Uh let's open uh the meeting. I'd like to uh Is anybody associate right now? I sort of lost track. Are you still You're associate now, darling. Right. That's right. So um I'm I'm elevating Darlene uh to full member for the purposes uh
for the for the for this meeting. Our easiest way to do it. All right. Um so do we have a motion to open the meeting? I make a motion we open the meeting. >> Okay. >> And member because we're on Zoom, we
have to say um our names just to keep it clear. >> I make a motion that we open the meeting. Strer second. >> Darlene second. Uh I >> Why don't we go around? So, okay. Darlene, >> I had to say something because everyone
was saying their name. They're not used to this. >> All right. Darlene. >> Yes. Darlene. Yes. >> Yes. Kobe Strader. Yes. >> And Vicki Janiki. Yes. All right. Thank you for that. Um so we've all been introduced. Uh there is a public signin
sheet if um for anyone who's um visiting today. Um it should be on the table there if if it's in its usual spot. So thank you for that. Um because we have a few minutes. Do we want to look at the um the minutes from
December? and maybe we can get through that. Has uh people had a chance to look at that? I haven't >> I I looked the file over a couple days ago and I haven't like really checked it since.
>> Do you feel ready to vote on it or do you want to review it in more detail? >> Given what the topic and that it's a couple pages, I would really want to review it. Do we have Do you want to get them approved tonight or does it matter? It doesn't matter.
>> We can uh because we have another meeting I think scheduled a couple of weeks, two, three weeks. >> And this is someone ongoing too, right? So >> yeah. Okay. That that should be no problem. Um I think that was the only minutes that we had.
>> Uh we have three minutes until the next. So let's um we need a mandate. We have a planning board mandatory referrals. >> We have three. >> Mhm. >> We have three of them.
>> Yeah. >> Wow. >> Oh, that's right. Yes. We've got um I don't know if we've got enough time for that, but do >> Yeah. All right. So, we've got if we had one, we could go for it. So, we'll we'll
uh we'll give a pause for two minutes so we start at the appropriate time for the public meeting. Um, >> a copy of the application copy of the application. >> Colby, do you have access to the legal
notice to read as the clerk? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Believe so. All right. So when we formally open the hearing, you'll be next up. I'm getting my >> Oh, I guess um has anybody looked at the
annual report? I was reading that real quick and noticed where it says who the full-time members are and then it says Darlene and Dave as associate members. Just just say that we're associate members. I wouldn't
put any verbiage with that. Just >> Oh, what did I write? >> We continue to help. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> I mean, you're in a >> Yeah, >> you're in a appointed position. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Let's see.
>> Okay. >> Say really >> Robert and Kobe, did you have a chance to look at the annual report? >> Yeah, I looked at it. I didn't see any issues with it. I'm looking now. This thing is the only thing I did not look at.
>> Beth, I don't think we need to vote on it. We just need to give you feedback, right? >> Sure. Yeah. Any changes, things like that? >> So, are is everyone okay with the annual report with the feedback from Darlene?
>> Yes. Okay. >> All right. All right, Beth. So, we're good with that. All right, we can take that off. Get back to the agenda. So, what uh I would say I have 635. Do you guys got
635 on your end? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh do I have a motion to um open the hearing for um uh what's the street? Uh 241-247
Main Street. So be it. Rob second. Hey, Darlene. >> I Darlene. I >> I was waiting if you say all those in favor.
>> Uh Colobby. >> Colobby Streeter. Yes. >> And Robert, >> you say yes. >> All right. And Vicki, yes. Um so, uh Colobby, would you read the legal ad? >> Yep. In accordance with Mass Journal Law
Chapter 4A and the Towns and Zoning bylaw, the Towns and Zoning Board of Appeals will hold the public hearing on Wednesday, February 4th, 2026 at 6:35 p.m. in Towns and Town Hall, 272 Main Street, Towns, and Mass on the application of CJ Realy Trust for a
special permit under zoning bylaw 145-65 and 145-27C3. The mixed use building at 241 to 247 Main Street, assessor's map 51, block 94, lot zero, was previously approved and built with four two-bedroom
apartments and two one-bedroom apartments. The applicant's purpose to convert a bus commercial unit into a one-bedroom apartment while removing one bedroom from an existing two-bedroom apartment, converting it to one bedroom.
This keeps the total at 10 bedrooms to comply with the approved septics permit limit. The hearing will be conduct conducted in person with a virtual Zoom component provided. Full remote access details will be posted with the meeting
agenda at least 48 hours in advance on the town's website under the upcoming events calendar. Interested parties may submit written comments prior to the hearing or speaking at the hearing in person or
through an agent/torney. The application is available for review at town clerks or zba offices or by email requestbandm.gov. sponsored by Victoria Janiki, chair zoning board of appeals, published in
the Grten Herald on January 9th, 2026 in January 16th, 2026. >> Thank you, Colby. So, I believe the applicant, Mark Curtis, is here. Would you like to take us through your proposal? >> Uh, yes. Um, what I'm looking to do, and
I want to thank the town for, uh, um, giving me the opportunity to have a meeting. Um my intent is is to take the former uh carpet store uh I and convert
that to a one-bedroom apartment approximately about 770 square ft. It's a it's a fairly small apartment. Uh but that's uh what the architect could actually fit in there that profile
uh to meet to meet the regulations and conform. And that's that's pretty much what I'm looking to do. It's um you know, it hasn't been real easy with commercial property. So um also I have attorney
Barrett represent me this evening. But that's what I'm look Yeah, that's that's pretty much what I'm looking to do. >> Okay. And so you have a pre-existing special permit at this time. There's an already one that we we gave back in 2022
for the original >> right >> conversion to mixed use from commercial. >> Right. Yes. Uh madame chair again John Barrett representing uh the C and J realy trust Mr. Curtis. Um so uh we were
before the board I guess now about four years ago uh to convert uh part of the commercial space in this building uh uh to um to residences. And as Mark said and as Kobe read in the uh the notice that this fairly simple uh proposition
basically to because of the commercial difficulties uh it makes more sense to use the uh the basement unit which is being used had been used by towns and floors and interiors. There's a flooring store there now but it's I think Mark is
it out now or is it they're on their way out I think. No, they've already they're they're already out. >> Yeah, they're they're now they just make a go >> building. >> So, uh basically Mark is um asking to
convert that space. >> So, this is the building that you have an office in. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Is that what they were talking about? The one across the street. I'm like >> I did too at first. I It wasn't Yeah. When I first looked at it, I was like that long ago. >> Uh where do Boutique used to be? And
like as soon as he said carpet store, I'm like there was a carpet store there. >> Yeah. Where the auto um the auto uh school was. >> Oh. Oh. Oh, that that way >> converted next to the
floor. Yeah. Uh, no. This is the big old building where >> Well, I don't I won't take you down history lane, but >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It used to be the the Ren uh pub u copper kettle. And >> you don't remember that, do you? >> Of course I do.
>> That's history, right? I I used I I toasted a couple paps blue ribbons for 35 cents at the ribbon. >> Uh but that was dare I say a long time ago there in a galaxy far far away.
>> Right. Right. >> Um the the building there burnt down uh roughly around 19 uh 82 or so. And uh the the building that's there now was
built by uh uh Robins uh uh Ed Hayward and John Gina. Um and oddly enough, I was on the zoning board that granted them the special permit back in 1988, I think, for the
building. Um but um uh they um uh so they um you know I think took what was basically a big hole in the middle of downtown and and made a pretty useful building. But times being
what they are uh it seems that uh uh the the commercial I think there's still quite a bit of commercial in town that's not occupied. I think in the uh uh vendor plaza there's a number of units vacant. I think there's a few down in the harbor. Um,
uh, my office is still there, but, um, as some of you may know, I'm going into retirement, and I have to apologize for being incognito here. I'm not in my typical monkey suit. Uh, I just figured that it's too cold to change into a suit and have too cumbersome to wear an over
coat. So, um, anyway, uh, if you guys have any questions and again, thank you all, uh, for participating this process. I I do appreciate as a citizen of the town your volunteering and Robert so I hadn't met you yet but we did talk on
the phone >> and Kobe met you earlier >> we did >> that gave you a warm reception in town as I >> uh but um anyway if I have any questions and Vicki uh thank you for your chairing
the meeting and um >> I have a question. >> Yeah. How many units will it be now? >> There will be seven units, right, Mark? With >> Yes, there'll be seven units total. >> Um, three onebedroom and three
twobedroom, >> correct? There would be uh >> that right now there's there's four there's four two bedrooms. One's getting converted to a one. So that there'll be
uh three and three. got to be six and then there'll be an additional onebedroom so there'll be seven alto together >> seven units but 10 bedrooms >> yeah a lot of them are one bedrooms they're not real big units there are
some two bedrooms >> over there be three yeah three two bedrooms and three >> one bedroom four one bedroom sorry >> exactly four onebedrooms and and three
twobedroom >> units. Okay. Any um other questions from the board? >> Where's the bylaw? Do you have it out here?
>> We get the big book or >> That's all right. No, I can look at it. Um, >> use the arrows there. >> So, the um that's NCD where DCD, correct? DCD
>> downtown. Yep. >> Okay. So, there's permitted uses and then there's specially permitted uses. So, which criteria under specially permitted uses do you fall under? I I think it's just under special permit criteria. >> Okay.
>> Um I think it's in um 65 uh section 65. Yeah. >> So DCD C1 allows by these are by special permit not by a matter of right. A special permit is bed and breakfast. One
to six dwelling units within a structure existing on the lot or for which a building permit's been issued as of January 1989. Provision officer parking blah blah blah. Three um mixed use is residential and commercial. And four sales facility for boats
campers that doesn't apply. So we've got the two and three here. Mixed use obviously residential commercial. Mhm. >> But it also says up to six dwelling units within a structure.
>> So how do we get past the six dwelling units? I I think it it comes under the mixed view. You conceivably could have could have a a building in the DCD that has
one commercial space and and seven units or >> so the mixed use is one commercial space and one unit one commercial space or multiple commercial spaces. I I think darling what the two refers to is
a solely residential dwelling with one six. All right. So permitted is u municipal education detached one family dwellings retail obviously office clerical
restaurants selferving storage facilities and accessory uses customary incidental. So those are permitted, >> right? And >> so specially permitted bed and breakfast, one to six dwelling units
within a structure existing on a lot. It doesn't say what kind of structure though. It doesn't say if it's a residential dwelling, a commercial dwelling, a mixeduse dwelling. It says within a structure which a building permit has been issued.
So it's not a new building. It's certainly falls within the 1989 because it was built before that, right? Yeah. It's old. There's plenty of parking. >> Yeah. >> And then mixed use is just says mixed
use. >> Yeah. I'd have to say admittedly the the bylaw is maybe a little bit ambiguous there, but I think the fact that it says mixed use, this speaks to the idea that in a
building that's being used commercially, you could have residential units as well. And there's no limitation there as to how many residential units or how many commercial units are. >> Okay. So, if there was no commercial use in that building whatsoever,
well, what now? What would it be? Up to six dwelling units, right? If there was no commercial use, >> um, arguably the um, >> you guys, you want to see that? I know I read it out loud. Sometimes I get to see
it in writing. >> The last decision you actually want to read it >> is in the last decision. That's what you reference up to six units. It says if you read the end of it, the vote that
you took, darling's good. You remember this stuff, huh? You're good. >> What? What? What? No. In a positive way. Like you you remember that detail. >> Oh, yeah.
So fishing the two boats spelled out the six units. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. That was the previous decision. >> Yes. >> Right. So what we're doing is modifying that. >> Right. But the question is can you
>> but you're gaining a unit. >> Yes. >> Say again. >> You're gaining a unit. >> Right. >> There's a lot of focus on the bedrooms not changing. But that's not even our purview. You have to conform with board of health regardless of what we say. We could say, "Oh, yeah, sure. No problem." And the board of health is going to make
sure those bedrooms are in check with the septic system. So >> yeah, they already said it. That's not our >> word of health said it's okay. I'm still confused by the currently has four two-bedroom apartments and two one-bedroom apartments. >> So there's six units,
>> right? >> So in order to not have to deal with the septic system, they're taking one bedroom away. They're going to take a two bed, make it a one. >> Yeah. >> Add a unit. Another one. So you have all the same bedrooms. So your subject's fine. >> So you have six. You still have six units. >> No,
>> seven units. No, because one one the bedrooms would one of the units have two bedrooms would be the bedroom would be >> a one bedroom. >> A one bedroom. >> Yeah. >> And that bedroom would move down to the basement apartment
for for uh you know system. >> So you currently have four two bedrooms and two one bedrooms, >> right? >> And then so then going ahead you'll have three two bedrooms, >> right? one
each uh each bedroom represents about 110 gallons of flow per day. Uh you know going by title five criteria. So that that's how we were able to conform and meet it. We had to sacrifice a bedroom
>> and you can have as many bathrooms as you want, as many people, but only a certain amount of bedrooms. >> Right. >> Exactly. Exactly. thoughts, guys. >> I know. I think Mark, when when you met with the building inspector, he didn't see any problem with it, right? Other
than >> not at all. You have to get a modification of the of the permit because it it came under the >> Exactly. >> Exactly. No, he didn't see he didn't see a problem with it and uh the board of
health had looked it over. Um and they didn't have an issue with it because like they said, 10 bedrooms is 10 bedrooms. However, it's broken up. It could be 10 one-bedroom units or what whatever it may be. I was curious if we have more of a
definition of mixed use. >> I think it's pretty clear. It says up to six residential units in a structure. I can't It's very clear. Mr. Barrett, do you have any sort of convincing arguments or thoughts around
the six versus seven in this case? >> Well, again, I just have to rely on the fact that it says mixed use and I don't think those are separate permitted uses that can be allowed. There's nothing in the mixeduse residential commercial that
says it has to be when you have a commercial unit that you can only have so many uh residential units with it. Um as I see these are separately types of
separate types of you uses a bed and breakfast or a solely a sole residential unit that is for residential residence that's the one to six dwelling units
the mixed use is a mixed use and this is still a mixed use it's still commercial admittedly I think if If you were to take out all of the commercial, you didn't have a problem with saying, "Okay, we're going to convert this into
um uh 10 10 units because now it's not mixed use. It's it's all residential. Now, maybe it could be converted all to residential uh if there were three bedroomedroom
units in it. Uh but of course there's a limitation here as far as the septic system. So can't couldn't do that. I apologize but this was not in here. So you could let the chair know that you
need to read that one. >> There was one more referral. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Well, why don't we uh read in uh the mandatory referrals um at this point since you have it. >> Okay. Realize you haven't read them yet.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh, good. Timing is everything. on them. >> Yeah, I'm just getting all the others out as well. >> So, there's five and all.
>> I'm getting the referral out. >> Thank you. >> Okay, I think I have Let me know if I miss any. I have uh referral comments here from first the select um people
the uh excuse me who is uh this is from Lori our select person uh she say said we need additional housing next >> next is oh this is uh board of health uh towns
and board of health approved a certificate of compliance for a new septic system designed for 10 bedrooms in 2,000 square ft of office space on December 28th 2022. This application proposes bu uh building a new
one-bedroom apartment in the basement and configuring an existing twobedroom apartment to a one-bedroom. The proposal would still be within the design capacity of the system and would be okay. The board of health still
reserves the right to review all plans submitted if application to the building department occurs. And this is from the building department. The building department has no objection to this additional unit as there is fire protection already in
place in two means of egress. >> Uh is there one from the planning board? Oh, is there more? >> Uh no, I don't see one. >> Yes. Um, no. No, there is one not required of the planning board.
>> Oh, there is. >> Oh, okay. Read that wrong. >> Building commission. >> Okay. The top one. >> Yeah. Um
so just blank no comment I should say. >> Okay. The planning board uh has no comment >> in the water department. No comment >> in the water department has no comment. >> There you go. >> All right. Good. So we've we've got that
out of the way. Um is there anyone on the call or in the room that um have any public questions? or input feedback.
I don't see anyone on the call and I'm assuming there's no one in the the room. Okay. Um, so at this point, let's uh close the public testimony and move into a
discussion about the special permit request. So, we could go through the A through G, is it? >> A through G. Yep. um to determine you know that part of the
criteria or we can sort of gnaw on the six versus seven unit uh units at this point which folks would like to do. >> I think the six versus seven is the biggest issue. It's pretty clear. It says uses allowed by special permit from
the board of appeals one to six dwelling units. I don't know how we get around that. >> I think it's really good though trying to do the mixed use and make it bring it in there. But to me, it's a separate
it does have mixed use, but I don't think it makes it okay to do more than six units in a structure. and you know down you know part of the it's like okay we don't need commercial so in a year it'll be another unit
another unit um which I mean we need them we do need them um so what happens you keep one commercial pretend unit in the end just so you have a mixed use to allow more than six unit
I'm just like going on a stretch there to that that doesn't make make that work like you know what I mean like to keep for the mix used to allow it >> I can mention that there are two commercial uses there now actually three
>> there two great >> uh >> I guess I'll I'll throw out there >> my intent is for the them to stay too you know keep keep those two commercial. >> Well, how is everyone reading the bylaw um of 14527 downtown commercial district
in particular um subsection C there um as was mentioned for >> you know one being bedroom breakfast, two being one to six dwelling units, three mixed use and for sales facility for boats and whatnot. Um,
are those are you reading those as all requirements of each property or >> any and all of those require a special to do any of that? Any of those uses require a special >> each one by itself. >> Those are the restrictions on a special
permit. >> Yeah. >> So, what we have in front of us is seven units. >> But, okay. So, if you go by that, you're saying that a bed and breakfast as well cannot have more than six. Well, it's not dwelling units then. What would it be?
Because that's temporary. >> Yeah. A bed and breakfast. I would say up to six units. I wouldn't Yeah. >> Okay. >> I don't No one's ever asked for that. >> Yeah. I don't know if they're completely speak.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't know why we Why do we close the hearing? Well, if we want any additional information, we can't ask for it once we close the hearing. So, >> and and >> but that's that's okay. That's what everyone's intent was. That's I'm okay with that. Can I see?
>> And I guess that that's my question. If each of these are different categories with different requirements or if they compound on each other. >> I don't know if I'd call a bed and breakfast a dwelling unit either. I
don't know. You're kind of getting into the the hotel versus longterm again. Transient versus a residence, you know, that's >> that can be look that's different. It's like get a different meaning. A bed and breakfast, somebody's transient. I don't
know if that's a dwelling unit. >> I think of article C2. If it didn't say one to six, if it just said uh uses allowed by special permit dwelling unit within a structure existing on the lot for which a building
permit had been issued, then we wouldn't have this issue. But it specifically says 1 to six. It doesn't say 1 to five. It doesn't say 1 to 10. For whatever reason, it's very specific that that's all you can have. >> Yeah. Yeah.
Well, it's probably because elsewhere in the bylaw, you get into multifamily and to certain levels and the bylaw addresses multif family. >> Yeah. And the by addresses what's a dwelling unit and all that sort of stuff. >> Yeah, >> that's
I think that's my only question. And that's kind of why I was going back to my math again saying we're six, right? >> But you said no. So >> So it sounds uh
so at this point we have a I think a couple of options and correct me if I'm wrong. So I think one is to we could take a vote at this point. We could go through age through G, you know, do a vote if we wanted to be
complete. Um we could continue the hearing if we think there's more information or research if we want a legal opinion. I think those are the the two things
right now. you closed the public hearing so we can't get more info. >> Can we vote to open it again? >> If if that if everyone felt that was needed, I suppose friendly a friendly
motion or whatever. Um >> I >> we're here. May as well. >> Well, I think everyone's struggling with seven going over the six units. I think I I don't know any I don't know what else we can collect that changes that it is what it is. We don't like it
>> because we want we want to but we don't have that magic wand and um >> so what would be the proper way to and we never make negative motions. We don't deny I think we usually do go
through the criteria. we vote to grant the permit and then we vote no on it or do we just say it's not can we do that it's not applicable because it's um >> I think yeah you what's a better way to handle it >> the criteria and then you would go under
suitability right >> that's where you would say right right >> suitability yeah >> and then you would uh vote to based on the bindings of facts which are the criteria >> I might madam chair I raise a point of
uh privilege, I guess, whether or not the applicant could withdraw his application. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And and maybe come back. Uh they require a new filing, I believe. But um I think
that we didn't uh anticipate this problem with the the numbers there. and uh uh maybe uh further research could uh help uh help the board come to the desired end from
our point of view. It might still not but um and but it might require I just asked Mark if you want to withdraw before the board votes >> without prejudice. Is that what you >> Yeah, without prejudice. >> Yeah. Yeah. Mixture. Yeah.
That's a better >> Yeah. I mean, I don't know really what would change. I pro, you know, um probably just assume take a vote on it and uh you know, from a legal
standpoint, I don't quite know enough about it. John, uh >> listen to John. I >> I no I would recommend withdrawing is um
I think that um you know I I can't uh I can't definitely pro uh predict what the board is going to vote but I I have a feeling that um if we came back at a a later date uh we
might have a better argument for the uh the seven units. >> Um I, you know, don't see u the advantage I guess to going forward to a vote that if it turns out to be a
negative vote and we have I think only four voting members here tonight, right? >> So it requires a unanimous vote. I think the part he's not getting is if we if we deny the special permit, you're prohibited from coming back. Is it a
period of time? Two years. You you can't come back to us for the same thing for two years. If you withdraw your your application, that kind of frees you up to revisit the situation um in whatever manner you'd like. You won't be limited.
Um, and John's going based on what we're bringing up, he doesn't think we're going to vote for it. >> So, >> just a guess. >> Yeah. >> Okay, then. Whatever you whatever you
feel, John, that uh >> I I would recommend withdrawing Mark. >> Okay. >> So, Beth, how how should Mark proceed with formally withdrawing the application.
>> Write a letter um and sign it uh request to withdraw the application uh without prejudice um today. You know, just sign it and get it to me if you would and then I will give it to the clerk and that will close the loop there.
But it's the you're not a representative officially because I don't think you have the authorization to represent form or do you try to I don't think it's in the application otherwise >> I mean >> I just >> um maybe not. Right.
>> Yeah. So I think it has to come from Mark. >> Yeah. >> As the applicant. >> Right. Right. >> So if you would just make sure you >> have those requirements back when I was on the zoning board. >> Yeah. If I said I was here as an attorney for
the applicant, that was enough. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. >> I mean, it's up to the board and whatever you want. >> If like if we hear it from the applicant, too. And I don't know if he's able to send a quick email to you to say I'll write a letter or I don't know. >> Are you able to send an email to me,
Mark? >> Sure, I could send an email to you. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just to make sure it's Yeah. >> Officially withdrawing this application. Is that something you'd want right now? >> If you if you Yeah, if you could.
>> Uh, not the best at it, but I'll give it a whirl. >> Messi's fine. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Okay. So, at this point, if there is a withdrawal, >> we don't >> do we technically close the meeting or
is it just >> I think it automatically closes. I think so. >> Well, if there is actual withdrawal, I think you would >> still vote to >> give leave to withdraw, >> right? >> Okay. >> All right.
>> So, do we have a motion to accept the withdrawal of the application? I make a motion. We accept the withdrawal of the application for 241 247 Main Street.
>> That was Robert making the motion. >> Yeah, that was me. >> Darlene seconds. >> Without prejudice. >> Without prejudice. >> Yeah. And Darlene >> second. Yeah. >> Robert. >> Rob UCLA. Yes. Colby Streeter. Yes.
>> And Vicki Jiki. Yes. >> I was the second. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> It's a that's a great location for that, too. >> Well, that's that's what >> Yeah. >> Wait till the hearing closed, but I guess
>> How would you like this worded? Uh John, um do you want me to give you a call? Um, which I can do. I mean, is it okay to just put I'm going to be withdrawing or >> put it on there? just uh I I hereby
request the withdrawal of the application uh for uh 7 unit uh um >> just say for 241 247 >> 241 just identify what it is you guys
have the number the uh the case number I don't have it here >> no it's all right he just sends the email real quick you can write a letter if you want afterwards for the file Okay. Um, while he's doing that, do we want to move on to Can we Can we move on
to the next thing? >> Why not? >> You're good, Beth. Okay. Uh, so looking at uh the agenda, let me just make sure we've hit everything. We're putting off the uh minutes from December. Um, so Mark and and John, thank you for for
coming and be interested to see your your research and and what comes back. >> Yep. Well, thank thank you and uh hopefully we'll revisit the issue uh at a later date.
>> Okay, John's got to get creative now. >> Yeah. >> All right. So then we have uh so moving on to the planning board mandatory referrals. Okay,
let's see what those guys are. >> Let me know which ones you come up with first. I can follow along online. So, we have uh 22 West Meadow, three-wheeler, and 53 West Meadow.
Stuff happening there. >> Oh, yes. Yeah, there we go. >> What's coming before us next? >> If you want, >> that should do it. >> Okay. Thank you, board. >> Thank you. >> Ask the clerk if you want. Like, I don't know if this is the way you want to do it. Talk to you later.
>> Let him know that you got it. >> Okay. Okay. Yes. So then you want to have not yet. >> Got it. Okay. Tweet. >> Okay. >> Thank you. And then follow up with a letter. Okay.
>> Yeah. Have them write a letter. >> Yeah, we follow a letter. >> Thanks folks. Thank you. >> Good night. So you can if you want to do this question >> and then have a discussion on the
application. >> We can hear you Mark just so you know. >> Yeah. there. >> He He's asking for help to leave the meeting. >> Down the bottom right it says leave meeting, I think.
>> Yeah. >> Is it? >> There we go. >> Yay. >> Okay, cool. >> All right, here we go. Mandatory referrals. Uh, which one do you guys want to start with? You got the paper. >> What first? What do What's our next What
are we hearing next? on on the 18th. >> Is it some of one of these? >> No. Uh >> none of them. >> These are planning board uh >> Okay. >> projects and and hearings that you are asked to comment on. >> Okay. >> So, but I can tell you about your next
one or >> Well, I just want to make sure sometimes something goes between both of us. It goes in front of zoning and planning and if if it's coming between both of us, I don't want to make a comment to the planning board if we're going to hear it too. >> That's all. One of them is before was EDA for a
earth excavation special permit. >> So it's one of those addresses >> is for the planning board uh for storm water management. It's just one of those multi-permanent projects. Mhm. >> So if you and it's specifically this uh referral notice is specifically for a
comment on storm water which >> you know I don't I don't know that the ZDA would have a comment but we just do that as part of a comment. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> If you don't want to comment that's fine. >> Yeah. If it's coming before us the same address I don't feel the need to. >> So three if you want to comment it
that's fine. But this one uh 22 West Meadow this is a um project change that is modification. You can read the legal notice if you want and then it's offer 20 help. Yeah. >> Okay.
Vicki, you want me to read the referral? >> You have a great voice. Go for it. >> That's a first. All right. Mandatory referral notice. Uh, the town and planning board will hold a public hearing on February 23rd, 2026 at 6:35
p.m. in select board chambers, Memorial Hall, 272 Main Street, Townsen Mass, in accordance with MGL chapter 48 in the Townsen zoning bylaw. The hearing concerns an application by Lawrence Skip, Provost
for modification of site plan approval under zoning bylaw 145-86. The requested changes involve removal of vegetative screening south of the access road and along West Mo Meadow Road along with associated conditions from the
original permit for the groundmounted solar installation known as Lock Brook Solar located at 22 West Meadow Road map 4 block 15 lot zero in the residential area 3 zoning district and aquafer
protection overlay district. public remote access information to a meeting is to be announced. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, just just what the Yeah. modification is it's a modification to a
special permit that was issued in 2019. >> Um the change is there is they're asking for removal of conditions for the vegetative screening that it was approved. So that's that's basically >> and and as far as I know never really
put in but anyway >> it was put in and it was maintained for five years um per the permit. Mhm. >> Um if you read the application, the um the applicant, not the applicant, but the um manager or the they did five
years worth of annual reports on the array. Um and they did replant it. Um but they're asking now for that to be basically removed just >> um >> it's beyond our scope
>> unless any of you find have anything >> I is this going to this is going to come before us isn't it? Nope. >> No, >> no. This is a planning board to a site plan review and your role is to either make a comment or make a no comment.
>> Y I think it's a no comment. >> No comment. >> Well, I I just So, this is after the fact, right? They've already removed vegetation, >> correct? They're asking for a permit. >> They're looking for a permit now. >> Yeah. Well, no. They're asking for a
change, a modification to the permit to remove it from the permit. >> It's already removed from the site, but now they want, you know, they need to, >> it's basically administrative clerical >> to remove the requirement of vegetation from the permit.
>> Correct. >> Yeah. If they say no and they've already removed it, then that's their pro. That's a problem, right? >> It's an after the fact. It's like if somebody starts building before they get their building permit. Yeah. >> But they were only required to have it for five years.
>> Well, no, it's required as part of the bylaw. It is part of the for a solar array. Yeah. You are required to have screen. >> Correct. So, um >> Yeah. >> So, it's still required right now to be
vegetated. >> Vegetative screen was required in the law. It is part of correct. Okay. And it's and it's been removed and it's no longer there. >> Correct. >> Okay. I'm just failing to see what the
planning board deal with. >> Yeah. It's it's not our daily work. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It doesn't involve zoning. >> So that would not a special permit that would >> not a special permit. It's a site plan
approval. It's a by right. The solar array is by right, but there is a site plan review with conditions that was issued in 2019 when the array was originally permitted permitted.
And this is a project change that um needs to be changed in the permit. >> Okay. >> Vegetation. >> Did you read the application? >> Uh I I'm not sure. Okay. So, this is Yeah. And we have a comment then if you
didn't read the application with it was in your folders. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm looking at it now. I'm trying to look at the vegetation. >> I want to make sure that you read the application before you comment. So I I think the problem here is that
the land owner removed the vegetation. >> Yes. >> Is that what I'm reading? And Next AMP was the one who owned I think owns the permit so to speak. Are they leasing the land? >> Yes. Right. There's a narrative here.
>> Yeah, because it's I think the meeting is coming up before we have our meet next meeting. So, >> what would our comment be? We trust the planning board to follow the rules. I mean, we're going to say no comments.
>> I can't think of anything we would Um this is your narrative here. >> Yeah. >> So this did not fall under a special permit. What was >> this? Not a special permit. It's a byite site plan review formal site plan review
with conditions that um was issued in 2019. I guess I don't understand why or why we are asking. >> It's a courtesy comments. >> It's a courtesy. Yeah, >> it's a courtesy. Most often >> we have no comment because we don't have
any policing power or say and they cover all that stuff anyways. >> So it' be like the board of health asking us for um you know a comment or remark on putting in a septic system like >> I think I've already said enough. No, no. I just Well, you know, everyone
learns so >> we So, it sounds like the consensus is uh uh no comment on that one. 22 West Meadow. >> The other one is a stormwater permit as well. So, for three 53 West Meadow Road, >> I know nothing about storm water.
>> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. So, uh, again, is that another consensus on >> No comment? >> Anybody disagree? >> Yeah. West Road. >> Yep. Yeah. No comment. No comment.
>> Okay. And then the last one is Wheeler Road, three-wheeler. >> Yeah. And that is um also a modification to a storm water management permit. And there is an earth the storm water
management permit was issued concurrently with the earth excavation special permit and that is um going to be heard by the board on the 18th. There's a public hearing a new application for that special permit. So
planning board handles the storm water the ZBA handles the earth excavation special permit application. When when's the planning board meeting >> for the um >> law? That is on
February 23rd. >> So it's after we meet. >> Yes. >> So I think if there was anything that we did did find out about it. So >> yeah, perfect. >> I wouldn't have any comment until the >> no comment then. Everybody Anybody unc?
Everybody's good with that. >> I I have a little discussion. Sure. >> Um so this what would fall under our purview possibly with the storm water permit um is the possible change of plan
for the use of the building there. Um, you know, this this plan goes back to 2016, uh, with several iterations of the plans there, um, and extensions. Um
the and and the the original plan was for the that building to be removed um and the entire area graded >> um for in a completely um different
plan. Um what my you know as far as a special permit um possibility is that you know the use of that building now which has been renovated to be
>> Can I interrupt you? You're not talking about a special permit now. We're only talking about the storm water and management permit. You can't talk about the other until you're you open that public hearing. >> Okay. So if you can talk >> but if the storm water system is
supposed to allow for a different use of the building >> which could possibly require storm water application. >> The only comment you can make is you review the application that was submitted >> and then you can make a comment on that
or you can ask the board if they want to comment on that. But the application is strictly for storm water modification >> and that's that's what you have to address and there is no zoning in storm water management. It's storm water
management. It's a completely different permit. >> It's not in the zoning by >> right. >> So um I would just say you have to say >> so we will get the opportunity to talk on the
>> Yeah, that would be your Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Right. So, we're at no comment on that one as well. We'll get our opportunity, it sounds like, to talk about the other aspects of the project
>> in the future. Yep. Okay. So, we've gotten through that. That's Let's see. That's planning board. Sorry. It's very rare and like in my very rare that we have a comment on someone else's
um like those mandatory referrals. We really need them but we don't really >> give them a special permit should be >> applied for though we still >> can't talk about here we can't talk
about the case unless it's before you >> right >> correct >> and it will be before us there is one coming before us >> okay >> so we're going to have on that's what I was talking about oh February February 18th that's coming before us it'll be a public hearing >> okay So, you're going to have plenty of
time to address anything. The planning board's not meeting till the 23rd. Yeah. >> So, anything if we have anything we want to share with them, they're going to we're meeting first. So, that's kind of cool. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, let's see how we're doing on our agenda. Um, we did the referrals. All right. So remember that um the bylaw that we had
crafted after much discussion um did folks read um our our town council's response and that email >> question first before we discuss this. >> Sure.
>> When was that put on our agenda to discuss? And I don't know. I just >> What was We're about to discuss. When was it put on our agenda? >> Last week. >> When the agenda was posted. >> Oh, okay. All right. Yeah. >> Just want to make sure the public knows
that this was on our agenda. It wasn't added >> for like a whole week. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I didn't see that on there before. I had reviewed everything. That's And I missed that other because it was in something else I wasn't used to. Sorry about that. Anyways,
sorry, Mr. Chair. >> So, uh, let's open it. Um, so we've we've gotten feedback from town council, uh, planning board, I think, gave us feedback as well to revisit it. Um,
so I'll tell you all like as I've, you know, I read through town councils and I I think I need to read it again a few more times because it didn't >> it didn't quite stick. I don't I I um and so I'm
wondering if we can So the the thing that I came to was should we invite town council to join our next meeting? so that we can walk through it with him? No. >> Well, maybe I'm I'm just saying no because it's gonna cost us money. But go
ahead council here. >> First, let me just say before we go on too far with this. >> Yeah. >> Creating bylaws is not our job, >> right? What we did, we did the applicant and everyone, we thought they were doing
a favor and being helpful by doing what we thought and sending it to the planning board. It's back to us, but part of me is like, oh well, we tried. I mean, if anyone you want to think about this as a public servant, I mean, as a
um as a member of the a citizen of the town, be careful zoning board. don't create bylaws, we enforce them. So, I can't stress that enough. As we discuss this, just keep it in mind. If there's an easy solution that fixes, you know,
it says, "Oh, well, that's a great idea. Yeah, we'll do that." I would have expected the planning board to take that and then create something that did fit and they didn't do that. And I don't know why because they've done it in the past. >> No, they don't write either. You have to
have that uh professionally done, which means >> the planning board has created and changed bylaws in the past. They've done it. >> They've outsourced it to the planning commission. >> They may Yeah, they might for final wording, but they come up with I'm telling you, I've done it. They've done
it. I've been here a long time because we've done this before and we've kind of put our thoughts so that >> and you give them this and then >> they run with it. So they don't want to outsource it. They
want us to that I'm trying to get clarification of what the expectation is now to what to do with this. It's to take the town council's comments and decide what you want to do.
>> Basically, it's up to the board. >> I I'm urging a lot of caution with this. Um, he's not telling us not to, but still. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> He's telling us there's a good chance
that the goes to the to the state and they're not going to approve it, right? >> They're going to say you're doing spot zoning. You're by putting in a date, you're >> you're giving somebody an unfair advantage. >> So, >> he's pointing out exactly what we did.
He created a way for these people to do what they want to do and it is exclusive to them only. And that's what he that's what he found. And he's not wrong. That's what he Yeah, that's what he found. >> So, how do you how do you fix that? How
do you create something that um still kind of allows them to do what they want to do, but applies to all the zoning in general? It's getting a little out of our uh I don't know where what we do.
>> That's what I think it would help us. I know it'll cost money. It would help us to have the town attorney here to be able to ask questions directly about some of this because I think a lot of it comes down to the terminology of dwelling
versus hotel motel versus um continuous and permanent habitation versus temporary or transitional whatever that kind of stuff because if you just look >> he he his opinion what I think what he
has said before is that he doesn't think we need a bylaw change. And maybe one of the questions I have is, you know, can you convince, you know, why, you know, be able to answer more of our
questions about why you think that is okay when we can point to this piece of the zoning and and say, "No, it's not." >> Yeah. Um, >> but that's why I think a face toface would answer those questions without having to go back and get more legal
memos of three or four pages and try to understand them and exactly what he was saying and what he wasn't saying. So, >> let me ask you all a simple question. Is there a difference between um a hotel and a house?
>> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. So everyone's getting into the definitions. Don't do that. I mean, yeah, in a certain way you do. A dwelling at this. What is a dwelling? The difference is
transient versus longterm residency. That's the difference. You can call it anything you want. Um, put whatever curtains on it, whatever label you want. That's what it is. And you've got the previous decision that says that they
wanted transient, not long-term in there. The bylaw calls for hotel motel. And now we're getting into, well, what's a hotel? What's a motel? And anytime the bylaw doesn't have the definition exactly,
we've opened up the dictionary. You know, if you were to go to court and go, "Well, your honor, um, we don't know what transient's not. We don't know how long transient is. It's not in the It's not in the bylaw.
I think we were stupid. So, it's kind of like you need a little bit of common sense here, too. Um, address the transient versus the residents. And that's what they want. We
gave them they they can do a hotel motel by right. They can't do permanent residency and we're trying to allow them to do that under Maybe it's not under the hotel motel, >> right? They didn't ask for that. >> Maybe it's um Well, they did.
>> No, they requested a special permit as a dwelling. Not specifically, not hotel motel for long-term residential use. >> Um >> and we ended up giving them something that said hotel motel, but >> as of January 2026.
So you could create something else instead of the hotel motel. You could also put in there long make a whole another thing say long-term residency >> um and multiple dwellings and then you know what you're going to find. You're
going to go back to the planning board and they're going to go well that kind of we have a multif family. You got to have a minimum of eight acres have this. It's only one dwelling per lot. you're going to run into all other sections of the bylaw that it's going to conflict
with and you're going to need a lot more help than that. You're going to need someone to just kind of rewrite the whole bylaw to allow for more housing and this and that. Um, so it it's a it's kind of a conundrum, I think, in a way.
Does that help at all or am I complicating it further? I I >> I guess for for me I It's niggling at me that the, you know, our, you know, town council
appeared to say that we didn't need to like do zoning that with our current zoning, we could make this happen and but I don't know how to do that. I I don't see it. So
that's that's where I'm and so I don't so that's why I feel a little stuck. >> That's why I think he needs to be in the room so we can we can ask those questions and he can explain. >> So >> and if he can't then we know we're going down another road. But that's what he seemed to be saying that there's a way
to do this but the way we tried to do it wasn't gonna wasn't going to pass >> going to pass muster. >> Right. I get what he's saying really about it not passing because it's it that is exactly what we did quite agree with. >> But as far as the current bylaw, I don't
agree with them. And just because the attorney says so, you could have a we can get a new town council tomorrow and have a different opinion. Who do we listen to? It's, you know, he's he's giving an opinion um
based on that section. I don't know. They're not always to be looked at factual like yeah okay yeah you can it means look at it can we find a way and if we dig keep digging and digging and we don't find a way then you don't find a way.
So, never has a zoning board created a bylaw. We are a police not a policing. We're not a policing. We are an enforcer of what's in writing. To create something and then go enforce it is really not
what we should be doing. Um that's what the planning the planning board that falls under them. They have the public hearing. They ask for public comment. They it's under them to go on the warrant to be accepted. So um I
don't Yeah, they going to have to have it worded by somebody because somebody has to go through when you create a bylaw, you make a change, you have to make sure it doesn't conflict with all the other pieces of it. >> Um >> the planning commission. >> Yeah. Right. Right. We have legal and we have outsourced.
>> So I'm surprised that they just didn't take this and run with it somehow. >> They know opinion from council. There wasn't I mean they're willing to >> No, no, no. Not the one we written. But why didn't they take it and you know
maybe try to come up with other ideas or go hey guys what do you think? We've sat in a room together before and say okay we have this problem. we we want to do this, but the bylaw doesn't allow us and we need to make some changes to make this work. What do we do? And we've
gotten several boards together to like a think tank to come up with something that will and then you go, "Oh, this wording might work." Then you run it by town council and then you, you know, oh yeah, everyone thinks it's going to work. Then you run it by whoever, >> you know, that kind of thing.
to do that. >> All what I'm saying is why didn't the planning board want to do that? >> Well, the planning board said they're willing to work with us and >> talk with us and and Yeah. >> The amendment was brought to them from you. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> That's what you asked me to do,
>> right? Have responded that they would like to >> that they're not going to forward it. But yeah, they will work. >> Oh, I thought they were just throwing it back at us to redo it and come up with something. form it is not feasible.
I mean, I'm not going to answer. >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but they're happy. >> They said they would work with us if we want to revise it to come up with something else, but >> So, can we propose a joint session to work on this problem? Is that how how
it's worked in the past? >> I don't know. Darling seems to >> that's the I mean, I've typically stayed away from it. We had like maybe one person from zoning. It depends on what it is. Like I said, you got to be careful about the zoning
board being part of creating laws that they're going to be the enforcers of. >> So, I've just thrown that warning out there. That's all. >> Yeah. I I read that. I'm going, "Oh, I haven't had time to digest it, to think
of what to do next." Um, I'm just seeing the caution flags a little bit. So, I just want as everybody thinks about it, just keep that in mind. >> Yeah. So, do uh you want to put it as an
agenda item for next meeting to sort of follow up see where once we've had time to digest more what we want to do next. >> I don't even know if it has to go on our agenda, but if you want to talk this is this it has nothing to do with the application that's on the table.
>> It is all separate. This is just do good mission. Um so >> well when you say that do good mission for whom >> right? >> The town the town >> well that's >> in that in that way. >> No it's not right. So everyone's saying
they're willing to come up with something that is not that that will do a better job. So, it's not something you have to put on a an agenda and unless you really want you're going to invite the public to attend and now you're going to but I think you need a little bit more
>> discussion has to be on the agenda. You can't start talking about something that's not on the agenda. >> Yeah. >> Yes, you can. That's what I'm trying to say. This is not a a public hearing situation. No, there's no application. >> Just sent out that saying you cannot do
that >> to discuss it with us. That is strictly. >> Oh, well, yeah, you'd have to if we were going to get together, you'd have to post a meeting, right? But there's nothing stopping one of us to going to Beth and going saying, "Hey, um, and talking to another planning board member
to say, hey, let's get together and um, you know, what ideas do you have?" Yeah. You can't all four all of us get together. So, I feel like if you're going to schedule a meeting, we should have something to
start with. So, >> all right. >> I don't feel like it should be on the agenda. I think we should just steer clear of anything to do with writing a bylaw unless it's comment from another
board's looking for suggestions or comments. I also think that we should not suggest writing rewriting or modifying a bylaw to be a solution for a special permit.
My first reaction was like, "Okay, we tried." Um, >> you got a clear answer from council. What you tried to do was unfair, >> right? >> It's pretty clear. >> And so if you try another angle, it I
think you're just, like I said, beating your head against the wall. >> Yeah. >> You can't scr You can't sculpt the bylaw to benefit one or two properties. It's just not not how it works.
>> Well, the Well, it would be to sculpt something that fits all of OCDs, not just this one. You would have to really do something and go, "Okay, it's fit all the OCD districts." >> So, now we're getting somewhere. Maybe
you want to revise the entire OCD. >> Let's see. because it's really poorly written in my opinion as we saw tonight mixed commercial. >> Well, that's what I I should probably should have said that, but that's what I meant. >> So, rewrite. Yeah. What we That's That's
a what we did obviously. No, you need something completely new. >> Yeah. >> That addresses Everybody wants more housing. But again, like I said, maybe we need to hire someone to go through our bylaws and have um we did a think tank years ago and um and he's like,
"What do you want to see in the town? Is it time to do that and go over a whole entire bylaw so that more housing's allowed everywhere? >> I mean, >> with states doing it with ADUs and >> I'd rather us do it ourselves instead of
having carrot dangles and being forced to do things or you don't get grant money. That's whole different. >> Yeah. >> We need to do what's good for our town. >> Maybe suggest that be put on to the annual town meeting and maybe suggest that we look for grants for it. I forget
who I forget what they called it, but um >> no, it was in um oh god, it was so it was like in the '9s we did this and someone stood there with a board and everybody had got in groups and said what do you want to see for the
town and you had you know you had certain subjects that were given you know points and they took all that and they did something with it and mostly I think it was the charter general bylaw it went into. But then I think the planning board took a couple things and
they revised a couple bylaws and made some changes. Um, but you'll see in there there are changes in the bylaw that suits specific people. It's been done. It just is worded differently. >> It's not been done recently because it's
illegal according to the AGS. >> Well, of course it is. But >> had stuff kicked back recently. If the idea just comes from one thing, but it it's for everybody, then so that's what it has to be. Somehow you've got to
Yeah. Someone's got to make the argument then, okay, we want we want multif family housing in OCD. And well, why even have an OCD? Why even have a commercial district? What's a commercial district for? Right. For commercial uses. So it it could be a big discussion. Um
>> the purpose is to accommodate the widest range of permitted commercial activities. >> Yeah. >> Right. Which I guess that spawns further debate what that means. Um Vicki, maybe um one
of us from this board should talk to one person on the planning board and >> kind of get their like see what do they think. Would they be open to a think tank? Um maybe we could schedule something. We could invite all the
boards, see who's interested. And >> I mean it's worth at least taking the step to reaching out to the planning board, one of the a member of the planning board, I think. >> Right. Right. Maybe they have some ideas
and we can plan a meeting with some some substance or something. >> Right. I mean, do any of you have like any solid ideas that we could put on the table to discuss? >> I mean, the only thing that came up
today that looked interesting was um sort of another category within a special permit in in OCD that would allow more dense, you know, uh residential
as you said. Yeah, we need to look at the whole OCD to make sure that that's not going to be a problem. Does anybody have existing relationships with anybody on the planning board? Who's on the board now?
>> I'm I'm the admin so I can relay anything you need. Um >> actually you want to relay to them that we we don't know what to do next. >> Okay. Yeah. >> It's not and you know remind them we we wrote something as kind of like here
like like an idea. Take this. >> Um >> so what is the goal though? cuz that goal was obviously to grant a special permit for a specific application >> to allow denser housing that's permanent.
>> Yeah. So yeah, I think maybe just come on the agenda. I put it on the agenda. You come to a meeting and have that >> and then say there you know they're >> or I can you know >> looking for your thoughts. make a joint meeting on the 18th and we could ask
them to come. Well, again, we're we're we I guess the thing is we we see that there's a problem that we would that we think should be resolved, but if we're following the, you know, the um guidance of that, we shouldn't be creating the
rules that we enforce, I'm not sure the joint meeting to start off is probably the right thing. But >> once we have some ideas and that seem viable, then maybe pulling together
would be helpful the think tank idea. Has getting back into part say has the applicant and the and their attorney have any input as to
how to alter the talk about the case right now? No. >> Well, I'm not talking about the case. >> Oh, sorry. >> Future. Okay, never mind. I guess it could be misconstrued. >> What about the fact that the building inspector
in August uh part of his referral said these are nonowner occupied cottage dwellings per bylaw. >> We can't like take that and run with that. >> I agree. He's incorrect. They're not cottage dwellings. Cottage dwellings are part of the age restrict the heck is a
cottage dwelling? >> I think that's I think >> it's defined in >> part of the problem. >> Like I said, these definitions, a dwelling, a cottage dwelling or >> so what happens when you add stuff to the bylaw,
>> detached one family dwelling not exceeding 1800 square feet as part of that bylaw, right? And I don't think the rest of the bylaw was aligned >> right >> when the ADU was added. That's what that
that definition was meant toward >> meant meant but it doesn't refer to it. So >> problem >> it's in the bylaw the body of the bylaw um cottage dwellings. So it's it's actually in the body of the bylaw but it is still
>> separately in the definitions at the beginning you know so >> but the only place it's referenced in the bylaw the body of the bylaw is in the age restricted development bylaw. Yeah, I was written for that. >> Can we ask if our select person, past
planning board member has anything to add? >> No. >> Um, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I did I I did say madam chair, but I also had the fire thing going here, too.
I I am very interested in your willingness to meet with somebody at planning. I think it's a great idea. We do need growth in housing. We know that we can only get so much anyway because of the
septic system uh requirements. And I also think that perhaps having um somebody maybe even somebody from board of health and the building inspector and someone from zoning and
planning sit down first or maybe even a select board member. I would be willing to do that. I was on planning for a long time. Um, and that's just something that we have not gotten off the ground yet.
I think we're going to be looking at statemandated stuff coming with the lack of housing and the shortage of housing that we have. And I think that if you had a group of people get
together and say, "How can we do this with the making the least impact, you know, on our water, on our um septic systems and possibly utili utilizing
more of the main street area, you know, which is there are still other places that you could have on main drags. I'm saying not the smaller that you could have more housing that won't look like
you have a new city kind of thing. Um so I think if if somebody from zoning and planning and I think the building inspector will be willing to meet with us as well as um maybe Rick Medcaf. I
wouldn't say necessarily any of the commission members, but I would I would deal with the people who deal with the laws. Okay. So, that would be best in order to come up with the new bylaw, which planning would do.
That's those are my thoughts. So, thank you. >> I I think if you're going to look at curtailing the zoning laws, you really got to get some outside help. uh maybe from the MRPC like correct me if I'm wrong here want to
choose a regional planning commission they there are success stories within our region and they are aware of other areas where um um making zoning laws have made places more
um livable and I think that's what we're looking for. Wouldn't it be nice if they had some if the state provided somebody for us to help us instead of making us pay for it? >> How do we know that? They don't really >> Yeah. through grants.
>> Yeah. And there specific grants for >> looking at um zoning laws and how to change them to make um to make them more like what you want the town to be. So, and to allow for more
>> more housing in the Yeah, a more viable vital what's the word I'm looking for? Um to have their downtown have a lot more vitality. >> So, it's out there and yeah, please do
that. Please help. It' be nice if we could get some more commercial, too, to help pay >> for uh I mean, you need both. >> Yeah, >> there's areas that we could write into zoning that would allow the town to make more money. Um
>> I think a lot of more mixed use would be really nice, too. >> Yeah, >> I agree. >> Um so >> improve the pedestrian traffic and >> walkability of the town. No one no one even mentioned, oh, why don't you change
the there's a perfect building there to get a more housing or mixed use and >> you could up the units >> zoning districts are problematic and >> well it was created separated dependent on sound like a hippie but I don't care
to be dependent on vehicles that's what how zoning laws came about and we need to change Well, Lori, is this something you'd be willing to get rolling as as far as getting a a number of different people together from each of the different
boards? >> I I'd be happy to do that. I'll speak to Kieran tomorrow >> and um see because I mean I I know building inspector and and Rick I've worked with for many years and I'll just
ask if we can get um a group together who from do you know who from zoning would like to do it like >> did you just volunteer me >> or Vicki Um,
>> trying to get off the zoning board. >> Remember a think tank group, right? >> Back an idea to planning. Planning would be the one that would initiate it, but getting all the information behind it for planning to work with is what we
need. >> And I will I'll speak to Kieran tomorrow about it. >> Okay. I you all very much. I think you did a great job tonight. It was tough. Um it >> is tough. >> And the thing about that building too is
like Kobe just said, um you know, we need to do more housing in that mixeduse area. That's a walkability place. >> There's an elevator, too, I think. >> And they have elevator. Yes. Plenty parking elevator. They can walk to the
store. They can walk to the pizza place. They can walk to the bank and the post office. I mean, that's what you want. So, it's really too bad that that that particular part of the bylaw restricted you. Um I I don't know if there's a way
or why shouldn't there be a way that because of the way the commercial industry is right now in this area, why can't that be all residential? Why does it have to be mixed use? As long as he stays within the septic
requirements, >> right? Well, the problem is is because you you can't put commercial in residential areas and we don't have enough commercial. So, I think people are afraid to take away commercial ability. If you turn the whole town into
residential and you don't have any commercial, that's a problem, too. So, that's that's that's that whole balance. I I don't >> I'm not about restricting it. >> I'm talking about the option to do it.
>> In other words, if things change and all those people go and buy houses, okay, or they move out of state, which is more likely, okay? So, um the way things are going, but if so, if that happens, then
you can go back to your commercial. >> Sure. Yeah. whatever the market or the times >> I gota >> I'm going to see if I can get a group together and get you guys going. Okay. >> Is there any Would there be a problem if
more than one of us per board wanted to attend as long as we posted a notice? >> Uh I don't think there's a problem for two >> of either boards because you're not a >> quorum. >> Okay. So, that would be okay for those
two. But I'm I would still go with the staff people. Okay. The building inspector and um not Carla, but Rick. I want somebody with the law background. Uh my opinion, if that's okay with you guys.
>> Yeah. >> Um and >> well, they they work with other towns, too. So, they can give input to go, "Oh, they're doing this over here. You might want to consider that." >> Correct. So, >> also going to talk to Karen about one, does he want to be involved as a TA and
two, does he think we could get counsel to help us? Okay. >> Okay, >> that sounds great. Thank you. >> Right. >> Yeah. Thanks, Lori. >> Right. Maybe we'll come with a better
better solution. Yeah, that will benefit more people. All right. So, I believe we're at the end of the agenda agenda. I don't think there was any correspondence. Is there any correspondence today? I
don't think so. >> All right. Do uh I think at this point we'll look for a motion to close the meeting. Adjourn. Adjourn the meeting. >> Rob us. I make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
>> Darlene seconds. >> Shooter. Yes. >> Darlene. Yes. >> Rob us. Yes. >> Vicki Janiki. Yes. Well, thank you everyone for your your diligent work today. Um and uh we'll see you in a few
weeks. Thank you. Byebye.