00:00:00,440	S1:
It's 7:00 and I'm going to open the September 15th, 2026 meeting of the Monson Planning Board. It is televised by Mpact. We are going to follow the Monson Code of Conduct rules. Uh, if anybody has any questions, raise your hand. I'll call you. Uh, you'll come up to the mic, tell us who you are, where you live, and tell us what you want to talk about. The first item on our agenda is 168 Wales Road. Uh, it's a continuance from August 18th, 2026, in accordance with chapter 48 Mass General Laws, section 11 Monson Planning Board will hold a public hearing Tuesday, August 8th. August, uh. Held up. Sorry.

00:00:57,600	AM I looking at the wrong thing? S2:
It's continued from the continuation Continuation.

00:01:00,050	S1:
So we held a meeting on August 18th, 2026 at 7 p.m.. 110 Main Street, Monson, mass 157 on an application of Randy Dimitrakopoulos for a site plan approval as provided by section 6.7 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws, the applicant seeks to construct a 467.

00:01:20,250	64ft² S1:
accessory dwelling unit in the home's existing basement on property located at 168 Wales Road, map 139 and parcel 15 D Zoned Rural Residential. A copy of the application is on file to the Planning Board office, advertised in the Journal Register on 730 2020 686, 2026. Case number Pbh 2026-04.

00:01:46,610	S1:
So, uh, is there somebody a proponent? Great. Come on up.

00:01:54,730	S3:
How are we doing?

00:01:55,930	S1:
We're doing good.

00:01:56,850	S2:
Okay.

00:02:01,940	S1:
So.

00:02:10,700	S1:
When we spoke last month, we talked about, uh, other information for site plan approval.

00:02:22,060	Do you have that information now? S3:
I turned it all into Penny. Ten copies of everything.

00:02:25,540	S1:
Okay.

00:02:29,260	S3:
There was a septic plan, which has since been completed by Excavation Plus on August 28th. And there is a full set of drawings on 36 by 24 graph paper.

00:02:41,300	S1:
Okay.

00:02:45,780	S1:
Do you have a copy of the new submittal, Ken?

00:02:56,300	S2:
Yes.

00:03:02,620	S3:
Yes.

00:03:11,340	S1:
Thank you.

00:03:22,660	S1:
So as septic, has the Board of Health accepted this design? Yes it has.

00:03:39,060	S1:
And on your plot plan here

00:03:43,620	S1:
we now show parking. Is that already existing parking.

00:03:48,860	S3:
That is existing?

00:03:49,580	S1:
It is. So it's just as it is now. Yes. So you're really not changing anything? on the outside other than the septic that they've been working on in front of the house for a couple of weeks now.

00:04:00,950	S3:
That's it. They completed it August 28th. Yeah. Almost have grass again.

00:04:04,790	S1:
That's great. That's great. All right. So, uh, I'm going to go quickly. Go through 6.7, which is accessory dwelling units. And we'll go through this and see that, uh, use, um, use schedule. ADUs are allowed as a matter of right in rural, residential and rural village zoning districts, subject to the requirements of the section. ADUs are also allowed as a matter of right in the WSP, subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements. Section 4.2. This is an RR zone, so you're good there. Only one Adu is allowed as a matter of right on any property. Additional A to use may only be allowed with the issuance of a special permit by the Planning Board, and this is the only one.

00:04:56,680	S1:
Edu may not be used as a short term rental, such as defined in Mass General Laws, section 64 G or otherwise uh rented for a period shorter than 31 days. That's not your intention, I assume. Yeah. Okay. Dimensional requirements. An Adu may be no larger in gross floor area than one half of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit on the property, or 900ft², whichever is less. And yours is considerably smaller than that 467ft².

00:05:34,000	S3:
Somewhere around around there, depending where you pull the measure, we're going to pull the measure from from the concrete wall or the finish.

00:05:40,960	S1:
Okay. And they shall comply with any and all frontage setback height and lot coverage requirements and may as may be applicable, uh, as contained in table two. You're not changing anything in the house or so it's still within the house envelope.

00:05:57,130	S3:
So same footprint.

00:05:58,850	S1:
You're finding the setbacks. Parking one off street parking space for ADUs. Parking may be in a driveway or a garage. So we do show two parking spaces here on the right side of the driveway. Um, the construction of a new garage or servant Adu shall require no new garage.

00:06:25,370	S1:
All right, site plan approval. All ADUs are required to obtain site plan approval for the Planning Board pursuant to the procedures. Section 7.4 of the Zoning Bylaw provided that the Site Plan review criteria is limited to the following. The Adu shall minimize tree vegetation and soil removal and grade changes. You're not changing any of that. Two architectural styles should be compatible with the existing principal dwelling on the subject property, which it is. Three the Adu shall be serviced with adequate water supply and sewer and septic service. So we have a new septic and it's well, they're correct as well. Okay. The plan shall demonstrate adequate parking as required here under and shall maximize convenience and safety for vehicular and pedestrian movement within the property, which you show pretty adequately here on the plot plan you provided us. All right. So that's really it in the Adu.

00:07:39,370	Do you have anything to add? S3:
No, I think it's pretty cut and dry.

00:07:44,330	S1:
The board have any questions.

00:07:46,690	S4:
So this isn't a lower level of the existing house.

00:07:49,420	S3:
It is a walkout basement.

00:07:51,260	S4:
A walkout basement. And you didn't need an ejector pump for the septic system. Gravity. It's gravity.

00:07:57,580	S3:
Gravity?

00:07:57,940	S2:
Yes.

00:07:58,340	S4:
Perfect. Thank you.

00:08:05,260	S1:
Does any member of the audience have any questions for the proponent?

00:08:11,180	S1:
Okay.

00:08:14,060	S1:
Then I would like to make a motion that we accept the Adu for Mr. Demetropoulos at 168 Wales Road, Monson mass. As drawn and written.

00:08:31,620	Any discussion? S1:
All those in favor?

00:08:32,700	S2:
Aye. Aye.

00:08:33,820	S1:
Aye. Passes.

00:08:36,420	S3:
Thank you.

00:08:37,620	S2:
Thank you.

00:08:38,660	S1:
Thank you for coming back again.

00:08:40,020	S4:
Is there a standard set of conditions?

00:08:44,340	S5:
I was reviewing the previous, um decisions that you've there. One of the decisions was with the condition of the Board of health requirements being met, but I think it's atypical that you would include conditions unless you felt comfortable, unless you felt the need to ensure that other permits were needing to be.

00:09:08,670	S4:
Okay.

00:09:10,310	S1:
Thanks.

00:09:11,150	S2:
Thank you.

00:09:19,270	S2:
Okay.

00:09:26,230	S1:
It's 709. Uh, our agenda lists at 705. We would have, uh, continue the Woodhill Road discussion for the, uh, cell tower. I will read the notice. 705 Woodhill Road. Continued from July 21st, 2026. In accordance with chapter 48, section 11 of the Mass General Laws, Monson Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 21st. That's the old one in the auditorium of Granite Valley Middle School, 21 Thompson Street. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the application of Vertex Tower Assets, LLC for site plan, approval and special permit under section 6.1 for Wireless Communication Facilities Regulations of the Monson Zoning Bylaws. The applicant proposes to construct a 150 foot monopole wireless communications tower, 154ft to the top of the lightning rod on property located on Woodhill Road, identified on map 032, parcel 010. The parcel, approximately 94.5 acres, is owned by the Springfield Sportsman's Club and lies within the rural residential district. Copies of the application are on file with the Planning Board and the Town Clerk's office, and are available for review during regular office hours. The application is also available on the town's website. Advertise Palmer Journal July 2nd July 9th, 2026. PB 2020 603. Before we go any further, I need to do a little housekeeping first.

00:11:15,280	Um, Chris, have you reviewed the minutes and watched the video of the 20 the meeting of the 21st? And do you feel confident and confident to be able to vote? S6:
Um, I have reviewed the minutes and I did watch the video as far as being able to vote. I honestly don't know that I'm ready at this point. I think I don't have a copy of the bylaws or anything like that. So, um, I think I really need to review some of that stuff before voting.

00:11:32,480	S2:
Okay.

00:11:33,600	S1:
Um.

00:11:36,800	S2:
So.

00:11:39,560	S1:
This requires a supermajority of the Planning Board to to pass. Okay. Marilyn is not here. Okay. And I think you have a yes.

00:11:56,770	S4:
Yeah, exactly. I'm recusing myself from amusing yourself.

00:12:01,650	S1:
So either that would leave Mr. Morgan myself, Mr. Watson, and you to vote on this, uh, with this hearing. Um, I will appoint you as a voting member for the purposes of this, uh, special permit.

00:12:22,770	S2:
Okay.

00:12:24,890	S1:
That being said.

00:12:27,650	S2:
What do you have?

00:12:28,850	S7:
Uh. Good evening. My name is Francis Parisi, an attorney representing the applicant, Vertex Towers. Since the last planning board meeting, three things have happened. One, um. we filed the application with the Conservation Commission. We actually have a conservation commission meeting tomorrow night. Uh, and I, based on comments that we received from Dem with respect to the application, we don't expect many issues with the Conservation Commission, uh, to I was able to meet with the zoning enforcement officer and speak with him regarding all of the issues that he raised. Uh, in the memo that I just got at the last planning board meeting. And we'll talk about that tonight a little bit. And third, we went back to the zoning board for a continued zoning board hearing where they denied our requested variances. Um, we are here tonight seeking site plan approval and a special permit for the cell tower. I believe that we can move forward. The board can either approve, subject to getting the resolution of with the zoning board or deny. But that's really where we are right now. We are going to appeal the denial of the zoning board application. I haven't gotten the decision yet because they haven't written it yet, but once I get it, we plan to appeal in federal court. And, um, based on a lot of experience that I've had in federal court where sure that either the town will settle hopefully and be reasonable about it or we'll get a federal court decision. And the judges have been very favorable to these type of applications based on that. Um, but so we're hoping to go forward with the Planning Board and have them make a decision with respect to the site plan approval and the special permit. If you deny me, I wrap it into the federal court litigation. If you approved me, we move forward. And so I'm hoping in the spirit of moving the whole project forward, that we resolve all the issues with the Planning Board and get an approval, um, the, the variances that we were denied at the planning at the zoning board level were really threefold. One, there's a requirement that, uh, that we, there's a 100 foot height limit for towers like this. And based on all the technical information that we provided, that the zoning board, quite frankly, didn't even look at, they just denied it summarily. And I think they were denying it based on the other two variances. And just rather than denying one and approving another, they just denied the whole application carte blanche. That to me is the easiest one. The technical data really supports it. Uh, and I'm quite certain that if we had to go through federal court litigation, that a judge would agree with that based on prior experience, the technical information speaks for itself. The second issue is that your bylaw has what I consider a very peculiar, um, setback requirement that we be 500ft away from an abutting property line. Um, there's two different setback requirements. There's one that we be, um, more than what we call tower height setback. The tower is 160 and I think it's um a.

00:15:44,440	S7:
Percentage over that so that we amply meet away from a budding property lines. In addition there's this 500 requirement, 500 foot requirement from um all abutting property lines in the rural residential zoning district. The abutting property line that we encroach upon is actually owned by the same landlord. So I would have thought that would have been an easy one for the zoning board to grant as well. But for some reason they decided not to. And then in addition, um, we're utilizing an existing driveway off of Woodhill Road, but the lot that we're on does not have frontage. So, uh, we requested a frontage variance to use the existing driveway. We're not changing anything from the driveways perspective. We're using existing driveway. That's amply sufficient for our needs. But. But because technically there's no frontage on the public right of way. We required a variance. And for some reason the zoning board granted that as well. Um the um the subject property has what I would call pinpoint frontage on uh, on Woodhill Road. But one of the things that the zoning pointed out and accurately is that the same landlord, the Springfield Sportsman Club, owns all the abutting lots. And one of the things that we could do to avoid two of the variance requests is file an A and R plan. To merge all these lots together. We've spoken to the the landowner. They're amenable to that. It takes a bit of engineering to do. But what. By merging this lot here, we eliminate the requirement for a variance that we be 500ft back from this property line, because we'll just basically eliminate this property line and be amply set back from this property line by merging this lot and this lot. The Sportsmen's Club has ample frontage along Woodhill Road that we don't intend to use, because the driveway that's existing comes off this part here. However, by just merging the lots together, we gather the sufficient frontage to avoid those variances. I don't eliminate the need for a variance, the height variance, but at least I think it'll be palatable to the zoning board if we file an A&R plan to avoid that. And quite frankly, I think from the Planning board's perspective, if they were inclined to improve it, approve it, subject to our submitting a plan for their approval, that kind of eliminates, I would say, half of the issues that the zoning board had. The only other issue that the zoning board had is that not so much the zoning board, but the zoning enforcement officer. This is the existing driveway. It's been here. It's been amply used. It was used quite extensively over the last several years because there has been some logging activity back in the woods way back. And, uh, the, uh, the zoning enforcement officer had some issues with our using the driveway, which makes no sense because that's really a planning board issue. And also, um, that there not be, um, that the, um, driveway does not use the driveway is essentially right here. Even if we were to merge all the lots, we wouldn't be using the frontage. That would be um, part of this lot. We'd be accessing it this way over the existing driveway. And for some reason, the zoning board, the zoning enforcement officer had issue with that as well. I'll tell you, as you guys know, I've been here three times in front of the planning board. The last time we came here, the exact same issue came up. You guys approved the special permit and site plan approval and the zoning, and the planner at the time said that that restriction didn't apply to our use. So I was kind of surprised that the zoning enforcement officer, um, raised it. But quite frankly, I think we can eliminate that issue by you guys approving the site plan with the driveway as proposed. The, uh, let me see if I have a picture of the driveway, the, um, um, this existing driveway here, it's preexisting. There's a preexisting wetlands crossing that we're going to be using. So that's why we need the approval. And then we have to do a little bit of improvement back in here. But for the most part, it's 95% satisfactory to us. So what we'll be doing on the driveway is de minimis. Um, once we get to the compound, it's just a, I think it's a 40 by 60 in the middle of the woods, uh, with, uh, and, um, you know, the, the zoning enforcement officer said we didn't provide a landscaping plan. We're 500ft from the nearest abutter, actually 700ft from the nearest of butter with ample vegetative screening for me to cut down a few trees to plant a few arborvitae in the middle of the woods. Seem kind of silly, but, uh, and we proposing chain link fence, a barbed wire fence, which requires a vegetative buffer as well. And like I said, the lot itself is, uh, you know, there's hundreds of feet of existing vegetation, so there's plenty of vegetative buffer. So, um, I, you know, we went through all the other technical data the last time, you know, there's certainly a gap in coverage. Everyone has supported that public safety report, supported that. Everyone I've talked to in Town Hall, including the zoning enforcement officer, said, yeah, there's definitely a gap in coverage. We need this site here. And as you know, we've been working on finding a viable alternative for many, many years now at this point, so I can go through the whole application. I can defer to questions, but really what I want to know is, is, is a planning board ready to move forward because there's no need to move forward if you're going to deny me because I didn't get the variances, I would rather you say approved, subject to resolution of the variance issues with the zoning board or federal court. Um, and, um, and if you want to approve it, subject to file an A&R plan, because we, we intend on doing that. I just don't have it yet. It's going to require us to go back and do some more surveying and things like that. But I, I don't want to go back and do that. If then you're going to deny it for some other reason. Uh, so I'm really looking for a direction here at this point.

00:22:08,330	S4:
So I.

00:22:09,850	S2:
Watched the.

00:22:11,250	S1:
ZBA meeting on impact, um, to get my own feeling for what, what was going on. And I basically the three main issues, which you have, you know, Made perfectly clear, you know, the height, the setback and the frontage, basically. Uh, I believe they were none. They were all, uh, all denied at that particular Zoning Board of Appeals hearing, even though we haven't seen the decision yet. Okay. Because it's not been written yet. Uh, we as a planning board, we as a planning board have to follow our zoning bylaw as written. Okay. We don't really have the power to make. I mean, that's the whole reason for the ZBA. Okay. Is for them to grant variances. Uh.

00:23:07,860	S1:
For certain situations like the height and things like that. Um, so I, and speaking only for myself, uh, other members of the planning board, uh, Um, I, I'm not comfortable approving or conditionally approving an A&R plan without seeing an A&R plan. Uh, because I don't have anything in hand.

00:23:36,060	S7:
Oh, no, I, I'm here tonight seeking a special permit and site plan review, and I believe it would be appropriate to approve the special permit subject to my submitting an A&R plan. So, uh, because I'm not asking you to submit a plan. I haven't prepared it yet. I got to get an engineer to go out and survey. Um, it's going to take some time, but I still need whether or not I get the A&R plan, I still need the special permit. So it doesn't if the board and what I don't want to do is continue this and then go do engineering and A&R plan, and then you deny me for some other reason. So, uh, so, um, I believe you're 100% right. You're subject to your zoning by law, but your zoning by law grants you special permit granting authority. You're the the big picture here. You approve the tower. I need three variances. And a lot of times, um, zoning bylaws give planning boards the authority to waive these type of provisions, including height. If there's technical reasons to do it, yours doesn't. So I have to go to the zoning board for the variance. But I still you know, it's independent. And we talked about which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Um, but it doesn't matter to me because I got to get both. So if you deny me then I just wrap you in, in my federal court appeal. If you approve me, then we at least eliminate some of the issues. And, um, you know, what's interesting is that, um, we've tried really hard to find an appropriate location for this facility, and they're never perfect, but we're hundreds of feet back from Woodhill Road where, you know, with the A&R plan, uh, where, uh, where, you know, 700ft from the nearest property line. Um, and I don't even think I need the A&R plan because I'm 350ft from the same landlord's property. So it doesn't, and that requirement makes no sense. I, we, we, I've never run into that in any other zoning bylaw before. Um, so, um, you know, I understand there's a requirement for frontage, but that's what variances are for. And there's an existing driveway, so no harm, no foul. Uh, we're not doing anything. And it would seem counterproductive for me to build another driveway and bulldoze through woods and take down trees for something that's already there. So, you know, common sense has to rule here. Um, I also think that the zoning board completely ignored very recent changes in Massachusetts law with respect to the issuance of variances. Massachusetts law just made it much easier for zoning boards, grant variances. You just have to show a practical difficulty. And it's no longer a hardship. And the rules for granting variances have been made much easier. And I'm gladly going to be the first one in federal court to show what a zoning board can and can't do. But I don't want to do that. I'm just trying to avoid that. So I think the plan, you know, is an olive branch in this place to eliminate. And it's, you know, it's engineering, it's cost, but it's not a big deal. Uh, but I still need the height variance, which I'm virtually certain either the town will settle when reasonable minds look at the data or the federal judge does.

00:27:02,450	S2:
Yeah.

00:27:02,690	S1:
We're under the gun from a time constraint as well. You know, we have 65 days to hold a public hearing, which we're doing now, and we have 90 days to come up with a decision. Um. So I given that, I mean, I'm going to throw it out.

00:27:29,890	Does anybody on the board have any questions for the proponent pertaining to this? S6:
Um, just so you're looking for us to approve based on all these other conditions being met, correct?

00:27:37,530	S7:
Yeah. Uh, your zoning by law is very clear. All cell towers require a special permit from the Planning Board. I meet all of those, and there's four pages of restrictions and requirements and obligations, and we meet all those handily, with the exception of these three issues here. Uh, the three zoning board issues. Um, so, uh, I can eliminate two of them with an A, and I can resolve the third one either by settling with, um, reasonable minds or getting a federal court judge, but I still need the special permit from the planning Board. So, uh, uh, so. And, you know, I gave you a better engineered site plans than you've ever seen before, because our engineers are quite good at this. Uh, we, uh, I stand by the site plans. I stand by the requirements for special permit. And, uh, we just think it's easier if you approve it with conditions. Um, I still need the variance. Height variance. Uh, I, um, I, you know, I still need to get you an A and R plan. You still need to approve it. I can't imagine you have any issue with it, but we just got to get it for you. I understand that, but those are two reasonable conditions and other conditions you want to talk about relative to the cell tower. Uh, so that we can all move forward here. This project is going to happen. It's just going to figure out how we get there.

00:29:04,980	S2:
Anybody?

00:29:06,020	S1:
Anybody else have any questions?

00:29:08,620	S2:
I don't have a problem.

00:29:11,950	S2:
Voting to approve it with conditions of the ANR.

00:29:15,910	S1:
Let's throw it out to the people in the audience.

00:29:27,110	Do you have any questions? S1:
Come on up. Tell us who you are and.

00:29:33,430	S1:
Ask your questions.

00:29:38,110	S8:
My name is Ann Boyer and I'm on Woodhill Road, and I'm the abutter of that driveway that you say is a right of way, which is not. But, um, the first time the planning, the meeting for the Planning board said that they needed the approval of the conservation committee, and that has not happened at all. So I don't see how that has even changed that. You can, you know, go forward in approving what he wants, um, in the possibility that the conservation committee is going to approve it, and I don't believe they will approve it, because there's wetlands right there. You can almost see them on the left hand side of that, um, that roadway. Um, it goes right down into a stream right there. And it flows down and goes to the end of Woodhill Road and goes across and you're talking a big waterway. You're talking, you know, a lot of wildlife. Um, so I, I think the conservation committee will have a lot to say about it.

00:30:42,080	S1:
So they, they very well may. And in their own, uh, we can't really take them into account, but they could, you know, they have a huge bearing on, right on whether this happens or not.

00:31:02,080	Um, so is there anything else? S9:
Well, why was the planning.

00:31:03,240	S8:
Board, you know, saying that we need the, the conservation committee at the first meeting And yet now that there's a vote.

00:31:12,040	S1:
We're informing the proponent that he needs to go to conservation and get approval.

00:31:17,480	S8:
Okay.

00:31:18,360	S1:
And that happens to you said tomorrow night.

00:31:20,480	S2:
Yes.

00:31:22,000	S1:
He'll he'll go in front of conservation tomorrow. Tomorrow night. Take a look at that.

00:31:26,200	S8:
Okay.

00:31:27,960	S1:
See what they have to say.

00:31:29,320	S8:
Okay. Also, um, I don't know that they've ever surveyed anything, but my property goes right to the pinprick of that drive and might go even further as far as I am concerned. So that's a big deal to me. And that that is not a large driveway. It's not even 25ft across. And from what I know, is that you have to have ten feet on either side. So that's 45ft. And I don't think they have that. But I mean, I'm not a surveyor. Um, and I probably can't really afford a surveyor because I'm on a fixed income, but I don't believe they've done that either, so. Okay. Okay. Thanks.

00:32:14,730	S2:
Thank you.

00:32:15,890	S1:
Is there anybody else that would like to come up and ask anything?

00:32:23,170	S1:
I'm going to read. I have a we we did manage to get some, um, comments from the town departments. We queried them again in the meantime and got a little bit back. I'm going to read these to you. Uh, the first is from the fire chief. Uh, he basically he says if this tower is constructed, we would like for the planning board to add to the agreement that space be reserved for emergency services, whether it be fire, police, dispatch, etc., and communication equipment, antennas, room for a cabinet and associated equipment at no cost to the town. Chief, Chief Gasparrini and Tyler, please chime in if you feel I've missed anything. They're coming up. Uh.

00:33:09,100	S1:
I have emailed Dave Baldwin stating there's nothing in the code regarding access roads to cell towers. I double checked with the state and they have confirmed this in regards to space on the tower. I have checked with our radio vendor and previous police chief, who stated that the previous language used was that the space be reserved near the top of the emergency communication equipment. Chief Gasparrini says, I agree with Chief Harris Conservation. Uh. The site plan submitted with the application depicts wetlands that have not been received or approved by the Conservation Commission. The proposed access road to the tower appears to cross two wetland areas. To date, no filings have been submitted to the Monson Conservation Commission or to Massdep under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Mass General Laws chapter 131, section 40. Such filings will be required, and it is anticipated that the project plans will need to be revised accordingly.

00:34:15,070	S1:
As noted by drew, the applicant will also be required to complete the right of first refusal process with appropriate parties, as required under the chapter. Chapter 61 program. Uh, nothing from the Board of Health. Uh.

00:34:36,990	S1:
Nothing from the Selectboard. Nothing from the highway surveyor. Nothing from the water department. The assessor. So there are steps that will be need to be taken by the landowner or a team effort with the cell tower company. If the site plan, special permit and variance are approved. Parcel 032-010 140 acres is owned by Springfield Sportsman's Club and refuse the benefit of chapter 61 under a forest management plan, the entire parcel is currently in chapter 61. Therefore, if these are approved, the property owner would need to submit an offer right of first refusal with the town and have the Selectboard sign off pay roll back taxes on the total square. Footage of the access road and cell tower site have a partial lien release recorder and get an amended forest management plan. Unfortunately, this is just a pain because rollback taxes will only be a couple of hundred dollars. Rollback is a five year look back and payment are determined based on the difference of assessed value and fair and full cash value of the land that will change in use plus interest. However, with the lack of frontage this parcel has, it has been assessed as unbuildable. Therefore, rollback taxes will be minimal. However, this process should be completed. So that's what we heard from them.

00:36:02,960	S1:
So given all that.

00:36:08,760	S1:
Um.

00:36:11,400	S1:
I would ask everybody's opinion. Uh, my opinion as one member is that we have three denials of variance. Uh, our purview in the zoning bylaw as a planning board members is to we have to uphold the zoning bylaw, uh, which basically requires a at this point, even though it may feel restrictive, the height, the setback, the frontage, it basically says you have to have frontage, you have to have five foot setback and you have to have 100 foot tower height. My opinion is that because none of these conditions were met, we cannot approve.

00:36:59,290	S2:
This.

00:37:00,890	S1:
Submission.

00:37:03,930	S1:
That's I'm not making a motion at this point, but I can. Does anybody else have anything? I can't conditionally approve something that I haven't seen. In other words. Well, we'll submit an A and R. Well, we've denied an Ars. Uh, so I, I, as one member would not be in favor of.

00:37:26,570	Do we have anything? S2:
I mean, and Justin's the billing department, the zoning enforcement. His last note is all required. Variances should be obtained and approved prior to the issuance of any special permits, which is kind of what you just said. And I tend to agree with that. Okay.

00:37:46,370	S1:
So then I would so that you can move forward with what you need to do. Uh, I will make a motion that we deny this special shall permit based upon the additional height of the tower, the setback not being met, and the fact that the frontage doesn't meet. Section 3.4.

00:38:16,660	2 S1:
of our zoning bylaw, which says. I'll read that to you, just so you know.

00:38:28,100	S1:
Says.

00:38:32,900	S1:
The use of land for access to or for parking in connection with a use shall be considered to be an accessory to, to, and a part of each use of such use. This provision shall not prohibit access across a commercial district to an industrial district, but shall prohibit access to business or industrial uses across a residential district. So my that is my motion.

00:39:03,260	S7:
Uh, could I just comment on that real quick? That last piece there.

00:39:07,780	S1:
I'll throw it up for discussion.

00:39:09,500	S7:
Um, I respectfully disagree with that. And the reason is we're not a commercial, we're not an industrial, we're a cell tower. And that's a very specific use under your zoning bylaw. Um, and we require a special permit. And the drawings show that we're um, utilizing, um, a preexisting driveway over a legal right of way over an abutting lot. Um, that, and that would be subject to the special permit and site plan review. I don't think that zoning provision applies here. Um, because I need a special permit to put it in the residential zone period. So you have the authority to also grant the special permit for the access driveway in the residential zone. And I don't think I need it because I'm just driving over in a budding lot. So, but and I tried to make that point at the zoning board, they clearly didn't understand it. I see where this is going, but I you can wrap that in, but I don't think it's.

00:40:15,750	S1:
Going to wrap it in because that's from town council. So, um, so is there any discussion amongst any of the other members of the board. So there's a motion on the table. Um all those in favor of denying the special permit.

00:40:33,430	S5:
Mister. Mister. Chair. Second.

00:40:36,790	S2:
Second. Second.

00:40:43,750	S1:
I made the motion. What's your.

00:40:49,310	S6:
Yes, I agree.

00:40:52,000	S1:
So the special permit is denied.

00:40:55,120	S7:
Thank you very much.

00:40:56,000	S1:
Thank you.

00:41:16,520	S1:
All right. So next, Craig Schweitzer reenters the discussion.

00:41:27,080	Uh, S1:
our next item is discussing the surety bond at 46 Palmer Road. Uh.

00:41:37,800	S1:
Board will review and discuss the status of the surety bond associated with the paving project, and we'll take any appropriate action deemed necessary. This could be a little odd, because I didn't receive a anything until 633 this evening. And so I was sitting here trying to squint. I even brought glasses.

00:42:01,770	S2:
Back to the car.

00:42:03,050	S1:
Okay. I don't feel too bad.

00:42:04,370	S10:
Then I didn't want you to just wait another month, you know?

00:42:09,610	S1:
Yeah, well.

00:42:10,210	S2:
The.

00:42:10,410	S10:
Timeframe on my end, but I definitely want to get something out.

00:42:15,050	S1:
Your your.

00:42:16,610	S10:
Discuss it and answer questions. Well, that's totally up to you guys.

00:42:20,010	S1:
That's great. You're. Jeff. Um, if you want to come up and talk, that'd be great. We'd love to. Yeah. I couldn't see him real well. And the email.

00:42:37,210	S4:
Is he our consultant?

00:42:38,730	S1:
He is our consultant.

00:42:39,730	S2:
Okay.

00:42:42,690	S10:
Well.

00:42:46,090	S2:
Yeah.

00:42:46,370	S1:
I would like to see a hard copy, please.

00:42:50,060	S10:
I wasn't sure how many people were here and.

00:42:57,460	S10:
If we want to experience something a little bigger.

00:43:01,540	S1:
That's probably adequate.

00:43:02,980	S2:
Thank you sir. You're welcome.

00:43:05,740	S10:
You said seven, so hopefully I got enough.

00:43:07,780	S1:
Thank you very much. I think I'm gonna need my glasses anyways.

00:43:13,380	S10:
Thank you. It is 11.

00:43:16,140	S1:
I'm sorry.

00:43:18,580	S10:
Um, so I do have a couple extra copies. Did you get.

00:43:22,140	S2:
One? You did? Yeah, you gave me one.

00:43:34,220	S10:
I mean, I'll give you guys a chance to, at least if you want to just read that.

00:43:39,540	Do you want me to read it? You want me to paraphrase? S1:
Well, I read your comments and I see how you wrote. You know, most of your comments are in red. Um, and what you found. Um.

00:43:52,140	S10:
So essentially the breakdown of my.

00:43:55,260	S1:
Yeah. You got, I'm sorry. You're.

00:44:00,260	S10:
Good. Oh my God, that's a lot. Okay. Good evening. My name is Jeff Lebow. I work as a professional civil engineer with J and L civil engineering work out of Warren. Sole proprietor. Um, I was hired to review the final, um, paving at Quaboag Heights, just down the street here. Um, I performed a site inspection, um. Wednesday, August 19th in the afternoon. Very sunny. Um, met a few folks. Ted did meet me like probably halfway through and then left quickly, you know? So it's a completely independent review of the paving general location and function of the visible drainage structures. Just so you guys know, I have no previous history or knowledge of this site other than what Penny and Ken have provided me. So I know there's a history here, and I know it's been a long time that the binder and the road's been used. My understanding is there has have been some drainage issues in the past, so I strictly looked at this as an independent consultant. How was the paving job? And I would say it was adequate. I wouldn't say it was stellar, but it wasn't poor. I found it to be similar to like projects of other condominiums and other subdivision roads that I've reviewed in my 30 year career. Um, did a lot of work in, um, the Springfield area, greater Springfield area as well as Hartford. So I do have experience with paving jobs, utility projects, grading and drainage site design. That's my specialty. You know, I have a number of contracts that I work on doing similar projects. Um, so long story made short and to kind of summarize and then I can answer questions and I'll let the board kind of direct the meeting. Um, I thought overall the paving job was good. There were some low spots near driveway near five unit five. There was kind of a low spot. You could tell by staining because it had recently rained before I went out. Um, get my readers on. Um, if you look at the photo location map that has the red text photo location map to a four. You see the low spot photo 24 shows the low spot near unit five. It was minor. Um, but I can't say that it was due directly to the paving. The final paving job. Another area that caught my attention was a low spot. If you go to the red sketch sketch one of four lower right. If you look at photo 15, it says low spot before the catch basin. So there was definitely some, you know, slumping or settling over time. I don't necessarily think again this was a result of the final paving job. Um, it seems to me that whatever was under there, you know, and plus the pitch is pretty flat because it's at a SAG point. The road's what I did find that really matched well was the, the crowns of the roads of the entry drive coming up, the exit drive going out. And then I walked and did two loops, kind of like, you know, like a half cloverleaf. And you'll see that in the photo documents kind of follow my path how I walked into the inspections. Another thing this is more again, I kind of was looking at this as if I were a member of, you know, if I lived there, what would I want to be aware of? Not just the bond or just, you know, the paving and surface drainage that can be observed. But I, I noticed that there's definitely been some settling over time between units, um, 22 and 23 and, and it's photo nine, photo eight and nine. You'll see it. This is more just for the group to be aware of. It seems like it was a trench for maybe a wellhouse or some type of utility trench that kind of traversed that area. And it seemed like, and it's very noticeable if you go out on the field, you can see it's kind of sunk in a little bit, you know, so the new paving follows that. And, um, there's slight cracks in the Cape Cod curbing on both sides, kind of the width, maybe five feet wide, kind of the width of a trench. So I think that's something to pay attention to. Um, another area of concern. I did not witness any sinkholes or um um drainage issues that were immediately evident to me, but I didn't go on a storm. Um, but everything did seem to match the grades that were on the as built plans that were stamped by Mike Petrus and um the other engineer. Oh, it's right here. Gary Weiner um, if you look at let's see, this is going to be sheet 104. Again, the red notes. It looks like it got cut off. Uh, I think it's photo 19, the repaired sinkhole location. So Ted brought that to my attention. I had asked him about it. Like I said, I was probably a half an hour into my site visit. I was probably there an hour and 15 hour and 20 minutes. He came about a half an hour through, said, oh, and I asked about sinkholes because I did see a photo that did show a sinkhole, and he said he had repaired it. I don't remember how many days or weeks in advance before I actually came out, but I mean, it looked like an adequate fix. And again, I don't think from the photo evidence and then seeing in the field, I personally don't think the paving created that. I think there were maybe there were some voids that, you know, through the compaction of the base of the road, maybe it didn't fully get realized until there were heavier traffic loads or heavier, um, waterfalls, you know, rainfall. But again, that's something I think the condo association should pay attention to because I'm also thinking it's kind of occurring right near that catch basin. Maybe there's a leak. Maybe there's a crack. But again, that was not part of my scope to do a deep dive. It was to kind of give the quick surface overview and general presentation. But that's definitely if this reoccurs I did speak with a woman, I forget her name. I think she's the president or is on the, um, the, uh, committee for the, for the condo association. And she said that, um, I don't know if she said that it occurred more than once, but was she was just concerned with those types of things happening. So again, I don't think the paving job caused it. And I think it was a good paving job. But these are things to pay attention to over time and history of the of this site. That's the high level. I'd be more than happy to answer questions that I'm able to.

00:51:29,520	S2:
This.

00:51:30,080	S1:
Uh, Ken, this is, uh, this is for the paving bond, Correct. And that is all covers.

00:51:38,480	S5:
Yeah.

00:51:39,600	S1:
Okay. So we're trying to what we're doing here is trying to decide whether we should or should not release the bond back to the Mr. Bukowski.

00:51:49,840	S5:
That's correct. And I believe at a previous planning board meeting, um, I think there was the conversation regarding um, um town council getting involved. Should the Planning Board feel ready to release the bond.

00:52:09,040	S1:
That's something we'd vote on.

00:52:11,040	S5:
Uh, yeah. You would need to vote on to release the bond. That is something that would need to happen.

00:52:16,680	S2:
Okay.

00:52:18,880	S4:
So, Jeff, in summary, would you say it appears as though the pavement grading, the catch basin functioning would be in compliance with the plans you reviewed?

00:52:31,520	S10:
I would say yes, with the caveat of paying attention to those certain areas that I had mentioned. I do want to add one other thing I just remembered looking at my photos. This is a housekeeping issue. Photo 28. There's leftover geotextile fabric, probably that should get pulled. It's blocking like half the catch basin. So just, you know, pull that out. Obviously it's getting water because of the staining and you know, it's in a good location. So but to answer your question, yes.

00:53:08,610	S1:
Does anybody in the audience have any questions for the engineer or have any comments?

00:53:29,130	S11:
Good evening. My name is James Williams. I live at 46 Palmer Road, unit 24. I'm also a trustee. There are three trustees that are here tonight. My concern is that what this engineer referred to as a washout, I think wasn't a washout. I called it a washout. Sinkhole? Uh, 2 or 3 years ago. I'm not quite sure exactly how many. There was a large opening. I could have crawled into it. I'm not a big guy, but it was for a hole in the road. It was pretty big. Ted filled it in. I asked him what caused it, and he was. He didn't really know. He could not give me a definitive answer. He just filled in the hole. He filled it in. My concern is that this is going to happen again. The other thing is, as far as the paving itself goes, that road was built 20 years ago for the first go round of it. It's been abused by heavy equipment building the the condos up there and everything. Uh, it got very, very wavy, very up and down. The final paving, they didn't scarify it. All they did was put a tack coat on and the top coat, it should have been leveled. It might have eliminated all those those lower holes. But my biggest concern is that that washout that I you saw the pictures. I provided them to Penny. Uh, my concern is that's going to happen again. My other concern is that just putting a tack coat and a top coat on this, uh, the road is going to be in terrible condition within just a within five years. As a matter of fact, I spoke with three different paving companies, Ted Andric paving, Palmer Paving and the people that did this. Duffy.

00:55:23,070	S11:
I'm sorry. Duffy. Willard. Thank you. All three of them told me prior to this happening, that that road, as it existed, could not be just top coated, that we're going to run into the same problems within a very short period of time that they they recommended that the road be torn up and re, I guess, regraded and repacked prior to putting down the final, the final paving. And I was also told by Duffy Willard that they told Ted that, that you can't just put a top coat on this. It has to be, it should be torn up to do it right. It should be torn up and repaved. That's my concerns. Thank you.

00:56:06,990	S2:
Thank you.

00:56:10,230	S1:
Anybody else out there want to come on up?

00:56:13,430	S4:
If I could ask you. Jeff, was the road Sectionally built according to the plan, with the proper depth of binder and topcoat.

00:56:26,960	S10:
I can't answer that. I can only comment on what I visually saw because I wasn't present while they laid the paving down. But my understanding is Mike Petrus was hired full time during the final paving and he took measurements, he said. I believe he said it was like over an inch, inch average compacted that he measured. Um, he.

00:56:50,600	S4:
Would be the wear coat.

00:56:51,920	S10:
He did mention the wear coat. I'm sorry. Yes. Correct. The wear coat. Um, I can only comment on what I saw as the final actual grades and visually what was out there. I can't comment on how it was performed. Just what what's physically there.

00:57:12,800	S4:
So I think what we can look at is.

00:57:16,800	S4:
Was the roadway Sectionally built according to the plans the Planning Board approved.

00:57:25,770	S10:
Are you asking me that question? I think general.

00:57:29,490	S4:
Discussion. Would that be the basis of our, uh, of our releasing a bond?

00:57:36,010	S5:
I'm trying to pull up the bond to to see. Because the action is of the board to release the bond. Right. Um.

00:57:44,210	S4:
I'm assuming there were there were inspections made progress inspections as the project went forward.

00:57:53,970	S4:
And I'm assuming they all met the inspection requirements at that point.

00:58:00,010	S2:
It's a lot to assume.

00:58:24,100	S2:
Include cross section, which include gravel.

00:58:29,700	S4:
The only thing is those inspections were done as progress inspections.

00:58:34,300	S2:
Okay by third party.

00:58:43,900	Was there soil compaction tests? S1:
So in your opinion, as a paving guy, what are your thoughts on this?

00:58:50,220	S2:
Any any imperfection in the blacktop by any reputable paving contractor? It's coming from the ground. It's starting with what's underneath it. Blacktop is very pliable. Great modulus of elasticity, we'll say, and it's going to do whatever the ground wants to do. So if there's, you know, what appears to be cracks in the pavement and the curb is cracking, that's not going to fix itself. That's just the beginning.

00:59:27,780	S4:
What's the bond for? I think that's all we can look at. We can't go back and inspect the subsurface drainage. You know, the previously approved.

00:59:38,460	S2:
Well, if it was done. If it was inspected, then.

00:59:40,860	S4:
We hired a. Who did we hire to do that?

00:59:44,740	S5:
I believe you hired, uh, um, Jean Christy from Tine Bond.

00:59:50,060	S4:
Yeah. Yeah, we gave Tine Bond the inspection contract.

00:59:56,420	S5:
Um, I'm still trying to find it.

01:01:15,870	S5:
I'm having some internet issues. to open up what I think is the bond document.

01:01:31,400	S5:
If you have it. Yeah, it should be.

01:01:39,480	S10:
An estimate for that.

01:01:43,800	S10:
Talk about cross section and full whatever. This is what's in the email.

01:01:50,360	S5:
Mhm.

01:01:51,440	S10:
So that's the performance. That's the description right. I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.

01:01:58,240	S5:
Yeah. So the subdivision bond faithful performance, the amount as the vice chair asked, was in the sum of $231,500.

01:02:12,640	S5:
$231,500.

01:02:15,960	S4:
And what did that secure?

01:02:17,930	S5:
Um Quaboag Heights tack coat roadways and driveways per estimate by Hendrick materials and recycling.

01:02:28,010	S4:
So.

01:02:32,570	S4:
So that was to ensure that the tack coat and wear coat was installed properly or according to the plans.

01:02:45,010	S5:
The lawyer might say something different. But according to this bond the 231,500 is. It says um. The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that whereas the above burden bound in principle has entered into a contract agreement with the Obligee to do and perform the work tack coat roadways and driveways per estimate by Andre Andre. Materials and recycling. So that is the bond.

01:03:13,210	S4:
So that's what we can look at. We can look at subsurface drainage. We can look at curbing. We can't look at gravel.

01:03:26,170	S4:
And we had previous inspectors for that. So I'm assuming that's the scope of our review.

01:03:44,250	S1:
So based upon what Jeff tells us after his inspection of the top coat and what what he could see, he Jeff seems to indicate that it was a it's an adequate job. Maybe not stellar, um, but adequate. How did you put it here? Um.

01:04:09,570	S1:
Found that the paving area performed in general compliance with light like and similar projects of the size and nature and did not see any major deficiencies.

01:04:19,540	S1:
So that's what our civil engineer says.

01:04:26,700	S4:
Can I make a motion that we report to town council?

01:04:32,340	S4:
And include the summary of findings.

01:04:37,220	S4:
And a copy of the bond requirements.

01:04:42,900	S4:
That the engineer appeared before our consulting engineer appeared before the Planning Board and stated that, in his opinion, the top coat and wear coat was installed adequately.

01:04:59,420	S1:
I'll second that.

01:05:04,820	S1:
All those in favor?

01:05:07,340	S4:
Any discussion?

01:05:08,140	S1:
Discussion. Right. Sorry.

01:05:15,870	Any discussion? S1:
All those in favor?

01:05:16,950	S4:
Aye.

01:05:19,150	S1:
Motion passes to send it to town Council for his review.

01:05:26,270	S1:
Okay.

01:05:32,230	S1:
The next thing we have.

01:05:35,590	S1:
Lower Hampden Road, parcel number 077-001, lots A and B. The Planning Board will discuss the property owned by Anthony Pantoliano, as it relates to the right of first refusal. Somewhere here we've got.

01:05:55,470	S1:
A plan.

01:06:05,350	S1:
Thank you.

01:06:10,240	S12:
There it is.

01:06:13,160	S12:
So.

01:06:25,000	S12:
Do we wish to.

01:06:29,200	S1:
Exercise our right of first refusal.

01:06:33,920	S4:
Come to your knowledge. Has any other boards or any other activities abutting these properties notified us that there's an intent for the town? Um, not its right of first refusal.

01:06:48,840	S5:
Not to my knowledge, but obviously, as this is part of the release, uh, in 61, a um, those other boards would probably be talking about them, these particulars, um, at their future meeting, the select board and the Conservation Commission.

01:07:06,200	S4:
So it appears as though this is a release of what, four or 5 or 6 lots?

01:07:11,570	S5:
Yeah, I think so.

01:07:13,690	S4:
Standard building lot sizes.

01:07:18,490	S1:
Looks like five lots.

01:07:19,970	S4:
Five lots.

01:07:24,050	S4:
I can't imagine that the town would be interested in paying building lot prices for building lot sized parcels. I've heard of no interest on it.

01:07:39,250	Has anybody else? S1:
I have not.

01:07:44,250	S1:
I have a question, though, Ken. Yeah. Whether we. How to.

01:07:52,810	S1:
What the verbiage of the motion should be. Okay. Do we exercise our right to release those lots from our right of first refusal? Or do we exercise our.

01:08:10,650	S1:
Right to refuse the right of first refusal?

01:08:16,730	S1:
I'm not quite sure how to. We've done it before.

01:08:20,450	S5:
Yeah. I'm trying to go back through motions. Um.

01:08:27,770	S5:
You are correct. Um. Let's see.

01:08:30,250	S4:
I think the intent is the Planning Board has no interest in purchasing the lots. Building lots at prevailing.

01:08:35,930	S5:
I think that's sufficient as far as if that is the motion that that probably is compliant with the understanding that you're choosing not to do anything with the property. I don't think.

01:08:51,250	S2:
You want to pay $90,000.

01:08:52,970	S4:
I don't think the town wants.

01:08:54,050	S2:
To.

01:08:54,730	S4:
Spend three quarters of $1 million for for seven acres.

01:09:01,570	S1:
I'll make a motion to say that the Planning Board is not interested in these lots.

01:09:11,660	S4:
I'll second that.

01:09:12,540	S1:
Right of first refusal is.

01:09:16,340	S1:
Any discussion?

01:09:19,620	S1:
All those in favor?

01:09:20,940	S4:
Aye.

01:09:22,540	S1:
All those opposed?

01:09:26,740	S1:
Okay. Good. The last few things we have discussed.

01:09:34,900	S5:
Mr. Chair. Just one item related to the previous special permit that you denied. Um, just taking an action on actually closing the public hearing.

01:09:45,540	S1:
For the cell tower.

01:09:46,980	S5:
Correct.

01:09:47,900	S1:
I'll make a motion to close the cell tower hearing. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye.

01:10:00,580	All those opposed? S1:
The hearing is closed. All right. Thank you. Ken. Uh, well.

01:10:12,070	S1:
We have a few things we need to work on that we seem to skip over a lot, and we really need to. I think we need to focus on some of these things. All of these things. But I'm willing to admit that we're not going to get it accomplished tonight. Uh, for instance, planning fees, we have had the same fee structure in like forever. And that should audit, we should explore that change.

01:10:47,430	S1:
Um.

01:10:49,910	S4:
Would it be appropriate to ask our acting planner to generate an update or a standard updated fee list for sure. Similar to similar towns. Yes. We also have this I've been working on. Also application definitions. You've done that? I've been working on something.

01:11:11,000	S1:
Yeah.

01:11:11,440	S4:
Oh, wow. Fantastic.

01:11:13,040	S1:
Can I give this to Ken? Sure.

01:11:17,280	S5:
Is that related to your work? Um.

01:11:20,760	S1:
You. Look.

01:11:21,520	S5:
Bob. Is that related to your work with the revenue committee? I'm sorry.

01:11:27,000	Is that related to your work with the revenue committee? S6:
No, I haven't been there yet. I've just been.

01:11:28,680	S5:
Okay. I know it's.

01:11:29,880	S2:
An issue and something we need to look at.

01:11:31,800	S4:
Can we circulate that before the next meeting and take. Absolutely. Email it out. When can we give it? Give it enough time to study it. Absolutely. Yeah.

01:11:40,040	S5:
Thank you Bob.

01:11:40,680	S4:
I compared all the.

01:11:41,440	S6:
Surrounding towns, all their fees, what they do, how they do it, laid it all out in there and made suggestions.

01:11:46,680	S4:
To bring it up to.

01:11:47,800	S6:
Modern times.

01:11:49,560	S4:
How about the next item? Application definitions.

01:11:53,120	You didn't do anything with that, did you? S1:
Application definitions. I talked to Ken about this. What was what was that? Because I don't remember, you know, when Penny came up with this.

01:12:03,400	S5:
Yeah. I think it's related to actually the application. Um. It is.

01:12:08,040	S1:
Oh. Was it the form we're all filling out the same.

01:12:12,400	S5:
Yeah. The form needs to be updated. Um, I think, you know, because it's a form that is applicable to all the, the, both the CB and the planning board.

01:12:23,800	S1:
There's a lot of errata in there.

01:12:25,720	S5:
Yeah. So it is a suggestion of um, updating the form to kind of reflect best practices.

01:12:36,600	S1:
So we would, we would generate a new form, vote on it and adopt it basically.

01:12:42,200	S5:
Um, I think it doesn't necessarily need to be adopted as a, you know, as a task. I think the board, if they wanted to do that, they could, um, I think that if the board was had comments, we would probably change it to, to affect the actual form, but I don't think it necessarily requires any sort of approval. Probably just sharing future drafts with you is probably sufficient. And then. Receiving any comments from the board to make it better.

01:13:10,570	S1:
Okay, let's do that.

01:13:15,850	Could you generate that? S5:
Yes.

01:13:17,130	S1:
Look at it in the next meeting or two.

01:13:20,690	S1:
Are board rules and regulations.

01:13:28,210	S1:
That would encompass things like.

01:13:32,410	S1:
Offices of the board. Correct. How that happens. Uh, how we, uh, cause those things to, you know, how we elect presidents, clerks. Vice chair.

01:13:46,130	S6:
Chair.

01:13:46,610	S5:
Yes. Um, it is the procedures for the board for, um, the election after town meeting or. Yeah, the auction after special town or. Yeah. Special town meeting or in the new fiscal year, rather. Um, also how the board accepts applications. How many number, you know, number of site plans, things like that. What's required in the site plan? Um, the idea is to have those particulars in your board rules and regs so that you don't have to make changes in your zoning and taking it to town meeting to make those types of changes, which are minuscule in comparison to more standardized things that you would want in your zoning bylaw. Um, also in the rules and regs are, uh, typically fees. Fees can be adopted by the planning board doesn't need to go to any other entity. Um, so that would typically happen there. Um, in addition to any sort of, uh, you know, kind of the bylaw, uh, suggests that there might be sections of the bylaw where the planning board can promulgate additional rules and regs related to the administration of that bylaw. So that is where presumably you would have it in those rules and regs. Um, but I believe um previous vice chair Paul Hatch created some or there I have found a document that suggests that there was a set of board rules and regs. Maybe it was your previous planner. Um, that might have drafted something, but maybe dusting that off and sharing it with the board.

01:15:23,910	S1:
I don't ever recall seeing.

01:15:25,030	S5:
Okay. For whatever reason, I saw something. So maybe it was something that was saved that was never shared with the board. But, um, it does exist to the point where it is something that, as you know, as it's listed here, many planning boards do adopt. Um, and the board would adopt it at a regular meeting.

01:15:46,350	S1:
Okay.

01:15:51,510	S1:
Oh my God. Home occupation and farm stand regulations, which is huge.

01:16:02,830	S4:
We have an agricultural committee, don't we, in town? We do. Should they be brought into that? At least the second half of that.

01:16:12,350	S5:
Yeah. I think if the board I think we can probably initiate some of those conversations about farm stands and what that might look like. I think the idea for farm stands is, you know, it is what either I think it's probably a New England thing where, you know, at the end of a driveway, you might be selling something from your property. Um, chapter 48, section three. Um, if you are under two acres or more than five acres, suggest that you don't need to have any sort of zoning. regulations related to that. If you produce receipts that show that you're selling over $1,000 of your own products, if you're growing or if you're. Yeah. Things related to that, those determinations are usually done at the building. The zoning enforcement officer. Um, but I think to your point, uh, Craig. Yeah. Um, it might be helpful to kind of get an understanding of the idea of farm stands and how to permit them. Um, if.

01:17:26,080	S4:
Would this be a town bylaw, a zoning bylaw?

01:17:28,680	S5:
I think it would be a zoning bylaw. Um, there are communities in, in the area that have adopted, um, farm stand type bylaws to create some regulation regarding them. Um.

01:17:42,280	S4:
Would it be appropriate to ask you to generate a bylaw and run it by the Agricultural committee?

01:17:48,400	S5:
Sure.

01:17:49,520	S1:
Why the gulf in between 2 and 5 acres.

01:17:54,850	S5:
The mass general law thing, I don't know. That's a good question.

01:17:58,650	S1:
A very small lot. You can have a farm stand if you have a very large one.

01:18:04,250	S5:
So I think I think the clarity here is that it's under two acres. If you can show your receipts, it's over five acres. If you have five acres farm.

01:18:13,970	S1:
No need to show receipts.

01:18:15,570	S5:
Um, so that's the, the difference. But the two and five, that's a little weird.

01:18:20,010	S1:
So between 2 and 5 acres. Sorry. No bueno.

01:18:25,770	S5:
Um.

01:18:28,570	S5:
There's probably some nuance. It's a is it over two. I don't I don't think it's two and under. I think it's two and over. So it's like between 2 and 5 you need to have the receipts.

01:18:40,690	S4:
But it's allowed by right. Typically.

01:18:43,730	S5:
Um that's a good question. I mean it's a structure right.

01:18:48,210	S4:
It may need a permit, I would assume.

01:18:50,260	S5:
Correct.

01:18:51,060	S4:
Um, would it have to meet front setbacks and things? Probably.

01:18:54,900	S5:
I think if if the by law suggests that it does, it probably would want to ensure that if there are accessory structures on your property, you might want to address it by making those setbacks smaller. Um.

01:19:11,380	S4:
If it's about parking.

01:19:13,060	S5:
That's another that's because I think that's, that's the idea is it's what are those impacts for the farm stands? Um, it's clearer. I think anything over five acres because you typically have the space to do that. But for properties that are two acres between 2 and 5. Um, yeah, parking probably is something that you would want to consider.

01:19:35,620	S4:
So we should probably look at hours of operation setbacks, structures, parking and generally make it so it's.

01:19:48,020	S4:
So it can be done without, you know, without crazy hoops.

01:19:51,340	S1:
What's a structure? Um, somebody's got a end table with a refrigerator out there with four dozen eggs in it, a couple.

01:20:01,660	S2:
Of baskets with some fruit.

01:20:03,180	S1:
Right. Uh, a chair with a couple of zucchini sitting on it.

01:20:06,860	S4:
Versus a building on a foundation.

01:20:08,540	S5:
Right. And I think this this alludes to also the connection to home occupation, whether or not those people are using their homes to bake goods to sell at the bottom of their street, um, in this farm stand like thing. Um, so I think there is some sort of alignment with.

01:20:31,580	S5:
Doing what? Um, you know, if you wanted to sell goods that you are either acquiring or producing, um, on your property, I think there probably is some connection to the home occupation by law for that.

01:20:48,150	S4:
So I think it'd be helpful if you gave us some kind of guidelines. Sure. With the exemptions previously in place by Mass General Laws. Chapter 40.

01:20:57,790	S5:
Yeah. For the for the agricultural or farm stand. Related. Yeah.

01:21:02,630	S4:
After which we can run it by the Agricultural Committee.

01:21:06,590	S1:
The home occupation end of this. We've got to do something with. And there's probably no winning on that.

01:21:15,270	S5:
Yeah. I mean, I think as the board recalls, we went through this process maybe two years in a row with various through various efforts to review a zoning bylaw that I think was changed between year one and year two. So, um, you know, I think revisiting it, um, as we last left, it might be the easy way to kind of navigate the criteria by which these these home occupations could exist in the town. Um, might be like a good starting point. Um, you know, so we do have.

01:21:57,320	S4:
Value to separating, say, farm stands, home baked goods.

01:22:04,080	S5:
Um, yeah, I think.

01:22:05,000	S4:
That versus auto repair manufacturing, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

01:22:09,040	S5:
I think it's possible. And I think, um, yeah, there's two, there's yeah, I think we could definitely do that. And I know of examples that exist where, um, the farm based or the farm stand based type businesses do have criteria that are specific to that you don't have to address, you know, um, the commercial, um.

01:22:38,360	S4:
The, I just see problems combining. Yeah. You know, farm stands and home occupations, which in the past have really been a problem. Yeah.

01:22:51,570	S1:
Yeah. It's not been good in the past. And.

01:22:57,170	S1:
In our, our bylaws now are very, very flawed.

01:23:04,050	S5:
So I think at a future planning board meeting, um, sharing with the board some concept of a farm stand bylaw or at least level setting or providing some information for the board to understand what the issue might be for farm stands and why it might be important to regulate them in a way that either requires a permit by the Planning Board or doesn't. Right. That's something that could presumably meet zoning, um, and could be approved administratively by the building department. Um, but there might be certain thresholds that I could foresee where maybe the Planning Board needs to get involved with some sort of site plan approval or something like that. But we can create or at least find some information related to farm stands that we can also share with the AG Commission. In the case that.

01:24:01,610	S4:
Home baked goods and maple sirup, honey and things like that.

01:24:05,330	S2:
Candles.

01:24:06,290	S4:
Yeah. There you.

01:24:06,810	S2:
Go. The list goes on and on.

01:24:09,650	S4:
Versus Yankee Candle in your backyard.

01:24:12,210	S6:
Right.

01:24:15,330	S1:
Okay.

01:24:19,170	S1:
Subdivision rules and regulations.

01:24:23,370	S1:
We've got holes and you guys have been working on. We're just going to have to tackle them a few at a time. And hopefully the most innocuous ones.

01:24:33,490	S6:
We can.

01:24:34,250	S5:
Tackle. Um, so just to update you on that. So I think as the board recalls, there was a grant that was applied for, written for an update to the subdivision rules and regulations through this most recent grant round. We did not. The town did not get that. However, I think as the board also knows, um Pbpc worked with Paul Hatch because I remember I worked on it with Paul back in one of my first projects back in 2019 when I first started at Pbpc. So, um, there is work that has been done, so I think it might be helpful just to share what the status of that is, because I actually was looking through my files and I have drafts, um, and kind of share with the board where we might be with that.

01:25:23,500	S1:
So that work is already done.

01:25:24,940	S5:
It just kind of, I think the biggest things that the board typically gets involved with when we're updating subdivision regulations in other communities, because we're doing this in a couple of communities at the moment. Um are standards related to driveways, road width, um permeable surfaces.

01:25:46,190	S4:
Um, grading.

01:25:47,550	S5:
Grading, cul de sacs, things like that.

01:25:50,430	S4:
So um length of a dead end.

01:25:52,470	S5:
Exactly.

01:25:52,990	S4:
A lot of those things we have are good.

01:25:54,950	S5:
Yeah. So it's, it's re reviewing those and, you know, ensuring that the language there supports that. Um, but, you know, providing the board at least, um, the status of where that project left off at the end of 2019 as Covid came and we never really finished it. Yeah. Um, that's where we're at, but I can definitely share that at a future meeting. Okay.

01:26:22,150	S1:
And we can revisit our master plan. Master growth plan development implementation.

01:26:29,950	S5:
Um, there is a grant that we're waiting for that the town is waiting for that the board is aware of that was written to update the master plan. Um, so that probably award announcement is coming in the next two, three weeks. So we'll see if the town gets that. And then from there then it's a, it's a, it's a conversation about how to start that process. And the grant was written so that the plan presumably can happen within 18 to 24 months. So it is a longer term process planning process that the planning board can kind of have their like they can, you know, put feelers in, but don't necessarily have to have that as part of your every meeting.

01:27:13,840	S1:
It's like a 20 year old document.

01:27:15,720	S5:
It is 2004 was your original master plan. And then you have a 2012 downtown center plan. Um, but the idea is to, to update data, you know, kind of level set where we're at.

01:27:30,240	S1:
Look at the next bullet point, future board goals, Priorities and planning initiative. I kind of think that's what we're talking about here.

01:27:39,930	S5:
Yes, I would I would say that to us. Yeah.

01:27:46,930	S1:
And then our last we're going to have to look at minutes. But then our last item is ADUs.

01:27:54,810	S1:
Um, I know we accepted one here tonight.

01:28:03,970	We talked about, uh, S1:
site plans and in looking at the a d you let me find it here document.

01:28:17,090	S13:
Bear with me. Too many pages.

01:28:58,810	S1:
I think it's a very limited. Let me find it. But it's a very limited review of a site plan. Um.

01:29:13,050	S1:
And I believe as a planning board, we can waive quite a lot of the stuff in the site plan. Um.

01:29:23,210	S1:
I guess where, where are we going with this? In other words, that's kind of what I did tonight when we looked at this other one. It's like, look at vegetation and you're removing vegetation or you're increasing, you know, whatever setbacks they weren't. So not a big deal, but how much of this can we waive? I mean, it does mention the site plan specifically in the Adu, but it seems like a little much in a case like like this where where he wasn't increasing the, you know, the size of the place. I mean, he was the setbacks were all the same. I mean.

01:30:00,820	S1:
What is the consensus on that for with other outfits. It says here here it is. All ADUs are required to obtain a site plan from the Planning Board. Pursuant to the procedures of 7.4, the zoning bylaw provided. The site plan review criteria shall only be limited to those four items.

01:30:25,340	S6:
That's correct.

01:30:26,100	S1:
So does it make sense to require an engineered plan. In all cases, if we look at the site plan review criterion, we have the power to waive quite a lot, if not everything from from that. Is it your thought that we should be looking at that on a case by case basis? Because that makes it onerous for the guy, for sure.

01:30:51,510	S5:
I mean, I think the instance for Wales Road particularly was that it was all interior, right? So the presumption is no increased impervious surfaces. I think because the building department will require that if there is an increase of impervious surfaces in addition to whatever else they would require, um, presumably you would, they would have already that engineered site plan or that site plan, um, ready for the planning board, because they would also be applying for their building permit for that. Adu. Um, Um, so yeah, I mean, I think the planning board has the ability to waive the actual strict requirements of site plan. I think the general trajectory of protected use ADUs also probably in the future will address, um, that, um, site plan approval in itself could be something that may fall by the wayside eventually. There have been recent changes. Um, and that means an approval by the planning board and not just an administrative approval, assuming they meet all the dimensional requirements and the underlying regulations of the state act and your zoning by law, which then would be approved at the building department, right.

01:32:09,240	S1:
Our zoning bylaw 7.4.

01:32:14,000	S1:
7.4.1 says the Planning Board may waive any and all requirements of site plan review for external enlargements of structures. Less than 25% of existing floor area External. But we completely ignore internal. So are we to assume that you don't need site plan review for like this? Wales Road one is a perfect example.

01:32:38,680	S5:
Um, I don't know if you can assume that, but I think you can assume that or you have the, the ability to, because you have a site plan for any protected use. You can't have them not come to the Planning Board unless you're removing the Planning Board's responsibility for a site plan approval. Any protected use. They're complying with the regulations related to have having their by right at you. And that requires a site plan approval by the Planning Board.

01:33:10,400	S1:
And his original submission did have the parking area cut off.

01:33:13,920	S6:
Sure.

01:33:15,120	S5:
So yeah. So I mean, I think the question for the board is as the board gets more to use, is it still worthwhile to go through a site plan approval process considering the breadth of.

01:33:33,370	S5:
Criteria that you're basing your approval on? With the ability to go, um, um, with the ability to, to waive some of those requirements as boards typically do. Um, but the idea is to make a, to use really easy to build, right? So going to pay for a public hearing or pay for applications before the boards for those requirements. I think that is something, um, that the conversations at the state level are saying you can't, you know, there are certain types of fees. So the state is looking at fees related to ADUs. Um, what I will say to, and I'm just going to quickly go over some bullets, there are proposed revisions to the Adu regulations at the state level. that clarifies that municipalities may require only the minimum title five standards for Adu development clarifies that municipalities may not require a separate utility connection. The board has not dictated that. I'm just saying that this. There probably are other boards that might be dictating that emphasizes that municipalities may not restrict ADUs in exchange for approval of development activities, including subdivisions, land disposition agreements, or development agreements. So you can't if you have a subdivision development, you can't say, in order to grant the special permit or this subdivision development, you can't do ADUs. You still have to permit that. Um emphasizes that municipalities must apply the reasonableness test to all fees. So I think that's, that's a big thing. It's the fees. Um, but those are, that's a summary of some of the changes that.

01:35:18,420	S1:
There is not a one size fits all on this. I mean, we're going to have to look at each one and determine whether we need a site plan with setbacks shown and things like that.

01:35:29,590	S4:
So what's our end game here. What are we trying to do. Redo our Adu bylaw.

01:35:35,070	S5:
No, I think it might be just to address the way that um just create some efficiency. I think when either the board gets the information or just so that it's because I think of the 4 or 5, I think we've maybe the board has maybe looked at 4 or 5 Adu special applications. Two of them got continued. Right. So the idea of continuance obviously adds to time, adds to the cost. Um, it's I think it's trying to eliminate that, um, just ensuring that the board has all of the information ahead of time, um, whether or not that information can be waived, I think is also a conversation. But I think the idea is to. If the board is still wanting to do site plan approval of ADUs, then it is just making, I think, that process more efficient.

01:36:33,030	S1:
Well, it.

01:36:33,390	S2:
Would.

01:36:34,430	S1:
If we would have to vote to waive.

01:36:37,230	S5:
Yes, you would have to vote to waive the requirements. Um, and presumably before that, the, you know, uh, the two review, we could probably, you know, say this needs to happen before the board sees it.

01:36:54,150	S4:
Typically the way, um, bylaws with allowances and when you loosen up.

01:37:03,390	S4:
Developers regulations, typically you go from one end to the other end. Typically what happens is there becomes abuses where or somebody Will develop when all my five house lots put ten houses on it and then suddenly there's no parking, there's no there's no attention to safety. There's no, you know, so I don't think that our bylaws are that tough right now. I think we should be able to grant waivers for all kinds of things. Mhm. Like we saw tonight with the basement, there was no exterior change. There was no big deal. But I think we still want to make sure that since there's twice the occupant densities, typically that emergency vehicles have access and that occupants don't have to park in the street and create hardships like that. So I think it's not so bad to have a review, as long as the ability to waive regulations are easily easy to do. Yeah.

01:38:19,650	S2:
How was Wales Road any different?

01:38:21,290	S6:
What? They did their project than me finishing my basement, other than they called it an Adu, which then made them have to come here. Right.

01:38:28,450	S4:
Well, other than that, there's the ability to have individuals who aren't in your family live there.

01:38:36,730	S6:
Okay.

01:38:38,170	S4:
And lease it, you know, long term, not short term. So it's not a it's a stretch beyond an in-law apartment and even an in-law apartment should be reviewed.

01:38:56,490	S13:
Okay.

01:38:59,370	S4:
So do we want to take any action on this.

01:39:02,410	S1:
On the a to.

01:39:02,930	S4:
You? Yeah.

01:39:04,090	S1:
No. Okay. I'm merely saying that in a lot of cases, we may be able to waive quite a lot of.

01:39:11,370	S4:
I think that's a good thing.

01:39:12,410	S1:
Requirements. I mean, there's a there's a world of difference between this Adu and the last one we did. Um, and that's we, I think we need to keep that in mind looking at this stuff. Uh, we have enough people here to vote on the minutes of August 18th. Tuesday, August 18th at 7 p.m..

01:39:45,980	Um, has everybody had the chance to read those minutes that were emailed out to us? S1:
It came in a bunch of documents, uh, like that draft chapter 48. I couldn't read because it was tiny.

01:40:03,980	S4:
I make a motion to approve the minutes as written.

01:40:08,620	S1:
Any discussion? All those in favor?

01:40:12,220	S2:
Aye.

01:40:18,820	S1:
Is there anything else.

01:40:21,780	S5:
On your agenda as correspondence? I'm just reviewing. Um, penny created a summary of all the correspondence.

01:40:27,780	S1:
Before you.

01:40:28,180	S5:
Got here. Yeah. Great. Um, I think the ones that probably are of note to the board, um, as when I work with other communities, it's kind of zoning changes. Um, and the one the town of Hampden is working on amendments to their solar bylaw. Um also modifying setbacks, um for one of their zoning districts. Um.

01:41:01,780	S5:
Sort of large gravel pit permit um and Palmer.

01:41:10,700	S5:
Auto repair shop in Wilbraham. The Monson Board of Health. Some sanitary code violations for 25 State Street. Um.

01:41:26,910	S5:
Tattoo parlor in Wilbraham.

01:41:33,390	S1:
I make a motion. We adjourn the meeting.

01:41:35,390	S4:
I have a question before you do that. Yeah. Um, Maura Healey changed the, um, the ability for use variances. Correct. Last eight weeks ago or something like that. But that that applied just for residential uses I believe.

01:41:54,990	S5:
Um let me see if I, if I have that quickly.

01:41:58,510	S4:
I think part of this regulation was a was granting zoning board of appeals the ability to grant use variances, correct.

01:42:06,990	S5:
For housing.

01:42:08,350	S4:
And yeah, exactly. That's that that applies that that change just applies for residential uses.

01:42:15,960	S5:
Correct. Um but and so that is specific to the use variance conversation. But um, you know, what Mr. Parisi was talking about earlier was also the test for variances. Um, have also been simplified to some extent. So, you know, that's just a note. Um there are what we typically find is like what? Um, it's been a long time since I've worked with the zoning board of appeals. Um, but there are certain tests that variances are required. And, uh, the new law also permits basically, you know, any sort of probable justification, you can maybe justify certain things that you wouldn't have before. Um, but that has been a different change to the zoning act. Okay, I'll send that summary to the board of those changes to 48. I think what Penny also sent to the board earlier are the red line changes, um, to all of chapter 40. A that was a digital version.

01:43:21,770	S2:
Yeah.

01:43:22,490	S5:
Um, but and I see that Kevin uh, printed it. Um.

01:43:27,010	S1:
I did, I tried to read it kind of gave up.

01:43:30,170	S5:
Yeah. The state currently doesn't have the updated, um, law, but um, there is that strikethrough underline version of the new sections, but I'll provide the board a summary of what those changes are. Um we are following closely um also the economic development bond bill, which I think the board is familiar with the duplexes by. Right. Um that's obviously a large conversation that's happening in planning circles. Um, and then the, in the ballot, um, which is the 500 zero square feet minimum for housing if served by sewer and water. Um, so it's just things that we're looking at, um, you know, as the pbpk, but also I think regionally, as many communities are kind of trying to figure out.

01:44:23,770	S2:
How you can put an Adu on a 5000 square foot lot if served by a town sewer and water.

01:44:28,770	S5:
If it meets, presumably if it meets all the other dimensional requirements. If you have, um, you know, a maximum, um, coverage lot coverage, if it meets that, if it meets setbacks with another structure on it, maybe. But.

01:44:49,210	S5:
Yeah, I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of nuance to that. Um, as if the law gets, you know, if that moves forward because then there are rules that need to be made.

01:45:00,690	S1:
Kenny was talking about getting copies of chapter whatever's in chapter 40. At this particular point in time.

01:45:12,220	I don't think you don't have one, do you, Bob? S6:
I'm reading all the changes right here.

01:45:14,220	S1:
Oh, okay. So you don't have one. Chris doesn't have one.

01:45:17,140	S5:
Yeah. And Penny's also working on the the new bylaw, the 2026 version. Okay. With all the ag change approvals. So that's forthcoming.

01:45:28,100	S1:
It's kind of our guiding document and it'd be a good thing to have. Sure.

01:45:35,820	S1:
Is there anything else.

01:45:39,820	S4:
Clean out your folders.

01:45:41,100	S2:
Oh my God.

01:45:42,380	S1:
I'm not going to clean mine.

01:45:45,380	S4:
This is what I got rid of.

01:45:49,500	S1:
Uh, I make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

01:45:52,580	S4:
I'll second that.

01:45:54,700	S1:
All those in favor?

01:45:56,140	S4:
Aye.

01:45:57,980	S1:
Opposed. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned. Thanks for coming.