aware that the bylaw does say it has to be along the fence line. >> I understand. >> Okay. So, and I So, if you two can come up with a po the owner and the LE could
come up with a plan that you both agreed to so that we don't have to drag this out over >> I understand it's been dragged out a while. I don't understand the why you would require withdrawal. Just just continue the matter. >> The board planning board would like to
accommodate both the owner and the applicant. >> Yeah. But the same thing could be happen. >> All right. the current zoning bylaw requires what was originally there. So, this is going to be requested for us
to make a determination about modifying that bylaw for the benefit of the applicants or to mandate it stays the way it was originally approved.
So what this board is doing in my view is giving the both applicants an opportunity to withdraw, resubmit a modification that they would like the
board to look at that is satisfactory to them. >> I I understand what you're saying. We can get to the same point with continuation. >> Okay. No, you can't. >> No, you can't. We can modify the we can modify the application requested. We can modify the
the requested relief as part of the public record. That can be that can happen. >> You know what? I think that this board's capable of deciding what action they want to take. >> It it absolutely is. I'm just telling you. >> I think it would be in the best interest to withdraw.
>> Work it out together. Come back with a >> Who's going to be willing to withdraw? >> Is the applicant willing to withdraw? What's the next question? I need to bring a lawyer tonight. Um, so, so the motion before the planning board is
either the old plan or a waiver to the town's bylaws, >> but we can't wait. >> So, you don't want to deny. >> Those are the only two outcomes for the motion. >> Mine is I don't see why we can't do a sidewalk and continue it.
>> Yeah. I mean, >> that's that's my proposal. >> But that's saying we can't approve this plan the way it is. >> Just so everybody's clear, >> we're not we're not approving the plan. We're going to table it. I mean, maybe we can't do it, but that's
>> and I'm I'm fine with tableabling it through the sidewalk. Let the land owner and the lei come up with a mutually agreeable >> planting solution along the fence line. what what the consultant for the owner
listen is saying here >> and what the planning board is saying we cannot modify the bylaw which what you're proposing is so that
would compel this board to deny okay >> so that means you got to stick with the original bylaw Um and based on the earlier hearings that was the intent of
the planning board. So we can take this and deny it. Um your request for a modification which probably will be denied because we
don't have any authority to change the bylaw. Okay. Do you understand? Yeah, I think the applicant would request that um take the board take no action, conduct a site visit. >> So the consultant
is correct here. He's basically saying um there's no need for a new plan because this board really cannot modify
anything other than what the BR allows. The bylaw just says screen, right? We're we're also not contending that we need to go back to the original plan. I want to be clear, the owner is not contending that we want time to work out
a solution that we believe meets the bylaw and is satisfactory to the owner and to the applicant. >> Amen. >> And I think we can do that with a continuous. >> Okay. I think so. All right. >> Okay. That sounds good. >> Thank you. Um, I think I think what Beth
has told us is that we can continue this, but we can still never vote on the modification that's been applied for because it doesn't mean we continue the way it's written. The way it's written, >> so continuing it is continuing something that's not legal in the first place. >> We can modify the record. We understand
your now we understand the owner understands your straw pole vote on that and your discussion on that on that topic and now we can have an informed discussion with you. >> So basically we can't continue because it would just be a continuous
we know we're going to >> that we can't approve. So okay I get that. So we can't do a continuence because it's just a continuence of something we have no authority over. >> That's not true respect. We're not going to go over that circle. So, what would we what would we
call it? A new >> You could vote on it if you wanted. I mean, that's >> why don't I would suggest >> Okay. >> Why don't we just deny it? >> And then they'll have to go with what
the original requirements were and we'll go from there. >> No, I think you're wrong with all this all the time >> because it's it calls for a screening. It doesn't It doesn't say where. >> It doesn't say where. >> It does say where.
>> You read the bylaw. It says right along the fence line. >> It says along the fencing of the array is a requirement in the >> So you're going So we're going to go back. What you're saying is going to go back to the original and it's going to go up by the road because that's the original. >> See, the original was probably wrong. It should have been along the line all along.
>> Exactly. >> Um so but but we accepted it along the roadway because I guess that's what we thought. Well, >> um, >> when the whole thing was approved initially was along the roadway. >> Yeah. >> Right. Which was
>> then they came back for a hearing because the vegetation was not surviving. >> It was removed. >> It was removed. So, okay. So, we know all that. So, right now we got to figure out a way forward. So, we know we can't
we can't um approve the modification. So, the best we can do is do a site visit. Those two are going to the land owner and the list you're going to come up with a plan and we can't continue it because we can't continue on this. So,
what do we call it? A new hearing. >> So, those were the two choices. Deny it or withdraw, right? >> Yeah. >> We're going to amend it the application you think. We can amend it. Um, but we have to have something to amend it with,
>> right? So, he would amend it by removing the request for >> Oh, for >> you know what I mean? Like changing the wording instead of going back to ground zero and reapplying. If you could just amend that modification request into
something more re, you know, in line with what we're doing. If I may, we're and I'm trying to respectful. I'm not so sorry. I'm not trying to This happens all the time. Okay. We I do this for a
living. We We submit plans to boards like yours and conservation commissions. You don't like something because you don't think what we've proposed meets the by a section of the bylaw, your regulations, we go back to the drawing board and we amend it. It happens all
the time. So you've told us that you don't like the solution that has come up that you've come up with here. We're asking you to continue the matter. Not withdraw or not ask us to withdraw it or deny it. >> We're asking you to continue the matter to give us an opportunity to take your
consideration that you you said here the whole discussion here >> and work on a solution. I don't understand why you would have to act on the thing. Just continue the meeting. >> It's not the plan you're acting on. It's it's it's >> we can we can any portion of the
submitted document >> but didn't submit >> are you not the >> the applicant can amend any portion of the submitted document. >> Okay. >> It's it's it's we're part of the public hearing process. >> Complex. >> Okay. >> We're hearing a complex issue here.
>> Okay. >> We have an owner and a lease. >> That's true. Okay. >> I understand. >> And that is not our problem. All right. So this board is accustomed to having a um motions brought before us
>> to approve or not approve something. Okay. >> And we don't have that. >> But you're also accustomed to giving the applicant comments. >> Okay. The only thing >> goes back and we pointed out the concern. >> Carol, I make a motion we continue this. >> Okay.
>> I make a motion we continue it >> because we're not getting anywhere. and he still has to come up with a screenplay. So, I'm I'm fine with continuing it. >> So, if we continue it,
we're continuing this applicant. >> Oh, right. >> That's so we probably needs to be modified. >> All right. So, do we need to have them go back and amend it? Because in the end, the solar
array people have to comply with the bylaw, put up a screening on vegetation. They've been having problems over the years with that vegetation screening. We need to resolve the vegetation screening along the fence line.
>> I understand. No, it's >> the applicant has to resolve. the applicant has to somebody has to resolve this. >> I I grant that it's a tricky situation. >> Okay. So >> I have a question about what what are the consequences if if somebody doesn't
come up I mean we have to you know come up with a this has to end. >> Yes. So what when when do we say okay enough is enough and what are the consequences if this can't this just keep keeps going and I mean I don't
understand why this has to keep going but what are the consequences for when do we say okay there's a violation here and this is the consequences of that why you know to somebody needs to kick >> somebody get this done >> we can't do anything that's not
authorized by the bylaw okay all right so that's a fact >> yeah is It has nothing to do with mother nature or anything else. Okay. >> So, >> but we got to come up with >> I understand we >> I don't understand why we can't continue. This is a public hearing,
right? because because it would be continuation of this application and the application that so the block solar people put in place we can't act on because it's we can't wave some of the
sections they're requesting to be waved because we don't have the authority to wave it. So if we >> is a continuation asking them by continuing we are we >> you're continuing the application >> continue. >> We already know
>> that the board would have to deny the application as it's written >> either we can deny it tonight the application because even continuing it we can't wave it. So we're discontinuing something that we can never
>> the problem just goes forward >> is that we can't either we can't accept it. So so we either deny it or the applicant withdraws it and resubmits it with a new every single
>> the third option chair. I think that they could amend it. It just may need to be reposted and republished. So I tell them clearly >> that that is, you know, that's not an application that you can approve, but if they would like to amend it and and redo
it, if you will, because that that right there would be a denial, Palmer. So yeah, it can re remend it and then we'll decide whether it needs to be reposted and republished or whether we could just go ahead. I think you can do that. All
right. >> So do they want us to address amending it? Could you do that? >> I would like the owner would like to ask you to continue the matter as was moved. >> Well, it's the applicant that has to >> I know but I'll tell you what the
owner's opinion is. So, we're amending it. >> So, if you're if you're a meanable to amending it >> if the applicant wants to. Are you >> I I do not know what we would amend it to. Um but if the board feels it would be appropriate to amend at this stage
versus a later date um then can certainly >> well you'd have to remove any request for a waiver to the bylaws. >> Okay. >> Um because we can't wave them. >> It's not the jurisdiction of the planning board.
>> It's a Yeah, we can't do that. So you would have to do that. So, do we need to do a motion to I guess you would do some sort of a motion to allow the applicant to amend their um modification application.
Would that work? That's a lot of words. >> I think I think that's >> it. Resubmit it with the with the with No. >> Yeah, they can resubmit >> resubmit it with the amendment. >> The amendment um with the plan after and then the site visit can go on anytime.
That's fine. Okay. So, >> I I make a motion that the applicant amend the application so it is compatible with the owner and the leasey
and and we'll if that's the motion >> and resubmit >> pardon me >> and resubmit >> and resubmit right >> an amended >> an amendment >> amend Right. Amended. Amended
application. >> Right. I think I'll second that >> and then we can address it. >> Okay. >> Point of order. I'm sorry. I I have to I'm sorry. I know I'm not attorney, but we have an application before you. >> But this is all about
you don't have an application. >> I do because my my my uh my clients on this happens all the time. We submit a >> I know but we've already gone down this >> we don't have to amend an application
you there the the applicant submitted an application >> he has to take the language out that we can >> that's fine but we can do that without amending the application >> no >> no you can't >> yes we can't we disagreed with you >> okay that's fine that's fair but I am going to do that with you
>> okay I don't know if agree with you spent a lot of time discussing this >> we understand situation the situation an hour late. >> Okay, let's vote on it because we have other meetings coming up.
>> I made that motion >> and I second it and she second it. So vote. >> Well, we we only have three people that can act on this. >> Why? >> There's only three people who are going to table that can act on this application. >> Okay. >> Every member of this board can act on
this. >> Robert the Yes. >> Carol. Yes. >> I'm still confused what we're doing, but we're amending it. >> We're going to do a sidewalk. >> No, we're going to amend it with the with the new agreed upon.
>> We made a motion >> the blessed to come up with the >> to allow the applicant to amend his application >> and resubmit and res >> and resubmit >> and I seconded that motion. >> Right. So that's the motion on the
>> because we can't wave what he's asking us to wave in the application. >> So the applicant doesn't have to start over again. Okay. He just has to modify his application so it conforms with the bylaw.
That's what we just the motion's about. I know. I I'm I don't know. Um I'm I'm still confused. So what? I'm still confused. >> Yes, no, or abstain. >> The motion The application as it is would compel us to deny it. >> The new application,
>> the one that we're looking at tonight, >> the one that's in front of us tonight >> would compel us to deny it. All right. So then that's ground zero. start all over new application.
What we've offered tonight and is the motion on the table is to allow the applicant to modify >> their application >> to amend his application >> so that this can continue.
All right. and his modification would require that it complies with the bylaw. So that would allow us to approve or
anything he wants to modify from what was original. >> Right? So this board can't change what was original. And that's why if this application as it stands would be compelled to be denied.
So we're giving an opportunity here for the applicant to modify his application rather than deny it and have it continue. That's what this will do. >> So this is going to be continued. >> H
>> this is going to be continued. Well, it's going to be continued assuming he's going to modify his application. So, it's continued. If he doesn't modify the application, it will be denied.
>> Okay. Fred King. >> Okay. That's unanimous. >> Was that I think I need to say >> I as well. >> Carol. Motion carries. >> Motion carried. Yes. Okay.
Um, all right. Do we have to do anything else or do I close here? >> All right. That concludes that. >> Madam Chair, >> hello. >> I I am I apologize. I'm in a butter and
I'm very familiar with what's going on with this whole thing. >> Did Did you ask for any opinions from the butters? Did I missed that all together? >> We we had asked earlier maybe you weren't here. >> I thought you started at seven and I'm
sorry. >> Yeah, we start at 6:30. >> We might want to come back to this and let >> there's going to be another hearing. >> Do I need to close this? No, but continue it and let uh let Andrew come back the uh the hearing. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, continue it. So, >> continue. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Do we need a motion to continue it? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> I move that motion to >> I move that we so move to continue this
date and um >> to our next meeting which is uh June 8th. >> June 8th. Okay. Is that enough time? >> June 8th. >> The applicant. >> Is that enough time for the applicant >> for the owner? Sure. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> All right. Continue it to June 8th. >> I second. Yes. >> Yes. I guess we have to wait for her to come back. Carol, we need your vote on whether to
continue it. We all voted. Okay. All right. >> So, all those in favor of continuing it to June. I think we we did this one. >> So, you can stick this one in. Okay. Sorry.
>> Welcome back, thanks. Okay, we missed you. Sure. Um, let's move to 2, I believe, which is the 645ish
public hearing. Uh, 0 road definite subdivision approval and associated major storm water permits. So, I'd like to formally open the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. I'd like to introduce the board members. Go
clockwise. >> Carol Hoffusarian and uh so there should be a public signing sheet. It seems it was circulating and being signed. If you haven't, just please sign it. Um I will read the legal
ad and I'll explain the order of business. the legal ad. >> Hold on. Um Oh, correspondence for I'm still in the wrong one. Hold on. Okay, I'm still up on >> Okay, I got it. reading it.
>> Okay. Uh legal notice in accordance with master law chapter 4A section 11 the subdivision control law m general law chapter 41 subsection 81 K through 81 GG including section 81T towns and general
bylaw chapter 85 NPDES phase 2 storm water management and chapter 175 article 5 storm water regulations the towns and zoning bylaw and the planning board subdivision and rules and regulations. The planning board will hold a public
hearing on Monday, May 11th at 6:45 p.m. in the select board chambers, Memorial Hall, 272 Main Street, Towns of Mass, and via Zoom on two applications submitted by Belvadier Capital LLC for approval of a definitive plan of a subdivision entitled definitive plan for
Sver Road extension for a proposed three lot single family residential subdivision and roadway extension of 560 ft located at zero Sver Road, Towns and Mass, assessor's map 23, block 4, lot zero, 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 department during regular business hours.
Electronic copies may be requested by emailing planning at towns and ma.gov. Zoom meeting information will be posted on the town of Towns and website on towns and mass.gov go calendar prior to 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 41469 or emailed to planning at towns and mass.gov. Andrew Shepard, chair, town of towns and planning board. Should I read
the publication? >> Sure. published in Grunt Herald April 3rd and April 10th 2026 and to Abutters applicant assessor's office select board of health building commissioner conservation commission fire department highway department police department
clerk water department ZBA abuing towns of Ashby Grat and Pepper Lunberg Shirley Brooklyn New Hampshire and Mason New Hampshire >> thank you sir that's it >> um so you might be surprised this is not our normal attendance for on the planning board meeting. So, I'm just
going to generally uh outline what our process is going to be. Um I anticipate this probably won't be done tonight. Um who knows? Um so, you know, I I expect there'd probably be a continuence at some point to a future meeting and there
probably be another opportunity to to make sure everybody, you know, is able to contribute. Um first order would be inviting the applicant to or their representative or engineer to to present their proposal. Um following that the
the board would uh roughly review bylaws or or have some questions for the the applicant and their engineer. The we would read mandatory referral comments from other town officials. Uh I believe we have two from highway department and
one other um could read in written correspondence from abutters or concerned citizens and then public questions and comments. So we try to make sure everybody has a chance to speak. Um you know normally the public comment tends to come towards the end of
it. The goal is not the goal is to make sure all that are here have a chance to to share their opinion. Um, in the interest of time, you know, I I think we'll see how things are going and if uh you know, maybe at some point if it's clear that we'll need to move it, we
make that decision earlier than later and or or continue it and go from there. So, I'd like to open it up to the um the the applicant and their engineer. I'm not sure if they're in person or if they're only on the screen.
>> Mr. Chair, we're both uh on by Zoom. >> Okay. Excellent. >> Right. Uh so, uh to the chair and the members of the board, for the record, my name is David Plunkett and I'm representing the applicant Belvadier Capital LLC.
This is pertaining to the plan for the development of three residential lots on Sver Road. Uh we have Wayne Bell who's the of the land design collaborative the site
engineer for the for the project and uh you know Wayne will go through the steps of presenting the plan to you and you know we stand ready to discuss and and uh answer any
questions and you know uh again Mr. chair understanding what you're saying about potentially for another meeting, you know, we'll that we'll we'll go through the process and uh come to uh what we expect to be a a good project
for the town. So, with this I' I'd like to defer to uh Wayne for the purpose of uh going through the plan and presenting the plan to the board and the residents uh view in this meeting. >> Thank you, David. Mr. Chairman, members
of the board, uh Beth, nice seeing you again, Beth. Wayne Bellic Land Design Collaborative. Uh we're the civil site engineers for the project. Um if I could uh start, I think it probably in in in an effort to try to save time here, Mr.
Chairman, to let me pretty much control the screen. If Beth could hand over the the sharing to me, I'd like to be able to just rip right through the plans if that's okay. >> Uh that's TKM. Tam, could you authorize Wayne to share a screen?
>> All right, you should be able to share now. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. You folks see it? >> Yes. >> Terrific. Thank you. >> So again, um just this this is the locust map. This basically shows where
the uh subject property is with respect to Tyler Road in and the town line. Here's the Townsson Lunberg town line. Uh Tyler Road is out here. Uh from here to here is about 1975 ft. That is a
public right ofway. And then there's a uh the rest of it obviously is is private. It's a private piece of property. I'm going to go right to the existing conditions plan. Pretty straightforward. It's a 13 acre parcel. Um it has uh 37 feet of frontage uh
along here. This is its legal frontage. It's non-conforming, thus uh requiring the the filing of the uh subdivision plan. Uh the project does contain a wetland system. There are no uh flood planes, um AULs,
uh other jurisdictional areas other than uh the wetland system. And then over to the east, just for orientation, north is pretty much straight up the the sheet over to the west rather. Uh there's a part portion of prop uh natural heritage endangered species program uh
jurisdiction uh which we are not proposing any work. Um as the board may be aware aware um this falls on the heels of a uh preliminary plan approval back in May of 2022. Uh we understand
there was a prelim previous filing to that which was a definitive which did get denied. Uh however back in 2022 uh there was another filing that was made uh uh for which the planning board had issued a granted a uh preliminary
plan approval. So we have recently been before the conservation commission. Uh we had uh opened and closed the the hearing on March 11th. Uh following that we had met in April with members of the planning board Ian Beth as well as um Hy
Tanner the town's peerreview consultant uh to walk the site and discuss the project. So in terms of uh of the site topographically like I said it's about 13 acres topographically. It flows down to the wetland system in the the low reaches of of the site uh from north to
south and again uh from east uh to west uh and then from this area downward. Uh topography on the on the site varies and we can get into that on the conservation uh area map uh required by uh the filing. But again uh town line is is
back here uh this area here. So the the town public right ofway ends here. Um this portion here was formally public right ofway but it was abandoned back in 1973 and it is now uh part of uh the
property. Uh and there's an easement for the benefit of number 50 um u road uh Mr. and Mrs. Cohen. Uh and uh so that's for the right to pass and repass. They have uh electrical down in this
area here. Some uh electrical boxes serving their their property. The property is uh vegetated with uh stands of uh primarily uh deciduous trees, a lot of uh brier on the property. Um and then obviously the wetland plant
community. Um there is a groundwater um protection overlay district zone 2 uh along the eastern side of the property. there is no work being uh proposed uh beyond that and and actually that encompasses the area around site uh and
we uh complied with the requirements of of that uh overlay district uh the area that the uh conservation area map or plan uh is a requirement of the subdivision rules and rags and basically
what you see in here are in in red. So in this area here is is the the wetland system with the hatch patterns and the like. Um and then uh we depict the 35 no disturb zone, 50ft buffer zone, 100 ft uh buffer zone. Areas in green are
slopes that are somewhere between 10 to 25%. Um the areas in blue, the darker blue are uh slopes uh greater than 25%. Um the uh test pits on site um that are
less than uh 4T uh to groundwater are identified uh with circles around them. So anything you see a circle around a red circle indicates that groundwater is observed estimated seasonal high groundwater or observed standing groundwater or weeping uh less than 4
feet. Um the other feature on the map is natural heritage endangered species program which as I said is located to this side of the project um for which we are uh not doing any work uh within it. Um the next sheet is the logging plan.
Now, as I explained to members of the planning board when we were out at the site, uh, and when I was speaking with Dave Langley, the uh, peerreview consultant from Oil Tanner, had it not been for the abandonment of that portion
of Sver Road, this would be simply an ANR plan, approval, not required plan. We we would have been pretty much one and done with you folks coming in not seeking an approval, but seeking an endorsement. It wouldn't be a definitive plan. Like I said, it would be an approval not required plan because we
would have the required uh frontage along a public way and uh the required uh lot area because as I said earlier in the presentation, we are looking at 37 ft of legal but non-conforming frontage. It necessit necessitates a subdivision
road. Okay? And that subdivision road is what generates the frontage to create the three lots. um under your subdivision rules and rags. Um something I've I've never seen before uh in in all my years and I think I've been um doing
this for about 40 45 years. I see Greg Roy is in the audience. I saw him in the audience earlier. Greg remembers me. Um I was I taught him some things when he was in high school. So it kind of puts into perspective how old this guy is here. Um so like I said, we had uh 37
roughly 37 feet of frontage. The subdivision rules and regs um have a restriction. Whenever you're doing a a subdivision road, you cannot provide direct frontage from the new road to abudding lots. And the intent there is
not is to prevent um the abuing lots from obtaining uh frontage on those roads to create new lots is my understanding of the way it's worded. So in order to to to do this um we have pro proposed a half foot wide uh
strip to comply with that requirement. It's hard to see at the scale but there's a half foot 3/4 in foot wide strip as I see right here 75 ft uh between the property and the uh proposed layout of the road. Um I'm I'm not sure how many members of the
board were around in 22 when the preliminary plan was was approved, but Graz Engineering had done the original design on this. And when I looked at this uh and I saw this 3/4t strip, I reached out to Graz uh and they told me
uh that it was in fact because of the bylaw or the regulations, which uh he directed me to that section. And again, it was something I'd never seen. So that's why we had designed it that way. It's consistent with the preliminary plan that was approved back in in 22.
Once we get beyond uh the pinch point here, uh we open it up to your required 45 40ft layout. Back in 22, um the planning board had sought input u from the uh the various departments in town
and one of the departments most notably was the fire department. The question had come up with respect to the pavement width and the fire department was in agreement that 18 ft uh was adequate provided there were twoft shoulders. Uh
and it was based on that that we had uh designed the road uh at 18 ft to the center of the culde-sac here back to the end of the uh layout of the public way is 500 ft. um extending it to the very
end of the c culde-sac is 570 ft. The lots range in size anywhere from about 2 and a half acres to about 6 acres. Um so the process would start with site prep and erosion sediment control. Um
for those uh members of the board who are out there um at the sitewalk and when I presented to conservation um I said that you know we could have shown the limit of clearing uh along the roadway real tight to the road uh around
here and as as we see here with the squiggly line here that's the limit of clearing but it would have been disingenuous quite honestly it would have you know not had taken into account the materials processing area the the storage area for soils uh on site as the
property has worked uh construction trailer and the like. Uh so we were um uh we had decided to show the limits of clearing uh required for the subdivision which are going to be coincident with the limits of clearing that we are proposing uh for the lots as
well. So, as I said, you know, we have the the stockpile areas. We size these things based on the amount of material that we uh we calculate that are going to be stripped from uh the site and stored for future use. Um on site,
you'll see this area here uh mapa. This is a materials processing uh area. Um that is basically uh when they excavate the material if there's any rock crushing where they can repurpose the material on site that's where that's going to be done. It will also be used
for any uh clearing of trees when they're uh grinding stumps or creating wood chips for slope stabilization. That will occur uh in here. Any fuel storing uh uh fueling of vehicles will occur outside the buffer zone. We've identified this area here. Um, keep in
mind that when you look at a uh a project like this, as as the project evolves in in construction, things move, things morph, but this is generally what we're looking at here for the uh the construction uh layout. Limits of clearing will not move. The limits of clearing uh are established. Those will
not change as part of uh any activity uh on site. Um the area is is the the the project is designed uh with some storm water management in advance of the storm water management. Um anytime you're
dealing with a uh uh a construction site, it's susceptible to erosion. So basically what we're looking at out here is the construction entrance as discussed with the conservation commission is going to be a a a crush stone rip wrap uh apron out here.
typically 3 to 3 to 4 in stone topped with like 1 and 1/2 in stone to protect the vehicle tires uh as they leave the site. This is an anti-tracking pad. So any sediments that uh go to leave the site or any uh vehicles that go to leave the site will lose their sediments in uh
in this anti-tracking pad. This is going to be part of a storm water management pollution prevention plan we filed referred to as the SWIP. Um because we're authoring more than one acre of land, uh it triggers, uh a filing with the federal EPA Anipities
permit. Um so we uh it's going to require uh similar to the local uh conservation commission's uh notice of intent. It's an uh ENOI with the EPA uh for work that is uh altering more than
uh one acre of land. I bring this up because during construction there's they're going to have a well I call it a living breathing document on site and what that is is uh a a typically a a three- ring binder 3 to 5 in um three-
ring binder that contains the permit um from the the nippities permit conservation permit permits from the planning board your storm water permit uh that would be issued in the definitive approval. It would also include any plans, documentations,
documentation. As part of that process, it's going to be subject to inspections. Uh we have an on we have in-house an erosion sediment control specialist who will be visiting the site uh to monitor uh the site after 1 and 1/2 in of
rainfall uh or uh and during other times when uh uh periodic uh reviews you know perhaps once a week if there is no rainfall just to ensure the erosion sediment control measures are still intact. If they find that anything's not
intact, they write it up in the report. They leave it in the SWIP. They provide a copy uh to the uh the issuing authority and they leave one with the contractor, communicating with the contractor to get this fixed. Uh once they get it fixed, they they call us back. We or or we would go back out
there and confirm uh that it has been done. Um, typically on something like that folks, we hop on it quickly. Uh, especially uh during summer months where you have thunderstorms and we know what that can bring. So that's the erosion sediment control plan. As I said, we
have um sediment basins that are proposed. Uh these dash lines in here represent um diversion channels. So basically as they as you can see with the topography, it pitches in this area. So as they work in the grades on site, it's going to have that propensity to to
flow in this direction. We pick up any erosion and it will discharge into the sediment basin. Uh the sediment basin will take uh once it gets to about a/ foot to a/ foot to a foot deep of sediment. We usually don't let it get that far, but let that they're allowed
to a half foot to um a foot deep of of sediment before they have to clean it. If they find that uh during construction these sediment swailes um are not effective that they have to do something again perhaps up through here and connect they do it again like the swip
it's a it's a it it breathes it's living it's breathing and it advances as as uh site conditions dictate. So with that I'm going to go to the great uh grading and drainage plan. So the site has a high point several
hundred feet uh back up uh SA road. Uh as you can see from the topography here, existing topography which are the dash lines. This represents uh or indicates that the flow comes in this direction. Okay, that pitches as you're looking at
it at the screen now. It pitches to the east side of the road or the right side of the road as we're looking at it. And for those who were out in the field with me, I pointed it out and you could see I I don't know if the the board members will recall, but there were some ress
forming in the uh the gravel road. Um that is typical of of erosion. Um the design that we have here um as I explained to the uh board members in the field, the the plan that was approved by
the planning board didn't show any curbing. It didn't show it. It showed an open drainage system, a roadway swale type system. In looking at the and and quite honestly folks, the roadway roadway swale system is much less expensive than what we have proposed
here. However, looking at the uh possibility of erosion when you're dealing with 6 to 7% slopes, longitudinal slopes, uh it's going to, you know, increase the velocity. You're going to get some scouring. So it it uh hits that scouring velocity uh threshold
and begins to erode. What we've done here uh is we've decided to take like I said further up the road here um we have the high point. It pitches down to here. Rather than route everything through our basin which would have caused this basin
here to possibly triple in size, double or triple in size, we took the offsite runoff of which we're not changing whatsoever. We're taking that and we're routing it uh through here uh which is a swell. There's going to be a puminous
concrete spillway here that is going to drop into a uh um a sediment for bay uh uh line with rip wrap uh sediment basin actually uh and then over it'll flow over a very shallow graded uh uh
longitudinal graded uh grass swale. The sidence of the swale will be rip wrap because of the uh the vertical slope of one one. We wanted to keep that footprint nice and tight. As part of our calculations, the hydraulic calculations um and part of the hydraology
calculations, we indicate this is one of the reaches in one of the subcatchment areas in the post development hydraology and uh we have sized this swale accordingly. Once it gets to the end of the swale, it's really doesn't need a plunge pool because the velocities are going to be so dissipated. But once it
gets down here, uh we are proposing again a rip wrap uh plunge pool with a level spreader. So basically once it hits this area here, it goes from your channelized flow down gutter of the street comes through here, continues at a uh uh a channelized flow. Um, and then
once it hits this area in here, it hits the the the level spreader here and it gently cascades over uh the top and works its way uh down gradient. Um, during the the meeting with uh conservation um Mr. Michael Seikman who
represents or who's related to uh Miss Milligan uh next door um uh he's he's our son-in-law. um he had raised some questions about uh concerns about um whether or not this was going to uh pond
on his property or flow onto his property. Based on the topography in here, that is not going to happen. All this is pitching downhill like this. And so once the water hits this, it it cascades over the top and then continues down here through the swale and then through a double culvert here. A pair of
12in I believe these are 12in culberts uh that we are proposing here. No, a pair of 24s. I'm sorry. Pair of 24inch culbert that take the flow from up above through to a uh level uh plunge pool
level spreader and it t that has the same effect that the oneup gradient of that that does. Dissipates the energy and allows it to uh slowly cascade uh over the top. The street system is comprised of deep sump uh hooded catch
basins. We have a pair of catch basins here prior to and I'll get into the uh the real realignment of Mr. Cohen's driveway. Um pair of catch basins upgradient of his driveway as not to create an icing condition in front of his driveway. It intercepts any water that comes down uh the gutter,
intercepts it, picks it up, runs it through the drainage system down to uh a drain manhole here, which picks up a double catch basin at the end of the site and then discharges it through a flared end into um um a plunge pool in here. This is a a
breach point here. So, this is a sediment for bay. uh this will over top uh the basin flow into here and there's a uh equalizer pipe down below here um that would allow for these pipes to flow through here. So I guess the question to
the planning board why this why this why didn't you take the flow divert it around and then have it come out in this direction. We like to align the pipes is not to create too much turbulence at the inlet. Um we like to align the pipes so
that they align with the natural flow of storm water running. That's what this accommodates here. It did cause us to create an equalizer pipe. So basically the the basin is comprised of this area here and this area here between the two if this should over uh if this should
get obstructed and this o uh begins to searchcharge it'll over top at this location flowing into this this basin here. So it's kind of a a belt and suspenders approach. Uh the outlet to the basin is a typical outlet control structure. It's cylindrical in shape
basically uh and this is it here with a uh with multiple orififices in it to uh regulate and uh establish the um the peak rates as they exit uh the basin. This then again uh discharges into a
plunge pool level spreader which like the others dissipates the energy and then cascades over the top before it makes its way down to the wetland system where it currently goes. um the soils on site. Um I know you guys require a soils
plan. We did provide provide a soil plan uh for the stormwater basins and for the uh the septic uh areas. Septic areas we have yet to test. That was done by grad's engineering years ago. They had come up with septic designs which we carried over those septic designs into
this plan for the purposes of the presentation. We will revisit those areas following the uh or maybe during this process or shortly following this process to perform additional testing as may be necessary. Um the soils on site
lomi sands one test pit had uh a sandy lom. So these lomi sands hydraologic soil groups B and C. We do have some D soils down in the uh the wetland system for those of you who are not familiar with soils. The B and C soils are are
the B especially. So A and B soils are well permeating drain very well. The C soils still drain pretty well, not as well as the A and B and the the uh um the D soils have very low permeability, which is why they're primarily in in the
wetland systems. Um so with Mr. Owen's driveway. He currently comes down here and is the board saw out in the field. Gravel driveway that comes down to here. Um during storms, I would imagine that where we've experienced some reals uh up
above, he's probably experiences that down below uh to the wetland system. One of the benefits of of this uh system of this drainage system is whatever sediments are deposited in the wetlands uh downstream that won't happen anymore.
That will be collected, treated, and then uh released. So, with respect to Mr. Cohen's driveway, um two ways we could have addressed this. Um, we could have just had it, we could have had it just continue through here, but as he
exits his driveway, proper design is that anytime you take a driveway or a um a roadway, you want to come in as as tight as possible to 90° as possible. Uh, no less than 60°. Uh so we aligned
this portion of the driveway uh such that he's able to come down his driveway, be able to pull into this area, look to the right uh without much strain, and then continue through. It's also a traffic calming measure. If he's coming through here, rather than con uh
flying or driving through here with somebody coming up through here in a merged situation, at least both motorists can see uh any oncoming cars. Uh I mentioned the natural heritage uh endangered species program uh earlier. That's this boundary here. Like I said,
we are doing no work within that. We are proposing erosion sediment control measures and all of this has been approved by uh the conservation commission. Um the next sheet is the uh the cut fill plan. So what you see in
green uh basically what we had done is we had taken a look at uh the entire site. So, it's essentially a a a full buildout uh what we're anticipating uh of the development. What you see in red are cuts. What you see in uh actually is
that right? No, that is yes, those are cuts. Uh what you see they they go to uh areas of fill. So, it transitions in color uh from the greens to through the reds or from the the reds through the oranges, greens to the blues, and the
purples where um that would indicate uh areas of cut and fill. When all is said and done, um the yardage that we're looking at uh is broken down here. Um, and where I think we have an excess of film material. Uh, yes, right up here,
you can see that the uh the the analysis has resulted in an additional uh 4,000 yards of fill. 4,000 yards of of fill um sounds significant. Uh, but anybody that does site work knows that you can use
you can lose material quite easily. Um, so the way we see this is that material may be hauled off site or I'm sorry that's uh fill that's going to be hauled insight into the site. Part of that is for the roadway uh process gravel base
and for the material that is going to create the burm of the stormwater basin so that it is impermeable. Um the yep cut and fill plan profile. So the plan and profile what we wanted to do was mimic what is out there. So as you
can see the dash lines here represent pretty much the uh the grade along the roadway. Uh the center line grade left and right sideline typical of of what we do on uh definitive plans. Uh we follow we started with the 5 12% it it uh
balloons to 7 7.85% 85% goes through a vertical curve in here and then ends at about three uh almost 4% uh in the culde-sac. This all complies uh with the subdivision rules and regulations. As you can see in this profile view, our
street drainage system with rims, inverts, pipe sizes, and the like um through the uh to this area here. Looking at the plan view, the plan view up in here shows the culdeac ending here. What you see in this little view here, this is an inset
uh that shows from this point onward. So from this point onward, what you see is the storm water management basin. So the bottom of the basin is going to be uh planted uh with a wetland seed mix. Um and the the the back edge of the slope
is going to be uh planted with a conservation mix. Tops of the BMS are going to be loaned and seated with a grass seed mix to allow for vehicles, maintenance vehicles to travel along the top of the burm uh to maintain anything that needs to be uh maintained. Be it uh
the cleaning of uh any of the structures, maintenance of the structures, replacement of rip wrap if that is the case. But what we wanted to do when we uh designed this basin is to provide for the wetland uh uh plant
material in here to to um uh promote uh wildlife habitat migration through this area. Um, as you folks know, in many of these storm water basins, if you do them right, um, you can have, uh, bird communities, uh, or or or birds, uh, you
know, flocking to the area and and, uh, uh, uh, habitating in there as well as bees. Um the downgradient slope we uh slope we are proposing a uh transitional vegetation between the burm itself and
the uh wooded area um with a uh a wildlife um seed mix. What we f or conservation uh seed mix what we find with that is that also promate promotes uh honeybee activities. So I know that
number of folks have um beehives and the like and this is just a stopping spot uh for the bees as they migrate back home to and from home. So basically that's it in terms of the plant schedule. We are proposing some plants. We are limiting uh the amount of trees that uh we're
removing from site. Um we do have in our layout mater site prep plan what is to be maintained and protected and what is to be uh removed along the corridor of the roadway. very few trees are going to be uh removed. Um and it would only be
in the case where the tree is proposed within the layout of uh of the the travel way of the uh proposed roadway. What you see here are proposed street trees, shade trees along the tree corridor. In the middle here, we are
proposing a um uh uh a specimen tree with a wildlife seed mix uh around the tree. the species of trees. Uh we're looking at um red oak and little leaf lynen. Uh we're looking at nine red oak
and one little leaf uh lynen. Um as I was saying about uh if I could just go back to uh Mr. Cohen, there is a portion of stone wall that comes through here, comes through the roadway. Now, we could have easily
discarded that stone wall, but what we figured we would do um and this is solely up to Mr. Cohen. He could say, "I don't want the wall uh uh along my uh my entrance." But we figured we are realigning his driveway. We are going to have a portion of it paved back to here
with the pavement ending here. Um there's going to be a gutter line in here. We figured that we owed it to Mr. um Mr. Cohen, Mr. Mrs. is going to to frame out the driveway if he wants it and then return it into the existing wall. If he doesn't want it, that's
fine, but it's just a uh a good faith gesture uh to him. Um the utilities um that he currently has on site um as I said are located still within uh this area here. They will continue uh to be utilized by Mr. Cohen. Uh we will
coordinate with Mr. Cohen because our utilities will be coming from uh a utility pole back in here. Uh so there's an existing utility pole here. There's an existing pole here. As you can see at this location, we're going to have to pull the the pole back a couple feet uh
away from the the curb. So it's going to require reringing that uh overhead wire. We're going to transition uh that line uh to underground conduit uh that is going to feed this uh the three lots around the culdeac bulb. uh the and again feeding the three lots. So it's
it's pretty basic. So in terms of utilities associated with the roadway, storm water, underground electric, telephone and cable. Um that's it. Private water, private sewer, uh on the properties. Um
and I think Mr. Chairman, I may have covered it. Um I don't know if you folks have any questions. Oh, buyer apparatus. Um so fire maneuvers we took the town of uh
um poundson's uh fire truck modeled it using uh so we there I'm sure you've you've heard of autoturn simulation software we run civil 3D we have a uh uh an add-on to civil 3D which functions
like uh autoturn but rather than just having the horizontal limitations it does allow for vertical changes in in grade so that if a vehicle approaches the site comes off the the roadway and takes on a steep grade coming up it you
know you can tell if the the vehicle is going to bottom out or not. So what you see here is in red are the tire treads in green is the body overhang. So, as the vehicle comes down the road, comes through here, makes its loop, you can
see that the treads stay within the pavement, and the the body overhang swings out a little bit, swings back in. But you'll also see that we we are proposing some two uh light poles here and here. One at the entrance of of Mr.
um Cohen's driveway and then one at the the end of the culde-sac. They're going to be night sky compliant. uh directing uh lighting downward. Um but as you can see in these uh instances that the overhang of the vehicle does not clip
the poles. Um so we like to anytime we we model these we make sure that anything that's beyond the edge of pavement uh is free and clear of the uh the overhang of the vehicle. That's basically it for the the uh presentation, Mr. Chairman. And if
anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. >> Thank you, Wayne. Um I think I would like to open up to board member questions. I think one of the um unique things about tonight um is the the peer
review or the nature of the peer review and David I see that you're on. I know we have an agenda item for 3.1 to discuss specifically that. Yes. >> I guess I guess David, I don't know um
if you're uh prepared to talk at all about this or we're going to be talking to you later about the nature of um you reaching the end of your budget. But I guess I'd like to maybe even open it up to you, Wayne. Have you had a chance to review the peerreview document? Do you
have any comments or and potentially open it up to you David as well to comment on that for the board? >> So, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate that and I know that I've spoken enough probably too much for anybody on your board or David or the audience. Um, I was going to ask you about that to see
if we could move that item respectfully move that to here so that uh we could touch on that. Um, I did I do have with me um David Plunkett who represents the client
and I have reached out to the client. I've yet to hear back from the client uh about the approval of the second portion of the budget. Um I did have an uh So if David is prepared to weigh in on that, I will defer to David. Um so David, is
that something have you spoken uh with the group at Belvadier uh on this or is this something we need to circle back to the board with? >> David, you're on mute. Sorry about that. Uh we'd have to circle back to the board on that matter.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you, David. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, to answer your question, if I'd had an opportunity uh to reviewed review David's um peerreview letter, I did um quite honestly, I didn't see anything that was a deal
killer. Um, I think uh there's a lot of information in there um that uh I didn't get into too much the the storm water. I just briefly looked at everything, but like I said, on the surface, it didn't look like uh anything was a a dealer,
per se. Um he did weigh in on a couple of the the waivers. He did weigh in on uh things as as basic as as sheet numbering. uh we have a certain protocol uh for sheet numbering but the town does have their their own protocol. We follow
the AI AIA standards uh which are um the the national standards. So anything that's survey related is prefaced with a V as you can see in the lower right hand corner here and that is basically the basis and it's and and Mr. chairman, we have so because of the the types of of
projects we do, you know, everything from, you know, subdivisions to site plans institutional, uh, a number of colleges we work for. Um, because it's typically part of a a a a set of
drawings that includes uh mechanical, electrical, and and plumbing engineers, architects, structurals, and the and the like, it's designated by this. But if if the board is fine with this, uh we would seek a waiver uh to it to to keep it this way. If the board would prefer us
to go to the the naming convention required by the town, which if I recall, David called out is perhaps something like this would be like one of 17 or whatever the number is. Uh we would be happy to do that. Um it just requires a little bit of cross referencing because
some of our notes do reference um the um uh the different sheets by the the nomenclature that we've established. So for instance here uh well no this one doesn't show but we we do reference certain sheets but it's not a it's not a
a deal killer for us to change it. I mean, if this is something the quite honestly, it's a little inconvenient, but something that we could certainly do if this is something that the board feels strongly about, but like I said, I I looked at it cursory look. I didn't see anything that that made me want to
cry and stop my feet. >> Sure. Okay. So, I my mistake I recognize we have two Davids. And David from Hoy Tanner, would you mind? I know um you know your time is is somewhat limited in this capacity because you've reached the
end of your budget, but do you mind just commenting on on what you put together or where you're at and and why for the board? >> Sure. I guess I'm wondering which which thing you'd like me to answer. Are are you asking me to answer? Um,
>> I guess it depends what you're willing to answer because you're at the end of your budget and maybe even filling then uh then you might as well tell us why you're at the end of your budget. And if you'd like, you can talk to us about the product you submitted. But I believe we're we'll be waiting on I I would expect a response from the applicant
about their position on on I don't know additional >> Okay. So yes, the reason why I'm at the ed end of my budget is because as you've seen by the the comments that were submitted and and that Wayne has reviewed or has has taken a look at uh we generated about 13 pages of comments
which is roughly around um you know counting for the the sub comments we had within there about 70 comments in general. Uh several of those, as Wayne alluded to, are um can be minor comments, just things that we pointed out that we reviewed don't line up with
what the planning board is looking for within the the bylaws, the rules and regulations. They can be minor changes. Uh some of them are a bit more involved than that, such as um we had questions with regard to some of the um alignments. There was some
alignment questions. There were some drainage questions. My apologies. I have my SC uh everything's up on my adjacent screen here. Um several questions relative to the um
amended storm water um rules and regulations that were submitted or issued to both parties on March 30th that had come out as of February 23rd. Um, we reviewed and found that there were some calculations and drawings and
plans missing that were required by that. Um, so those are some of the things that we're anticipating we're going to need to review in the future. Uh, because there'll be calculations that need to be reviewed. There will be drawings that need to be reviewed. I have been preparing an itemized list as requested by the board from your
planning board meeting on the 4th addressing uh, these items. And so that's the reason why um we've come to the end of our our budget on this is because of the because the amount of comments that that were were put in there. You know, as as everyone here understands uh this this project um has
some life to it, right? It's been around for quite some time. uh there was a lot to delve into and there were a lot of comments issued back from the 2022 submission and uh digging into those to try and figure out okay what what's been applied what hasn't been applied um
where do things stand and what needs clarification is what generated such a a long list of comments. Typically what we get is from uh when we do our peer reviews when we submit our comments back to uh the applicant we get a response uh in line what we call it. So they would
go through and look at each one and and and say, you know, we're going to request a waiver for this or we can change this or we'd prefer not to as Wayne was saying with the numbering provided that the board is is amendable to it or we will provide the calculations or drawings or whatever things additional information. Uh so we
also anticipate u potentially a meeting with um the applicant and their engineer with Wayne to discuss some of the comments that we had in there whether or not some of these are things that are feasible. Again, this is a different different community, so I'm not sure what your um preference is with that.
Some communities um allow the engineers to speak independently with each other. Others prefer that everything happen within the um the planning board format. So, whatever whatever is your uh preference, we wanted to make sure that we put together um a proposal for the
additional work that um encompass that. And there is room of course um if it's we anticipated two additional meetings, two additional reviews if we don't use the budget then then the budget uh you know whatever's left over does go back uh to the applicant. We wanted to make sure that we had uh room for additional
meetings both with the applicant and with this board and to address uh the several comments that we had some of which as I said involve additional calculations we haven't received yet and additional um plan sheets that we've requested. One of the big questions we had that we're looking for additional
plan sheets for is the um the vicinity plan I believe and the not sure if it was the locust plan or additional plan that kind of shows more of the area. There's a lot going on in this area. We realize there's a lot of butters that have concerns. We figure the amount the more detail you can
provide the better to show here's what's happening in this area. Another main concern is the um whether or not this is a public or private way. That still hasn't been clarified to us and there's different um there's going to be different requirements if it's anticipated that uh this extension be
turned over to become a public way. Um obviously we'd need to review it um with a more critical eye because that that section of of uh the road would eventually belong to the town of towns and and so we need to apply a different level of scrutiny towards uh it becoming
a public way versus a private way. And so these are some of the reasons or the majority of the reasons why we're requesting the additional funds uh to continue to review um this application as it moves forward. So, uh, David from Hil and Tanner, I know at our previous meeting some of the board members had
questions specifically, um, about the budget. I'm not sure if some of their questions have been answered or but I'd like to open it up to the board members for for questions to either the applicant or to Oil and Tanner if you guys have.
Um, my concerns were there was a request for proposal with the scope of services that was provided to all the potential biders here.
And um so I'm I did not prepare that scope of services in that request. But typically
when there are public funds involved um the the invitation for bid and the bid submission is strictly
limited to what's expressly shown in the scope. So it would seem that if things are not identified in that original scope,
they can be viewed as additional services and beyond the scope that was requested. However, in most of these there is some provisions
for that kind of thing. And again, I'm not I'm not the one that prepared those documents and be able to answer this stuff, but um I think that
normally the biders submit some kind of rate schedule or some kind of our unit pricing kind of format to address or specific clauses.
for additional services. So, in thinking of this project and the budget, um I think this board anticipated that we had an adequate budget to do
this project. So I don't know how to respond to this right now because until we take a further look at what would have been anticipated or what was specifically in the scope of
services um I don't know how much that we should I I don't know where we are with it is my point. It's, if I may, it's my understanding that this isn't a publicly funded
project. It's a private project where the applicant is paying for the costs and therefore it's the applicant's best interest to provide a great amount of detail within their um their plans. And if >> if their plans generate a lot of questions, then that generates more work
for my team to review. >> Unless I'm mistaken, I I I don't believe there's any public funds >> involved with this process. >> No, you're correct. I'm sorry I misdirected you. >> Carol asked a gentle question while you were finishing yours about if we want to
continue this discussion on the subject. I believe >> no didn't we just want to stick to the division? >> Well, I think so, but in the sense that it's intertwined in terms of >> okay >> the applicant >> we won't have an answer from the applicant whether they're willing to
fund it or not. Right. >> So I do think it's related in that sense. I think we have to look at that >> particulars certainly order wise in our agenda. It wasn't mentioned for afterwards. >> Oh, okay. >> Thank you. >> I don't want to spend too too much time on it. It's not going to be an answer
that's I think solved tonight. So, I'd like at some point to continue on to just general board questions on the proposal and >> Mr. Chairman, what we'd like to do is I'm sorry, but you know, just to kind of expedite this process,
>> uh if David uh from my team uh could reach out uh discuss with Belvadier perhaps tomorrow, David uh see what their thoughts are and then we can get back to Beth ASAP with an answer. Does that work for you folks?
>> I I have no issue. Yeah, >> I I do think that's kind of the hold up. I think on our end, I think we as a planning board would want to either have a complete peer review or >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, make sure that >> this is a very complex site and um I we
really do need a comprehensive peer review. >> Yeah. Let me let me clarify that we have we have provided a comprehensive peer review to this point and we we're requesting um fund you know we've we have budget for what we've built today. actually overbuild, but we're not going to charge you for some of the the
learning curve that we had on our end. However, aside from that, you know, looking forward with the amount of information we still have requested and forecasting the amount of time we're going to spend reviewing that additional information, that's where that's where we stand now is we there's more
information that we need, which means more review on our part. And so, so that's what we're requesting. summarizing this um the budget that you had initially accomplished everything that we needed.
So your concern is about future needs um for things that are yet to develop or occur. >> Yes. based on based on some of the information that we still need that has not been submitted yet by the applicant that we must also review.
>> Okay, Mr. Plunkett, it looked like you were preparing to speak. >> Uh yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. U to follow up on Wayne's uh question. Certainly, I can discuss with the applicant tomorrow and ask Wayne to send
over the summary of what is being proposed. My suggestion would be though in I think earlier on in the presentation there was a question relative to the uh engineers being able to discuss things directly with each other. I think certainly if there you
know at this point if we were able to have a question relative to you know further clarification of the basis of the budgetary you know uh additional budget. I I think it might be very
helpful to have uh Wayne deal directly with David, you know, with questions and have I I think engineer to engineer might be a very direct route of clarifying the basis of this budgetary
uh you know extension or increase and then be able to come to a amicable solution so that this this project moves on this proposal. moves on for a final resolution. So certainly we
want this as soon as possible. I would I would request the board to authorize the two engineers to discuss this so that we can get come to an understanding between the two of them. >> I saw different head shavings amongst the board maybe very briefly.
>> I agree with that. >> I I think that's >> Yeah, that's more >> more of a client relationship than ours. Yeah, >> technically Oil and Tanner is our client, >> right? They're our client. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, I think everything's got to go through us. That's the way I personally feel because they're our client. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Yep. >> All right. >> If if we could as well um I think part of the um what would also help um I know there was some discussion about um communicating, you know, uh to work through some of these items. if it would
be possible to have some dialogue and perhaps you know a zoom meeting uh perhaps with LD H oiler LDC and Beth you know if the three if the if the town's rep your your peer reviewer and our
client's reps LDC uh hit on the the different if we went through the the peer review list I think that and we we do it all the time we do peer review uh peer reviews for different communities as well Uh, and we always work with the the applicants engineer uh to kind of
expedite that that process. Um, I sit on a board. I know David sits on uh bo uh a board in his town. Um, he and I spoke about how how long we've been serving our communities. Um, it is a thankless job. So, we appreciate what you folks
do. It is time consuming. So if there's anything that we can do, Boil, Tiana, LDC, and Beth to relieve some of the the work of the board, um that would be great. And I think that would, you know,
in terms of, you know, David's uh review and in and the budget, I think it's it just streamlines it. You can knock off a lot of these uh questions. Um I know there was something about benchmarks or something on the plan. um that it required two benchmarks on the plan.
There are two benchmarks on the plan. So things like that and we do the same thing. So it's it's not a poor reflection on Dave's team. We do the same thing. You're looking at so much information that something like a couple little benchmarks you really don't you don't pick up, you know. So I think if
if if we could have some dialogue with him through Beth, um that would be ideal if if the board would entertain that. >> Sure. Thank you. So, let's just circle the board real quick. >> That's a good recommendation. >> No, I think the board should be involved. I mean, you know, we want to
talk about two benchmarks. How two benchmarks aren't shown in the plan. Well, I don't see anything about you mentioned the fire truck like No, I I think the board's got to be involved in in everything. That's my personal >> Yeah. >> So, we got we got two for board full
involvement. any changes between with Carol and >> Yeah, I'll go a lot with the full board involved. Okay, >> makes sense. It does make sense. >> I agree with I agree with the group. >> Okay. All right. Well, that's that's the
So, um I I think in interest of that um you know, I I I think the holdup here will be the um the funding for the peer review and getting the peer review finished. So, you know, originally I kind of wanted to
be able to get some public comment in and get more questions on the board on the matter, but I think because of the time and I think the where we're at, I think it probably just makes sense to to postpone the rest of the public hearing to our next subsequent meeting.
>> When would that be? When would that That's a great question. Um >> June 8th, I think is the next meeting. >> Our next scheduled meeting is June 8th. >> Yeah, I won't be able to end on June 8. So I would really the opportunity to get my comments done. >> Okay. Um I don't have an objective
problem. I'd like to we we have other business in front of us as well. So I'd like to keep it relatively brief, but I'd be happy to uh um you know, does does I'll first start. Does any board member have anything they wish to say on the project or or questions right now?
>> I in summary, I think the the website was very challenging. I think the engineering that's been provided is very sophisticated and it addresses a lot of very specific
concerns that are not typical. And um I think the consultant did a comprehensive job from what I can see and addressing a lot of peripheral
topics that normally you're not even thought of. Um it's you know like the telephone pole for the fire truck and uh controlling the velocity of the water
correcting conditions that are there now that 37 pages >> anyway I think you did a good job >> anybody quickly before we open it up. >> No go ahead. >> Okay please. >> Thank you. This is John butter. I did
submit written comments. I hope that you all had a chance to read those. I just want to >> I'm sorry. Can I ask his name again? >> My name is John Msa. >> Okay. Thank you. >> 41. >> I just didn't hear it. >> Um yeah. So I would like I mean from my perspective, our perspective, I think I can you think most of the people here
are going to agree with me. We start by looking at the rules of the subdivision law and this proposal directly violates several specific laws in the subdivision control law. Dead end streets will not be permitted. The whole of subdivision is a dead street. More than one access
for entrance and exit into the or subdivision shall be provided. Well, there are not more than one entrance, right? There's only one way in, one way out. So, that's another rule directly violated. Streets shall be designed so that there are at least two noninsecting paths out of the subdivision from any
point on any street in the subdivision. Another rule directly violated. Uh uh Wayne had mentioned the reservation strip because there is a rule that says streets now may not be laid out to provide frontage or access to land that is not part of the subdivision which
this road would. So he puts in the subdivision you put the reservation strip to prevent that. But there's another rule that says the board will not approve plans having so-called reservation strips. So when you break the rule with the strip or you break the rule without the strip in a way you're breaking a rule. There's a whole slew of
rules that are being directly violated. And these aren't just like details and aesthetic elements. These rules provide the fundamental definition of what qualifies as subdivision. A subdivision, multiple streets coming off at the public way, intersecting with
each other, combining with each other. Maybe there's other streets. They all intersect with each other. There's multiple ways in and out. That's a subdivision. What a subdivision is not is one road, one dead end road going out into the woods of the loop at the end. If that qualifies as a subdivision,
every property in town could subdivide just by extending their driveway. Oh, we got I've got 13.8 acres on 41 road. I extend my driveway. I can put up five more houses, right? Every other property could do it. There's hundreds of properties in town that are more than 4
acres. Every single one of them could just extend their driveway and all of a sudden you got a subdivision, right? That's why these rules that that the whole intent we talk about does it violate the intent of subdivision control act like the entire intent is to
prevent pre prohibit that exact scenario right you can't say you're not violating the intent of the rule they intend on the rule specifically to pro to prevent this right so that's based on the rules so now look at another look at prior decisions because I know
>> there's some distinctions between policies rules and my laws. Robert, briefly, this is going to be a little bit longer than just >> That's okay. You know, I just want to tell everybody here anything that you
want to express, you can provide us in writing, too. >> I did. We have that. >> We have it. >> But yeah, I just appreciate the opportunity to just continue. >> Okay. That's all right. I mean, so the other way with privacy, right? Because I know when you're evaluating these
applications, you look at what what have we done before? Somebody presented a similar proposal before. What have we used? Did we accept it? Did we impose conditions? Well, it just so happens there were multiple prior decisions for this exact piece of property that are
directly relevant here. The first one being how did Steven Road get to be at that end in the first place? And when you mentioned, well, if only that town hadn't abandoned the road, these would be the other ones. The whole reason the town abandoned the road is because they didn't want development down at the end of this dead end road. See the road was
not a dead end road originally. It went through into Lunberg down to Hickory Lakeboard combined with other streets. Lunberg abandoned the road on their side. Suddenly, Townsen was left with a dead end road ending at the town line that was like half a mile long. Well, the town realized, we don't like that.
We don't want that. We don't want dead end roads long dead. So they voted by town vote to chop off the road. And where did they chop it up? They chopped it up as far as they could at the driveway of the last house. They couldn't chop it up farther than that. They would have, you know, they would
have stranded the house. So they chopped it up as short as they could. And by doing that, the town clearly was stating its its intent. We don't want any development past this point on this, you know, down here, past this end this road. We don't want that. That was the
town. That was why they banned the road. Exactly. So in Oh, what? That's one. Another one, the same proposal was submitted in 1989 to extend the road and put up three houses. Same exact proposal. That proposal was summarily
denied by the planning board in 1989. And if I could just read a couple of the comments. All right. No clear public interest can be discerned to justify specific waiverss. proposed project is not consistent with the intent of the subdivision control law. Those are the comments that were made in 1989 by the
planning board in denying the plan. Well, the plan was the plan was again submitted by a different applicant after the sold after the land was sold for $1. I think that's notable that the land developers who tried to build in 1989 were denied. They they ended up selling
the land for $1 because they knew it could be developed. They sold it to Massad Land Development aka Mr. Daniel G, the previous advocate. He submits a plan and in 2020 the planning board denies that plan for all the same reasons. It was the exact same plan.
Extend the road of three houses. And the planning board in 2020 comments the plan is neither in the public interest nor consistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law. Those are the findings of the planning board in 2020. Nothing has changed since then.
Nothing. The same rules were in effect. There is nothing has changed. So there's no reason to to overturn these three decisions. One by the town vote declaring we don't want any development taxes point and abandoning the road in the first place and then two
planning board decisions to deny the effectively identical plan. So and then the third thing I would point to quickly is that that the interest of the town what's in the public interest clearly that it's well established that people of town appreciate the rural character
in this town. We rever we cherish the rural care. It's the heart and soul of this town and the last thing the town wants is is to lose that and I would just quickly read the most poignant most relevant comment in the entire town master plan my opinion is the community
perceives a threat to the town's rural nature and qualities due to residential sprawl. This proposal is exactly the threat that is being referenced here. Again, you allow this, every property in town can just extend their driveway, put up three or four houses and the whole
town would be the rural character of the town will be decimated. So my our my view is I beseech the board, I beg you, I implore you, enforce the rules, follow the prior presidents,
serve the public interest, and just say no to this. Thank you. >> Thank you, John. We do have your letter and we do have uh three other letters from residents on SA road or others. Um I think they're in our folders and files. I believe it's possible they were
shared with the applicant as well. Um being that we don't have complete information and we do plan to continue the public hearing. I want to be mindful of time. Does anybody else wish to have I I'm going to try to limit it to like a minute or two. Any brief comments tonight?
>> Mr. Chair VM make a procedural comment. >> Sure. >> Not not on the substance. My name is Michael Sikben. I'm the son-in-law of Donna Milligan and a butter at 40 Sanderson Road. Um this meeting and the previous meeting the butter notices were not received by the abutters and going
forward I'd suggest that you need to do that. >> Nor was it done for conservation. >> We have to look into that. I'm I'm not aware but I appreciate you letting us know. Um, I think we certainly wish for that to be the case, but I'm not sure the particulars as to
>> No one was notified for conservation and several were, but not every >> can't speak to conservation for this. >> I appreciate I don't I I I don't know. >> Just being clear. >> Yeah, sure. >> I I I appreciate your desire. I think it's also legally required. >> Sure. Beth, would you mind being able to
look into that or work with the applicant to figure out what may have happened there on the planning board side? >> Um, it's this butter who said they did not receive. Yeah, >> that's two of us. >> Three of us
>> that was sent certified mail. >> Then you don't have >> the certified list was generated by both towns and I have the certified list. I can share it with you. There was
>> simply show us the return receipt. I don't >> Would you be able to pull the receipts or the list if you have them? >> Um maybe you guys can connect with Beth for contact information and and she can share with you what we have >> and and maybe we can look at it too in
their next board portal just to make sure. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Procedural question along the lines of that. Um, you were mentioning a site visit that you went on along with >> board was invited,
>> right? I'm kind of curious why the others weren't invited to go along for a site visit with you. So, we're all hearing the same information and seeing the same thing. It seems odd. We sat for 45 minutes while we were talking about bushes along a fence line and having a site visit that you're talking about
three houses which arguably could be bigger than they're saying they're going to be, you know, on a subdivision that's arguably not legal. It's just a little funny to me because I think we're hearing things differently than you're hearing from the people proposing this
project. So, I guess I don't understand why they wouldn't be doing that for you. this public meeting laws. So when this board goes on a site visit,
we can't discuss it amongst ourselves or with the neighbors. Was strictly an observation for us individually to see what's going on and to individually ask questions. So it was
not anything trying to conceal this thing, >> right? I'm not saying trying to conceal. I just think that there's a lot of confusion. >> Sure. >> And that it might, you know, if there is a site as if presumably they're doing this thing that faith has been spending a lot of money on a drainage project for two houses, which is what we were told
there may be three houses. So, it just seems like it would save you guys a lot of time since this apparently has been going on for years and years and years if this is legal and you do decide to let it go on to have a visit where you're hearing the same thing that the abutters are hearing in.
>> Sure. I think just to answer your question to the best of my knowledge, I I I'd have to check our bylaws to I think typically the public is normally not included on site visits. Um, is that correct, Beth? in your experience with it's not a public meeting.
>> No, I understand but sometimes they do that other we have to publish it and everything else. So, okay. So, because we are continuing, I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for till June 8th.
>> I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing to June 8th, 2026. >> Second. Like do a roll call vote. >> Cindy King, yes. Carol Hoses, yes. Yes, >> Robertine. Yes. >> And Andrew Sheepard. Yes. I'd like to >> continue I didn't hear you. I'm sorry.
>> Continue the public hearing till >> with the understanding that they that the review consultants can they can't go forward without your approval of the amendment. So >> we need to get we I in my mind what we're waiting on is Mr. Plunkett
communicating with his uh applicant and the board was um wished to be included in the process. So unfortunately that would be waiting until then. >> Is there any sense in going forward if the peer review is not done?
>> So you're continuing hearing but you're not going to have a resolution on peer review. Right. >> Correct. But I think at that hearing we hope to have an answer from the applicant on the peer review. >> Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
>> Yeah, we discussed that if I recall as part of this the discussion earlier that um the board uh was willing to allow David and myself to discuss his peer review um and then we would circle back to Beth
uh right after that. Is that correct? Am I misunderstanding that? >> I know that's how it came up, but the board shortly after expressed an opinion um that that they wish to be included in the process. >> Okay. >> So that means yeah, board approval
before anything else um before the board's consultant can be engaged. So, we'll uh we'll we'll wait to hear from you guys and then hopefully on June 8th we can get them get them going and uh finish up that the peer review or the
back and forth side of things. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question for clarification of a whatif scenario. If the applicant, my assumption is that there's a
budgetary request, there's a request for budget extension. If the applicant were to agree to that uh that would would it be possible then for the uh the consultant to then move
forward with the analysis without waiting until uh June 8th for the board to say okay go ahead. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I I think it sounds like the board is is open and willing. If if you
guys can come back and say yes, then I think um >> continue on >> continue on. And I I think in that case, is the board okay with the engineer and the applicant doing a little bit or do you responding
to the feedback and then having the engineer respond back or >> I think if it's that easy, I think it'd be as simple as yeah, we agree to the price. They're going to they're going to tell Beth, >> "Yeah, >> we agree. We're going to fund it >> and we're going to continue on with a peer review and get a full peer review." >> Okay. Because we do have
>> Mr. Chairman in an effort to not take up more of the board's time uh so that we're not sitting here in September. Um what I think is so we we still have to respond to the comments that uh Hy and Tana has raised. So I think as part of
that as we're having that dialogue amongst our group we could jump on uh the peerreview comments start to make the plan modifications so that we can hopefully and and and if if this works for David uh at Hoy Tanner that that
this could work out well where we get the plans back to to H oil tanner they have let's say they if if the client approves the the budget extension ideally we'd like to be in a position where Oil Tanner responds to our edits
so that they could be before the board on the ETH after having performed their second peer review. Again, I don't know what their schedule looks like. I'd have to take a look at ours, but in a perfect world, uh that would be great. But it's
it's all subject to again what the client agrees to and how quickly >> uh Hyaltana can respond to our response to their comments. >> Sure. Open it up to the board. >> Just have to be very clear on on their
response and how it was handled in here. So, you know, because now we're talking about two different things. We're going to get new comments in, but yet we already have comments here. So, how are we going to address the comments that we already have? >> Typically, if I may, typically what I've seen in other communities is the um LDC
would respond to the comments that would be issued through Beth. So, Beth would receive the comments and Hoy Tanner would be CCD on those. >> That way, Beth would be able to distribute those to the board members and they can see >> LDC's response. >> And then, similar to what happened in the first review, we would engage in
reviewing um their comments. uh whatever additional sheets everything that everything that LDC would be submitting on behalf of the applicant would first go through Beth that the board would be able to see these are the comments that responded to these are the additional
drawings that were uh sent back and then those can be distributed to the public as as is allowed whatever is allowed by the bylaws and rules and regulations. So everyone would see LDC's comments, whatever sheets they added, whatever calculations they submitted, and then
Hoy Tanner would take those, perform the second review, and then similar to this one, we would issue our response letter with any additional comments we may have or approval or what have you. And that would again go back through Beth and she could again distribute that to your your
folders um into the public as needed and back to LDC. And as Wayne said, the the optimal situation would be that both our schedules would allow us to accomplish this before the uh the June 8th meeting. Um so that when June 8th came, the
comment list would be shrunk. There would be a list that addresses whatever comments were on there and any additional documents that were uh requested and or required would either be issued at that time or there'd be language in there as to why LDC felt
they wouldn't be necessary. Thank you, David. >> You're welcome. >> The board I I think it's probably worth considering because at the next meeting, the voters will be here again and we'll have less for them to
um deal with. We'll have a lot of answers. >> Seems like we'd have a meeting just to settle whether or not the the funding is going to be there and then right >> we're going to be really set back a month if we >> right. So I think >> allow them to
>> try to encourage this to move along. >> The proposal from the applicant would basically be that they go back and forth between Beth and hopefully get a you know Beth is the middle person. >> All the communication would be listed in our portal. So we'd be able to see the
response to the first set comments. Uh we could see if the schedule allows Oil and Tanner Tanner David's response back and then potentially even the applicant's response to that. >> It's worth trying. >> I like that.
>> What um what would be the time frame to be to get a full peer review? That would be my question. like to for him to finish up the first deliverable, you know, we have 17 what do we have for 13 >> 13 pages like what
>> I think technically and I David from Oil and Tanner that is this first deliverable but he has a list of questions if your first deliverable means all the answers to those questions. >> No, I just I just is this first go round complete? It sounds like he ran out of money before we even completed reviewing
the plans in front of us. >> No, that's incorrect. I completed the review of all the plans in front of you and I'm anticipating additional review because of the documents and calculations that we've requested information that was missing in this first review. >> There's more questions to be answered. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Yes, exactly. There's more questions to be answered. >> Are we okay with the back and forth between the applicant, Beth, the engineer? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I like that. Yes, >> but I do think you need to vote to approve the amendment or some sort of piece of the amendment. If you don't
want to approve the whole amount, which is $5,000 some dollars, maybe you want to approve part of it. It's it's up to you, you know, but you have to make the decision on what you want for peer review services. I can't do that as as
the in between. So I >> we have to vote because isn't it up to isn't it up to the applicant to decide whether he wants to pay the additional 5,000 >> planning board's decision. It's completely your decision. >> But I I think we're
>> okay >> in my mind willing to work with the applicant on the fees and such, but I think you know if the applicant doesn't want to pay it, I think we have concerns about the completeness of the documents and our ability to review it. >> That's right. It's a
>> without the >> It could be one-sided, but I think we're just trying to be accommodating. >> We' be handicapped to make a decision without the We need an extensive peer review. We can't >> Yeah. >> So, >> so you could approve the amendment, vote
to approve the amendment. Like he said, if he doesn't use the money, it goes back to the applicant. >> Okay. >> I would I would think air on the side of just approving the amendment. That's my suggestion because otherwise on June 8th you're just going to you know >> I can't do anything our our consultant
his own money so you can't I can't really be going back and forth at this point >> that's just a matter of form can we approve that 3.1 in the public hearing or do we have to end propo end the public hearing and then do >> you can do that right now >> okay >> so move
>> okay so a motion to >> order please >> yes Mr. Uh so again is this approval subject to the uh the the right of the applicant to
uh request further determination on the on the number on June 8th if the amount isn't agreed upon. Just trying to preserve rights. Not that I know that that's going to happen, but I I just don't want a situation where if the applicant has an appropriate question,
you know, where it's over and above the original budget that he wouldn't be able to bring that up on the June 8th hearing. I hope my hope is that that's not going to be the issue and uh you know it's going to be you know that
it'll be approved and then we'll be moving forward. So just a question whether the approval of the amendment would be subject to further review on June 8th if in fact the applicant wasn't in agreement with the number.
>> No my opinion is no. We need a full pre-review regardless of what it takes. Entainers has given us a price. They've given us a a budget, a new budget. And >> yeah, I we need a This is comprehensive.
>> I'm going to ask this question based on the gentleman's comments there about this subdivision being denied several times in the past based on a number of bylaws. So what makes it okay now? Where
was it okay in the past? Did our bylaws change? >> Mrs. Jim and just you know that that was just a comment from you know and certainly any anybody or anyone at the meeting has a right to make comments but that in and of itself doesn't negate the
fact that this is a new proposal. >> This is the only proposal before the board. We're not seeking to overturn prior decisions. Prior decisions of the board would be overturned only by the
taking of an appropriate appeal which wasn't taken at that time. So this is, you know, I I would object to in in, you know, for the board to adopt a position saying that this matter before the board isn't in fact a new application that has
absolutely nothing to do with anything that is uh any any previous application that they said was denied. This is this is separate. This is is distinct. And in the the appellet process would have been the process to form
Just one more point of note, Mr. Chairman. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Accommodating to all the comments, but I'll as it gets later, I have less appetite to be accommodating to. So, go ahead, Wayne. And then we're going to make >> Sorry, but one more point of note. I started the the presentation with this
project falls on the heels of a preliminary plan approval for this plan. So, that's how I started. So while there were past denials, we don't question that. Okay. But the most recent action by the planning board was the approval of the preliminary plan would set the
stage for where we are today. Had we not had the preliminary plan approval, we wouldn't be here tonight. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> That's correct. I will say as as current chair of the planning board, I believe we are looking at this with fresh eyes
as the application has come in and not all of us have been on, you know, this is fresh for many of us. So, I'd like to entertain a motion. I believe the um >> perspective amongst the board has been
to hold fast with the recommended amount by Hoy and Tanner. Um, I believe there was a motion made. Is that correct? >> Yeah, Cindy made a motion. >> Cindy made a motion. >> I second it. >> Carol second. We've had thorough discussion. Um, just for the sake Cindy,
your motion or maybe Beth is printing it, but what would be the correct wording there? >> Um, um, about the amendment. Um, you had the board. >> Sure. for the record, do you want to be real specific on the motion?
>> Sure. >> This is the amendment that you're approving, so you want to make sure you're referencing the right document. >> Okay. >> So, Cindy, would you mind making a motion to approve the recommended amendment? >> Okay. I move that we approve the the
recommended admission amendment um provided by Royal Sanders. Um, okay. I've lost >> right there. S Road >> the title. >> Okay. All right. >> Right there.
>> I move that we um we I move that we we approve the um SA road extension amendment one as provided by oil tanner. >> Motion made >> and I'll second it. >> Seconded by Carol. Any more discussion
from the board? And that is to fund or have them fund the rest of the peer review. Correct. >> I believe. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'd like to give you a roll call vote. Clockwise. >> Cindy King. Yes. Carol. Yes. >> King. Yes. >> Robert The Yes.
>> And Andrew. Yes. So I'd now like to uh entertain a motion to uh continue the public hearing till June 8th, 2026. Uh Beth, do we need a specific time at this point? >> Yes. 645. >> We'll do 645.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. Uh, roll call vote. >> Senator King. Yes. Officers. Yes. >> Yes. >> Robert. Yes. >> Andrew. Yes. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you folks. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All members of
the board. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Take care. >> Thank you. Okay. So that >> Yes. Mr. quickly ask the audience who did not get tired of conservation to follow up on that.
>> Um, >> anybody here get notified by conservation? >> So I think being outside got notified by no one >> Jim being outside of the public hearing at least planning board matters if you don't mind grabbing them outside the door or something. >> You know,
>> they mentioned it in the meeting. And I just wanted to be able to understand what was mentioned again. >> I gotcha. Okay. So, we're at 2.3, which was >> for a short recess. >> A short recess. >> Um, I've never had a recess before, but I'm sure we can. Is that a required by
vote or is >> I think >> I think I'd get one. >> Yeah, you can run. All right. >> Motion to recess for five minutes. >> I'll second that. I'll make the motion. >> Any discussion? Second. All >> all those in favor?
>> Do they have to stop? >> Okay, everybody. So, we're in we're going to be in recess for 5 minutes. If anyone needs to utilize the facilities, >> I suppose, grab dinner or call your family and tell them it's around late. >> Grab dinner and cook dinner. >> Yeah, grab dinner. It's too late for
that. >> Go home and have dinner. >> Public hearing at 9:09 and we'll start 2.3, which is planned for 7:30 p.m. I will be recusing myself, so I will leave. Someone can come grab me and I'll defer to you guys.
>> Good evening. This is Carol Hopsis, vice chair of the planning board and I'd like to open the public hearing for free road. I'd like to introduce the board members. >> Cindy King, >> Redk King, >> Robert Darian.
>> Well, you've already signed the public. >> I did. sign and sheet. There's a sign in sheet if you haven't already done that. And do you have a legal notice there for 2.3? >> We don't have to read it. Okay.
>> Okay. So, um, basically, um, this is an update from Kieran, the town interim town administrator. He's been working with the um applicant. So, um he wasn't able to attend
tonight's meeting, but the landowner has paid $1,800 um to stop the peer review. So, basically, we're going to continue the hearing to June 8th so that they have time for um to get us the information.
>> Right. Complete agreement. That's all there is over here. >> Okay. So, if there's no other comments, um, could I close the public here? >> No, you continue it. >> Oh, you continue it. Okay. >> Because you're going to get peer review
comments and then continue >> from and we'll get the peer review comments. >> I make a motion we can uh continue this through our next meeting or till June 8th. >> June 8th. >> June 8th. Why do you go for 7:30 again?
>> What was the other one was 6:45? >> 7:30. >> Okay. 7:30. >> I don't think C road will be over by then. >> Um I think it might be >> it'll be continued. >> I I don't know. I don't know if they'll
all come back to tell you the truth. >> I mean, there's a lot he's got a different project. There's a there's a lot he's got to go through and review here. So, >> you want a second? >> Second. >> Okay. So, Cindy second.
>> So, is that it? >> All those in favor? >> Oh, yeah. We got a vote. >> We need a vote. >> Cindy King, yes. >> King, yes. >> Robert, yes. >> Thank you. I'll pass this. Yes. >> Okay. Come back.
>> Sorry. So late. >> Thank you. >> See you. Good seeing you. >> Go get Andrew. >> I'll try to find him. >> Okay. Thank you. How are you guys? >> I missed you.
>> Oh, wow. I don't hear that a lot. >> Where you been? I >> haven't seen you. >> I gota be honest. I expected it to go. How long did the first one go? I thought I'd be outside for another hour. Um, okay. So, we've done all our ones. We've done all the twos.
Now we're in section three, meeting business. Um, we already took care of 3.1. Yep. So, I'd like to, you know, just for reference, 3.4 and 3.5 I'd like to push
to the next meeting. Um, so that we've already done 3.7 and 3.8. So I think the last two um main points of business for us are
3.2 and 3.6 which is the 108 Fsburg road aid age restricted development draft deed restriction and the um depot street condominium age restricted development draft master deed for the depot
condominium. So I had pulled up the we got some comments back from Adam Costa I believe. >> Yes, you did on one depot on the depot
>> specific to depot. I believe that depot has already recorded their deed which I think we voted on the voted to approve. I think we are waiting on the
>> 108 108 Pitchburg to see if we because the bylaws have changed whereas we are now we are now allowed to wave a conservation restriction for the smaller projects where it's >> I thought that was the one that was for depot road
>> technically it's for both depot made an effort to include some level of language in their deed and >> okay >> my impression we don't have the minutes but my impression was that we had approved the um
approved the draft deed for I don't does anyone remember it differently I don't >> yes no maybe no recollection um so I think and from talking briefly to Beth
about what could we postpone for tonight in the interest of Um the I don't want to speak I guess I'll ask you about the I think the thought was that even though we're now allowed to wave uh for new applications the conservation restriction requirement
because this was a application under the old rules which we were not allowed to the presumption is we are not allowed to w is that your correct interpretation >> yeah legal >> yeah is new >> official now or
>> that's what the guidance did. >> Yeah. >> What did that's what Adam said I think. >> Yeah. I you know I read Adam's email earlier but I can't point to the language where he says one way or another. Um what to do and at this time
I struggle to think that I'm going to find it. >> What did you say in the last sentence? I think he like said something >> the very last sentence. Is this Did he put Where's Where's the his opinion? Is it under 108 or is it under the other
one? >> It's under what? I think it's under depot. >> It's called external depot. >> Right at the top there. >> No, the back one. >> Okay. >> I just want to clarificate.
I couldn't read that one. Jeez. >> Elect to waver that conservation. There it is. >> I think 108 we did not vote anything >> and I think on Depot Street we did vote to accept the draft deed because he had
>> specific to the that's my recollection >> from the last week's meeting. >> I didn't do the >> but that's that was waivers on specific projects, right? that was I don't think that was
technically a waiver because Depot Street because he had language for a conservation restriction which was as required in his permit. >> He did provide >> he had language for it. >> He what >> he had language in his drafty for a conservation restriction. He he told us
it was somewhat of creative language due to the limits in space >> because it's a small parcel of land and you got five buildings. So, how much of you >> I think it's a technically a restriction on the open space that's already there. >> Yeah, that one's done. Correct.
>> Yeah. So, now you got the one up on Fitsburg Road, >> right? My only concern about that. I mean, we're hearing from the applicants
how difficult that is to achieve, right? Well, I the new bylaw purposely allows us to wave it. >> Oh, it does. >> But the the the sticky whatever is that
they the >> Does the new bylaw have a size limitation on it? >> I have absolutely no idea. >> No. >> Huh? >> No. >> No, you didn't give specific. You just put in the right to wave it. >> I don't see you still have to wave it
for each specific project >> is exactly is project specific. So if it's a little partial, you can elect to wave it before you approve. >> Well, the only concern is that I have as an afterthought Monday
morning quarterback. >> I know, right? >> Yeah. Put a time limit on it. >> We rely on what the applicant says. And when you think of the applicant, he's anxious to get these things completed and sold.
>> Yep. No, I agree. >> Um, we never asked to validate that information on any of them, you know? Do you know what I mean? >> No. Yeah. So
I think in the future we we need to take a more responsible role in making sure that's really the circumstances and not an opinion. This last the last sentence doesn't it
says if elimination of the conservation restriction requirement is desired an amendment of the planning board's decision is necessary. So to me that sounds that we can >> or an amendment >> to the bylaw. Right. >> No amendment to the decision
>> to the decision. Yeah. >> If if an elimination of the conservation restriction requirement is desired, an amendment of the planning board's decision is necessary. >> Oh, right. So, they do a modification to their special permit, which is the
process that we're doing for the solar array. It's the same process. >> So, they have >> So, they have two options. They they produce the CR or they file for a modification to their of their special. >> So, that that comes in the application. Is that is that
>> I think that's the way I read it. I just >> Okay. Because it sounds like I mean the word waiver was not used but >> that seems like the same thing. >> But as you're explaining that's you explain the process to make that happen. But >> I think the point of order would be if
we'd have the authority in this meeting tonight to wave it opposed to advise the applicant to submit a application for modification. >> Yeah. because the two would be opening which I think has some maybe notification requirements and then a public hearing
>> I believe >> common sense when you're doing a review >> so I think in that case um you know legal's advice um we probably either authorize that to reach out to the
applicant and say you can either submit drafted with language that's in it specific to the bylaws at the time of application or um you know submit for a modification and you know we can't promise anything but I think everyone
has expressed an openness to working with them >> and they provide some kind of rationale why they want relief >> I think so and not to speak for them but our last meeting they just said there's not a lot of space here >> so how do we circle back
>> trying to do one is such a nightmare that >> it would be very difficult because of the space. >> Yeah, I know there's not there wasn't a lot of space back there. >> How do we circle back to what Adam's comments on the date restriction is? >> Technically, Adam's I I'm kind of
confused or disappointed in the sense that I think Adam's comments are specific to the one that I thought we already voted to approve and accept. So, that deed restriction is as I think that's already been recorded for the depot road for depot.
>> Yeah. the the bylaws are already changed in terms of conservation restrictions. So we can wave it if we believe that the land mass is too small if someone's applying them to that >> in the future. That's technic you can look at it as fixed. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So I
I I don't know. Beth, would you know or Brett, you haven't said anything? Do you have any thoughts? >> No, we're just taking it all in. >> Okay, perfect. So Beth, would you need a vote from us to let the applicant know of Fitchburg Road to either submit a deed with the
restriction some level of wording in it or to submit a modification? >> Which one? >> For Yeah. No 108. >> Well, that that project was >> they they will not they will still need to do a conservation restriction. Is
that the question? >> No. I think we're under the assumption where there's they've got two avenues of options. We're not in the position to wave it. So we can either say because I think that's where we left I feel like >> based on the last meeting that's where we left it with them >> that we would have try to have a
decision here. Yeah. >> And I think the decision is essentially >> because you applied under the old bylaws legalist told us we're not allowed to wave it now. You can either submit a draft deed with the wording appropriate wording
for a conservation restriction or you can submit for an uh modification to your application. >> I think they actually have to provide the conservation restriction putting in master. >> It has to be drawn out by legal. A
conservation restriction is a legal document separate from the master's need. >> But what Adam said is if elimination of the conservation restriction requirement is desired, an amendment of the planning board's decision is necessary. >> Is that legal? >> Yeah, that's Adam's comment. That's
Yeah, >> that was on depot road, >> right? On that one, >> right on both. So 101. >> So wouldn't it be the same? But I think what we're doing is right the master beach shouldn't have any conservation restriction in it that has any flaws because it's a totally separate separate
document. >> So what depot street did is not it's it does not cover their um responsibility for conservation restriction in my understanding. Sure. >> Yeah. So their two options are come back and modify. Both of these applicants
could do the same thing because they're age restricted developments. They can come back and ask for a modification of their special permit approval, you know, taking that CR out. Board can decide whether they want it or not. Or they can um provide the CR.
>> I guess I'm under the impression because we already I think we already approved the depot road if that if because we already approved it. Are they >> Oh, their master deed. >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's a separate thing. Yeah.
We didn't we didn't approve the deeds on any of those. I thought I thought I thought we voted to accept >> Was that last our last meeting? >> Yeah, I think so. >> Um, so >> yeah. >> So, that makes sense to send it to both
of them to do >> the modification of the permit. >> Yep. >> And then we most likely will approve. >> Yep. So, I think it seems like that's what >> decision options are.
So I I guess entertain a motion to authorize Beth to communicate with the applicants and recommend, you know, resub or submitting for modification. >> So moved. >> I'll second it. >> Second. All those or roll call.
>> Cindy King, yes. Carol Hoses, yes. >> King, yes. >> Robert Thean, yes. >> Andrew Shepard, yes. Um, we could go in the notices from other towns or awards certificates and whatnot. I think I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn. I would too.
>> I move to adjourn. I'll second it. All >> those in favor? I like.