Southborough Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

all right good evening I am calling to order the South Burl zoning board of appeals for January 22nd 2025 um we are now on Zoom as well as in person so um thank you for the efforts of the IT person uh so two two of our members are remote tonight Paul De Panos and Mike Robbins uh on the agenda tonight the first thing we have is a review of um comprehensive rules and regulations that is really going through our internal rules and regulations and getting up to date with recent state code uh this is work that has really been done by Laura and Jay so if you could um if you don't mind uh either Jay or Laura you want to just kind of walk us through what what's updated or at least the significant pieces of it maybe yeah um really quick just because it is technically a public hearing oh sorry right board of appeals of the town of Southboro will hold a public Hearing in the mcalli hearing room Wednesday January 22nd 2025 at 7 o'clock PM with regard to proposed comprehensive permit rules and regulations for the Southboro town code section 43-2 thank you so um what we did so Lara did a lot of the work um in terms of getting the initial draft done and then what I did was take the rules and kind of compare them to some other ones that I've done because we routinely do this and then kind of modernize them so that they kind of matched what we know to be the case law the history and then some other changes I made related to things that we kind of either repetitive of what we can

already do or things that wouldn't want to have fixed in the regs but would want to give you discretion to do so towards the end of the regs I had a lot of deletions and those are the kinds of things that and you know this because we did just did it another permit we would put in a permit or in the documents following the permit so I don't like to fix those in the regulation even though we can change the regulations whenever we want as long as we hold a hearing I just there's no need for them to be here because we already have that Authority so when you saw a whole bunch of cross outs especially towards some of the latter um periods we either have that Authority or it's just duplicative of what already what already exists um I did make a bunch of changes because it's not dhcd anymore and because they've changed some of their stuff I added some things to make your review a little more fome and we can go through it like the various changes or just answer questions like I added areas of review in terms of like environmental Neighborhood Impact those kinds of things that are pretty natural um to this uh changed the a couple things here and there as did Lura to uh conform with more current language in our in the town's bylaws um the you know the the terms for different entities select board right yeah select board things like that um you know otherwise I mean the gist of it is mostly the same that um but I kind of just kind of brought it brought it up to date uh a little bit so okay um i' like to just quickly ask the board members I mean I I prefer that we kind

of go they lead us through it I don't know if anybody's done a very detailed review and has their own thoughts and questions before we begin so I've read it um I probably have like five minor comments but we can just go through those as we go through it okay but I did read in detail I thought it overall looked great um but I had some couple additions or minor questions as we go through sure okay yeah we can go through it section by section yeah you I'll try and summarize where where I can summarize okay um but otherwise we can go through it so you know section one it's kind of like just the history and how we got here um what 40b is what we try and look at under these 40b projects the source of the authority to adopt regulations is there introduces some of the players describes some of the additions I had you know were was there was a a line in there kind of halfway down um the need for affordable housing must be considered within the context of such issues as public health safety promotion of improved site and building design neighborhood character infrastructure impacts which always comes up environmental concerns open space preservation Etc so I I added some there made a bunch of changes on the the regulatory um names and the um change dhcd to eohc so that that's most of the the changes to section one it's really just a preface yeah so to speak um I if I can briefly I just want to make sure I'm looking at the same documents that Laura sent out on December 9th I just want to make sure there's nothing else that I've

missed I believe that's the same one because I okay I thought I hadn't seen anything subsequent I just while I'm going through these again right now I just wanted to make sure I'm I'm I'm reviewing remotely the the final the most recent version absolutely awesome thanks section two is just the definitions I I always contemplate doing more definitions these are kind of the ones the the regulations under 40b have a lot of definitions in them we don't have to repeat them here they apply to us I think it's important to kind of give a a couple of them to talk about local board I do see where we say Board of Selectmen in 2.3 that we should probably change to to select board but it those are really kind of just repeats of three of the many definitions that we see in the 40b regulation 760 CMR 56.0 Jay one quick question just um with the recent Milton case and part of it get the state is doing new 40b regulations I think the issued emergency regulations too how does that affect this if anything so the the Milton case doesn't affect it all y the new 40b regulations also don't affect this process the new 40b regulations have two components to it that are important to us and we can get into that a little bit it's more likely going to come up in in real time a changed one of the processes and it's still in the works to develop the land area minimum calc calculation that is a Safe Harbor and the other thing is they changed the regulations actually made it easier for towns but quicker for developers as well when a town does claim one of the safe harbors whether it's recent progress towards 10%

or size a large project or repetitive petition those kinds of things it simplified that those were the two really the sum total of those 40b regs none of that is addressed in these regs those are really important because any town could come up against that in fact right now I have three or four projects involving safe harbors we haven't had a situation like that we may as we inch closer to 10% in this year even just our recent progress may come up so that does affect us if we get another project that significantly increases our overall housing load then we we may be able to use some of the Provisions they're actually good for both towns and developers rare that they change a reg that actually helps us as as well as the development Community but it it is actually a pretty good change on that great thank you so and the Milton common stuff that's the other the other bylaw correct so I mean indirectly impacts us because it may be a tool for some developers to approach by right um opportunities as opposed to these opportunities and and those projects may also throw off a little affordable housing which makes our job easier here as well okay so okay so uh initial process uh Laura and I kind of brought it into kind of current you know we we talked about the business administrator for the zoning board of appeals is the entity that gets the application we eliminated shopsy from the mix um and there's a couple Provisions there we talk about town Department review all the entities that we would like to review these things ahead of

time again we replace shopsy with the affordable housing trust fund committee um Conservation Commission we add storm water issues to their review that review may also come from other sources obviously our own planning board may also chime in on that DPW May I'm in but um concom when it comes to Wetland impacts they will certainly um focus on some storm water stuff so um and then I we added there that other reviews as recommended by The Building Commissioner the town planner or the DPW director because they may say wow this is an interesting project we want to look at it from a tree Warden perspective or some other perspective so I just wanted to make sure we had a good strong catchall there um again not super binding on anyone but kind of um important to do um so one minor comment and I I promise you my other ones are more substantive um okay 3.1 second paragraph second line prior this on the clean version prior to the submission application to keep I think it's just to be to keep the neighbors there's an extra and in there so tell me again so 3.1 second paragraph second line on the clean version so it's says prior to submission of application and to keep it says and the neighbors I think it should just be keep the neighbors minor so minor net important thank yeah so okay um 3.4 I did strike um this thing about so it says an environmental notification form under meepa may be required re ired so it's not for us to say what is required for environmental notification form that's someone else's jurisdiction so I wanted to stay away

from that and I you know if there's an environmental notification form out there we want it we want to see it and we're entitled to it most of the time the enf is going to come well after us and there's actually state regulations that talk about the the requirement to provide that as part of the 40 B process but it usually you developers normally do that after the fact sometimes they do it before us because there's something else going on Wetlands that they want to square away or something we may see it ahead of time um I struck the stuff um it says may be required if a comprehensive uh permit is proposed for more than 100 units again not for us to tell them when it is or isn't required if they're required to do an environmental notification form they're going to be required to do it anyway and eventually we'll get to see it and I just say may be required if the application triggers one or more of the threshold requirements under meepa again that's just stating the obvious but we're not in the meepa business we want to be informed of those things if there's information out there that's helpful to us from a state agency we want to see it but I don't want to regulate it at all and dup duplicate those efforts so um filing uh time limits notice uh not a lot of changes there um I did um change on 4.1.2 point5 um it says you know the board may elect to retain service of a consultant pursuant to section 5.1 to the review the details of the proforma and to

consider other relevant guidelines for the review of costs and revenues of a development project there are there is guidance from the state as to when we can't it's in the 40b regulations WR large um when we can and can't do that and uh but the the language such as those as may be available from the Massachusetts office of the Inspector General and those that may be available from citizens housing and Planning Association so as to the Inspector General there are none they don't regulate or tell us how to look at a proforma for identifying it there are differences of opinion amongst the development community and the municipal Community as to how a review a proforma that's the subject of some regulations in a few cases but the IG doesn't have any of that information doesn't get involved in the 40b stuff um they might if there's a fraud and they're and they have to get involved but they wouldn't get involved in the permanent end and as to those that may be available from Chapa even if Chapa currently had any of those guidelines I wouldn't adopt them because I guarantee and this is not I don't mean this in a pejorative sense that all all inferences and presumptions in a study by Chapa on that issue are going to be resolved in favor of the developer side of the spectrum there's a whole other school of thought from the municiple side of the spectrum normally Everyone Falls right in the middle but chap is not a legal Authority they're a nonprofit that is kind of monolithically dedicated to the development of hous and I mean that in the positive sense but that is their

world and they're not a regulatory Authority and they shouldn't be relied on dhcd developed and now eohc holds certain guidelines for the review of proformas it's a lengthy document it's available to us it's on the housing appeals Committee website so that's why I kind of left it more as broad um and sometimes there are disputes over how to interpret a proor and I wanted to preserve ve our opportunity to engage in that process usually we find a way to agree used to be that folks like me and Lou used to uh fight over what a proor means or says now much less so because everyone's kind of found a way to the middle on that because we kind of understand I don't really love the process but it is where it is you know based on what I'm seeing what we've seen out of the cases so um let's see other things in section 4 under 4.1.3 point9 I added that if there is going to be a subdivision plan we want that plan to be in compliance with the plan requirements of the subdivision regulations there's a a great they can always request waivers from those regulations but there's a lot of great details that the planning board has worked really hard on to make sure that when we see a subdivision plan IT addresses things like Road width where the lots are where the monuments are the road construction standards the curves all of those other things if they want to request waivers that's fine but we want to see the the level of detail that we would expect they would be presenting if they had to go before the planning board so nothing more nothing less I think the last project that we did it took a while but eventually the

applicant um developed a subdivision plan that kind of met those standards so this is just kind of memorializing um that uh process Jay just to go back briefly um 4.1.3 point6 actually appreciate the added the buffer zones in right because obviously those been missing from the plans on the wetlands yep um one thing I'm not sure where to add it but we should also add a request for a limit of work line which we've added on several projects sure and I don't know where we've specifi what not sure exactly where it should go but it should be at least on the maybe we'll Lara and I will add it somewhere I want to make just a note we'll we'll toss that in somewhere that the plan should include a limit of work I mean the first one we asked the most recent one does have it which is really helpful to see how much of the area they're serving pretty common engineering standard so I think it's a it's a good thing for us to add um I I add in 4.1.3 point10 that for larger projects we may you know I don't want to say for all projects if we get in with a four unit project or six or 10un project or one building project that has 12 units we may not require or need a landscape architect to sign a landscaping plan but for larger projects we may want to require like there's a full professional landscaping approach to it so I didn't want to say that was a hard and fast requirement because we'll a waiver every time I think we reserve the right to ask for it on something that is a complex set of landscaping plans so and it it's actually really helpful those larger projects like when we see 200 unit projects it's almost always they're gonna have a landscape architect anyway it's important for them to do it as well and Jay this one my other comments more for the board too given

our last couple of projects there is definitely from the conservation commission or just generally there's been a comment of a preference for Native species in landscaping and I don't know if we want to add I don't want to be too prescriptive and again it's just a preference or native species might be something to add just because it's the first comment we get every time from comcom or it comes up again not a requirement but something for the board to consider as an item to add just to I mean it's going to come up so why not put it in the RS yeah I I don't you know that we should Express the preference at the very least so I think um you're making that yeah okay I think that's that's fine yeah I would agree uh the addition um that we have in 4.1.3 point4 I think it's just a smart addition and we want to see that it meets um stormw management guidelines by D pretty straightforward they all are going to be measured by that anyway so that's going to be ultimately the review by any civil engineer so I think that's important um 4.1.5 where I add for each building and projects of more than four units the it shall be signed by a registered architect that that's reflective of the requirements of the state okay for something smaller and and I have seen a couple of 2unit 40 BS but for normally almost all of them are bigger than four I've seen a bunch of fours um so we don't necessarily that said most of the time they're going to come in with something architecturally designed it so but that's the more than 4unit thing isn't my standard or

something that I've seen it's something that the state has suggested is the is the standard um had a comment on that I only had about four or five comments Jay so absolutely I I like the section and the fact that we'd want a mass registered architect um it's just a thought I didn't know if we wanted to add language then in my my experiences do you mean you want to have so an architect May sign that in Massachusetts but the work performed outside of Massachusetts do we want to be more narrow or it's just the fact we want a mass registered architect signing a lot of the architectural forms are pretty big yeah yeah I'm I'm I'm just saying what you know absolutely so is the intent you would have to be a likely be a mass registered architect design a plan in Massachusetts just by law by an architectural license but my understanding is that they're gonna have to I mean if they're I don't think it's as strict as like being an engineer work masss or a lawyer but I think if they're presenting plans for construction detail in Massachusetts that's just a question yeah yeah so I yeah well because some of the firms are pretty large I know that they're they're big but I'm sure they they use the the big ones will probably use someone to stamp the plan locally but it's it's made in even if even if someone else has it there might be a couple of stamps on it no it's just a question you want to make the language more restrictive or you think that's adequate that's all I think it's adequate shall be signed by a m registered architect I don't know I mean I'm happy to make changes to it it seems I mean I think I think it seems adequate to me just to say Mass registered architect because I I feel the same way if you're trying to do a project here I would think even if

you're a large outfit you would have some presence here or some relationship where you'd get a somebody from Massachusetts yeah I mean for example like a company like Avalon which does a lot of projects Massachusetts Texas company but and they use plans that are probably done down in Texas but there's always a mass stamp on it yeah well that's exactly what I'm discussing right right so I mean that's what it says there in four point 1.5 and that and that follows Mass uh is that mass guidelines I think so I think they say Mass registered I think it's fine for us to say it certainly no I want it it's not wasn't that just it's enough that's all okay yeah okay um I did have another tiniest tiny comp I actually wrote too much about this in my comments law yeah because we're going to get further down this is going to take a nanc 4.1 do 2.1 is um I just it says the pro former shall be prepared by a certified public account and experience in construction and development I just have a strong preference to replace the word experienced with the word competent yeah we might even want to a lot of Prof foras are not prepared by an a CPA actually so we could probably take out CPA so what was the word that you wanted instead of experienced CPAs can um that's that's a strict requirement it's costly requirement to put a CPA on there um well it's not a requirement for 4 B right most of the pro forers I see are not done by C that's probably because of cost um so if you retain the word certified public accountant experience it's um the word you being a CPA the word you

normally would use is competent um you could just say prepared by a competent and experienced person in construction I mean you could you could strike certified public accountant because that's that is a costly requirement they're not audited they're just I don't know how worthy they are if they're not audited but what if we said an accountant or other professional that is um if I may comp competent subjective term certified is fine who's that that's Paul that's Jay or Paul that's that's that's Paul comp competent is a that's a subjective term so if you're a certified accountant that's adequate yeah would change if you're a certified public accountant the word is competent if you're using another word um you wouldn't use the word competent but specifically with CPS you just have to be competent it's sort of a ethics and a regulation for CPA well that's if you're certified you're competent right there's no need to have this discussion well you could just strike it entirely and back out experience right I AG no need for this discussion you're CPA you're CPA all right so what do we by definition suting a change so I'm right so what are we are we suggesting making a change here or not well I want to say certified public accountant or other professional that is experienced in or competent in experienced in construction development M then we need a second sentence then it gets run on you can fix that it says and and do you want the you want the competent following the certified public accountant as

Paul's correct it's if you can strike the word competent if you're a CPA but um if you're putting an end a competent or experienced construction accountant I don't even know it's such a thing but I doubt it so that that's why I wanted to maybe just say the proforma shall be prepared by a certified public accountant or other professional that is experienced in construction development yeah I I agree with the other professional adding it in yeah I think I think that I think that makes sense right um the next was 4.1.8 was the next change I I have another easier easy comment um this is in section 4.3 I think it's at the start of the section it's about the copies the 10 copies and Laura you probably can speak to this also goes the applicant must file one full physical copy with town clerk sounds good and 10 physical copies and one electronic copies and my recollection is a number of years ago we had talked about all these copies with the application do we need 10 copies is what I'm getting down to so I think hard copy I think need is I don't so originally before I took a chance at this it was 26 copies oh my God so currently what these poor people have had to submit is 26 copies and I have binders on binders in my office because they don't go anywhere um okay we're getting to some we're getting to it so I reduced it to 10 because what I do is I provide a hard copy to the Conservation Commission a hard copy to the Building Commissioner one to the select board and several copies to the planning board and then I like to have one in my office in

case people come in and they want to take a look at it so do we need it no but okay yeah so I mean I think it's really up to you guys the our regular applications we don't require a hard copy at all for us but that's because they are submitted on our online portal I have not yet found out a way to get our comprehensive permits onto the online portal just because they're so complex um so the website is the next best thing that I have to get it out there electronically to the public but in case somebody wanted to come in I'd like to have at least one hard copy for us so 10 is working well for you it sounds like 10 has worked well okay one thing we can do for the 10 copies is for for the plans themselves to be 1117 unless you all have a preference for full-size plans tends to cut down on paper in the bulk of your files um um I almost never want to copy if I have online access so um it's going to be what works well for La the less for me from a higher view is is is better um I I've have no issues with reading what I can see electronically with plan I I I think one fullsize set is appropriate but after that I think I'm good with 11 by 17s I'm fine with that and I'm it's generally I would say if you need them give them or get them again if I may interject like copies to scale are necessary to make sure things are in proper scale so if we have something that's in the proper scale we can determine exactly what it is it's fine and then whatever other copies are

adequate do you so the one full-size paw is good to have and then but the ones to just kind of glance at the other 10 fine on the uh on the 11 by again like various for various permanent reasons you need things to exact scale to make sure everything's in proportion so could be reviewed properly for our purposes here I think we're just having it for record and review so I don't think the exact scale is super gerain to this um me I I could be wrong but I think one need to be proper proper scale copy is adequate and everything else is just for review yeah sorry go ahead Laura no I was just saying I I think the scale does need to be accurate because we submit them to peer review and they are going to be the ones taking a look at it and doing the measurements and all of that so if we submit a plan that's not to scale it's you know they may say oh this doesn't meet a setback when in fact it actually does but the scale was off okay do you do you need uh copies to scale in your office for people to review you think no no okay um I mean we we could go fewer copies what what we can also do is have a add something on the a full set of plans in the next section under Section Five for review fees we can make sure that that that is in there if it's not already in there so make sure that any peer reviewer gets a full set at scale did like a hard copy because they we haven't given them hard copies to date that they just work off of a computer

SC yeah and that's fine so I mean I'm agnostic on 43 whether you do 1117 for the extra copies or not some people like to fold out a big copy I kind of do yeah personally but I also understand the desire not to have giant siiz files over and over again I find I do find myself looking at them more electronically than anything else I I generally look electronically but I absolutely they have to be the skill for those who need them to be to SK scale but for me Electronics adequate the other concern I often have when we keep copies on copies is the storage and you know so just so I'm not misunderstanding do we have a scale copy electronically too yeah okay I mean they should they should all be to scale I would say yeah because a record retention there's been some issues over the year with the town and paper record retention so yeah I kind of come where is if there's a phys iCal copy full scale you know the big yeah available with the town clerk or in the building department I think that's adequate for the full size and everything after that as long it's as it's the scale could certainly be reduced in my mind I agree okay I mean we realistically probably only need five because that would give one copy for me one for the conservation one for building one for select board one for planning board cuz those are are the Departments that frequently request hard copies um and then we do have the line in there that um yep you know should the board require additional copies the applicant will provide those at their expense so right right you want to change it to are you guys okay with five yeah five sounds good to me five sounds good five sounds like we just cut it in half all right and that frees up your

time which is very valuable highly valuable um I had another comment in this section um and this may not go in this section we have talked about um the timing to receive the documents on a number of different meetings um before we have a scheduled meeting for just even today I received a two is around 1:30 email to read documents for this evening um as much as I appreciate that that those could not be read so can we put something that in effect without I don't think we no I think we can that we've talked about this in the past I'm not saying a hard date but like an expectation I think it's a great idea and I think honestly be a week before you know no because honestly like it's problematic yeah because it's I mean we're all volunteers and most of this for me ends up on the weekends right trying to catch up or a late evening so 24 hours or 40 hours of Advance yeah I did a cut on this over the weekend why don't why don't we add a section 4.5 that has the 7-Day rule for submission of supplementary information it's really that's the bulk of the problem is the last yeah yeah I is 10 days too long thinking about when I post the agenda a week before the meeting if I get it if I get the material seven days before the meeting it not going to go up with the agenda I could always but post a revised packet with it but yeah I mean the agendas we don't need to State what all the materials are no but I do post the meeting packet which is all the materials that the standard is generally seven days that's what most boards are doing that's fine so great comment yeah okay want to go back to section

4.1.5 we take out I took out the thing on the monitoring plan that's a something we do at the end where we have requirements for a monitoring plan we might ask them but those are also really canned those are the state has requirements for monitoring we add that as a condition in every permit we don't need to repeat that here so I took it out um the filing fees under 4.2 I we kind of Laura and I kind of talk talked about this is it too much is it enough it's about kind of right in the middle of kind of what I've seen okay you know filing fees always have to be reflective of the administrative costs in managing a project it doesn't have to be exact numbers just has to be a reasonable approximation whether those filing fees cover Lara Services folks that may be reviewing plans not the peer reviewers the the folks that help us put on these hearings all those other things down to paper clips um everything else it it adds up over time and this is kind of a number I mean I've seen towns do like six seven 8,000 I just don't see how you could justify that I think the $3,000 plus $100 per unit is um uh an okay number for a for-profit and then the nonprofits and then there's public agencies too that um which we don't see much of in 40 BS we don't see much in the nonprofits either so and this is separate and distinct from the payment of the review fees that this is just a really an admin for the town correct this is just the filing yeah yes and over a six-month period those those things add

up understood the math if it was a 200 unit project it's like $23,000 so I I don't I defer if there's other defer to you guys in terms of looking at other fees and if you think we're on spot on great if we think it could be a little bit higher I don't an issue going high in terms of a public hearing I mean I think it's probably about right there's you know when they get to building permit stage there's another big fee so during the permitting there's a number of other administrative outlays for them but for the purposes of just conducting this what we have here that seems to me to be about a right number for that okay and I did look at um some surrounding towns that I could find the information um and we are kind of right in the middle of where you know some towns are last some towns are like I think it is like Medway is astronomical but um we're kind of right right in the middle do you guys want to keep it I think that works for me okay you guys think that's appropriate I don't have any strong feelings on it no I don't know enough about it strong feelings if you guys have done I don't really have any comment on it no okay so I eliminated 4.4 because we have no right to require someone to bring a stenographer and now with all the electronic stuff out there seems useful it would make my life easier but it would um but in in the same token we can't we can't compel that that's not something that that we can require that they do so I took that out

um add another comment sure and it's just a a consolidation comment as you get into the sixes um we address infrastructure across like 6.1.5 5.1 6.1.5 point3 do you mind if we uh that until we get there sure I thought we were there we're no we're we're at we're in we're about to do review about to five oh we're in five I can hold that thought sure so most of the review free Fe stuff I'm just kind of bringing it up to date with kind of what I see out there um 5.4 I I struck the whole thing because a lot of that was about procurement law and we're not bound by procurement law for peerreview consulting services so we we took that out so there's no need for that um the the rest of it is pretty straightforward um again we kind of just brought it up to date with the way peerreview works under it's pursuant to a statute it's not a unique to 40b it's the same statute that governs the planning board the zoning board when we're not doing 40b is the Conservation Commission the Board of Health so it's you know we're just just kind of making it consistent with those other with those other standards so all the additions all the changes that that Lara made is just kind of modernizing it a little bit and keeping it in line with the statute more than anything else so it's not particularly specific to to 40b

so um now we're in section six oh we're in six so okay um I'm going to hold the first thought but I second thought in section six uh this has to do with the section 6.7 retain a minimum of % of the site is permanent open space and um I would wanted to think about placing the word contiguous in front of permanent open space and in in some there have been instances where um if it's not contiguous um it kind of erodes the concept of open space I think that I think that's where I'm coming from okay that makes sense yeah okay I think that's good and then I don't know other people have thoughts on it I think it makes sense we're feasible contiguous is important so I think it's a great okay comment yeah do you want to have just contiguous or contiguous where feasible no it's it's it's encouraged anyway it's only an encouragement thing so encouraging I think we're good there it's already as a best efforts kind of thing yeah um then I read my note and this is not directed necessarily it's the 6.1 15.3.1 section and when I was reading through that I got a little loss that if we can somehow consolidate the restatement of uh infrastructure uh requirements it kind of says it a few different ways 6.1.5 point3 no there's

6.1.5 point1 and in 6.1.5 point3 both address infrastructure um and infrastructure is again in 6.2.3 so my only point there was um since it's in one section take it out of the other section okay I see some redundance you see I'm talking only it's it's all good it's just uh redundant that's what I'm driving at not the content okay we can fix the redundancy yeah all right 6.2.6 is kind of my change to kind of make it more exactly the kind of EXC we do with waivers um you know exceptions to local regs and requirements it is the intent of the board that exceptions to local regulations shall be granted only to the extent that such exceptions are necessary to maintain the financial feasibility of the project now it may be that you grant even more extension or exceptions just because it's a really good project but I want you to retain the power which is your Authority Under 40b to only Grant those exceptions and waivers that are necessary to make sure that the project is still financially feasible sometimes we go more than that and Grant them additional sometimes we never even look at the financial side of it we're doing the waivers that we think make a project smart and effective but I wanted to mirror that section to mirror what your statutory Authority is and so that's why

I made that change um took out 6.3 and 6.4 i i a it's not really you don't want to be Con well I think mostly you don't want to be confined to any specific maximum so that's not the place for it we're going to review a project they can propose something that's 11 stories tall if they want and and you know 800,000 square feet per building if they want and we could deny that I don't want to have limits in here this is not a bylaw it's a proced set of procedural regulation so I took out those things and because if you put them in someone's gonna come in with something it's 40b they can do something as big as they want and then could deny it or change it or do whatever you need to um I don't get in 6.3 then what what was 6.5 there was this thing about if 11 or more dwelling units are proposed I find no link to any regulation or 40b experience on that I would rather say it we should have two means of access to all projects that's the ideal it very often doesn't work out that way but that's our goal um six the new 6.4 former 6.6 I just kind of made some changes to uh effectuate kind of what what the current legal landscape is there um it took out 6.6.4 Al together because most of the deed writers will have that provision in it

anyway um but not not all of them but in any event the standard deed form deed writer form that the state requires is going to have that wrer first refusal if it's if it's an ownership unit it obviously doesn't apply if it's rental we just don't need it there the law already covers Us in that instance I had a small comment for typographical or I think it's a typographic 6.2.5 which starts suitability there's a a semicolon at the end of that section and it says and and then nothing do we want to strike that and yeah yeah okay um and then this is this actually my last comment um can we say to avoid sites which are zoned industrial can we say that where a same section after you strike the end which is just a leftover six . 2.5 it goes on to say avoid sites which are zoned industrial are we allowed to say that yeah okay I mean it's just we want again we can't it's not a absolute restriction we just just a it's an expression of kind of please don't please don't okay yeah just in terms of uh of the structure though I would just note that they seem to be set up that way right the the semicolon relating one paragraph to the next one oh I don't know because that is the the penultimate one you normally have the end there yeah so I think that's why it's there okay okay the new

6.5 again we take out shopsy yep um and I've kind of otherwise geared it down because the there's new kind of requirements that if we want and we just talked about this in the last project if we want a 70% local preference then we've got to prove why we need it so I just kind of changed it to match the new uh eohc or newer eohc regulations in the new 6.6 on parking I struck the stuff about two parking spaces because that's just no longer the standard and people are trying to do less parking I mean we're seeing for apartments Less in this area where that's a more car dependent area but in areas where there is more mass mass transit we're down to 1.1 and some cases under that okay so you want to be flexible there let the let your consultants and the Engineers work out what is effective for their particular right site okay so um because they just request a waiver anyway this is true um okay we already talked about the contiguous open space 7.1 I offered the opportunity for an extension by the applicant then uh Lara took out an 7.4 provided that the public hearing shall not be closed until the applicant is submitted a proposed memo of decision maybe it's hubris but I like to draft the decisions and I think we like to draft I mean also we don't necessarily have the authority if we're up against a deadline to say well we're not going to close this we don't have this like we don't

necessarily always have that choice right and the in some instances the applicant wants us to an applicant wants us to deliberate while the hearing's open and come up with a draft sometimes an applicant's in a hurry to get it closed and to start the 40-day clock so we wouldn't see a decision until after the hearing is kind of closed anyway um 7.5 um I just kind of struck this stuff there's we can impose whatever conditions we want to address local concerns now local concerns is a defined term but it's also incredibly Broad and there's any manner of uh conditions we want to do and I wouldn't want to confine us to a specific list there's all kinds of stuff we may impose as conditions and there's a process to challenge those um 7.6 again try to make this more reflective of the law we can have it be a three-year permit and we can grant extensions for good cause shown the language Beyond three years any of any undeveloped areas must conform we can't require that in fact the regulations and the guidance say you should probably give extensions almost in every instance when someone comes in now we do normally ask for good cause shown and if this was a special permit or a variance we could say sorry we don't want to but it's 40b and we don't win those battles no so let's see so construction stuff section 10 Struck it all that's the kind of stuff we put in decisions every Project's going to be a little different

how we do it over time our systems of managing construction are going to be different I think we can reserve all of that um for uh conditions section and same thing for completion we we put all that in conditions as to violations the enforcement of this is through normal zoning enforcement so we don't need to include something and here there's suggesting other processes they don't exist if we want this like any other permit issued by the zoning board we enforce through zoning enforcement so we don't have to in include that there and that's it great yeah yeah any other any other comments by the board okay yeah I would agree excellent work uh do we have anybody any members of the public that want to comment either here in person or via [Music] Zoom no hand hands raised on Zoom okay successfully put them all to sleep so um so then we just um given the edits that we have been discussed I think we we just need to take a vote to approve motion to approve as presented and amended by the board yeah exactly um Mike do you w to make that motion oh yes make a sorry I was listening but I wasn't sure want me to add to it I wasn't sure if you wanted me to make any other additional comments I've just been reading and reviewing these as we go through uh makeing make a motion to approve second okay motion to approve

the revised rules and regulations as amended this evening has been made and seconded all in favor respond with I oppose nay Doug I Jamie hi Doris hi Mike hi and Paul hi all right and Williams I thank you very much thank you guys for doing that it is long overdue okay that was long okay um so unless we need break for some reason I would say we can move right on to agenda item number two which is a continuation of 250 turnpike so would you like to uh Charles evening everyone happy New Year happy New Year thank you thanks for being here on this cold evening coming out to advance this project as you know I'm Brian charal The General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer for feris Development Group and we represent the applicant in this matter FD 250 Turnpike LLC and of course this is a proposed comprehensive permit project at 250 Turnpike Road here in South br I'm joined tonight by Lewis leine our special counsel my assistant general counsel George banan whom you know from our other projects and also the applicants engineer from expedit engineering James Tetro sitting behind me and we're happy for the hearing to continue great so um I don't know I um spoke um with the with our peer reviewer and I my suggestion was we did all have an opportunity to see the dialogue from the shared engineering consultation which I think seemed like it worked well agreed um you know my my take on it is there's an awful lot of

yes to supply you know either Supply or comply or whatever yes um rather than you know painfully going through everything there I've asked him to instead if he could just sort of address the board in the room with you know where you really are with all of that uh not to dwell on the things where you've already agreed you said we're going to do it uh but if there's anything where it's like well we have to talk about this a little bit more or isn't hasn't done yet let's just more of a higher level view I agree with that okay uh so would you would you mind doing that yeah you just you can you can use that microphone there thank you just if you could uh just identify yourself and who you're with uh Patrick from Howard Stein Hudson um the peer reviewer under this project um like was mentioned we basically uh submitted a peerreview in December 20th uh documenting um going through all the zoning regulations the title five regulations storm waterer management um all the towns and you know local and state regulations that we had documented a bunch of different um items that uh we either mention hey these need to be possibly asked for a waiver from or you you need to meet these for compliance or whatever whatever the case were and each one was documented by by regulation so that was kind of how the letter was was spelled out um in January 14th um the applicants engineer um from exp engineer and I had a um a discussion to kind of go over some of these items and talk about where we where we either agreed or had some discussion on items such as uh the really steep slopes on the edge some some really compressed uh grading that really needed to be um addressed to make

the site um much more manageable as far as um slope stability um some Ada grading concerns which are mentioned here um some Title Five concerns which are spelled out within here as far as some setbacks to Wetlands or some um uh mounting analysis those kind of things so those are all kind of a lot of technical questions and comments which are outlined within this letter and then um yeah I brought up things such as you know constructibility to to property lines one to one slopes um a lot of a lot of items like that so the um abans engineer has gone through and kind of stated yes we will comply we will do these things we will um address these uh maybe stated some other items which uh we would look at maybe compressing some units together instead of going from three possibly three to six and maybe adjust some of those things so we're basically just going to be waiting to review some of the additional items that the the engineer will be looking out on the plans and seeing how um those kind of shake out in the new plan revisions there was some traffic items making sure that the entrances are compliant and all those are are spelled out on the plans um yeah so basically going through a lot a lot of those items there was uh some back and forth about the the setbacks to Wetlands I know there was I was saying uh as far as some some regulations and the um uh some comments from DCR about the 100 foot setback their engineer didn't uh seem to agree to that and if that's something that gets in a we maybe need an opinion from from d on um their specific item on uh yes this is 50 feet or yes this is 100 feet and that is definitely um a good way to go on that so and I would defer to them on those kind of regulations but yeah then I'm I'm sorry but but um you there was a late there was an email

today that came from you is that is that what you're referring that was that was some back and forth correspondence between um the engineer and myself regarding a um it's a regulation for a 100 foot setback to a wetland within a um um Wetlands 2 and and tributaries 2 within the um uh the wetlands within um tributaries or Reservoir areas for water supply areas so that was the specific regulation for that and then I gave some correspondents back with additional justification on those um and yeah I think that's where we left that so okay very good all right so any anything further on that okay but first I I think I'll be just looking for the applicant because I think what I'm hearing is there's still a lot more to be delivered right yeah we haven't seen a response uh any sort of um design response back yeah with additional drainage comments additional drainage calculations additional plan review um that we will see I think there was some environmental analysis that need to be provided some traffic comments a lot of you know just items that needed to be uh fully vetted through okay that I had identified in my comment letter okay so yeah I think the first thing is i' I'd be looking from the applicant like what what's your outlook on responding to the items that have been highlighted here and resolving or just filling in yes after filing the updated plan in late November our goal was for this board to ship it out for peer review which we appreciate um Lara's help and that happening so you all have got memos not just only from hsh on civil engineering yeah but also on traffic and wetlands right and we have our corresponding um experts responding to each of those not just on engineering that you're hearing tonight okay and so our goal coming in to tonight was to get hsh's feedback for James to have the conversation that they did the other week okay and then to send in the summary memo but we've thought

following tonight that there would be a new plan design and that's what our goal is to to turn to next what are the board's next scheduled meetings if I may um February 12th and then [Music] March so let me see March 19th I don't think we'll need until March 19th but I think February 12th is too soon and so if the board would be open to a special meeting in about a month I think in late February okay we'd like to aim for that think about as with other projects there being enough time both for Mr Tetro to finish the redesign and for hsh and the others to digest it and give you feedback okay um let me just ask first do we have anything that we're going to be reviewing anything on the agenda for February 12th we do we have three applications three applications February 12 okay um just to note that February 19th is February break which is why our meeting is on the 12th and not the 19th okay um so I think if you're looking late February probably February probably 26 yeah okay do that I can do that as well I can do that also Mike and I think that's looking I think that looks good for me okay uh Laura yes on the 12th do we have any 40 BS on the 12th no 40 BS but three regular applications just three regular applications I may or may not attend I have to say okay are we talking about February 26 yeah I mean correct yeah yes okay is that will that that that work as well I think it should yeah that's I think it's five you thought the 19th was gonna work I think it would be better

okay yeah yep yeah yeah you want extension for the 180 [Music] days are yeah where are we now I'm trying to understand what extension we're looking for our current deadline is March 31st for the ending of the year yeah obvious yeah if it's all right that we plan to take it up on the February 26th that'd be best because I think we'll have a better sense just make that you uh add to that just an extension accordingly we'll do you want to discuss that now so they can agree to it so we can submit it you want to pick a date right now if it's all right I think we'd rather do it on February 26 no I don't mean that the you you even just mentioned 180 days is about 10 days after the 26 is that correct it's a month after 31st it's it's fine to deal with it in the next I thought you said 10 days we can deal with it better to me yeah on the 26 yep yeah we have a better idea how long we have to go um did any board members have any questions regarding what the material we have for this evening D it's okay I have four if you guys are reviewing the site plan or talking about modifying the site plan I four quick elements maybe for you guys to consider just looking at it because I did review thank you from HS for the detailed uh comments but um some of these are more minor but because of the proximity of retaining walls and wetlands the possibility of moving unit 29 against unit three um is really tight in that area um units 20 and 21 have a very long deep driveway um don't know if those can move close to the culdesac units 15 to 19 which are against the butters also have pretty

long driveways and whether they can be pulled closer to the road and I'm just looking at depth because some of the units look like they have a depth of driveway that's you know enough for a car and others look like they're just further back and it might be toppo issues or other things but um and then the other minor one was units one and two looks like they could move north a little bit to give some more buffer you know again you guys own the abing property right um so but those are just four I mean if you're looking just want to at least relay those because it seems like there's a bunch of pinch points you know so just again it sounds like you guys are reviewing anyways which is great but I just want to put those they're more minor specific items just for you guys to consider that's all thank you and I should update the board mentioned that we've remained in good communication with attorney St Andre as a representative of uh interested neighbors and we've talked with him and and mention to him that we are at their request looking at pulling in some of the units and consolidating so part of that relates to that what the gentleman from hsh mentioned in terms of potentially consolidating a couple of three plx units along the southern property line into say one sixplex which would enable the the units to come a little further north and off the property line okay and we're also looking at bringing in from the southeast Corner units 9 10 and 11 which also would create more setback so that is something we hope to include in the next plan right okay okay there anybody else did you have other ones Doug or just that no at least for the topic tonight since they they referenc redoing the site plan but it sounds that you're already talking with the neighbors about many of those adjustments anyways which is great so right um I don't know if anybody um we I don't know if anybody in the public wants has any any questions or comments for this evening you don't have any hands raised No Hands raised on Zoom okay um and I I

will take this opportunity to mention that our traffic engineer um from AK has digested what Mr Dirk sent all of you and will be sending responses or maybe they've come today and they'll be circulated and there weren't no major issues there that we saw so we anticipate being able to accommodate Mr Dirk's feedback okay and then in terms of the wetlands feedback from Lucas uh our Wetlands engineers at Goddard are in process of speaking directly with them just as James did with hsh to try to move ahead on the wetlands noted concerns okay so we're seeing progress on these other areas as well then good yes okay good all right okay did one other comment um just because you guys may have heard it on just when we're doing the comprehensive permit regulations if you guys could get as much information seven days before the next meeting it's just because it will be a lot and you know these members are long it just be really helpful um for us to get that information sooner rather than later just for our to make the meeting efficient for all parties and James did the Yan's work of that coming into tonight in terms of responding to hsh but then I think something trickled in from traffic for example but we are we're committed to a week out goal as well the latest just so you guys know I did get the response to the traffic peerreview report George sent that to me today I did not distribute it to you guys tonight so as not to clutter everything before the meeting I will get that out to you first thing tomorrow morning um sh should we say that Express topics on the 26th will be traffic and wetlands is a way to plan I I mean if if we have a we know we have topics to review yeah I think it makes sense that allows us that much better to prepare in advance yeah not to be it's for it to be the exclusion of the plan in hsh right but I know we'll want a designated meeting to talk about or have those as designated topics at Future meetings so how about the 26th yeah okay yeah that

thank you makes sense to me is that do you want me to have both Lucas and vaness and Associates here please on the 26 yeah okay I think so and we'll do same for our yeah corresponding okay folks right okay then I think and if we're agreed on the 26 we we need to take a vote to continue the hearing to February 26 and that be 7 I assume it' be 7 o' that the only thing make a motion to continue the hearing to February 26th 7M second all right motion to continue to February 26 2025 has been made in second all in favor respond with I oppose nay Doug I Jamie hi Doris I Mike take yourself off mute sorry Ben came home and made a ton of noise I and Paul I all right Williams I thank you thank you good to see you thank you before I ahead okay so the next item on our agenda is approval meeting minutes December 11th 2024 and December 18th 2024 um I will I could mix this up but one of them was the really detailed review of the decision on um

was December 11th was the decision on 120 yeah okay that was December 11th so I I did take a look through them there they're really they're long but to me they they reflect pretty pretty accurately exactly what happened that evening I don't know if anybody else has any comments on December 11 minutes no I read through I'm fine with them okay they're a very nice job as usual yep and Mike and Paul you're good with them we are I I am for Paul I'll speak for Paul he you're you're free to speak for me Mike absolutely that's it let's let's handle December 11th uh first then do we have a motion to approve the minutes as written I'd like to make a motion to approve the December 11th minutes as written second all right motion to approve the December 11 minutes have been has been made in second in favor I oose nay I'm gonna obstain I was absent okay thank you Jamie hi Doris hi uh Mike I Paul I and Williams I okay bless you uh now December 18th 18th was on I was not that okay um it was a great short meeting it was it was the variance for 120 and it was a continuance for 250 that was it it was yeah that one that by by comparison was it was short and sweet there was some debate but again my recollection of the meeting and review of the minutes I think it's it's captured again very accurately so I had no problems with it

anybody else no comments no comment all right we have a motion make a motion to approve the minutes as drafted right motion to approve the December 18 oh we need a second second right motion to approve the December 18th minutes as been made and seconded all in favor respond with I oppos nay so you were no you were here yeah Doug I Jamie you were not Doris hi yeah uh Mike I uh Paul I and Williams I okay that takes care of the minutes the next uh business properly before the board Adu bylaw update I don't know do we have an update from any board member or do you have something I don't have anything on yeah I mean I think Mike Doris and Jamie could probably speak to it better than I can um because they've been involved in working with the planning board on drafting some stuff I do want to note for you guys that the public hearing for that warrant article will open on Monday the 27th next week okay um and I wanted to ask if you would like me to post an agenda can I cannot attend either I have a I plan on attending like remotely on that okay yeah I don't I don't know that I'll be able to mik was at the last one yeah what what what was the date Laura I just couldn't catch you yeah um Monday the 27th so next mon Monday the 27th let me just make sure because I'll just continue to plan to attend if I can yes I will um so I'll plan what is that for 6 6:30 I don't know I haven't seen the agenda yet okay so just shoot that to me I can definitely uh run point on this

um uh I saw your emails today Laura so I I do want to make sure we're we're not missing pieces of the puzzle I'm also just like Jay is waiting for the updated uh regulations to get issued from the Commonwealth after now that the public comment period has been closed so once we have the updated RS I'll have a little bit more meat on the bone from um uh from from the Commonwealth um you may want to post an again just just in case I'll post one just in case and then Mike do do you want to talk a little bit about the the sense at the last meeting where progress was or only if the board really wants to get into it I feel like um real General no nitty-gritty no I for someone who's been around a little while I feel like we're really on top of things with Jay with with I've been working with Mimi um other board members on our draft regulations so we've gotten a to me a lot of progress and we're actually kind of on point uh as far as get making sure we're doing what we can as as a town to have updated regulations on this point point and I I I feel like we're on time so far instead of playing katchup which we love to do uh I don't know generally if what if any of the board members want details but there's a draft that's going around uh that Jay Mimi myself have all worked on and contributed to generally there's been some more contributors as well and then I I think honestly once we get the final regulations we'll have a little bit more clarity and understanding of

what may or may not be allowed and then then we're going to you know bring that to to to town meeting for vote add had one more because I haven't been able to stay on top of this so will the zba be approving the adus or planning board who is going to be CBA so this is to allow certain adus by right y that's right okay that's right for the state regulations so I had a couple questions that I sent out ear earlier today to Mike and to Jay um my biggest question is what happens with people who want to have an Adu that is larger than what is allowed by right um I know the planning board had said they didn't want to include that in the bylaw because then the bylaw would go from needing simple majority at town meeting to needing two-thirds majority at town meeting however my question is that if it's passed in its current form we will no longer allow unprotected adus in South bro they will be completely stricken from the code and I don't know if that is what we're going for or if we want to if there's a way to keep the existing bylaw for ones that qualify as unprotected so ones that would be larger than that 900 square foot or 50% um and then I've been doing a little bit of research on the impact to the zba in terms of the regulations for the state go into effect on February 2nd so we have to follow that but there's a little contradiction with our current bylaw we have an accessory apartment application coming our way for the March hearing um which is after the state regs go into effect but before we have a new bylaw so there's a there's a little bit of gray area here that we're trying to navigate and I just want to make sure that I'm

understanding the full impact of the board so that I can make sure you guys are doing the appropriate process so I don't know if that makes sense I I was listening in um with Mike on the last meeting it is a high priority um that we're going to have adus larger than 900 square feet um but the feeling and the consensus is to get this through town meeting right so so then what you know yeah so I I know everyone is is very on it and aware of it um yeah so I have when in other instances where even if you have one by right but say you're too close to the line yeah you'd go to special permit but yeah so I had proposed yeah and I don't know if it's legal which is why I'm waiting on a response from Jay but can we leave the existing bylaw in place and just add the new bylaw for the prote protected adus and then that way anything that doesn't qualify as protected defaults to the existing bylaw and then we're not changing it per se and maybe it wouldn't need that two-thirds vote we call them access one of the just one of those simple things we call them accessories and the state calls them adus I so that's that's a probably you need the advice yeah I I feel I feel like we can fumble through it until we get approval um I I it it's pretty clear what's going to be allowed under a protected Adu versus an unprotected Adu so I I think we can fumble our way through through that yeah and don't until we get there Mike don't we just do the best we can to follow the what the state has for guidance it's my understanding and and jakay could if he's still there can um no he's not no no my understanding uh from what I I've

been reading and checking on is for town that don't have their um bylaws approved by that you know the amended bylaws by by February second and the enactment they're just going to follow the state uh the state guidelines and then the towns are really most towns are going to follow those uh pretty pretty specifically and then there's going to be some some some subtle changes as to you know whale towns require site plan approval will it require site plan approval for attached as well as detached um there'll just be some nuances and little seasonings that I think the towns will add but I think we just follow the state guidelines which I'll be able to um you know I literally check my emails every day for them uh just to keep myself a breast of the situation so okay yeah I mean that that seems to me that that's where we fall we don't have a modified bylaw and the state has something we're pretty obligated to follow the state guidelin we're just we're just going to follow the regs and then again if it if it's an unprotected Adu then it's going to go back to special permit anyways pursuant to the reg so that absence of language I'm I'm less concerned about because it either is a protected Adu and a special permit isn't allowed but let's say it's within uh they want to build a new structure and within the zoning setbacks well then they're still going to need a variance and it's an unprotected uh Adu anyways by definition so it it it's either gonna fit in the round Peg or it's going to fit in the Square Peg me it's just that it's just that it we'll make it work yeah no we've gotten even the regs that they proposed

now uh is challenging and as confusing as they can be a little bit I mean we can figure it out it's it's really pretty straightforward great okay yeah and I can forward anything any if they want to review my notes or Jay's or mimes but we're I I think we've done a we're really on top of it yeah you guys have done great work Mike did they say anything about the feedback that I sent yes we covered that um and what I can do is I can send you the updated doc uh updated RS we're holding off a little bit just so you know until hopefully we get the updated regulations from from the AG's office okay would you guys like for me to send you the most current draft oh that'd be perfect thanks L all right I'll just but that we touched based on those exact uh things that we talked about yes great all right it's our Adu bylaw update don't think anybody has anything else um Laura you did put in the Pro business administrative updates do you have anything there or not really just a couple things um you know I had asked David if I could keep this as an ongoing agenda item just to kind of almost as my report to you for all the administrative things that are happening um because there's a lot going on so just briefly couple of things I want you guys to be aware of um there is a group of us that has been working on a couple zoning bylaw proposals um so it's me the Building Commissioner um members like representatives from planning select board and the economic development committee um so a couple of things that you're going to see coming down the line

that I don't think necessarily impact you per se um one is we are proposing a shared parking bylaw that is geared towards um allowing commercial uses to have shared parking to kind of cut down on those vast empty parking lots um and make it a little bit easier for commercial uses to satisfy their parking requirements so the public hearing for that is also opening on Monday the 27th um and then another one that's coming down the line is uses Allowed by right within the industrial park district so this is something Al Hamilton specifically on the select board has been kind of spearheading this effort of allowing more uses by right in the industrial park district um to kind of encourage more Commercial Business and you know hopefully expand the commercial tax base a little bit um so that's something that public hearing will probably open in February doesn't necessarily have a huge impact on you aside from the fact that some uses that were only allowed by special permit may now be allowed by right so I'll send that when I have a more comprehensive draft of that just so you guys are aware of it um other administrative things the easement plan for 120 Turnpike for the 40b they had 60 days to submit that from the DAT of filing we're somewhere around halfway through that I still haven't received it but when I do I will get it to you guys um I have briefed The Building Commissioner on the conditions included within that 40b decision just because there's a lot that he needs to be tracking as well so he and I are partnering a lot on that um other than that it's just upcoming meetings so February 12th we have three special

permit applications one is for signs one is for multiple principal uses on one lot and one is for parking like more than three garage Bays so nothing too crazy um and then we have February 6 for 250 Trend Pike and then we have March I forget what date that was mid-march um we will have 19th 19th thank you um we're having one special permit application that I'm not entirely sure what it is yet but it's coming and then that accessory apartment application which is somebody who wants one that is larger than we've had a few of those all right we have but not with the right so um you know I think they're trying to get that in before the bylaw potentially changes um other than that I think that's it and and just a a refresher for me as much as anybody for the next meeting for 250 our peer reviewers are are U are whom and and what are they what are they covering so our peer reviewers coming on uh February 26th will be um I'm not sure who's coming from Lucas Environmental but they are handling Wetlands um and I'm going to follow up a little bit with the applicant on that because there is some time sensitive stuff in regards to like vernal pools and all that um and then Jeffrey Dirk of the NASA Associates who did the traffic peer review both of those Consultants worked on 120 turn pi as well um so I'll reach out to the two of them tomorrow and see if they can both attend on the 26 I saw that veral pool review study You' got a ail yeah maybe endend of April yeah and they're gr yeah studying so okay little little time sensitive but I think we have plenty of time to make sure that we

address it's interesting how they'll do that because it's they're not always out yeah so U the salamanders and the CRI crossers um I had it on my thing that you wanted me to give you feedback what happened with Leia Emerson oh yeah um so just so the board is aware I didn't mean to include this in my updates thank you um Leah Emerson who's our Economic Development coordinator has been working on a couple grants so she applied for it's a technical assistance program Grant to look at zoning along Route nine I believe and then she's also looking to apply for it's called a One-Stop Grant through the state um in partnership with Westboro to look at zoning opportunities along Route N9 so they they're hoping to do kind of like a corridor study to see what potential bylaw changes we could do to kind of improve route n zoning a little bit um so I haven't heard any recent updates but no last um I was sort of gave her some feedback on the Grant application form some of the parameters which had a lot to do with community outreach and she and was waiting I haven't heard about this it's submitted I'm like 90% sure yeah the technical assistant W yeah this is the um uh just a preliminary review I want to say it's 25,000 um to look at the existing conditions out at Route n and the way we're zoning it now yeah um and if they get that they keep proceeding to the One-Stop Grant we'll hope we get it yeah so any opportunities you know it's a big Focus right now with a lot of departments in town is how can we modernize our zoning bylaws to encourage you know appropriate

business and um some of the stuff in our zoning code is pretty outdated and yeah updating so we're we're trying to focus on small changes that make a big impact rout n feels like best by right you know you have a Piggery by right yeah yep okay yeah that that one that one kind of I I'm not saying take it out because you know it's an option A Fruit Stand too it's an option I just but a gym is tricky good luck putting a gym well I don't know if I want a pickle ball court because of the noise and so we have but they could if it's out in a big industrial complex and they want to put another pickle B yeah so that's all I have all right okay I think we're good then Paul Paul is it go time time did Paul get a new computer yeah he's working Paul's connected now I'm so glad you're with us the whole night you know something I take offense you guys making fun of me no not at all but yes I have an I have a new iPad there you go all right so I'd like to make a motion to adjourn second all right motion to adjourn has been made and with a second all in favor respond with I oppose nay Doug I Jamie hi Doris hi Mike Mike Mike hi our adjournment Paul two thumbs up I okay Williams I thank you very much that closes our meeting for this evening thanks guys thanks everyone everyone