Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to tonight's playing board meeting. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. So good evening, and welcome to tonight's Planning Board Meeting for March 17, St. Patrick's Day.

Happy St. Patrick's Day to all who celebrate. We are being recorded and broadcast by MCAM that can be viewed on Middleborough Community Cable Access Media, Verizon, Comcast and MKM offers on demand as well. So we are being asked to continue the public hearing scheduled for one for 06:35 at 177 East Grove Street. So we'll take care of that when we get there, but we're not going have that hearing tonight.

Unacicipated, does any member of the board have anything under unanticipated?

I just have one. I'd like to try to figure out when we can have a working meeting.

Yeah. That's my fault. I've been pretty crazy for the past two weeks, and I apologize for that.

No, that's all right. Just maybe we can get it on the agenda anyway or however we have to do it.

Mr. Trud, are you taking agenda items for the work meeting?

If you want something, you can e mail me and we'll put it on the agenda. I think we have to have a discussion about

it. Okay.

But, yeah, I'll send out an e mail, ask anybody, everybody to reply separately, Any items on the working meeting agenda? I thought we had some we had talked about some, haven't we? I mean, we're not just

talking We've moving out

of working meetings for the hell of it, right?

I have two things that maybe we can talk about in light of the recent budget announcement yesterday. One of the things that was discussed with the department head was to

You want to talk about that at the working meeting? Or you want to talk about now under unanticipated?

Well, just to add to that is potential increases in our fees.

And

then the other one to add to it is the possible rezoning of Route 28 to be all GU and to prohibit residential to hopefully entice more commercial, which generates tax revenue where residential does not.

Well, we want taxes to go down, open space to increase,

and we

don't want anyone else in town. So if you can figure that out.

Well, I don't know if I can figure it all out.

Yeah, we'll definitely put those two items on the agenda. Anyone in the audience have anything unanticipated? Right. Payment of bills. We have two bills. I'll entertain a motion to pay the bills as presented.

So moved. Second with discussion.

Okay.

So I have a question. Should the Planning Board be approving invoices for shared office supplies, or would it make more sense for the Planning Board to focus on its own expenses, like legal hearing and peer reviews, and have general shared office supplies approved by the department directors? The

department wants to approve the

Well, things like this. I mean, it's paper towels and tissue that's probably being used by the whole department.

Oh, no. No, those are yeah. When you say the whole department, mean planning.

So the planning board is in charge of the planner, right?

Planning department. Planner.

Planner. Planner. All right. Yeah. Is only in charge of the planner. And we're also in charge of like, paying for reviews, like peer reviews and things like that, right? So I think some of these office supplies that are being used, utilized by everyone in the, by all staff should just go to Lean In. Why do we bother having these? Because

Yeah, they don't have to. Like the zoning board, all their bills, they don't go to the ZBA for approval.

I don't mean.

They do not. That's what I mean. Anything that's associated with what we need to do, why don't we just keep They it

don't vote on any bills. As long as you vote to

Approve this one?

Approve that? Well, to approve that the bills are reviewed by Alright.

Let's put that on. Staff. Next agenda.

Well, we can talk to her now because it's about bills. We have bills. We have bills

changing the procedure.

Alright. So, we'll put that. Alright. Nope. No problem.

The current climate of hyper.

Nope. That's I agree.

Mr. Chair, I think we still may want to review the peer review bills, that type No, that's that stuff.

We should this discussion under an agenda item at the next meeting.

Yep. Sounds good. I

do have a motion and a second to pay the bills currently as presented. Any other comments, questions, Bill? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. I didn't say the motion to approve the minutes of March 3.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion to second. Any comments or questions? All in

favor? Aye.

Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Form a's, 20 Six-three A202 Summit Street, Map 12, Lot 335, Logan. How are doing?

Good. How are you?

Not too bad.

I'm Tom Morris with Zenith Consulting Engineers. So what's happening here is we have 202 Summer, the existing house on the north side of the sheet, and we're cutting off two lots for single family homes. The tail you have in the back and then the open area once you get into the back is where the septic systems have to go. Ideally, obviously, we'd have them closer to the houses and not have the lots looking like this, but there was only that area that would pass a perk. Then we had to work around the existing system, which is kind of in the middle of those tails.

So it was a non ideal situation for laying out the lots, but they do meet all the requirements. Yes, that's it.

With Jeff?

Yes, Bill.

For the shape factor, you're cutting off the watts. So I'm just a little confused. Why is it necessary for those tails to be added on for the watt?

To have access to where the septics are going to go.

He says it doesn't park anywhere else. Right

up here is where the septics can go. We tried parking all around the field. We couldn't get anything to go except for

up here. The existing system is here, so we had

to come around that. We couldn't cut it off from the existing house. So it's just kind of how it worked out with the physical limitations of where the septics could be. Don't

think Bill's gone yet.

So then the sepsis all the piping will be on there actually on their own lot. They're not going to go in another lot. Correct. They're not going to go across another lot?

No. Yes, they're both going to be pumps. So it will

be a

small like two inch line that The runs all

the way fourth main coming out of okay. All right. Now it

makes sense. I didn't understand. I'm looking at it. I couldn't.

Yes, it's a long run for gravity.

It would. Long run, period.

Yes.

So through you, Mr. Chair, Zone RA has a minimum frontage of 175 feet. Lot 2 on the plan has a frontage of a 142.62. So, Lot 2 does not meet the frontage requirements. It meets the setback requirements, but it doesn't meet the frontage.

So that's only one portion of the frontage. There's a

No, 33 feet. Yeah.

Where's the other 33 feet? In the frontage. Oh, way over there.

So that 140 from this point up, because there's a different bearing, there's two different lines along frontage. So you have a section of I can't read it, but it's 30 something feet right there. That adds up.

33. Little things that it looks like an X?

Yes, I see it. Yes.

That's where the line changes bearing along the road.

All right. And the other question I have was lot one touches the 25 foot no touch zone. It's my understanding that you're not supposed to be able to touch any of the no touch.

So that's just the lot. So the lot can be inside of it and the building circle. That doesn't mean the building is going to be right up against it. We've actually gotten this approved through a superseding order from DEP and gone through Selectman because we have to do a crossing. There's a roadway ditch that is classified as wetland because it's connected to the wetland. And we've got a crossing approved.

All right. And the last thing I have was both lots appear to have illusionary access because of the wetland. And if the frontage doesn't provide real access and both lots rely on the shared driveway that you have on the plan listed on 8.2 of the plan, then it makes sense that it could be treated like a subdivision road.

So they do have the frontage because it's an approved crossing? Could still

be considered a subdivision road. Regardless if it's approved for a driveway, it still still could be considered Just

a common driveway, because we're not getting frontage from it. If we created a road layout that had frontage for the lots, if we didn't have enough frontage on Summer Street, then that's absolutely what it would be.

But it's an illusionary access?

It's not because we've gotten the crossing approved. So we have access through the frontage.

I would still say it's going to be a subdivision it's basically a subdivision road. It could be treated like one. I believe so.

It would only be a subdivision road if it was within its own road layout. It's It's you have the two lots and the road is inside of an easement, so they have shared access, but it's just a common driveway.

So I don't see on the plan where it shows a common driveway or it says anything about a common driveway.

I think there's a note that Nancy was referring to. It might be the last one on the site notes that says we've gotten the crossing approved through a common It

a driveway crossing has been approved. Doesn't say anything about a common driveway because on your conservation plan you show two driveways.

There's an existing driveway to the existing house?

No, you show two driveways, one on Lot one, one on Lot 2 back to back.

That might have been one version of the plan because we had gotten back and forth between them a couple of times.

Yes. So I was surprised when you said common driveway because the conservation plan shows two driveways back to back.

That might have been one version of it, but the current version that has been approved through DEP and Selectmen is one common driveway.

It was conservation that denied the plan that had the two driveways and then it was superseded by DEP and you were asked to have the one single common driveway to I reduce the amount of

think it might have gone to one driveway before Conservation denied it because we were trying to limit the disturbance and they still denied it because they didn't think the they thought using the existing access through the existing driveway and doing a long extended common drive would have been better. Yes. But for a few different reasons, we disagreed with that. And Fire Department wanted the straight access as well. So that's why we went to DEP.

Mr. Scherer? Yes. That is a question that I have. How is the Fire Department going to get to the leaching fields?

They won't have to.

If there's a fire out there, how do they get there?

There's no structures out there. It's all subsurface so.

The grass can catch on fire. There could be a wildfire. How does the fire department get out back to protect the homes that are in the front if there's a wildfire?

So in that situation, they have the existing driveway for Number 202 that's over on that side.

Stops at the house.

House. Or they could right. But it's all a field.

I don't have driveway access to my backyard.

Yes, there's no

I do.

There's no requirement to have like you'd have the driveway around the entire perimeter of the lot. I don't think anyone provides something like that. Okay.

I was just concerned if there was an accident or say you're right next to the Taunton River, say they needed to get to the river and there was someone out there in distress or whatever, how would they get there? But I guess they would just get there. But what is the distance between the leaching fields and the river?

Can you zoom in a little bit on the back part of the lots where it opens up, kind of right where your cursor is? So that's the right on the top of Lot 2 is the 100 foot repairing zone.

Right. Yep.

They're outside of that.

Okay.

It's almost out to the 200 because they're like right right inside of the 200. Okay. So, probably about 170, I'd say.

So that was also approved by Conservation?

DEP, yes.

DEP. Yes. Well,

Yes. That was part of plan was the septics, yes.

Mr. Chair, one more question. The existing septic system for 202,020 foot, is that the required setback from a lot line?

It's 10 feet.

It's 10, so it meets it. Yes. Thank you.

Bill, anything?

No, it's a little funky, but meets requirements.

Dave? Nope. Agreed with him.

I just have one more thing. And this is actually to add to a working meeting is to add a discussion on gerrymandered rat tail lots. A lot of towns prohibit those, especially where now you're getting into properties that are sort of buildable, but you need some extra land because part of it doesn't park for whatever reason and it's to prohibit these types of lots.

You should see the shape factor on my lot that I'm on. It's crazy.

Really? Yeah.

And if I walked to my property, people would be calling the police that I was trespassing on them.

Yeah.

A Yeah. Lot of towns don't allow these types of lots and it's just something we can discuss.

I think this is definitely something we need to talk about because this is an example of land that should not be developed. It's wetlands, wetlands, wetlands. It's near the Taunton River. You've got this little jog thing wrapping around. This is just land that should not be developed. And we need to put some sort of provisions to control these crazy lot shapes that are going around because I mean they literally wrap around one lot then it wraps around another lot. It's like this should not be allowed in town period. So we definitely need to do something about this.

I don't disagree with you, but at the moment, it is a lot.

Yeah. At the moment, you can only reason to deny it.

Right. Does anybody have anything else? With that, I'll entertain a motion to endorse the Form A as presented.

It's on you, Bill.

So is this where I remind us that if we don't have a legal reason to deny it, we have to endorse it?

I still don't think it I think it could

still consider the subdivision. It's not the approval.

Absolutely not. There is no

One to two off

of the subdivision road. It does not meet

The WD Logan Reservation Road.

Mhmm. Absolutely not.

Make a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a motion and a second to endorse the, form a as presented. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye unwillingly.

Opposed? I'm gonna ask Kane.

Three in favor, one abstention. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Have a good night.

You too. Alright. Public hearings at 06:30, section 7.5, open space and resource protection development bylaw.

Okay. This is the public hearing. Oh, you have to read the

Oh, alright.

The notice. I'm getting ahead of myself.

Yep. My my apologies. In accordance with MGL chapter 40 a section five as amended, the planning board will hold two separate public hearings on Tuesday, March 17 beginning at 06:30PM within the select board's meeting room town hall 10 Jefferson Avenue, Middleborough, Mass for the purpose of providing interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the town of Middleboro chapter two seventy five zoning bylaw as follows. The open space and resource preservation development amendment to section 7.5, open space and resource development. Should I stop there? Should I read the whole thing?

Yeah. You should read the whole thing.

Cannabis business district. Amendment to section eight point five point one purpose, general bylaw definitions. Amendment to section 10.2 marijuana establishment. The complete text for the proposed amendments is available for inspection within the planning and community development department Town Hall Annex 2020 Census Street, 2nd Floor, Middle Of Our Mass, Monday, 8AM to 6PM, Tuesday through Thursday, 8AM to 5PM, and Friday, 8AM to 12PM, or you can email, leeanne@bradleylatmiddleboroughmass.gov. Any person interested or wish wishing to be heard on the proposed amendments should appear at the time and place designated. With that, the hearing is now open.

Okay. Well, tonight, the purpose of the public hearing tonight, because we've worked through everything that needed to be worked through, is to present it to the public. However, we don't really have any public here to present it to. So we've been working on this for gosh, when did we start this? About a year ago.

It is an article on the town meeting warrant. Not really sure when town meeting is going to be at this point. Probably in May sometime. Don't have a date. This is the final version that was discussed at the last meeting that Tracy had forwarded to the office. And we just need a vote for recommendation by the planning board to town meeting.

Does any member of the board have any comments or questions on

I had a couple. Okay. So, I mean, I have some minor things that I can show Tracy with spaces and things like that. But, what I wanted to try to find out is, so on page eight at the very top, we have allowed where necessary to provide access to recreational ministries, permeable pavement options. Instead of shell, it should probably be will be favored.

And then down below that where it's a three, like three eyes, how it says approved by the Board of Health, I think we should probably add an SPGA in there as well. Well,

would be approved by the special permit granting authority as part of the approval of the application in the plan.

All right. So we don't have to have it there, No. You

Because we would be approving

Alright. I'm just making sure.

Yeah. We would be approving the special permit. So it doesn't have to say that we would have to approve this separately. Because it wouldn't It

wouldn't be in front of us if it hadn't been approved No. By the Board of

That's okay. Yeah. That's all right. Yeah. Then on the same page above that, because I have things in green and red, but so you have motorized vehicles of any type are prohibited. And then on the last page for definitions, it is no motorized vehicles are allowed as part of passive recreation activities. I know they say the same thing, but should the language be closer together or no?

No, I think it's fine the way

it You think it's alright?

Yeah. Let's see. There was one more.

I just wanted to make sure because we hadn't talked to you about it.

Yeah. No.

It's same meaning.

Yeah. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah. So page 11, we had talked about this before. And at the very top, the HOA shall be subject to approval by the Planning Board. Shouldn't that shouldn't we still say SPGA? No.

Because at some point, the SPGA could change. Say somebody wants this to go to the zoning board. HOAs, per Mass General Law, have to be approved by the planning board. I would leave that as planning board.

But under 75.16 definitions, it says the SPGA of the granting authority is municipality designated in this bylaw as the planning board.

It is right now, yes. Right.

But if they change it later, they will change that too. No?

I would leave it as planning board. HOAs are approved by the planning board. Okay. I think it just makes it clear who approves and reviews Oh,

we have two more. All right. Sorry, I have two more easy ones. So on 7.512, at the very end it says, Gas and Electric Department for their review, and it's talking about all of the departments. So instead of comment, I think it probably right? Reviewing comments because it's coming from more than one.

Nancy, what

page do want? 13. We all that's just the terminology is to review and comment. Okay. That's All right. The way we that's our lingo. Our lingo is to hear, please review and comment.

All right. No, that's fine. I just wasn't sure because when you look at it from a you know what I mean? Yeah. When you look at it from a plural sense, that's why I was asking. Alright. And then 7.514 down right before number one, second sentence up, it's like, the special permit shall be granted. It should say may. The The special permit may be granted.

Okay. Yep. Okay. That's

that's Yep. That's it. And then, like I said, I can either give you the things

that No. So it's that one. And then it was the so usually we change a will to No. I know what The other the opposite way.

We had done that. But then when I reread it, I was like, oh, well, what if it says it shall be granted? But what if there's a

reason for No, not that one. This That one should be made. I agree with that. The page eight one, where permeable pavement options shall favored in open space areas. Usually, if it were to say permeable pavement options will be favored, we always change a will to a shall.

No, I know. We did. Yeah, we

you did it to be that is what you want. If that is what you want, we always put in shall.

Yeah, I know. That's what we changed it to. Tracy and I changed it to shall from will before. But I wasn't sure. I was like, well, let me ask, know, Leanne if this should be that or should be shall. Because I wasn't time I read it, I'm like, oh, it could be either or. And I just wanted to make sure I threw it at you. I would leave shall. Okay. Sounds good.

Alright. So we'll change that one

Do you want these The May. Station stains? Wait.

I thought we took care of all

those. There's a

lot of Really?

Like all

the words

going to water.

Hold on. Maybe it's your copy. Because I took out that comment box. And I think when I took out that comment, I deleted the comment box, which was contributing to all those words being run together.

Mhmm.

So when I took out the comment box, I think it fixed that. If you want to look at this one, Nancy, it's the same one you have. It just doesn't have that comment box in it.

Let me see if

Mr. Chair? Yep. I just have one thing. Leanne, under 7.5.9 on page 11, it's the preliminary concept plan review. I don't know if we need the planning board in there because it says applicant shall submit a preliminary concept plan to the planning board, Board of Health and Conservation, and obtain opinion of the SBGA. So do you want to leave that in there as planning board? Or do we need it in there? Isn't it assumed that they

are Yeah. Probably don't have to have that in there.

Right. Because they're going to submit it to us.

Exactly.

And then it gets submitted to everybody else.

Right.

So do we want to just take out

Yeah. We can take that out.

The planning board. It's just water health and conservation.

Don't have my copy. Okay. So where was that? Page 11.

Okay.

7.5.9. Yep. It's the second sentence to the planning board, Board of Health and Conservation Commission.

Okay. So preliminary concept plan review. Okay. So, that's if they want to do a preliminary plan review. So, maybe we can just change the

That's the one I had asked you last time. It should be planning department or planning board. Remember I had asked a question? And you said leave it, but

You know what? I would leave that in. Leave it?

Leave it.

Okay. I would leave that in there. Okay. Yeah. Just wanted to make sure read it.

I want to have wiggle room.

Okay. So

I didn't say it.

Yeah. That's it, hopefully. But I have all All right.

Send me your yeah, let me have that.

I try to circle, but some things like where the questions It's I had so

weird because when I run it through, it doesn't pick up. You would think it would pick this up as a spelling or grammatical.

I know. I ran it through, I fixed all the things.

Because it says, like, to demonstrate was together on one of them, like, right after the the easiest one to look at is this one, right after the graph, like, right after the table. See how it's too damaged?

No. Yep. You see what I mean? See

it. Yeah. I see it. Yep.

I see So there's a few of those, but that's why I'm like, I'll just give you that. I don't mind

it. Okay. Okay.

Very good.

Alright. So I understand motion. Alright. To

recommend this is a public hearing.

We have to close the

hearing first. Approved.

Public too.

They have to hear from the public.

Yes. Alright. It won't

take as long as last night.

Hello, public?

Anybody

on the board have anything else on this? Anyone in the public have any comments or questions? All right. So I entertain a motion to close the hearing.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion to second to close the hearing. Any comments or questions? All in favor? Aye. Nayers closed.

And a motion to recommend.

Motion to Favorable action. Favorable action on the amended version. So move. Second. I have a motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Nay. Nay? All right. Three in favor, one

opposed. Yes. Oh, okay.

I didn't agree with the setbacks in the Leach and Field. Alright.

06:30PM, section eight point five point one, the cannabis Business District. I will Open the hearing.

Is this a Leanne, is there a legal ad for this? Or He already read it. Oh, for the quote. Yeah. We had both on the same Oh, okay. Legal ad. Alright.

Okay. So the article as it reads is to see if the town will amend its zoning bylaws as follows to clarify that the town's adoption of chapter two seventy five, section 8.5 of the town code entitled Cannabis Business District was not intended to and did not authorize social consumption establishments to operate in town. And therefore, that consumption of marijuana or marijuana prod products on premises where sold is not permitted with underlying text to be inserted. This is we did this because the Cannabis Control Commission, the CCC recently approved social consumption establishments in Massachusetts. However, the town does need to adopt that if they were to have them.

However, when we had our definition of marijuana establishments, we did not address social consumption establishments in any way because in 2018 when we did this, such a thing did not exist. So we are just making it very clear that social consumption establishments are not allowed in Middle Borough. They are prohibited. Just to be sure that an applicant doesn't come and say, well, I just read this and it doesn't say that social consumption establishments aren't prohibited. So therefore they must be allowed.

It's just for protection. At any point, if the town does decide that they do want them, then we can change it.

So that was my question. And before we realized that business is good in Middleborough that's a bad way to phrase it before realized how much money went hemorrhaging. I didn't want to exclude any type of business without a discussion first. But if a business comes to town and wants to open up one of these places, we can talk to them about it. And we can come up with a bylaw that would allow it.

Right. Yeah.

All

right. Yep. It's zoning bylaw amendment. We can always have another zoning bylaw amendment.

I don't think Massachusetts has any idea what they're going do, how to open these places anyway? Because smoking inside is prohibited.

Yeah. I don't know.

So what are you going do? You going sit around and pop a gummy with people?

Yeah, I guess. You can have a brownie or a piece of Well, you can do

that right now.

You can have a piece of a brownie, not an old brownie, just like a

But if you go to any establishment not any establishment, but quite a few you're going to walk by somebody who's smoking outside.

All the time.

I get a contact buzz when I go running.

Or when you're driving your car.

Right.

I get it. Or we walk from the annex to the parking lot, go home.

I'm like hungry. Town

smells like weed.

Are there any?

Are there any in the state of Massachusetts?

Not that I'm aware of.

Not to

date. I saw that they were. There probably is, but I don't know of any.

Out of state New York? No, no, I asked if there were any consumption. I don't think there's any in Massachusetts. I don't know if there's any anywhere. I mean, like the hashtags in Hong Kong.

When I asked Google today, it said there was one starting the pulmonary process.

Yeah. Like I spoke to somebody who owns a cannabis dispensary, and they were confused at how Massachusetts was going to operate.

And regulate them?

They don't seem to understand the state doesn't seem to understand what marijuana consumption is.

Well, CCC has had their host of issues over the past

You mean the

eighty years. Who

got fired and then rehired.

Right. Yeah.

Yeah. They're struggling.

So I

But we'll come up with a law that we don't understand. Yeah. Course. We'll pass it.

Uh-huh. And

impose it on the local municipalities.

Yep.

It reminds me of a train station.

Have a question, because when you guys are talking about it, I had already thought about that too with the no smoking in establishment. So would this mean that we would have to try to amend the other bylaw as well that and you have marijuana in there?

I don't think

No other bylaw. Like because we have one now that says smoking in buildings, right? Don't we have that? Or even like

That has nothing to do with us. The no smoking

We don't have any bylaws.

I think that's state that's a state law.

But yeah, if a developer comes to town and wants to open up a business like this, we're going to have to have all those conversations. Because again, I don't think the state understands how any of these things work. I mean, I know I don't. But I'm pretty sure they don't either.

I have no idea either. Agree.

And I don't think we should allow something that nobody understands until it's figured out fine. Need

to get more information.

Well, least it's not a mandate.

Yeah. Unfunded. You'll be funded with that.

So I would entertain a motion to aye. Anybody any from the public have anything they'd like to add? Anyone from the board, anything else?

Aren't there private clubs that allow smoking cigars, like cigar rooms?

Oh, yeah. Private. Not a way around it? Probably.

Yeah. Yeah. Private club.

Yep. Probably.

So do we need something Just like public spaces. Do we need a buy

When I spoke with you guys, I usually went to Rhode Island. There weren't any up here. No. I

wasn't a member

of the private club. You

already have a lot.

Right. I didn't say a motion to close the hearing.

So moved. Asked Close to the public. Asked Close to the public first,

Oh, he did. I did.

He did. Is that what Donovan? Oh, sorry. I'm confused now.

That's right. So I see a motion to close the hearing.

So moved. Second.

Motion to second. Hearing is not closed. Thank you very much. And to obtain a motion to Did they vote?

No, that's what we're doing. Yeah. We to vote. You

can't close the vote.

Aye. Aye. Now it's closed.

You're in the vote. Okay. Entertain a motion to approve at town meeting? Recommend favorable action. Favorable action at town meeting.

So moved. Second.

Motion to second. Any comments, questions? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Alright. Next one, six thirty, section, 10.2, general bylaw definition. Zoning bylaw amendment.

Well, this is part of the same article, the same public hearing. Alright. So we don't have to do that separately.

Beautiful. We already did that. And public hearing at 06:35. So we have a letter from mister Shaughnessy. Mr.

Farley and honorable board members, it has come to my attention that all of the members of the planning board will not be present at this next meeting of the board. Therefore, on behalf of NESP LLC, the applicant, I respect respectfully request that the board continue this matter to its next meeting on April 7. Additionally, the applicant hereby consents to extending the deadline associated with this preliminary plan filing to 04/10/2026. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. So I'd entertain a motion to continue this hearing to next meeting on 04/07/2026 at 06:30.

And accept the extension of the time till April 10.

I was gonna do that as a the next motion, but can I do them both? And to additionally accept the consent to extending or to extend the deadline to April 10. So moved. Second. I have motion to second. Any comments or questions? All in favor? Mr. Chair?

I don't know, but it seems odd that someone is continuing because a board member's gonna be I didn't know a board member wasn't gonna be here tonight. So how did he know a board member wasn't gonna be here tonight? I it just seems a little weird because I didn't know Anders wasn't gonna be here. So

I didn't either.

Maybe they met at a coffee shop.

Is there a reason why he doesn't wanna go forward with four members because four can vote?

But he has to get all

of us. No.

Has to

be five? I don't have any problem at all with him asking to extend it. Yeah.

It just seemed weird. That's all because I had no idea Anders wasn't coming. So he had he knew. So it just seemed odd. Now what happens at the next meeting if someone is is gone? Are they gonna continue again?

That that's the developers right.

Yeah. We have that.

That's the developers right to make sure there's a full board because they need four out of the five.

Okay.

Therefore, need they need all the chances they get to get it approved. And if they try to do it with only four, taking a risk.

Yep. Okay. Think it's a prudent move on their end.

Developers always do that. Okay.

All right.

So I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously.

So there

is a form

that we'll sign, Form P, for the extension of the time.

All right. Under other? Great Cedar Village, one year extension. I'll read the letter from, attorney Mather, mister Mandel. Please be advised that I'm writing as attorney for Foal Street Development LLC regarding a subdivision known as Great Cedar Village.

To close, please find a complete form p request for extension of time. We respectfully request that the planning board extend the time for the completion of the subdivision known as Great Cedar Village for one year from 04/02/2026 until 04/02/2027. If have you any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very true, Lyons. Robert Mathur.

I have a question to Leanne if possible on this. Yep. So does this fall under that whole thing where the state changed the rules to two years? Is that why the two years is on here, two years from first Form J?

Well, okay, well you can answer

that. So that was in their subdivision request. Those are the rules at the time. That's in the decision. And in there they're allowed to ask for one year extension. One

year or two year, like has it been I've never been here. Wasn't here. So was it two years ago they had the decision?

Right. Two years ago. Well, it was before, but then the Form J was

That's two years different.

Form J was two years.

Yes. It's two years from the Form J, the first Form J being issued. In this case, all the lots were released

at once.

But it would be the first one. And we're coming up to the timeframe and the developers just taking his time. He's not concerned about building all the houses. He has a couple of them done and he's just moving along.

Well, the reason I'm asking that question is because if the extension is given two years, does that mean they get another two years if we No, extend

extension is one year.

For one year.

No. So are you talking about the the permit extension act because of COVID? So that's different. That applies to the to the permit itself. Okay. Not to not to when we release lots. That is an internal That's an internal time clock.

Okay. That's what I like. Don't know, I mean, I remember reading it now. That's why I was asking the question.

That's an internal time clock that we That is not a state time timeline. We could have Form J lot release. You have a year. You have eight years. You have ten years. But we decided on two years, and then you can request an extension. It's just so these subdivisions don't go on forever.

Yes, just wanted to ask that question because I haven't come across it yet. At least it shows I'm reading. I read the two

were going fast.

Yeah. No, it's no problem. I just wanted to ask because I, you know, we haven't come across it and Leanne sent us the information and I didn't know where to put it. Now I do.

Mr. Chair? Yep.

I drove in there Monday. I've never been there since we permitted it. There's only two houses built. There's another five lots to be released, that we built on. But the retention basins and the road and everything looks good. It's just a binder though. So I was just concerned that we're holding enough money to finish the project for another year.

Well, the money that we're holding was based on the last review from PMP and all the retention basins were done at that time. This goes back

I quite a just wanted to make sure that we were holding enough.

The only thing that needs to be done is the top coat and he is holding off the top coat so that when the building is being built, it's not scarfing it up.

I know Mr. Snyder for a long time. I don't think he's ever been in a

No, he's done very well by us.

We could I mean, if it goes on for a long time for a while, you can always ask for a new estimate because like you're saying, costs rise.

The costs rise. So that's what I was concerned. Right. I wanted to see how bad or how good the subdivision look. Yeah. That looks good. Yeah. I just was just concerned that the price of everything is increasing so much.

Right.

I'll be holding enough that we have to be fixed, do it in another year for now? He doesn't finish in a Yeah.

I would I would say if he wants another extension

No. He's gotta put on more money or we can't Exactly. Do

gonna have to another

estimate. Can we put a note on this that if there is another exemption added

to that? Another cost estimate done for surety. Yeah. Definitely.

Mr. Chen, can I ask when this was originally when was the surety originally figured?

Two years ago. Two years ago? Yeah.

Okay. Because prevailing wage rates are only good for six months.

And then

you have to ask for new prevailing wage rates. So if we've had the surety done for two years, then you have four different five different iterations of prevailing wage. So the prevailing wage rate two years ago may be $10 less than it is now. So that's the only

problem of that. Would assume there's a 25% contingency worked into our charity because we always do that.

Right. That's why the 25% is in there because of that. That. It's when we start extending them more than the two years or more than a year because there was times that we had subdivisions out there eight years on binder, ten years on binder

Oh, yeah.

Well when I was here.

That's why we changed this to two years.

Because

used to be

eight years. They were sitting out there too long. And the bind is not meant the bind is porous. It's not meant to be sitting in that long or it falls apart. Right.

Yeah. Well, my my concern is that if the prevailing wage rates for three if he gets another year, it's three years. If the prevailing wage rates eat up our 25% contingency and then the binder goes up 15% and this goes up 15%, we have no contingency left because all the contingency has been expended on the wage rates.

Well, it's 25%. That's a lot.

Right.

That's I mean, it's a quarter of what the the bottom line number is. That that's a lot.

We can afford one year extension without increasing it. But after that

Yeah. So we noted

that Yeah.

We'll actually increase if they ask for no. Yep. So I did say a motion to grant the extension.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion to second. Any other comments, questions? All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Passes unanimously. Alright. Tom Planner posting and job description. How about we go with the job description first?

Yep. These were changes made by labor council. Everything else in here is what the board approved. And when I took what the board approved, sent it to HR, it went to labor counsel for a final review. So everything that you see in red is from our labor counsel.

Anybody have any comments or questions on the job description?

I do. But I think it's blue is labor.

Blue, that was added by the HR director.

All right.

In the blue, I mean, the red is labor council, blue was the HR director.

But I do have a question, Chair, to Leanne. How difficult is it to find a town planner right now?

It's very difficult. I don't How want it

long do you think it would take?

It's going to take a few months.

Will it be harder to find a town planner with five to seven years experience versus one with three to five?

No.

You don't think so?

Anybody who has three to five years of experience will apply to this. They're not going to look anybody with experience is going to apply for this.

Will don't get want you anything. I will

It's not even a stamp.

It's they go on Indeed. We will get people who work at Dunkin' Donuts applying for this job. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Dunkin' Donuts. I love Dunkin' Donuts, and that's great. But we will get a lot of a diverse applicant pool.

Mean, you know That's why

I drink black coffee.

Because you like it that much?

No. Because that's the only thing they can't screw up. I mean

To drink black coffee is going to be pretty good.

I tried for years. They mess it up every single time. All right, I'll just have a black coffee.

About that.

And even then it's not 100%

success rate.

So you know, like, the only thing that's holding me back, last time I said no to this, I voted no. And the thing that's holding me back is the five to seven years. I mean, I'd compromise with four to seven myself, otherwise I'm just gonna probably vote it down again.

Okay.

I mean, I would rather see four to seven. It just opens it up one more year. I think it's going be really hard to find someone five to seven years. I looked at MMA and things like that. Most, like in Collins, from what I understand from Googling everything, is three to five. So I'm just

Well, trying to Collins did this and we changed the whole thing.

But I'm, you know, so I'm just asking for a year now. So

I can tell you that the amount of information that you learn every year is staggering in this job because you don't see everything every day, every week, every month. It could be three, four, five, six months gaps before you see something again. And sometimes it's a year before you see things. And there's still things now that come through where I have to I know we did this,

but it could have been

a couple of years ago.

That's why we like Bill.

How many years have you been the town planner?

Town planner? Only what, year and a half?

Yes.

But I've been in the planning department hearing everything for over five.

Mr. Chair? Yes.

I know some towns are not able to get a planner and they've gone up to a year trying to find a candidate and I'm just concerned that with the five to seven years that you may have someone that has three or four years and they'll go, oh, well, I'm not going to apply because their minimum is five to seven. And I think we're And

being professional, I know, that those two numbers are not going to hold them back from applying

at all. I'm just concerned. I don't want to put us in a box because HR is going to be involved in this. And so if HR is getting the applications, we're not seeing them, they're getting them.

No, they will forward all applications.

Right, but they're to get first and they're going to say okay well this person has only three years, this person has four years and I just think it wouldn't hurt us to to do three to seven that gets us out of a box. It gives us a wider range. And then when HR gets the applications, if someone's got three years, okay, that's going on. If five years, you know, six years, whatever. But I really would like us to

broaden How about if we do like four plus years?

I could I could I could work with us.

Four plus. Why don't we just put them on the end

of it, may consider less years. May consider.

Well, it has they did have on they added on here the description of the hold on. So if we do four plus years of professional experience in municipal planning, civil engineering, or a closely related field, and it does say, or an equivalent combination of education and experience.

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

I like that You said

was labor counsel.

I like that phrase. Yes.

Labor counsel.

Labor counsel.

For five to seven years.

Well, we had five to seven years. I think what they did, they added or an equivalent combination of education and experience.

Yeah. So I think that's

I just want to make sure that when the applications come in that they're not being screened to only providing us with five to seven years.

They are not so I can just speak because I'm doing the in the hiring process for two positions for animal control. They are not being screened.

Okay.

I get every single application. And then the decision as to who to hire for that department is left to me and the animal control officer. No screening at all.

As long as we want to see every single application that comes in.

I still think where Leanne had said she'd offer to do four plus years, even though it said that thing before, that we go with four plus years. And then we have four on the board approve it. Mean, honestly, can't, not unless it's four. I just think that extra year, I think of myself coming up, you know what I mean, and just not having five years.

I'm good with four. Jill, are

you Okay

with four?

Four. Whatever.

There you go. How do we record whatever as a vote? Yay.

All right. So that's a job description. Everybody Okay with the posting?

Just have to change the Yeah. It's just the same thing to change. Well, was in the posting.

Yeah.

Yep. I'm good with the posting. The only thing is the date of posting needs to be changed from February 18. Yes. It does. Yep.

Yeah. I'm and given what happened last night, I don't know. Oh. That's that

is a question.

I don't I I'm not going to feel I am not gonna be confident in posting this, and we start to get applicants and maybe even start an interview process when in June, we're told there's no more hiring. I don't know if that's going to happen. I can't I don't know. But I want to be assured that that is not going to happen before we move Well, we need a plan. Or winner.

Well, I don't think legally they can tell us we can't have one

because Oh, can. They

no? State law says we have to have a plan.

No, it doesn't. There are many towns that don't have a plan. We don't have to have a I

would suggest we go forward in the manner we're moving now until we're told otherwise.

Okay. All right. Yeah.

I absolutely share your concerns.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But waiting, I don't think, is good for us.

No. No. I agree. We

have to fill a position.

We have to. We need a planner.

You know that a Joe can't retire until he fill the position.

I tell him that every

day. Shackled.

Every day.

Shackled to the desk.

He does say it

every day. I mean,

I Joe can come in as a consultant.