Planning Board - Regular Meeting

You're here for driving. Are we only four tonight? Yeah.

All right. Phil, ready? Okay. I think he's ready. Uh, I'll open up this meeting of the Maynard Planning Board. Today's date is March 10th, 2026 and the time is 7:03 p.m. Um, we're holding this meeting in hybrid format which means that members of the public, board or applicants can join here in town hall or virtually through the Zoom link. Uh, please note this meeting is being recorded. Uh, here in town hall we have four members of the planning board present. Phil, I don't see anyone joining us on the virtually through the Zoom link. Is that correct? Not yet. Okay. Nobody on.

And Bill, where would you like to start? Well, the the um the reason that I wanted to I just give it a couple minutes if I follow up here, but just because we have a public hearing and we are having Mark call in he thought. Okay. So, if we went with four, it would require a unanimous vote to recommend approval for um the medical marijuana issue. I'm happy to wait. We can go through a little housekeeping first and that way we does will he need to be let in or will you Yeah, I'll leave you let Yeah, I'm watching it. Okay. I told him he said he didn't think he wasn't he was not definitely non-committal. Okay.

Thank you, com. And so if just if there was some inclination on the board where it might I mean the recommendation is recommendation. So I guess it would be a 3 to one recommendation. We we'll just turn to item two, the release of the bond for 146 Main Street. Yes. Do we need the applicant here at all for that or can

No. Um I I have their letter request. Um Steve and the treasurer have been working with them. Um the equipment's gone and they have new equipment already, which is a different story. They're going to be visiting us about why they don't have a special permit for the new equipment on the new tower, but that's for another day. But this bond is uh associated with that particular location and that tower. Uh and we're requesting the release of the $25,000 plus any acred interest. Uh it's in the form of the bank book and and release it back to the applicant T-Mobile.

Questions on that? And uh you you you're okay with releasing a bond even though there's some other compliance issue. Uh I have been instructed to do that from legal. Okay. We can't com it it. It's a a question of the different location. Okay. And I can't do that. But there'll be um so so that's that's council's advice. Yeah. Okay. Right. Other questions on this? I just want to point out that my T-Mobile cell is blocking all land calls, landline calls that I received and I'm annoyed. So,

you couldn't put that on record. Got that. Great. Do you can I don't know what the motion is here. The motion would be to approve the release of the bond uh in the way. I'll pull it up. I'll I can do it. I'll make a motion to approve the release of the performance bond for cell phone tower formerly at 146 Main Street in the amount of in the amount of We don't have that $25,000 plus acred interest. $25,000 plus acred interest. Yeah, this is meant to give you access. I'll second that.

Okay. Um, all in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. That's 40 to approve the motion. Do you want me to use your your your signature stamps? Yeah, we can just sign it. Okay. Uh, all right. All right. One. Um, we can approve meeting minutes, Bill, if you Okay, do that. Three sets of meeting minutes. Um, all right. Well, so the board could just take some time to review their meeting minutes. Let me get the phone. You guys should have all three. Yes.

Um I noticed that one of them was back to bullet point form. Yeah, I had two different uh two different um Oh my god, this is too many things. One set from dad. Two sets from dad. One set from this. Brazilian, by the way. We went there again today. That's pretty good. A Brazilian place. Have you been there? Not yet. Good one.

Yes. Good. It's good. I went there today. Where do we start with? Chris, any meeting minutes? Um, I guess we'll start with the 25th. Any comments on the 25th? November 25th, that is. I got two. Okay. Um, first page, the title public opposition and traffic concerns. Probably public comments and traffic concerns. Okay. And then on the second page, the votes seem to be a little lost from the motion. So it's just kind of a spacing issue on which one the second page.

The board voted unanim unanimously in favor by roll call. What the? Yeah. How'd you like it rephrased?

Just fix the spacing so that the bo the votes come after the different motions. You know what I mean? No, I can't. Let's see. Um right here. Oh. Oh, you mean space up? Okay. There's space weirdly. Gotcha. Okay. Oh yeah, it presents itself as like that was that.

Yeah, that's what where that is that. Yes. Yeah, we voted before the motion. Right. Right. Right. Right. All right. Other comments on November 25th? I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes as amended tonight from November 25th. Okay. 2025. Second. All in favor to approve meeting minutes, please raise your hand. That's 40 to approve the meeting minutes for November 25th. Okay. December 9th.

Oh, you're here. Just get ready. The minutes will be these last two sets of minutes here. The bond is approved. Signed here. Okay. This one's approved here. These two that they're working on right now. Oh, good. Um, here's a copy of these for you. So far, Mark was not sure if he's going to come in. I'm good with the

minutes of December 9. He was not sure if he was going to come in. We do mark if not we have I just want to get this is the memorandum and then if you just talk in this there's a few and talk about the and we'll advertise few of these these units do seem a little short compared to the conversation I feel we had I think it does cover everything. It just doesn't go into the detail about any of it, which I don't know or like who is talking.

I don't know if it matters. I mean, it's not the conclusion of the hearing anyways, right? Right. Really? Um All right. Uh I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from December 9th, 2025. Second.

All in favor of that motion, please raise your hand. That's 40 to approve the minutes from December 9th. This is just right here. Okay. All right. I say we all have so the board probably That is a good motion.

It's an approval. So I guess it might be a long motion. Is it? Yes. I just feel like there has to be a better way to do it. I want to clarify one thing in the motion though. In the middle it says this includes a total of nine parking spaces with five on-site and four offsite. Can we clarify that's nine off street parking spaces so that the four off offsite don't show up on a road? I mean that yeah really the commitment was they're going to lease from Mill and Maine. I mean that was the that was stated very clearly and that should also be in the so it does say it up higher but yeah

it says an option it's listed up high that's what they're committing to the decision was for for that configuration I agree with that if you want yeah that's that sounds very reasonable all right let's change that to this includes a total of nine in off streetet parking spaces. Yeah, thank you. We'll give that to Zoe. Um and then one other comment. All right. We have we have some changes to the January 13th meeting minutes when you guys are ready.

Yes. in the motion by bill to close the uh in the motion for the special permit. Page two. Page two at the the last large paragraphs in the middle. Yes. This includes a total of nine off street parking spaces. Off street. And then I have one change. It's on page one, last paragraph. Um, second sentence, it says according to the DPW. Mhm.

It should actually, it'd be better if it stated according to applicant and DPW because the applicant also provided that opinion. Okay. All right. And I'm telling you, also in that same paragraph, there's a reference to the Railroad Street public lot. It's not a public lot. I mean, it's just railroad street. So, it's Railroad Street in the Railroad Street. I mean, we It says along Main Street. You could do a long railroad street and on the property or something. So that could just be in the railroad street street parking.

Well, I just think it'd be along railroad street cuz we built right think before it just long main street in I have it along railroad street and on the street. Yeah, that property.

Yeah, that makes sense. Any other changes? I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from January 13, 2026 as amended tonight. Second. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. That's 40 to approve the meeting minutes from January 13th. Okay. All right. Um Zoe, we're ready to open up the item three, which is the public hearing. If you're ready, um now the item two, uh release of the volunteer. We did that. We did that. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Yep. All right. Um I can provide some background information about this. Sure. Just let me have everybody on Zoom yet. No one requesting access either. Okay. No. Chickens. If you leave it like that, will we be able to see if someone come tries to come in? Um, yeah, it should. Uh, let me do one thing here, which was a dingdong. That should work. All right. I'll I'll keep on that. All right. So, so first I just have to open up the public hearing.

Okay. Okay. Um I'll open up the public hearing um for u for item three on the agenda. Uh this is a proposal um to amend section 3.1.2 table A of the use regulations uh regarding different types of business uses in the zoning um bylaws to allow medical marijuana dispensaries to be located in the central business district. Um, the proposed amendment would allow a medical marijuana dispensary either as a standalone business or colllocated with recreational marijuana establishment under a special permit of the planning board within the central business business district if approved. So there it is. Um,

okay. Yeah. Um, background.

Okay. So there's some background on this which um I think is has to do with the historical uh adoption by the town first of medical marijuana zoning regulations and then years later uh adult use marijuana uh regulations and when the um adult use marijuana businesses were were approved um they were allowed by planning board special permit in the business district the central b business district the healthcare industrial district and the industrial district and disallowed in all other districts. However, at that time there was no modification of the existing medical marijuana zoning uh use table to um align it with the recreational marijuana business um that that use table. And I I I really can't imagine that that was deliberate. Um I have a feeling it's probably an oversight because um if generally speaking people are more restrictive of adult use businesses than of the marijuana the uh medical marijuana dispensaries. So under our current zoning bylaws adult use is allowed by special permit of the planning board but a a medical dispensary is simply not allowed in the central business district. This would make the um the threshold be special permit by the planning board for both types of businesses in both um zones in the same set of zones. Um and also um I believe there's also the question of whether the planning board would like to sponsor this uh bylaw change um for town.

Um thanks Zoe. Um, procedurally, is is this uh the planning department bringing this to to to the zoning board or is there an applicant or someone else that's well bringing this and I mean like officially tonight like is this officially it is the planning board? Okay. So, this is this is you and Bill as part of the planning department bringing this for our review. Okay. Okay. And then it has to go upstairs and back down. And it's already going upstairs and Okay. Now it's back down. And by upstairs, it it was specifically it was referred from the select board to us. Correct. Got it. That was what last week. Yes.

So I agree with the summary and my only comment is that that should be the comment on this article and not the comment that's currently here. Oh, we got somebody. Um, I think that's also Bill. That's Bob Bill. Okay. Yeah. Um, yeah, I find the comment weirdly written, but I mean your point of basically that we just didn't update it when we did the adult and this is just making it consistent is that's my assumption point because I can't really any other reasonable explanation. That's totally right. Well, and to be clear, if we're sponsoring this, it can be our comment. Right. Right. Well,

I think she said it well enough to get those points in there, replacing this comment entirely. It has nothing about sales traffic or anything. It's just like, you know, yeah, it's medical. Medical came first and we forgot to change medical when adult came. Uh, also I think part of the comment can be that it's it's getting it's this proposal align right. it aligns with adult dispensary or a recreational whatever whatever it's termed. So I I think alignment is a a like the a good justification of of this proposal. Wow. Sounds like your slide. Not a meeting. Okay. What sounds like your slide had a meeting?

Yeah. When this was advertised it this this um this warrant format was not for it was advertised. So this comment is actually new to me. Yeah, let's just do the summary. I like the summary. Okay, it makes more sense. Okay. Um but if you take a look at the um the actual substance of the amendment is only that one liner of um crossing out N and then putting in Y in the table is uh recreational wait registered marijuana dispensary. That's medical. Yes. And it doesn't have the word medical in it in our table though.

It doesn't. Um and that is because of the terminology that was used at the state level which has actually since been changed but that's something we'll probably have to look at another day. Okay. Um so what does our table say for recreational? This is adult use. Adult use marijuana dispensary. Chris Glenn, you're up. Okay. Marijuana retailer. Retailer. Okay. Just straight marijuana retailer. Just marijuana retail. Retailer retailer. Retailer. Retailer. Okay, that's interesting. Are they next to each other?

There's three op there's there's nothing. The three marijuas in the table are marijuana retailer, marijuana corer facility, and marijuana delivery operator facility. Are those all next to each other in the table? Yes. But not medical. There is no medical. Registered marijuana dispensary is should be under business uses. So I think it's in it's Oh, there it is. Yep. Registered marijuana dispensary. Yep. Gotcha. Sorry. Oh, well that's fine. I mean it's fine. They should be next week. People will get you maybe some reorganization of that use table to make it easier to read. Okay.

And updating to me the word medical. Yes. Someday. I think that based on what we were told about the regulations now, it should they're called marijuana treatment centers. They would just have to match state. So if that's the case, then we'll then alphabetically it'll all work out. Okay. There's it's mostly alphabetical. Okay. But we can't change it now as part of this um because we have a definition somewhere. Yeah, it's it's not only a definition. It's an entire special regulation section with that title. Some other thing later project the other day. Um, any other questions or comments from the planning board?

Um, do we want to propose it or do we want planning department to do it? I don't know. I don't have an answer to that. I think we should You mean sponsor it? I think that's what he's Yeah, sponsor. Yeah, let's sponsor it. Yes, I re This is Bill, guys. Uh I recommended that we we respond to this article because it is it's a use table change and I think it's appropriate in this case it makes things more consistent as Bill was saying earlier it makes it more consistent uh and I was running bylaws you said can sponsor a an article can who

the planet division they can yeah departments and officers can yeah I don't I don't mind sponsoring it. I to me I mean I'm fine with sponsoring it. I like to make things tidy. Let's sponsor it. Okay. Okay. Everyone okay with that? Okay. Any other questions, comments from the board? Yeah. What's the motion? Well, we'll get to that. But first, I have to open up to public comment. So, if there's any public comments in the room, we'll hear them now. Yes.

Well, I have a comment. So, chair, member of of the board, thanks for having me. Zoe. H. My name is Olan Fingari and I'm with Mass Wellspring in 17 Street and I just have a comment regarding the uh the use of a registered marijuana dispensary. That was the term that DPH used at when they initially was the regulator. Then DPH they handed off to CCC to become the regulator and at that time uh actually a year or two year after that uh CCC renamed it to be called MTC medical treatment center. So that's the the RMD or MTC now it's MTC that's called

thanks a lot anything else to add today. Uh, not regarding this, but if you have any questions, let me know. Sure. I'm here to answer any questions. Well, thanks for coming, Wal. We appreciate it. Um, okay. Uh, first we have to close the hearing. So, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. I'll second that. All in favor of the close the hearing. Please raise your hand. That's 40 to close the hearing. Um, what is the motion, Zoe?

Um, let me see. I guess the um the motion it would be to to um sponsor uh the to refer this back to the select board for um for placing on the town meeting warrant. Um Bill, do you know if that's two separate motions to both sponsor? Yeah. No, the the the motion would be to sponsor the article uh and recommend approval to the town meeting of the warrant and refer it to the select board. It could all be in one.

Okay. So, motion to sponsor the amendment and to refer it for inclusion in the town meeting warrant for the annual town meeting 2026 springtime. Yeah. And to recommend approval. Yeah, we have to use the word recommend. Go ahead and get it.

Sure. I'll give it a shot. Um, I make a motion that uh we sponsor an amendment of zoning bylaw and um recommend approval of town meeting of the following change to amend section 3.1.2 two, table A use regulations. Subsection four, business uses of the zoning bylaws to amount allow medical dispensaries to be located in the central business business district. Specifically to change the current uh business use for the registered medical dispensary in the central business district from no to PB, planning board approval, planning board special permit. to refer to town meeting.

He did say that. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I second that. And that was to refer to spring town meeting 2026. I presume that is correct. Okay. And it was seconded. Yes. All right. All in favor of that motion, please raise your hand. That's 40 to approve the motion. And that's it. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Um, you said medical instead of marijuana. Okay. Turn to item four, planning board rules and regulations and landscape regulations discussion. So, this is listed as planning board rules and regulations first. Should we stick with that order? Um, yeah.

Let's let's not let's not you want to do landscape regulations first? That's great. Zoe just referred to the second half. Great. Great. Go team only in Maine or Okay.

So, um, section 5.9 of our landscape regulations references site lighting. Our old one hadn't been updated in a while and Natalie in January of 2026 made all of these changes which are not very they don't amount to very much. I I took we have currently a group of citizens who are attempting to update the zoning the town zoning bylaw. Town bylaws, not the

Nope, sorry. Town bylaws to update um I guess to to update to include dark sky uh uh goals and I did use I did ref, you know, I read that as reference material um to inform the changes that I made, but the the changes that I made were relatively minimal. um kind of just changing the language that I in a way that I felt was better. I also removed in 5.9.2 um there was an actual reference to a specific PDF on the darks skyocciety.org website which I didn't really love the reference to just because pointing to another website within our I don't know I didn't love the way it worked. So, we could get much more specific. Um, I have met with the dark sky people and done my own research a good amount in the last few months. Um, so I think if we really we wanted to get down to the nitty-gritty, then um we we definitely could in our specifics. However, I do think that, you know, the last all the projects that we have approved within the last few years, we are all aware of dark sky lighting. We are all aware of the goals of it. Um, the thing that I was most educated about was color of lighting, which I did not actually reference in here. I do think that if we wanted to put that in, we could. Um, and that's just about prioritizing the use of um, warmer light uh, as opposed to cool light in anything other than like safety situations. Um, but yeah. Well, there's a couple updates in

landscaping. That's those are is section 5.9 is the only um section. Looks like 511 7 518 has changes. No, I think that that's just blue because it has a PDF in it. Okay. And the links here which apparently that's just an artifact of Microsoft Word.

Gotcha. Okay. Very good. So, yeah, I didn't really make a lot of changes. I don't know if you guys feel like you want me to. I could, like I said, the last time I looked at this was two months ago, which might as well have been an entire year. It's been such a long two months. So, if you wanted me to get more specific, like with light and color, I could. But, like I said, I feel like our last projects that we've worked on, we've we've all been pretty aware of that. I mean, we can it's really easy to bring these to planning board as well. So, if we want to look at lighting color later on too, that's fine. Sure. So, it's not like this is our only opportunity is what I mean. Sure.

Um, like I said, question for you, Natalie, which is, do you do you think that it's fair to say that dark sky lighting standards encompass color as well? Yes. Okay. So, do you feel so is it possible that 5.9.2 Yes. Yes. Does it need to get any more specific? Uh yes, I feel that way. Okay.

Um basically when you look at see saying dark sky compliant lighting standards, I realize that that's very broad, but there are certain categories that are clearly part of like are the the basics of what dark sky standards are. And it involves shielding of lights. It involves light trespass into adjacent properties and it involves color of lights. Um there were a lot of there. Yeah, it's just a matter of how far we want to go in terms of listing specifics in here. I think we were good before and we're a little better now. So, I'm good. Is it back to that reference to dark sky in 592?

Yep. Um, is there like a You might have missed this when you were speaking, but is there a state definition or something like that? Not currently, but there is a I know that there are things working their way through state

regulations that pertain to this, but not as of yet. There's this new 598 uh any luminere that dynamically varies its output by intermittent fading, flashing, blinking, rotating. Would that is that is there a worry that that might be overly prescriptive for people's signs or lighting that could be dimmed? Uh well signs are separate so I'm not worried about signs so much um because we have our own we already have sign stuff.

Yeah our sign this wouldn't affect um it does not allow internally illuminated signs or dynamic signs of that nature. Um, and I guess I can't think of what else. I mean, I think of intermittently fading or blinking Christmas lights, but those are already accepted. Seasonal accent lighting, which FYI, in my opinion, could be. You'll note that my Christmas lights only went off like last week. Seasonal accent lighting. Pretty. Um, so what is season? What is seasonal, right? Well, yeah, lots of lights. I like it that way. So, um I can't think of what other lights would need to be. Also, this is not regulating my Christmas lights.

Correct. This is regulating a a special permit. A special permit that has Right. Only plan or site plan. Right. Thank you. Yes. Right. So, it's not like we're not we're not regulating anybody's personal choices of lights on their property through this. I think that there was a worry that without 5.9.8 Eight. We had previously as a board been recklessly approving search lights left and right. Uh we have not. However, you know, sure, put it in. Okay. Um yeah, I don't think we have any discussion of search. This is the first discussion of search lights since I've been on the board. So,

but I mean it it will it may prove problematic if Batman does not become an official public safety personnel, but that's fine. We can deal with that. A bat needs a special permit in Arizona. The bat signal is sent out by the police. Oh, right. Oh, good point. Right. It's not bad. Yes. Right. Right. Dodge that bullet. Okay. So, there we go. Right. Which we have exemptions in here for public safety. We do. So, okay. Um I had a question about 591. Yes. The deleted section. It says reduce light pollution pollution trespass intensity. Uh we we use the term trespass a lot in our discussions. Yes.

Do you is there a reason why we should remove trespass from this language? Do you think it's better suited with other language that's here? No, we could throw it back in. I think I just liked the sentence that I wrote better than I like that sentence. Yeah, I I I hear that. I'm just I just know we use we talk about trespass a lot. So, let's trespass in spillover. Yeah. Yeah. light trespass. So, let's change it to reduce or eliminate light pollution or trespass or and trespass and or you got a big parenthesy for light pollution. So, it would have to come over that after that. Okay.

Or before light pollution, I guess. Trespass or eliminate trespass or light pollution. I would say m how about mitigate trespass? um and reduce or eliminate light pollution because we want to mitigate trespass. Sometimes we allow some and sometimes we're okay with some like we we have 141 Main Street had trespass onto the public walkway and that was by request and design. Okay. Well, it's not a trespass trespass is unwanted. Sure. But it's technically anyway from a technical standpoint the con the the the concept of trespass is across a boundary. I see.

Right. But if you want to take a legal definition, I guess if you're only trespassing if someone determines you are. So it would read site lighting shall be designed to illuminate the property as needed and mitigate light trespass and eliminate light pollution. How about sorry eliminate the thread the property as needed comma and minimize trespass comma and then and reduce or eliminate. Hang on. Can we just add it as another? So there is a colon because it's reduce or eliminate blah blah blah conserve energy and resources blah blah blah. We have a bunch of bullet points.

How? Yeah. How about um so can we just throw it in and say mitigate light trespass. How about more bullets? Sidelighting should be designed to colon bullet eliminate the property as needed. Bullet mitigate trespass. Yep. Bullet reduce or eliminate light pollution parenthesis. Yeah, there you go. Um bullet conserve energy. I'm a little concerned about the um the as needed being a standalone. Is there a bunch of hands in there? That all has to happen. Just don't want the wording to imply that it can be separate.

Wait, where? Well, if we say design two and then eliminate the property as needed and if we just go comma, then another one comma. If we don't have an and in there to tie them all together, then somebody could just say, well, I need a whole lot of light. So, it's a little, you know, drama stuff. Okay. So, let's keep it. Let's say light site lighting shall be designed to illuminate the property as needed and semicolon just as it is and then just add a bullet point. Right. Is that weird?

That's fine. Yeah. I mean, as long as there's ants to time all together, we just don't leave comments hanging by themselves. Yeah. Whatever. Whatever you So, add another bullet point that says medicate life light trespass. Sure. As the first bullet. Sure. Or the last, I don't care. Do we even need to illuminate the property as needed? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. be designed to illuminate the property, isn't it? I mean, yeah, we're leaving it. It's okay.

Um, I have no other comments. Any other comments? Yeah. When do we get the head of all the other stuff in here? Whatever you want. I really want to look at the trigger of landscape plans sometime. Okay. I mean, look here, big picture. I think we're going to have some time and we can look at these types of things as a board. So, um I I'm I'm even happy to carve out some time for us to go through these in detail to see if we want to make changes. So, fun stuff, right? That sound. Sure. Yeah. Okay. That's a nice segue. All right. I think we're Oh, yeah.

I think we're done with this. And what do we do with this? Um, Bill wants us to table this um and then have it be proposed and advertised properly. We have to propo advertise landscape rights. He says we don't not it's a little grayer. Not by technically by the book what Bill told me. Do you would you like to I mean I I know Bill was trying to get to the bottom of this. Bill, are you still with us? No. He said it's best practice to he he he did some research to try to find whether anyone knew the answer of what it was required and sorry. Oh, hi Bill. Did you hear the question?

Bill, can you hear me? Yeah, the question was about whether uh it's it's necessary to advertise the changes to the rules and the landscape regulations.

No. Um was it? No, we asked council about that a couple of years ago and it's not even clear that you have to advertise them. The problem is it was never addressed in the statute. It doesn't. And so council suggested we uh make just note and have a that we're going to have a uh uh uh it's not even a public hearing, but we're going to be having a um changes made to the to the rules and regulations. It's very strange. It's not as tight as everything else is, but um it's not a most I I took a survey on planners list serve and it's about 50 feet 50. People don't even advertise it, but uh putting all the changes in I I would be inclined to just say in general if anything changes to the lighting or changes to the landscaping or you know what, whatever have you, but not like we do with a zoning bylaw. It's really under this board's purview.

So, so it sounds like all we really have to do is have it as a future agenda item specifically clear about what's being acted on that night because right now it's just, you know, we're going to discuss stuff. I I think that would be the smart way to do it. And I'm not sure we have to go to all that, but it probably would be that I would say let's just do it and not take a chance. Yeah. But we don't have to go buy legal ads and stuff. So, right. So, we just have to have it clear on the agenda that Yes. So, it's not advertised with a capital A. It's advertised with the lowercase A. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I would I would advert I would take a legal ad that say we're going to be we're going to be voting on changes to the rules and regulations. Oh, you would take on a legal ad.

Yeah. I And I I would not but I wouldn't go like a display ad like we do with the others. Again, 50% of the talents I talk to don't even do it. Um, and I I I just hate it's swirly and I understand it. It sounds swirly, but that's what it is. Tell you what, we'll talk we can talk more offline about advertising it or not, but um I I'm I think I'm fine with just putting this on the agenda as Bill Krenshaw noted that um proposed changes to specific sections will be discussed and voted on. I think that's fine.

I think that that should be that should be ducky. So, we just need to if we're going to continue it to do that, we just need to give me time just to place the ads. Yep. We don't I don't even And we don't even need to make a motion to continue. We'll just put it on the agenda of a future meeting. So, yeah. Yeah. Exactly. I might I might I'll maybe I'll work with Zoe or I'll just do it fix up those little things just so it's a little more clear. Yeah. So, it's clear what the vote is. That's perfect. Okay. Um let's move on to planning board rules and regulations. And we don't need to have the same conversation at the end of this that we just had, right? We can do the same thing. Okay. Okay.

All right. Zoe, are you going to walk us through?

So, I can point your attention to some of the the more substantive changes to these. They mostly have to do with um having a well documented set of criteria for um complete applications for uh site plan and special permit to the board. Um in particular page four the water and sewer capacity review. Um the legal determined that uh as you've you've discussed extensively now that the planning board um may not withhold a permit a special permit on the basis of water and sewer capacity um or lack thereof. And so there's a we're removing another of your your fellows is in the waiting room. Excellent.

Hi Mark. Mark, if you're just following along at home, um we're looking at the planning board rules and regulations draft. Um so water and sewer capacity review has eliminated the section that requires applicants to have an attestation from DPW that there is adequate water and sewer capacity in order to um to have their application be complete. Instead, it refers it informs applicants that planning board is not involved in that process and that they should consult with DPW about these requirements. Um, but that it no longer says that that you have to get that before you come to the board.

Um, so can I interrupt? Is that okay? Um, welcome Mark. How are you? Mark, you're muted. Wait, you're muted. Did you mute him? I'm asking to unmute. There we go. I apologize for being late. I forgot about the time change. It's okay, Mark. We're all good. Um, good. So, Mark, you're welcome to stay. Uh, we've already went through the um the public hearing and voted to approve what's called item three, the medical marijuana for the public hearing. Um, and that was the item that Bill asked to see if you could join tonight. So, that's already completed. where we've moved on to discussions of um planning board rules and regulations.

Thank you. Of course, you're welcome to stay. Uh it's totally your prerogative though. All right. Thank you. I'm good for a while. Okay. Thanks, Mark. Okay, Zoe.

Um okay, next uh major change. It has to do with the uh peer review engineering and uh design review peer review accounts. Uh once upon a time when peer review was handled by way of um the the uh town's engineering firm, we would request the deposit to be depleted as the work went on. Now, our procedure is that we are uh obtaining quotes from all of the peerreview firms that are contracted with the town for estimates for the complete scope of peerreview services for the applicant. And then those quotes are given to the applicant and once they agree to a quoted price, they give the entire balance to uh the town to pay those bills. So, we're no longer asking for $5,000, $7,000 deposits. We're asking for the entire uh amount quoted with the understanding that additional work will incur further fees that the applicant is responsible for.

Um that last part you said why is there a reference to a $5,000 minimum? Um, maybe I'm not. I'm assuming it just means if there is a peer reviewer at all, then there's a $5,000 minimum.

This So, this thing, this is overview of the pure peer reviewview selection process. I'm not sure why this is here. This wasn't here in the last draft of this that I saw. Um, we also um made a change that we're we're not going to uh request three quotes. We're going to request quotes from everyone we have. And some of them just don't respond. Some of them are too busy. Some of them it's not a good fit for them. But we're going to request quotes from everyone we can give. To that point, who why are we requesting quotes? This this text says the applicant just does it.

Well, we request them on the applicant's behalf just as an administrative assistance because we have the contact information and we know how to summarize what we think the the what the necessary items will be. like for example traffic study, design review. Um so it's it's better if we make that inquiry than if they do. Uh and I think part of this it's probably best to do it this way. The town holds the sort of master service agreements with these firms. Um and the town ends up paying them um you know with the applicants fees but the the town is the one

that has the contractual relationship with these firms. So we should the town should probably be the one making that request I think. So is the version that you had been seeing does not include 1 through 4. It just begins with it should be highlighted.

Um or was it something totally different? It was just number three that was about the where whether or not we maintain a minimum balance because since we're now proceeding on the assumption that we're going to get a quote for the total scope of services um we're not asking for an initial payment prior to receiving those quotes. We're getting the quote. They're selecting a quote and then they're paying the full amount. But nothing in this references collecting the balance that is the entirety of the quote by one of the peer reviewers chosen. Was that a new number three? Maybe. Um,

weren't you saying you're going to take the quote up front and then never let it get below five? You know, we had a discussion about this and it didn't seem like it made sense because if the amount usually what happens is for a long-term project, we get a quote. Let's say it's $15,000 or something and then they start doing 30day balance billing on that. Um, if we receive the the the a check from the developer for the full $15,000, then we don't need to get back to them after that drops under, unless there's some kind of additional services that have attached since that we had that initial discussion. This $5,000 balance, this is what how how things used to be where we would have them top it up whenever it got too low just to be sure that we weren't going to be unable to pay their bills. But if we're getting larger amounts of money from them and the costs have already been worked out in advance, then I think that that um that $5,000 minimum balance isn't necessarily appropriate anymore.

But we don't currently have any language saying we're getting a full quote up front. So instead, should that number three be changed to the applicant shall deposit and maintain a minimum balance of the cho total chosen quote? Well, we're not going to ask them to maintain a balance of the total amount. We're we are ask going to ask them to to prepay that amount. Okay. The the amount that amount is held. So it's just the applicant shall deposit what's the word? Shall shall the applicant shall um uh make uh shall deposit the the total chosen quote amount quote yeah the total amount quoted with the office of municipal services. So instead of minimum balance of 5,000 it should say.

Are all these items in the overview section going to change? Um, make sure we get deep into this or is this all stuff tweaked? Um, you you can any any of these things you can you can change anything you like in here. This all all new text. Oh, but this is the Trump proposed text. Yes, this is all. Yeah. So, if that's true, then the only thing I don't like is the last line on four says will advise because it seems like if we forget to then we eat it, right? And we don't always know. Um, yes, that's a good point. Thank you. What could it say instead? Nothing. Nothing. Oh, nothing.

Just get rid of that last line. Yeah, it's this is this is not about what is going to do. This is about the rules and regulations of the planning board. Well, and also they do go into after that in the non-numbered section it says it should be highlighted that those expenses incurred are greatly influenced by the quality. So I mean they're saying anyway pay attention to your [ __ ] Yeah.

Good. Um, and Zoe, I I understand the the concept of having um applicant pay upfront and because of that, we may not need to have a maintain a minimum balance, but there are always changes that are approved in real time throughout the course of it where you may need to want you may need to have another mechanism so that we can res that the applicant knows they have to reup the funds and sometimes there might be a peerreview is sort of completed and then there's another scope added right

um so we just need a mechanism to make sure that we're re receiving funds in a timely manner to match the scope and that's clear okay and I don't I don't know the language around that well because in that next paragraph on the beginning of page five the original peerreview account balances shall be maintained or review may be withheld and a scheduled planning board hearing or meeting continued by the planning board. Um, first of all, is that still referencing a peerreview account balance or do we Okay. Um, I need to take out the word original. Sure.

Yeah. Maybe maybe just make sure that's all aligned right in that section too. Visit this. Yeah. But I like generally I I I like how this I like how this is laid out. Okay. Um the planning board may request that the building commissioner revoke or suspend a permit should the applicant fail to maintain their peerreview account during the impleation of implementation of the permit if required. Sweet. It's just a threat. It doesn't mean it's ever going to I like the threat come to fruition, but it's a threat. Better than no threat. Um if we go up a little bit on the section there you have some changes under peerreview funds. Yes.

Um the last sentence says to ensure maximum transparency. Uh we cannot ensure maximum transparency. There's a number of things we cannot disclose. All right. Um so I would say something like to promote transparency, efficiency or peer review. I would that that language is fine to me. Mhm. Um but in no way are are we ever going to maximize transparency. Yeah. Okay. Um I we can't disclose everything. We're not allowed to promote transparency. To promote I think promote is fine by me. Yeah. Promote transparency. Okay.

All right. So this this these two sections are going to have another round of tweaks. Y Oh yeah. One other a small small change here under design peer review. We've also added the pattern mill overlay district to um a potential district subject to design review as that as part of the um PMOD section. Um anything else before I move on? All right. Um turning now to page uh just real quick on the water and sewer capacity review. Yes. Uh the sentence you're adding in. Yes. Do

you want to say the last sentence? Please consult with the DPW in regard to the water and sewer review requirements. Uh yes, review requirements. And then other consultant peer review below that. Uh I'm just not sure on terminology says engineering design peer review if applicable. Do we need to say site plan? Is that a separate type of review that should be listed there? Um in this case I don't think so. Usually we have I'm not fully certain about the consistency throughout all of this. Yeah.

But generally the concept we have engineering and design peer review is one item. The other item is uh actually no those are the two items engineering review and design review. Okay. Okay. Um engineering review obviously is you know engineering review and design is like the building facade and all of that. Okay. Um, but I don't know if that's consistent conceptually throughout this document. That's something for us to take a look at. I do see references to just design review, design peer review. So that's good.

Okay, moving on to page eight. Um, we we have um modified the section about traffic circulation impact studies. Uh D, vehicular traffic and parking. Number four, the board or its designate may require submission of a traffic circulation/impact study both within the site and as it may affect the surrounding areas. Um previously it was considered required for all site planned special permit applications, but obviously it's not necessarily appropriate in all circumstances. So you uh may require one or one of us may size it up and say this is probably going to be necessary.

Now how does the board determine that if we're not in meaning would be my question. Well, I think it's that um if it comes to you, you may uh you may send it back down if that's a little too late. Is it too late? It's happened though. I know, but you know that's pretty far in the development permitting process to then say, "Oh, I'm going to do a traffic study that's going to take, you know, four months because of the season." Well, we we try to be on the lookout for the likelihood of that sort of thing just as our as an administrative entity. So, let's let's talk about how it currently works. Um,

the pre-application review meeting. Yeah. So, so Bill and Zoe have pre-application reviews and sometimes you guys will advise obviously a traffic study is needed here. Yeah, that that's that's the the reality is that most of the time, right? That that's we're doing that, but we are doing that as your design, not

and and then sometimes Bill and Zoe will come to me and say, "Hey, does does this need a what type of traffic study does this need?" Like qualitatively like because we don't have language exactly what a you know what's needed and I if it's clear to me I'll give some advice but sometimes I've even kicked this to other planning board members and say hey can you advise on what's needed here or what what would be useful for the planning board so it's the chair's prerogative I mean practically speaking that's how it's worked I don't know how to write that in we could say the chair I mean most places have threshold triggers right

for mandatory and then below that is subjective based on what? Based on intensity. I mean, it could be, you know, a building greater than 20,000 square feet, a project that generates more than 400 cars a day or something that impacts an intersection by adding more than 5% to the daily volume or more than more than four units on a residential house or something. But then there's also a lot of idiosyncratic lots that where everybody can take one look at it and say what's what's going to happen here. Yeah. Even tiny projects might need one. So it would be a at the discretion of the board or the chair and then also have

here's an idea. Maybe we approach this differently. Sorry, did I interrupt? No. Okay. I just had an idea. Um maybe approach this differently and say leave it as is. A traffic circulation impact study is required. uh applicant may request yeah a reduction or uh removal of the requirement of a traffic study like a waiver a waiver okay ahead of time um and uh chair or board designign um will you know we'll review it so I mean everyone needs one and you have to ask permission to not have one is it an actual waiver in the decision or is this a premeating This is about the premeating application.

Okay. Yeah. I would just say the way I think that's a good idea and I would say you know what will constitute a complete application package. So you know um I think that would take care. I think it's a good move. Yeah. And so you leave it as is because this references that this is a part of the pre-application. And then the last sentence says the applicant may request I don't want to use the word waiver though because that references relief from requirement may may request relief for the for the for the for the um traffic study requirement

for the the board's consideration. We we might well we might want to have just a minimum that it would ever apply to versus I mean because what is this? This is the site plan when there's site plan. Is that is that this trigger? We're in site plan details section, right? Special permit. Special permit also. Is this triggered by special permit? Yes, it can be triggered by both. But I mean if we have like some silly change of use DoD special permit, right? But then presumably when they go to the pre application meeting, you will say or you're saying excluding change of use or whatever.

I'm just saying, you know, if it's, you know, it's it's only two dwelling units. No, you know, I mean there's just some you don't have to go big. I mean, ignoring the minimum. I mean, the real issue here is the intensity of the study or the breath of the study. I mean, it literally it it but I guess we give that if somehow it's just the timeliness of making that determination. Well, I think that if we've been having trouble with that recently, then that's a conversation to have with Bill and Zoe about maybe being a little more Well, we can always revoke the design cuz we actually haven't designated anybody yet. There are designates. I know, but

but my point is like if if you want to see more traffic studies, then just tell them to air on the side of requiring one for more projects. Yeah. I just don't want, you know, them to come to us and suddenly we're like, well, where is this part of the traffic study? And they're like, well, we didn't have to do that and now all this time's wasted. So, right. Yeah. Well, I think the language is um may request relief from the board, but then they have to go to the board. I don't I mean, maybe the application review team can make the recommendation and we just stamp it at the next meeting. I don't know. or does do the projects not want to be that public at the time? That's the thing. That's why they just asked him.

No. Yeah. The way the the change was was conceived was to account for the majority of special permits that come before the board and to not um to not bog down the process for the majority of projects which don't require this. but to leave the board or its designate or the chair or anyone else that we want to have um be able to at any point in the process say, "Hey, by the way, this is going to need one because it just looks like it will."

And I and I I understand that. What the way I'm approaching this is that um my initial discomfort is that this puts the onus on us to determine if a traffic study's necessary. I'd rather a traffic study be required and the onus put on the applicant to say why it's not required. Yeah. Okay. That's how I'm approaching this. I don't want language in here that says the board may require a traffic study and then we have to determine what it is. Right. I don't want that responsibility. I want it to have standardized. I want it to be standard.

Um and then they can explain why. Will that be more communication with you from applicants saying no? It'd be the same. Practically speaking, I think everything would be the same here. I mean, unless we wrote in the board or its most hard ass member, Bill Chainsaw. Just put Bill in there. I don't know who it would be. I like Chris's saying because then the response could be okay, but we reserve the right to, you know, review it if there are substantial changes in the project or, you know, some boiler plate.

Yeah. Cuz I mean that's easier on the developer. It's quicker on the timeline and you know, you never run into a situation where it's like, uhoh, now we really have to get it done and there it's the wrong time of year. Yeah. So maybe we can um one thing I I want to ensure about this section is that we streamline exactly how the proc the process of relief is codified because we you know we've got somebody coming before the board to open an ice cream shop and and you know they have to get a special permit and now they also there's but isn't isn't that the point of we don't want to codify that they want they make the case and I think it's that

Chris gives them the thumbs up or thumbs from them. I mean, do do we want in their pre-application meeting and we give them this thing that says, "You have to do a traffic study." And they look at us like, "Are you kidding me? I have to do a traffic study. I have to pay an engineering firm to do a traffic study for my ice cream shop." And so, what do Bill and I say to them? Like, "Oh, don't worry about it. It's not real." Or do we say, "Well, that's when you use your brain and you say, "Okay, there used to be a bakery here and now you want an ice cream shop. It's probably going to be about the same. I think I'll recommend to the chair that we don't require them to have a traffic study. That's that's all I'm asking for is how you would like we need to write that down. Yeah. How you'd like us to memorialize that?

Well, I don't think that's the first step. I don't think we immediately make the decision. I think they come and you say, you know, a traffic study is required unless you make a good case not to have it and at the pre-lication. So, you please do, you know, submit it formally. Okay. So that request in their application to include this the same way that we have in their justification statement. They have to articulate how they meet the special criteria. They would also say explain why you don't need a traffic study. I mean if they if it's part of their initial application, you know, that gets circulated to the board. Board can see that. Okay. All right. Um if that helps to feel this is already in there, right? This is already in the code that says you have to have traffic.

It's mandatory. We just need a easier way for you to pass on these be a change of use. I want you to be able to easily say out loud to the applicant. You know, sometimes we wave the need for a traffic study. I feel like this might be a good option for you if you're willing to write a letter saying why you don't feel like you need a traffic study. Yeah. Are we comfortable designating the chair to do that? God know to to to to grant relief. Well, this here this is some of this. I'm not talking about this specific. No, no, that's fine. That's that's practical.

No, but you I saw your face. What's a better way? Like what's I want this to be smoother for you because currently this isn't working, which is why you want to change it. Well, currently currently everyone's required to do this, but you've been hearing application after application that doesn't include them. So, so yeah. So, a sentence at the end saying I think that none of it I think basically none of it changes except a sentence at the end saying applicant may request relief from the board or its designate for this requirement. Right. Okay. And so, may the design wave it or may only the board wave it? By that sentence that Chris just said, okay, the designate could wave it. Yeah, but that that creates problems if you're not going to need it then. That's it.

But is that the board that creates future board? Yes, it does totally screw up a fake project. Okay. So, what usually is the communication in between the application coming to us in a publicly advertised meeting before that and the the uh pre-application review meeting.

Uh what goes on in that? Well, when when an applicant brings an application to us to look at, we sit down and we go over, okay, what do we expect the board is going to want to know about this? What are what do we foresee as the potential issues that are going to arise from what you're proposing? And because there are so many different types of special permits and site plans that might come before the board, including ones that really have no um nexus with change in traffic patterns. Yeah. We usually don't bring up usually we we default not to bringing up a traffic study unless we we we look at what's coming on the table and saying they're going to want this. Yeah.

So the question is just how do we one how do we handle that? two, do we shift the burden of requesting relief from that to an applicant who is already um who already has to like do we make them prove why it's not needed or do we selectively uh do we selectively enforce the requirement or do we do we come up with yet another system by which this is required from only the people who really who really need it right which isn't very many projects I I hear you now I have I mean I I don't find that we've had with the current system a lot of problems with not having a traffic study when we wish we have one. Not a full traffic.

No, not a full traffic study. We really want a full traffic study. We often want parts of it, right? Like what? Sometimes just well driveway safety and yeah, you know, sight distance and sometimes just some very basic counts sometimes. Yeah, I mean that's a reassurance. It's like, okay, it's, you know, they just do a trip generation thing. It's like, oh yeah, this is like, but that's another part of cars a day. Now there's a question of the level of traffic study, right? That's part of the mitigation. They can say, you know, okay, we proposed this traffic study or you know, so is that something we can kick to the peer reviewer? Well, only if there is one if there's no This is pre application. There's no peer review yet.

Okay. So, give me give me a sec here. Um, I think I hear what you're saying now. Um, just with the the way you the way you presented that, Zoe, it it does require that we have really good pre-application review teams that will then make that determination if a traffic study and what level traffic study is required. That onus will be put on MS. Yes. Are you guys you think we can talk more consistent over the years and over changes of personnel,

right? and and what and generally what we like to do is put the onus on the applicant for liability reasons if nothing else, right? Um so I'm just trying to balance that because I don't want to codify something where the onus is on and to make a determination and then something gets missed then the applicant says you guys said I don't have to do a traffic study. I don't have to do it now. Right. That that's one of that those are just general thoughts but I hear you Zoe about about that. I I heard all that. Okay. Okay.

Bill is uh typically we have a larger project that's likely to trigger

Bill. You're breaking up. We can't really hear you. Okay. Hey, let me sit over here. Can you hear me better here? Yes. If we were inclined um or we were we in a larger project where we thought a full practical and would you're breaking up again. Unfortunately, we can't I'll call I'll call back. Um, we we can also I I I I acknowledge your perspective. I've heard a lot of from the board. I'm happy to work with you and Bill on this language and we can bring it back again or we can circulate it again to the board. You want to do that? Sounds good.

Yeah. Cuz I want to make this I want to I don't want to put the onus on, you know, I just want to make it comfortable for every logical to the applicant, but also I don't want to put the any more onus on you. I want to see how other towns do this too. Oh, they all they all have thresholds. I mean, right. Yeah. Cape Cod has a real specific one. Most towns have real specific ones cuz if if you want to throw away the the chaff of all the special requirements, you just say, you know, this applies to anything with more than a hundred new trips, right? You don't worry about anything below that. And you might not even worry about stuff above that, but at least you don't have to even think about it below that.

Yeah. But if Joe Schmo is just trying to get a change of use special permit, how does he know? But if Yeah, but if I'm changing from, you know, office building to warehouse, that's not 100 more trips. How do you know? Cuz there's a very standardized thing that takes two seconds. You plug in the land use code, it says X trips, and you plug in the other one, it says Y trips, and you subtract like we have. It's like a two second co-op thing. Should we be linking to another PDF? No, but I mean it that is that is as basic as you get and it takes no time at all and it doesn't cost them much. So we're we're going to get this right. Let's just go big picture and try to

and get it correct. Yeah. The only other thing I want to add to that bill crash is that um Maynard is so full of weird streets that there's plenty of things that could use a traffic study that will will only generate another 10 trips. But all those tricks will be very weird. Well, yeah, but that might be item five, the safe sight. Sure. Okay. All right. So, so we'll cuz I think the safe safe site ought to be strength and the number four should be lessened. We almost never need the whole take some time to review this more in complete. I've never seen a safe site analysis. Exactly. That sounds fun.

Let's get the B the roadway committee involved in that. It's It's the one we should have. Well, this is good. Um, see, this is what happens when we don't have enough water to do anything fun. I know. I could be doing this a long time. Change this every time. Um, I I did Hold on. Um, I need one more thought. Okay, now can you hear me better? Yes. Yeah, but we've left. Hey.

So, but my only thought guys, if I may, um, in larger projects, typically for the pre-application, we've been inclined to invite a member of the board to the pre-application meeting in the past. Um, so if if something of any significance comes in that that we would not we would not not invite you um to that and that's where a determination could be made. I think what what what throws us is first of all when you special permits may not need a traffic study at all for like you like Bill was saying like a used permit like okay it's not going to the ice cream guy is a great example Zoe and I just met with there's just no reason we the whole project was already already had a study at Mater crossing they don't need a a traffic study a site plan having it um in my opinion if it's a if it's a major project, it should have be scheduled with a board member, ideally the chair there. That would be my thought. And if it can't be or if it's a smaller project, uh something sometimes we can just check in. So something like this with two or three units or something and we we know about circulation and having a a a driveway ingress, a a kind of stuff, we pretty much want that with anything where there's traffic going in and out. But the ice cream guy who came in yesterday was a was a a really good example what Zoe brought up because here's a guy just literally going right next I don't know next to uh I don't I can't remember bright.

Yeah. What do we care? And he and for some ice cream falls under fast food. He's got to come in and get a fast food permit from us. you know, it's you don't want to we don't want to say, "Okay, we'll wait till the next planning board meeting. We'll we'll brag in to we'll drag in to see if you need one." You know, on that. Yeah. So, so Bill, we're going to we're going to discuss this further offline. I think everyone agrees that this would be helpful to make some changes. We just got to Okay.

Got to hone in on it. Um and just one thing I want everyone to hear because we're going to work on this offline. I want I'd like this designed stuff like this so that it's um good for the town, good for the applicant. Um I I just want to make sure we're not designing this because you guys are competent. Zoe's competent, Bill's competent and helping making these determinations, right? So, but like you guys aren't going to be in Maynard this these positions forever, right? So, I want to make it Do you know something? What do you want to make proof? I just want to make it I want to take the personalities out of it that all of us are pretty good with traffic studies, right?

So that that's how we're going to approach it. I think that's my sort of frame on it. Um I also think that perhaps the traffic study and other study parts should be broken out away from the what's required on the site plan parts. The first couple of bullets here this has to be on the drawing. So that's what I was going to bring up to these guys afterwards. Like yeah, number two is about what's on the the impervious services on the site plan. Yeah. Like I you know that's that's Yeah, we got to organize this better. Okay.

All right. Moving on. A few a few other things. Not very many. Um you're getting rid of compact gifts. um not in my personal life, but yes in these rules. Um so we're we're trying to standardize the term applicant. Um trying to go through and and make that uniform. Yes. Um fewer hard copies only three paper copies of of plans. No myar. No myar because you know what we ask for myar and people will give it to us. Some myar stock. Yes. Myar. I've got miler at my house. No one can have him. Um,

doesn't everyone? I hope so. Uh, yes, electronic copy is required and also electronic receipt for uh recording. And yes, USB CD. You know what? There there's no CD drives in a lot of our computers. Now, I'm going to be real nitpicky. Love you. All information appearing thereon shall be in black ink. Don't we often ask for things to be clouded and red? Good call. Good call. So maybe we'll cross You want me to cross that out entirely? Yeah. Can we have a whole page on clouding all changes in the site plan?

Well, I just I just say uh all information appearing now there on shall be whatever. Clear. I don't know. Just I This is the approved. I mean, this is the endorsement section. So it's not like it's not like the initial submitts. Oh, sure. Okay, then never mind. But yeah, let's have a whole page about clouding. Sure. Yeah, this is just dating back to like endorsements need to be in in black ink. That's just a bill. You want to develop some CAD standards for me? Uh, no. Leroy lettering on my phone. And uh do we even really do you guys really want a USB drive now? Yeah. All right.

Physical USB drive. Yeah. I love it. Those are great. Um because sometimes when somebody sends us a 200 megabyte PDF um they don't have a good Oh, that's a good point. way of sending to us. I take it the USB drive gets screened before we upload it. Of course not. Of course not. Yeah. Joey looks at it really hard. No hacker here. Good. No, we just hope and pray that our um our uh virus scanners are working around the clock. Um

okay, we've also I think the only other thing we have on here in this current draft is on the um safe harbor valuation of open space on page 20 has been updated to fiscal year 26 from 9800 to 12,21867. which I believe is incorrect. Great. Correct number is 10,800. 10,800. Yep. Okay. And the example should also be updated with that. Okay. And then if we really need that footnote with all the dates of changes, we already missed one and then we'd need another. Okay. But I don't know if we need that.

Yeah. Bill, I think said that it was that was just um that it wasn't legally necessary, but it was just a note on there. Um I haven't backtracked how you got the 1221867, but I'll have to ask. It'll be interesting to see. Yeah, I I'll have to ask Jim. I think he he he did that. Or maybe Bill did. I'm not sure. Which which change was this? The the fiscal year 26 base acquisition cost per household. Page 20. Page 20. Yeah. $12,21867. I wouldn't have done that. Yeah, I didn't do that. All right. I think you should throw Jim under the bus. I'm not going to do that.

Do you just want to reference some where that where that comes from? From the state or It comes here and from the from the conservation commission. It it is referenced in there. Community preservation after the conservation commission. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. We've I'm sorry. Yeah. Right. Sorry. Yeah. I mean, instead of putting a number in because the number changes every year, right? No, you want the you want the most current number, but we're not going to update this every year. I know. But it the next thing says it's updated by 2% rounded to 100. So, in two years, you can figure out what the number is. So, why not?

That's the one we did, Bill, with John. remember we went and we did it at the CPC and we said we'll just we'll we'll whenever we do the next changes, you know, periodically we'll put the um we'll put the most current number in it whenever we do them. So So has it only increased at that 2% since 21? No, since it was first implemented in 18. But but Chris is saying there's a $9900 number, right? That used to be a smaller number. Yeah, it was like 1,600 or whatever it was when it first started. It started like I think it was 1,600 or something or but there was a number in 2018 that was like 9.

So I could do the math right now or something, right? And and figure out the future value of $9,800 with a 2% right. No, would it be helpful to have a table that shows? Keep in mind that it's rounded to 100 like Oh, it is. Yeah. too much. Just read the next read the next dot, man. It's not an underline, so I'm not reading it. All right. Well, that should be in red then. And cloudy. Um, last but not least, the feed. This is Oh, yeah. This is I saw this new one. How can we hate the cell towers? I think we should hate them more, actually.

Uh, do do your worst. I don't like raising the fees. No, you don't like raising the fees. No, I know. Especially like the crappy little DoD fee. Why Why does there need to be an extra fee if I mean, aren't they already running into a special permit? Is this only if they're just a DoD permit, not another special? I have never collected one of those. A DoD special permit. Does the DoD special permit supersede a regular special permit or you're supposed to do both? No, it's one of Oh, really? No, it says it right right here. It says special permit would now be $250 except for those special permits specified below. Yeah.

Which means that the fee below supersedes it. So a DoD special permit's bigger than a regular special permit. That's what this says, right? Oh, that's right. And the thinking behind that, the thinking behind that was we wanted to create a downtown enhancement fund and we just haven't found a way to to move it. uh the funding for, you know, some people have a uh like a um a downtown charge or whatever, you know, like that, something to raise revenue for that would be spent in the money. But we haven't we haven't perfected that yet.

Well, it's also not going to be a lot of money. It's not like we get a lot of DoD special permits per year. So, I know. No, it's not going to be a lot. But I'm just saying if I want to do some funky weird little DoD special permit thing, why is it going to cost me 750 bucks? It'd be 500 the way this is right here. Cuz this says except for those special permits. No, it has be 500. But why is it more than a regular special permit? Well, it's always been more than Well, cuz Bill just said so cuz they I know. But we'll never save enough money to make it worthwhile. So why pretending to shake them down?

Well, let's talk about it. I mean, I can understand your point there, but I also don't uh Well, the thing was when we did this, we weren't counting on the mitigation funds that we were getting in some cases. So, now we've been able to I mean, we we completely replanted a lot of our uh all our tree wells, I think, are all full and maintained. Now, we've got new trees. You know, we're doing pretty well with that. But I I um let's talk about it some more. But has has the downtown overlay district special permit fees been used for those improvements? No. Yeah. So like the intent was the intent was but we haven't

in over four years. You haven't got a DoD fee? No. Oh, never. We haven't even collected them yet. Uhuh. Well, I'm saying Bill, it was already there as $400, but I've never no one ever asked me to get that from anyone.

Right. But we don't but the intent we were we were trying to get Lisa to set up uh a separate fund for the downtown enhancement that came that was generated as a search charge. I would say this. Let's let's put asteris next to that. Let's put it on our front burner. I'm meeting with Lisa Thursday. Uh you're we're both meeting with Lisa Thursday. Let's ask her Thursday and get an answer from them about the account and then we can tell we can tell the board, you know, yes or no. And if they don't want to do it, we don't have to do it. If they do, we do. How's that? We can. It's just it's going to total, you know, less than $1,000 per year. And you're going to blow it all talking to a lawyer and writing the stuff and setting it up. And

all right, knock it off. We can take it off. We can take it off. That's a good Give me We We'll give them a coupon clip. a little coupon. You can clip it and save the DoD fee if you come in with us. Um, are are these are redundant? That's fine. Are these fees like generally consistent with sort of other pure towns? Do we know at all? They're lower. Okay. Generally lower I presume lower than like conquered is what you mean. And lower than Actton. Yeah. uh lower than I don't know what what what Bill, you you you did an analysis of fees.

Yeah. And Jim did one last year, too. We I think we have it. Uh we we we have a a spreadsheet with it somewhere. You guys want to see it, we can circulate that. I got to find it. But yeah, it was more or less the same. I mean, what you see there that was we're roughly uh the cell towers were a bigger one. Um uh some people don't char you know what we weren't charging for was um some things that took a lot of time that we weren't charging for like for example determinations of major minor. Okay that might take a lot of staff time to prep or might take the same amount that it takes for a special permit and we were doing them all for free. um things like that. We were we're trying to be cognizant of staff time and um I think we're more or less right in line with everybody else. And if you want I can we can we can find the latest one. I think I think uh Jim just did one last year I think a comparison.

Um any other comments from the board? Um just a little um ones and twos on each one of these things which I finally figured out what they're referring to. But what they're referring to is super important for the people to understand. So it just seems like you could highlight it better. The public hearing and the town meeting approval required. Well, yeah. I mean, just so you know, if you're going to go site plan review, by the way, there's going to be a public hearing and a bunch of other costs, too. M or if you want to do, you know, road acceptance, you know, you got to go to town meeting. So, you know, that's going to be a thing, which by the way, I think that cost should be increased. It has to go to town meeting.

Well, that's a good point, too, Zoe. We should we should probably make a note of that. Maybe we should reorganize this so that we have regroup these fees together so that for example under a special permit or a site plan review we have the the application fee then we also under that you know we talk about the legal ad we talk about the mailing so that it's it's more understood about how these things connect to each other I think that's a good idea why don't you why don't the three of us get together and and do that and redo bring do a better job of that we can bring it back to these guys.

Okay. And I think I think the two that require town meeting action, road acceptance, and zoning amendment request should be at least 5K each. There's a lot of manpower that goes into a couple group. Now you guys are breaking up. I didn't hear that last thing you said. What did you say, Bill? It was what? I think the two town meeting actions should be a much higher fee. Maybe. Yeah, I agree. But you said something after that and it lost it. Well, just because you know it merits spending. It merits $5,000 because there's a lot involved with a town meeting change. Yeah, I think that makes sense. So I have Can I ask question?

So this is just for my personal knowledge on the list the zoning amendment request for example which requires both a public hearing and town meeting approval. So, like did Capital Group pay for the zoning amendment request? No, we're just doing Yeah, we're we're we're in the capital group. No, they did not. We did a um when did we do a zoning request for them? We did a uh it was in the last couple years, for example, tonight.

Yeah, tonight. No. um the if it's now so now it's right right this we have to talk about how we want to do these because typically uh um a zoning bylaws it's not typical that like a a a a resident or somebody would sponsor a zoning bylaw and typically they sponsor a land use map change or a zoning map change and and so that's kind of the distinction there So for if if a property wanted to change from commercial from industrial to residential, would that trigger?

Yeah, that would trigger it. And so like for that guy, we charge. But but for like a zoning bylaw change, which are ours and they're going to go into it would be unusual, but we could refine it. But that was the way we were looking at it. Just so you know, it says zoning amendment request. So I don't know if that language is accurate either. Yeah, it's a zoning map amendment. Zoning by. Yeah. However you guys want to word it so that it's you know because like now that that means any like any zoning amendment

and to be and don't forget also with it I mean although it may be different with Zoey now but um if you have a uh when you're doing map changes you have to redo the map. I mean that's in itself a a undertaking. We usually have a consultant do it or something like that. I don't I don't let us look at that and re rethink this.

But but that's that was the thinking in the past. There's you know it's very unusual that we get somebody in that that like Olaf tonight came in and in this case he wanted a change and and into the table and we've had Capital Group do that too to our bylaws like a use table. um should there be a fee for that or or how much and and that um and that's that's all over the place with where towns charge or don't zoning reszonings typically where they're changing the map is a bigger deal. Um but it doesn't have to be.

Um Zoe, my last comment is the second to last line on this is peerreview deposit and then it has a description. So, we should just make sure that matches with whatever change we had earlier in the discussion. Anything else planning for? Okay, that's it. Thanks, Zoe. Thanks, Bill. Thanks, everybody. Thanks for Thanks for joining. Um, I'll I'll make a motion to close the meeting. I'll second that. All in favor, please raise your hand. 5 mark included. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Bye.