Sure. Motion to open. >> Open the meeting. >> We have a second. >> Yeah, I'll second it. >> Remember to uh So, we have to say our names because we're we're hiding now. >> Move. Motion to I move to open the meeting. Darlene Sedano. Okay. >> David Chanel second.
>> Okay. Um so, Darlene, Darlene Bats. Yes. A >> David Chanel. Yes. >> Okay, great. Uh Vicki Janiki. Yes. Okay. So at this time because we are at the
over past the time for the hearing. Do we have a motion to open the public hearing uh on three Wheeler Road? >> David Chanel's open motion to open the meeting on Wheeler Road. >> Darlene seconds.
Darlene. Darlene. Yes. >> David Chanel. Yes. This must add like 10 minutes to the meeting at the end of the meeting. >> You'll see this someday. >> Now, if we're all here in person, we don't have to. But
>> all right, so here we are. Um we're going to open the meeting. Um if there's a signin sheet somewhere for anybody who's visiting, you got it. Great. Um so would you like to uh we need to read the
legal ad. So, everybody have the >> co you have it handy or >> he's actually walking. Are you walking towards the room? >> Do you have >> I'll read it >> if you have it. >> I I just I just opened if you want me to
read it. >> Okay, >> I got it. >> Okay, good. In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws chapter 4A and the zoning bylaw, the towns and zoning board of appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, February 18th, 2026 at 6:35 in Memorial
Hall, 272 Main Street Towns and Mass on the application of Gary Shepard for special permit under sections 145-40, 145-46, and 145-65 of the towns and zoning bylaw. The applicant seeks a special permit for the excavation and removal of
approximately 53,000 cubic yards of earth material from the property located at three wheeler road towns in Massachusetts. And that's assesses map block oh map for block 9 lot zero which is zoned residential B that's RB2 and
lies within the aquifer protection overlay district. The proposal includes a modification to an existing earth excavation special permit to allow the reconstruction of a building in the area previously designated as a restoration area. The hearing will be held in person with a virtual zoom option full remote
act. Do I have to repeat that part? Okay. Details will be posted at least 48 hours on the town of website ww.town.gov under the upcoming events calendar. Interested people may submit written comments prior to the hearing or appear
and be heard at the hearing in person. The application is available public review in the town clerk's office and land use office during regular business hours. Victoria Janiki chair zoning board of appeals and this was published in the GR Herald on January 30th um
February 6 of 2026. I'm not going to read the others. Okay. Do you all stuff at the bottom is kind of new. Do you have to read all that part because it's >> I never did but I do say I like your uh I like your your annunciation on the words is very um very uplifting.
>> Yes. >> Could add a little excitement to us. David uh so while we um I'm here I'm assuming you're here to represent the applicant. >> I am. I'm Ryan Proctor for Dillis Roy the applicant. >> So feel free to
>> I I will. So thank you for reading that into the record. Um, so as we've just read, we have here tonight seeking earth removal special permit at three-wheeler road for the removal of approximately 53,000 cubic yards of material. Uh, this project has been before this board several times in the past. Um, there was
a decision in 2020 issued for the removal of approximately 109,000 cubic yards of material. Um, so this application providing uh approximately 50 50% less earth removal from the site. The applicant has been ongoing with uh
the work at site at the site that was previously approved. Um during construction u they have decided and what we're here tonight proposing uh is to retain one of the buildings on top of the hill that was previously proposed to be removed. It's the larger of two
structures at the top of the hill. The other one will still be removed at the end of the at the end of construction. Um but to retain that building, we've regraded the site and we've eliminated quite a bit of the grading uh that was included on top of this hill and really eliminated uh limited the earth removal
to the easterly portion of the site. >> Can can you guys see >> Oh, I can put it up on the screen. >> But I it's like if he was us over a little bit, you can see what he's pointing to, too. Because it's >> We can't see on Zoom. >> Yeah. Sorry.
>> Thank you. We need a shared screen. >> Yeah. >> That would that would work. >> I think we have something here too. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Is this the same as what you put up there or is this >> Yes, it should be dated uh 1120 2025 as
the last revision date. about your phone there probably at the bottom. >> The camera's focused on >> I know that's why I said >> that's great. >> I have the third sheet up. So she one more down from there. >> One more.
>> Yep. Perfect. Right there. >> Yep. Uh so just to recap, the building at the top of the hill, the larger of the two, I can't point on the screen. I'm sorry. Um thank you. Uh we are proposing to at this point uh retain and repair that building instead of remove
which is how it was previously uh previously approved back in 2020. So the grading has been limited to the bottom side of the page, which is along the eastern portion of the site. And with the regrading of the site, we've relocated the infiltration basin that was previously uh proposed to along that
property line to capture the runoff that will eventually come down. >> Point on this one and then Beth can point on there if you want. >> Y so the Bison was originally proposed building and now we've just relocated that down just because of the regrading where everything is shedding from the
top um towards that property line. I have a feeling. So you guys were here in 2020. Was that we >> were here again? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I think that changed. Was that changed then on the last decision or is it since then?
>> Uh the removal of the swarm water basin was new for this application. >> Okay. I could have sworn it was it was moved over. It was talked about. All right. I'll be quiet. >> Oh, that's okay. Uh so with with that modification to
this plan as a whole, we also have filed an application with the planning board to modify the existing storm water management permit that we currently have on the site. Uh we are set to appear before them on Monday. Uh they did discuss this project at their last meeting and there were some staff comments that we received today. Um one
of which was from the planning board. Um I'll just read what they said briefly here. Um they said, "We support the project and have no objections to the changes proposed." and that was per unanimous vote at their last meeting. We do still have to go through the public hearing process with them next week. Um but that was their recommendation um to
your board. >> There were uh just for the record three other comments. Uh the board of selectments said they are confident in the ZBA decision and the highway department and water department both had no comments on our application. >> He's doing the job. >> I was going to say that's that saves us a job right there.
>> Does that count does that count as reading in the uh >> nice? All right. I save the step. They're read. >> All right. The mandatory referrals were read into the record, guys. >> I'm sorry. >> No, no, it's >> um So, that's by and large the the modification. Um like I said, we are
proposing to reduce the amount of earth that we're moving from the site, kind of consolidate the grading to the easterly property line and retain that larger building. Uh the remainder of the graded area will be restored uh with a natural uh loom and seed or hay mix. Um like similar, >> the other building been removed yet or
is >> I don't believe so. I I believe >> Okay. But it's still the intention to remove that. >> Could you identify I I was h having trouble following the uh the drawing because first of all it wasn't on our screen for the first part of it. Um could you identify again which building
is the one that's staying? Which one was take or will be taken? >> The one that's staying is uh this large building here that we're circling. And >> that's the one that's staying. >> Yeah. >> Staying. Yep. >> Okay. >> And then removing is the smaller one to the right of that one. And as far as as
far as the grading, what is what's changed from 2024 when you were up in front of ZBA last time? >> Uh, a significant amount. I'm not sure, Beth, if you have this plan. Uh, this was probably the original plan. Um, >> oh, is that is that scroll up? >> I don't know if that'll work.
>> Um, I can pull up the original. Yeah, >> essentially that whole hill we were proposing to cut down, >> right? >> I think 10 to 20 feet. um and then graded basically the entire thing at a 15% slope. >> And how does that change from the from the previous proposal or the actual the
active active permit? >> So So the overall disturbance of that hill is significantly less with the proposed modification. >> That's what I was that was my next question. Um could if I I don't want to I don't want to um control this, but I just I just have a couple questions
regarding the amount of the earth removal you're proposing. So the original permit was for 109, right? >> Correct. In 2024, you you asked for modification saying that has been you've had roughly 25% removed at the time of
the 109. So that's 27 thou 27,250. And and if you're only taking away 53 as a whole, that just leaves 25,750 is those numbers are accurate for percentage, but I don't know if that's what you're saying or if the application is correct.
So I do not So we are not proposing at 59,000 additional on top of what has already been removed. >> That's that's why I was that's what I thought. So that leaves just another 25,000 to be removed then based on the application from 2024. >> Yeah, that sounds accurate um based on
the grading that we have shown. >> So it's so it's much it's much less invasive than than the previous times. The last two times we're only talking 25,000 uh yards versus 110 109, >> right? Yeah. On top of >> Okay. >> Yeah, that was going to be one of my
questions for Dave. >> I knew I wanted I wanted to ask before you did. >> Okay. That's that was that's the extent of Well, the other thing um the building in your application, this current one that says building which was previously
in a restoration uh restoration area, that's not us. We don't we don't have that authority. So, who who would that come under? That's is that the planning board or >> care if that building was in the restoration area? I mean that doesn't
that doesn't affect us. >> I think it was uh to I mean the the intent was to remove the earth from the hill and then restore the hill. So I think it was just part of our site plans to provide that restoration probably with the planning board. I think it's like more of a technicality because the plan submitted said the building was
going to be taken down is going to be raised and it's not. So the has a permit needs to reflect what the current plan is. >> Okay. >> So the restoration is not a restoration environmental restoration. It's a restoration as far as the project
earlier project. >> Is that exactly okay? All right. I was I misread that then. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. You're like planting grass. >> I have a question if you don't mind. Um, this is Colby Street or I'm online. Um,
I was actually a little bit Oh, no. Is it still on? >> Can you hear me? >> Okay. Um, is this for my own for clarification? Is this a new permit, a new special permit or is it um modification to the old
older permit? >> A new one because it has to be administratively. You can't >> we've had a we've had a we've had a policy. We don't we don't update or amend existing special per as a new one. But you can you can incorporate it's
kind of like the one we had before, Colby. You can incorporate by reference all their findings. Make it makes it much makes much quicker. Each one's treated as as a new application. >> Okay, that helps me understand it. Thank >> they use the word modification to kind
of reference what was already been or already been approved to see what the change is. >> So, um one of the things uh uh in the current special permit was yearly annual
reports were to be submitted. Okay. >> Uh detailing how much um earth has been removed or material has been removed. Um and Beth was looking for some but we didn't find it. So um I'm assuming we're going to continue that going forward.
>> That was I was just I just read it earlier. It's a it was a condition on the last permit that was issued that before January 30th of every year that there's just some sort of an update. Well, that was yeah, that was based on a on a request by the some one of the one of the um comments asked for that and
and the board granted that. But if that didn't include their comments for this one did not include that. So, do we even care about it? >> The last one did the last one um the last decision we issued did have the condition in it. >> Oh, I know. But it was based on a comment in the comments, you know, the
comments from board members. It was it was it was based on that. It's up for discussion if you know if that's what you want to continue in this permit or >> the land use coordinator had asked for it. >> Can I can I ask uh what's the what's the
timetable on this 25,000 removal? Is that something that's going to happen fast or is this over a period of years? >> I do not have a good answer for you on that. I I apologize. >> It was it was a guess. I know with when the highway department we we moved about that much Gary if Gary was there he
could tell us we moved about that much dirt in about three weeks there huge amounts >> cuz course I got reported by the ethics too but that's another story >> well permits are special um earth removal special permits are only
threeyear right tops let's check believe I read that somewhere >> I thought of another So, uh, so I see the newly proposed, um, infiltration trench on there. Will that is that being,
um, is that part of this permit or is that going to be, um, a modification or to a storm water permit down the road? >> So, we submitted the an updated drainage report to reflect the updated infiltration basin to the planning board. So, we expect that that will be reviewed on uh, at the meeting on
Monday. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Do we have hours on this or was this um see do we have I thought we had conditions of like the hours of operation.
>> Yeah. Do we have a copy of the >> try to find it? >> Yeah. >> I don't know if we were >> Oh, yeah. Because the last one we just kind of incorporated everything. So, >> I I may have the old permit from 2020,
but it does say uh from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on weekdays for hours of operation. >> Yeah, this is the 2024. So, >> that's the most recent one. >> Yeah, but >> what are you looking for, darling? >> Excuse me.
>> What are you looking for? >> Um, this is the 2024 decision which incorporates everything from the one before. So, we need the one before to know what was incorporated. Yeah. Um and and just as aside on that on that yearly reporting that was the referral comment received from the land
use coordinator was I recommend ZBA requesting you know activity things. That's why it was submitted. It wasn't it wasn't it was the um land use coordinate at the time. >> Yeah. >> I don't I don't remember who that was if that was Karen. probably like >> several
>> Karen Karen Clement >> restoration. >> Yeah, this doesn't have it. >> Where does it say that was? Where does it say that the 2020 was incorporated? I don't I don't see that. >> Um >> I'm on the I'm on the 2024 permit. I
don't I just don't see that. It should it should have said it, but I just don't I just don't see it. >> Um, Darlene Sedano made a motion grant a special permit to Gary Shepard for an Earth excavation special permit incorporating the finding. I
>> got it. Okay. Yep. Got it. Thanks. all the motions and conditions in the previous Earth Excavation special permit decisions dated November 22nd, 2016 and October 7th, 2020 and to include a
permit expiration of April 2027. >> So, it's not three years then if it was 20. Well, yeah, it would be. Yeah. >> How do we do that? >> Um, >> I don't think it's I don't think statuto del I think that was just something that we've always done. I read in there that
in the earth excavation ex um special permit itself something about three years. >> You got it. Um it says here if I'm still in special earth the special permits. >> I'm just trying to make sure I'm in the
right place. Uh hold on cuz I found one that says it's 2 years from date of issue unless another period of time is identified. No, that's the um regular. It can be removed up for three years. >> That one, right? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> That's that that's specifically the earth excavation. >> Exactly. Yeah, >> it's got to be because we did it for three years. >> Yeah. >> But yeah, April 2024, April 27th.
So the 2020 decision that you have has all the bindings of fact or is it >> it does have bindings effect listed and >> is it different than the 20 should like should we reference 2016 again or we probably should
>> so if we reference even 2024 does that like sort of cascade and imply you know >> I well we've used all the dates before so I'm inclined to do that do that again. Well, let's if we get when we get to that point, >> right? >> Yeah. >> All right. Are there other questions
for our here? >> I don't have We do have a member of the public to ask, but I don't This seems pretty straightforward to me and it's even less um what's the word? >> Invasive. >> Yeah. Yeah. Less invasive than before,
which >> you know, >> does anybody else have any questions? I will say darene I'm looking at 14546 the earth excavation special permit it talks about the requirements to to that need the permit to be requested but it doesn't talk about longevity
>> um it's uh K no special permit shall be initial period of more than three year K on >> turn the page >> yes >> I don't have that >> J restoration and then K no special
permit shall be issued for initial period of more than 3 years. >> Okay, I'll take your word for it. I don't have that. I don't have that page. >> Renew a special permit beyond but not to exceed three years per
renewal. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Then they must conform to all requirements of the special permit. >> All right. um >> the up the updated sections that we're doing later on in this meeting um for
updated bylaw sections. Is that is is this one of the sections that that gets rid of that or is that continues? >> It has not been amended now. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. Uh Kobe, you all set? H why not find that unmute button button?
It's not working. >> Who's who's the admin? They can they can um take it off for them. >> Yeah. Could you unmute Colby, please? Okay. >> This thing. God, >> sorry. This is not how I wanted to do
the m Yeah. Um I did notice um uh that it it was mentioned that it was in the uh aquifer overlay and I I looked at that. Um, can you ex can anyone uh be u
clarify that for me because I didn't see the property in the overlay um as being within the aquifer pro protection overlay. Did anyone look at that? >> I believe it's a portion of the site. I I don't have the map shown area.
>> Yeah, it's not I don't think we're any disturbance in within that overlay if I'm not mistaken. >> It was like the tip of the south Yeah, there it is right here. Yeah. >> Okay. The line is shown. Um, >> yeah, right. Your cursor there.
>> Yeah. >> So, right here is the aquifer, which is because you've moved the retention bin, I guess. So, this is the old one, right? Because
this has the old retention. >> So, the pond was outside of that area previously as well. So I think it's the site is located partially within that overlay district because I'm I'm fairly certain it's that >> it's that way. >> Okay. Now this is the restoration. >> This is the new infiltration basin here.
And then >> and this is line here for the aquifer. >> Correct. Yeah. That's the the boundary which in that area >> the house that's the poultry house poultry processing.
That one's staying >> staying proposed to stay as well. >> Reconstruct right next >> correct >> then. So there's nothing on >> not for the overlay. >> Okay. Okay.
So it doesn't appear from the map that any of the work will happen in that overlay district. Correct. >> Yeah. Thank you. Right.
Um, why don't we open it up for the public? Uh, Christie, would you you have any feedback for us? >> No, I don't think I have questions. Honestly, less invasive sounds like a positive. >> Is there anybody else on the call who
may have some questions or feedback? Okay. Um, so we've read the mandatory referrals. Um, are we ready to close public testimony? At this point, >> we could just go into doing what we're doing and that'll close it.
>> Yeah. instead of going through all the voting process. >> Another 10 minutes out of our life. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, uh let's move. So, thank you. Standard or whatever. Yeah. At this point, uh so let's move into a
discussion. Um any further questions and with the result of a motion of some of some sort being um not trying to be uh niggler but we did have the requirement for the annual report and doesn't seem like we
we received it. Um so the question is do we drop that or ask them to file previous ones or just going forward? Um it's not something that this board
itself would use. I think the information but there may be others in town. >> I see it this way. the pro the the project is less invasive than it was before. It's made progress. I don't think there are
any neighbor complaints or any problems that are going on. So, we just got an update from issuing the special permit. We know what's going on. So, I don't I don't if it's you guys want it, I'm fine. But I don't it doesn't matter to
me. >> What? What did you say >> of conditioning it to for a yearly report? >> I I don't think that's necessary. I I do want to nail the applicant a little little down a little more down on the total yardage. So the and not to beat
the dead horse here, but they they requested initially 109,000 cubic yards, right? In the 2024 renewal, they said they done approximately 25% of the 109, which comes up to like 27,000. And now they're
looking for a total of 53. Is that so? It's 53 from when? It's We're not So we're not giving them a a permit to do 53,000 more cubic yards because they've already by their own admission in the previous application, they've already taken off close to 30,000 already. So
how much do how much cubic yards are they asking for? I don't want to I don't want to have an open-ended thing here. If they're not doing the 109, I mean, I I want to nail them down to it now. Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, if we could just say that they're
they're asking for 53,000 cubic yards and >> total though total >> if about 50% of it been accomplished. I mean, we could we could note that, but >> well, we don't know that it was 25% in
the 2025 2024 renewal. So if if they're saying a total of 53,000, that would just leave a balance of about 26,000 yards total left to left to be removed. >> I know. Why not ask for what's what's left instead of
>> because then it's then it's not less invasive if they're asking for the the difference of the 109. >> Well, it it is because it would only be 70. If they wanted an additional 53 and they made um 25% then the total be
>> two years ago darling >> we don't know what we don't know how active it's been in the last two years. >> So we you don't know what the the how much has been removed? >> No the the 53,000 is an estimate based on the proposed grading there overlaid
on the original condition of the site. Um, so my my assumption is that that 53,000 includes what was previously estimated during 20 the 2024 modification or the new permit then which was sounds like 25% of the 109. So my I believe what you're looking for is
that it would be the difference between that 25% and the 53,000 is what it's Yeah, that's 25,750. >> Yeah. >> Y >> So what we could say is no no more than 53,000 cubic yards. um from its original
application in was it 2016 because that's where that's how far back it goes >> all started. Yeah, >> that's that seems kind of gerrymanded to me. >> And I think you're making a case here to actually keep the annual reports as a um
as a object uh part of the plan. >> Oh, it's a it's a it's a checking system. I that's a good idea, Colby. But we don't know unless we put a a specific figure on the cubic yards. We don't really If they say they take 10,000 out for the next 3 years, that's 30,000. That exceeds what
they're saying. But we don't know that because we they haven't given us a number. If we say if we say maximum 25,000 additional yards from be previous and ask for the yearly yearly report, that's probably that would probably be a good good benchmark. keep their feet keep
their their feet to the fire. >> Yeah. Given given uh the longevity of the this uh project, like you said, it's going back to 2016 by >> 2016. Yeah. >> What would make you happy about it? >> Yeah. Yeah. I would like to see the annual
report on a ballpark figure, you know, how much material has been removed. It would benefit them as well, just to have an idea about what they're removing. What about a what about a a total and the we have to give a decision. We can't just say we have to have a number in
there for yards removal because that's what the that's that's what we do. So how much how much do we put in there? Do we use my numbers that I that I I kind of backtor it? But it's based on what their application from two years ago. >> That's a good question. I don't have an answer to it.
>> Yeah. It's too bad the applicant doesn't have it either. What's what was the applicant's name? The the engineer there. It >> was Ryan. >> Ryan, can I ask you, Ryan, do you know based on the based on the the uh measurements you've done to come up with
these plans, do you know how many yards need to still be removed to make to do the uh restoration that you're talking about? The only number I I can give you is based on the proposed topography on the new plan, based on the original topography of the um of the site, not
>> what's the delta what's the delta on that then? >> The delta on that is the 53,000 >> which by again not to I keep going back to based on your three two years ago you you already said you took took 25% of the 109. So that's leaves about 26,000
26,000 cubic gads left. Yeah. >> Is there anything stopping us from continuing this to get that answer and then make a clean decision? >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Because I I I feel uncomfortable making the number for you. >> Yeah.
>> You know, and and perhaps, you know, it turns out it's 30,000 and we've said it's 25 or 26 and you have to come back and do it over again. Well, is it would it be safe to in uh include or provide like some sort of uh
factor of safety where we estimate some amount like if the grading isn't exactly the same like I think the maximum threshold for your filing fee is 7,500 yards. Um, so we're well in excess of that no matter what we propose here. But >> if we nail down a number to 26,000, but
then the site constraints or something bump us up to 30,000 or 28,000, is there should we just aim a little bit higher where it's still a significant reduction over what was previously approved, but we at least have something to work with there? I guess my question to you, are you
confident that what how we calculated is correct or is accurate enough that if we said 30,000 for example that you you'd have enough that it would be it would work for you? >> I would I would be more confident in
that. Yeah, I think there's factors in the there's definitely factors in the cut and fill analysis that we do that are not always a 100% sight specific depending on the soil conditions and and fluff factor and swell factor in the soil. So, um I I would be comfortable
with that. So you'd be comfortable the remaining amount that needs to be removed is at maximum 30,000 square cubic feet >> based on the grading plan that we have there. driving.
>> I I would I would be I would be happy with that because I was going to propose the 257 with a plus or minus of some percentage, but I prefer all the with all the all the earth removals we ever done going back to, you know, the 30 years that I was on the board, we never
had a a fluff factor. We had specific amounts with a reporting reporting requirement. That's how we did it. >> Yeah. Because that the reason why all that historically is because of the Tim Park fiasco that happened when they were taking out tons of dirt. We didn't know
about it until it was too late. It was spread out over the central mass. So I I would accept that 30,000 is something that based and it's still it's still less invasive than the than the full 109, right? So >> yeah, >> it would actually it would actually
equate to about if we say 30,000 that would that would equate to 57,250 total based on the based on the application from before. So I'd be happy with that. >> Any more comments, questions? >> Colobby, do you agree with that?
>> Yeah, I agree. Yep. Nope. >> Yeah, I think we need the reporting out like you said. I do have a further question. Um uh this is me trying to understand the process again I guess but uh this being a new um
special permit um is all the criteria that's listed in 14565 um supposed to be examined again? I know it's an ongoing project. you know, you can accept the findings of
fact of the prior um applications decisions and that what we've done like 16 to 19 to 20, you know, back and it just keep they just keep kind of rolling over. So, in reality, the findings of fact and more detrimental than not and all that stuff is it goes back to 2016
when we when they I was probably on the board back then. Um yeah, and so it's just kind of a it's with the earth removal, we just kind of roll it over every three years just like a in-law apartment when we were doing every five years, which is not happening anymore, but it's the same thing we would do. Just keep rolling it over. We don't
recreate we don't rewrite the wheel, so to speak, >> right? >> Unless there's a dramatic change, >> right? And and is any I don't know that anyone's there is >> this is less. This is less. >> Yeah, this is less. And you know the
nothing has changed in the area. Um that might make it like there's not like a school or something right there or there's something that wasn't there before since I lived in that part of town. I haven't seen any changes other than the
solar farm. Um in that time >> I wish I was on the board back then. To answer your question, Kobe, technically we would just go through the criteria of the previous permits that we want to carry forward just to go over and make sure there isn't anything you want to
alter or change. So, >> right. Okay. >> So, we've got three decisions. >> All right. Where do we want to start? We want to >> Wherever you want. Do we want to start with the findings?
Yeah. Well, >> do we want uh So, I wasn't clear if we wanted to go back through them again. >> If we're going to incorporate them into a new decision, I would like to review them and and make sure I know what they are.
>> Why don't we Why don't we just open up the um the active the active permit because whatever happened before doesn't really matter because it's it's kind of like rolled over rolled over rolled over. So if we look at the April 17, 2024 decision, we could just go through it paragraph by paragraph to see if we
agree >> and I was doing that early when he was presenting and I didn't see any issues with it. >> Is it in there though? Did we go I don't know if the permit has itated. >> It's in that thing that Beth sent me that drop down box thing >> the decision.
I don't see it. I don't see it. It just says it says act well in the in the folder it says for this >> 218 meeting it says active special permit. >> Oh look at that. She's all over it. >> Yep.
>> Of course I can't read. It's too small. >> Usually is can't read that for nothing. Yeah. >> What you said was as you said incorporating the findings of fact in the previous permits in the 2016 and 2020. We didn't specifically go through
what was said in 2016 or 2020. >> So, it's not spelled out. It just incorporates. You have to go back to them and read them. >> I I would just incorporate this one. I don't I wouldn't go back to the other ones. >> And you can't totally incorporate because they're ask this is they're
asking for 109 cubic ads in this one. This now that's changed. Can I borrow it please? >> Because you could make the case for example impact on neighborhood visual character views and vistas that there
will be less disturbance. >> All right. On the 2020 decision we have adequacy of the site in terms of size for the proposed uses. The board found the property is adequate. B. Suitability of the site for the proposed use. The farm will remain a
farm and this will not and this will be a net improvement. C. Impact on traffic flow and safety. Truck routs will be approved by the chief of police. The operation has been operating without incident and has no impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh D. Impact on
neighborhood visual character including views and vistas. There will be no impact on the neighborhood >> adequacy and of method of sewage disposal source of water and drainage. There's a storm water plan that was approved. There's one that's being
modified. Um adequacy of utilities and other public services. The board determined there's not applicable impact on ground and surface water quality and other environmental and natural resource considerations. The board found there
will be no impact predicated on the storm water management permit. And then it looks like I made that motion as well. And we uh being operating I would exclude
holidays to the rest incorporate the funings of effect. The waiverss all of the motions and conditions in the previous decision just stated dated November 22nd, 2016. and Vicki sacking the day. Thank you for that.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. The the active permit that we have in the Dropbox does not have the conditions on it, >> right? >> And incorporated it from 2020, which is what I just read. Yes. >> Yeah.
>> But there's more. There's findings. There's all the other stuff to it. So, um, do you want it spelled out again? I mean, I would have to go through it. That's probably why we didn't do it because we it was the second one and we did go through all the criteria and
that's when we decided it and then 2024 we just incorporated that. >> We reviewed it, decided we didn't want to make any changes and incorporated it. second. >> But I think I think that shouldn't the decisions be
attached to the new decision or reference some So like when you're doing that, you should have all the rest of them with it >> if you're incorporating it. >> No. >> Yeah. Well, it's like a pointer. You're pointing.
>> It's just a pointer. It's like an index. >> Yeah. It's useful. It would useful if we did it, but Yeah. It's not useful if you don't have them, >> but we we do we just were able to reference it there. So, >> okay. >> All right. >> I'm happy we reviewed it.
>> Are we uh ready for a motion or is there more discussion? >> Well, let's talk about what conditions anybody wants. Um we've the findings of fact and all the other special permit criteria will bring
forward but so we want to there was a condition from the last one for the annual reporting. Are there any other conditions to change or alter or add? >> Can we add a date to that annual report so you know we know when to expect it.
We know when it's late. It's supposed to be there on Janu by January 30th. By January >> January 30th. >> Yeah. I just can't find the last one for some reason. >> Well, we can just if we want to leave it the same, we'll just it'll be incorporated findings of fact and
conditions, >> right? And this will be good for another three years and everybody's satisfied with that. Okay. >> Or not. >> Yeah. Okay. in in the um in the decision when it
talks about the three years, I would say per bylaw 14644 section K just to just so we don't have to go look for it again next in three years from now. And just for the record, I will not be one of the ones looking for it in three years. But >> don't say that. You never know.
>> Oh, I do. This is the third time you've dragged me out of retirement, Denus. But I think that I think that's a good reference point so you don't have to look for it. >> But we're referencing the excavation like >> so on the excavation amount.
>> Yeah. So in the first paragraph they said he talks about the applicant proposes to continue operations to remove a remaining 30,000 30,000 cubic yards of the originally requested 109 is what I would say because you know so you so you bring the
two numbers together. Okay. >> And why don't you make the motion? >> I don't know what that I'm do you have the previous decision in front of you? >> Um I have the one dated April 17th, 2024, but a but a lot of that is condition on Gary's
acquiring the the permits and and so on, you know, because this is when he bought the property >> down to the motion I made. Use that and then add your language. >> Well, how do you want it? How do you want to treat findings of factness? You want to just replicate what's on the 2024 decision?
>> Yeah. Just bring it all forward because we read it. >> But it's not it's not it's not totally accurate because you can't talk about Gary's acquiring the property. Um you can say A
B is not so just justifies the fact A is A is okay. B is not relevant. But when we when in 2024 the property the property was transferred to Gary on the in 2022. >> Yeah. >> So when when this 2024 application came
in, Gary Shepard was the owner. >> Yeah. They they were really two years late because once they probably transferred, he should have been on it asking for a new permit. Anyways, >> we we made that a finding of fact, >> right? That's that doesn't happen. We don't need to do that this time. That's
what I was saying. We don't need that. >> Yeah. But if you you want to incorporate everything just so you have all the history there, it doesn't hurt. It's already happened. So it's it's a finding of fact that it was acquired.
>> Okay. Um so then on on D where it says and this is for Beth for writing it says approximately 20% of the of the work has been com completed. um material will be excavated for use for the I don't care about that. Say the um applicant has
requested an additional 30,000 cubic ads to be removed of the original 109,000 >> and the if if it's still 25% and that hasn't changed then that can stay the way it can it's it's a yeah but I want to limit them to that 30,000. I don't want them >> Yeah. Well, we'll just change you'll
change granting of the permit. I grant the permit for the excavation of and then you put the new amount not to exceed that many >> uh cubic yards. >> Do you do you want to leave the storm water management permit numbers in there
too the way it's written? >> Yeah, because they're going to go to the planning board after us. So that'll change and that we we can't do anything about that. >> Okay. That's >> in Beth on F an extension permit uh for orders conditioned wetlands regulator
blah blah blah ex with an expiration date of 3 years from today. Um pursuant to bylaw section whatever that section is 144 section 46 subsection K whatever that whatever it was that you read. >> All I remember is K. >> Yep. You have it 145.
>> I just have it in there. It should have been referenced before. All right. Um, >> we extended another 3 years basically. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, I'll make a motion to grant a special permit to Gary Sheepard for the Earth Excavation special permit
incorporating the findings of fact. all of the motions and conditions in the previous Earth Exavation special permit decisions dated November 22nd, 2016, October 7th, 2020, April 17th, 2024.
And to include a permit expiration date of um let's say March 1st, 2029. Uh is it 2029? Yeah, 2020 2029. >> Yeah, that'll be three years. >> Oh my goodness. um to be to be limited to to 30,000
additional cubic yards of earth removal. >> Not to exceed 30,000. >> Not to exceed. Yeah. What did I say? >> Something like that. >> Something like Sounds good. >> We have a second. >> Was that a David Chanel motion?
>> That's what There was a rumor. Yeah, that's what I heard. >> Okay. Yeah. Darlene seconds. Great. Colobby. >> Oh, you're looking for the vote right now. >> Any discussion? Well, is there any discussion?
>> I'm just thinking, give me give me a minute. >> Sorry. Sorry to jump right there because that will still include because we're referring the incorporating the previous the annual report. >> Yes, it's part of the incorporation.
Yeah. Um, did we did you say conditions? So, you're going to we're still going to do the condition of the annual reporting, >> right? That was that was on the uh the 2024 decision. There's only one condition. Permit holder shall provide annual report January 31st of each year.
>> Yeah. You said condition. So, the conditions already in there. >> Yeah. Okay. >> We We thought of everything. It was only the fourth time we're going through this. Are we at all concerned about um the
soil cover at at the at this time? It's a large project project. I and I'm not unclear or unsure of uh you know how much of it is left just as bare soil. Um, and with the slopes out there, um, I
know in the bylaw that there is a uh, it has to be covered within a certain amount of time and it can't go beyond five acres, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um,
and I don't know if it's that extensive, but u, >> let's see. and and then I know it's already in the the bylaw, but maybe she's we should just be at least me re mentioning it. Uh so that uh
>> I don't know I don't understand. Uh so so your concern is there's if I understand it right there in the by in our bylaw for earth removal there's the restoration section J
um and it has the minimum conditions restoration shall be carried on simultaneously with excavation so that any five acres have been cleared and stumped and five acres are in active mining operation at least five acres shall be restored shall be restored
before work commences. >> All right. So that I'm confusing that then because >> so >> not that >> this would be the um zoning enforcement officer to make sure that they're complying. So it's
>> so it's already in there by itself. >> Yeah. So Kobe, but what we do is we reference we reference the bylaw requirements. You know, they have to follow the certain bylaw sections and it's the uh enforcement officer. I don't even know who that is now. It's their job to to go by the the job site every now and then and check them out,
>> right? >> Yeah. It does say it has to be treated with fertilizer and seated with an appropriate mixture of grass or legume mixture as prescribed by the conservation district soil conservation service US Department of Agriculture and
is determined appropriate by the SPGA after consultation. Is that us >> or the planning board depending? You can draft a um condition. You reword that. You just draft it as a condition as well.
>> It's not written. >> Yeah, we had a big issue with that with Horseshoe Drive if you remember. It was we it wasn't our conditions. It was it was um conservation or somebody jumped all over the developer back then. Yeah, there was some spotted turtles and all that stuff, too. But it was even
though we we we condition as part of the the bylaw reference, it's not our we're not the enforcement agency for that. We just we just reference it. They got to do it. >> I don't see the point really. It's in there and it has to be enforced. So, we're not It's a little,
you know, All right. So, the um the I don't want to say consensus, but the what we're saying is it's handled in the bylaws and so we don't need to specifically call it out in the motion.
That's how I feel. Yeah. >> Yeah. You can, but it's it's it's redundant, you know. >> Yeah. Yes, but we haven't seen the site either >> because in the first two in the first paragraph the first two lines reference
14546 14565 and 14540 those are all the controllers for the special permit the earth removal and so on and they have all the conditions you can't you know if you had to make a decision and list out every criteria of every job that replicates the the bylaw would the
decisions Beth would be writing 24/7 >> it Well, at least copying and pasting one of the two. >> 65 pages. >> Yeah. I'm just I'm interested. Is this the ZB? Is this a building inspector or or is it us?
>> The building inspector is the uh the zoning enforcement officer. >> Yes. >> So, Yep. >> And there haven't been any complaints of anything. It's been going on for a while. There have been no complaints. There's there's,
you know. >> Yeah. So, we'll see if we get big storms. What happens then? Okay. >> All right. I'm ready to vote. >> Uh, any other discussion? No. >> I'm good. >> All right. Darlene. >> Darlene Sidano. Yes.
>> David. >> David Chanel. Yes. >> Yes. >> And Vicki Janiki. Yes. So, um, special permit is approved. Um, Beth,
you'll, you know, get it all written up. It'll go to the town clerk. We have, you have >> 14 days, >> 14 days to get to the town clerk. Yeah. >> And then there's a 30-day appeal period. >> 20 day if someone has a problem with it,
>> right? And then it gets filed at the registry of deeds. And Everybody say your name. I didn't. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, we all did. >> We were very careful about that. >> Thank you. >> We're getting better. Yeah. >> All right. Well, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Christie, for coming.
>> Do you all want to sign the decision or do you want to relegate that? >> Oh, favor. >> I move to um let me do you want to do it or do you >> um I can do it.
I work in town, but it doesn't matter. >> It doesn't matter to me either. I move to give Vicky Janiki authority to sign the decision for the board. >> David Chanel second.
>> Oh, I Darlene Sedano move that. Okay. >> David Chanel second. >> Thank you, Darene. >> Darlene, yes. >> David Chanel, yes. Straighter, yes. And >> Vicki, yes.
So let me know when it's ready and I'll >> All right. So that um so that's the only public hearing we have tonight. Uh just to go through from the top. Uh we were going to look at the
the minutes. Darlene has noted there's a few changes she'd like to propose outside of the meeting. So let's pick we'll do the meeting. So, >> I was started to I didn't have time really to review. The minutes are really long from the public hearing and I I
really would like some time to read them a little bit better. There's a lot I think in there that doesn't need to be in there like opinions and stuff. >> Darling, which what day was that for? >> Uh both of them. No. Um I forget
>> the one in January. I I read through it and it is they are very lengthy. um much more so than than than um years a couple years ago. But it's accurate except every time I said something, Beth referred to me as a as a board member as opposed to my name.
>> I know. I like that. Me, too. But I I don't know. There's a couple of things I couple of sentences I didn't think were really need to be in there. So, I was gonna read it again. >> I didn't have a chance. I did it just before we got here. So, I didn't have a
chance to to really tell Beth my thoughts on it, give her some to give her feedback. >> So, darling, you're asking for more time, too. >> Yeah, if you don't mind. I mean, we got to come back again. So, yeah. So, why don't we uh we'll take care of those next time
and a little late, but uh I think we have a guest here um from Tanner to talk about your services. Yes. Hi, David. >> Nice to meet you. >> Hi there. Nice to meet you as well. Um,
there's a good spot so I can be on camera, I guess, over here. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Someone explain what before you tell us what your services are, explain to us why the zoning board is hearing this. >> So, Beth, can you give us an overview? >> Um, yeah. Because you may need technical
review of um applications. >> Okay. who who would pay you? >> The applicant. >> Yeah. So, it's usually the applicant. Um, so what we've done in other communities, you know, and what's actually done here as well with some of
the um planning board services is any services they need, it goes straight to the applicant. So, >> so it' be recommending you? >> No, you'd be you have a a bylaw that says if you need technical assistance to review any sort of permits, you have the right to hire an outside consultant.
That would be us or the other I understand. >> Oh, right, right, right. The applicant. Okay, got you. Go straight through that. >> Yeah, I just I'm just trying to get the procedural part before. >> If you if you remember, darling, we did this on one of the 40Bs we did some 20 years ago. We hired our own separate engineering firm and and Scott paid for
it. >> He was the applicant at the time. >> Right. Right. It's been a while. >> So, actually, I wanted to quickly answer Col's question. Um, Colby, you'd asked a question about the the land cover and as as I understand it, that's part of both
the planning board's responsibility is they oversee the storm water permit >> and they're required within there after they disturb a certain amount of land to recover it um for the winter. Hopefully, they did that. Otherwise, you'll have soil washing into places you don't want it to go. Um, and also with close to
well even over an acre worth of disturbance, they would have had to have filed a construction general permit as well as a notice of intent and have a SWIP storm water pollution prevention plan which also requires them after they disturb a certain amount of earth when
they stop for a lengthy period of time they need to put down soil and temporary seating until they go back and disturb it again. So it is covered by other avenues. Mhm. >> Um, as I'm sitting here, I had actually taken a look at this plan. Beth had sent it my way. I was getting confused between the storm water um, application
and the earth >> Yeah. >> Um, earth removal application, but um, I did take a review of it before and I was interested actually in sitting down >> to hear this portion, so I was glad I was able to sit in for that. >> Cool. >> But my name is David Langlay. I'm with Hoy Tanner Associates. Uh, we have an
office in Chumsford where I'm the um, I oversee the the Chumsford office. I'm the vice president of the company. I've been with the company for 20 years uh this coming March. I'm also the regional business manager. So, it's my job to interface with clients and generate work
for the company. I oversee a handful of projects with the company as well. Um we offer a full range of civil engineering services and as Beth mentioned, things you might be interested in would be um site civil services or these are things
we do. is we do peer review services for them. >> So site civil survey, drainage, uh traffic, >> um environmental permitting. So those are things those would be things that I think this board would be interested in. >> Um we also do roadway, bridge,
water, wastewater. So we have a a wide range of of civil engineering services that we offer. Um we have six offices in New England. on Chumsford where I oversee uh 13 staff members. There's about 10% of our firm. We're about 125
people and we have an office down in Florida as well. Um as far as local similar um projects or or um other communities we have in the region, we are the town engineer for the town of Dunable. So we've been providing them similar
services, peerreview services for going on five years now. Uh we're on our 51st or 52nd project with them. Everything from ANR review, preliminary subdivision, subdivision review. Um we assisted them with permitting for a
cellular tower. Um we've done a bridge project. We're working on a bridge project with them, a culvert that's going to a bridge because of the the um stream crossing guidelines. We had to increase the opening. Therefore, it went from a 9 ft culvert to a 19 ft small
bridge. Um, let's see. We assisted them with their dam inspection using our sub consultant Stevens Associates. Um, so we we team with frequently with other subconsultants if there's services that um we can't provide directly.
>> Um, see, we've done some similar services in Amherst, New Hampshire, as well as a full bridge inventory for them. Uh we did a retaining wall project in Drake um which is actually where I'm from. So I
live in Drait. I grew up in LOL in Drake for about 10 years now. I sat on their uh storm water pering authority until it got dissolved two years ago now because most of the members of the committee were other staff members of the town. So they figured everything's already going
through them. We don't need public involvement. Um but I also sit on their sewer commission. >> So very active in the prey there. Um let's see. We've got we've done a full culvert assessment in Chsford or large
Culver assessment in Chsford. Uh 14 Culvers which we did um two rehabilitation designs for that and then a re rehab for a bridge project in Chumsford and we currently have a bridge project
in Ayer that I'm overseeing. Um we did the design work. We teamed with um Tai and Bond. they were world techch at the time and we're overseeing construction administration for that bridge project which starts next month.
>> So, um as far as our services here, we actually we've done a we did the peer review for the preliminary subdivision for um Mason Road. Um that was a that about a month ago now. Yeah.
Um that was our first and Beth sent me several other potential projects that we're working on and actually I'll be meeting with the um select board on March 3rd to go over a master services agreement with them. So basically what that would entail is makes it easier for
everybody because what we would do is we do the master contract with the town once >> and then we can do task orders with any one of the boards that needs our services after that without having to do all the front-end stuff. Just like you were talking about with this this permit, you point back to >> here's the master contract where
everything's laid out >> and here's the task we're doing at hand for whatever whatever you need. >> Any questions? >> So Dave, you're I'm sorry. In your application, you have on call consulting with various projects. Is that what you're talking about with if you're
trying to get tied in with Townsen? So you would be a general over overlay contract and then each board needing your service would just reach out to you and it'd be on call consulting. Is that >> exactly? Yep. That's exactly how it works. And usually what it did we we do anywhere one year, three year, fiveyear um you can use our services. You don't
have to use our services. The contract is completely to or the master services agreement. Some call it a house doctor. They call it other things. Um it's completely just to have an avenue in place. So we don't have to do that paperwork over and over again. If you don't use expedite, >> yeah, if you don't use us, you don't use
us. There's no commitment to use us at all. >> So, you don't have applications come in. You don't have other things that that come through you need our services for. >> No harm, no foul. But again, eliminates that paperwork. >> You've seen the qualifications that we submitted. So, you already have that. So, you have an idea of what we do.
>> Um, so yeah, just makes things easier. >> And now we know who you are. >> I just it caught me off guard a little bit because we very rarely do we need that we just haven't had anything huge go on in a while, >> but who knows,
>> right? >> Right. >> Probably more with with the planning board. Um, but at least now you know that you have a resource here. We have done um especially in a lot of um storm water inspection. So they just like you
you try and determine who your agent is. We in their bio it's written that they can appoint an agent. So or we're the town engineer for the town. they appointed the town engineer as the agent to do that inspection and that again also gets paid for through um the applicants. So we've done several um
storm water inspection. So they go out they get the the storm water permit then someone has to make sure they're putting up sill fence that they're seeding where they need to see that they're not over excavating that they're if there's any complaints those would come to us and we go out there and take a look at what kind of disturbance is going on. Um so
even something as simple as that and we've done tons of that. have done a lot of construction inspection, active construction inspection. So again, if you don't have the town staff, town resources to do that and you have the avenue to have the applicant pay for it, >> we can serve in that role, too.
>> Dave, I question for when you go to a town and you be and you become their on call consulting, do you guys have to go out for competitive bid to in order to be be designated as the on call consulting engineering firm? No, because the uh mass general law allows you I
think up to $50,000. It doesn't have to be bid it. Some towns even have or some communities they have their own bylaws as far as that's concerned as well. So double check with with Kieran what what um towns and towns rules are, but I believe
uh you don't have to. In some communities you do. So um in Dunville we didn't. ifable decides, you know, at the end of this contract they wanted to do a um usually what they do, they wouldn't do a competitive what they do would be an RFQ because that's to the to the
community's advantage. So, it's a request for qualifications and what you do in there is you'd say we're going to accept qualifications from any number of firms. We're going to um short list three or five or whatever it is that have skill sets in the areas that we're looking for and you can pick
from any of those. Um, so that's usually what they do for for on call. Sometimes they do a limited on call. They'll do an RFP, which is request for proposal, and you'd say, you know, the list of what you do, and it be specifically for um one consulting firm to do all the
services. Um, but again, usually communities like to have multiple to choose from. That way, if you know, one consultant is bogged down, they can choose another one or one specializes in one thing, another one specializes in three other things, and so on and so forth. It gives gives communities the
opportunity to have that suite of available consultants need. >> Okay. D I think the last time we used this was was probably the uh the 40B up on um >> you know I'm talking about it was the storm water. It was the storm water the
their weird design system. We asked we hired a company to come in and >> take a look at it for us. Is that just to give another opinion of how you would solve that problem because you are quite feeling comfortable with the solution? >> Well, yeah. Well, they're g they're
giving us this, excuse the uh the vernacular. They're giving us a spiel about how good their system is. And I mean on the board you had Bill was an electrical, I was a mechanical. I think Craig at the time was he was another M. We had no environmental engineers. We had no water. We had nobody that could
test their hydraulics. We tried but we were getting nowhere. So, we just hired someone to do it. Yeah, usually what is it's it's a peer review. So what that means is we're not going to re-engineer it. We're going to review their calculations, their respects and all that and say yes, this
is sound or we find holes with this that and the other thing we think they you know >> or in that case if it was something like this doesn't perform the way that they say it does or we've seen it here there and it doesn't work or we agree that yes this is sound practice we've seen it in 20 other places and it works great.
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Something >> the firm we hired came back and supported their their their equations. >> They they did they did support their findings. >> Nice. I like it. Any other questions? >> I'm good.
>> Well, thank you very much for coming by. >> Thanks, Dave. >> You're welcome. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Now we have a face behind the name if we >> Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. >> Glad I was able to make it in too. Supposed to begin a couple inches now. They said, "Oh jeez."
>> Yeah. >> New England, right? >> Yeah. Right. >> Cool. >> All right. So, um, let me Beth had a couple of things here about, um, >> ZBA procedures.
Um I'll have her talk about 3.2 and 3.3 which is uh one is I guess >> there are some administrative changes and then since we haven't we updated the how we operate
as a board since 2010. She was suggesting we look at them again. >> Yeah. She said we looked she said you guys looked at him like in 2020 or 2022 and she wanted to go over what would no action were ever taken to to adopt him. I don't remember doing that.
>> Me neither. But well since 2010 but so I guess my my question was I didn't see any any suggested changes or anything. So my question was what what do we need to is it just procedural? Can you give us some background first on the um
updated administrative changes to the zoning cord uh zoning code resulting from the town meeting bylaw amendments? >> Oh yeah, those are all >> are they just >> Yeah, cuz I did put that in your folder and those are just um information
updated with all of the bylaw amendments. So I think it would probably be best if you go through them. nothing affected the ZBA other than um the FEMA flood plane um is now being permitted by the planning board. And then the other
thing was ADUs were deregulated by the state. So that is now like the only time you have to do a site plan review on an ADU is if it's an out building or it's a addition and it's all covered by the planning board. It's a very simple
process. Um they've done a few of them already very quickly and very efficiently. So >> they've had at least three already built. >> Yeah. >> So nothing really affects the zoning board then. >> It's actually going to make your plate a lot lighter.
>> Yeah. Right. Well, because we don't do accessory apartments anymore. >> Y. So um >> Okay. >> There's Yeah. So there's a there's just wanted to note that the removal >> is there a list of the of what was actually changed in it. There is a list.
>> It's in the folder. Yeah. In a subfolder and what I gave you was um from the clerk. It basically has um hyperl amendment. >> Okay. >> In the e not on paper but I can give you the paper supplement. >> I was like way to go just like go okay
that one that one that one and check it out. Because sometimes they'll go, "Oh, we want to make this change." And all the wording is there, the new wording, but I'm like, "Well, what was the old wording? What's the change?" And you don't know. >> Well, you have to go to the town meeting more for that. Yeah. And um I can get
that for you if you ever have a specific question that's available. >> I'll be on a need to know basis for that. It doesn't affect us. >> Took the words out of my mouth. All right. And then for uh the rules and regulations that you were recommending
um >> yeah I just >> to review and other potential changes that you >> quick correct dam it so you guys they're in your folders you can look at them at your own uh leisure edit them. Uh they just mostly been updated with you know
appropriate terminology modern terminology things like that and some of the dup duplicative things have been simplified. So, um, you have to take a look at it and see. >> So, Beth, can I ask you a question? >> Ones 2010, you're saying? And so, you
just wanted to look at just to see if there's any, but is there anything procedural that you're running into that applicants or anybody's having a hard time with that doesn't >> like any suggested changes? >> I can I can look again, but I mean, it's
running pretty well. I mean, it's um the only hiccups this year have been the determinations that have come from the building commissioner on a couple of applications that really isn't avoidable. That's just something that, you know, the jurisdictional issue with with one
of the hearings. I don't see any way that regulations could change that, you know. Um so, from my point of view, it's they're still working fine. It's just a major, you know, minor update of um wording and uh looking at the state law
and making sure everything's congruent. >> You're not talking about pronouns, are you? >> No. No. >> Good. >> Yeah. Um this is directed to Beth. So Beth on the you sent us an email the whole board. Um what was the date of it?
Friday, February 13th. In that in that email you talk about item 3.3 review. This is what we talked about. It says it has been sometime since 20 it was 2010 but then you said in 2023 board members undertook review of of the uh existing
administrative bylaws in 2023. Do you have a list of those things that that was taken up? Oh, we uh what we did there or what the board did there is I think that was when John Paige was on the board and he had some edits to the
very first paragraph how that was worded. Um I can put that in the folder for you. I had found it in my notes because we had gone over this a while ago and uh he had made some recommendations to add something about the charter and whatnot. So I can upload
that. Yeah, he was doing chhatter review. It took him three years to get the thing approved through the legis legislative, but um >> so there's nothing there's nothing that was done an in-depth review of the administrative regulations, right? >> Are the rules and regulations? >> Yeah.
>> No. So this was just a pass at it. Um if you want I mean we can take a look at it and maybe just go through it and see what what makes sense. I mean we could have council review it. It's been, you know, since 2010, so I figured at least
some touchups. >> Can I ask how how long are the administrative rules and regulations? >> Two or three pages. >> They're very short. It's not long. >> Can Can you send them to me and I'll review them? >> Yeah, that'd be great. Absolutely. >> They're on the website, too.
>> Yeah, but then I got to work for it. >> Yeah, I will send you a PDF. >> I'm volunteering as an attorney to to help out. So, just give me just give me the docks. >> Okay. >> I'm not I'm not very active, so I got to keep my mind going.
>> And I don't even know how they're um formally the process for changing them. I know what the planning board process is, but >> we just do it ourselves. We we just change it ourselves. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. I didn't realize that. You don't need a public hearing or any of that? >> No. In 20 in 2010, we just we messed
around with it and we and we just adopted the changes. Okay, >> Darlene and I were both on the board back then. >> I know the application will need to be revised because I think we still have like accessory departments on it. So, I'll also revise the
application um and submit that. >> Okay. All right. Then there's if you're interested, uh there's correspondence special town meeting warrant uh which is the 28th or the 25th? I I have 25th on here, but I thought it
was the 28th. >> I think it's I saw the 25th on the sign. >> Oh, maybe 25th. Okay. >> Is that Thursday or Wednesday? >> Usually they're Tuesdays. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Maybe the
next Wednesday, a week from the night. >> Okay. Yeah, because today is the 18th. Yeah. is not um the next is a letter saying that the um >> Yeah, congratulations.
>> Commuter uh zoning was approved so we won't get docked by >> I I I was on the board back. The fact that they jammed that jammed it down our throat that we were in the MBTA corridor still boggles my mind. I just like how does that happen?
Yeah. >> Walk. How long would it take to walk? It's 20 minutes by car. >> Well, it's because we touched Shirley, which is >> Oh, I know. I know the justification they said. I just don't agree with it. >> I don't. >> It was crazy. It was
>> There's like still a few towns that are not doing it. And >> there's towns closer to the line than we are and they're not part of it. >> I know. >> I can't believe we like let them do this to us. >> Well, we got the gold. We got the golden star. So, good good for us.
>> You know, we we had to and we're not going to get penalized. So, >> yeah, >> there is more coming in that regard from the state, I think. >> Well, we're going to say they're really going to push they're really going to push on the housing, but um
and then there's a traffic uh Betsy was saying this the last is >> this traffic. >> What's that all about? I I read it. I tell you >> that was never conveyed to the board or select board. So, it's now on the agenda
for you, the planning board, and the select board on the 24th. This was a DTA grant study that was done um in 2024 and delivered under the land use coordinator and unfortunately did not get you know
transmitted out. This particular study is what we're going to apply for this round of DTA funding so we can see what is that DTA. >> Oh, it's a district local technical assistance through our planning
commission MRPC. So any um planning projects they help with um either not so much design work but like this will be a transportation project that we would apply for a tip a transportation
improvement program which is a federal program but MRPC would uh write the grant and and that's what we're looking to do at this intersection. >> Does that mean >> we have to pay for some of it? >> No, it's all >> none of it. That's that's totally um
part of um a funded totally funded however does have a membership in MRPC which the annual fee I think is about I don't know 2500 a year so the whole town is a member of the planning commission and
these are grants that we benefit from but yeah >> so Beth if I'm if if 119 is owned by the state how do we have authority to do that I know we own 13 from the stupidity of the select one before I served accepted it from the state. So, but
state is 119. How do we get past that? We can't make changes to that. Oh, Laura Laura has a hand up. Maybe she can enlighten us. >> Yeah, I didn't want to interrupt. >> I thought that would bring you out of the closet, Laura. >> Yeah. um MRPC we have gotten, in fact, I
just asked for a list of uh the grants that we have applied for and what we've received and what were not approved because we were just denied one um that had to do with something on the opioid
crisis or something like that, but we did not get that one and that just came today. But um the the DTA helps us in getting the study done.
So in other words, um we already did ours at select board of what order we would put them in and number one was 13 and 119. So they now that was done maybe 20 plus years ago or maybe 30 years ago
now that intersection but not good enough you know it's still a bad corner to turn. It's like a lot of things. Um so that is this whole thing
about what is our priority our priority will go to um MRPC and hopefully we do get in on that study because if we could get the funding for it it would be a benefit to the town.
Um, the other thing is today I was at the MOO, which is the mass uh mass transportation um commission. And uh Beth just alluded to the TIP um
grants that are out there. And so they gave reports of the next 5 years of what's going to happen. Now, there's going to be it either just came out today or they're going to put it out for public comment and I thought they said
it was going to start on Friday. So, all the towns will be notified about that. But I've been active in at MRPC now for a couple of decades. And we have during that time received a lot of grant money and a lot of help um to
towns and rather than just paying the fee and nobody was going and all of that stuff. And when I asked the question, they said, "Well, you should be on it." So that's what happened. >> Be careful what you ask for, Laura. >> Yeah, I know. So, but they are doing a
lot for us and and um I've always felt pretty good about um participating, you know. >> Well, Lori, can I ask a question? This is I know it's not we're just talking about this memorandum and changing the 13119 intersection that I think on it
was uh the second the second proposal would be to eliminate all on on street parking in front of forest appliances in front of cliffs. What would that do to the lo those local businesses? I mean, Cliffs would be people park. That's where they park to go there. They have no they have no off streetet parking,
>> right? I don't I don't know what's going to happen because now they're doing across the street. You know, they the people cliffs anyway. >> Well, it's across the street and on the road, too, because it's always crowded. >> Yeah. Too. Well, it's across the street because the road is crowded. Um I I
don't know. I don't know. It's only in the beginning stages and the study I think would give us more options. >> Yeah. The first the first proposal was not changing the off street park and there was the second one that was it was like 120 versus a million and the second
the second one was a lot more involved. They were going to change move everything back widen up the circle take the off streetet parking away. It was going to be much more involved which is a good thing in of itself but I was thinking of the local businesses that are going to get screwed. >> Right. That's why there's so much talk about walkability.
>> Yeah. Yeah. For sure. >> So, especially in in the main street or downtown district, you know, even down to from the center, you know, down to the Family Dollar. Um there's a lot of things that could be walkability and and
also close to the rail trail. >> I don't know. We'll see what they come up with. >> Yeah. That's what they get paid for. >> Yeah. >> Will they have like an accident report in that as well? Yeah, they'll do that. Traffic count, all of that. >> Yeah.
>> Was there any talk about One of my pet peeves is the intersection um 119 just past the high school going up the hill to to Pepper. I mean, you you cross that road in the morning or it's it's it's a death sentence, you know. >> So, that was one of the um areas that
were talked about for you know, I've been at the roundabout that they have now in Ashb. >> Yeah. And that's awesome. >> And the first thing I thought of going through that roundabout was that intersection of the GR Pil Towns and you
know lines. >> Yeah. >> After the high school. Um something's got to happen because people fly down the hill from Pero. >> Oh yeah. >> You know, so that is that's also been talked about >> just putting lights up. But yeah,
lights, blinking light was also talked about. >> It's getting the money for it. It's getting them to see the value of or how dangerous it is because they always do those traffic studies and
safety issues, you know, what what can we get done? >> When I was when I was on the board, there was a there was a a fatality at that intersection. Yeah. And we we as a board wrote a letter to the state state um highway whatever whatever the controlling department was to
investigate and do a traffic study on that and it it ended up nothing. They didn't do anything. >> I know I can't speak for the state. All I can speak of trying you know keep trying kind of thing. >> Yeah for sure. Yeah. Just it's a frustration.
>> Yeah. Very >> along with everything else. >> Exactly. Well, thanks a lot for your uh for your input. That was great. >> Great. All right. So, motion to adjourn.
>> David Chanel. So, be it. >> Actually, wait. What? Um, can I bring up one more thing? >> I don't know. This is procedural. We have an open special permit. I was extended to I don't remember the date. June. Okay. as
we make sure that is >> it's June June 26. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, I just want to make sure everybody knows about it. >> How how actually that's a good question. How is that going? What's the status of that with the planning board? What's going on? >> Oh, you weren't here.
>> Oh, you weren't here at the meeting. >> Yeah. >> What was the question? I missed what you what date you're talking about for what? Oh, we have a continuation for um Brooklyn Street and we had recommended
to the planning board to make a um a bylaw change and David wasn't at our last meeting so he doesn't have the update. >> Yeah. >> They threw it back at us >> with good reason. Town council reviewed it and said you can't do that.
>> Why not? >> You can't do that because you could tell it was written just for one property. not. >> So what? >> So it's got to go back to the drawing board. >> Um >> so go ahead, Lori.
>> It's kind of what I wanted to talk to Vicki about. So, I have a task that I'm working on and um we'll see if this think tank can um come up with some
stuff that we can do that will help the mix use and additional housing. And this will include so I'll just tell you this will include the building inspector the um board of health the and I I'm talking
about the professionals now uh building inspector uh Rick Medcaf from the board of health uh Vicki the assessor for growth in town properties and um of course we talked about this the last time when I made the
promise to you that we would work on a I would go back to planning and we would work on a bylaw change and so planning has agreed with the zoning board to work on it. So there'll be two people from planning and two people from zoning
in addition uh select board and I don't I don't have the compet uh composition in front of me but I'm working on it and um I was going to try to have a report for our meeting on the 24th. So um for the select board uh to let
them know where I am on that. So if Vicki if we could just talk before um you know Sunday or Monday it would be fine. Um and hopefully I I do get something put together that will at
least work on something for in and the goal will be annual town meeting. I mean, I wanted it I wanted it for I wanted it for the annual in May, but I got like cross eyes and stuff like that.
So, uh they said um probably the um fall town meeting. Hopefully, we have something together for that. Okay. So, I didn't forget you. I made a promise and I I will keep my promise. >> I'll reach out to you. Okay,
>> cool. >> Thank you, Lori. >> Thank you. Any other >> topics for discussion? All right, so we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. >> Darlene moves to close the meeting.
>> We have a second. >> Such distinction. Oh my god. >> All right, Darlene. >> Darlene. Yes. >> Dave. >> David Chanel. Yes. >> Kobe Strider. Yes. >> And Vicki Janiki. Yes.
>> Gota laugh in life. I was going to I was going to answer in French, but I didn't want to show