Uh, good evening everybody. Um, my name is Robert Theion. I'm chairing the board tonight on behalf of um, Andrew Shepard. Um, so the meeting is being called to order.
Can I have a roll call, please? >> Carol Hoffus, present. >> Bartley Plushaw, present. >> Brett King, present. >> Thank you. Can we do the pledge of algiance to the flag of the United States of
America to the republic for its one nation? [Music] We want to thank all our public servants, the veterans and our military personnel um who are dedicating their careers and
lives to serve our community. >> Um I do have to make uh a deletion on number 2.3.
Um, apparently we already reviewed that article and we need to um delay the approval of amendments of September 15th.
>> Oh, no. I'm sorry. The 22nd. >> Uh, the 15th are there. >> I'm sorry. Uh, September 22nd. Um so a um
so starting with the uh special town meeting uh recap. >> Oh, do you want to do the minutes of September 15th? >> Do we have the minutes of September 15th? >> Yes. Carol, could you read them for us, please?
>> You want me to read them all? >> Well, I could read it. I mean, >> well, um >> Oh, do you want to just take a quick peek? >> Have the board members reviewed the minutes? >> Well, I have. >> I have not. >> Okay. Um
>> I think we should delay that till the next meeting. >> You haven't read them either. >> Huh? >> You haven't had a chance to read them or >> I didn't either. >> No, that's fine. >> Okay. So, then just delay. I >> I think all members are entitled to redo them before.
>> Okay. So, you want to delay those minutes? >> Yes. >> Until the next meeting, the >> September 15th. >> Yes, we're going to delay the minutes of September 15th um until all the board members have had a chance to an opportunity to review
them. The um next article is the special town meeting of September 25th. Uh do we have the recap? >> I didn't go. So I thought it might be an
opportunity for you guys to >> Well, I'd like to make a statement about that. >> Okay. No, go for it. >> I think the planning board did a brilliant job. >> You did a very good job >> presenting it. >> Yes. explain to the public at large what
the circumstances were and uh I expected a lot of um feedback from the public but apparently we did a very comprehensive job of
reporting to them. They seem to fully understand everything happened and the vote went relatively quickly. Um, I want to compliment everybody on this board that spent over two and a half years working on a very challenging
bylaw. The bylaw that was presented was accepted by the attorney general. Um, and um, the end product is what satisfied the state requirements.
Um, and I think we did a brilliant job with the zoning bylaws that were associated with those to work in the best interest of the community. Um, so compliments to all of you. Thank you
very much for your efforts and support. Um, any discussion or questions about that? Okay. Um, I want all the members of the board to have independent comments on
anything that's addressed at this meeting tonight. Um, do you have any, Carol, >> on the town meeting? >> Yes. >> No, I mean, Andrew did a very good job doing a presentation at the town meeting,
>> right? Hardly. I agree. He he did a superb job. >> I agree with both. I'm glad. I think we all did a great job. Thank you. Um the next article uh 2.2
is the log book solar annual vegetation report. Um so we have to act upon this report. Um and um >> it's the annual report.
>> Do you want to give us a >> Sure. Yeah. Um so years ago when the project was originally approved um there was um a vegetative screening there's a condition on the site plan permit which
um required the permittee to monitor that planting over the years. Um they have done that over the years. Um the last report is you guys have before you basically the changes are the the vegetative screening was completely
removed. So um as a board you can discuss and deliberate how you want to proceed. You can accept the report you can you know discuss your options and it's perfectly fine. But that is the last report. >> All right. If you all remember, um
the original, um approved permit required, um a pretty dense vegetation along the roadway um to obstruct the view of the solar
facility. Um what we learned last year was the vegetation that was planted wasn't surviving and um it was dying and the objective of
the original intent of the approval um now is before the board um as to what actions should be taken. So, I'm open to the floor here on their thoughts. Uh, have any of you driven by
the location at all? >> Not recently. Right. >> But I mean, I've seen it. I've been by it, but I haven't been by it, >> right? >> Recently. >> Do you have any recent photos of it? >> Uh, they're in the report. >> Uh, so I think I printed it out here.
>> Were the pictures in there? I guess I didn't go far. that the um person that did the report. Oh, yeah. I should be in here. Sorry. >> Uh there you go. >> Have you all seen this? >> No, I I didn't get my packet. Beth sent
me everything late because I I just got sworn in. So, I I didn't have time to to read it. >> We all had the same issue. >> Uh but I I did get it. I just I didn't have time this afternoon. >> Yeah. Well, >> where what is the address for this? >> 22 West Meadow. >> Okay. Okay. So taking a look at this
very casually here. Um you can see it's very open space right now and the um the it's it's visible to the roadway the public roadway. Um the original vegetation was I think it was spruce
trees. Uh >> yeah um they it should be in the report but there was yeah there was quite a few trees and shrubs. So, there was a pretty dense number of spruce trees that were originally planted.
Um, I don't know if it was from neglect or maintenance or whatever, but they didn't survive. And I was by there probably nine months ago and uh, you know, it was very apparent that it wasn't doing what the
intent was. >> Well, okay. This is September 26, 2025. >> So the last paragraph says, "This year's inspection revealed that the property owner has since mowed the field and removed all remaining planted trees and
shrubs. As a result, no plantings associated with the approved landscape plan remain on site. Um, and some of the trees did die. And that's been a problem in the past where the owner has
plowed over some of their plantings and then they've replanted them. Um I know Beth has said that that she's received no butter complaints. >> I haven't there's no red documents of
anybody complaining. Um, Hartley, did you um I I just want to take a look at this for a second. >> Now, once again, this would be a proposal to build a uh >> No, no, this is not a proposal.
>> No, this is a PL. This is the solar array if on what is it? West Meadow. It's in a field. All these solar panels, they sit in a field. >> Okay. >> And if you can look here,
>> um I think the panels are out there. So this is a So they were they were supposed to be putting like along the roadway all these trees and plantings to shield the solar array from the road. >> Right. And this is like the fifth year.
And they've been having problems with they lease the land. So there's a farmer that sometimes plows over their plantings. They've replanted them. Sometimes they die for whatever reason. And now again, I guess in this last
letter, he's whatever died, whatever was remaining, he plowed them over again. So >> So there's two issues here. Um, one, what was originally approved. Two,
the planting that was originally installed has not survived. And this is under the scenic roadway zoning bylaw. Um, so,
um, I'd like to survey the board here with what action or thoughts they have about coming up with a remedy for this issue.
First of all, uh, forgive me. I'm I came into the committee uh, relatively uh, came to the board relatively late. So, this was something that happened >> decided. Oh, sure. Sorry. Decided before I I got here, but okay. So, basically,
um, the people running the solar facility. >> They lease it from the property owner. >> They lease it from the property owner and they agreed that they would be planting the trees that would shield the
solar facility from the road. Mhm. >> The the issue here, okay, is not the relationship between the land owner and the solar company, >> right? >> Okay. The relationship is with the property in the town of Townsen.
So, um, that's what we're talking about. And I don't think we I don't think as a board that we have to address why the problem happened or how it happened and who's responsible for
what. That's my personal thoughts on this. Okay. Um and again um personally I think the intent of the bylaw should be delivered. Um,
and it does fall under the scenic road bylaw and was also what the original planning board approved. So regardless of the failure of the trees, the requirement still remains in my mind. >> So they tried planting
>> unless we as a board >> say it's really not an issue and it doesn't impact the community. Um, and then we can give them a directive to just keep an open space
or there may be some other alternatives that a board member may want to suggest. Tell me, was this primarily um because of the scenic value of the area? the the they the they the
the decision was made because the uh the solar facility looked out of place and they figured putting trees there would make it more >> um chair can I can I answer that >> it's in the bylaw >> if you are going to get a permit for a
solar array uh a vegetative screen is required >> okay so it's it's it's required >> it's a requirement so the what's being presented to the board is what action should be taken.
One, you can look at this as saying it's not detrimental to the community and waver the bylaw requirement for this situation. And if you did so, I would think that you would want to document your basis
for doing that. Um, you know, to support your decision to do that. Otherwise, I think we have to look at what the original intent was, what the bylaw was and uh make uh some
decision on what should be done. >> Um >> the intent was met. It's just they either got fought over or died or >> Well, yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, originally they they had all the screening,
>> but it's the responsibility of this board to enforce what was approved and >> um so it is within your scope as a board to say doesn't see appear that envying will
ever survive there and um and accept the condition the way it is. Um it's cited in the report as non-complying. It's a problem. It doesn't say non-compliant, but it says a problem. Um, and so we as
a board um have to provide an action uh directive. Um, so um so uh here is the actual report.
When was this uh done? >> Oh, that's a different project. Sorry. >> Oh, sorry. >> Oh, this is the report. >> That's it. Yeah. >> Only because I was just looking at the side by side. I mean, these trees look like they were nice and now they're all gone.
>> Um, I don't know if that's because they were removed or they died, but they look pretty healthy there. >> Okay. If I observe the pictures myself or with you people um
>> it's like yeah it looks >> like it was there it was growing and now it's like all >> what's the time frame between the pictures property owners mowing it but the trees
were healthy they were just removed last summer >> right >> they were currently >> there's no >> Is somebody mowing it or is it >> Yeah, >> it's just >> It looks fine. Yeah, it looks well cut. Yeah, like a hayfield, if you will.
>> Yeah, cuz last year's pictures you could see the growth. And I mean, this looks pretty good here, but it's a little scraggly, but now it's all gone. >> Right. And these pictures are taken from the road. >> Yes. >> Towards the array. towards you, right?
>> Yeah. Oh, yeah, I do. Yeah, I see. >> Do you have an opinion? >> Well, um my opinion is I really don't have an opinion. if if uh if everyone's happy with the way it is now uh and you know I don't see any reason
to to force anyone to client vegetation there on the other hand I'm thinking um if if the the intent of this of course this is in in the bylaw so it's a general thing but I'm thinking uh
is anyone from that neighborhood or the area um have have a problem with seeing the solar facility from the road uh and and and saying, "Well, that, you know, that's in congruous that that doesn't look like it's it belongs here. Why
don't they plant a few trees to obscure it?" Um kind of like some of the issues that come up when people build, you know, cell phone towers and they try to make them look like trees. >> But if no one's really objecting to the way it is now, if no one has a problem
with the way it is now, I just leave it as it is. Carol. >> Yeah. I mean, I know that they've been planting over the the years of replanting and either stuff doesn't grow or what for whatever reason. And if
nobody's objecting to the appearance, then I'm okay with leaving it. >> Your thoughts? >> My thought should be, do I have a conflict here with knowing the land owner? And >> I don't think so. No,
>> I I don't think so to be honest. I'm not sure. I mean, >> you're not involved with the property at all. >> No, you have no financial gain. >> No financial gain. So, um >> he's my fire chief. So, he's my fire chief. So, >> Oh, yeah. So, right.
>> Um so, I just want to be careful not knowing. But, um I I side with Heartley. Yeah. >> I I if there's no complaints and it it looks neat and wellkept, >> um the intent was met. You know, I wonder if really last winter was the
first winter that we've had snow and ice >> and if that road got salted heavy. >> Oh, then it would have killed killed everything. >> Did in fact kill the trees because we haven't really it's no rice, >> you know, because you got that salt run off. >> And I I I don't think it's fair to ask
someone to just keep replanting trees that are going to die. >> That's my feeling is they they have been replanting them over the years. What if the board was to accept the
conditions the way they are, what would that legally require? >> Um, I think it would just be a vote of the board to accept the report and to um
not require any additional, you know, um >> Okay. So, >> any additional replication. It's not a waiver or anything. >> No, cuz the permit's already granted. Uh that sort of thing. But yeah, you just give some reasons. You know, you're
you're perfectly fine. Um you know, >> well, your other option is you can ask for other screaming things like the fake lines on the fence or something. I don't know. That looks worse than the fence. I
>> Well, that would look Yeah. No. >> Yeah. I've seen that on other arrays. >> Really? No, I like I hate that fake stuff, especially when they make the the cell towers look like a fake tree. It looks worse than the cell tower. >> Y
um this may not be within our area of jurisdiction, and if it isn't, then my apologies, but has anyone tried to figure out why those trees died? I mean, there might be something in the soil that might >> No, there's there's vegetation reports going back five years. All right.
>> Yeah. >> I I'm going to make my opinion on this. Okay. >> Um I don't think it's our concern as to why they died,
who's maintaining them, how they're being maintained. Okay. So, I'm looking at a situation that does not meet the requirements of the bylaw. Um, and that was the understanding at
the time it the solar facility was allowed. And personally in my mind, a solar facility is sort of an industrial looking site because it's producing electricity.
Um whether people have taken the time to complain about it or not um doesn't alter the requirements as far as I see.
So I would think that it's the burden of the property owner who is obtaining the revenue from the solar plant to meet the requirement. Um, I also
have a long-term concern that although it may not be objectionable now, solar collectors notoriously are not replaced when they fail
and there's no bonds or anything to guarantee they're removed. >> There is. Sorry, chair. >> Huh? >> There is. >> There is. >> Yes. required in the bylaw. >> So that would be you answered that question. Thank you. >> Um so
uh at that point there would be some complaints. So I'm in favor of enforcing the requirement to vegetate that area. I think whoever
is responsible for it has to pay attention to how the what's going on with the vegetation and doing what's needed to keep it surviving. Um, and that's kind of my
consensus. I don't want to get into the issue of who's doing what and whose responsibility it is. Um so that's my opinion. Um so any more com uh discussion
so anyone want to make a motion? >> Um okay do we Oh I can make a motion where to accept the report as written. No, >> no. >> To take action on this
>> to take action on whether we're going to enforce the plantings or not the plantings. >> Say what? >> Are we going? What is the action? To have them continue. >> A motion. Someone has to make a motion
or an action here. to continue the planting >> to require the vegetation be replaced or ask the board to vote to leave it as it is.
So if you leave it as it is, are there any other requirements for maintenance there? >> This is the end of the five-year plan, right? This is the only uh the last year that reporting on the vegetative screen will
occur by professional. So, but that doesn't mean you can take it down. >> Um so, >> so it just means we're not going to get an annual vegetation report anymore >> anymore whether we require them to replant.
>> Correct. So if we require them to replan and we no longer get a ve a vegetation report, unless we go up physically and inspect it, we won't know if the vegetation, >> you know, why don't you read the
condition out loud? That might help board members understand a little more. >> Okay. The owner or operator is to inform the planning board by submitting a vegetative screening status report annually. said report will include
monitoring data collected by a professional aberist in assessment of the viability and health status of the plantings installed for screening the project. This report shall be submitted for 5 years from the start of
construction. If in the opinion of the planning board, additional screening is necessary, no more than an additional 50% of screening plantings as agreed to in the original plan will be required.
>> So basically, there's nothing there. You have to just kind of figure out what you're going to do with that condition because that's a condition of approved permit and it's a we have an as with the whole array. Um
maybe you had an as okay >> with the array. >> So this is the last of this will be the last report. And then it says we could only request 50% of this original planting.
So, if we require them to plant and there's no more reports, unless we physically go up there and inspect ourselves >> or a complaint arrives later >> or a complaint arrives later,
>> right? >> Um, so I mean, we could ask them to put in whatever 50% of whatever was there. Well, if I understand that properly,
um the report is supposed to report on the condition that's there by a um a expert in the bank field who a I would assume would know the
species of plantings that are there and what the nutrient and water requirements are. So, um it indicating that the trees have failed to survive or the
plantings and why that didn't indicate why um >> well >> or whether the species were appropriate. >> Okay, let me read the whole letter. I'll read the whole letter.
Dear Chair Shepard and members of the board, on behalf of the applicant, Lockbrook Solar LLC, Bees and Thomas Incorporated is writing to provide a summary of our annual landscape monitoring. And this is from Beals and
Thomas. um monitoring performed on August 27th, 2025 in accordance with condition 8 of the site plan approval, which is the one I just read. In 2024, it was reported that 20 trees remained
on site. This included 16 of the original 22 trees planted in 2021 and four replacements that were installed in August of 2023. At that time, all trees were observed to be surviving and growing with a more recently planted
specimen showing slower establishment as expected. This year's inspection revealed that the property owner has since mowed the field and removed all remaining planted trees and shrubs. The result, no plantings associated with the approved landscape
plan remain on site. And that's and then that's all the pictures. Um this letter represents the final monitoring report required under condition 8 of the site plan approval. With this submission, all monitoring duties have been fulfilled
and no further landscape monitoring is anticipated. So the question is I guess we got to go and ask them to plant. >> Hello. Um we're having a discussion here. So
um obviously this is the last monitoring we have. >> Mhm. >> Um based on that report, some trees have survived, right? >> No, they're all gone. >> Huh? >> No. >> No, they're all been removed. >> They've all been removed, >> right?
>> So they didn't ask us to remove them. Is it? >> No, this it was the property owner removed them, >> right? Without asking us about it. >> But it's his property, so I guess he feels he could remove it.
>> What I see is somebody just wants for maintaining it and found an easy way out. >> I mean, this is not an easy an easy >> It seems like they've consistently been dying now. I read that there were some live ones that got removed or not, but
>> and they seem to >> seems like they they were for a while consistently replacing them. >> Yeah. So, I mean they've been they have replaced them several times. Um >> well
um do you want to make a motion >> to >> or does anyone on the board >> What are we going to make a motion for to >> to accept it the way it is or to replenish and meet the original intent?
Um, okay. I can make a motion to accept the final report as presented or um required 50% screening as
stated in paragraph 8. >> So, does that mean continue? >> Do we continue? Do we continue to Okay, I guess I'm getting confused on the motion. Do we want to continue with the vegetation? Does it make sense?
>> Or leave it as it is. >> Or leave it as it is. >> That's where I would make a motion. >> All right. So, >> one or the other. >> All right. I'll make a motion to accept the final uh report as stated. >> No, no, >> no,
>> no. It's an action. We have to tell the owner to either restore it and maintain as required or we accept him not accept the property as unscrim
>> Right. It really has nothing to do with the report. The report is just >> right. >> Okay. So >> those are the two things we have to decide on or one of the other. I'll make a motion to accept the property as described today.
>> Okay. Any discussion? >> Yeah. All right. You want to move the article? Anyone second? I second it. Okay. You want to take a vote? >> Yeah. I'll vote yes. >> I vote yes.
>> Yes. >> I vote no. >> Okay. All right. And All right. Um and We uh
I guess we're doing administrative reports. >> Yeah. Do you want to read through it on your own and just ask me any questions you might have? There are a couple of things in here that require uh review by you. Um, I printed out the
annual storm water report from 108 West Meadow and I put it in your folder there. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, I want to just check it over, see if there's anything >> right >> of interest. >> Have you all seen this? >> Which one is that one?
[Music] >> Okay. Yes, sir. Okay. So, we have a report in one white west meadow that's from the storm water authority.
Um, I'll give the public a summary of what it says. final grading vegetated satisfactory maintenance. That's a requirement um for stable slopes and no corrosion.
The comments were yes established plants vegetation fully established stabilization of slopes. Um item two, storm water structure free of debris, rocks, roots, sediment, etc.
Yes, it was natural state, no debris. Uh any fencing or security? Not applicable. Swale stabiliz stabilized as designed.
Yes. SWS free of ponding. Yes. discharge points and receiving waters free of sediment deposits. Yes. So, all those met the requirements. The next item was evidence of sentiment being tracked into the street or off
property. There was a problem and it's been corrected. Do you want to describe that to us? >> Oh. Oh, yeah. They had um they had run off going off along the part of the driveway and then the board asked them to put some crushed stone down. So I
think that's what he's referring to. >> There was water run off into the street >> across the front line. Yeah. And then they installed um some crushed stone. >> Yeah, it's working. >> So that problem has been corrected. None of the other items are applicable.
Um I make a motion we accept the report as presented. I'll make a motion to accept the report as presented. >> You want a second? Second. >> I should have said 108-110 West metal. >> All right. Let's move the article. All
in favor? >> I Okay. Um what is this? 2.4. These are So that's all correspondence that is associated with the um administrative report. I
printed out a few things. I think if you want to >> want to read >> prompt me, I'll help you. No, you don't have to read all of them. If you just prompt me, I'll update the board. I think one of them is 324 Main Street. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So So you can just if you want
read that. It's pretty short. We got an email from the engineer. >> Omar Mgali has inquired about increasing the size of one of the underground storage tanks at his site at 324 Main Street.
The tank will increase from 12,000 gallons to 15,000 gallons. The increase in storm water volume will have no impact on the overall layout of the site. traffic circulation, traffic
generation or the storm water system. The concrete cover pad will become a little large to accommodate a water tank. Please find attached copy of the plan with the subject tank noted on it.
We have not yet applied for a fuel storage license. So, this change will not impact the process. Updated plans will be sent to the fire and chief fire chief for review. So this is the old gas
station. Yeah, the sping school. Um I have no problem with increasing the capacity. It's only going to be better than than not. So um anybody wants to
see the site plan or proposed plan? >> I don't think we have to take any action. I'm not doing that. >> Nope. You can just you know just I'll just note that the board acknowledged receipt. Right. >> And I am expecting one more updated plan to come in which I'll keep on file.
>> Um just I did speak with the engineer and he did you know confirm there will be no change in imperial surface. So, no effect on storm water, right? >> Nothing that the planning board has permitted and approved. So, >> um and and hopefully they'll start in
the spring. >> Yeah. >> So, I told them about the new playground that opened across the street. So, you know, >> Yeah. make it look >> sparkle over there. >> Yeah. Feeling it will generate tax revenue. >> Yeah.
>> The next one here is uh 18 Main Street. >> Yeah. which is the new Starbucks facility. >> Uh I was just down there the other day. It looks pretty nice. >> That does look good. I was think yesterday. Yeah. >> Um it's just uh documentation.
Um they provided the inspection forms for August and September. Um progress pictures, grading, final grading. So, I was there myself and it looked really well done
and professionally executed. >> Um, and this one here [Music] I don't it's just a little documentation about communication. >> Oh, yeah. That's 18 Main Street as well.
This is the construction >> that was uh related to number 18. >> Y >> and um so this is the administrative report. >> Yeah. So if you see anything on there
that you want to have any questions on, I'm not going to read the whole thing because it's pretty comprehensive. It's just an update on all the construction projects, permits, action that going on. Um I don't think
>> um again as Beth has summarized um I can read all of this but it's just uh a progress report on everything that we're involved with right now and how um
you know how they're being responded to. Um, so it's just a progress on various projects. [Music] >> Um, >> there's no red flags anywhere. I see.
>> You may want to notice, um, >> what was 108 Pittsburgh Road? What was that? >> Uh, that's the age restricted development. Um, the 8 unit age. >> Oh, right down on Depot Street there. Yeah. >> Yep. And that may be starting up in the spring. I I kind of waiting to hear from
the developer. Um, and leave there, aren't they? >> No. >> Everything's completed, permitted, ready to go. >> Just waiting on him to get the building permits. >> All right. Um, and the master plan's being updated.
>> Yep. We got that done. Um, I didn't realize it, but you guys had already signed the the form that I needed you to sign. So, >> we're all set. I just need to get that um PDF and and back up on the website. So, I'm working on that. Um, the Burgess
Road application, I think that's involving removal part of an existing stone wall. >> Yep. That's coming up on the 20th at your next meeting. So, if you want to take a ride by, it's 35 Burges Road. Okay. And he's just basically making a
U-shaped driveway. So, he's going to remove the stone wall and and make it so he can do it a U-turn. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think uh probably the biggest one would be zero Mason Road.
>> Yes. Yeah, you have that. I brought the folder if you guys wanted to. So, look at that. >> So, this is a preliminary subdivision. >> Yeah. >> Um they're proposing house lots access Michael's Way through Brook
Crossing subdivision. >> Yeah. So, they're going through a subdivision on an existing road. Is that correct? >> Yep. >> Um Beth is organizing review and
receiving comments internally. There's no public hearing on this application. Um do you want to comment on that, Beth? Yeah, for preliminary subdivision is
strictly um planning board review of the submitted application. Um we collect we collected a consulting fee. So um I did hire Hoy Tanner to do a review and I expect that to come in hopefully by
November 1st. So you can take action you know on the six. >> All right. So, >> but in the meantime, you're getting comments right now from >> So, that's in process. Okay. >> So, if you look in the folder, you're
getting your review comments. You've got some already from um the building commissioner has dropped some in there. It's a file that I've made. So, >> I didn't see any negative comments. They were all positive. At least the ones that I read were all positive.
>> Exactly. So, I'm expecting a comment from the town clerk regarding access through Michael's way. What he'll do is he'll go back and he will um you know just verify that indeed is a public road and you know that the developer has access and and that kind of thing. So,
>> so that's a town road. >> Michael's Way is Yes. And right now it's a dead end. So, but I think it's actually >> So, the extension will be town owned or will it be private? What what >> the road extension to the new >> the extension will be private I would
imagine but I'm not sure that's going to come up you know if you want to look at the uh application all that should be in the narrative >> of the application >> well that's something that's coming forward or have a chance to really look at it
>> yeah and I'm trying to get comments from fire and police because it's a it's a just a little bit unusual it's not like a cold call this act Right. >> Well, it's going to have it looked like a turn. I know one of the comments it was supposed like a turnaround. >> Yeah.
>> Um and they made a comment that the fire trucks I think was the highway guy or the building guys. >> Yeah. >> Actually, they're going to extend that area. >> This is the plan. See, >> it's got this funky little
>> proposed culde-sac with 240. Is it from here to here? circum what kind of circumference about 200 no 240 ft from that point to that point. So I am thinking >> I don't know. I don't I don't think that
could be >> a weird >> Oh. Oh, I see what you're saying. >> You see it comes off of Michael's way here. I'll let you watch proposed color. We're calling it a This is what we were going to do. Michael's way coming in here and then
back out there. So that's an inlet and a >> Okay. Sure. >> What is your width here? Does anybody see that? >> I don't see it. >> No. Um nothing.
>> That's a 20 foot driveway there. Yeah. Looks like it's uh 24 ft wide. >> Okay. And this driveway was noted already is going to be really long on the driveway. >> It might be it might be 28 ft wide. My
rough scale here scale. >> Yeah, but I don't have anything to I I just use it. It came out came out to about 28 ft. >> Anything. >> I'm sorry. But >> I haven't been to the site yet, but
>> pretty um 10 20 30. [Music] >> Yeah.
>> It's for 24p. 24p. All right. Okay. So, let's see. So, we see the five lots, five buildings. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Five house lots and eventually
they would like to um apply for a special permit for an open space preservation development. >> Meaning, you know, they meet the minimum 10 acres and um >> they did re they do meet that. >> They do meet it. Yeah. And uh they the required um ratio of upland to wet.
>> It's it's a squeak by but it works. It >> does. >> Yep. >> They worked out on this one. >> Yep. Oh yeah. A couple of different uh preliminary plans came before and and we had been tossed, you know, tossed them around to staff. >> So there is what's this here?
>> Uh this is 100 foot well radius. So each lot has septic. I don't know where the septic is on these though. Do you see it? Yeah, here it is. I have these guys. Thank >> Okay, I don't see any issues with it.
>> Yep. And so far so good. All the comments are coming in, you know, and um >> we'll wait for oil and tanner. Um but you guys >> make a decision. Uh the waivers are also in the application. So I would recommend that you review all the waivers
requested. Oh, how many are there? >> Um, let's just take a quick look. Okay, I don't think I read the co application. Not too many. Uh, 14524D. The minimum distance between any two
common driveway entrances shall be 500 ft. What? Yeah. Why are they asking for that? >> Why are they asking for a waiver from that? Given the proposed configuration of the lots and the culdeac and the
existing topography, >> two common driveways are proposed less than 100 ft apart. >> They're only 100 ft apart. So there's a common driveway. >> Okay. >> That looks like a good 30 ft, right?
That's >> okay. And then >> that might be a long one in equals. >> Well, that's an easy one. >> So this one and then this one, right?
>> No, you got one. This is the road. So you got a driveway up for these three and then you got this little common driveway. I guess I'd call it, you know, >> brick reinvent. >> I don't see that's not really >> that does not Yeah, I'm not sure.
>> Oh, so retaining walls. I didn't know we had a regulation about that. >> What would you need a retaining wall for unless you were >> on a steep slope? >> Steep slope. Yeah, but you wouldn't you wouldn't call this you wouldn't have a common driveway
off a common driveway, right? This would all just be considered one common driveway. >> No, I would think this would have to be the public road or the private road. >> And I would call this a driveway because it would go with the property owner. >> Right. >> Right. But this would be the public
road. Right. Just this we call culdeac would be a public way. >> Well, it's privately owned, but a common roadway for everybody, >> right? call it a common road, right? And then here's your two your two common driveways are one here >> and then this serves these two and then you have one common here that serves
these three >> within a proposed straight line. >> So this would be just a driveway off the right >> that's more than ft. This one's not, but >> but I'm not sure what he's asking to w it for because it says stone for
>> driveway to driveway >> suit material, >> but he doesn't say what >> Yeah, this one. This one is definitely less than 500. They really need they're going to do it, but they don't say. >> So, I would think if they weren't using
one of these materials that they'd be asking for a waiver for a different kind of material like >> Oh, no. I think what it is is that they're required to construct it outside the street lines and they're saying we're going to need to construct it >> within the
talking about retaining walls. >> Okay, I got it. >> Within the proposed street line, >> right? That would be well it's it's the actual >> that's a waver. >> Okay. >> So, this would be your your retaining wall right here. >> Okay. >> Around the culdeac. And then is this
another one? >> Looks like there's another one. There's another one there. So this is a retaining wall and this is a retaining wall. >> Okay. >> So the two retaining walls around the what's called a road >> and then you have a common driveway here that serves these two and then this is a common driveway that serves these three.
>> Awesome. >> So I think the what they're looking for is there's less than five. What is it? 500 feet or 100 feet in between common driveways? >> 500 >> 500. So there's a lot less than >> that's way extravagant. But this one here where they're talking about
retaining walls, I guess in our regulations, they're supposed to be constructed outstrip outside the street lines >> and uh of the development and they're just asking to put the retaining walls within the proposed street lines because
they have topography constraints potentially. And this one is um 17516B3. street shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. And then basically they're just
saying the proposed street will extend directly from Michael's way. So they don't have to worry about that. Um and this one the maximum grade for any street shall not exceed 9% in any part of its length and the minimum shall be at least 75% unless in specific cases
the board shall otherwise determine. They're saying the maximum proposed center line grade >> let's go back to the sign for the road >> the this one here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So the maximum grade for any street shall not exceed 9%.
>> So he wants relief on that. >> Yes. Because they're going to um propose centerline grade of 11% in the culdeac. >> In the culpas >> within the culdeac as a proposal. So that's a waiver they're asking for there. Right. So that you can go to 11%.
>> Yeah. on that straight away. Um and the next one is 17516B10 problem with ice or snow or >> um well you know the civil engineer will guide you on that
>> because he will be or they she he whoever and Tanner will be providing um commentary on all of the waiverss. We want to make some notes on >> 11% 11% is is steep >> is steep. Yeah. Okay. So, the proposed
uh the next one is the proposed centerline grade shall not be more than 5t above or below the existing center line grade unless specifically authorized by the board in unusual topographical circumstances. H I don't
know if I really understand that but a maximum difference of nine vertical feet between the proposed centerline grade and existing centerline grade is proposed within the right of way. Do you get that? >> All right. So >> I don't get that. >> What's going on here is that
semi-ircular area >> y >> has some very serious grading issues. >> Okay. And so they're asking for relief, >> okay, >> on the slope of the road. >> All right.
>> Asking for relief to provide retaining walls. >> Okay. >> Right. So I think that's a very serious issue here. Um and we'll have to rely on the site engineers to give us a better
idea how serious it is. Um, but if you look at the topography, see all those little lines closer together? >> That's how steep the slope is. >> A lot of >> right where the color sack is. Okay? See how they're close together? >> Okay.
>> That's big topography changes. >> Okay. >> Rapidly. Okay. Um, so I see that area as probably being forced to make it all
happen. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. >> So, the next one is loop streets having only a single outlet will not be permitted except where such loop streets are deemed by the planning
board to be in the public interest. uh blah blah blah. >> That would be my street. >> It's in the public. >> I said I'mma on a loop street. >> This one says loop streets have only a single outlet. Having only a single outlet will not be permitted except
where such loop streets are deemed by the planning board to be in the public interest. >> Okay. So >> this only one way out of that. >> Yeah. One way in, one way out. That's where I live. One way in. So we have to determine if that's a problem or not
really or >> so. Oh, here it says the proposed roadway is an extension of Michael Way and does not provide a second outlet. The proposed culdeac is suitable for the maneuvering of the towns in fire apparatus. We don't need we don't need it.
>> So we can get a fire truck. >> Yes. 17516B18. More than one access street for entrance and exit into or out of the subdivision shall be provided on an existing way unless there is a finding by the board
that such additional street or streets are not necessary. And again, the proposed roadway is an extension of an existing town road and does not include a second access street. Extension of the roadway does include a culde-sac with a turnaround area suitable for emergency
vehicles. >> So those are the waiverss >> each one independently that we'd have to grant. >> Yeah. >> So unfortunately it it there's no second means of egress today for Michael's way. >> I know. you know, so it's like they're
they're asking for a waiver. >> So I mean what we look at is >> on the whole length from beginning to end, including Michael's way. >> Um how many units might be involved in that roadway?
And then the next thing is reports from the fire department is do they see any problem with it? The police department if they see any problem with that long road with the dead end. Um, so with
their input, we'll be able to decide what's best. >> Yep. >> Um, >> so and then there were two more, but this one is sidewalks and then the requirement of sidewalks and then >> this one all the time. We got to change that by law. I think
>> like a stellar rural community this >> Well, we have sidewalks on one side of the street, not both. I don't know why they say both sides. >> Actually, in the winter time, never. And then in the summertime when the brush
grows up over the sidewalks and I have to call the town to come cut the brush down >> so you can walk down the sidewalks and there are places on the sidewalk that they're people don't realize that they own out to the sidewalk and they should
be cutting it. You It's this high. I think that's something this board should look into as far as >> modifying the bylaw. >> Yes. >> It would seem to me that sidewalks would
be more important depending on the density of the road. >> In other words, oh yeah, >> how many houses are going to be placed? >> Well, and I'd say pre-existing condition, too, right? Because there's no sense of putting sidewalks there >> if there's no sidewalks in that
subdivision, >> right? exist. >> Oh, right. I agree. >> What we're what we're talking about, See, one of the problems that we've had continuously is our current bylaw is very outdated in
our care. Um, so prior to getting involved with the MBTA stuff, we were working on specific bylaw modifications and clarifications and changes. So,
one of the things this board might want to consider is having individuals review a specific bylaw and make comments and recommendations and bring them to the board. So, this it's almost
an insurmountable task to replace the entire bylaw. So what our focus I was anyway in the earlier planning boards was to address the ones that are most challenging right now that
all the regulatory boards and Tom have complaints with >> and we've addressed some of them. Some of them are like the sound by law and some of them were other things that the building department was getting calls on. They didn't know how to execute. So
this um this in the subdivision classification or group um I think that we would want to think about modifying the sidewalk bylaw based on
the project type. Okay. So, for example, just I'm just speculating here, >> but somebody comes into the MBDA buil uh district and builds a threestory
building with 80 apartments in it. Um, I think we might want to think about sidewalks in a situation like this where we have a new subdivision for five houses. um >> no sidewalks in the existing subdivision,
>> right? You know, so >> so does a is a bylaw change, >> but if we make that bylaw adjustment, then we wouldn't have to give variances all the time. >> Can the bylaw can the planning board change the bylaw or does it have to go to the town? >> We can. >> What has to go?
>> It goes to town meeting. >> Oh, so so the bylaw change would have to go to town. >> We make a recommendation. >> Yeah. Right. >> It goes on the town meeting warrant. >> Right. So we explain it to the town. >> Sure. why we're making the change and they vote. >> Can I just um just add to that? If
you're changing a regulation that does not go to town, meeting vote. Okay. So, anything in the planning board regulations just has to be decided upon at the board level and then we have a public hearing right here in a meeting and then it's done.
>> Do you understand what the >> So, yeah. So, the rules and regs are handled here. That's rules and rigs >> in the bylaws. >> Not bylaws >> have to go in front of >> if it's a zoning amendment. Yes, it goes to town meeting any zoning amendment in any capacity. >> But that's a rule and regulation that we
could probably alter right here, >> right? >> Without having them request a variance. They would know that already >> or a side. >> Yeah. >> Well, right. So if you
>> this applicant wouldn't have known I had that they didn't need sidewalks. >> Yeah. >> So I not have to request >> Yeah. And just from my own neighborhood, I mean part of it is all forest. So the
sidewalk that's on the forest side that has no houses, I mean the brush just takes over and then I got to call the town and whatever. and and then in the winter time it never gets shoveled because there's nobody to shovel it. I
mean, it's kind of dumb. >> I'm not the official chair here. >> Oh, no. No. >> But I think as far as the board goes, um, one of the things we should try to attempt to do is address some of these
bylaws as they become familiar to us, you know. Um and um I think we might solicit from the building department what kind of complaints or questions the building department has and enforcing
bylaws so we can focus on the ones that are giving problems to people right now and then um then we can continue on. I mean, I don't think we're going to get we might get four or five
recommendations for the next town meeting and just keep >> away >> working away at it. >> You know, so I don't as coach here, I don't want to make a decision on that. >> It's a thought that we should consider.
>> Um, is any correspondence? Oh yeah, you got a couple things there, right? >> Of course. >> So, well, that's yours, Heartley. There. So, Beth was kind enough to uh uh highlight that which needed it needs to
be read. It's supposed to me going on. So, thank you, Beth. This is from the town of Rotten um planning board planning board planning board public hearing notice. The Groten Planning
Board will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 25th, 2025 at 700 PM in the Groten Town Hall. It's already been done. So, do I need to read this? >> Oh, >> uh, the Grten one. I would It's really interesting. Okay. Actually, the board
may be uh have a similar project. >> Oh, really? Yeah. 40. >> It was, but they're reapplying under the MBTA. Oh. >> In the overlay district. So I get more units which I've never done before from what we learned in the
other. Right. >> So Grton is a is a re application. Very interesting. So >> okay I'll see how these >> how these play out then. Right. >> Okay. I'll continue. Planning board public hearing notice site plan review.
MBTA communities multifamily development 500 Main Street. The Groten Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 25th, 2025 at 7 PM in the Groten Town Hall to consider the major site plan review application
submitted by Transom GP Capital Holdings 1 LLC for construction of a multifamily residential development at 500 Main Street, assessors map 216, parcels 95 and 96.
The proposed development consists of 200 rental units of which 176 units will be contained in two multi-story multi-family apartment buildings and 24 units contained in six quadplex town
houses with associated amenities and site improvements. >> That didn't take long. >> And that was a 40B. Yeah. And they just Isn't that where they're putting all that housing? Down where the old deluxe plantain. The old deluxe plant. >> What kind of main street is it? Do you
know? >> You know where the old deluxe plant is? >> On the purple line near the purple line. >> Pretty close. Yeah. On 119 there. Yeah. >> I mean, they've been planning that for a long time. That housing there. >> But that that must have been a really
well done, you know, bylaw for that, you know, to change that much. It's good. Good for the local economy. >> Okay. Notice of public hearing. Town of petrol planning board will hold a public
hearing on Monday, October 6, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. regarding an application submitted by Brian P. Mariano and Eleanor F. Mariano requesting a planning board special permit to allow two
detached accessory dwelling units, ADUs, totaling 1,250 square ft. >> To say something about that, what doesn't ring true is you're not supposed to have a special permit for an ADU. That's what is confusing.
>> No, he needs a special permit because it's over 900 square ft. >> Is that right? Okay. Well, it's a formula. It's a formula of the existing residence >> partly. All right. >> But there's a not to exceed.
>> It's the ex in other words, no unit can exceed 900 square ft. Then if there's an existing unit that's less, it can only be 50% I believe of the existing square footage.
>> We're doing a couple of them now. That's why. >> Right. So the key on that special permit, he does need a special permit because he asking for a larger unit than is allowed by right. >> Okay.
>> Did you know you cannot have a full basement either? >> It doesn't matter where it is. >> No, but what I'm saying is you cannot no matter what size ADU it is, you cannot have a full basement. >> Oh, that's too bad. >> Not necessarily.
We just lost to this in another town. >> No, it's based on the square footage. >> Has nothing to do with square footage. The basement doesn't. >> And may maybe they don't want you to have an 8ft basement because you could
finish it after >> and then you would exceed space. Yeah. As far as the state goes, >> that may be something that a local regulatory board has determined
based on the fear that it could be expanded. But let's say you had a,200 square footprint, 900 square ft of that would be acceptable as an ADU unit. The remaining space
can be shared storage between the two units. Okay? It cannot go only to the ADU. So for example,
uh for example, the primary home can have a playroom there in the basement with an abuing ADU unit. So even though the AD unit exclusively
is under 900 square ft or 900, they still could have access to additional space, but it can't be rented or leased or whatever. Okay? So all these different scenarios is starting to
surface now and it's applying to attics and garages and different buildings. So um part of this is what the state requirement is. Then the local authority can have some other criteria on these
things. Okay. So um such as we have in our own bylaw about the architecture um and then this flexibility in parking.
Um, so a local regulatory thing could say, um, have a bylaw that says if you have an ad unit, um, we want a screen or whatever, the
dumpster covered or whatever it is. So that's where that's going. Um, and that's why this is a particular reason for a special permit. >> Interesting. Realize that. >> Okay, let me continue.
Office of the Planning Board, Town of Townsen. In accordance with MGL chapter 4, uh, section 15C, scenic roads, towns and general bylaws, chapter 106, and planning board rules
and regulations, article 4, section 1753134, hearings under the scenic road act. The towns and planning board will hold a public hearing on October 20th, 2025 at
6:45 p.m. regarding an application from Steven and Karen Marshall to remove a section of a stone wall to wing 25 ft at 35 Burgess Road, map 19, block 86, lot two.
>> Okay. So, we'll see that. Um, it sounds like they're bringing a driveway in >> wherever that is. >> And finally, Town of Townsen Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday,
October 8, 2025 at approximately 7:15 p.m. on a notice of intent, NOI, filed with the Conservation Commission by Corey Patterson. The property is located at 16 Meta Road, map 28, parcel 35 lot
zero. The proposed project is for the demolition of four existing structures and the construction of a new threebay garage and driveway. The project takes place within a 200 foot riverfront area
and 100 ft wetland buffer. >> And when is that? Uh that's going to be uh tomorrow night I think or two Wednesday night. Two nights from tonight. >> We haven't seen that. >> No no there's no fun. >> It's just a conservation. >> Conservation. Yes.
>> Conservation. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Um anyone have any other business? >> No more discussion. Yeah. I have one thing. I think um I need to recuse
myself from this because we made uh we made your list here. So, can we talk about that tonight or can we do we need to be put on the agenda for 66 FB? >> Oh, you want to be on the agenda? >> Do I have to be or can we just have an open discussion tonight? >> Um
what is the discussion about? >> Well, first I want to know I want to recuse myself. So, evidently our storm water plan has been um has expired. So, do we need to file through the whole process again or can we just renew it? >> Renew it.
>> Renew it. >> I did. >> Yeah. So, you just renew it. It's a simple process. You just put in the application data fee and uh >> so no engineer involved. Not much to fill out. Just a simple change. >> Didn't change it. >> No change. No. >> No. >> So, just basically if everything's
operating as it should be, you can >> Well, we know the answer to that. We've already gone back and forth with that. So, >> uh, so you're just extending it. >> We're just extending it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Great. >> Um, so >> it's a construction phase permit. So, >> Okay.
>> Yeah. So, yeah, you just need to renew it. >> So, to give everyone here a little background on on myself. So, I own a construction company and we do uh we do site we do site work, you know, we deal with this stuff every day, >> right? And and I I'm sure Beth, you're
just upholding the bylaws and the uh what we talked about tonight, the um rules and regulations and the town bylaws, >> right? >> Never in my life have I gone through what I've gone through in this town >> for what?
>> For I it seems like every other day I'm twice a month I'm getting a letter of enforcement over different things. And to me as a contractor, we the project we have up here would probably disturb two acres, two and a half acres. Okay? We do big projects. I have 48 town houses
going in Shirley. I have 24 town houses going in Harvard. I can list project after project after project. And I don't know why the bylaws are so tough in this town to where we don't even want to work. We will not work in this town. >> Um >> that's a tough bylaw. The storm water
bylaw is very strong. So if it is, so correct me if I'm wrong. If it's a bylaw, then it has to go to town meeting if we want to change it, >> right? Just the zoning amendment goes to town meeting, but regulations are at the planning board level. >> Regulations can be modified without
going to town meeting. >> Exactly. So if there are regulations here that are not necessary >> or are disproportionate to the the situation.
Um but again that would all surface in a site plan review. Um so the regulations um
I think that are burdensome to people in your trade and um similar kinds of projects are the oversight that's being provided by the town all these reports that we request.
>> Sure. Um and I think the reason those requests are there I was didn't implement any of these myself
>> was major concerns about our acquire and you know conservation and the things that are critical in the town. So I think this board is what you know should review anything that you see as
an obstacle and consider the merit of it and maybe change policy and regulation. So I'm not opposed to that. I just have to know the magnitude of concern and problem. Okay. >> Sure. And if the board at that time
um agrees that this is an outreach or overreach then we can provide relief that way. So the relief can come from uh regula regulation okay policy
or the relief can come through site plan waiver and the way it's pretty well done now. Okay. So from a town's perspective, you can have a a liberal approach to
this or you can have a conservative approach to this. If you take a conservative approach to this, it's almost like any project has got to be looked at and reviewed. Okay? So, there are
communities out there that have bylaws that automatically require a review no matter how big or small they are. And it's because everybody in town wants to know what's going on. >> Sure. >> Other communities is not as important.
Um, so I I laughed because I did a lot of work in the town of Hull and the town of Hull is a peninsula. >> Mhm. They have a zoning bylaw that you would find out in a subdivision in the middle of the country, right? And I
asked, why did you even create a bylaw that doesn't even work with the topography of the town? Now, the answer was, we want to know what's going on. >> So, I mean, ours are a lot more stringent than most. Correct.
>> Our storm water or >> our storm our storm water. Well, the reason for that, and I will just add this, is that the town of Towns in has itself a um MS4 permit, which is a general permit that we need to report to
the EPA and the D every year. Now, I just submitted year 7. If you look in the packet that I gave you, uh you'll have to look online. There's a number of requirements the town has to meet. And every major storm water permit that's
issued is a is a small piece of the town's general permit. >> Does every other town have that though? >> Well, every town that has a um storm water permit from the state does. It's called Massachusetts small general permit where >> I would I would imagine it's every town.
>> I don't know the answer to that. I know towns in but every storm water system that's built is part of the town system now. And that's why the regulations are so tight because we have to monitor it. We're at the end of the day, it's your private property, but the town has to
report on all of this all of the storm water infrastructure built. It all ties in like a big >> just like we had to vote to accept the federal new flood plane in town. If we didn't vote to accept it, people would
be prevented from getting flood insurance. True. >> So, it was a bullet to our head. It was no choice. >> I'm getting a lot of calls on that, too. >> Yeah. And it's not fair. I mean, as far as the public's representation and everything else, but
>> yeah, >> we certainly couldn't deny people the right to get on flood, you know, flood insurance. So, I think >> I'm sure there's room for improvement there, maybe. >> Oh, yeah. But like Beth is saying
with the requirements the town has plus the fact that we have an acquire that's very sensitive here. Um >> the these other towns do too. I just I just >> No, you know every everybody does. >> No, I think every the public deserves to
understand this. So >> So don't feel awkward about for any questions or problems or concerns. That's what this is all about, right? >> So, no, I'm not if it's something that
um I this community, and I'm not speaking as myself, this community certainly wants to encourage housing and things like that. Um but we have to do it with protecting what
the other town's parameters are too. So, >> true. Um, so the more information that's available and the more public input there is, uh, the better the sport is in helping people, whatever whatever person
it is, whether it's a homeowner or commercial developer or whatever. Um, so, um, I don't think there's anything more to read into this than, um, the legitimate reasons why these
things exist. Um, but if they can be clarified, reduced in scope, well, why not, you know? So, it's an open it's an open thing to look at. And so anybody
you yourself or the public at large can present this concern and then that's you're coming to the right people. >> Sure. >> Sure. >> All right. Thank you. >> Do we have anyone want to make a motion
to adjourn? >> I'll make a motion to adjourn at 7:58. >> I second motion. All in favor? >> I I All right. Labate.