Planning Board Meeting: January 6, 2026

001Welcome to the uh planning board of Tuesday uh January 6, 2026. Um we have a pretty good agenda tonight. Why don't we go over the uh the first order of business uh minutes of the last meeting? Motion to accept as motion to sign as submitted. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> All in favor? Five. >> Four. I'm sorry. A second order of business. We've got a 81P plan at uh 3 Colonial Road. >> Yes, sir. So, this is a this was spotted by the building department and there was an encroachment on the property. So, the landowners worked out a deal so that the encroachment no longer exists. That's all this is. The strip along the right side of the building is not to be considered a buildable law, but will be

002merged with number three >> as part of this. a strange little strip. >> Can that be done without getting a variance? I mean, I understand you're making the in the So, you're eliminating the encroachment, but you're but the house is still in violation of the sideyard setback, >> right? you're decreasing the violation, but I just >> so long as you're not making it more non-conforming, this uh this plan doesn't necessarily mean it conforms with any zoning requirements. It's right on there. So, the ANR can be done and if he needs anything else or he has to file a building permit or something, he might need a variance. So, that's that's for him to determine. But, this it's right on the right on there. >> Wish I had a pilar in front of me. >> This

003plan is to design the compliance is all Yeah. So there you go. >> That's an existing dwelling. So it's therefore to >> Right. We're moving the property line. >> Yeah. You're making you're making the nonconformity less. >> Right. >> I'm not saying it's not a good idea. I'm just >> two feet right the corner. >> Right. You still don't have you still don't have a conforming structure. >> Right. Correct. >> That's all I I'm >> I don't know enough about ANR law, >> right, >> to be able to tell you. I just thought I'd bring up the question because >> I'm not sure of the answer myself. >> The the AR is okay. Still has a nonform. >> It's approve. It's it's an existing nonconforming the I mean it is legal. Well, it isn't legal

004in a certain sense, but pre-colonial would have been built over over the point in time when anybody could have said anything. So there's nothing making making it I I guess making it such that at least all the building is in within the lot considering they had a zero yard set back before. >> Mhm. >> Negative. Yeah. >> Right. Right. >> Um >> I'm trying to find the bylaw because some of it's ringing a bell but there >> actually it would actually be state law as to >> right. I just don't know that you can sign an ANR when you're effectively creating a lot with a non-conforming structure on it. >> I think and I again I could be >> as long as we're not making it more non-conforming this can be done. So this is

005less non-conforming it can that's my understanding have this I recommend endorsement. Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? >> I guess we should just confirm. I I have no problem approving it subject to just talking to to town council and making sure that it's okay cuz do we have to or do we have to sign these tonight >> or is or can application came in on Wednesday last week stamped in. Yeah, we should be good. If we if we want to take it to the next meeting, we should have time. But >> I don't know if you voted to allow Matt to sign >> 81ps because Larry had taken himself off. >> Yeah, Larry did. >> Larry did submit my signature to the registry for endorsement of these things so I could verify and then

006sign. >> Yeah, that's that's that's what I would do. I would I just make a motion that we approve subject to uh the town planner talking to town council about uh >> Okay. I don't Yeah, I don't know because >> it the bylaw doesn't address it. It's it's the first paragraph talks about nonconforming us in structures, but it just it simply says that they may be continued subject to the following conditions. Um but the rest of the paragraphs >> really relate to uses. >> Yeah. or if the structure has been demol you know was burned or whatever and needs to be restored. It talks about that but other than that talks about extensions of the non-conforming structure >> and then it goes into uses. Yeah. It doesn't really >> address it. It would be it

007would be state law as to whether an 81, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Is is allowed, you know, when you still have a non-conforming use that has never gotten a >> effectively this has never gotten a >> a variance variance, >> right? I just I know what like the reason I bring it up at all is because you can that's one of the big issues when I know when the surveyors are creating if you're splitting a lot you need to make sure that the wherever you put the lot line doesn't create a violation >> with the existing structure. Yeah, that would be that that >> that's clear as this one when it already and it already has it. It's an existing non-conforming use that's been there for more than 10 years, >> right? >> I

008I'm not sure that it's the same thing because it already has >> the fact that it's on the was in a different property line. If it wasn't if it wasn't that, I'd say it wouldn't be an issue at all. But that that's the only thing that pauses >> and I logically I hope the answer to Miss Man's question is that it doesn't need a variance. I hope it doesn't because again they're making it better, right? But I I agree, Mike. >> I Yeah, it's a weird one. >> Subdivision control, >> long as we put a statement on here that says the above endorsement is not determination of conformance with zoning regulations. It's right on there, right under the signature. >> This is something that you control. It doesn't have anything to do with zoning at

009this time. So, this can be signed in my opinion. Gentlemen, good budget. >> I'm not sure what to do. >> I mean, just to ver just to verify with town council, I mean, Matt can sign it afterwards. It's not that big a deal. So, I I' I'd stay with my motion and just go that way and it can be signed once he talks to Brian. Would you >> second on that? >> Motion. motion to have Matt sign the 81P subject to uh uh discussion with town council as to uh the issue of the creation of a non-conformance whether it needs any any further >> and then not part of >> I mean I guess what I'm what I'm sort of interested in I I understand what you're saying Matt I'm also more interested in you

010know does he should he go back to zoning immediately anyways once this is approved once the once the the plan is con is >> right signed. >> Yeah, if he's putting on an addition or whatever it is he needs to do, >> he definitely would have to with that. >> He would need he would need a variance. Absolutely. >> I'll second that motion. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I war. Okay. And the next on the agenda, we have the uh old Cedar Court selfst stars facility. That's a continuation from uh December 16th, I believe. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. All for the record, my name is Michael Dryden, senior project manager with Allen Engineering. As mentioned, we were here last on December 16th, at which time I presented a list

011of proposed amendments um to the approved plan that was approved back in 2023. I think generally speaking, um the board was receptive. They had some concerns. Um and it it might be helpful for me to just walk through this list very quickly just to recap what was discussed at the last meeting. And I won't go into all the same detail, just quickly go through the list. We talked about decreasing the building height by about 33%. Uh the building footprint would increase slightly by about 11%. The building square footage would increase about 10 to 11%. The drive-in feature on the building would be eliminated and the floor drains and tight tank that's associated with that would be removed. the loading sort of the formal loading area if you will in the back of the building. A

012raised dock would be eliminated. It's not needed. Um that afforded us to reduce the impervious area behind the building. Change the rip wrap slope from a one one to a 2:1. We talked uh extensively about security fencing and we we understand clearly that the board wants and and conditioned the approval uh to include gates and security fencing. So that's that's off the table. Obviously, the one thing I did want to just sort of continue on that discussion was the approved plan. The fencing surrounded the entire facility, including the detention basin. And I thought I heard a couple of board members um question the fencing around the detention basin. So we would be perfectly happy providing security fencing around the building, but eliminating the fencing around the detention basin. We can certainly circle back to that.

013Um, lighting was discussed, removing the freestanding light poles, providing wall-mounted fixtures, adding trash storage, a 10x10 with um a fence enclosure, a slight relocation of the transformer, and a reduction in parking. Uh, I think we had 13 spaces. Uh, we only required to have four. If that is, let me just check that number. I don't want to misstate anything. >> We provided 13. We're only required to have four, so we would have about seven spaces. So, we would still far exceed what's required under zoning. So, after some lengthy discussion, the board decided that they'd like to have input from town officials, most notably the fire department and the water department. So, uh we since have received correspondence from both, uh starting with the fire department, a letter dated December 23rd. There are three items in

014this letter. Fire department is okay with a slight reduction of the aisle width around the building. As long as 27 feet is maintained, we can certainly do that. Number two is regarding the propane storage. So it says propane storage was not proposed on the initial plans. That's actually incorrect. The propane has been proposed all along and was part of the not only the approved site plan but the approved um sewage disposal the pump station that was also submitted for approval. But nonetheless he just simply states that storage shall be in accordance with all applicable um storage um codes for propane which we certainly understand. And then again number three is the entry gates. The mechanism for securing those gates and operating those gates was discussed and the fire department mentions the Knox rapid access system

015and of course we'll coordinate closely with the fire department to make sure that that system that is in place is to their satisfaction. So that's the fire department letter and then the water department letter is essentially as I as I reviewed the correspondence that we received back in 2023. The letter is essentially the exact same letter. These letters are undated by the way. Uh so it appears that the water company just sort of reissued that same letter that they had issued in 2023. The only difference that I did notice was you see in red on the letter uh de they mentioned diesel fuel storage and at one point we had potentially discussed replacing propane with diesel. I think that's why he reissued this and made that bold and red. We understand that there's going to

016be no diesel storage on the site. it will remain propane as it was approved. Um, but other than that, these are the same exact comments that we had gone through in 2023. Some of which were uh incorporated into the conditions, others weren't. So, essentially, there's other than that one issue with the diesel fuel storage, it's there's no new comments from the water department. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> And you don't have a problem complying with the uh monitoring of the water type of stuff. >> Actually, that that was not made as a condition. We had discussed that in length back in 2023. >> Okay. >> Um >> monitoring what water >> monitoring the real time monitoring >> discharging, >> Monitoring wells. We have monitoring wells and

017we agreed to to a monitoring program but this is a real time thing that we >> correct >> I went back and looked at my notes um and it just logistically what is is >> I don't want to say it's not possible but it's very difficult to do and again we had discussion with the board at that time and it was not made a condition of the permit. >> Yes. So they still have the the conditions of the approval both here and conservation have a requirement for um I think yearly testing um >> correct >> or or month uh maybe six months >> I forget exactly for right now. Here we are. >> It we tal I think we talked about doing more than a year at one point, but uh anyway, so there is

018going to be testing to make sure that there's nothing coming from the facility. Um >> who's responsible to do that though? >> They're responsible and they have to >> they have to submit it to um >> at least to to I know for they have to submit it to my office for conservation. And I don't know where where we said it needed to go for this. >> So it's it's an annual sampling between March 1st and April 30th. >> Westery monitoring well. >> Mr. Chair, please. >> At some point I I wouldn't mind discussing how the town planner and town engineer and the conservation commission track things like this like what kind of >> methodology is used to be sure that all the followup happens. Having been in seats like yours in the past, that

019can be a tricky Yeah, >> we can talk about it offline if you want. >> It is tricky and yes, we can. >> Yeah, >> I don't think it's it's just so so many so many of these things that we're stipulating be followed up on are really important that they are followed up on and yet having a um let's say failsafe system of making sure all of those follow-ups happen is not easy. it. I think in this particular case, it has to go to the water department as well, >> adding to the complications. >> Well, the water department is going to make sure that they know because it's >> say that. >> Yeah. Directly to the water department. >> Y >> that's so we've got a responsibility that board does to make sure that >>

020happens. Understood. But the the primary reason for the monitoring is the fact that it's directly adjacent to the >> the water supply. >> Strongly motivated, >> right? I can also tell you that the applicant's not interested in being non-compliant with >> I think there's a lot of forces that are going to make sure that >> there's a lot of things at play here that help make sure it happens. But >> I have I'd still like to understand. >> Yeah, I have the for the conservation. And I do have another uh instance that um I actually permitted from the other side. So when I got here, it was one of the first things I asked about was where these reports were and they were doing it. So um I you know generally I think people do

021try to comply. >> I I think so. It certainly is in their best interest. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Chris, anything? >> Uh just quick question. Can you go a little bit more over the propane storage on your side of Sure. So, we have a sewage pump station and we're required to have a backup power source. >> So, the the generally your options are diesel fuel, which obviously we know is off the table, and then in this case, subsurface propane tank. Okay. >> So, that's what we're proposing. And then the fire department just wanted to make sure that >> um it's installed in accordance with code, which of course we have to do. >> Gotcha. Okay. And where that location is going to be where now? I guess I'm I'm missing

022that so I apologize. It's on the second page. Ah, that's why. Yeah. C4. >> Oh, you got it there. >> Thank you. >> And he he strongly preferred below grade propane. >> Yeah. Um the the fire chief strongly preferred below ground propane just because it's less likely to get >> um >> hit damaged. >> Yeah. Hit by a car or whatever. So yeah. >> No. So what you see on there is eliminated that was discussed at one point >> as we talked about on the 16th. What we're going to do based on what you tell me this evening is we're going to issue a revised set of drawings that capture all of these things and and your comments obviously on the fencing will be addressed where it says eliminate propane that'll be addressed and you'll

023get a set of drawings for your records such that when we do an asbuilt you'll have a set of documents to compare the asbill to. which is very helpful for me. >> I think it just protects everybody. This >> it does. >> It's on the record. This is what we all discussed and agreed to and >> Jody Pleasure. >> I guess the only thing is the fence I mean to me the fencing around the detention basin. >> Thank you for bringing that up. >> Um where are we with those now? Have we been fencing? So, so in this in this case, so we haven't been fencing detention basins. So, what when that came up at the last meeting, it was because they were eliminating the rest of the fencing, but they were proposing to leave

024the fencing around the detention basin. If they if they were eliminating all the rest of the fencing, I don't think there was any reason to require the fencing around the detention system. However, since they're going to have um fencing around, I want to make sure I I it doesn't it doesn't matter too much to me whether or not they um have the fencing go around the uh detention basin, but I there absolutely needs to be easy access from, you know, there needs to be a good a gate that will allow equipment out of >> the facility into the detention area so that it can be maintained. >> That makes perfect sense. From the driveway area, that lower left corner of the building, we we were happy to put a gate right there, a 10 foot

025wide gate. >> 12t wide gate. Done. >> So that fence, I'm sorry, is going to be brought in, but should still in include the snow storage area. Correct. It's going to be in between the basin and the snow storage area. >> Yeah, we'll leave a space between the driveway curbing and the fence so the snow storage can still be maintained where it is proposed where it was proposed. >> Okay, it's the pleasure of the board. >> One more question if you don't mind. Uh so just for a matter of the formality of it all um we're looking to move forward with a special permit tonight and then we will look towards another set of prints to come for approval. You're looking, they're looking for you to um consider this a minor, >> right? >> Um

026>> yeah, looking for a motion to declare these minor amendments to the special permit >> so they can then proceed providing us the prints that they that they've >> I'll provide a letter that kind of encapsulates all this. >> Yeah. >> So we have for our record, they'll provide a set of plans and then when it's all built, we'll get an asbuilt that matches it. >> Yeah. Yeah, cuz usually we just we approve, you know, full set of plans with with minor changes to it. So I guess that's this is a little bit different from >> because it's a special permit. So we have to declare it minor so they don't have to come back for public hearing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. My only issue with coming back besides the print is is there any

027change to the narrative that was written as to the things that we asked for that changes based on if we do this? you know, at one point in time we talked about the fencing. That fencing is actually written into the into the thing. There were other things in there and I don't remember as part of our conversation if there was if that is the case. I I >> as part of as part of submitting the plans, I'd also like to see what that document looks like in in in yeah, that document and >> make sure we're comfortable that nothing changed in that >> there. That didn't reference the the conditions didn't reference the tight tank. Correct. >> Correct. Right. There's a couple of things at play. The tight tank would be one of them. We

028were required and the the the permit obviously references the plans which show a tight tank. So, um >> that's just an example. >> That's not that if that was spec like like >> shall have a tight tank. if it's it specifically said, you know, you it was required to have whatever. >> Um, >> yeah, I don't think that document specifies anything about the tight tape. >> Oh, okay. >> And I don't think >> it does about the It does about the fence, but but that fence is being remained. H >> Yeah. >> No, that Yes, I'm just referring to M saying it might Yes, that's what I'm referring to. >> Sorry, >> there's there's the condition. I'm sorry. I shouldn't be talking offline separate from the >> um >> So I I don't think there's

029anything else, but certainly we certainly Matt >> Yeah, we just we >> Matt and I can go through it. >> Yeah, we need to go through that just to make sure because we I want to make sure that we don't have a decision that's sitting out there that actually said something >> contradicts what we're doing. Right. That makes perfect sense. I don't think there is, but so the fencing clearly is is written into the permit, but >> I don't think it says anywhere that the fencing needs to go around the basin. It's really for security >> purposes. No, it was a security issue. I'm pretty sure. So that >> I mean that that isn't the one, but there may be something else that's sitting there that that I just want to make sure that there

030isn't something else in there. That's all. >> According to the decision, looks like all of these can be complied with. We're not amending any of these conditions. That's just what I'm seeing. >> We'll double check. And if I'd rather us come in knowing we're going to be, you know, if we need to check, that means we should probably continue in my eyes. You know, I mean, we're we're >> we're trying to move forward with some with some with some questions though to it, right? We're not sure. We're not 100%, right? So, let's check like let's let's dot eyes and cross tees in my eyes. If you were issuing a new permit, >> if you were issuing a new permit, I would I would probably agree with you, but you're you're not you're just weren't Yeah.

031>> Yeah. We're just saying this minor change. >> You're just considering these minor changes. >> I mean, the fact of the matter is we can say what what's been presented to us is still a minor change. It's it's both to us, but also the applicant because he still needs to meet those specials that are in there. So, if there isn't, >> then he can't meet it anyway. So we we can say yes, but he's going to have to come back. >> I want Yes. With that, I want to make sure that >> everything's tied together, right? That there there can't be any gaps that although the previous special permit had these conditions. I want to ensure that all of these conditions go forward with this new with this, you know, with the special permit. It's

032so if that is reading through this or referencing this during the motion time, I think that's important. >> So this special permits recorded at the registry. It's >> it's legit. Like all the conditions here are going to be complied with one way or the other. And we haven't changed any with these minor amendments here this evening. >> Yeah. >> So Matt, I'm sorry. So, you're you're asserting that the changes we're acting on tonight will are not will not contradict any of the provisions of the special permit granted in 23. >> Yes. >> I can defer the word I was going to use. >> Thank you for asking that question, Martha. >> So, does that make your concern semi moot? >> Semi moot. Yes. >> Yes. I mean, we could we could just run through them

033very quickly, right, in the permit. >> I just want to make sure that it's tied to we can all day long. >> I agree. >> And but I just want to make sure that >> these conditions and this special permit is tied tied to the plans and like I said, that's I understand why we're not reviewing to be honest. To be honest, Chris, >> we'd be better off being moot to the point to a certain extent. We're considering these changes minor. That doesn't that doesn't change anything that's in that special permit document. That's what that's the legal document. >> So they have no so if it isn't that's on them at that point. >> Right. >> Us going through it and saying yeah we don't think it is actually puts it back to us to

034a certain extent. We we're we're probably >> I want to make sure it's tied to it. Right. Yeah. I don't >> Well, it still is because we're not we're not changing it's it's the recorded document. The fact that we're saying what they're presenting to us now is a minor change means that everything else that was still there still needs to be met. We didn't change any of that stuff. >> The example would have been the fencing that we wanted to eliminate. That would have been a violation of this per So that's >> okay >> or require an amendment to the permit I should say. >> Mhm. >> And I want >> Yeah. That was specified in the document. >> Exactly. >> And there was nothing just against >> No, it just said it needed to

035be fencing. nothing in regards to the change from the diesel backup generator to the propane. >> It was never It was never a diesel. >> It was always propane. >> Um they >> for a split second thought they might want to change it to diesel, but they changed their mind back. >> Quite honestly, that was a miscommunication on my part with my client. They wanted to eliminate the propane and I thought that meant diesel. >> Oh, right. >> But there was a misunderstanding. they really fully understand that we have to have a backup power system. So we we ended up back at propane where we should be. So >> that's sort of what happened there. Make a motion that uh we consider the changes uh supplied to us as minor changes and that the applicant

036will provide new uh plans uh showing the uh the changes as is indicated to us as as part of the process moving forward. Second. All >> in favor? I >> with one of three. >> Thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it. special thing. >> It's an amen. It's an amendment to a it's not really an approval, >> right? Just wondering because a special permit normally, you know, does >> can we amend or can we say it's minor just with the majority of the board? >> Yes. >> Yeah, it's not. >> Yes, I think I think you can. >> I'm going with I think I think so too, but >> yeah, >> double check. >> Yeah, we can double check and if necessary if you understand the question again. >> It's not the

037public hearing. >> Absolutely. If you were you were making amendment. Absolutely. Yeah, that's fine. >> Yeah, I I I agree. It just might not hurt to check, but I I do concur that concur. There we are again with um >> four votes not being required. >> If it was an open public hearing, I 100% agree it should be a super majority, but it isn't. So, we're okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next on the agenda, uh we've got the U 40 Cape Road. This is an amendment waiver site plan review. Is that a Stanley or >> Yeti? Yeti >> goes down. >> Still cool. >> Oh crap. >> Oh, thanks. >> Good. Hi everyone, Adam Hunt with Gary and Alman on behalf of the client way down below. >>

038Since the last hearing, uh we've made several revisions based on comments from the board. Um we provided snow storage uh area here. Um based on talks with the ZBA, uh we've removed these three spaces for uh vehicle display uh to provide the snow storage. Um and also I want to apologize for any confusion between the ZBA approved plan. Uh initially that showed um 11 spaces um for the parking requirement. Uh it was revised for the planning board submitt to be 14. Uh so that would be why there was 15 display spaces listed on excuse me the DVA approved plan uh which was reduced down to 12 with the uh planting board um which is now down to nine with the snow storage area. Um the other revisions we made were removing the fence and paved

039area from the rightway. Um and providing a dumpster area there. Um uh we're also providing signage for the uh vehicle display areas. Um I think yeah we have six six signs. Um, sorry. Uh, four signs apologize. Three signs, one for each area of the three spaces. Um, and I think what were the comments were? Um also it was stated the um the there was floor drains um in the building. We just wanted to confirm if we have confirmed with the client that they do floor drains do exist within there within the building. >> And there's a uh oil tank >> there's a tight tank in there. Yes. >> That's maintained one of the few I'm sure. Um, and I think that was pretty much it. Um, yep. Paving, uh, signage. Um, no story and remove

040those display spaces. This is pretty much it. I'll take any questions. So this just for reference we they had numbered spaces >> and um in the special permit it says that spaces 1 2 and three or whatever it was I can confirm I checked that very next day um where the snow storage is shown on this plan >> uh is where those spaces were numbered um by the by the zoning board at the meeting. So, um I think this complies with the zoning board plan, >> right? Our concern at the last meeting was are we losing parking spaces, >> right? >> But it turns out we're three display spaces, >> correct? >> We don't lose all the minimum parking, >> which was kind of the point of >> Okay. Is there is there a wall

041where the dumpster pad is >> a walkway? >> No. Is I'm Corland Street. Doesn't Quandin Street sit above this? I'm just wondering how >> it does, but I believe it's just sloped. The reason I say that is because there were issues with um the water from Courtland Street not necessarily going onto this property, but the uh adjacent property. And so I inspected it quite a bit along there, but I can double check on good old Google. What's this address? >> 40 42. It's funny. It actually put me on Portland Street. Probably just as easy to see it on Courtland Street >> except for the vegetation, but I I can see it's all I mean I can see the um mulch. >> I'm just more worried. I'm wondering it's basically at the same level as the

042street. >> No, it's not. No, >> should I? I thought C was up a little bit higher. >> Is up higher. It It did the same thing to you. I gotta I gotta make it go back to >> I don't want to be on Courtland Street. I want to be on >> I mean I guess I mean it can't considering the pad goes into the town prop goes into the rightway now. I guess it's >> I'm sorry. The what does >> the existing pad is in the town right >> slopes a little bit but you can see the top of the the fence isn't sloped. >> Yeah. >> And so there >> I guess what was your concern? I was just surprised that it I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't anything going

043on in there that I couldn't fathom what it what it was because I thought I thought I actually thought Cotlin was probably higher than maybe it actually is. Maybe not as high as I thought it was. >> It's not as high in that >> in that area down this way. It's much higher. >> Mhm. >> Are you okay? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Pleasure. >> There's another one out here. >> Any Chris, do you have any more? No, I do not. >> Nope. >> No. >> Okay. >> Make I'll make a motion to uh approve the site plan as presented. >> Amended >> or as amended. >> Amended site plan as amended. >> All right. All in favor? >> I thank you. Okay. The next on the agenda is the um the amendment waiver of

044the site plan review 336 Main Street. >> This one was continued from January 20th. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. >> It's a request. >> It's uh Okay. There's a request. Make >> a motion. We uh >> yeah, >> we continue to uh >> January 20th. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> Yes. >> We're working through this. >> Great. >> Okay. Now, we want to uh item number six, talk about the uh fee schedule. >> Uh the for I'm sorry to go back uh to our motion for Cape Road. Are we adding standard conditions to that or four standard conditions? >> What's that? >> Or three. >> It's just amended. So >> conditions two, three, and four. Perhaps >> you should. Yeah. >> I don't know if you can do that after you

045already voted on it, but >> you can vote. You can amend your motion. The applicants engineer still here. >> Okay. Approval. So, since I >> Yeah, I was going to say since I was the one that did the original motion. Um, >> yeah, I'll just amend my motion to uh >> to include our our uh standard site plan approval on our standard conditions dated October 2025. >> Second. >> Yes. Sorry. >> All in favor? >> I know. I'll read them out just so you have them. It's construction hours. >> It's um abiding by approvals and conditions state agencies, town boards, departments, commissions, develop in accordance with the approved plan. Submit an asville plan once it's completed and town engineer planer board engine may enter the property during construction. Standard stuff. Just want you to know

046what those are. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Y Okay. Um why don't we discuss the uh the fee schedule last amended in 2013. >> All right schedule. So I >> um I went over this pretty thoroughly myself and um as I'm sure all the members did and I did I had a couple of questions. >> Can I is it Can I just jump in here now? >> Absolutely. >> Under modification of plan. >> Mhm. Let me see if I can figure out my own notes. Should it require Should it stipulate legal fees if required? >> What do you mean? Instead of >> which which one are we talking? >> Modification of a subdivision plan. Would there be there could be circumstances in which a legal >> Yeah, I mean if you modify

047a subdivision you the only thing I guess that >> I'm sorry but by I'm sorry legal ad legal that's what I meant not legal fees legal ad >> Oh okay >> I see since that's on Yeah, I guess. Well, >> just just stipulating. >> I guess it's going to depend on whether or not we consider it a minor or a major modification, right? If it's major, they got to go back through definitive and start the whole process again. But if it's minor, >> yeah, there is no >> I guess we should differentiate that. Well, I think it I think it it almost goes without saying if you go back you go back to the it's it's the resubmitt of a definitive plan at that point. >> Yeah. Once you start changing lot lines, that's the

048problem. >> Yeah. It may it just a thought if you can think of exam if you can if you can if I could form a sentence it would sound something like >> change >> if you are confident that >> if a legal notice is required it actually is >> no you can't so once your definitive plan's recorded your lot lines are recorded once you start changing those you need to come back for a formal modification >> with not for not no not for the subdivision you can come back with an 81P True. >> Depending on if they're conforming or not. >> Yeah. Right. >> I don't know. >> Yeah. And most of the time they come back. They come back before there's any building even on them. >> Yeah. Um >> not not that we're

049ever going to have another one again. >> Maybe you could just say none parentheses legal. >> That's not true. >> Legal advertisement if required or something like that. >> Okay. >> Legal ad cost if required. I I I it does seem pretty unlikely, but we don't want to get stuck with the ad suspended. I would just eliminate >> eliminate the It says none. I would just eliminate none. But >> no, no, that's that's what we are now. >> None. No, I'm saying right for if we >> recommendation is 200 per lot per new lot plus five $500. So it would be $500 plus 200 per new lot plus any uh any uh legal ad costs if necessary or something like that >> if required. >> Okay. >> But I don't think >> I can have

050that. It could be like a footnote though, right? Because it applies to others. >> That's that's easy to do. I can add that. That's no problem. Just adding it right to the fee schedule here under definitive. So, okay. >> How um So, what is it for what is it for an 81P if you're adding a new lot? >> Currently, it's 150 plus 100 per each new lot. >> So, If they do, what's the difference between modifying the subdivision to include new lots versus modifying it to through an 81P to get an additional lot? >> Until we get the actual modification, we're not going to know if they're changing lots or they're changing road or they're changing infrastructure, changing the storm water basin. >> Yeah. So, a modification of but a modification of a subdivision. >>

051They're adding lots. >> It does. That is a that is that is an 81P. That is not >> if if they're changing the roadway, >> right? >> Then yes, they're modifying the subdivision, but the lots themselves aren't >> what the subdivision law is about. >> Exactly. So the subdivision law means I mean we could we could approve lots that technically are not in zoning compliance. We don't, but we could. So if they come back and they want to change the lots to to be that same size that's under zoning compliance, then they need them they need to do an amendment. They can't do an 81P, right? So it it's neither here nor there. Until we get one, we're not really going to know. So, >> I just I I guess my point was if if

052it costs $100 in a modification, >> it should be the same as an 81p. That's That was my >> Yeah. Where's the Where's the 81P? >> That's for May right up top. >> Oh, plus 100 per lot. So, effectively, >> I would either make it 100 or make that 200 per lot. >> Make that 200 per lot. >> Of course, the form A is 200 plus 100 per lot to begin with, right? Whereas this one is 500 >> because you don't know the magnitude of what the change would be, >> right? >> That's just my that's just my suggestion. But >> I have I have no problem changing the form a to 200 plus 200 per lot >> and then they match. >> Okay. The only other place it's 200 per lot is Hopedale. Any

053other comments on this? >> Thank you, Matt, for putting this together. >> Yeah. >> Definitely an improvement. So what I'm going to do is finalize these on the fee schedule and bring them to our next meeting so we don't have this whole worksheet just the changes to add the 200 per lot to form a and plus legal ad cost for modification of a plan. >> Yeah. I guess the only other thing that I had and we talked about this probably a couple last meeting when we talked about this is that you know each one of these towns these are the fees that they charge to do this. Some of these towns charge the applicant with effectively the review cost. These are this is not the review costs, right? >> I mean, we have staff that

054does review based on, you know, we collect $200 and then staff spends three days reviewing a plan. >> Uh whereas other towns send that out and say, "Okay, or they they the review cost is is some other factor of that." and that still hasn't been addressed in this and as we get >> based on our other conversations, you know, I'm not as worried about um site subdivisions, but as we as we get into site plan >> review and and redoss of existing site plans because I think that's what we're going to be looking at over the next decade. Um and staff is going to be spending time on that. And to me, um, that's somewhat dynamic in in that, uh, depending on what we have for existing information or stuff, it may actually be more

055difficult for staff to review a an existing site plan for changes than it is to come in with a raw plan. They're going to even be spending more time than they have previously. Do we want to take a look at besides this what these towns what these other towns are doing in terms of actual cost for somebody that submits a site plan or a subdivision plan? I mean, we're doing it. We may as well do them all whether whether I think it's a problem or not um going forward. And I think that that's something if we're going to do this and make these changes, I think we should probably look at the other one, too, and say, should we put should we be putting more of that burden on the applicant than staff at the

056town in terms of the dollars for that? >> So, in my opinion, I think that needs to be written into the planning board's rules and regulations. >> Yes. Like our rules, I don't think they call for consultant services for any review right now. No. >> When I started in Douglas, I took over for the town engineer. So, we no longer had a town engineer. We had to change the rules and regulations to say all projects need to go up 53G for consultant services. In our case, we put it under 53e and a half so it pays part of the town engineer salary. >> So it's just something we need to work out internally. >> Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. >> Yeah. And I'm, you know, again, that doesn't mean we can't act on this, but I just

057think if we're doing it, let's let's look at all of them and you let's let's figure out where um how we could also handle that going forward because I think we should. Okay. >> Do you think that me taking a look at how many hours I spend on or trying to keep track of how many hours I spend reviewing something to to try and get a cost or looking at what how many hours I don't know how we would get this >> my first my first step I think to minimize what either you or Matt would have to do initially would to find out, and you may know this because you went through it, but what other towns do, whether they just do it as a fixed cost. Look, we're going to charge you X

058or we're going to actually keep track of hours we've spent or normally a site plan cost, you know, of this many acres costs, you know, is this long a review. I I would assume that I'd like to know what these other towns how these other towns do it in terms of of is it a is it a fixed dollar amount or not? It's typ I'll I'll tell you from my experience is they um they don't have staff reviewing it and then >> yeah they just send out a >> they just send out and and the applicants responsible for paying for >> you know that's I I can't recall any time where >> in the surrounding towns I've >> that that being said I don't I don't want I don't want to set up something that

059becomes a you know we we've got to keep track of your time specifically for you know I work on this project I did this many I I don't want to get into that I want to be able to if we're going to charge an applicant it's going to be then based on something size of the parcel or whatever so that okay this is what you're going to get charged and maybe we don't get all the money back I can understand that but I'm just thinking I want to start to or to some level shift the burden onto the applicant when we do this. >> Yeah. I guess I wasn't I I wasn't proposing to keep track of it and then try to charge them for that. I guess what I was saying was if I

060start now with site plans and keeping track of how often how many hours I spend reviewing them, >> then we can get an idea of the average number of hours and and come up with the cost that way. >> I I'm certainly the information would would help. Yeah, >> I mean certainly to your point, there's incurred costs that needs to be put on to the the person that's submitting and needs the plans approved. You know, I would look to the two of you and say, >> right? Yeah. >> It's still going to be a lot cheaper for them to have, you know, me review it. >> I would look to you as a town engineer, as the person that's reviewing on on how best is your time. So, is that the flat fee that is

061in these windows of of of scope and size or is it truly tracking your hours? And I think that I think that I would be comfortable with whatever way that you suggest to us because you're the one doing the work and you you know best how that is going to be able to track within your system. I don't think that the size of the parcel is really going to be >> equatable to the to the effort it takes. >> Um >> it's not going to be it's not going to be a uh you know you get a size that's twice as large. It takes you twice as long. That is there's a fixed there's a fixed amount whether it's a whether it's 10,000 square feet or or 10 acres. There's a fixed amount that no

062matter what it is, it's going to be there. So you you're going to have that plus a you know a fixed amount plus some for as it gets bigger that that thing goes down a little bit but there's some dollar value. >> Yeah. And and I would say like how much how much is ch because a lot of in in our case a lot of it's going to be modifications to a site plan like right the the one that we just that you just voted on is you know doesn't doesn't take very much effort for me. They're not changing anything substantial from an engineering standpoint. Um it's more from a planning zoning. >> Yeah. But I think the one the one you just did I would cons again that came in and we we approved

063it as a modification. I think we'd have a different thing than if we had a site plan that came in whether it's a redo or not where they're significantly changing what's out there. I think that that one would fall under the same you're going to take you're going to take a significant amount of time. But yeah, if it's a if it's something that they came back in for and asked for a modification of something, you know, maybe we could consider it under that context. >> A modification as opposed to an amended site plan. >> Yeah, >> that makes sense to me. It would be harder to differentiate, but yeah, it makes sense to me. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> We can think about that going forward, but that Yeah, that that's what I would consider.

064I mean, you guys have the ability to determine whether or not something is a >> Yep. >> one or the other. However, >> modification. All right. So, I'll make the changes to the fee schedule and put it on our next agenda. >> Yeah, looks good. Thanks for all the research. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And this, you know, if you can start getting us the information, Matt, as to what we would need to do to implement the other stuff going forward, too. And you can start tracking those your times. >> I wrote it down. >> Okay. As far as um >> town planner, do you have anything else? Mr. All right. And do we have any town engineer updates? >> I not that I No. No. >> Unless you have any questions. >> Yeah. Uh

065I don't have any updates. >> I got a couple I got a couple things as far as new business. Um, first one in just just to make sure I know Matt said that Larry sent his signature into um, registry of deeds. I don't know that we ever voted on that. I think we should officially vote on that so that way we it's in the meeting meeting minutes that we voted to have Matt sign um, 81 81 piece going to. Uh, so I'll make I'll make that motion. >> I did check the previous minutes on that. It voted to have the town planner do it. It wasn't specific to Larry. Oh, >> so it should carry over. >> We did >> for the for the 81 PS. >> You're sure? For the 81ps. >> That's what

066Larry showed me before before he signed it. >> Okay. As long as you had that. Now, I had two other >> check that one off the list. >> Yeah. Two other things um that I just think we you know we should look at going forward. Um, one of them was, uh, you know, it's been an issue since we approved it, at least my end, is u, and you know, it it shows up at stopping shot stop and shot parking lot probably more than anywhere else, but um, the amount of parking behind a building and and I I think to eliminate those issues going forward and again I'm I'm doing this because I think we are going to see to some level, you know, changes of use of buildings and and having revised site plans and

067stuff that um at least for um you know commercial type developments that we do not I don't think anyone's going to put them in otherwise but we don't allow the counting of parking spots behind the building unless there is a physical access for customers to enter through the back of the building through that side of the building. So, we get rid of the fact that we've got 70 parking spots behind Stop and Shop that in the number of years that I've driven down there, I don't think I've ever seen one car there. Uh, and we have a we have a situation where the parking out in front through a lot of times is very tight. There's a lot of cars parked there. there isn't that many parking spots open, especially when you get into the

068fact that we allow the maximum um reduction in parking due to the multiple uses. Um so I I I just think we need to take a look at our parking rates again to to try to get away. I know it isn't as it isn't as bad at colds, but it's a similar situation where there are a number of parking spaces behind it. Um and I don't know what's coming forward, but I think we need to get away from that. Um the other one is that again getting into this and u it it probably manifested itself to me in in the u um cow wash down at Planet Fitness is that I think it I think we need to for for cases where we have a significant amount of um change being done that we need

069to look at what the anticipated staging plans are for a construction as it moves forward. I don't know that any of us were aware that we when we approve the um the car wash that we'd be losing a main drive aisle while they constructed it. Nor do we have any do we have any say in which we could have when they first came in as to how long that would happen that that could go for. So, I think that we need to we need to look at site plans and and for for those that are um modifications to existing sites, we need to understand and need to require um that the construction staging plans be submitted uh with a with an anticipated uh duration for each each stage, >> a Gant chart or something. >>

070Okay. Um, with the parking spaces, >> I would just off the top of my head, my thought is that it probably is a lot easier to um to include that restriction where the board is being asked to reduce the number of spaces um by the percentage. Whereas doing it straight off I think is going to be I don't know it just seems a lot more >> no if if our number if our number for the number of spaces is correct then the fact that if if we can no one parks back there they never do. So if we're including that because it meets some some stupid number in our in our zoning requirements then that number is wrong. we should be requiring less parking spaces because I never see anybody in there. >> So, I'm

071trying to get rid of them if we don't. So, I'm more than willing to look at and say, but I don't I don't know that we're there now. I I think we've gotten better. Um maybe we still are high in those numbers to some extent, but I never see anybody there. So, I don't want to I don't want to have parking behind there to be totally honest. Um, but I certainly don't want to when we've given a reduction. But, um, you know, if I saw people parking out there or if there was any if there was any type of of business that actually required their employees to park out back and use those doors, but I've never seen that either. You know, they we had this whole thing with Starbucks shop. They were going to

072do it. They don't require any of the people to park out back. There are places that do there like the um the plaza with Mandarin there. Um there's there's employees parked in that back aisle in the behind the building at times. >> Same plaza that Joe's referring to. >> No, the old stop and shop. >> Stop and shop. >> Oh yeah. Okay. That's where I was. >> There's parking behind the building or on the side of the building? >> No, there's park. There's there Well, I don't know if they're official parking. I shouldn't say that, right? I don't know if they're official parking spaces, but >> a quick point of order. This will probably be great conversation when we take it up full. >> Okay. >> Business wise, we're just going No, I My apologies.

073We're just going down a tangent. I see that >> as this conversation is going to grow. This is going to be great conversation when we take it up under an agenda item. >> My apologies. >> No, I No, I mean I think we I I just think we need to talk about those two things. >> Sorry, Mr. Chair. >> We should put it on it should go on the agenda. on an agenda. Parking is a great discussion. You can you can >> Everybody wants to talk about parking. >> All right. Great. >> Anything else? >> Okay. >> Buildings and staging plans. >> Um move to adjourn. >> Um >> we're good. Sorry. >> Are we have a second? >> I'm sorry. >> Yes. No, I was okay. It's fine. >> I move to adjurnn. >>

074Second. All >> in favor? I >> I >> Great. >> Nice job, gentlemen. It is.