Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Like Rockville into South Minneba. Mhmm. The whole town is settled in Midland settlement.

Yeah. Even though.

So yes, good evening. Welcome to the Planning Board meeting. This meeting is being recorded by MKM, maybe viewed on MKM, Verizon or Comcast. If you want to watch the meetings at your convenience, MKM offers on demand. That's good. We do have three requests for continuances. The 06:30 meetings for the Plain Street and Millbar Farms, we're going to vote to continue to a later date. So if you guys are here for the Millbar Farms on Plain Street, we're gonna continue those till later. So, unanticipated. Does any member of the board have anything under unanticipated?

Mister chair? Yes. Do we need you need a motion to continue to date and time

When we get to the When we get there? Hearings, I'll take the motion. Right now, it's an announcement.

Alright. I do.

Nancy? So I would like to, because we haven't discussed it. For the working meeting date for the earth removal, I'd like to try to set a date that we can do this. We have five Tuesdays in March.

Alright.

So I don't know if we wanna do that now.

I don't wanna do it now. We'll do it. I because we can email about a possible date.

Okay.

So we can do it that way. Mister Chair? Yes.

So a couple of meetings ago, might have even been, like, maybe January or December, we had a conversation about reaching out to the select board about the alleyway between Santander and the then Honeydew Donuts about perhaps asking it be made one way. And I just was wondering if we ever sent a letter to the Select Board. We had talked about meeting with them to discuss it. No. You don't think we did?

I know a letter wasn't sent.

I don't remember discussing it. Was it a meeting I was at?

I'm not sure, but I know we had a discussion

about On 1 Way Street's in our purview?

Well, it it's not it's us requesting due to the fact that, again, it happened again this week. There was a big truck coming out from the parking lot and they couldn't see because there was a car parked here and a car parked here. So they literally were just out in the middle of the road and there's traffic coming both ways. So the cars are are slammed on their brakes to stop because that vehicle cannot see. There's just no line of sight to come out of that that alleyway.

And so it's not we can't make it a one way. However, we talked about sending a letter to the select board saying that we think it would be a good idea if they made it a one way because it's just it's very dangerous. And you have the crosswalk right there at Honeydew. And so

I I don't have any problem with the idea of it being a one way or not being a one way. That's not my concern. My concern is the playing board, taking on responsibilities that are not theirs.

Well, is planning for the downtown area. It is part of planning to point out traffic issues, and that is a definite traffic issue. And not even that, like you have people that park in that alleyway.

Again, the issue of the one way is not what I have a concern. The concern is whether or not the playing board has any jurisdiction or oversight. I think it would follow track. Wanted to petition the select board on your own as a private citizen to do that, go right ahead. Because I do know that it involves the police and the select board. The last time we did it, I was on the select board. It was over by '28, just off the rotary behind the gas station. And I don't remember the plan board being involved at all. It was a select board and police recommendation. If that's if the planning board has a a say in the matter, fine.

If we don't, I don't wanna start that. I I don't wanna set a precedent.

Well, I do believe that we talked about it, and we did agree to send a letter to the select board when we were at the

You can tell me what meeting that is. I'm more than happy to Yeah. Review

I mean, I'll have to take a peek. But it is traffic.

The only time the plane and board ever said anything one way is the Old Vaughan Street. We had to say it was a way in existing because it's so now we made it one way. That's the only time we have been involved. We've seen something one way.

Do you think that that alleyway is a two lane road?

No. I'm just

saying we allowed more

houses being built on that road. That's why we that's why we did that. But that's the only time since I've been on the board that we had any say on For road being one

me, I'm just concerned that you're gonna have someone in the crosswalk and someone's gonna come out and they can't see and they're take off.

That's a select and someone.

Yeah. I don't think that's a that's our issue, but I'm more than happy to look at the meeting and I can check with Joe. If we have something to do with it, more than happy to have that discussion. But, again, I'm very, very cautious about taking on things that are not under the purview of the plan of board. I do not wanna overstep our bounds.

Could I could I bring up the fact that we are going to be working on the earth removal bylaw, which is not under the purview of the planning board? But we're going to be working on revising it. That is a select board bylaw.

Alright. So we won't do that either.

I'm just

I mean

you know, trying to figure out, you know, what is that?

It is not up to us to expand our own authority. Absolutely not. There are far too many government entities that do that, and I am not gonna be part of one of them.

No. I I understand.

If it's if it is our purview, sure. If not, I don't wanna have the discussion anymore because it's not our it's not our purview.

Is traffic?

I just I don't I don't even wanna have this discussion right now because it's unanticipated.

Mhmm. That's what it is.

Anyone in the audience have anything under unanticipated? Alright. Payment of bills, I entertain a motion to to pay the bills as presented.

So move. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any comments or questions?

All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Approval of minutes for February 17. I'd entertain a motion to approve as presented.

So move. Second.

I have a

motion and a second.

To read them this time. You could probably do the same thing and say when we're actually going to have a hearing.

All right. So I'd entertain a motion to continue the 20 Five-nine RL Plain Street, Middleborough Farms, Map 22, Lot 2004 And 81. Continue that to the first meeting in April. Nope. April 21. '8 to continue I'd entertain a motion to continue that to April 21.

So move with discussion.

I have a motion. I need a Now we can have a discussion.

Okay. So it says the deadline is March 18 and we're continuing it till 04/21.

You have an extension.

We do.

You have that.

That's the next thing is we're going to or should we extend the thing first and then

Yes, probably extend it first.

I don't think it matters.

Sixonetwo times a So

I'm confused on the logistics. You said at the meeting on the twentieth that the public notice was not read into the record and it was not the hearing was not opened?

No, the hearing was opened, but you guys

We waived. You waived, yeah.

You waived the reading. Okay.

You

did. But you voted to open the hearing. I wasn't at that meeting, so okay. I just wanted to make sure that the hearing was actually open.

Mhmm. Okay. I motion a second to continue to the twenty first. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously.

Mister chair, what time?

06:30. 06:30. We'll do them all for 06:30. Should we do three separate extensions of the deadline? Or should we

do You should because they are three separate. Alright.

I then extend a motion to extend the deadline for 25 Dash 9 Dash RL Plain Street, Millebore Farms, Map 22, Lot 2481 until when was it? April 21. No. No. I'm sorry.

March 18. March 18. '19. The extension is actually Oh, to May 18?

Well, we're doing we're not doing the extension.

We're not doing the extension now.

Okay. Sixty days.

I'm sorry. Sixty days. So May 18. I'd entertain a motion to continue to extend the deadline to May 18.

So moved. Second.

Motion to second. Any comments or questions? All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Passes unanimously. At 06:30 twenty five dash ten dash RL Plain Street, Millvaro Farms, map twenty two, lot two four eight one. I'd entertain a motion to extend to continue that to April 21 at 06:30.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any comments, questions? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. I'd entertain a motion for the same property, to extend the deadline to May 18.

So moved.

You need a second?

Second.

Second.

Do we need to say Lot 3

or no? I said well, I said the same thing. Lot 3. So I motion a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. 06:30 twenty five dash eleven dash r l Plain Street, Millboro Farms, map twenty two, lot two thousand four hundred and eighty one. I'd entertain a motion to continue to April 21.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion and a second to continue to April 21 at 06:30. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. I would also entertain a motion for the same parcel or the same issue to extend the deadline to May 18.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any comments or questions? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Beautiful. Great. 635177 East Grove Street, NESP LLC Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan with the deadline of June, February, March, 04/03/2026. How are doing?

Good evening, mister chairman and all the members of the, Middle World Planning Board. My name is Michael O'Shaughnessy. I'm here tonight on behalf of NESP LLC. As the applicant, we have filed a preliminary subdivision plan for the Board to hopefully approve. As the Board may be aware, you can file a preliminary plan if you want some feedback for a residential subdivision.

This isn't intended to be a residential subdivision. So by statute, we have to file this plan. What you have on your plans, I apologize, I don't have my point here tonight. But what you see on the screen is an approximately 93.5 acre parcel of land. It's more commonly known as Schoble Farm.

We are proposing right now to create five lots. Lot one is the effectively everything outside this interlot here, perhaps around the front, effectively hugs the site. Lot 3 shown on the plan is the roadway itself. And then we have two smaller drainage lots that are shown in the plan as Lot 3 and Lot 4. And then the for lack of description, the circular lot you can see on the plan, that's Lot 2, that's about a 20 acre parcel.

That is the what is before you folks in a nutshell. Our next step if this was approved tonight would be to come back with definitive plans, with engineering calculations, more information effectively which you guys would come and approve hopefully the next time around. This is just a perfunctory step. Again, you're not bound by it because you still have to approve a definitive plan, but this is a necessary first step. That's it in a nutshell, guys.

I appreciate that statement. I wish it were that simple. Questions from the board? Nancy?

One of the first things is on your preliminary plans, C-three zero one, just so you're aware, it has two Lot 1s.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Okay. It's corrected in the

It'll get corrected on the defendant plan.

Yeah. If you look

at the lotting plan, yeah, it's he has it.

No. I know it's in the Fallbrook plan. I think that thing was so confusing. I had to color code it.

I did the same.

He did the same thing. All right. And the other question is, are these lots already Form eight and if they are, do we have the documents for them? Because I know Sobofarm a little bit and I know there's at least 10 there's like 10 different parcels on it.

So right now, of this 95 acres parcel, if you will, the house lot out front that has the structure,

it is to the right of the roadway.

It's that L shaped first L shaped lot. That was for me, I can't tell you when, ten years ago. And that is not part of the subdivision. It might have access onto it at a later date, but right now, that's not what is before the Board.

So the entire parcel we're talking about is 95 acres. How big is Lot 1, the big in the circle?

Lot 1 is 71 acres.

Alright. Mister Kuehren? Yep. I'm looking at the plan. I see Lot 1 twice, and I don't quite know.

Yeah. Bill, Nancy's right. On on the civil drawings, they have a call about

one right

Lot 1 and Lot 2. If you if you look at the surveyors' lotting plan, that's about four sheets in. It's called out correctly.

But in the subdivision is this a chair? Yep. Subdivision Road, part of Lot 3?

For the purposes of the the plan, we have called the whole roadway Lot 3.

Alright. So the whole roadway considered Lot 3 and it wraps around the existing house lot? Yes. Okay. And then the drainage structures, it's Lot 4 And 5. No.

Yes. Lot 4 And 5, Right now. I mean, once they dig into the engineering, those parcels could expand, constrict.

But that's what they'll be as drainage structures?

Right now. That's the plan.

I still want to go back to what I had said, Mr. Chair, if I could. Mike, I understand how you have this whole thing as Lot 12345, but I have seen the documents myself of how these, this property back in when John Miller took over, there was at least 10 parcels, at least 10. I don't know if they changed. So I'm asking you, there was many parcels. And if you get the documents from the assessor's office, there's more.

We did a title rundown. The surveyor prepared the plan. It's part of the plan set. And as far as I know, I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. This is all one big parcel except for the lot upfront.

And actually, I don't think it's even relevant though, Nancy. Even if it was 10 different parcels, we could come back and still present this plan to you.

But you would have to Form A off No. The You're calling each one a lot. Calling each one a lot. Lot one, two, three, four, five. There are already a lot under the assessors with a different map and everything else, we would have to know.

But we don't go by the assessors' plans when we're preparing these plans. But even if you look at the assessors' records, this is one parcel.

I'll look at it again.

If you look at

the front page, Nancy, that's the map and parcel number. It's called out on the title page.

I also have a question too about the Mass Historical Commission letter pertaining to the project areas being archaeological sensitive for historic agricultural resource associated with Fallbrook Farm. This was a letter stating that from the State that no work can be done no work can be done on the property without archaeological? Again,

this is the initial part of the process. First of all, I don't think that's within this Board's wheelhouse talking about the historical stuff, but I think you should take into consideration. But this has to go through the MEPA process and Mass Historical will have their chance to comment on it. And if an archaeological study is required, they're going to tell us an archaeological study is required.

Mr. Chair, I can tell you that I cannot make a decision on this tonight. I honestly cannot. We do not have anything from the historical commission. I don't wanna do anything that's gonna affect any Native American land. This land was owned years ago as part of the 26 man purchase. It was Indian, you know, it was Native

American a little bit off base.

I'm not. I'm not because with had anything to do with They're asking us to approve a road.

No. It's a preliminary subdivision plan. If we have a legal reason to deny it, please state that. But the idea that we're gonna be the historical commission, again, as I said earlier, we are not expanding our our powers, not while I'm on this board. We don't have any the historical commission is a separate board. Let them do their job. They're very good at it. We are not. It is not our job.

I would like a letter from them, Wayne. When

it comes to that time in the process, you're more than welcome to go there and ask them for one. But that's not part of the process at this point. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. We're not bound by it. It's a first step in the process. If there's a legal reason to deny it, please bring it up and we'll we'll deny it. If we don't have a legal reason, we can't deny it because we don't like it.

It's not a matter of not liking it, mister chair.

No. It's a matter of the historical commission. We are not the historical commission. We're moving. Miss Casey?

Mister chair. So I have some questions. In talking with Joe today, he told me that this would be perfectly acceptable to ask. Is it correct that we don't know what is going to be constructed on these properties?

What I can tell you, Tracy, is on Lot 2, it's going to be an outdoor recreational facility. With respect to Lot 1, which is effectively the rest of the property, there is no plan right now that I'm aware of what could go there. Whatever could go there would have to be allowed by zoning. Again, this site was previously considered for warehouse. It's allowed by zoning.

But no, I don't I can't say what's going to be used in the future. What I think is going to happen is I think you're going to see this subdivision plan modified in the future. So the roadways extended out back creating more parcels. That's what I would guess. But I don't know what's going to the rest of the land is going be used for.

So in outdoor recreation, what is that? Are we talking soccer field, a football field, baseball

Well, don't think it's relevant to what you're doing.

Well, I'm getting somewhere. I'm getting somewhere, okay. If it is something that's going to have soccer tournaments,

baseball

tournaments, then that is going to generate a lot of traffic. Yes. So this is a commercial subdivision. In our other commercial subdivisions we require a Double Barrel Road. Middleborough Packet 495.

If that is the case and we have to revise the plan

That's why I'm bringing it up We

will do it. I I don't recall that.

That's why I'm bringing it up now. And we want to make sure that the road is wide enough so if there is a large inflow or outlook or outlooks or whatever you want to call it

Yeah.

Of traffic Yeah. That there is the road is wide enough for a left turn lane and a right turn lane.

Yeah.

So that we don't have traffic stacking up and people stuck in a parking lot trying to get out. So that's why I'm bringing it up now. Yep. So I guess my my point is is that you've got to account for whatever is going to be on Lot 2 and whatever possibly in the future could be the rest of this property because if it's going to be developed as say a use with trucking, you're going have to make sure that that roadway is long enough to accommodate trucks trying to get out. My second concern is you have a drainage lot located at the end of the cul de sac and if there is some intent of expansion of breaking off this lot one, you've got a drainage lot at the end of the cul de sac.

I as as I said a few minutes ago, I expect that this plan will change. It it might not be with the next filing, but it could be a filing subsequent to that. With respect to the traffic in the double lane, that's requirement and I don't remember that being in the bylaw and I don't want to argue the point because I don't know if it's there or not. We'll adjust the plan accordingly. What I can tell you is we have a traffic engineer looking at numbers. When we go to meet, but we have to provide meet with all that information anyways. We're going to provide it to the town. Again, I can guess what's going to be there, but I don't know.

Well, that's my see that's my question. Gillette Stadium is an outdoor recreation area.

Right.

Okay. You're not telling us what's coming in here. So how can we approve a road and say that it's acceptable for the load of traffic if we don't know what's going to be happening But

again that this is the first step. The next step is when you'll get the traffic in everything like that. This is just a again, I don't want to hide anything with the Board. This is just a check the box thing. It'd be my preference not even to have to do this, but the statute says I have to, which is why we're here.

If I can read from the handout I'm sorry, I'll get right there. Preliminary Plan under number three. Such approval of a preliminary plan does not constitute approval of a subdivision. And the action of the Board on such a preliminary plan shall not prejudice its action on the definitive plan. So we have plenty of opportunities. We it's not like we're saying yes, and now they can go ahead and do whatever they want. Right. We say yes, and then they have to ask us again and again and again if they can do what they want. And we have opportunities to weigh in at every single step.

And keep in mind, you folks have site plan review as well. So this isn't a one off. It's similar to what we did at Campus 44. In that particular case, a special permit was required. So we didn't need site plan review. But this will in all likelihood require site plan review by this Board or the zoning Board depending on what's being proposed. So it's not this isn't your only shot at it.

No, I'm just my question is just based on I don't want you guys walking away saying, okay, we're good when we may you may come back with a definitive and it's like your road needs to be 30 feet wider.

And and I think that's that's I think what the issue you're raising is a good point and I'm going to mention it to the engineers. In fact, that's part of this process. Right. Right.

I mean, remember, we approved the warehouse and went to town meeting and got a height restriction increased so that they could build the warehouse. And that's gone.

Mhmm.

Bill? I was just gonna ask this. On Lot 3, what is that width overall width? On the is that like a seven

Lot three, the overall width?

Yeah. Lot 3 is basically the road. Yeah. It's 50 feet. How wide is that?

I want to say it's 50 feet, Bill, but I'd be lying to you. Can't It is.

It feet. Does say 50 feet. It's a 24 foot pavement.

Okay. So it's it's laid out 50 foot. A regular subdivision road with utilities and how wide is that usually? 50 feet. 50 feet. Okay. That's the only thing would just want to talk about.

But there are industrial parks in town that have a wider layout and wider pavement.

Right.

But that

would be that barriers and This would be the smallest we could you could go.

Yes.

Yes. This is this is a residential what I was

just trying to make sure.

This this layout is a is a typical And residential

Lot 3 is just the road itself. I didn't I thought it was I didn't realize that Lot 1 actually wrapped all the way around back It's 100 kind of unusual.

I agree.

We have no say.

Any comments, questions?

What'd you say, Bill?

We have no say. It's fine.

Anybody else have any comments, questions? Are you looking for a vote to approve the preliminary?

You folks have forty five days from the day it's filed to to vote. So I would love a vote tonight, but if if you guys wanna wait two weeks to your next hearing to

You guys wanna do that?

Okay with me.

We'll wait for that. That way they have Andrew too.

All right. Yes.

That's a good idea. So we'll get you a vote on the at the next meeting? Yeah. All right.

Thank you. You would have to vote to continue this to

And stand motion to continue to seventeenth at

06:30? Caught me off guard.

Let me check. Seventeenth at 06:30?

Seventeenth, yes.

March is March, right?

March. Okay. I did hear you.

Thank you. March 17.

So moved.

Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second to continue this in March 18. March 17. March 17. At Saint Patrick's Day. You guys are all gonna be here. I don't have to worry about lunch going long. Bill. Not anything. Giving

be good more of my technique before then. All in

favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Passing to Amesden.

Thank you very much.

Alright. Thank you, Mike. You know, if we were in Suffolk County, it'd be a holiday. No government business on the Block 17th. Funny how the State House does that, isn't it? Under other, open space resource preservation development by law. So we've had some discussions about this in the past. I believe Nancy and Tracy have submitted their edits. I believe they're all incorporated. Did, either of you ladies have anything to add to that?

I had spoken with Leanne, mister chair, about the shared driveway.

And

she had said something about it being with the lottage, like, as long as the frontage is there. But there's nothing in there about a no shared driveway or anything Alright. Or even having a shared driveway. So if it's not in there, does that mean it doesn't happen?

I I don't know. That shared driveways are mentioned someplace else.

Alright.

Stacy, are you all edits? Have they been

Just to follow-up with Robert, shared driveways are allowed where? Because she did state at the meeting that there would be no shared driveways. She did say it at the meeting. In the OSF meeting? Yes.

So we If

they are allowed in other subdivisions that are not Well, that's other subdivisions. This is a different zoning. Frontage. I think she needs to go back and watch the tape.

All right. Well, is the final draft. We kind of need a draft.

Well, yeah.

Well, that's what I was saying. Like Leanne had told me that that's what she had said.

Yes.

So on page three, number five, shared leaching fields. Mhmm. I have a problem with that.

Shared leaching fields may be permitted subject to approval by the special permit granting authority and the Board of Health provided they are in compliance with C10, CMR 1,515 Title V.

And any other applicable laws or regulations of the town of Middleborough and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enforced the time of submission is what we wanted to add.

We have one for both in our project with Sunderland Way off of Highland Street at common dry common septic system. How do we do that?

I don't so I think that

I think shared septic systems can be a problem. The only thing that is you also have depending on where the system is, you might have some another pipe from the other house going through somebody else's property. And they couldn't crack, not knowing if they can crush it and stuff, or even if if there's utilities, they'll have that person saying, I'll do whatever I want on my property. Property. You know what I'm saying? I can just see that creating problems having that.

So right now, they are allowed.

I know, but I don't think we should allow it. That's my opinion. Because they're just looking for problems.

But the reason why they would do it on this and would state it that way is because you're trying to shrink the lots and you're trying to get the open space.

I understand. There wouldn't I

times can also see problems System could be an issue.

But I'll tell you.

So they it's not by right, but it's they sent it to approval by the special permit granting authority. Mhmm. So And are

we the we're the You are it.

Right. So they'd have to come before us.

Well, I'm gonna have if it goes comes in front of me, I'm gonna be awful awful restrictive because I'm just taking entirely

your right to do that. We would

expect I'm just saying it because I'm just trying to protect the other person. Right. If their pipe their sew sewage pipe is going on to somebody else's lot to get to the other leaching field and something happens to it, do they have the right to go in that other field to the property to fix it? I mean, I can just see it causing problems. So if we just don't allow it, then we won't have that problem. That's all I am just looking at.

Yep. Mister chair?

Yes.

If I can. I actually agree with Bill. I only wrote we only helped write this to best suit the bylaw, but I am not in favor of shale leak leach and fields either because I am a property owner that has a leaching field, I can only imagine having two people or three or whatever. And then when it comes time to fix it and everything else, like, I may put everything natural in my septic that goes to the leaching field. The other person may be terrible at it and then the leaching field fails and then who's responsible for paying and everything So.

Right. I I I don't have an argument with the with the IDA. We're talking about whether or not we want this included in the final bylaw.

That's

Now the issue, if you wanna argue the issue, we still have that opportunity as a special permit granted And to we can do that on a case by case basis. Or do you want and again, this isn't about whether or not shared leashing fields are good or bad. It's about whether or not this section of proposed bylaw should be in the bylaw or should we take it out. This is considered the final draft.

I know.

We don't pass the final draft when it's not gonna be ready.

I understand.

So that that's

My opinion is take it out because I don't wanna have problems. But I can understand if if it does go through, we have another bite at it to solve that problem. I understand. I'm just trying to eliminate having that problem.

But by putting the language in here, it allows you to have a decision on it. You remove the language, it goes back to it's simply allowed. So I don't think you want to take the language out.

Believe it. I'll deal with it later. But

if you take the language out, it defaults back to it's allowed. Yep.

All right. So I let's do this. No. I have nothing. Let's let's go through all yours, Nancy. What's that with you? Then we'll go to Tracy, Bill, David. Well, was just

saying with what Bill was saying, the other thing I had had on here that I had wanted, and it's been since the very beginning, that it would never be on a residential lot.

Which can

sound A shared leaching field should not

Alright. Be on

know what I mean? Like, that's one of the things. I

don't I don't mean to sound I don't wanna have that argument now. I wanna talk about the bylaw, what's in the bylaw, what's not in the bylaw. We can have the discussion about whether or not something should be in the bylaw or whether it's a good idea or a bad idea later. Right now, we have to edit this document and have a final draft to vote on. So the whys don't really matter at this point. It's the is it going to be included or not included. Now George just explained to us that if we take that part out, it's allowed. We don't have another shot at it.

So this Just leave it alone.

The way it's written is it gives us the opportunity to have that discussion at that time. If we take it out, we're not allowed to have that discussion because it's allowed.

I wasn't saying to take it out. I was saying I I was only

saying See, that's why I I got to stick to write to it because I I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Well, that's why I was saying that I don't think that the leaching fields, even if we're permitting them at all, they should not be on a residential lot. I don't think someone should have to have that. If they're sharing it, one person should not be the sole person having it on their lot. I think it should have to be towards open space or something is what I'm saying. If they're gonna be forced to have it, I wouldn't want it on my lot not being able to have anything go over it and be the responsible one and then have Do

you have an edit for this?

That was the only thing. I I didn't because I told I had messaged Leanne telling her it should not be allowed on residential lots and it But never went that's I mean, I don't know.

Because that's a different that's not this gives us the opportunity to have that discussion. If we don't have this in there, we can't have this that discussion.

Okay. No. I understand what you're saying.

Alright.

But when it comes up and we do have the discussion.

Alright. Let's talk about that when it comes up.

Okay. I'm just letting you know.

Do you have any other comments?

No, think I think we went through this pretty good.

Alright. Tracy?

Mister chair, the only thing I want to say about number five is that we understand what we're doing and what our intent is, but we're not all going to be here. And this bylaw will be. So if we don't want shared leaching fields or we don't want a shared leaching field on the residential lot, we want it placed in the open space, I think it's important that we make the bylaw the way we want it now because we're not all gonna be here in ten years from now. Well, Bill might. But we won't. So

That's what I'm asking. Do you have an edit?

Well, you can easily add to it and just say, no leaching field shall be no shared leaching field shall be on a residential lot, plain and simple.

I think it's already allowed.

It doesn't go out loud, mister Jack. Just leave leave the language that they want

to And this isn't this isn't allowing leaching again, this is not allowing leaching fields by right. What this is saying is that we have it's actually giving us the opportunity to say no. Whereas right now, we don't have that. K. They're already allowed.

But

if we pass this law, now we have the opportunity to say no. Right. So it's it's granting us the ability to say no, whereas we don't have it at this moment. Me Does that make any sense?

Yes. But for me, Mr. Chair, I'm just looking at it from the developers point of view when they read the bylaw, they go, okay, we've checked this box, we checked this box, we have shared leaching fields, that's the only way we can develop this property is to have shared leaching fields. They do all the engineering, put the money

I don't think it says when

you come to us.

It says May.

Right. But

so you're probably right.

They're gonna be putting time, money into a preliminary plan to come to us and then have the board say, no, we're not gonna allow shared leaching fields.

I don't think

we can say no to anything we want by law. Right. And that's on everything. I think if somebody reads this and says, oh, we can absolutely do leaching Fields, then they don't understand the English language. Subject to approval. Right. And I think any developer worth a salt understands that that means they gotta come in front of us and listen to us. So I I mean, I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I think if you wanna have an argument against shared leaching fields, this is the way to do

it. Right.

Yep. Yeah. No. I'm I'm good with the shared leaching fields.

Any other?

Yes. On page 14

You mean, so this is why I asked you to go through all of Obi Wan?

No. No. No. I wanted to make sure

I I want I want you to go through all your issues.

No. I I'm not an issue. I wanna make sure you guys read on page fourteen, seven five sixteen, because we added language. I wanted to make sure you're able to read the language.

That's What's page E saying?

It's not a change. Page fourteen, seven thousand five hundred sixteen, number two. So we added, it may impose reasonable and project related conditions necessary to protect the public interest. And the reason we wanted to add that language is because of what happened with Taco Bell and the ballet. They were like

So it's in the document. I know.

But I'm letting you know, that's the reason was because they said any necessary before and it was like we didn't have any say over it. So I wanted to make sure that this gave the board this right to say no. You know

Yeah. And that's great.

And you But I wanted to make sure you read it. No. Wanted to make sure you read that. That's all. There was no change. Alright. And Do do

you have anything else? No. Alright. Tracy, do you have anything else?

Mister chair, I will say that Nancy and I were on the phone talking and making reservation and emailing and texting, working on this for a couple hours. We really went through it with a fine tooth comb. We tried to make it the best that we could make it. Of course, you never get it perfect, but we tried to hit everything that we could we could see to make this the best bylaw we could bring to town meeting.

And it is greatly appreciated. I think we have a decent document here and, yeah, I'll definitely vote in favor of it at the time.

Bill, anything? No. David? Nope. I'm done.

We will be having a hearing on this, right?

Correct.

Coming up like the seventeenth, I think, right?

So

we have a motion to approve this as presented.

With changes?

For the hearing? Yes. As presented. As presented. Alright. So I didn't see that motion to approve as presented.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Passes unanimously. All right.

And Joe, I think I sent this to you guys. Do you have it Robin? The revised dialogue with all the track edits. I'll email it to you guys again. So I can accept all the edits and then just send you the clean copy.

Right.

Okay. All right.

Cannabis. Okay.

I'm not sure how to stop that, but I'll figure it out.

Alright. So, number two on the other Canvas business district zoning bylaw amendment section eight point five point one, the purpose. So this is a draft for the hearing at our next meeting. Correct? Yes. Yes. Correct. We can debate the pros and cons of it at the meeting, at the hearing. That's what the hearing's for. We're just either going to approve or not approve the draft submitted. Okay? Anybody have any comments or questions? I've been saying a motion to approve as presented the Cannabis Business District Zoning By law Amendment Section 8.5.1 purpose.

Mr. Chair? Yeah. And to amend Chapter two seventy five, there's another part of it.

I'm just reading off the agenda. What are you reading?

Get this one. We're going to do this. This is inserted.

The next one is definition.

Okay. They're two separate things.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So moved.

So the purpose. All right. I have a motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any comments or questions? All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

I oppose.

Three in favor, one opposed. All right. Number three, under other, general bylaw definition, zoning bylaw amendment, section 10.2 marijuana establishment. So this is yeah. So again, this is just for the public hearing, what the planning board's presenting at the public hearing. Anybody have any comments or questions?

I think we should just note, Mr. Chair, that this is under general bylaw definitions of the zoning bylaw.

Duly noted. Any comments, questions? All in favor? Aye. Aye. No. Opposed? Aye. Three in favor, one opposed. All right.

With that, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved. That's it.

Motion in the second.

All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? That's you very much. Have a good night.