Planning Board Meeting: February 17, 2026

001Good evening and welcome to the uh planning board Tuesday, February 17th. Um first order of business, we want to uh go over the minutes from the last meeting that was held on uh January 20th, 26. Motion to approve as submitted. A second. >> Okay. All in favor roll call. Roll >> call. Babe's on the >> He's on. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. >> Yes. >> And yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Second order of business. We have a 81P plan uh for 100 Medway Road. Sure. So, this is a the Catholic bishop, Bishop Worcester, is trying to sell the parcel in the middle, lot B. And in order to do so, they had to carve off that piece of driveway. But in doing so, they reduced the number of frontage

002on the main parcel by 6 ft. And they had a variance in December, but it had to get amended. and it was recently amended in January recorded February 10th. So this one is okay for us to endorse as the variance has depicted its reduced frontage. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry the last part again Matt please. >> Yeah the variance allotted to have reduced frontage at 194 ft of the 81P matches is corresponds to the variance. >> It does. >> Thank you. >> Motion to have town plan assign the 81P. Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Roll call. Roll call. >> I >> Yes. >> Babe, >> I >> Okay. I five in favor. Third order of business. We have a site plan application at uh 23 Silver Hill Road for an uh additional dwelling

003unit. Hi everyone, Adam Hunt with Gary and Alman on behalf of the client. Uh project is for an existing building to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit. Um we uh gotten approval from the sewer department for the uh forest man connection uh to the existing manhole on Playidge Street. Uh we've also submitted to conservation a request for determination of applicability. Um so we'll be uh meeting with them. Um but we're providing uh the designated parking space. Uh we also have the first floor the floor plan. Uh have that there. Um sorry >> the floor plan here. Um, we're under the 900 square f feet. And >> is there is this I can't see from here. Is this that's proposed walkway? >> This is to be eliminated. This portion of the walkway uh here. This

004is all existing walk. He's removing this portion here. >> Why? >> I'm not sure exactly to be honest. I just knew from early on you wanted to get rid of that portion. Um, no chair. Um, and we had initially uh intended to connect the water um from the existing house. Uh, but we can uh based on the comments I've seen, we can provide an independent connection for that if needed. >> That's pretty much it. So, is there no connection, no walkway connection from >> No, there isn't. >> Looks like the sewer force man is going to go under that walkway. So, that's probably why they're going to remove it. Is that right? >> I don't know if he I mean, I think that that was definitely something early on that was worked out, but I

005think he may have planned even before that to remove it, but either way, it did work out uh to not have to go into the walk. Um, but I I don't know honestly what he his initial reasoning for removing that portion was >> uh is there um so how how are they going to access this? Is there a driveway there? Um, >> just fresh walk. I mean, the parking is just at the existing drive. >> Okay. So, we added the additional space. >> No, we designated it. There's not >> It's already there. >> That's the existing garage. >> That's a threec car garage, right? >> And the bay all the way to the right has the ADU parking spot. Okay. In front of the the third bay. And again like you there's no walkway going

006from there you know unfortunately I don't think there's a requirement in our only bylaws for that but I make that same type of >> concern right right that you >> using the pen as a measuring tool the walk is about ft that's a bit of a high >> yeah I'm from my side of it too I was more concerned from the fire department just having access you know god forbid that they need to to have to gurnie someone out from there. Um, you know, now you're going across terrain and and and who knows? >> No. >> What parts? No. Right. Exactly. So, um, I certainly have concerns that Sorry, Mr. Chair, mind. Certainly have concerns with that. I mean, I understand that there are you're within the offsets in that part. Um, but there's certainly

007some concerns there that >> they're creating what was an existing structure into the ADU, which was formerly an apartment. um and just the kind of the the egress back and forth to it. So just my two cents. >> Any other comments? Joe, do you have anything? No, I don't think we I I mean >> building inspector I there may be building code issues, but I there's nothing that we can >> a little strange not having a walkway out there, but >> we may >> I don't know there's anything in our bylaw that precludes it or not. The building code may >> the only other thing I would say and just whether or not it's a stop block for us is just that, you know, the water department does say that they're looking for a dedicated

008line. that dedicated line isn't shown here yet on the site plan. So, I do have concerns with approving a site plan with without all the approved um or or infrastructure on here. >> I think that's something that >> pretty easy to have. >> Yeah. Conditionally approve. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think we keep going down that road of conditional improvements and I get worried about that. like I'd rather our applicants, nothing against you, I'd rather our applicants come in with a set of plans that that reflects all of the the uh agency's comments. So So right now, >> I don't know when I don't know when they got the comments, >> but sometimes they don't get them in time to >> I get it. Just >> Yep. >> If they've had them for some time,

009then certainly I understand that. >> Yep. Make a motion to approve the ADU subject to the addition of the uh water line as directed by the water company. >> I'll second again. >> Okay. Just a roll call vote. I >> I'm a no. >> B. >> I >> Four in favor, one opposed. Okay, we have U item four. We have an amendment to site plan 10 to 12 Beach Street. I'll get that out to you tomorrow. This is the one with the uh the old registry. >> Yes. >> Registry. >> Oh yeah. >> Can you see that? Ask me if you can see that. >> Babe, can you see the plants? >> Yes. So, the uh applicant requests an amendment to the site plan review for new religious uh use and existing multiple use property

010located at 10 to 12 Beach Street. here present the gentleman's name but I emailed several times submitted by Bruno Oliver >> is the applicant here No. >> Okay. >> Madam, sorry I missed what you said. >> Just curious if the applicants here. >> No, we I had we heard from sewer. I thought you said something in response. >> I I do not know Sewer responded. They responded correctly to Mr. Manini. >> But if the applicant is not then >> we do have a letter from the Milford Warner department. No. Nothing from fire department. They see no conflict. >> I got my letters late from the fire department. They didn't see any conflicts with this. Okay. >> He said he got a late probably. >> But the the concern >> I talked to the sewer today

011unless there's going to be a kitchen we going to be put in. There's no there's no change. uh there there very easily could be a kitchen. Um a lot of these uh smaller >> right >> churches like and I say smaller comparatively to Jacart. Yes. Um they there could be a kitchen. So that's definitely something that we should confirm. >> Yeah. um you know those there's a lot of extra rooms on the outside that um and I don't think it's out of the realm for them to have food in there. Um, the other thing that I is my primary concern is the parking calculations are based on the number of seats and we've historically not allowed that where it's not a like a pew like a um immovable um seat like this. this appears to

012just be, you know, chairs, folding chairs or whatever. Um, and so if if you're if you only have folding chairs, then um we've typically gone done the parking by the largest assembly area, which is what the regulations call for. Um, so in this case, I haven't done the math, but I'm assuming that it would require them to to, you know, build a permanent um wall somewhere to make this largest one smaller. >> To make what? >> To make the largest assembly area smaller so that they can meet the parking calculations. basically limiting them to that 100 people that they've proposed for seats. >> Is there enough units to uh to request a reduction? >> There's >> different usage. >> They're showing 69 spaces using the 100 seats or the assembly area of 3900 ft, which

013they have yet to confirm. I was supposed to get that today. I did not. But there are 81 spaces available and 69 shown. 69 required. So there's give or take there's 12 more spaces that they could use if when if if that square footage is off. >> You're saying the more than five. >> I could ask for the red. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I forget how many how many units there are in the other building. >> There's at least four. >> They've laid them all out in the chart. It's all right there in the parking chart >> here. How many? Looking at the picture, the overview, looks like there's around 40. >> No, no, I'm talking about usages in the building in that one-story building. There's there's the pizza place there. >> Yep. There's

014a pizza tattoo parlor, barber shop, and an insurance office. >> There's four. This would be five. So they could request they could request the which to me and all the ones that we've had this probably makes sense considering >> churches usually don't meet on a Monday at 10 at 12:00 in the morning and so reduction of the total parking would be >> I mean I wouldn't have yeah I wouldn't have an issue with I don't know if I'd ever go as high as we ever went at stop and shop again but I mean certainly a reduction in parking is uh something that they could do. So, I think there there's a way for them getting here without having to necessarily put up that wall or whatever based on, you know, have them calculated the way

015you're saying, Liz. But I think they can get there, you know, if they do request the the reduction. >> That sounds >> But those need those need to be cleared, >> right, >> with them. So, obviously, we need to have the applicant come in and talk to staff. >> Yep. Okay. I don't think there's much. I mean, if they work through the parking, I don't know that there's much else >> that we would have a Yeah. And they'll have to define whether they're going to put a kitchen in there. Those those would be the two issues that need to get cleared up before we could approve it. With that, I'll I'll make a recommendation that we continue this to the next meeting. >> Second routine. >> Open for discussion, I guess. Babe, do you have

016any comments? Uh just for my information, uh this is a rental, so it doesn't take it off the tax roles via the church, >> right? That's correct. Because they're renting space, >> okay, okay, that's all the only comment I had. Okay. So, >> um, >> so we have a proposal to move it to the next meeting. >> Continue to next meeting. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. And can we ahead and um ask request that the applicant be present? I'm sure Matt would. >> I sent them the agenda multiple times. >> Good grief. Okay. Roll call vote. I >> I in favor that'll be at the next meeting. >> Good idea. >> Okay, the next order of business, we have a site plan application at 225 West Street. Please. Good evening. Uh my name is

017Peter Lavoy. I work for DNL Design Group and we're located in Milford, Mass. I'm here tonight representing Alpine Place LLC. Um they're located out of Franklin, Mass. Um, so we have uh an existing lot on 140. 140 runs along the bottom of the page here. Um, basically the colored the colored lot in the back is our lot. Uh, it's basically vacant. It does have an existing uh detention basin in this location here. Uh, but the rest of the lot is is uh undisturbed. There is a little bit of a cleared area here. Um, basically the lot slopes from the back of the lot towards Route 140. Um, the address of this parcel here is 225. Um, there is an existing office building in the front which is 215. Uh, so basically how we're going to

018access the lot is we're going to access the existing curb cut that's there. Now, we're not going to add any curb cuts uh to Route 140. We have an existing access and utility easement over that lot currently. So, we're going to use that access and utility easement just for access. Um so, driveway comes up. You have an exist We have a proposed uh 7200 square ft building, two stories. So 3,600 on the lower level and then 3600 on the upper level. Um basically this is set up as you drive up to this parking area which will have 11 parking spaces and one handicap. Uh it will access the offices at the top of the structure on the second floor. So this is kind of like a drive under. Um this walkway is um accessible for

019handicap. Um so then you come down to the lower level. You'll have garage bays along the bottom and you'll have access um to those garage bays to the lower level. Um the building will have uh floor drain. So we have a proposed holding tank in the back. proposed dumpster is in this location here with an additional four parking spaces. So, we have a total of 15 parking spaces. We only require 11. Um, the building will be serviced by a private water. So, we have a proposed well in this location here. There's no water uh on Route 140. Um, but there is water in this development back here. um building will be serviced by town sewer. We'll tie in there's an existing cross country sewer line that comes through here through an existing easement. We're going

020to tie into that um sewer line and that goes to Hopedale. Just to let everybody know that goes to Hopedale, doesn't go to Milford. Um so we are talking with the Hopedale sew department. Um proposed drainage. I have two catch basins here. So no runoff will come onto this parcel. Then it comes down this drain line. This is a low this is a low point in the back here. So we have a double catch basin here and then that sends it off to a storm scepter which will treat the runoff that's generated in the parking lot and then that will go into this underground basin in this location here. and then that will mitigate the storm events and just discharge out into this area that will trickle down to the existing basin. Um so when

021I did my drainage analysis I I um I didn't want to analyze the whole development above. So I basically analyzed this area here. So I'm treating everything on my site. proposed roof will be discharged into this little rain garden in the front which has a emergency overflow and then that'll also if it does fill up it'll discharge out into here and then just go down the slope. Um I did meet with the fire department this morning. I met with the I mean this afternoon I met with the chief. He had a couple comments. I did provide him with uh uh truck turning simulation. Uh the original truck that he wanted me the the ladder truck would not work. It would not make the turn. So he gave me his other vehicle that he it's a

022smaller fire truck that that does work and come up. Um, and the reason why he let me use the smaller truck is because we have uh fire hydrant in this location here, which is 198 ft to the building. So, they could access it through the back the back area here. We also have another um fire hydrant over here which is 243 ft away. And then the last fire hydrant is located right here which is another 300 it's 350 from the site. Um we we have filed with conservation because we're working within the 100t buffer and we're also filling this small little finger uh projection right here. Basically the runoff comes down and there was a channel dug here. So that kind of was over time that was creating that created uh wetlands. So but we

023are accessing through this point there. Um I think that's it. So um just I want to follow up on the fire chief because I did speak with him after um and he was he was fine with the engine being able to get up there. The ladder truck can get up there, but would have to do like a loop-de-loop over on the >> Oh, sure. Right. >> on the other um and come around. So, >> right. Yeah. I I had I had um prepared a fire uh fire truck for the uh truck turning simulation for the ladder truck, but when I put the circle here for the radius, it didn't work. So, I I tried to figure out a different way. So another way would be if he came up wrapped around and then went. It

024would work that way. But you know we there there is no right away over here for him to access or to turn around there. But I mean I guess you're the fire department. You can do whatever you want. So >> um the other thing is over here approximately um our so our GIS um we have information from the water department's model of the system. It's not 100% accurate. Um a lot of the locations because they're they they use it for a different purpose. But um but it did show a line coming out from the water main that goes through here right to the property line. Um so that's just something that we I I think um Chief Nelson would like to see investigated to see if it really is there. Um because he Chief Nelson

025would certainly prefer to have a hydrant closer to the building rather than having basically what he said is they'd have to run the hose down here and around and up is the way that they would probably do it. Um so they would prefer and and I assume that if there is a line that you would eliminate the well and >> correct >> and tie into the town water. So, just something that um should be looked at. Um I have I did look at the drainage. Um I had a few concerns, but my biggest concern is that we don't have soil testing. Um, so I can't and especially where there's I believe pretty high groundwater here and um and quite possibly ledge. Um, good combination. >> I I I think it's important for us to have

026um the soil evaluation done before we approve it. Once in a while we do it subject to confirmation if we have a good idea, but in this case I don't think we do. So, >> I mean, I thought we did soil testing. I could not find it, though. So, but I I'll look. >> Yeah. I mean, if you find it >> Yeah, I'll look. And then >> if you find it, then I wasn't out there to witness it. >> Oh, you need to witness for storm water. >> Yes. >> Um, just a comment. It It looks like a very steep site, but then I do see that they're, you know, the contours are so close together, but I see the one foot contour. I hate one foot contours. Don't Don't do one foot contours. >>

027It's so deceiving. >> It looks very steep, but >> And it certainly is some >> It is certainly >> It's around 10% if I I did it I measured it a while ago. So, >> but just in the driveway area here. >> Yeah, it's just it's just right here. And then this is this was graded out as for ADA accessible. And then this is this is flat right here. It's just that one to just to get up to that parking area. >> What was the basin constructed for originally? Find that there. >> Oh, so that was actually one of my other comments. um for the storm water. Um it it's for this this site currently goes to actually even this >> well all all this this whole this whole area up here all this drainage

028comes down >> and then discharges right here >> is a 24 in pipe. >> Not all of it because there's a outlet over here. >> Yeah. That that is for that's for that area there. And then there's one >> Oh, okay. >> There's a drop what do you call it? an area drain here that discharges. But this drain line, >> okay, >> and these catch basins, all this comes right in this location. So, this was designed probably for that that development up there as well as this. So, do we do we have do we have deeds of records for those sites? I mean, we need a deed of record for the site in front to show that we have an easement, an access easement to to the back site. >> Yep. >> Y >> then

029we need a >> um >> You have the deed reference though. >> Yeah, we have de reference on the plan. >> Yeah. And we I I like to see a copy of the deed that indicates what >> what it specifically says we have access, what the ability is. >> Okay. Um just so it says, you know, for whatever purposes, we need to make sure that it's not restrained in any way, let's say. >> Yeah, we're we're not doing any regrading. Uh so this whole this whole paved area is staying the same until we get to the curb line. >> It's more for access. Is it for access or utility or >> Yeah, it's Yeah, >> it's an access and utility easement. >> Yep. >> Says the plan. >> I've seen it. I've seen it. Okay.

030there is a reference on the plan >> and and then in in your deed we need to make sure that if there's drainage coming from that site we need to make sure that in the deed for the site that you have that that they have access we want to make sure it should be there already that they have access for their drainage to go into your detention basin. >> Okay. >> So that's why we need we'll need copies of both both deeds. So my thought was if there isn't >> it has to be put in >> can you can you force my other thought was to possibly um just have them include maintenance of this detention of this existing detention basin as part of their storm water requirements. >> Is there overflow is going into

031it? Well, it I mean, yeah, that's that's true. >> I wouldn't think they'd want to do that, >> but >> well, those are all the questions that need to be answered by looking at what's actually in the deed. I don't know what the answers at the end of the day, but those are all the issues that once we see it, we can make a judgment as to is this covered, what happens in this case, you know, things like that. We we've got to make sure that somebody is maintaining the base and which party is doing it, how is it being shared, and how do we if the town needs to go in, who do we who do we contact to get in? Those types of things will need to be spelled out in the deed.

032>> Okay. >> So, that's that's what we be, you know, that's what I'm looking for in that. >> And then we should we should get a letter. I mean, you went through with the with the chair to make sure he sends a letter going forward to to do that. And then obviously you're going to need to get I agree because that area is is is pretty tight. You're going to need to get testing soil testing uh define that system up there. >> Yeah. But if that so that he wrote that letter I think without we don't yet know if that line to the >> Oh, I see. Um >> could we ask the chief to date his letters? I think we've had a couple. Yeah, there is no D. Oh, okay. >> Yeah, >> it's

033fine. >> Once the weather clears a little bit, can the water company go up and see? I would assume they would have they would have put a valve on that line if it exists. >> I would expect so. >> So hopefully you can at least find a a gate up there somewhere. >> They should have some. They This just came up this afternoon, so I didn't get a chance to >> Yeah. I'm just thinking it might be buried in the snow right now, but >> All right. >> More on this one. >> Yeah, possibly. I don't have anything else. >> Babe, do you have any comments? >> Yes. Uh the sewer department is uh denying this. Uh they have not received a full set of plans >> and that's part of their regulations. they're supposed

034to receive a full set of plans and they they called me today and they they're denying it. So, I would say that you should at least uh continue it until it gets straightened out. Even though it's going to Hopedale, it still goes through the Milford uh sewer department and the Milford SE sewer permit. >> Interesting. >> I provided the sewer department within a reduced set, but I guess that their regulations said that they need a full set. >> Okay. >> So, that's that's I just learned that. >> Okay. I can drop one off. >> Yeah. You're going to in I mean at approval you're going to need >> their approval and Hopedale. A letter from Hopedale. Yeah. indicating that they may accept it too. >> Okay, Chris, >> Dave, you're good. >> Yeah, it's the

035>> Thank you. >> The big the biggest thing was was the sewer taking it taking care of the sewer? >> Um, just couple question. What's the nature of the business that's going in there? >> Uh, it's a contractor's yard, so it'll be like offices and warehouse underneath. >> Okay. Yeah, I just I wasn't sure contractor's yard if it dealt with um vehicles with trailers and that sort again to make that turn from 140 and doing that. >> Yeah, I would I was talking to the chief. I would think anyone who was going back there will come this way and in the chief he can't go into Hopedale to me. So I was >> right. Yeah. Not not even the fire apparatus, but just general work, >> construction, vehicles, whatever is going in there. If >>

036if there is if they're a vehicle with a trailer on it, they're never making that turn. >> I don't foresee that being the kind of I understood. I'm just saying that if I was driving a trailer, I would not be happy about driving in there and then having to back out. >> But it's Yeah. And it's storing material. So, so now if that person, that truck driver has to go beyond 140, now what? Now, where is he turning around? >> So, I'm just making that point. >> Wouldn't make bail. >> Yeah. >> So, and and to that point, then why not make a new curb cut and have direct access down that lower right hand corner? >> Yeah. >> It's all wetlands. These are all wetlands. We don't have we don't have the we don't

037have access to do anything here. The rightway is just >> the rightway easement is just over the driveway. That's it. It doesn't go anywhere else. >> The you couldn't get there anyways, Chris. It's too steep >> from that over >> 140. From 140 up to the the level of that parking lot is >> it's just too much elevation. Right. >> Again, I just that hard U-turn right there coming off of 140 scares me. just you're going downhill. So, whatever vehicle is going to be making that right turn into there is going to have slowed down significantly knowing they're going to have to do that hard loop. >> Um >> U-turn basically. >> Yeah. >> But I I I I honestly feel if anyone if anyone that knows, you know, if they're if that's their building,

038they know they they can't make that U-turn, >> you know. So, that's why they would come they would come down Duchess Street and come up this way and just go in, >> right? An employee leaves to go to lunch and goes to Dairy Queen. >> Okay. >> Then what? >> I mean, I think a clock can make determin. I used it as a point of reference. Garden pizza. >> So, >> yeah. >> All right. You got plenty of parking lot there. >> So, um I I also think that part of this is the confusion or gray area in what we call a contractor's yard, >> right? um you know the what and that's something I think you know you guys should potentially look at from um from a regulatory standpoint but this is this is

039not >> I don't believe intended to be something where they're going to be storing any material outside it's going to it's going to be like a large plumbing >> I mean we have you have building elevations if you want to show if you want to show them >> maybe that I mean it's more of Uh but to that point, if it's storing, you know, pipe and everything else, right, those those don't come in on small little trucks, >> right? >> So again, I I just I have concerns. >> That's not the kind of thing that they they typically put on in a um storage. You know, maybe they have one pipe that they put on the truck and that was left over from a job, but usually that stuff goes to the job site. Um,

040>> not always. >> I'm not saying always. Just But this, as you can see, that's not that doesn't look like a contractor's yard, >> right? Yeah. >> And then we have You have a picture of the doors in the back. She has a picture of the of the back. >> See the back? >> Oh. >> And what would be stored inside those garage bays? >> A van. uh you know if it's if you're electric electrician a small electrician you you'd rent a section park a van inside >> I mean I don't think there's going to be any heavy equipment there's really no room to park a back hoe or anything like that on this site >> there's no there's no room to store a trailer >> when we come to it obviously it's not it's

041not today but but can we limit the per se the usage p of of the types of things that'll be there. So, you know, >> you know, once we approve this, a contractor with with trailers and all that can and we've seen that before where they've been in places they shouldn't be, but it's legal and now it becomes that I >> what what's being explained to us today for that use I don't have an issue with, but tomorrow when someone else tries to go in there, I would have an issue with it. So, can we say as part of the approval that it's only this type of usage that we're allowing for? >> I would say the use is regulated by the ZBA. >> That's what I'm afraid of. Issued the special permit already for

042the use. >> So, we're just covering the site there. >> You probably have the ability to say no outdoor storage. I don't know if you um equipment as well. Yeah, vehicular equip >> that might that might at least get us out of the you know, no outdoor storage. And do you do do you I mean I I remember we used to do when you when a use came in that was different that it had to do like an amended site plan. Do you have to do that? >> But if it falls so every time contractor's yard then there's no change. >> So yeah, it's a change in actual use by definition of the >> by definition of the bylaws. So in this case contract out is a contract out is a contract out. It won't

043come back to us. It doesn't have to go back to building department, >> which is part of the reason I think. >> Yeah, I guess I guess we could say no. No outgo storage, >> right? >> That would at least say you can't, you know, guy's not going to have a trailer sitting out there. >> I don't think we can do anything else, though, >> Mr. Chair. So, do we envision this being six rental units to to six different contractors? >> Potentially. Yes. Is there a second floor up there? >> Yes. Second floor is office. >> Yeah, it's just the office there. >> The other way around, it would be perfect. >> Right. >> What do you mean the other way around? >> If the back wasn't towards the front. >> Oh, it just works

044great wise. >> No, no, no. I I'm It's It's much prettier. Very nice. >> It's a beautiful building. Yeah, >> it won't look bad from the street. I don't think cuz the other one is the other building or block. >> Yeah, I think you're only going to see the if you see anything, it's going to be the top. And we do have proposed landscaping along the property line like trees and some uh opivites. >> Oh, lighting. Um I I see some lighting here on this, but there there was there was no um I don't know if you guys wanted to see any sort of I didn't see any proposed lighting. I would assume they're all building lights. >> Yeah, it's just building lights just for security. >> Same thing on the back side, I would

045think. Or the garage. >> Can we look at the back again? >> I did I will I will say I didn't look at the Yeah, they're shown here. I didn't look at the elevations. >> Yeah, there's no parking lots. >> Um Babe would like to speak. Joe, if you want to. >> Babe, please go ahead. Yes, there should be a comment that uh there should be no storage outside of any uh materials also. >> Mhm. >> Great point. >> Yes. >> Well, I think we're >> just to the town engineer. I know. Yeah. will probably continue just no concerns as far as you know how this cutting into the land and the land basically above it on Sylum Asylum Street and coming down. So >> So there that's there are there are some drainage >>

046um things that I want to address. >> But even just from the the >> constru Yeah. construction side where you have, you know, from the elevation change in that in those grades, there's no concerns with um, you know, the torrential downpours of of heavy runoff. >> Um, so one of my concerns is during Yeah, it it's it all sort of falls under the drainage. >> Um, one of my concerns is during construction cuz you're going to have steep slopes >> um that you can get wash out and it would go directly into the existing building. So, we want to >> um make sure we don't do that. There are um under drains. There's an under drain proposed behind the parking lot, I think. >> Mhm. >> So, that will help mitigate any water that's coming

047from underground um from getting out to the surface. Uh I there's also I assume there's going to be an under drain or a foundation drain. Um that I don't have they'll have to show. Um and then the other thing and I because Peter mentioned it um it it is typical to just go to the lot line when you're doing the drainage analysis, but in this particular case I would like to go up to the edge of pave here. >> And that was my next question is so any concerns there with with any type of undermining that would happen that would cause the infrastructure, the pavement to be compromised. >> No. >> Above No. >> So, we're like we're like uh 45 ft away from that pavement. >> But and they're and they're not going to

048break into this slope at all. >> Okay. >> All of our work >> I realize that, but now you you you're breaking into the slope below that. So now >> Yeah. Not enough. If you're 45 feet, if you're 45 feet away, you'd have to dig down. >> Even if you dug down 20 feet, you're still not going to undermine that slope. >> No, I appreciate. Yeah, you as the civil engineer, that's why I'm >> But I am con, you know, I do want to make sure we're >> including in the calculations the water that falls. So any of the water that falls on the um pavement up here gets collected and goes down into this basin. But this water, you know, any rainfall that falls in between the pavement and our site would technically go

049through your our this drainage system. So I just want to make sure that that's included. It's not it's not a lot of water, but just one of the things that I >> and we and we did we did submit an erosion control and uh operation and maintenance plan for during and after construction. So >> yeah, that need that's one of the things that you'll have to look at the regulations cuz it just needs to be a little more >> Robust thank you for the storm water permit. That's all. >> Yep. Mr. Mut. >> Babe has another question. >> Have another question. Babe, >> no. >> Oh, >> why is the hand up? I'm >> sorry. I just >> just waving. >> Okay, >> fine. >> I'm not used to this. I I was very surprised

050that you knew how to do that. >> Any other questions? >> One other thing is about the trailers. There's no way a trailer would make that that hill without getting hung up. So there's no way a trailer can get into that site. Um, I don't know. I I believe uh Joe the I if you wanted to open it up. Do you >> Oh, yes, please. >> Your name and address for the record, please. >> Long galley. I'm going to right above the other how how you spell your name. What's your address? >> Yeah, that's me. What is your what's your >> address? >> 2:30 West Street. >> Thank you. >> Don't ask why it's an even number, but it is. Oh, >> there's a few of those in >> couple of concerns. I I have

051a private well. So, when you mentioned you're going to drill a well, I don't know I don't know distance wise. I know where the site is, but I don't know how far away is from my well. My well is towards the back of my house about here someplace. >> it's quite a ways 300 ft. >> Yeah, a few hundred feet. >> The other concern is that's listed as a retention basin. There's no retention base in there. When that was built 40 years ago, there was water in that thing. That's dry now. Um there's full growing trees in it. And last year, we came to a meeting, I think, with the conservation committee. And part of the deal then was that that would be cleaned up, made a potential basin again. Is that still part of

052your plan? I'd like to talk to you later about it. >> No, it's not. That's what that's the reason why So that's the reason why we stayed away from this because we don't want we didn't want to impact you at all because you All I'm saying is that I don't care about the building. That's fine. >> Yeah. >> My concern was to getting the water drain off that if that's supposed to be a retention basin to collect water. >> That's what I assume retention basin is, right? >> Yeah. >> Go look at it. >> No, I know what it looks like. >> It looks like a wooded area. I understand. And at the last conservation committee meeting, they said part of the deal was that we make that another we make it retention basically again.

053You're going to leave it the way it is. >> Yeah. The reason why they were going to do that is cuz they were going to access here and the previous town engineer wanted a drainage analysis for this. They didn't they weren't doing their own detention here. >> I don't ever remember the excess being on this side. >> It was over there. Yes. >> Okay. my neighbor who came when we came this morning. >> It doesn't work. We can't add water, but we're not changing anything. >> Oh, yeah. That was my only concern. The water which you've answered and if that was going to be cleaned up again like they talked at the other meeting, but >> yeah, they were going to reconfigure that. >> So, there's so this still has to go in front of

054conservation. >> Um, yeah. So the the conservation because that's actually um it's it it shows as wetland flags in on one of the um >> one of the plan it >> yeah there's a wetland line in there. >> Yeah. So I I don't conservation is going to look at it to determine whether it's a wetland or a detention basin. Um, and then that was part of my um that was part of we need to know who's in charge of maintenance on that basin. And and um that certainly cleaning out the basin and making sure it's working as a basin is something that um may be required. I just I don't think we're quite we don't think we're quite there yet. >> Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Those are just my concerns. >> Thank you. >>

055A question, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> For you to the applicant. What is that yellow strip south of that existing basin? >> Uh, it's a rip wrap. >> Okay. And that's proposed. >> No, that's existing. >> Okay. >> Oh, but it's probably like overgrown. So, >> Oh, I see. Okay. What is it? >> Rip. Stones. stones >> that they when they constructed the basin, they put stones at the end of the outlet and then they >> That's above ground or below ground. >> Well, it's above, >> but it's probably all overgrown right now. So, >> yeah, probably can't even see it. >> You probably can see it. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, as mentioned, um there is a storm water permit required. You guys are going to put that together. >> He's he gave me

056the >> the application >> application and the fee, but there's going to be other stuff. Awesome. >> But yes, >> do you want that? >> I'll take it. Thank you. >> M you >> any uh any other questions? Any other comments? >> We got quite a bit. My my only I guess my comment going from here is I'm not sure that I mean obviously continuous in two weeks makes no sense because there's no way that that's going to you no one's going to be taking out equipment out there to do uh testing for the uh >> soils >> for the soils. Um do we have to give a date for when this is continued to or can we >> I believe you do. I >> I think you do. I think you do. supposed to

057get warm. So, we could go out there, >> not not in two weeks >> and then >> you don't want to test it when it's >> and then do all the other changes that that have been mentioned here and actually have the analysis if that's not, you know, >> based on what you assumed, it's going to take a little while to do that. So, I mean, there there's no way I'm continuous two weeks because this isn't going to be ready >> and and I don't want to play the game of, oh, two weeks, two weeks, two weeks. >> Yeah. I I would say a month minimum. Um >> the meeting would be March 17th. >> It's appropriately a lot of green on there. >> There you go. >> Is that safe time? >> Move to

058continue to March 17th. >> I might not be here >> unless Miss Magny is not here. >> Tuesday. >> As long as we have the letter. >> It is Tuesday. I always tell you my >> that's that's how I professionally. >> Okay. Motion's been made. >> Second. >> We have a second. Okay. >> Roll call. >> I >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> One question. >> Yes. Yes. Um, does it have to go through the the planning board approval before the conservation commission? >> No. >> Okay. >> Because the conservation's >> next week. >> The 26th. >> Correct. >> That's next week, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Is it next week? >> Yes, it is. >> And I don't And I don't actually That's I should have brought this up because um I don't

059foresee the Conservation Commission closing it based because we have questions with the um detention basin and um the drainage and they only meet once a month. So it wouldn't not that not that you have to wait for conservation to close it but if you were going to then that would put it to the end >> March 26th. >> Mhm. >> February has 28 days. all the same in March. >> Well, we'll see what conservation is at that point in time. >> Gone through it once. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you for coming. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Moving on. Um Item six. >> Uh item six, we got a ZBA referral three Colonial Road. So what we have here, if you recall, we did an 81P in January for this

060where there was an encroachment and that was rectified. So then that created a nonconformity with structure. So now they're in front of the CBA because they want to add up, but now there's structures within the setback because it's no longer encroaching, but it's it's now non-conforming. So um they're trying to fill it up and they provided us with plans, >> architectural renderings. It's not changing the footprint of the facility at all. >> So I got some pictures of this room. You want to see Joe? You want to see them? Um, sure. >> Excuse me. I'm >> ahead. I have your name and address. >> I'm sorry. >> 7 in the height of the the second floor ceiling. >> Oh, okay. I have a tape picture of the tape. >> See those pictures? >> Yeah. Okay.

061>> So, the height of the buildings within the height limit of zoning footprint will not change. Non-conformity is sideyard setback. As I mentioned, it's originally encroached resolved by the 81 ft that we did in January. Yep. >> That's pretty much it. I recommended favorable report. Can I have big sets of the plants of the site? >> Matt, I'm I'm so sorry. Could you repeat what you just said? >> Sure. >> So, he's trying to build another story onto his house. The height of the building's within the height limit of the zoning bylaw. The footprint of the house will not change. Non-conformity is the new sideyard setback that was originally an encroachment which we resolved in 81P last month. So now it's now it's a nonconformity because it's within the sideyard setback. That's why he's here

062for relief of section 3.1.3 extension of a non-conforming structure. Not changing the footprint, but >> it's a gray area as to whether or not it even really requires it, but it's prudent to >> to do it suspenders kind of thing. Yeah, you're um you are technically I the the two ways of looking at it are you're not making it any worse, so you're not ex you're not making the horizontal >> any worse. So you're not extending it. >> Um but you are vertically have more building in >> in violation of that setback. So, it's it really is it it's a >> it's a gray area, >> but we always we always treated it that way in the >> past. Yeah, it's I mean, usually it's not a problem. So, >> it's more of a formality

063to go through this. >> Yeah, that's my 70 and has a a tip that I put it in. >> Yeah, >> exactly. 70 inches. I never seen like that because before I bought the bank was a blind deal thing. You couldn't go inside the house. I would never believe a woman 70 in >> ceiling height. >> Are you building on top of the current structure or are you raising everything down and >> No, I can't. Uh, as the building department, I'm going to leave this the first floor and raise the second floor. Take out the second floor and >> cuz uh Christopher, did you see the picture of the height? >> I can I I heard. So, yeah. >> His head is touching the ceiling. >> Yeah. Okay. And that's part of why I know

064that I've been by the structure. I know it's a very small structure in need of some rehab. So, >> yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. We used to have shorter people before. I never thought the building code would allow something like this, you know, back then, but I think >> building codes. >> Okay, >> that's a jump to say there. Any questions or comments? >> Any other comment to the applicant? And it's really it's doesn't um phase us. So, bedroom number one up on your second floor. I noticed there's no closet. I can't remember what ZVA they they always bring up about closet space. So, it's something that Yeah. something you may want. I think more that they want closet space to make or >> if you for a bedroom or bedroom versus office. I And

065I'm >> if you don't have a clos if you don't have a closet, it's not a bedroom. >> So, again, it won't change >> by vote tonight. I just want you to be aware of it when you go to that next step with the ZBA. >> Okay. >> Bedroom one. >> Check on whether or not you it doesn't show a closet. Check if you do need a closet just so it helps you out. >> To you next like come to us. No, they'll go to the ZBA. I just again pointing that out. Uh check with >> what do you check with the building? Yeah, check with the building department on that >> just to make sure that when you get to the ZBA, >> it will help you out. Thank you. >> Y do you

066have any questions? >> Also here. >> No, the only comment I got is uh the building code doesn't differentiate. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The difference between an office or a bedroom because of a closet at all. So the closet doesn't come into uh any anything. It doesn't matter. But but you should still check with the building. >> But yeah, I think I think it was in title five at some point in time that if you had a closet, it's no longer in title five. >> Okay. >> About it, but I think that's where I think that's where it kind of came from. >> Okay. Joe, >> not. Okay. Do we have a motion on this? >> Motion to send a favorable to the ZBA. I'll second. Okay. Roll call. >> This only a ZBA. >>

067Okay. >> Roll call. >> Hi. >> Okay. >> Is that Thank you. You're welcome. >> I'll talk to you tomorrow. Sounds good. I'm on. Yes, you are. >> Thank you. Good luck. >> Have a good day. Good luck. Okay, moving on. Um, item number seven, um, town meeting potential warrant articles. Yes, sir. >> Discuss that. Okay. So, I put together some draft bar articles based on things that Liz and I were talking about. One of them, I think it's the first one your packet is our and oh, everyone should have a copy of the new bylaws also. >> Y >> everyone copy of those. >> Thank you. >> But under section 2.5, our intensity uses, for some reason, our lot widths are wider than our frontages. And mathematically, it doesn't make any sense. So, we're

068curious if we can get the lot widths to match the front edges. >> So, the minimum lot width, right? >> The minimum lot width is the width at the setback line, >> right? >> And typically when you have a width requirement on a lot, it's um it's to square things up basically. >> Mhm. Um, but having that >> where it's larger actually ends up getting you you end up zigzagging lot lines a lot of time. >> Um, so I I don't know. And plus, we have the lot factor. >> Yeah. When that was first off, we didn't have the lot factor. >> So I Right. So I'm I mean I think it makes more sense to to have it be the same. um as the as the frontage. I wouldn't eliminate it, but what what

069are the numbers now? >> It's on the next page. 50. >> You got it right there in front of you. Yeah, those are the numbers. The numbers are >> I'm sorry. I thought those >> So, the front >> I'm confused. >> Oh, that's what you're proposing. >> Yeah, that's the proposed >> the numbers. Now, one of the width is 80 on RA, 100 in RB, 140 in RC, and 140 in RD. And it's 80 in O, which doesn't change. And then IB is 250. >> So in RA and RB, it's currently 10 ft wider, right? >> I think it's weird. >> And in RC and RD, which is I think where you come across the problem more often, is 20 ft larger, right? Not that we have a whole lot of brand new uh subdivisions

070coming in. >> It's It's definitely an oddity. >> It is. It doesn't make sense. >> Well, no. It was when they did it, it was their way of getting rid of pork chop blocks, >> right? >> But when we put the when we put the shape factor in, we never changed it, >> which eliminated that to a certain extent anyway. So, >> could >> it could have been eliminated at that point, but we didn't. >> Thank you for that explanation. >> Do you think it should just be eliminated or do you think you should just change it to be the same? >> You could just eliminate it at this point. It probably would be easier in the way our bylaw is written just to change them having them the same. But, I mean, the whole

071the whole point of the the shape factor was to get rid of the pork chop plots anyway. So, I mean, I think although you can define areas in that and still end up with a pork chop if you end up with it, well, this still gives you some form of a lot in the front where it actually faces the road. I mean, I guess, you know, I don't have a problem just changing it to be the same as as the front edge. Yeah, I think >> I mean I get you >> I would I mean I don't know how much you're going to by doing 3y angles at the front but but I I do like the idea of having it be square at the front especially where you can make like you said you

072can separate area be back. So you could have some again I don't know how much you would save but >> again >> narrow it's going to affect anything too much >> just to be clear lot width again is measured at the setback line so be beyond that line it can be narrower than >> stipulated in the on in the width requirements. >> Yes. >> But still the lot has to conform to the shape factor. So you can't have a, you know, it can't get to the setback line and then come to a pie. >> Come to a pie. Yeah. Come to a >> Well, unless it's big enough. >> So, does anyone want to make a motion to send us the selectman for warrant consideration? >> Um, would we make f make a recommendation as

073well at this time? >> No, not yet. We have to hold a public hearing. >> Oh, of course. um that I would recommend that we submit it to the selectman for the town meeting warrant for inclusion in the warrant. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I as well. >> Okay. >> Unanimous. >> All right. plan. Second one is the one that Liz talked about at our last meeting where the conservation commission has recently updated their wetland by include language as to strike the section at 2.4.8 eight, which is Oh jeez, what is this? Oh, it's the uh >> it puts the it puts a wetland set back or in the zoning bylaw. And I apologize, the commission did at their last meeting um agree to have I was supposed to have a letter

074prepared in >> for you guys and I didn't. I'm sorry. >> But yes. >> Wait, what? I can I can certainly get that letter to you um immediately, but the the the conservation commission is um in favor of this. I guess that was it was part of the point um that the the conservation commission is a better judge of what should and shouldn't be in the setback to a wetland than the ZBA is. And the the most the most often requested variance for this is a pool >> which doesn't especially like an ingground pool. >> Yeah. >> But technically >> technically it's a structure. >> Oh, it is. >> And so it Yeah. So it it says who? >> The building code, I think. Oh my goodness. >> All right. >> So, I'm looking for

075a similar recommendation to send to the select board for more consideration. So um if I may um the the concom has already changed their bylaw to address so so now it's this requirement is effectively in two places. Correct. >> Okay. Yeah. Recommend that this be included in the warrant for the next town meeting that we recommend the selectment that it be included in the warrant. >> I'll second that. >> Roll call. Hi, >> I as well. And Chris brought up a couple others. I didn't draft these because I wanted to discuss them a little more in detail, but I identified where they are in our bylaws. One of them is section 2.4.7, page 25. So sight construction fences or walls exceeding six feet in height. So >> which is really redundant by the way because

076you can't have anything greater than 6 ft in height for a fence. Um so to say that you can't have it in the front yard setback is anything larger than 6 ft. It's already prohibited. Um, but there's there's another line in there about 20 feet >> 20 feet from the street right away >> from the street right away. >> So, it's not quite the same. It's not as intrusive as the setback is in most cases. But, um, but I think that's I think you should be looking at both of those if that's what your >> Okay. Both of these. Just wanted to open that for discussion and how you want me to craft this. >> Where is it? Which >> 2.4.6 page 25 and 2.47. >> Yep. >> I find these very confusing. Well, the

077fir the like I said the first grammatically it makes no sense. No fence or hedge that obstructs vision shall exceed 42 in in height. How about which obstructs vision shall not continue to obstruct vision. I mean >> well you have to so >> how tall you are >> even right so it's so >> never mind >> it depends on how tall you are um those those 2 and 1/2 2 and 1/2 ft is the um is I I'm 30 is that 42 in um is that distance 42 in >> 30 in >> 8 in >> um there. So when you're doing sight distance um calculations it's it is from a like the height of a person in a car >> is how it's typically. So that's that's why that's in there like that. And then

078they also take into consideration somebody walking down the street basically. Those are the two I mean eight is pretty like like I said you can't have a fence above 6 ft anyway. So >> to >> So how do we want these to read was pretty much my question. Well, it's you referring to the 8 ft above. It's 8 ft above street grade, but not that that fence could still be 6 feet. >> Oh, right. >> So, that's why that's in there. >> That makes sense. >> What do you want to change it to, Chris? >> I need to get some more clarity on it. This was brought to my attention and yeah, so I can I can work with Matt on it and bring it up to the next meeting if that's okay. I just

079don't want to to misspeak on it. I think one of the things is um or where this has come up in discussions in the office is um corner lots, >> right? >> Um it it pretty stringently restricts where they're allowed to have a fence. >> Mhm. >> Um >> and there's a reason for that. >> Yeah. I don't know if 20 ft is is the right number, I guess. Um, and this I don't I also don't know how that I I always thought it was um you couldn't have it a 6ft fence in the front yard. I thought that was how >> you can't I don't believe you can. >> Well, that's not the way this reads. This says, it says you can't have a six-foot fence >> taller than a sixoot fence. >> Taller

080than a 6ft fence in the front yard in the front yard setback. Basically, it doesn't say any. It doesn't say it has to be less than for the front yard setback, but the 42 in is the 20 ft in the rightway is 20 ft from the right ofway. And in most cases, the right of way is 10 ft back from the edge of pave. So I I guess that would in like I said in our office conversations, that's that's sort of been the the banter is whether or not that's appropriate. The 20 ft back from the right of way is appropriate. So, following your lead, how many feet is 42 in? >> 42 inches is 3 and 1/2 ft. >> 3 and 12. Wow. An intersection two houses down from me. Very busy intersection has

081a 6 foot solid fence at the road on almost on the pavement. Very dangerous. >> Right. And Lee and Lawrence >> and but if you Right. So now if you assume which it it is very possible in your neighborhood that the right of way is the edge of pave they would have to by these regulations >> 20 ft back 20 ft but to me they should lower it it's too tall right I and I'm I'm not suggesting that you it should be nothing I'm just suggesting that 20 ft might be from the right of way might be excessive. >> Excessive. Yeah, >> that's that's more than the length of a parking space. So if your if >> but not knowing the conditions the way it is, they can always go for a variance just like

082we go for a variance for everything else. At certain locations it probably is totally appropriate. In other locations, what we have if we ever upheld them, which we don't, provides us for having adequate sight distance in all locations. and then go for variance if you have a situation where it's not going to affect anything. My two cents. >> Yeah, I I do think like if picturing this situation um near my house is even if it were set back 5 ft, but it it is kind of an unusual intersection. The roads are narrow in that area as in many areas in this community. Um, but again, even even if that particular fence were set back five feet, you wouldn't have to poke the nose of your car out into the street to see around the corner.

083>> In that case, with with that, having a lower fence and having it pushed back would provide you with perhaps adequate sight distance. Or if they wanted to have a fence, you know, you could go with a, you know, a fence that isn't I have no idea if this is a stock type fence or not, but you could have something to make sure that you could at least see through it. In which case, you could come back and ask for a variance. I'd like to do this. I'd like to do that >> and and it allows you to do that. But in this, you know, the one thing that I'm worried about because a lot of our intersections have poor sight distance, >> it would be nice to have us be able to say something,

084but that's story for a different day. So, street intersection, I believe, falls under another section. Um, >> well, there's Yeah, there's there's the rounding and stuff that we have. I don't know how far back that goes. You'd have to take a look >> that So, if there's no rounding, you still have there's there's I don't know where it is in the regulations, but I'm pretty certain that there's uh an intersection one that would that would allow you to if we were to uh enforce these regulations um that it would cover that site distance thing. The other thing I will tell you is we don't require a building permit for a fence. So it's base permit, right? >> No, there's no there's no permit required to put up a fence. So what? There's no permit required.

085>> You're not even required to have a any type of site um or uh >> um land surveying. >> Land surveying. >> No. So So when these newer fences happen, >> that's a problem. >> The people put them up not knowing, >> right? >> and then and then have to move the fence. >> Yeah. So, you know, I requiring some sort of permit, even if it was in, you know, that that may that may be something that you want to include in here. Babe has something to say. I think >> Babe, please. >> Uh, yes. Uh, I've got no problem with the 6T uh fence, but I would not want the uh 42 uh in uh fence bylaw to change because that's strictly a safety bylaw >> and it should be in there no matter

086what. We've never had a a problem with it so far. So, I don't see any need to change the 42 inch uh section of the zoning bylaw. >> Not even how far He can't hear me very well. So, >> um >> I don't I don't have a I don't have a problem with the 20 ft either. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think what I'll do is I'll I'll bring up a couple examples, show them to Matt. we can present to everybody here and that way they get an idea of what what exactly I'm I'm talking about. I just like I said I can't speak to it right now. Um so I don't want to go off a off on a tangent where I'm not supposed to go. >> I'm still I'm baffled as to why

087we wouldn't need a permit. I know for a fence I'm >> with you Joe >> because and also >> what you do for a pool >> not requiring a survey to survey it to >> so you could potentially put it in your neighbor's yard. >> Yep. >> Happens all the time. >> Your risk. There's nothing. >> Yeah. >> It's not it's not a building it's not a building code issue. So there's nothing that we could put it in say you can't put it, but no one's going to do no one's going to ever come before us for a site plan to put in a fence. I mean, it's just not going to happen. >> Well, what it does do is that when somebody starts putting up a fence that >> the the part about the

088uh no permit is a state is a state law. It's not a town thing that that was brought up by the state and put in through the state >> that there's no that's what they did that with no permits for fences and no permit for sheds. >> Well, >> that's a building permit issue, >> right? You could create >> permit. >> That's a state uh that's pilot >> building permit. >> State code. Yeah, that's the building permit >> for building >> or building permit. Yeah, >> but you can have a separate fence permit because there are communities that have some >> cuz it's just you put it in your zoning bylaw >> and then you need a permit. >> Yeah, I I've I've agreed. Not a not a building permit, but a fence permit. Yeah.

089>> Um >> separate process. I've I don't think requiring a um land surveying plot plan for every fence is the right way to go because that's excessive, >> right? No, I agree. Um, but >> but I I don't I feel like I feel like having something probably makes sense, but >> I don't know. That's big enough. We're going to >> we're going to get into I mean, most of most of the fence companies won't put a fence up unless they have some level of control to know where the property line is >> cuz they're not they're not coming back to do it for free. So, in most cases, unless they can see boundaries, they they'll tell the guy have a survey or come out and locate it. But, I mean, that's on that's that's between

090the owner and the fence company as far as I'm concerned. >> Okay. >> I don't think we want to get in the middle of that. I don't know that we'd have time to get in the middle of that. >> Mhm. >> So, one of the other ones that Chris brought up is section 3.2.5. He's asking about food trucks. And I believe that's trailers by definition in according to our zoning bylaw. >> I'm not touching I I I have no to touch that one, especially not >> not for this town meeting. >> Yeah. So >> I mean that that that needs to be some discussions that we need to put on and and and there has to be a little more thought with multiple boards here to go through that as far as I'm concerned. >>

091Yeah. Right. >> So if you want to do that, I have no problem doing that. I just don't want to rush that one. >> I don't want to rush it either. I just don't want to keep kicking it down >> down the road. Right. And I feel like we did last time. Um, you know, I got a lot of push back from the last, um, you know, town planner. We got a new town planner here. So, I feel I can, you know, I can work with on this one. So, that's why Joe and I know obviously, yeah, there's going to be other boards that need to be involved with board of health, >> right, is going to be the key factor in this and to let them know. Um if if if by the next

092meeting I can you know meet with them get some some things going um you know I would I would hope that >> we can have a discussion without again cuz if I just kick this right down to to the to the uh fall town meeting again it just we're just pushing down. So I at least would at least get the conversation going now. If if for some reason we don't get there I'm more than happy to pull back on this but I at least would like to get a shot right now. So you'll work with Matt to get it on an agenda when >> I mean I think Larry's comments were appropriate but in a certain and I'd like those to be addressed in that >> we're charging restaurants a very high commercial rate to

093be in the town of Milford and for somebody to walk in with a food truck and sell food right >> how do we address that needs to be addressed >> so that the and I've had conversations with the board of health and other departments on this um and that is not that those those have been taken into consideration and there are ways to address them, >> right? >> Um the board of health has ideas on that. The the the current um >> I don't know what our name what our title is health the that runs the >> health agent health director. Thank you. Um >> public health >> she came from um she was previously in Worester and and did a lot with food trucks uh and the regulations regarding it. So, uh, they're definitely

094open to coming to a meeting if that's what, um, if that's what you guys would like to see. >> Perfect. That's good experience. And I certainly think that the um >> although I've said this before, I think the building department um or the zoning enforcement officer, it makes sense for um for John to be here since whatever goes into the zoning bylaw has to be um >> enforceable >> enforced by him and so >> to make sure that it's an enforcable thing. That might almost be a night unto itself. >> Maybe. >> Also, council's been involved in this in the past months and we invited them to the meeting, but they're under the impression that the way it reads now, they are not allowed in town. Period. >> That's correct. Correct. >> But we have

095them >> because when the Lions Club does >> of course >> celebrate Milford the the Lions Club events. Yes. >> It's ridiculous to to keep it the way it is, >> but >> Right. >> Yes. I I completely like a lot of the points that Larry brought I was >> I was I was completely No, I was surp I was surprised that I >> agreed with Yeah, I guess I I was like, "Oh, I hadn't thought of that." >> I think I think there's a there's a dynamic that that needs to be addressed and maybe the board of health has, maybe she does. There certainly needs to be a dynamic when Lions Club does it on a single day and that's it and then they're gone, right? It's a different story when someone decides they

096want to come in seven days a week and be in a food truck and yeah, whatever it is. And so, how is that addressed? I'm not against them. I'm not, you know, it wasn't, >> but I think those things need to be addressed. I think it needs to be addressed so that >> when our restaurant owners come before us, we can say, "Hey, >> this is how we did. We knew you had an issue. We believe you have the, you know, that that's appropriate to have those types of issues, and this is how we we try to address it." And that's why I said, >> I agree with you on that. Yeah, there's definitely a um some gray area that we got to make sure that we we define black and white on it. Make

097sure that we we don't hurt local businesses, but we also allow for fundraising style events to to go on. >> And it could be more than that. Maybe they come once a week. I I don't care. But whatever that that is, we need to make sure that it's addressed how we address it. I don't know what those >> and we also want to make sure that we don't have the taco wagon or whatever was that kind of brought this about. You don't want like we actually had somebody come in because they um and and asked about putting basically a food truck in the parking lot permanently. >> Yeah. >> And they were proposing that because they knew that food trucks weren't allowed and so that you know we explained that that's >> but on the

098last section uh you brought up the ADU requirement for requiring site plan review. So that's Mr. Manini obviously doesn't want it with the planning board and we we brought it to town meeting last night because the ADU recommended it. Just not sure how we feel about it now. Is that something we want to change? That something we want to keep? Where do we want to go with that? And that's section 3.19. So >> I would say similarly that's not something I would probably try to deal with at this town meeting but might be something worth discussing just because I think the biggest reason that it was it didn't I think town council didn't have time to >> right >> to consider what um what babe proposed at the as an amendment at the town meeting.

099Um but as you can see from the ADU we had today, what are we really looking at? >> Yeah. Right. >> Right. So, um, and the the AG didn't the AG didn't say you can't that you the way that the what the AG said is it it was a very lawyerly way of writing around what regulations were there to be able to say you still need a site plan. like it wasn't >> it wasn't really straightforward. So >> Mhm. >> I think but I but I do think that that's something that needs to be I I don't see it happening for this town meeting. >> Um just that's just my opinion. I don't know how you feel about it, Chris. >> I think Yeah, it's let's Yeah, I will kick this can down the road,

100you know. I mean, but it just showed tonight, right? There was a present a ADU was presented to us and it really was just checking boxes off that they had the parking spot and they had the offsets. >> Yeah, >> there's really not much else we had on and you know the water departments determine the water line, the sewer departments determine the sewer side, right? So, you know, are we just are we just that agency that makes sure that they're they're doing all of those things, but it goes right back to the John in the building department anyways that he's not going to issue an occupancy permit unless he knows that. So, so we're we're we're checking a box that really is in a sense irrelevant. >> Yeah. And unfortunately, I don't I don't see

101there is no other agency in this town that seems to combine all of those to make sure they're there. That's the only reason why, right? And it is just checking a box. Did they go to the sewer department? Did they go to the water department? Did they show the parking? Okay, we're done. But unfortunately, I'm not convinced that anybody else does that. And at the end of the day, it's on them, not on us. I'm just trying to be >> somewhat proactive to them so they don't get so they don't get halfway down the thing and then we find out, oh, you can't put the sewer line in that way. It has to go this way. I mean, >> that's the point with the for me. That's the same point with the fence. Right. I

102I think it makes I think it makes sense to try and help protect people. I don't >> Yes. >> Right. >> Unfortunately, I've never been a fan of protecting people from themselves, but >> that's who we are and and that's what we're doing. But >> yeah, >> I I and I I mean the other thing is that people's recourse unfortunately when they happen is oh I did it can you just excuse me and let me go ahead as opposed to doing it right the first time. So if we catch them up front it gets done right otherwise we get people not maybe not in front of us maybe it's front of the sewer board maybe it's in front of the water department of saying well can I do it this way now because I already

103did it. So >> I guess instead of permission, yeah, we don't want that, but we need to let the residents know how to how to accomplish what they're trying to do through the proper channels. I I don't feel strongly about it either way. I guess I I but it's definitely I I think that this the site and plan review would really be almost entirely to protect the people proposing them. There's really no there's really nothing. >> We're not doing anything to protect the town really >> because it's the it's the zoning it's the building department's job to make sure that that stuff's done. Yep. So, >> I would say administratively going over 3.9.1 and bouncing around back and forth between the sections that are allowed and not allowed was was was annoying to me, but

104I got it done in like 30 40 minutes or so. >> But, >> so that should be take no time for a resident to figure out. >> Yeah, it's fortunately we had a good application from a from a from a good engineer. So they put they put the package together and I didn't really have any comments on it. So everything was good, but we get one that's more confusing and that that could be an issue. But that was bouncing around like that. That's not the way these things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be a lot easier than that. >> That's it's very lawyerly. >> Yeah. >> Um Babe, do you have any comments on that? >> Uh no. wants to share publicly. >> There any others? >> No, that was that was all

105of them. I think was it? >> What about we we have to do the in in the fall we have hopefully we may be able to the parking ones that we had talked about. >> Oh yeah. the uh and the uh for redevelopment the uh showing the you know what what people are going to take up for access when they do redevelopment and things like that so we don't get into a situation like >> the rear parking lots. >> Yeah. The rear the rear parking and the uh the the >> car wash the car wash and the amount of space they've taken up and the amount of time that that's taken. Mhm. >> We have no protection for the town in those situations. So, we need to take a look at that. But that >>

106that'll take a little more time than >> phased construction. >> Yeah, the phased construction. >> Oh, I meant to ask that about 225 West, but we'll bring that up next phased. >> Yeah, that I mean it's not >> there. Yeah. And we we need to perhaps write that in decision, but they're starting from the back parking lot. They don't need to change anything per se. So, we've got to make sure that they and I would assume that again in the in the deed it should show up, but they can't use any of that property for storage of equipment while they're building or any of that stuff is not allowed. But I don't think that would be, but we should just make sure, >> Mr. Jar, just since we're on um town time town meeting and

107and bylaws, I guess one that we may want to consider again for the future, not necessarily this one is is do we need to consider walkways for AD use? So, what we saw tonight, there wasn't any walkway. And I also wondered as I was thinking about it, how does that kind of work with ADA compliance? So, you know, someone's building a or or having a a structure, right, that is to rent. There's no way that some there's no way from someone that you know would need any type of ADA access to go from that parking designated parking spot to that front door. >> I don't know that you're required. >> I don't know if you're not required to or not, but I don't know. But in any case, >> babe, does building code address access

108to a single family unit? Does there have to be a a accessible route shown or accessible route available or anything? >> The ADA only requires that the parking spot be as close as possible >> wouldn't be an ADA >> would be uh >> to the uh to the ramp or the doors. >> Yeah. It doesn't it doesn't require any uh walkway or special roadway. >> No, I know that >> commercial, right? >> Does does building code have anything about access to a building >> for a single family? >> No, no, >> for a single family house. >> The building code just requires whatever the ABA requires or the uh on that Not >> they got a separate they got a separate uh >> section for uh >> we can't you can't >> handicap back unit

109anyways. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. >> So that that wouldn't cover >> and the ABA is a is a is a law. >> Can you check around? Cuz I can't believe there's nothing in there that says you surprised >> there isn't something that's shown for access. I mean >> I so >> or fire code for that matter. >> Yeah, I'll I'll definitely check with the um with the chief on um access from a fire standpoint. >> Um >> cuz you're right, Chris. It should we should that >> I mean we can make it ADA accessible. That that's not part of any but but there should be some mechanism to make sure you're not >> walking through mud in order to get to somebody's >> right >> or shoveling the lawn in a two foot snowstorm.

110Yeah. I mean, I think I think requiring pavement might be a little too much, but at least they >> at least a gravel. >> Yeah. And Yeah. Because I know obviously in you know word or term impervious, right, is going to be in a sense a trigger. We don't want that, but we want some level of >> a walkway. >> I know. But it's Yeah. >> Unless the house is >> Yeah. >> very far from the >> But again, it's just something to consider. You may as well add a a mailbox. I mean, what do you do with that? >> Yeah, but >> the health department is having enough issue with uh whether or not they're allowed to have their own uh trash barrels. >> Oh, >> this the ADU thing is very >> well,

111let's take action. >> Oh, this is a great idea. Let's just do this. >> What are the issues? Oh, who cares? >> Well, they'll figure it out. >> They'll figure it out. We'll reverse engineer it later. >> Well, I you know, >> I mean, in a certain sense, yeah, they should have their own. They should have their own, but they they need to make sure they tax the property appropriately. It's it's a two family now for all practical purposes. >> But but it's not. >> Well, it is. >> It is, but it doesn't get taxed as one. Well, it should be it it should be the property value should definitely increase enough such that I mean we'll we'll never make the money back because they never never realized this, but if there's there's nothing that

112that stops you from having students in a unit that size, students or or children, I should say, if those children go to go to public school, it's a money loss. It's it's so >> every house is >> every but I'm just saying it is another house so it's going to be a money loser >> if if it were for you know the state house so so your parents can move in and that isn't happen well then in that case you you could come out ahead in the money game >> but the way it's written it's a money loser >> and the state's going down the path of we're not even going to reimburse you as much next year as they are this year. Oh, okay. So, it's going to be a big money. >> That's

113only a partial truth. >> No, they won't be close. You >> got a long way to go to get there. >> They won't be close. >> Is that uh >> the total dollar value, but the amount per student is? >> Oh, no. Well, I I'm talking about total to the town. I'm talking about how much I'm spend. It's not going to be >> anyway what it has been. >> Okay. Any more discussion on that item? Yes, sir. >> Okay, we move on. Okay, let's get into item nine. Uh, planning board rules and regulations. >> I'm sorry. >> Right above that, >> site inspections discussion. >> Sorry about that. >> Asked me to ask council if we could add to our applications the ability to perform inspections as the application is be able to access the

114people's property as they submit their applications. And I asked council about that and he doesn't want to touch that at all because you're getting into private property rights with people and it's like you got to ask them per permission to be on their property in any right. So we can't just put on their application that we are allowed to then be on your property. We need to ask their permission. >> So that's not something we could put on an application. >> Can we put Are we asking them permission is by >> Yeah. So that's >> that's what we're asking, isn't it? So if we put it on the application to say that if by signing this you give us the right to access your property. That's not something that we can do. >> We can't

115we can't >> then they don't have to sign it. >> We can't we can't do we can't do it with a >> within a certain amount of of you know with with 3 days notice or something. >> We can always ask them if we can access their property to perform an inspection but we have to ask them. We have to have >> So what? Well, >> so what we're saying is you can submit a plan >> until you come here. We're not going to do a damn thing. You're going to have to sign it that day cuz we're going to ask you if we can access your property so we can have the town engineer go out and look to see what's actually out there. >> We can ask them while we get the application

116administratively. We need to perform a sidewalk. We can ask them. >> So you have to come to the board for us for them for us to ask. >> No, that's fine. I It was more of a legal thing. I mean, to me, it's less of a legal thing to >> to have it up front than to say, "Oh, we got to make sure we do it." But I would I would then say that when they submitted, you should say, "If we have to act, if we have to look at something, we're going to need to access your property. Do we have the right to do that?" >> Yeah. >> We have to ask, "Do we have the right to do that?" So that's why what I I hate to nitpick, but what if you had

117a check box on the application, >> yes or no, we give you permission to be on the property. That way they are that is us asking them. They we're giving them the right to say no. >> That's not a bad idea. >> It's a good idea. >> But I'll ask that question. >> Be a little Are we talking like while it's under construction while site work is going on? No, we have it. It's part of plan review while Yeah. While it's under construction, they are required to allow us cuz you've given them. >> So, are we permission and time immemorial? >> No. When they submit the site, >> when they submit it, if you guys have questions and you want me to go out to a site, >> yeah, >> you don't have any rights

118to go. >> I don't have the right to go onto the property unless I call them up and say, "Hey, >> could we please?" All right. So that's I Yeah. So >> I like the check box that'll then they're either granting or not. And if they say no, it's curious. >> Yeah. >> Well, when they come to a meeting and our engineer hasn't been able to go out, it's going to be very hard for us to plan. >> Delays, won't it? >> Yes. >> So it would be to allow a agent of the planning board access to the property. So it could be a member or it could be one of us. >> Mhm. >> Okay. I'll ask council that. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that'd be great. All right. All right. >> We got uh

119the planning board rules and regulations. >> So, everyone read this. >> So, um >> I know Mr. Many gave me some comments already and I haven't I haven't added them to this draft yet, but one of them was the dates of the meetings. It's on here as the second and fourth Tuesday, but it should be the first and third. And the other one be happy. >> Okay. The other one was it was um Oh, the number of copies of plans. Um going to be asking for 10 full size sets because I I don't know. The sewer department needs a full size set. I was like, can we add that make that free? >> Yeah. >> The other departments need fulls size sets. Which ones do, which ones don't? So, uh, yeah, my recommendation would be

120that you reach out to the departments and find out what they want because I'll tell you right now, the building department does not want full-size set. >> Okay? >> Uh, they want they don't want even a small set. They want a digital copy. >> Okay? >> Um, the board of health also does not need a um they don't want a full-size set either. Um either a reduced or possibly an electronic is fine with them. Um as as with regard to the others, I don't I haven't had specific discussions with the other departments, so I don't know. Um I certainly like to have one large set for planning and engineering. Um and clearly the sewer department wants a full size set which I think is understandable. I don't know about but I would just say we

121should reach out to each of the departments find out what they want you know. >> Yeah. >> Hopefully hopefully at some point we'll move into totally digital to be totally honest. >> Right now we get so many copies that just get thrown away. the paper. Oh. Um, on meeting procedure item B, should we stipulate that sometimes the quorum is four? >> That's not really a quorum though, is it? >> When you know for the special permits and such where four votes are needed, >> a quorum to hold the meeting is three. >> Yeah. >> But special permit supermajority would be four. I could add some language in here about that, but I think it's already under special permits of >> so highly. So, >> yeah. And I wouldn't you wouldn't want to convolute it because

122you can have a meeting and just not have >> be able to vote that particular Yeah. Right. Yeah. No, I I think I think the wording is correct. Now that I think about it, it's good. Yeah. It's more how many are needed to vote as opposed to how many constitute the quorum, >> right? Two different procedures. >> Excellent work. >> It was, you know, a little mental exercise I was going through. >> I'm a big fan. >> Resolved it myself. >> I did pull these together from regulations from five other communities and I just kind of took and >> put the uh the best ones in. So, the ones that are highlighted in yellow are for discussion. Yeah. >> Um, on page four, what are the odds of this town ever adopting the Mullen rule?

123>> Well, having been out of business for a while, you remind me. >> Mullen rules. So that if you if you during a public hearing, you miss one of the meetings. >> Oh, yes. >> But then you can read the minutes or watch the video and sign a Mullen rule, still participate in the vote, but only miss one as if it's continued. >> Can you do it so that it's only by video and not by reading the meeting. >> It's either one. That's just it's the law. >> It's either one >> because I would be totally fine with watching the video. Obviously, you get everything >> and most of the time the minutes aren't even produced yet. So, yeah, the radio. Absolutely. But either one. It's by video or written. Either one. >> Okay. >>

124But that has to be something that we adopted. >> They have to kind of pull the other boards and commissions. >> The town has to do it. >> Yeah. It has to be times >> townwide. Yes. >> Yeah. That's not going to happen. >> Not not in the foreseeable future, >> right? >> Does it does it affect other boards? >> Yes, it would affect every board. Everyone. >> Yeah. But I mean, do other boards have different I'm going to say quarum requirements? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Like ZA >> as we do. I mean, where we need four to do a special permit? >> Yeah. ZBA does for special permits and variances. They need four. >> So, they need four for everything they do. Yeah. >> Okay. Whereas we need three to hold a meeting but

125four to do certain things. >> Is there any other board where the quorum requirement and the requirement for specific votes are different? I don't know if licensing is the same for the selectman but I know for conservation it's three or five for everything right nois there's anything on any of those >> it's four out of seven >> seven sorry >> yeah it's a majority vote majority vote for sew it's majority vote for water >> it's a the I would say with conservation is probably the the most difficult to because um of the seven we don't typically have all seven at a meeting. So if one person misses this meeting and then it comes back a month later and a different person is there like it we typically have four people >> out of seven. Um

126so but it's not always the same four people. So it just I mean but we do most of our stuff in one meeting I would say >> generally. >> So if it goes to and one of those people doesn't show >> right >> they can't vote. >> You can't vote. Right. >> Right. And then that application's dead in the water. >> That that would be awful. >> That's the that's the board that I think is the it's the most problematic with. >> Yeah. >> But it hasn't been that problematic with them either. If it's the pleasure of the board, I could at least explore this with council and see if it's something that we'd be interested in submitting a warrant article for. It's not something we have to hold a public hearing for, but it's

127consideration for the warrant anyway. >> I'm I'm going to >> Oh, we lost one. >> Oh, Matt. Um, >> it wasn't my fault. >> You know, I'm a little fussy about wording. Sorry, but I'm going to try to I'm going to take a stab at that second sentence. It's there's me after the highlighting. >> Yep. >> To rework that a little bit. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So that's the way it reads right now. >> Okay. >> Like because we haven't accepted the Mullen rule, they have to be in attendance for all the dates of this public hearing and to be eligible to vote. >> Yeah. That's how it is right now. >> If we do, >> there's a better way to word it. I just can't do it off the off the cuff. >> Okay.

128If we do accept the Mullen rule, then this the entire wording of this paragraph would change. Yeah, but I agree it's unlikely. >> Yeah. >> So, next page. >> I got a question on that. >> Sure. >> Go ahead, babe. >> Does the uh does the Zoom meeting count as >> you're in attendance? >> Presence at the meeting? >> Yes, it does. >> Absolutely. So, so and that would make it a lot easier if a if they continue because I again uh for a while I was away working working nights. I know Joe made a a special point to come from Toronto, but he was there for years. And uh I just want to make sure as long as we have the Zoom meetings and the account of this participant, it's it's really that not

129that not not it's not much of a problem, >> right? >> It's considered where it wouldn't be. >> Right. Attendance includes Zoom as well as long as you're part present for the meeting. Absolutely. Yep. So on the next page and we talked about in-house engineering review 53E and a half talked to council about this briefly and it's like introducing change and they just kind of pushed back a little bit, >> you know, stop >> kind of thing. So, um, I have the consultant review in there, which is obviously an option we can have at some point. If Liz is too busy to do an application review, send it out for consulting services at paid for by the applicant. That's typical. It's normal. But the in-house engineering review is the one like this 225 West. I

130don't know if Liz is tracking her hours and what she's going to do on this. We might get an idea of how much time she's putting into it so we can consider this section. >> But for now, I don't know if we'll put it in yet. We could always amend these at a later date, whatever you want to do. Um, page six, just putting together our application forms. So, we don't have specific applications for assisted living facility or parking reductions. There's the same special permit application, right? So, I don't have to separate those out. I don't think it's the same application. >> Mhm. >> So, I could just strike B and C and just call that special permit application. Just the other towns had a bunch of different special permits, earth removal, and all sorts

131of things. So, I was just I just listed those cuz those are our two different ones. >> Do we have a planning board special permit application? >> Yeah, we do. Okay. >> Yeah, but it's in general. So, we just they just put the section on there that they're applying for. Do we have a separate site plan review waiver? >> Yeah, we do. I I've since corrected it on the forms. It said amendment and waiver and then we had a waiver one also, >> but I removed amendment and waiver. So, it's just amendment now. >> It's cuz Larry, you've never allowed waivers. >> Yeah. So, there is there is a there is its own waiver form that I don't think people will be applying for anytime soon. So, we'll see. But it does exist and it

132is in our forms. >> Did you put it on? Is it on the website? >> Okay. >> This is I didn't add any appendices cuz obviously you guys know what these things are. They're just that we have a permit application petition permit time all that stuff. So, um I guess if you want some more time to go over some of these things, I can make the amendment to change the fulls size plans after I ask the departments and submit that at our next meeting. Did I say apartments? Departments, >> sorry. And then go over the Mullen rule piece with council if that's something they want to consider for and then the in-house engineering review. Maybe Liz and I can have a conversation with council based on how much hours you put into West Street and

133then we'll figure it out from there. But um is there any other questions about the rules and Rex? >> Um the sec the uh second paragraph under section four >> page for comprehensive permit. >> What page? >> Uh seven >> seven. Okay. >> Planning staff will send the case materials to the planning board. >> Oh, that's kind of weird. >> Yeah. >> Like I would say I don't re sometimes I receive stuff from ZBA, sometimes I don't. >> Mhm. Um and uh and some in a lot of cases because those are larger developments there the engineering review is done um by a peer reviewer. So I don't I don't that doesn't seem necessary I guess but >> it just seemed like the other comprehensive permits they have they treated it like a ZBA referral where

134they asked the planning board for their opinion on the matter. So, I was just trying to include that somehow. >> I don't think so. >> And we've actually done for most of those, we've done very little. We sent almost nothing to the CBA, which I'm not saying is right, but >> So, I was reading the last comprehensive permits, and they did come here for a recommendation for us. From us? >> Yeah. I don't think they took it. >> For which one? >> The Beaver Street. >> Yeah, Beaver Street. Beaver Street brought some at some point they did, but I mean we we get stuff relatively early and then I don't ever remember stuff coming back after there's been requests for changes or >> Right. We get it first first look and then it gets modified

135and see. >> Right. That's what it looked like to me. this was like 2023 or something like that. >> I guess I would just say it doesn't seem worth to have that paragraph in there, but it's just me. >> Yeah. I mean, I think it's somewhat out of our control. Unfortunately, it's it's controlled by the ZBA. So, I don't know that we can we just Yeah. keep the first paragraph because case materials could be anything that they have comp permit, especially variance or whatever. If they want to send it to us for a review, we'll just keep the first paragraph. Okay. And strike the second one. Sounds good. Any other comments? >> I don't know why it's He's still there, but I don't know why I can't see that he's still there. >> All right.

136I'll have this cleaned up for next meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. The next uh item of business >> 10 uh town planner updates. >> I don't have any other updates, sir. >> Town engineer updates. >> Oh, I'm sorry. No, I have no uh nothing. >> Okay. Chairman updates. Um Dave, you have anything? >> None. >> Okay. No, I hope uh the March meeting I hope to be back for the March meeting. So >> awesome. >> We hope so too, babe. >> We hope so too. Yeah. Okay. Uh how about uh member updates? >> Good. >> Next meeting to be determined. Next meeting we have already decided >> March 3rd and March 17th. Yep. March 3rd and 17th. >> Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? >> Move to return. >> Second. >> Okay.

137>> What apparently? >> Roll call. >> You would have said that a half hour ago. >> I >> Yes. I >> Babe. >> Hey. >> Okay. I unanimous. Thank you. We'll see you at the next meeting.