##VIDEO ID:7CtboEsw7Jk## and on the TV cuz that's much I get why does say get a recliner afterwards oh right one you got a real nice one didn't you what's that you're one armed you yeah you can call me Bandit ter yeah awesome thank you um surgery went smashingly well and that they didn't smash anything so sweet no I just have to do it my own each time okay Mr Alon we'll we'll do it during the meeting after we open but would you like to Le in the pledge tonight sure okay thank you all right it is 601 I don't see any reason we can't get going correct everyone good here good to me m Reed before we start could we just get a heyo or something from you to make sure we have your audio I'm here can you hear me it thank you all right likewise with Richard we already oh we we've already heard from Richard so that otherwise yes all right so good evening everybody and welcome to this the August 26th 2024 meeting of the Lunenburg planning board um we are meeting here at the wonderful top floor meeting room at Town Hall and you you can either if you want to join the meeting you can be here with us you can attend by Zoom that's that info is on the agenda posted on the town website or you can view it I think Facebook live and stuff it's on public access um as a reminder this meeting is being recorded and I think that's everything we have to say for the start of a meeting so we can open up then with a pledge I uh pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America into the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all all right uh we have a crowd here tonight again you can always log on to zoom or come down to town hall if you want to join in um I'm betting most people are here for some of the board discussions that are a little bit later on our agenda but we do have a few public hearings and a decision we have to get through first um and we'll go run things as quick as reasonable uh great before we start any public comment see oh just a question yes uh can we comment now on the discussion later or should we hold our comments for the discussion later uh I would like it if we could hold our comments for the discussion later till then um because that will keep everything together thank thank you all right seeing no request for other public comment again I I think you all know but the point of the board discussion with things like the water supply Protection District is actually not a board discussion but a broad public discussion so you will not be denied Opportunity by any means um all right let's dive in first thing on our agenda then is or next thing would be public hearing uh continued storm waterer uh public hearing for 255 Sunny Hill Road good evening um Brian maret mccardy engineering uh here on behalf of um Stephan mcweeny um you recall we started the filing for this project last September um we went through the anr process subdivided the property into five Lots uh We've basically we okay with the Lots up on Sunny Hill the first four and then down off of uh Lema road we uh had to file of conservation to get through uh the permitting process in a notice of intent for that one particular lot um we started that process early on late winter early spring and we ended up getting our approval from conservation for that lot in the beginning of July uh came back to the board at your second I believe um Hearing in July but we didn't have enough voting members uh so we went through it and now we're here today so I don't know if you want me to go back over any details of the project um I guess long story short M it took it took a while to permit this with conservation uh because we had the Wetland line um checked and double checked and then the Conservation Commission had us hire a third party consultant to go back out and review our Wetland Consultants Wetland line um and it took a month or so for us to all come to an agreement on the final uh delineation of the wetlands so that's where the plan stands today this plan here in front of you is what was approved with conservation um the difference between between the initial plan we had filed and this plan was the driveway has been shifted uh to the north about 12 ft um we had additional Wetland flags up in this General location here so it increased the size of the Wetland on the the lot um but our impact still was well within what's Allowed by the Wetland protection act and as a result we did have to we are going to end up filling some of the Wetland for the driveway and we're replicating at 2: one here on the Northern edge of the property so um and part of that negotiation was working with the neighbors to uh intercept flow that comes off the hill across the driveway and directly pipe it to the resource area so there's a Swale here that runs along the back side of that field um we're collecting that run off and piping it under the driveway uh and there's an additional couple of pipes on this side of the driveway um that we're extending across our driveway that come from the neighbor's property so plans were approved as I said we received our order conditions and now we're here for our final approval with planning board for our storm water permit thank you and uh just to double check for the sake of clarification uh I viewed the last meeting that I was not present for and I've done my Mullin for and I was going to say Mr Allison it looks like you are in the same boat is that correct yeah but we don't need it for this one what's that we don't need that for this one oh is that for oh okay I was wrong about which one it is all right ignore me great Okay so um all right thank you and I will turn to uh the board I know that some me that uh there were three members present uh the last time this was looked at and just looking for thoughts questions anything else and then we'll go for public comment as well uh hearing none I I have I have a question oh please can you tell me what the date below your stamp is on that plan uh oh that's a different plan actually looks like it's just a different plan the plan that's in our drive the plan that's in your drive is revised July 17th okay right latest this was the presentation board from the previous meeting so this isn't the latest but the only thing added be on this plan was two drains in the abage yard but those are on the final plan of record that's been filed with plan board all right I have I have probably more questions and comments but um probably would defer to go to public comment before I continue all right that a okay with that and I'm kind of in the same boat but I did want to uh first solicit and again we'll have other opportunities for public comment I'm not big on one and done uh but any public comment please Ken Patton 290 lemoner Road um I'm and a butter I'm on the south side of the property um I uh the the first thing I want to talk about is the the existing 6-in drain running across my property and we discussed this at conservation um and it was pointed out that it it wasn't as shown on the drawing so at any rate uh I pointed out where I I knew the drain discharged and um Mary Wilson concurred with what I was saying um there was some misunderstanding because because um there's a spring on my property or it's actually right on the property line I don't know if it's on at all on my property but it's right on the property line and so the designer had thought that my my drain discharged there so that's where it's shown um and so uh when they did the approve approval uh at the Conservation Commission meeting on July 17th uh the commission put in a special provision that the designer would check the location and uh if if so if it was where I said it was that uh it would be updated um but at a later date and so uh I want to I want to talk about this dra but more I want to talk about the structure that's shown at what's really the spring so I sent all the members an email and uh I had my marked up plan on it so do you all have it uh well that is in the drive we have both uh the marked up plan from Mr Patton as well as I I assume the photo was from you the photo was from you as well correct yes yep that is in the drive for tonight okay so um if if you can look at that and and see where I marked on existing 6in sdr35 drainage pipe and I show the existing catch Bas and I show the discharge and um what I what I'd like to do is this would be helpful if I could show you the photo of the discharge cuz it might impact how you're going to handle it is this the photo that you sent us previous that we have in our drive now yes great okay so that will be part of public record perfect that's right there um and there's the corner of the house so you agree that that my drawing is correct so what I'm do with that it's right I'm standing right on the two there and I'm shooting right up towards the catch Basin yep and then I can also and here's the catch Basin and as you can see it goes right down okay so so okay so we all agree where it is um which means that there's no uh there's no 6in drain where the spring is can we all agree that there's a spring there so just to simplify this if I can the the way we left it with the Conservation Commission in the in the special condition they added was prior to construction when they clear the lot when they get getting ready to build we we'll uncover these things and see where they all are and at that time before construction starts on any of this drainage work I'd provide an updated plan to the commission for record of how we're going to address it so that that's how it's left so I'm I'm agreeing we're you know relatively based on the picture you know I show the pipe up here where it's probably a little bit further to the east down here but it's it's going to be the same fix we're going to collect it and convey it underneath a driveway to the Wetland yeah just for those who might looking on the pl looking at the plans either in front of us or at home uh worth noting that on this plan North is actually kind the north line if you look at it is in a uh West by Northwest kind of Direction so when we're talking about NorthEast Southwest it's going to be a little skewed rather than up down like you might think you zoomed in on the plan that might not be obvious at first so we agreed that there were pipes there to be connected to and and routed underne the driveway but they were buried they were covered so we couldn't go on Prof property and start digging holes to find it so we agree it's there we agree they're going to be extended beyond our driveway and that's how the special condition was written in the order of conditions with conservation so I'd expect the same thing for you know our approval of planning okay okay and and that's good good good with that um so uh what I would I wanted to uh just well for one thing uh what um what I want to just clarify is that that structure that's in my lawn is is gone okay I can't agree to it now if it's not in the field we don't need it we won't put it there okay no there's nothing there so okay I was just you you know there's that there's the spring which really comes up right on the property line and and trickles into lot five okay the other point to make was the commission had us include a provision that there would be a a maintenance agreement with the deed for this lot that you know Mr Patton's drainage pipes from his house from his yard his foundation drain cross onto that property so okay we understand it's there we're not would never be able to prevent him from fixing it if it ever clogged a room so there would be a a maintenance agreement on in the new deed that allowed the owner ofat property to maintain that fight great thank you um okay we're doing good here um now just uh I'd really like to know and I have have an idea what's in your mind for a catch Basin uh say either on my property or the pro probably just on my property right here is now that's that I'm thinking that's what you're thinking but um this went in in 1988 36 years ago um I have never had any problems with with the ever uh um it's never clogged it's it's just been clean as a whistle for 36 years um I think and it and it would probably be the cheapest thing to do is just uh extend this 6in pipe by 20 ft and not have a catch Basin so if there's a low Point that's going to collect water in pond we would put the same not full concrete catch Basin a yard drain like you have it's a plastic 8 in Grate they're small grates um so that's what we're showing here I think we call it even a drainage basin PVC drainage basin so it's not going to be a giant concrete structure if when they're grading this out there's a low point there then they're going to put a Bas in they're going to put a the same grate you see over here um on this side you know and it necessarily doesn't have to be on your property it's somewhere in here to collect that water wherever the low point is so we'll provide an updated plan once we have it figured out once they start clearing things I said when we finished this we didn't dig up the pipes they were all buried so now that you know when we start construction we can and I saw in the pictures it looks like You' gone out there and you started digging them up well I I just I it was one I knew right where it was so I just a grub ho and I pulled one pull and I had it exposed um so okay um uh I think you know I mean the the elevation right here is 472 and I think the elevations between this pipe and here um kind of similar to the the elevation change of my Foundation drain which you're going to just run under the uh under the driveway and and I don't have a problem with the uh with with the drainage basin I'm okay with that um but in Li of doing something like pretty significant I I can you just like do the same thing with that you're going to do we can but the point the point that we're trying to make is we have to protect our driveway but all this runoff is coming from offsite the neighbor's property so if there's a significant amount of water that's going to be running down there we're going to collect instead of just letting it flow across the driveway the winter freezing conditions and all that so we'll collect it in a the same type of plastic you know plastic Basin like you have over here we'll put the same thing on that side of the driveway okay that makes sense um and sometimes this catch Basin gets uh uh just can't meet the capacity and there might be 400 GPM going down the 6in pipe and another 400 GPM going across my lawn that probably happens three times a year and which you know but so I guess when that happens and uh is it possible that water's going to blow out this catch Basin down here I mean I I I haven't seen that condition so I don't know if that's what happens but if if if the capacity of the pipe is greater what the pipe can handle you know there's you know there there's a chance it might happen you know and and until we until we put the pipe in and grade the site and see how it looks it might not be it might not be a pipe it might not be a basin that we have to put in on this pipe if the low point is somewhere else you know we could we could just do it uphill of it and convey it straight underneath our driveway and not even put it on your pipe to affect the way your pipe functions um you know it' be I I would just appreciate it if you'd tell me what you're going to do yeah I agree that's fine the mians are more than willing to work with you they have through this whole process so when this is built you know you're going to be right there and we'll we'll we'll we'll certainly talk with you about it and show you what we're doing we have to file a plan with conservation for record and we'll do the same with plan okay sounds good um uh so my biggest concern was just getting rid of this so you're telling me that's gone I'm good with that if that's not where it is and you're saying it's down close to your house then it's not going to be there yeah and actually you know I mean I I just showed you the photos I think you you'd have to agree that as a matter of fact uh I I I came out to uh Mr Patton's property today at his invitation and saw it I would agree based on my my I mean Layman but seemingly clear in that I looked at what's labeled on this photo as existing catch Basin and you can see the pipe and then you can see the exact same style of going in a specific Direction you can see in a straight line where the exact same style of pipe comes out which is then shown in the photo that said um I I think we're hearing a lot of caging because I I can also understand why any engineer is going to be cautious about saying of course we will X when he hasn't seen the exact thing we're talking about even though I do I I Mr Pat I agree 100% I would agree with your assessment that certainly is what it appears to be but in principle the whole design is just to take whatever runoff is coming from the lot line and convey under the driveway so whether it's 20 ft to the south or east or west we're doing the same thing no matter where the pipe is yeah okay I I appreciate what you're doing thank you for the explanations um I just like to say that uh I really emphatically don't want any work done on my property without my written permission maybe you'd normally get get written and I mean now you're speaking for the contractor but I I just don't anybody start to dig on my property with without my permission that's that's totally reasonable yes great absolutely so we we can condition that and it will be uh okay wonderful okay um now they're talking about surface flow I've I've got a couple of uh downspouts and I've got just the water coming down the driveway a lot of water comes down the driveway um you know I I don't even think it's coming off the street I think it's just collecting on the driveway and flowing over that uh Swale so once it goes over the sale what happens does cuz does that water go over the top of the driveway so when like I said when it's cleared when it's drained we're going to provide another plan if we see that there's a low point there that Basin that we're putting here to convey the water under the driveway will be shifted accordingly to collect that water so we don't want to have run off in the middle of the winter in freezing conditions flowing across the driveway okay and and I can see I can see you've you've got the the the space to put put something in so okay it's just nothing shown and know I know exactly where it go goes right right where that 4 in drain is where the sale is everything goes right over there so you can plan on it I've been there for a long time uh okay so the plan here shows that my driveway has an elevation the low point that I see is is 473 and then I see the road down here the driveway has an elevation of 470 which would indicate a 3ot elevation change going from my driveway down to this new driveway which I am happy with uh can I Bank on that there's going to be 3T yeah I mean the grades here what's approved they have to build it per plan this is how it was designed yep thank you yep and I think we're all said as far as the maintenance easement on the deed you just said that okay I'm done great thank you very much um great some of that last minute making sure everyone's the ABS and everyone's property is protected okay uh I will if there's other public comment I would take it seeing none um and just let me know of course if they pop up in zoom and friends on Zoom if you do want to make public comment goad and use that hand raise feature when we're soliciting public comment um you can use it other times as well but we'll be more explicitly looking for it when we solicit public comment just but use that hand raised feature if you have something Mr Allison did you have oh yeah do you have anything no um I respect you as an engineer I do um but I I certainly don't want to set any kind of a precedent in these storm water permits that already really are useless and don't really protect the neighbors or the neighborhoods or the roads or any of that um I've never ever seen proposed construction on somebody else's house on somebody else's lot without without first survey location of what you're proposing to tie into which is obviously 40 ft away than you're showing and it's interesting that it's just outside what is that the 30ft buffer for conservation the 50ft maybe I'm not quite sure it's not labeled it's between the 30 and the 50 Foot it's just outside of one of them and it's just inside the 100 that's a what you're talking about this drainage basin did it show on that plan did you change plans yeah okay yeah that one yeah so this this the work proposed offsite was an agreement we've made with the neighbors because of the amount of runoff from the neighbors lots that sheet flow and was redirected across the Abus property so there's a Swale here that goes 100 yard plus uphill a few years ago the neighbors had excavated and put in so it was installed without permits they collected their runoff and discharged it illegally across this property so it impacts the abuts now the landowner's ability to develop this lot there's significant amount of runoff that comes down the road through their property through Mr Patton's backyard they collected the runoff and piped it across the yard again onto the ab's property to discharge it so there's been a lot of lengthy discussions with The Neighbors about how to fix the problem and the mcis are agreeing to collect that water to pipe it and convey it underneath the driveway as a agreement to help fix the runoff problem that's happening out there without going through other means of getting rid of it and disconnecting it well quite honestly it looks like the the runoff problem had been fixed until you decided to build a house there and and and we all know how I feel about that laot yeah but the runoff no secret the runoff problem wasn't fixed well it it suffices for the existing buildings so they took their problem and piped it so anyway M's problem to make it his problem so the plan you presented the plan you presented to us last February initially you said that all the runoff was taken care of and now we've got new structures and we've got new issues to fix what was already taken care of is that I don't understand your statement you wanted us to approve this storm waterer permit back in February mhm and that structure was not there there was no there was no indication of any structures on the neighbors law cuz these were things that we discovered in working with the abutters and the Conservation Commission in the last several months so we've added them now to the plan M to fix a problem that is being conveyed onto the M's property that's wasn't their problem so none of that shows up none of the discovered flow has showed up in your drainage calculations your hydrocad your previously submitted it's oated flow it's not flow caused by us it's not flow caused by our development our calculations show the impacts as required by Massachusetts D standards of our development we're not responsible for analyzing all the neighborhoods up the street down the street we're we're mitigating impacts for our development on our property no you're not you're showing mitigation on somebody else's property we're not mitigating his property we're we're correcting their problem we're conveying their water across our driveway so it doesn't wash out our driveway there's no mitigation that's being proposed as part of that structure I understand it I understand you your your your Veiled Threat here is if it it doesn't get passed then it's going to be a lawsuit I'm I'm not threatening anybody I'm just just saying this is this is here in order for us to develop this lot and put our driveway in without their runoff washing out our driveway causing erosion okay I'm not going to I'm not going to vote to approve this as it is so um but why what's you've got inaccurate information shown and you've got proposals that aren't on the landan that you're developing and um it it it looks to me like you're showing that existing pipe that's in the wrong location going to the property line but cuz it does it goes across onto this property then address it at that point not on the neighbor's property you didn't buy his property that's that's my contention you're you're you're proposing development on an abing property and um that that's my contention so I I don't I don't want to get into an argument about it it just it doesn't seem right and I don't want to have my name associated with approving that that's all all right um I actually would like to turn to Mr Harris for a moment um because I have a a couple questions procedurally um at least and that I don't recall and I may have seen this and don't remember I don't recall a storm water permit where we've approved it knowing that conditions on the ground are likely different or could be could strongly be different and thus with the understanding that there's going to be a modification afterwards is that common is that problematic is that totally fine I I would just like to hear uh from the planner perspective if I understand the situation the adjoined prop owners pipe drainage across the subject property what the project engineer is saying is OB we can't go on the join property to survey that we can't go on the join property to do any exploration therefore what we will do is during construction as we uncover items on our property we will then do a mended plan for lot five to address changes in the drainage that would be necessary to address that issue I'm not I'm not used to that being the case usually there's not an issue of someone having drained Pro um put pipe that drains orang another person's property because that's not legal um so you have I see unusual situation here with what apparently has happened in the past um Conservation Commission has curently been satisfied with that approach and essentially what it would amount to would be approving the stormw permit with a condition which is standard that any change to that plan has to come back to the planning board for approval of the modification uh and that would be lmed to lot five in this instance there could be situation that on the other Lots something uh occurs that they didn't expect that would require change as well so it's not unusual to have a change coming back to board you usually don't anticipate those up front occurring though okay thank you sir that that helps me understand the lay of the land for how this is working how approval may work if if the board elects to vote that way um all right thank you other members of the board I mean or Mr Alison again if you have more questions but first I do want to turn to others just to uh M re again you're on just unmute and interrupt if you want to say something because I know that's hard when you're remote um or the others do we have other questions or thoughts or not at this point now all right so I I hear what Mr Harris is saying about uh our interim land use director about this being a tricky kind of unique situation concom has reviewed and is satisfied um any other public comment any other comment from no all right hearing a whole lot of no desire for more information which is fine I've got a little bit more input oh please I was also on site on Saturday and and I saw I saw this plan with with the patents um and and I concurred that what he has shown as a catch Basin that goes off site is there and and it outfalls on the adjacent property and it clearly is on the adjacent property there is no reason that it could not have been survey located and properly identified and it certainly is not where you're showing a drainage structure which is and it also says existing drain and I don't know I didn't see any drain pipe there there was there was no pipe where you're showing that the pipe that was there this this existing drain pipe that's shown gr back there's no structure there that's the structure is what was shown as proposed that drain pipe here was put on the plan based on discussions with the owner well the owner here is is telling you that he's submitted it other plan that shows where the pipe is okay he he dug it up a week ago and this plan was approved over a month ago so I didn't have that information Mr Patton has not called me and talked to me about the updates I didn't know he was meeting with you guys out on the site either so I didn't have that information so we did the best with what we had at the time we we know there's a drain pipe that comes across so we just showed us connecting to that pipe if that means it's not here and it's down here then that's where we're going to connect to it so the point of this plan is we're going to pick up that pipe wherever it is and convey it under our driveway so if it's further to the east by 20 ft 30 ft that's where it's going to go we're going to connect it wherever it is and extend it through okay so if I and that was the point of us having the condition with conservation MH once we start digging this stuff up and locating these things that's when we're going to pick it up and extend it across so whether it's here or whether it's down here it's the same scope and we're agreeing to file a plan before any work is done so you have an accurate record plan we're not disagreeing that the pipe's there we're agreeing with it and we're agreeing to extend the pipe we're extending the pipe across our driveway so it doesn't cause problems with our driveway and with erosion all right so um I want to verify that what you're comfy with is so again I I I was invited to site I went um to the neighbor to the neighbor's property I didn't wasn't on the other side of note um as shown on your plan drain pipe is that is not where it is so now that means if your goal is we'll look at it if it's not there we'll resubmit I mean personally I don't really care I'm happy to have you before the board but you're I I I would advise you that you're going to be resubmitting if that's the case in the board if the board proves as is you will be res I I would advise that again I'm a Layman but I also know how to read maps so I'm only pointing this out in that if that influences what you want to do I want you to make the most educated decision you are as opposed to oh let us look at it and then come back with a new plan I don't personally care because if you come before us we'll just look at it again myself but so a a modification to a site plan is typically for substantial changes this the the scope is on the plan we're just going to move it from here to here wherever that pipe actually is so the the way I've done this many times on other projects as well where if it's a it's a minor modification it's captured with record documents we'll submit it for record of where it goes and at the end of the project we have to submit an as built anyway to get our occupancy or our certificate of compliance with it and it will be shown in the correct location mhm so in my opinion no this is this is not significant enough to require a modification to a site plan um but you know obviously that's your call not mine yeah um I I would also just let you know that back of the napkin estimate by looking at it I think the existing um catch Basin is probably about 100 ft to the south and east from where you show it now guesstimate oh this this isn't the existing oh that's not okay it's a proposed coning we know the existing back yeah okay sucks never mind Mr Harris yep Mr Harris I was just going to not um as I understand M Mr maret said is they've agreed the conservation that when they start doing the work they'll uncover the first step would be to uncover these pipes and then go back conservation with a revised plan yes I don't see why that can be done concurrent with the planning board not necessarily saying to be publica caring but a um minor informal process where you submit it at the same time for planning board to review at a public meeting and give their blessing on it um I think I understand the C circumstances I've seen uh Highway project where similar type situations where they didn't know where all everything was was located and they dug up stuff and had to uh make adjustments in the field um I had DPW who continue love to do that and not notify anybody of doing it but um yes I I think that'd be reasonable approach to take is just a concurrent uh submission that doesn't require public hearing but just planboard review of that modification concurrent with conservation thank you all right any more questions uh from the board before we move on to uh deliberation Miss Reed can I because I know you're at home can I just get a you're all set to make sure audio is solid I'm here I don't have any questions great thank you okay uh hearing no more questions I would look for a move uh look for a motion to clo close the public hearing so we can then deliberate and vote uh might you want to ask for any further public comment after the I'm fine with that that that's wise or not no we can ask i' like uh any other public comment on this before we move on seeing none all right um good call sir thank you thank you again I would look for a motion to likely close the public hearing motion to close public hearing for 255 Sunny Hill for 255 Sunny Hill Road great second move mov D and seconded all in favor now we do have to roll call because Miss Reed is absent um so I'm going to go down the line each time and then end with m re to give her a chance to unmute okay Mr McLoud I'm same okay right uh Mr Allison to close I to close yes this is to close Mr Wilner hi uh mised I and then for myself we're closed thank you for your time and now we can chat and figure sure all right so we have an unusual situation um Mr Ellison has understandably expressed some uh skepticism and frustration we also have the primary of butter where that's being discussed has said that he feels comfortable with it with certain um requirements for approval the name of already forgot I conditions conditions thank you use that word every meeting and then it goes away uh with uh certain conditions about not working on this property without written permission and couple others in there um what are we thinking I mean so obviously one of the conditions is going to be the concurrent review of the resubmitted plans through conservation or I I would like that yes I I would personally like that condition um even if not strictly necessary it it certainly feels better to me in this case actually I don't think we need to set conditions tonight do we Richard I think I don't think we do I think we just need to approve or disapprove of conditions yeah you need to make a motion to vote to approve with conditions otherwise you can't set conditions later once you approved it so with our standard conditions plus standard conditions plus we seem to and I believe the ones we've talked about is no work would be done on on uh the ab Butter's property without written permission with uh any changes would be any changes to the plan would be submitted simultaneously uh when they submitted to concom they would also be submitted simultaneously to the board for our review and approval would that be correct wording yes oh okay um I think are the ones we've talked about and we know that there's going to be some looking seeing what things connect shifting all right uh Mr there was also mention of the maintenance agreement to allow Mr padon to maintain line as well as the inclusion of the M can we see the maintenance agreement as already discussed yes Banger love it okay um so what do we think about that we seem to have a a butter who is satisfied we have a builder who is satisfied um uh I would I am personally surprised at how wetlands were delineated here but that is not our role that is concom and they are they are the board that makes those decisions and they hire the experts so I I don't get it but I I trust their decision because they're the ones who make that call um and yeah I accept a motion if there is one but I'm also happy for discussion between us to hammer out any concerns or thoughts there's a general the thing that frustrates me here is the thing it's been the whole time is I don't sorry um I don't necessarily trust that the specifications that we have for stor storm water are sufficient to the task that putting them up to um this is we've we've gone through properties with less complicated uh storm water requirements than this and they've come back in ways that people are generally not pleased with um I don't know that there's really anything I can do with that because we're kind of handcuffed as to what um these requirements can be just a general level of frustration with how it's set up Mr Harris were you voicing something I I couldn't tell I would just suggest that that is perhaps something that you should discuss with your new landage director when that person comes aboard to look at revisions to your storm water bylaw okay yeah I I would I would agree that we made a good pass at improving storm water a few years ago yeah but we're also seeing the storm water is evolving wicked fast sure everything we're putting in requirements changes because the climate change we're experiencing makes everything more extreme it's not is it something that we can even keep up with to make sure that this is doing the job that we wanted to I did enjoy the meeting we had to pause so I could go make sure my vehicle wasn't washing away into the parking lot that was exciting um it was exciting because it was fine otherwise it would have been a very different kind of exciting um all right uh not hearing anything Mr Allison do you wish to try to sway us for why this Pro I mean you said you intend to vote against I've been trying for probably close to a year and it didn't work with conservation and it doesn't seem to be working with this board either so I've said my piece I've made my piece and I'd rather not have my name associated with this project okay thank you all right so I would look for if board members are interested uh a motion to approve the well either a motion to approve the storm water permit for 250 5 Sunny Hill Road with all standard conditions and additional conditions as discussed or a motion to not approve um the storm water for 255 Sunny Hill Road I don't know exactly what that looks like otherwise but I'll take one or the other and we'll vote from there um motion to close discussion on I don't think we need do we need to close discuss we don't need to close discussion we close the hearing and that's why we're not soliciting more opinions because the hearing's closed and now we're just kind of discussing the knowledge we have okay so now we just need to vote um motion to approve Sunny Hill 255 storm water uh with the conditions previously discussed is that sufficient or do I have to relist the is that good enough Mr Harris I would suggest with the standard conditions and with the three conditions that Mr burner previously outlined with the standard conditions and the three conditions that have already been discussed okay so moved do we have a second I'll second okay moved and seconded uh I will be doing a roll call vote yeah so with a roll call vote do we just say and the person votes yay nay or abstain is that I think so yes okay great and Mr moud can't participate in this vote yeah so Mr McLoud I'll call on you for the sake of roll call you'll abstain because you can't great Mr McLoud abstain Mr Allison no Mr Wilner no Miss Reed I an I for myself well that's not enough to approve it um correct is that because we need a board majority correct it doesn't matter either way we don't have a majority even if it's voting me members who can vote all right so what do we do next Mr uh Mr Harris what's the process from here I've never had this on stor water permit usually it's yes or no um so we've had no I mean can we didn't approve we can hold a vote for no but I think we're going to be a split I don't think you have I don't think anyone has a majority in this case I think what you could do is you could defer a decision to the next meeting um and discuss it further and see if there's a change in decision hey question that that will happen but I I am fine with that um I'm hesitant to no effectively it's it's denied um but you usually have a actual motion of denial um by yeah so we have so for th for those playing along uh with our home game you can see that we have four members of the board who can vote uh two have voted in favor two against and that means that you're not going to get a majority either way because our fifth member this hearing began before he was a member of the board so he cannot vote on this am I allowed to ask a question uh sure I I I think Mr Harris should respond give me a second I'm fine with it what is the representative's engineer allowed to ask a question at this point no sorry um all right thank you for the clarification all right so I mean we could just defer to the next meeting and see if more discussion helps but we could do that um one of the reasons I suggest the next meeting to give I can sent an email out to the Town Council to ask his advice is how to proceed when you have a 2 two split um because your bylaw says the permanent Grant Authority shall decision shall consist of either approval based on determinations approve of conditions or disapproval um doesn't say that has to be majority vote doesn't say but presumably it has to be majority and doesn't say what you do in terms of a tie um I know if it's a special permit if you're under zoning in a special permit it' be denied uh because a wording special permit requires affirmative vote of super majority and this doesn't say it requires affirmative vote voted but that's implicit so I would I be inclined to prer decision to the next meeting and I'll send an email out to the Town Council to ask for his advice on how to um advise you proceed right sounds like uh so Mr Harris's recommendation is that we defer to the next meeting because we're not quite sure how to move forward um and I guess we can I would recommend we do that and go from there because we don't even have a clear path at the moment uh does that feel acceptable sounds reasonable all right uh just so I do we need to vote to defer I'm assuming we should that was a yeah all right what's that you should I would look for a motion to decision what's that to defer the decision I would look for a motion to defer our decision until our next meeting which is what date um that would be uh September 9th September 9th do we need a set of time is no longer a public hearing but it's the result of a public hearing do we need to set uh time certain at 605 no okay so we don't so a motion to defer our decision to our next meeting which is September 9th so moved second moved and seconded all in favor I oh yeah Mr McLoud obain yep Mr Allison I Mr Wilner hi Miss Reed I and an i for myself all right well thank you very much for your time we are going to find out from Town Council what thing what the land looks like in this kind of situation and then we'll go from there all right I'm going to call up our agenda three Lancaster about a sign approval yep uh we have three Lancaster r a special permit for Village District free standing sign and correct me if I'm wrong this is this a public hearing um yes this is the very first time we yep so we're going to need to open the notice should be in there yep public hearing amander would you read would you do you want someone else to read it or do you want to read I think I can manage okay you're well one of us can read too but that's fine go ahead okay uh the lunenberg planning board will hold a public hearing on Monday August 12th 2024 at 6:05 p.m. I believe that's incorrect should I restate that Richard do we need to change the date that's fine because the date changed no okay all right Monday August 12th 2024 at 6:05 p.m. Town Hall 17 Main Street in lunenberg asked to hear and review an application for a special permit pursuant to 250-4170 3j of the code of the town of lunenberg as amended at the May 2015 annual town meeting by Steven boraka AlphaGraphics for a freestanding sign the subject property information is the location is three Lancaster Avenue assessor map parcel number 071001 D owner is Art Calo uh at 3 Lancaster Avenue lunenberg Mass 01462 materials are viewable at the planning office at 960 Mass Avenue in lunenberg great thank you and I ask the applicant to yeah share your name and address with us and give us the lay of the land uh yes Sanford lenworth of uh 50 Island Road in gron representing uh Alpha Graphics for the sign permit for three Lancaster at across the street um great sign was originally approved and then denied then it was modified and brought into compliance with the requirements of the U bylaws in the town and um then it was discovered that it's in a specific zone so it has to go to a special permit hearing and that's I guess why I'm here it's taken a long time to get here but I'm here I was here two weeks ago not really but so anyway we're just looking for approval on this sign the sign itself has been approved it's because where it is I guess has to get am I able to give any context on that uh go ahead Logan please uh yeah just to um give some context on the the process of it it was originally issued um in error and then rescinded um when the uh Building Commissioner found that the subject property was in the architectural pres sorry no in the village District um and the bylaw there treats signs differently requires a special permit from the planning board rather than just a straight signed permit all right great uh could you uh explain to so these signs have already been approved by the Building Commissioner they were originally and that approval was issued in error so that was rescinded um it's now going through the proper Channel which is here okay um what is the differ so besides being a special permit you may know Mr Harris would know as well what is the diff besides being a special permit meeting the Board needs to vote on it and needs to be a public hearing is there anything else different about the requirements for the Village Center District um in terms of size or anything and are those requirements being met my not they're being met um otherwise the Building Commissioner not approved it he um weend it because it's uh it requires special permit in the uh because of its location um so as far as I know the only change is that you need a super majority of the plan board to vote approval all right uh and again in our folders you can see uh images of the signs as proposed those were part of the original submission um before was made clear to the applicant and all parties that proper plans had to be prepared for it through um an engineering firm but I still thought it would be good to include those no I appreciate it and we do have the plans as well I see those do those plans show the let me zoom out a little so on the plans I can see the freand standing sign but the picture came with a this one yeah I don't see that one on the plants they said they didn't need that oh okaying what I was told no I think it's only if it's freestanding a that sign building I believe is different it's attached to the building yeah okay okay great the The Village District thing is purely for freestanding signs yeah I would love someday if we could look at sign um our sign by law but if you think water is contentious in this town uh and that's not signed by laws are notoriously difficult for businesses to navigate and difficult for towns to craft ones that aren't difficult for businesses to navigate gosh knows we'd like to um oh I'd like to I won't speak for others all right I'm just haven't had a chance to do a deep dive on some of these so I'm doing making sure I understood everything yep all right I would look for questions from the board and then we'll go to public comment questions comments from the board no questions did we get any input from The Building Commissioner uh relating to this specifically no but from what I've gathered it seems to really have been mostly a clerical hang up oh sure no I mean I mean in in this in this example Richard would be the the overseeing person anyway so I was just curious if he did in fact uh did you did say that they were modified after they were approved there was an original submission before the original approval where like I think the sign was the opposite ways so it was out of uh conforming with the the this bylaw Dimensions so they redid the sign and then submitted it and then that's when he approved it okay and then they said oh wait a minute we can't approve it it's got to go to this thing so so there's been no change since it was previous appr no no this was this was the design that was approved by them originally I'm fine with that though yeah all right uh I would look for seeing other seeing other questions or comment from the board but feel free to yell uh looking for a public comment this is a public hearing seeing none again if you're on zoom and this is what you're here for and you want to say something go ahead and raise that hand uh but see none in the room none that I'm seeing on Zoom all right um if there's no questions from the board at this point we can close the public hearing but uh motion to close public hearing second on sorry on three Lancaster uh sign approval y second moved and seconded all in favor Mr McLoud I Mr Allison I Mr Wilner I miss Reed I and an I from myself great well thank you very much you're welcome to take a seat because we can't ask you more right now and we discuss so is this as straightforward as it looks to me like in in my opinion yeah yeah um the sign I mean I I get there's a special person no one from the public has come out and said that they really don't want this don't want a sign there seems to match appropriately with the character and also give information that's actively useful um I'm personally comfortable with this yeah all right um I would hearing nothing else from the board I would look for a motion um if it was to approve the motion would probably be to approve the special permit for signage at 3 Lancaster EV so moved second moved and seconded Richard do we need anything else on that it's not a site plan so assume there's no other conditions or anything well standard conditions would be that it be installed as present in the plans okay that be that be a standard condition okay so let let uh are are you motioning with standard conditions I guess would be the question uh or do we have to re like can we redo the motion with standard conditions is that fine I would do that okay looking for a motion to approve the uh special permit for signage at three Lancaster AV with all standard conditions uh so moved and and as presented and as presented thank you uh so moved second moved and seconded all in favor Mr M all voting in general I say all in favor but because it's a roll call let's just vote Mr McLoud hi Mr Allison hi Mr Wilner hi M Reed I an I from myself I'm glad we could hopefully make one step of this easy for you thank you so much do I get a ribbon or anything um I send up the minut perm we have to pick up um the next step in open gov will get checked and then um it'll generate a permit and you'll get pinged on your email with that start cross from your arm so yeah thanks thank you sir oh oh wait don't leave Richard's gesticulating what does he need we need drafted decision that you can sign board can sign it then gets filed with the Town Clerk and there's a 20-day appeal period once it's F the town park so a month from now yeah basically I'm looking forward to some cold weather but I'm hoping we don't have a ground freeze in late September I got my limits apologies Richard yeah thank you sir for I appreciate that all right going back up to our agenda uh we have the decision for 240 Summer Street site plan approval and I don't and this is uh this was already voted on at the last meeting correct I think the meet the public hearing's been opened and closed and I don't think I correct me if I'm wrong I don't I'm not trying to cut you up but no no no I don't think I need to say anything I just wanted let me know I was here oh but we see you but M uh if you need me okay Mr Harris we can't talk to bill because the hearing is closed right so board made the board closed the hearing vote to approve it one of the conditions of approval was to review it was subject to reviewing the written decision at the next meeting and didn't have members we needed then so it's tonight okay which so we should have yep we have in the drive we do have the decision Mr BR if I may yeah I think this is something that can wait till the end of the meeting I think um I don't see why not I I don't think we can take any input from from the applicant anyway so yeah yeah then no good call I would rather move it to the end of the meeting that I I think that M Mr Harris so Mr Harris no harm in moving this to the end because the applicant can't give us more info because it's just reviewing the decision now correct well I would agree I know the appin concern be sure that does get approved they just get going so it's already been approved it was approved at the last meeting but it's subject to the board of reviewing approving the written decision okay just wants to watch it um yeah again I mean so subject to the so what happens if the board doesn't approve the written de this is just to make sure this is the usual Crossing R te's dotting or lowercase j right right okay um so yes you could delay this into the meeting if you don't approve the written decision then you simply need to tell me what changes to make in it because it has already been approved yeah yeah it has already been approved the the sole purpose of this is just reviewing the legal ease that we get back from Richard and saying yes or no you need to change this this is perfect reading effectively yeah great uh I'm I'm comfortable with us putting proof reading to the end because nothing can really change other than oops this was written wrong um that's my understanding so I'll have us table this to the end of the meeting we have a lot of people waiting for um waiting for some active discussions uh but makes sense we can table this till the end it is now just really a approv reading thing great all right so I see to the end if I make a suggestion yes at the end of the meeting just defer to after the board discussion that I was going to say I don't really mean after the meeting I mean after board what I yeah after board discussions or what I really mean is until after the public clears out after we're so if partway through there's not really anyone left when we're discussing accessory dwelling units I'll pop it in there um just to get through that as soon as reasonable but all right next up would be in 240 the storm water permit same thing right yeah yeah okay great we'll shift those back uh next up would be board discussions uh with public invited and others from town invited please water supply Protection District we last discussed this in early July um we didn't bring it up at the past two playing board meetings because we knew we'd have members absent and we wanted to have a full board for this and here we are um Richard could I please get a could we all get a summary of uh we have the most recent document and everything on where we are with this in terms of edit and everything else I think the real the scnc issue is do you allow construction of water treatment plants by site plan review or site plan approval or special permit either that's the cut the chase yep issue that's in debate um I hear that I see um just to get and I see I see people that I recognize from uh the Hickory Hills area um do we have anyone from the water district uh anyone representing or who is a water representing the water district or who is a water district commissioner here tonight tune in the back great wonderful um welcome thank you for joining us so um I want to just start by saying I really hope we can find something that can work for everyone here um because a lot of people have put a lot of time in here and I mean that doesn't matter a lot of people can put a lot of time into something that's crap and then it's still crap right like that just saying a lot of people put in time is not an excuse to push something through but I think there's been a lot of good sincere debate and discussion uh Within These Walls and I hope that continues and I will as I have in the past I I encourage public comment and I encourage comment across the board I will be moderating it as necessary to make sure that we are both productive in that discussion and uh to keep uh emotions in check for something that I understand is a hot button issue across the board for understandable reasons for the public would it be helpful if I um screen share the copy of the revisions with the joint edits that we all going to be I think that that would not be bad at all for them to see at home um and again any documents were talking about our public record and they can they can the public can get those too correct this yeah yeah um but it is being screen shared for your convenience as well I can get to the host tools I have some questions but I I want to turn to the board do we have other board comments or discussion before we open to um another board and to the public I have I feel like well I I'll open actually I have a question for uh uh our friends uh from the water district if I may which is I feel like I've heard it said by by Me by uh your members paraphrasing that the law as currently written will not be passed by EPA and would be flat out denied is that your opinion and could I get some more info on why that is just cuz that's a question that is a statement I've heard said that I don't feel we've drilled down on and that I I think that's a very valuable piece of information uh frame magman superintendent of the water district uh they they wouldn't deny it they it would go through unless there was some legal things because you have to go the through the Attorney General so that that's the only that would take place uh they mean they have concerns uh it was on mostly you know allowing us to be able to treat the waters as we need to but I don't think there's anything they can do that would stop this okay all right thank you um I would look for yeah I would just let's get some info from the public on this you all are here we want to hear from you hi John Fortune 50 Hemlock Drive I sent you a document last night hopefully it's in your drive I have a couple of comments I'm also representing um Hickory Hills land owners May if I may I want to pause you for one moment because I know do is that in the drive or just in our emails right now no if it was emailed to you directly and I wasn't I would have able throw it in um so if you forward it to me I can do that now uh I will do that right now appreciate that I apologize for the extra work all good not an issue but if we're discussing a document Logan I'm forwarding it now um it does it has be public record yep so uh that has been sent and that was sent to all of us on the board and so that would be in your inbox please go on I just want to make sure we could all talk about the same thing yep perfect thank you uh what I'd like to talk about is uh uh 250- 4.9 F permitted uses um the second second section of that is the following uses are permitted within Zone one uh so 2B outdoor recreation nature study boating fishing and I've added Swift uh and hunting where legally permitted and the reason I've added swimming is on Hickory Hills Lake there is actually several houses that have docks and they swim from them as well as people in their own boats canoes kayaks whatever anybody in the water swims anywhere in the lake um so because the Zone one as written is as uh drawn here covers a portion of the w water uh swimming should be part of that so I'd like that to be added all right go ahead would you like would you want to just present both or do you want us to talk about one then the other uh one did I present both and then we can talk about both great sounds good CU it it second one I've gone all the way down through uh the water district has asked for G to be removed and changed uh I would prefer it to be there but if it does change then 2G should say my my thing for 2G would be activities conducted by the lunberg Water District which are necessary and incidental to the operation maintenance inspection repair replacement and protection of the well and Associated current infrastructure necessary and incidental to the use of the well is public water supply consistent with the requirements of the mass drinking water regulations 310 CMR 22 and then uh on 2 H removing on land and I've added on land non-native nuisance invasive species implementing native sorry interplanting native species and controlling species in a manner approved by mass D that preserves drinking water quality and minimizes damages to the surrounding nontarget species I is fine and the last portion so we can talk about that and I'll go on to my last portion after that is that work for you or sure should I complete um now as a little bit of background um to my knowledge I mean I don't personally care what we say about water on this because to my knowledge um no matter what the map says by definition Zone one does not extend so Zone one is a thing that is defined by the state yep by specific characteristics and one of those characteristics is that and Richard please correct me if I'm wrong is that zone one is on land that once you get into a body of water it's no longer Zone one do I understand that correctly that's my understanding okay and I getting nods from our water district friends in the back as well and from some some others okay um I would personally argue that I think this bylaw would work better if we treated it that way but I understand there's been some lingering concerns about is it really I mean because we originally didn't include voting it was stressed that people wanted boting included I mean as written it definitely allows boating on your front yard if you're in zone one um and to my understanding under no circumstances could it prevent boating in any Lake because once you're in a lake it's no longer Zone one that zone one is limited to only on land um so I wanted to share some of that info I don't know if that changes how your organization might feel about it but that might if we understand and agree on that that would probably simplify a lot of things okay but I I'm not again my goal here is actually to create consensus so I'm not trying to trample your thoughts on it yep that's fine so that would also include the uh private homes that are along the shoreline of Zone one so any swimming in the any swimming in the water is uh doesn't affect Zone one in any way that the that you say these zones only count on land yes that is my understanding now we do have two hands I'm going to ask if either is a technical clarification of what we've just discussed okay both are still up so I'm going to go to miss pce first because her hand was up first Joan p is 11 winter green Corp if we're doing a technical clarification if boating is in there then swimming should be in there or boating should be taken out and swimming should be taken out I I don't think you're going to get far with boating taken out I think that since it swimming is allowed anyway just put it in that would be my opinion I I I think otherwise there's a disconnect we're talking about something in the water and not everything in the water I will be trans I will be completely transparent my goal was to lead us to a point we could get rid of boting not because I don't want people boting but unless you're playing Minecraft you're probably not rowing a boat on your lawn I get that this is not really a Minecraft crowd but I have kids that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it digress but I I also do have an AG personally I can't speak for the board agree with Miss piece and for the for Jiminy Cricket sake board please as I moderate this discussion jump in don't like I I encourage that this is a board discussion we want public input and I will share things to try to move it along but I would like board input ra I don't feel the need to be the only one Speaking please mark bur uh 20 Buttonwood Place water commissioner let's just exactly jump right over this boating I agree boating needs to be left in there swimming if you want to put swimming in you can but by definition swimming is an outdoor recreation and uh from the water district perspective once you hit the edge of the water The Zone one those those regulations don't apply but we all of the the things that um Mr Fortune is saying that he wants to allow let's you know if you want to put swimming in great put swimming in but it's already Allowed by definition by outdoor recreation I would leave the Boating in mhm um and we're fine with that all right so can I ask a clarifying question please why would you leave could I ask you ask at the microphone though just so voting I don't believe in my quick research is part of passive Recreation ah so put the definition in there so that it's it's there y okay thank you yep is peace Mr bur are you saying that passive Recreation includes swimming as far as the D goes to drinking water Z ones I'm saying as far as the definition on Wikipedia says swimming is considered an outdoor recreation which I would consider anything passive would be something that's non motorized so swimming hiking biking so swimming according to the lunenberg water district is a passive outdoor recreation swimming according to Wikipedia is a definition okay so I'm going to I'm going to pull this in um what I'm hearing is there's I'm not hearing anyone saying we shouldn't have swimming other than those who have turned to me and said really we don't need to have any of this I agree with them however laws sausages etc etc um okay and again eventually it's the board who makes decisions so I'm not going to talk about what definitely will or won't be but I I personally I hear you that may I get it um so I would look just moving on um I bet I'm anticipating this one to be more contentious the 2G adding the word current um activities conducted by the lunenberg Water District which are necessary and incidental to the oper to the operation yes deleting two words was okay removing construction installation y then in keeping operation maintenance inspection repair replacement and protection of the of the well and Associated ad current infrastructure necessary in ental to the use of the well so this seems to effectively say you can keep what you got and keep it up but you can't add anything new correct that's effectively yeah um and this would apply to this is a I do not believe this came up in our pre in our discussion at the last meeting because we seem more focused on the um special permit versus um site plan approval so uh I would turn to our friends from the water district I I think I I I expect I know the answer but I would like to hear a little more um including the what of your thoughts on this and if you do not agree I'd like to hear a little bit of the why 100% do not agree yeah uh every Source in lunenberg needs a treatment plant and to have this as part of the uh restrictions that you cannot build the treatment plan in the zone one which is where they go uh you're talking a huge financial impact to every resident in in lunberg so I'm I'm and I think my board totally opposed to uh any of that uh for discussion okay yeah I would agree we discussed this thoroughly with our board um it would be a significant financial impact and an undue burden on the citizens of lunenberg uh for us to progress along with the with the with the water system and my I'm going to be super high level paraphrase here my understanding is effectively because in part because on Zone one you can build and do things otherwise you'd have to buy other properties and then pipe to that property unless it's Direct ly next door again I'm I'm doing a very high level any anything further away from the source increases the cost yeah okay all right um if I can just add a clarifying Point uh with that the distance is 400 ft right from the well so that's what we're talking about we're not talking about buying acreages of land or anything like that we're trying to protect the area where the water actually comes from right so that's my my uh when we talked about section H requiring a special perimeter whatever the drawing I have in there or the information in there is all about the water source where does the water come from it comes from this 400 ft radius around the well and every time you put something in on around you make the surface of that non perious all of that makes it uh worse for for one pulling the water out of the ground but also whenever you do this I mean think about a treatment plant it's going to have spent U media it's going to have chemicals go in it because you're going to treat it all of that within a few feet of the water table just a terrible thing to do uh I I think this is something we do uh I am open to being corrected if what I say next is technically wrong and I would like to be corrected if that's the case Zone one in zone two are the same in the way that both are direct recharge areas for the aquafer those are that that is where the water goes and seeps into the aquifer so in that way Zone one is it is the well head so that is where the structure is that I mean that's where the well is they're pulling water from the ground but contaminate but it is of no more significant risk of of contamination than other areas in zone 2 that is my very light understanding I'm open to again technical Corrections on this so Zone one is where the water actually comes from with the con of depression is created zone two outside of that 400 ft you have at least 400 ft on either side of filtration gravel filtration to to remove any um pollutants that would come in zone two so I'm sure Fran will give you give you his thoughts but you know I think just looking at it kind of logically that way that's what happens friend like your thoughts and then miss P I know you've had your hand up I thank you for your patience I'll call you up so yeah the Zone one would be an immediate impact to the to water quality zone two is a delayed impact that's why we protect the zone two and as for the treatment a treatment plant in the zone one it's be it's being placed there to better the water quality so after no matter what uh kind of Hazards might be interpreted from a treatment plant the water is cleaner after the treatment plant than it was prior to it so everything he just said on uh causing harm to the Zone one is absolutely not true and where does all the things that are removed when you're when you're taking that harmful water putting it into the treatment plant where is all that stored well so all the harmful stuff came from the water yeah so so so yeah you got to remove it so what and it's concentrated now right now it's concentrated in whatever vessel that you're going to keep it and at some point you have to transfer it and remove it no I don't consider that a has it nether Mass DP and then on the Zone one just for just so clarification the keing well the only land that is owned by the water district is the Zone One MH so we don't have anywhere else to go and if we do go anywhere else we're going to the keing property which is industrially owned and which is this whole thing came up for development potential develop how how are we going to buy land in a potential development it's going to impact that that all right thank you Miss pce oh sorry I just say water district so I mean d currently allows for treatment in zone one yes for a lot of positive reasons and most I I would say that a lot of treatments are located within that area the ones that I know uh in in our area that are currently being built it it is a d approved process Miss pece please thank you Zone one is as Mr Fortune said closer to the well and Zone 2 is larger area where the water percolates through to Zone one and it is the filtration in that percolation so they're not exactly the same Mr chair they they really are they're are different size uh in acreage they're spread out farther and the purpose of each is a little bit different um but I just want to point out that um earlier in this process those of us uh from the Hickory hillwell concerned area were told that the rules couldn't be written for one particular well that the rules had to be written based on the science and the law and and the planning board's wisdom for developing the town correctly so the argument that oh we only own Zone one in Kings is no more valid than the hi hillwell is on the shore of a beautiful Lake and we're worried about the lake um the the rules should be written across the board for all three areas and not taking into account uh particulars of one area or let's take into account particulars of all the areas we need to be consistent in in that approach in my opinion so to clarify what we may and may not do we cannot write a bylaw that calls out specific Wells differently we are allowed to consider every well individually and with that knowledge of Wells individually come to a bylaw that addresses those needs yes so but I would hope you would take all of the particulars then of the different sites into account not just some of the particulars into account understood thank you and Mr Harris did I misspeak on that I don't believe so now okay great thank you what and is the standard operating procedure for water treatment facilities in I know you mentioned that the D allows it what happens most of the time are these done in zone one are they done outside like what is the normal operation of these normal is in zone one right at the actual water source so the way the process would go as we're cing in the process of is that they do pilot testing they test the water see what kind of treatment is required and then uh then the plan is designed and it gets submitted to mass DP for approval okay and then if they they approve it uh they address any hazards concerns and there all retaining areas when there is a hazardous contaminant uh we have uh potassium hydroxide sodium hydroxide uh sodium hypochloric chlorine every one of them has its uh retention uh area so if the tank did explode it it's caught it doesn't it won't impact the the water supply okay um I'd like to move us on be I know we're going to come back here but um I know that there's still the onl onl non-native nuisance plans Etc well um and then you included section H um I'd like us to move on to did you make changes in section H uh not specifically but if I could back to 2 based on the information I've heard here tonight that uh Zone one doesn't really go into the water then removing non-native plants nucent plants invasive species Etc from the water doesn't make any sense right and I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense from doing it on the land although the water district may want to do that on the land but it may make sense to just remove 2 H altogether uh if Zone one in the water doesn't really exist so it might make that might make it easier is uh you talk were you and Miss P you'll be right next okay I just want to get one clarifier quickly were you talking about when you said remove 28s were you talking about removing all of 2 or just the on land suggestion I didn't understand what you meant there okay so if we were to keep 2 I would want the on land to be there okay um however if from what we just heard about Zone one that it doesn't really exist in the water then having 2 at all personally in my opinion doesn't make any sense it ought to just be removed and the water just you know it' be up to the water district that's their input but um it certainly doesn't make any sense to have it there if the Zone one doesn't exist uh I see that you've got some thoughts I did promise an next word to miss piece um I I do want to hear your thoughts on it speaking for someone where a Zone one is in a residentially zoned area in town we would want something in there about invasive plants because we would want to at least hand pull poison ivy to get it out of there um if it's in a residential area where walking of residence is allowed even in the Water District's easement we would like something in there to be able to get rid of invasive plants obviously wouldn't be able to do spraying of chemicals but you would be able to hand pull so we'd want to get rid of the poison ivy in the residential Zone um and and also the the Hickory hillwell has as a unique characteristic that it has a Zone one in a tight residential area I don't believe Kings is in a residential area cor yeah so that's a unique characteristic um I think not poison ivy counts as a nuisance plant so I think that would be covered um again Mr Harris if you know differently jump in and correct me but toight Pat Layman's what's that I would just say there's no reason to restrict the removal of non-native nuisance or invasive species which have been approved by mass D yep and this section is okay yeah that's fine okay please if they're okay with it's fine with me but this came from DP it was uh permitted a and uses this was direct from DP and it just got placed in there so if it's in there fine if it's not fine I I don't really have any concern either way okay um I have to permitted so a permitted use is removing non so without your edit of on land a permitted use use would be removing non-native nuisance or invasive species interplanting native species and controlling species in a manner approved by mass D that preserves drinking water quality and minimizes damage to surrounding n Target species okay I and hand pulling poison IV would certainly to my understand qualify there very much so um I don't understand why on land needs to be added to that I'm looking for the logic there a little bit because it's saying right now you're allowed to remove non-n nuus Etc why are you why do you want you may remove it but only on land again Zone one's only on land anyway but so I have not seen and I'm not I'm not arguing that it doesn't exist I just have not seen the written portion anywhere where Zone one in the water um Zone one ends on the land I've never never seen that written anywhere that it ends on the land it doesn't exist into the water matter of fact I've heard some things from D we've gotten letters from DP that talk about Zone one in the water uh or over the water and that Hickory Hills would not be affected because of the the lake and everything was there before the Zone one was there so okay although I hear what you're saying and I hear what I'm not saying that that's not true all I'm saying saying is I have not seen it in writing um so but to my understanding the way this is written with your edit it would mean people cannot remove invasive like it would not be permitted to re remove invasive species from the lake if we say on land uh I don't think it would specify one way or the other if you said on land yes and if if in indeed we're wrong and Zone one does exist over the water then unless we put the clarifier on land okay it would um prohibit some of the things that might be done in the lake which I'm trying to I don't think this prohibits this says what's allowed take a moment to check please M PE possibly we can alleviate the entire problem by changing the definition of zone one in the beginning of the document under the definition sections say 400t radius does that does not extend into the water if we're saying it does not extend into the water we simply change the definition of zone one to the 400t radius of land not the 400t radius of water I assume that's so I I can actually I can answer why we don't want to do that okay um because the way we Define Zone one is we don't actually Define it in the bylaw we don't say it's a 400t radius in the B it's in there in the beginning of the I believe it's I thought it's in there if the wordings changed I apologize but I know the original wording was defi we defined them as per Mass General law defition Z ones are not always 400 ft I I and that's why we didn't Define it that way because depending upon the volume of water drawn from the well it could be smaller correct and if it's a Well field multiple Wells then the the r drops at 250 ft Lancaster R we have 250t radius around one of the wells the actual Hickory Hills well that was supposed to be a well field and now was supposed to be 250t radiuses but I'm not to show why the uh hydrogels changes to one one source and made it 400 but I'm looking at my copy as well yes you're right you're I stand corrected it doesn't say 400 feet we've just been saying that verbally here yeah and and I will admit I have let that slide as our definition um but it is correct that the Zone one is defined under Mass General law based on how much volume is taken because in it can be smaller if the wells being draw if there's less being drawn from the well right um okay so the reason I don't want us to go redefining it is because we intentionally pointed at state law and we try to do that when state law dictates things otherwise when the state changes its laws we still have to comply with the state's change our bylaw is just wrong and we then have to go through the process of editing it to comply with the state when we already like when this takes care of it either way the State wins though our different definition I do see a new hand please come on up Debbie Richie 98 Royal foreign Drive lunenberg I just have a clarification you keep saying state law isn't it regulations we're talking about not laws you know I don't know that off the top I I may easily be corrected on that Mr Harris Mr Harris I was going to say Mr Harris please yes is the code of massachusett regulations CMR that defines that oh thank so yeah I I am happily correct there that it is so because you keep referring to it as laws and and it's one of those the technical meaning matters it matters very little in terms of either way we have to follow it and if they change it we have to follow it but you're right and the litmus for changing those things is certainly different but those regulations supersede any Town bylaws still yes and that was that's that's why trying to make the bylaws in line with the state regulation CMR is makes sense because the CMR supersedes the town byw uh quick question for you Mr chair and Mr Mr Fortune uh we were talking about weeds a little bit here and I know that uh the Lake management plan allows you to treat for weeds and so forth uh I don't believe there's ever been a time that there's been a um something withheld from the lake in treatment because of the district's water supply uh in the whole time that I've been there the well has not been run run okay so I'm not aware if the well is running if that might change or not so but you do have there are still people in residents on the lake with private drinking supplies uh yes there are so I would think I mean normally it goes through D so they would normally regulate that we do goes through conservation which goes through d y that is correct okay and I I would think the same regulations would apply for because of the public drinking water supply as it would for the private supplies around the lake not researched that I don't I don't know that for sure okay thank you Miss I just wish to go back to Mr bur's statement about uh State regulation superseding local I that's not exactly correct under my understanding the more restrictive regulation applies so the state can have a regulation that says you can build a treatment plant in Zone one and lunenberg could decide that they want their treat plants in zone 2 or farther out I'm not saying you're going to decide that I'm just saying that when you have two sets of regulations the more restrictive regulation applies the state regulation does not always supersede the local reg that is all that would also be correct and Mr Harris was nodding his head um there are a few funny things with state laws where they then pass laws that say are more restrictive isn't allowed but that's stated in their law and that's again a law not a regulation I don't know if regulations are allowed to do that or not and it hasn't come up for anything we've had to work with here included thankfully um okay I'm please just just about done and that is uh so I am okay with re with taking the words on land out of that okay um to H all right so we could kill that that would be all right great um and was H something you added at the bottom or so I just want to talk about H for a minute I was trying to to Define what zone what is the 400t radius what it looks like why it's important with the coner depression Etc uh and that and uh in putting anything honestly in that area is not a good idea construction building things I talked about uh you know chemical construction spent filtration Etc now we're going to go back and forth on that to we all dead so it doesn't really matter much however I will say that as we saw earlier tonight um a special permit I think is probably the way that is more stringent and probably the way to go um versus a site plan where we come to the end and you know we maybe have uh a few different questions or whatever up and running but really for something like this in an area that is all of our water all of us drinking it uh we want to be as careful and cautious as possible when we proceed down that process so thank you thank you I'm going to pause public in for a moment I'm going to turn to the board and see if the board has any thoughts questions or discussion the board wants to have and then we'll go back uh and we'll kind of see where it goes from there um thank you all as we go for participating thank you all for frankly if I can be blunt thank you for keeping cool heads on a heated topic that ain't easy and I get it and I appreciate it um and I like that we can hopefully find a path forward but I'm going to turn to uh the planning board and say do we have thoughts on what we've heard do we have questions do we have ideas um I have just some questions in regards to like how do we structure everything um in terms of like how is this being paid for does like the water district have their own funds that they draw from um how much additional does it cost to move the the treatment off site um does that go outside of the say like the budget that the water district has or whoever is constructing this has and then who pays for that uh because I feel like the who pays for it question is very important here in the town because we keep running into people not wanting to pay for things that are important for the town so I don't know I'm just looking for a not of agreement on a broad statement uh from our friends at the water district the short answer being the water district being those who well those who have Town water are the ones who are effectively paying for anything within the water district sure is that I got the thumbs up there we go so that's the short answer if you're looking for a more detail answer we can certainly call up our friends from the water district to answer that more in depth if you'd like no that that part's fine like where the money comes from is is fine I assume that you know overruns or additional things that need be paid for come with rate hikes um maybe not I'm not sure they and we're getting up from multiple people in the audience cuz if youve been following local politics yeah that's always a topic um all right so one second I apologize excuse me um other thoughts Mr Wil i I don't know if you have more on that or not uh no that was that was the extent of that particular thought okay other members of the board thoughts questions clarifications ing one spleen any of the above how insistent um I direct this to the two of you how insistent is the location on no Treatment Facility in zone one please is this something that would cause it to be shot down again Joan p 11 winter Green Court I believe I said at the last meeting okay that a compromise that would be acceptable would be to have a special permit what we have now is no construction allowed which means a variance which is very difficult to get and requires another board beside yours to have it happen going to just a site plan review is going to the opposite extreme of the spectrum where no board has has any authority to say hey no no that's not right there I certainly can support and can recommend that other people support a special permit I cannot nor can I recommend to anyone to support a site plan okay I do that as a compromise okay thank you I'm for the edification of those who might be tuning in for the first time to this topic or aren't tuned in so well that they have all the details at the tip of their tongue the difference between site plan approval in a special permit in this circumstance is that a site plan approval again I'm paraphrasing is effectively a check list do you meet the requirements we can condition on top of that to a point but if you put in a site plan approval you being any entity applies for a site plan approval and they check all the boxes correctly now it's a complex list right because it's engineering and everything else but if they meet the requirements it's going to happen generally speaking um and that is approved by a majority of the planning board because we're all we are required to look at the list it's not actually list but effectively we have the requirements do they meet it a special permit one does require a super majority of the planning board two it does let the planning board look at a project subjectively in addition to objectively to evaluate um again I think an easy one is in uh a junkyard okay just because you're zoned commercial I think junkyards are commercial or indust I don't if they're commercial or industrial either way just because your Zone commercial or industrial doesn't mean and junkyards are allowed there that doesn't mean every location should be a junkyard by right you got to look at how that's going to impact the community another example would be a motel just because it's a commercially zoned doesn't mean a motel would be appropriate there for many factors and it would let and it lets us look holistically at the situation it does also require a super majority of the um so you need the four out of five and Mr Harris would is that an acceptable paraphrase to you yes um I describe this way typically a zoning bylaw will allow a restaurant by sight plan approval but they often require a drive-through restaurant by special permit because the perception is a different level of impact and different uh impacts that you can't necessarily mitigate the idea of site plan approval is you only deny it if the impacts are so great you can't reasonably mitigate the impacts by buffering by uh some type special conditions and that's a really high standard for the board to have to meet s special permit this a pretty easy standard for board to decide to vote no and deny thank you now I I would add to that in my time on the board I cannot think of which has been four five years four I think four years I cannot think of a time we have denied a special permit not that they're as common as I plan approval but I I just want to be that s that has a looser standard and we is easier for us to deny that doesn't mean they are routinely denied but we have routinely said hey we got to look at this and make sure it's going to work well in this environment please Mr Harris another aspect to that is the fact that a use requires a special permit it makes applicants much more willing to compromise and do things they normally wouldn't do to get board approval because they know board could deny them so they're much more agreeable to modifying their project if that's what is necessary to get a board to Grant the special permit all right thank you um May I just add that but you have to do at the microphone if you're going I'm fine with you adding Miss bees but got Toby at the microphone our friends at home on special permit allows the planning board to address the different unique locations of the well in town because it may be that a residential area would require more oversight than a commercial area such as the Kings so if you're going to allow Construction in zone one a manner that you would still be able to address the unique differences in the wells would be to require a special permit so that you could review the residential area versus the commercial area and make appropriate demands yes thank you thank you uh just it doesn't really matter Kings in zone industrial but the point is the exact same either way so not an issue just in case people are going wait I thought keting was industrial yeah they it is um I would turn to our friends from the water district and I I I'd like to well so again mean meaning the representatives of the district here um because all of us are friends from the water I live in the water district too so a lot of us are from the water district um let's we have a compromise on the table yep I I'd like to talk I I in discussion with members of your board at different times and just here there I don't have a clear bead on where you are on this so I I'd ask you again I I look to the financial ramifications of a special permit we have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to the point where we come before your board we have to go to the people to spend that hundreds of thousands of dollars before we come to your board so it it should be a fairly simple process to where you your board can now say no and we're out that hundreds of thousands of dollars I'm not willing to take that gamble so that's that's you know where where I'm coming from we've I I I challenge somebody in the community to say when the water district has not met and understood some of their needs we in our last master plan we relocated thank you very much but uh we relocated the the um where the treatment facility for the Hickory Hills well was going to be miles away so uh we've worked together I would say seamlessly with with the with Town boards and so forth and and we've had some discussions but we've always come to some sort of an understanding all right so I'm going to pause this for a moment um and just clarifying for those at home um when the comment was made about paraph super paraphrasing never having difficult I don't remember the exact words I'm going to Super paraphrase you can tell me I said it wrong not having significant problems working with other constituencies and Boards there were hands that shot up and some strong feelings in the audience I am going to tell us Point Blank that that I'm acknowledging that as a as a response we are not diving into that history tonight unless you can make an extremely strong k it's got to be a dang strong case as to why that has to be directly considered in writing this bylaw at the point we are right now okay because I want to keep us super focused on this bylaw um my other point to it is show another community in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts it requires a municipal entity to F out a special permit for any project that they are doing how common is the arrangement that the political political Arrangement sounds like NE sounds nefarious or that's not what I mean the water district is not part of the Town they're all around us I believe towns in what in stat yeah I just want how common is that arrangement I don't have a good bead on that uh I'm not sure the actual number I mean that there's probably 60 70 in in the state okay that's that's a that that's a fine guesstimate and we can work it is not everywhere but it we it is not so rare that we are an absolute outlier for Shirley gron Acton I mean so there's there's quite a few pretty close and that reflects my knowled my experience talking to people from other towns where some of them go of course water separate and others are like what are you talking about this is just part of the town but that would explain some of that okay um all right I'm going to turn to the board and just Mr wil's comment about financial impact to the water takers the town is also a substantial water taker schools DPW fire this building so the financial impacts go beyond your your general residence and them as water takers every taxpayer that well that is an excellent point I had thought about that connection as well and there a fair point that the town is also a water customer is this about I I have some hands up so I'm going to really be thoughtful is this about previous interactions that have gone South in one's opinion with the water district I I kind I just need a yes or no because I really I'm going to admit I'm nervous uh no sir I'm about to call on you so instead of getting mad at me I'm not getting mad sir process yeah so that's fine but I'm going to call on you but I'm going to be clear I've seen a lot of passion passion is great I love passion I have seen interactions at multiple meetings from multiple individuals from multiple sides not just on this topic okay so I want to be clear there's a very contentious at spere in town and I will have exactly none of it here all right we're going to be polite we are going to be appropriate and I'm not saying that for you in particular I just when I I see the passions bubbling so this is meant as a broad base it's not personal but I see that shift happening I'm not dealing with that because that's not helpful to any of us to coming to understandings please sir come on up I'd love to hear what you have to say Andrew starasi 8 winter Green Court I appreciate your comments that you just said and it is about being level-headed and respectful so it and it is passion I do take that into consideration and you've asked us to be relative to what's on this topic not in the past M so when we talk about special permit and we talk about uh not having a special permit I emailed each one of you about four weeks ago and and when we do have level heads the community and the Commissioners and people in the water district you would think you could come to an agreement but I want to point out exactly what I sent you I think three or four weeks ago when a resident went w with well intentions in front of that board to try to work with them and how they were met and that's why we want that special permit we want that safety valve we want you to be able to oversee that thank you very much I'm going to P I'm going to stop us there uh and you've stopped anyway so I get that but yes sir I'm um we were sent uh this is an email that links to a uh I'm going to be more vague than necessary but sorry this is a email that linked to a public meeting correct yes sir okay great um there was a and the email and question was linking to uh a meeting of the water district where uh you were not the only one who called it to my attention in particular I can't say overall where there were residents who felt that the uh that members of the water district commission did not respond to them in a way they felt was appropriate or professional is that what I'm talking about or no I believe we're talking about the same thing okay and I wanted for you to see for your own eyes what that interaction is I I will tell you I did watch the video in question thank I I I only watched it recently with the surgery so I hadn't gotten back to you yet but thank you for that um uh I I'm happy to acknowledge that there's a concern there and whether or not people find I'm going to break out some of the old logic language from college whether or not people find that sound whether or not they find the premises correct it's valid in that like the the argument is there is understood I'm not going to get into debate over what was or wasn't a certain thing but your concern is heard and noted as real and that's why we're requesting your board to have that Authority with the special permit to avoid any of that all right thank thank you Miss be John pel 11 wi Green Court Mr Harris earlier spoke and said that a special permit sometimes makes the applets more willing to work with the public and to make more accommodations and I think the water district can keep the prices down by working with the public first and getting all the input and then actually incorporating that input before they spend the money with the engineer for the special permit so I think the fact that requiring a special permit is going to cost more money is not a valid argument because there are ways to get around that by seeking The public's opinion first taking it seriously actually having your engineers incorporate that in a big way and presenting it to the planning board as a final product all right thank you thank you um what I'm going to do now the special permit Mr Rogers I I'll invite you to come up and speak you haven't spoken yet so I'm happy to hear a new voice that well okay in this very narrow topic a new voice I I'll be brief um I'm going to ask a question if I can uh to folks that stood up um you presented uh this evening a documentation that you read from is that correct correct yes yeah did did you provide that to the water District I no I did not okay sir you said some things up here uh relative to uh uh what was going on have you provided anything to the water district it was with their meeting sir it's a public record of their own meeting okay but but you didn't Pro you didn't get anything together and and not Shar Mr Rogers yeah I would welcome some questions that lead to clarification on the topic yeah I would rather we didn't get into the exact details of who has done what precis I don't think that will help us move forward maybe if there's a point you're getting to I don't understand please the point is very simple in order for two parties to to get together they really should be transparent and they should know what everybody is saying this is clearly uh some things that we need to work on okay because uh that that indicates that there are some gaps here okay um I I I I really um think that that we're dancing here and we can we can do this till the cows come home uh I don't think uh based upon my 40 years as a commissioner uh of the water district that that there is any way that that we can uh get these things done if we spread things out okay I really don't uh and and I'm all for participation in what Happ have you but uh I I just think that it would be very difficult to to you know have have special um permits and and have them you know not be very very slow okay uh the folks uh here in town um you know you hit the nail in the head is contentious and it doesn't have to be it's really something we the my opinion uh is that this pasas is is something that is just unbelievable and it's going to be very very expensive to do um and uh I I don't think that uh the tip of the iceberg uh has been shown yet because it's you know Triple M 3M and and Dupont um this is going to cost billions so money is is a is a secondary thing because we we can't do it ourselves we just can't do it so um I the one way to solve this whole problem is just to say well uh the Board of Water Commissioners decided that we're going to shut down the uh uh the the well uh down to Hickory Hills and we're going to walk away from this and I bet you that three qus of what we're talking about here would go bye-bye okay thank you thank you sir all right um so I think we are back to I I think we have otherwise reached consensus except for broad B broad-based I think we've broad-based reached consensus except for the special permit um Mr Harris am I allowed to just straw poll the room with a thumbs up thumbs down to see how people feel it's not a formal vote just to get literally to read the room and make sure I'm not making assumptions is that allowed yeah that there's something nothing wrong this it's not public hearing it's just a discussion okay great that's what I thought I just wanted to a lot of my group management comes from training and teaching and so those are a lot of the tools in my tool belt and sometimes you want to make sure you're not doing something that's going to screw up the law uh um is my would you say that do you agree with that understanding that special permit right now seems to be the the otherwise this broad-based agreement on this bylaw except except for swimming special permit uh except for Let's ignore swimming for a moment because quite Frank I I think what I heard from everyone is I think I'm the sty hold out on swimming and uh uh I mean maybe other board members are but of those who have spoken I'm the sty you hold out in swimming and good God I just would love if I don't really care I like things to be technically correct I I lose that fight an awful lot and I can lose it again quite happily um because every both the water district and the people from Hickory Hills and others I've heard speak all seemed fine with swimming um so based seems like special permit is the sticking point as I as I understand it ye yesc because that's been put forward as a compromise and denied other other big topics I'm missing thumbs up is no we're kind at that special permit construction thing thumbs down is no there's other big topics we're missing can I read the room and see what you're thinking here this isn't binding this is just me getting a feeling of where the room is so thumbs up is yeah really special permit a sticking point thumbs down is no there's other things we really need to talk about I'm just I'm not seeing any thumbs down so and I get that we say special permit but that includes well that includes that that's a compromise for people wanting no construction etc etc all right I'm going to turn to the board for a little bit where back to the dang special permit I get it personally like I have my thoughts cuz I get both sides 100% in those feelings I'm going to ask the board what you think though what Glenn please uh so ironically I feel like we're exactly where we were at that previous meeting you know couple meetings ago so the the discussion tonight again about prohibiting the construction on Zone one seemed a little bit repetitive but it wasn't sure if that was from my faulty memory or from watching various Town meetings or yeah meetings in town so I'm glad we're back to to this point because I going back and when uh Miss peas came up and and reiterated the their their concession if you will um to the the the um special permit I realized that maybe it wasn't my faulty memory that it was in fact that case cuz I I appreciated it then and I appreciated it tonight and and I started this whole process simply not knowing you know which which one was better and initially started leaning towards site plan review because I A lot of times I I feel like less government is better however I have found even even tonight's discussions very helpful and I had watched the um multiple water district meetings and I and I did watch the one prior to even receiving the email from the gentleman who I apologize I don't remember his name but I think my response to him did include that I appreciated him reaching out because it did help me because I made certain you know that meeting made certain um Impressions on me as well so as a side note I think it is always important for citizens to email people to let them know what they're thinking because I I did find it impactful and helpful in my process of um assessing this which will continue even Beyond tonight um I do feel getting back to government I do think you know the fundamental role of government is to protect the people the fundamental fundamental role and that does that even includes if it's a minority or a smaller portion of the community the government is important that they they they they um protect those people even if it was a situation where and and I do not feel as though that's the case here in fact I I until Mr Rogers came up I didn't think anybody was had spoken about uh supporting a site plan review so clearly the the the the the word from our constituents if you will this the very important citizens of of um of Lunenburg is that they want the special permit and they don't feel as though uh the government would protect them without that special permit and they've made pretty you know pretty impressive um claims or you know supporting their role so um I I do I do I do think the one of the the inherent values of the special permit is that we we can essentially uh whether it's a developer or or the town we can demand respect from them under a special permit on their site view site plan review we'd have to ask them and try to convince them to do the right thing and in this scenario if if if we were you know working on a ual special permit in a Zone one seeing the contention we have here I think it you know be very important for us to have that Authority um and you know this is a unique situation too where it's really government against you know two two factions of government and it is unique where the you know water district is a you know maybe not a sub set of lunenberg but also a government entity within within lunenberg so at this point I certainly would be leaning towards special permit thank you you're a very eloquent speaker by the way more to say um other thoughts for the board I'm G to have a question or two for Mr Harris eventually but I'd love to get some of our thoughts out there if we have ones we want to share not hearing any of or is that is that just looking over to say go on or was that a coming up on the fourth time in a row that we try to pass this at time meeting uh my thoughts have gotten continually darker and more unhappy and Less Pleasant so I I'll withhold him until I have something um productive okay um Mr Harris I do have a question for you uh I I now heard it said that and I guess let's just be let's be direct are you aware of Other M of other municipalities in the state that do have some kind of government or government related function dictated in uh that is subject to special permit off top of my head I can't think of any I'm sure there are some that might be in the area of a parking garage for instance or of a uh solar fill possibly but I'm not personally familiar with any that has required a special permit for what it's considered to be a basic governmental function uh that's not saying that it doesn't exist I'm just not M with it and instance I live in South Hy we have two fire districts that has water departments one of them has a wellfield but they own the 400 ft area and that's we don't have any issues with them at all um but we have not required them put a go through a special permit for any expansions um that hasn't has not been a topic of discussion past by I guess my follow I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the details here because I I know government is weird sometimes and how it gets to do things in Lunenburg if the government wanted to do something with a use that is spe that is by special permit in town would the government still like would town government still have to apply for the special permit yes okay that that was one of the things I wanted to know and let me also add this caveat to M ear com zoning by its nature except for those uses that the state has decided or exempt is a local issue it is zoning should be uh designed to uh meet the local objectives and the local concerns and therefore What's Done in one community may not be the right thing in another Community because of the local nature of um concerns goals and uh values thank you I You' like to make a quick comment oh please what Mr Harris just said is so so important and relevant to certainly everything we do it's very important for people to realize that the state is actively taking away the community's rights as it relates to zoning our next agenda topic too that is on our next agenda but his his his comments were spot on in terms of how important zoning is for the local um legislature the town meeting to make these determinations but the state and you need to you need to watch but and it is coming up one of the very one of one of the issues is coming up on our agenda but the state is is is actively taking that power over we'll we'll get to I'm ass I'm assuming you're talking about accessory dwelling units and we'll get there shortly um I'll have some good news for you there though I think maybe not depends what your appealing is but um I think you know what we have a new voice please Bob p 11 wi Green Court about a half hour ago you said you were going to do a straw P poll of the board you asked one person there's five members on the board I'd love you for you to complete your straw poll oh no I was straw I I I was straw pulling the room oh to get the I was just trying to get the that was the thumbs up I was trying I thought you were doing a straw poll and that's when you went to Glenn oh no I was talking about it Glenn had a comment no that was just me turning to the audience to get to get I want to make sure that my understanding reflected I still would love you to do a straw po of the board to see where they are I'm special per uh I am not I hear you Mr pece I will tell you I am not a fan of straw polling in that kind of situation frequently because I don't want to this is the teacher and me once you say an idea out once you commit to an idea out loud it becomes very hard to change your your mind and so when you ask people there so like when I was a teacher I would do a lot of things with people thinking or writing their opinion but they never said them to the group until later because because once we for whatever reason once we say it we don't shift as easily and I'm not looking to shift people either way what I'm looking for is open minds to make sure so I I don't want to do that yet the time may come as appropriate um now that said people can say what they want I feel that I personally right now lean towards special permit it's a lean it's not a heart but the re and I'll be frank the reason being is I think we have a lot of good Protections in here this bylaw again this bylaw increases in general the protections available uh for the water while at the same time giving citizens of the town or property owners of the Town land use rights back that they haven't had for 30 plus years um to me that's a that's a big win um because it's kind of nice if you can use more than 15% of your land or 25% or whatever it is and I think I'm at the point that I would personally be perfectly I I I feel the site plan approval is sufficient but we have citizens who don't feel that way and I have to take their feelings into account and their worries into account too and that's kind of where I land with that I do have enough faith in this board to be reasonable going forward and I don't mean this board as this particular installation of the board but this board and the people who tend to serve on the planning board overall to be evenhanded and appropriate with the special permit and not look at situations and say well just no because but to try to stay in that Spirit of compromise um to meet everyone's needs because frankly in my opinion part of the holistic interpretation is also I mean part of the holistic interpretation is does this fit into the into the local the hyperlocal community but it also includes does this fiscal impact on the town how does that impact everything as well if it weren't here so I think when the board is doing its job which this board in my opinion has for a good while it it's there to take both sides into account and address that effectively so I do I personally feel that site Planet approval would be fine and sufficient protection because we can put conditions on there but knowing there those who worry about it I don't feel that it's going I feel that it would not create a significant fiscal burden but yeah there's more risk there is more R I can't pretend there's not I don't want to downplay things um other thoughts or discussion from the board any new topics from the public um it it can be tangentially new but if it's a restatement of what we've said it's been heard and noted um and if you feel that it wasn't I strongly encourage you to email the members of the board and even if you feel you were Hur I strongly encourage you to email members of the board because reach out to us um I don't see a hand for anything new all right we're going to get to the point that um and I believe I'm just going to peek at our agenda for one second um give me I have to find a better way to arrange these items in my note on my digital notebook Mr chair yes uh when can the public expect to hear what the board is going to put forward as a time that is actually what I'm trying to figure out right now that so what I'm doing is I believe later on our agenda one of the items is uh oh it's actually I think next setting date for public hearing fall special town meeting Z zoning bylaw amendments I was looking for where that is on the agenda because if it was further out there might be some figuring or something I'm going to turn to the board is there more desire to discuss this we've gotten everything the public wants to say that is due and many items have I think been repeated in a way that shows the relative concern um and is there any more desire to discuss this topic tonight between us because I think without new topic I'm happy to turn just to us discussing and then we're also eventually going to set dates for public hearings and everything is there more desire for discussing tonight all right I'm not getting any so this is go I'm going to keep this on our agenda for further discussion and put even when it's not the public hearing I'm going to push for active discussion I'm going to set expectations and we've had two meetings that were explicitly about getting as much public input as possible I'm not one to deny public input but by the same token I want to be clear that until the public hearing my primary focus is going to be on us hashing it out as a board without soliciting a lot of public feedback look it's a public meeting you can be here you can comment you can email us if there's a little bit of hey what about this that's fine I I'm not going to be before the next public hearing and if I change if if the board decides we need another public discussion forum we'll put that far and wide okay but at this point I'm not looking for us to have another big public input because I think we need to do some weighing but I would encourage you to email us um um I mean you can write letters too but emails more common um your thoughts concerns anything that hasn't come up because I want to give us time to discuss like to digest everything we've heard and discuss and go back and forth please good evening uh bill haning with handing and Engineering I just wanted to kind of uh um do some housekeeping items for clarification yes we've talked a lot about different things um so under permitted uses F I believe that the the direction is that we're going to be adding the word swimming to part 2B uh I so I I the board has not made formal decisions so that has been brought up as a topic I have personally expressed I'm fine with it the board has not voiced their opinions I understand so just I I think in the effort of trying to get a document that we'll all be looking at prior to the next meeting um I'm not sure what's going on with e it's been crossed out I'm not sure whether G is being replaced with um the modified version of what the water district um supplied for G with the elimination of of construction and installation and and the insertion of the word current yeah so if we could take a look at that the it sounds like H and I I'll just sum all these up these are these are kind of things for you to consider the um h& I um after that seemed like there everyone's okay with that and I'm just I'm paraphrasing on what I'm reading and what I'm hearing um a water district edit on on 3H would be to remove but should not include construction of new treatment works and related because of the fact that that's been dealt with now later in the in the um in the document under special permit okay for the construction of new ones both within Zone one and zone two all right and then if we go down to H requiring a special permit and this is I think where we're at right now is that there's a question of the languages in the document for a special permit under this requirement one party is asking you for it to stay one part is asking for it to go and the party that is asking for it to stay has indicated that they do not feel the need for uh in the suggestion um the 2G current um about basically and getting rid of construction installation they were basically saying they were okay with those change with those changes not happening if it was kept as spe if it was special permit if it was site plan review or sorry site plan approval they would want those put in M pce I'm am going to look to you for clarification to see if I understood that correctly any you got to be at a microphone I know we're going to give you your steps today any construction in zone one would require a special permit any construction whether it is expansion or new treatment plant any building construction in zone one would require a special permit as well as Zone as well as zone two but you've got it in there for zone two already I believe so well that's part of the clarification is because of the fact that we've been going back and forth with Zone one zone talking mostly about Zone one just from my edification talk with my clients I want to know what's going on in zone two as well so I believe that special permits required in zone 2 as well as Zone one I don't remember that of for any construction is that corre I don't remember one way or another I'd have to I've been so focused on this correct that's Z one kind of why's a lot I've looked at been comfy with and moved on right um um Mr Harris can we just get a clarification that all construction within zone two yeah Zone in zone two uh item two under under h 2 d e and f and and g h 2 which is zone two DF and 8 F DFG under the current where where under the draft everyone the most recent draft I'm trying to I'm just trying to pull all this together if I can interrupt a second what you have is a working draft that includes the comments that were made as opposed compromise from Miss piece at the last meeting as well as the Water District's most recent comments okay so what the Board needs to do before you can set an advertise a hearing is the Board needs to make a determination what it wants the bylaw to say you couldn't advertise this for public hearing because this has conflicting competing recommendations correct so that's that's what I was concerned that um you guys have done a great job pulling this whole thing together so my concern was that I think if I'm not mistaken about how the process works I think the board comes up with a final document and I believe that that gets submitted for the town warrant and then from there after the town warrant is when the public hearing is held for with the planning board for it to go to town meeting and and and Mr Harris can clarify that but I believe that there's a step in between that has to happen but I think the first thing is the final document needs to be uh voted on by the board Mr Harris is ready to answer normally you could have the public hearing before the warrant is Set uh given the time frame we have right now the Board needs to no later than the last next meeting determine what it wants to have in the proposed article cuz what you because you had a Time U situation now that you've got to decide either tonight or at the next meeting what you want in the public hearing draft of the amendment so we have I hope I'd hope you'd do it tonight but it appears it's going to be next meeting if it's next meeting you cannot have the hearing in September hearing is going to have to be sometime in October and at the next meeting you'll need to finalize what you want to submit as the warrant article for the uh town meeting warrant in the next meeting we may not have Richard well we we certainly won't we may not have anybody to fill his box we do have the uh mrpc yeah a contract with mrpc and I believe we that could include having someone at our meeting for these needs correct I believe that's pretty much the whole purpose I think that was the purpose of so we can have an expert good it is not the same there'll be an EXT will have the word version of this so he can make the edits okay thank you with some with some direction um this crap all right so how much worse is it if we don't decide till the next meeting do we really need to clamp down on what we feel about this tonight well the longer you wait the long you had to delay the hearing yeah the and you need to look at the hearing the your scheduled meeting dates in October if I remember correctly in October you have 14th and 28th and the 14th is a holiday I believe so you would probably need to schedule a special meeting so you don't go to the end of the month with the hearing I wouldn't recommend if you got a town meeting in early November I wouldn't recommend having your hearing on October 28th all right I'm going to turn to the board on this one uh I'd like our opinion it sounds like to meet all the rigar rooll of timing and everything we either need to decide on wording for the public hearing tonight or we need to kind of suck it up and have a replacement meeting for the one that we lose to a holiday man do I love it when we lose meetings to holidays but in advantage of your board meeting on Monday nights um but we'll probably have to schedule a replacement meeting in order to still have the public Hearing in a timely way if we put this off our decision off to have time to digest and fully discuss and work and finish work smithing at the next meeting and decide if we do want to do this cuz again the board has the ability I personally want to see this happen I want to find a way to make it work for everybody you're hearing from one guy an awful lot and four other people some they're each going to have their own opinion the decision of the board may be but I can't pretend I'm slapping my hands together um uh and saying no we was hands of it we're not dealing with this bylaw that's a decision the board can make um what do we want to do I'm comfy either I'm comfy sitting down and say we're doing this and burning some Midnight Oil boy howdy but that might not be Universal and I get that I Al but I also like having digestion time how many times has this been shot down through three or four at this point this will be the fourth it get this would be the fourth submitt okay M first one was just a map change what the first one was just a map change I think right one map change and that was a map change that wasn't us yeah yeah there was I believe just a map change that got shot down and that was tried to do the bylaw that got shot down twice now we're going up for a third rejection sounds like sha shank yeah well the the second the yeah and the second bylaw was put forward with discussion it was put off to the next meeting and then we pulled it because extenuating circumstances prevented us from really diving in deep and trying to bring everyone together the way we'd like just due to timing and everything so at least we're consistent does this passing or not hinge entirely on whether or not we require a special permit or not because that's kind of where it feels like to me uh I would not disagree I can go ahead please that actually so my recommendation would be all these contentious points everybody's obviously taking notes and making check marks and circles and studying and researching this Board needs to put something together have a warrant article have a public hearing where that's where everybody gets all up an up an uproar you typically only have one night of that but we've decided to make an a a half year long thing um and then if there's enough contention and then enough support for an amendment on the floor that's when the rubber hits the road right we put together what this boarded supposedly for the best interest of the whole town is in our best actions can put together the best document for the town that we feel is the most appropriate and town meeting is the legislative body that's it we get twice a year that's it the rest of the time we get special interest groups people that are primarily impacted the people that oh I don't want that in my backyard but I don't never go to any meetings other than that um and and and and I'm not speaking individually I mean I go to certain things that that affect me as well so that's just People Are People public meet town meeting is is not this meeting this meeting is to put forth a document that the elected officials in town that have been deemed appropriate to make guiding decisions and direction for the town in general that we put forth something at town meeting and then town meeting gets to say well okay well they did really thrash this out and these were the contentious points and bring it up in front of the whole town not just the people who have who who are at all the regular meetings uh and and and and again I'm going to say it special interest I have special interest you have spe we all have special interests we don't have a big huge group of like-minded special interest people typically but that's what I'm saying is is we put together a document this board with with this input that we've already gotten I mean we've gotten since June July 8th we've gone back and forth on three subjects almost entirely um I think we just need to put our foot down put something on paper get it done in in in an effective time frame and and get it ready that everybody is on the same page when it comes the time meeting not have changes coming in the week before so again the legislative body town meeting can make a change on the floor if they don't like special permit or they don't like site plan approval then they can bring that up as an amendment M that's that's my two cents um I do want to clarify my intent you may understand my intent you may I don't know I have prolonged this process intentionally as board chair and I made that decision because it really seemed to me like our best shot at getting people together into a moderated Forum to have thoughtful discussion and back and forth where there was frankly where there was a group that doesn't have a vested interest either way kind of watching over things so that was I know that there's been more discussion here I also know it's been frustrating and long my goal was to hope that we got something better out of that I personally feel we did because right now I feel like we're debating on the disagreements on one topic not on 15 topics and to me that feels nice like we've kind of gotten to the point otherwise and I think that helps the public in all forms make a decision if they knew that know the contention point is X That's My Style um but dude I hear you it's long Mr Harris please it my suggestion that tonight you simply direct that the public hearing draft be revised to either for a special permit or site plan approval in zone one two three whatever put that out as a public hearing draft hold the hearing September 23rd schedule a special meeting to replace the meeting going to lose so that September 23rd public hearing if you need to you can continue that to another night finalize it at that time so you can finalize a month before town meeting but I would not recommend deferring the hearing until October if there's any way to avoid it because I think that just gets if you defer begin public hearing until October that puts you too close to town meeting and at the public hearing we can still make CH at the public hearing would that be in time to get things changed for the warrant or no no okay it would allow you to develop recommendation for Flo Amendment as Mr Allison mentioned to amend the warrant article all right we have the very succinct Amendment because you basically have one issue special permit or site plan approv in the else discusses really minutia that's the real issue does that sound acceptable to the board that time frame I'm comfy with it that means we're coming we're solidifying wording tonight knowing that the public hearing is going to have more thoughts and we might end up with a Amendment but we kind of know what the contentious point is and amending a contentious point is easier I kind of got some vague yeah that works so I'm going to run with that unless someone says otherwise cuz I'm going to make a call um what's that well okay so we we've got this contention about the definition of zone one does it really matter what we Define it as I think that's pretty much confin uh controlled by the state that has I think that's been accepted as we Define Zone one by the state and that's been accepted okay so then I think you should also recognize the 310 CMR 22.00 is is Public Water Supplies not not just groundwater supplies not just surface water supplies but it's all groundwater supplies 20 2221 I think I lost it can you just tell me which part which section of our document we're looking at so I can I'm I'm I'm I've been inundated by emails and discussions and and and long long diet tribes that have been filtered with half information and and and half conjecture and and a lot of confusion so this is a well these are well heads that we're talking about Zone one is only on the land doesn't include the water we shouldn't have to be that specific after we've said this numerous times and then the CMR 22 covers drinking water so 2221 is water is is surface water 2222 I think is groundwater groundwater is what we're talking about when we're talking about Zone 1 2 and three and a lot of the comments that I've received and and I've continued to hear at these meetings are referencing 2221 which has nothing to do with a well and and I just wish that if everybody was going to be so uh fervent and and strong about facts and laws and regulations that they would at least get their references correct that's all um on that and I think there's more than just special perimiter site plan uh well actually no it is it's like two or three different sections that are pretty much the same thing right mhm uh and the only other edit was there was a request to add swimming to activities and I I personally have no issue with that because if we're going to say you're allowed boating sure we'll say you're allowed swimming if if people feel better about that that's whatever how how often people fish on the land nobody mentioned fishing it's in there wow yeah H fish from theore so I guess I'm a little confused I I want to know I I understand the frustrations you're expressing I share at the very least many of them what I'm asking now is looking at the draft if we're going to put this forward and have a public hearing about the wording what wording do we want that is different from the draft as it is I'm looking at the 821 2024 that's actually in in in in our files it's 2024-25 as swimming because no one's against that change in the public or the water district so that the that just seems easy um what words do we want here are you concerned about that we're citing the wrong law some place wrong regulations some places in this no no what I'm what I'm arguing is the way you handled this is typically it would it would it would be dealt with with the board with luse director with select board with department heads with interested parties with professionals with with people that that can give us information rather than just opinion and conjecture I accept that feedback I'm aware of it and this has changed by the way four times since I spent an entire day redlining the the July 8th version of it and now I'm confused and and apparently all this confusion is only for for site plan approval or special permit this I'm I'm frustrated I'm I apologize I don't mean to call anybody out individually in groups I'm just really really frustrated this has been going on for two years and I've been I just want to point out you're actually allowed to call me out individually and be frustrated with me individually because I'm the chair and that that's fair I'm not you're new you need I'm just frustrated and and I'm allowed to be frustrated right can I be that way these days okay I'm frustrated would I be able to quickly comment just about like how that's kind of going on Town back end uh what I don't want to yeah I I don't fully understand what you mean and because you're not an elected official I want to keep it real limited right now is there a piece of info we need to staying somewhere or no just trying to make you know documents clearer it's all one Central identity that type of thing yeah I'm aware of what a problem that is not just with this board so that is yeah that is an ongoing thing with the town is working on document tracking and everything else um and Etc but that's not really for this right now okay I'm going to focus this in the draft we have from 821 what would we want to see changed um in order to bring this to public hearing and we should do what we think is what we most likely want okay if the board most likely wants special permit we should do that if the board most likely wants or wants I should say a uh site plan review we should do that but we should kind of think commit and then see I do see Richard has his hand up if I can I think the question comes into a very simple question at the July 8th meeting Miss P made a proposal and that's in the draft here tonight recently the water district made a proposal that's also in the draft here tonight the board just decide which of those proposals they wish to go with all right thank you sir um I I am going to let us know that at this point I'm not I'm looking to hash out what the board wants to put to public hearing so not about the bill just a clerical issue uh clerical issue is acceptable absolutely but you have to ask that the microphone I know she going to be the most fit woman in town okay um when will we I I'm going back to my original question when will we know the wording because then I can go home and when will we know the date of the special uh not the special the uh public hearing so I'm I'm looking for you're going to get the the final wording by this date and there's going to be a public hearing on this date because I understand we're done giving you input at this point so we're just waiting to find out what your pleasure is my plan as chair right now uh you know moderating the meeting is uh because the board did not show objection we're going to follow Mr Harris's advice which means tonight we are committing to wording that will go to the public hearing and we that that means tonight we will also be scheduling the public hearing do I is that said correctly Mr Harris I'm getting a nod so great so you will be getting that to tonight and then there will be a public hearing scheduled so how if I go home now how will I get your final wording how will it be available to the public um it will certainly be published for the public hearing if you drop any of us an email I think we'll be happy to send it to you Richard's got his hand up it's my intention is if you determine the wording tonight tomorrow I'll make the revision and I'll send it out to the folks who have expressed the most comment at the meetings which have been miss peas Mr H Hanigan and the water district great and uh to other members of the public if you are going but I really want to see that too drop I mean drop me an email M brener at lunenberg ma.gov lunenberg ma.gov thank you have to remember which one we are the email address has changed at one point I don't forget our town unless it's really early in the morning and I just want to say thank you to the members of the planning board I understand that it's frustrating I understand that it is time consuming but we are your constituents and we do appreciate being given an opportunity to have a voice um and I know that takes a lot of your time and mental energy going back and forth I get it mine too but I do appreciate and I know others appreciate having the opportunity to have our voices heard so thank you for that thank you all right and again to be overt there's no more public input on this tonight you are welcome to be here I I love having an audience at planning board you're also welcome to go home and have the rest of your life um thank all right I'm going to be frank um I don't as much as town meeting is all the town um it is very easy to turn out the vote for any given topic where people are passionate to that end despite the fact I think site plan approval is sufficient protections I don't think this goes through I don't think there is a way this goes through without it being special permit I am comfortable with special permit because I have a lot of faith in those who sign up for planning boards because this isn't lacking not using professional phrasing this is not a like a sexy fun board right people like ooh the select board runs the town and Oh conservation's great cuz you're really you're passionate about that this is land use it's it is what it is this isn't a thing people are flocking to I wish they did and so but that leads me to having faith in future iterations of the board to take all constituencies into account including the water district including um those who live near different wellhe heads those who are I mean the many things that could come up those living near where the water district wants to put in future wellheads um not that this limits the production of the creation of wellheads but we talked about that 1 point to I'm comfy with special permit because I think it will I sincerely believe it will be manageable but if you disagree agree if you agree I'd love to hear it but if you disagree I'd really love to hear it so did I hear that special permit was to protect the town from what was it I think the language used was that um the special permit allows the board a little more kind of flexibility and leverage if you will to um have the applicant make concessions that they other otherwise might wouldn't what okay I mean we've got we've got a a water district that's that's regulated by D they're overseen by public health How likely is it that they're going to ask the planning board to do something that the planning board is going to really have much information to be saying that's detrimental I think we remain as so I think you raised a good point there's a lot there that we're not going to have input on and there's a lot there that is I mean DP is going to take care of a lot of these details that's actually one of the reasons I'm also comfy with special permit in a roundabout way majority almost everything in zone one is going to be taken care of by D correct I I agree with you 100% then the area I think the special permit becomes relevant is in making sure that the hyper local needs are met so the the by hyper local I mean those surrounding that particular where that water treatment plant's going to go right are we talking about all the wells in town or are we just talking about the one that's been focused on well I think it'd be any by law it' be any of them okay but so it protects those who are those basically going to come and say you you they want put a water treatment plan here but it's going to X now X could be any number of things okay I am not an expert in water treatment plans I will be honest I am not one bit concerned personally about if the water treatment plant is going to contaminate the wellwater because their whole point they are built and engineered to not do that I get that and the technology exists one of the reasons we have this Bel our old bills over 30 about 30 maybe over 30 years old it's Tech has changed that's doable but I get that we could end up in a scenario where people are saying yeah but I don't want trucks I don't want big vehicles transporting X coming by my house at certain basically I don't want big loud trucks coming by my house like at a certain hour or something I don't want and I'm being super hypothetical here I am I I be trying to be very honest I don't know the ins and outs of a water treatment plan um but like anywhere else you know there's certain activities that we don't want at certain times this certain noise level or frankly just uh visual buffers and it gives us more ability to CRA to say hey we understand that a water treatment plant goes here and as part of our con consideration there's a fiscal impact to the town to putting it somewhere else but it gives us a lot of Leverage to say okay but let's make sure we do it in a way that meets the needs of those who are next door literally next door and more metaphorically next door so that this treatment plant is not interrupting their daily life I I want to be frank I think the actual implementation here is going to end up being not nearly as contentious but I also think one of the reasons it won't be as contentious is because we're the middle people and that means that it's not any it's not other group it is not a group with uh in interest one way or another making the decisions it's the planning board making a decision about land use which is what we're supposed to do while taking the needs of Divergent Divergent needs into account my apologies that was longer than I meant it to be so I would encourage us to go with the special permit because I have a lot of faith in us as a board that exists now in future iterations so I don't think it' be accurate to say but I don't think it'd be like Zone ones for wellheads they're not all in Wetlands but I would think that I don't know I mean I I know that some of them down on Reservoir in wetlands and I'm not sure that they all need to be in wet but I would assume they'd also have to go through conservation right um I me if this Wetlands I assume this conservation I am not I am not aware and I apologize I could turn to you I'm looking at our friends from the water district I could turn to you for an answer right now and I know that but I'm trying not to even though it's a simple factual question because the last thing I want is for any perception of favoritism after some people have left um so but I don't I am not personally aware of why a Wellhead would have to be in a wetland I don't think it has to be I don't think it I don't think I think some of them happen to be and some of them happen not to be so of all the wellhe heads that we have let's say that 25% of them so we're not singling any well out mhm um and I think it's more than that by the way would they have to would they first off would they have to apply to to concom second of all would they have to submit an RDA or would they have to full-blown notice of intent and not knowing one two or three um I am is the board I'm going to turn to the board because I want to feel impartial we have an engineer in the room who is volunteering to answer some questions this is what our planning board meeting should be like until we get to the public hearing by the way we should be asking professionals questions but go ahead I'm sorry okay are we I just want to get is anyone on the board object to hearing from a professional on the topic Mr Allison brought up exclusively no objections thank you for the record Bill Han with Hanan engineering not part of uh any any party that owns land um however um um this really is uh not part of the planning board's jurisdiction if there's work that needs to be done within a buffer zone of a of a of a wetland uh within the town under the town Wetland protection bylaw uh or under Mast they have to file appropriate uh plans and permits with the agency that's in charge which would be the Conservation Commission so it's it's really not part of the it wouldn't be part of the um the groundwater Protection District bylaw thank you thank you and and I and I I'm glad he did I'm glad you did answer because um yeah there's going to be a whole lot more permits there's going to be a whole lot longer time frame there's going to be a whole lot more lag time and and I think that they've already lost some Grant ability because of over taxed town government and lag time you expect a special permit to be notably longer than a site plan review is that what you're saying or I I given given the the outpour here for this bylaw yes I do um now uh we as a board and the chair of the board in particular has the ability to limit public comment I again I will I can only speak to my philosophy as a chair I have tried to be very generous in not limiting public comment because I wanted us to get as much information from the public and those who are interested as possible um there are times I also feel it's appropriate to be much more on point I would personally argue that with a special permit you need to hear what people say but then you make decisions as we typically do I've run this differently than I would expect that being run I will not forever be the chair of this board therefore it would be up to Future chairs some of that level of detail other thoughts from the board uh I I know uh Mr McLoud has voiced his support in favor of previous like shortly ago of special permit may ask if that's where you still are I'm not looking to put you on the spot but it seemed like ask yep I mean I would agree it's you know very similar with your position I mean I'm not you know staunchly on that but I I I would fall that way uh and a lot of it does go to considering the um tangible tension between you know this is just a specific group I I realize it goes to all the Zone ones but it does give does give me concern um of how a dispute would would go uh in the future if it was just a site plan review and and I also you know make these comments in a from a position of U being naive like obviously Mr um Allison has a much better understanding of uh the issues issues at hand but I I'm just looking at it like I said in a global view of uh and this and in this role where voting as just simple advisory um to the town meeting of what to vote on so I mean it's not like we're choosing to assign a special permit to this process we simply recommending that the town meeting u in fact adopt that level and you know part of it is their impassioned their impassioned pleas and the tangible uh um tension that is is you know rampant that that I just would feel more comfortable at this at this stage recommending the the the special permit and I think everything else like I was glad that that on land went away I didn't as with you I just simply didn't understand that so that that that's it's good that that's gone and I I I would also fall on the side of I don't I don't think they need the boat or the swimming in it but certainly would not die on that Hill mhm um so for me and I am confused I have trouble finding the most recent recent draft but like I said earlier I I really felt we were very close two meetings ago whenever it was when um Miss peas came up and said that they're willing to you know concede you know so that that was kind of going back a um you know an impactful moment for me and it is again uh the constituency and you know I I think considering their positions you know nothing nothing have said I mean it got a little sketchy here and there but in terms of the core I think they were pretty strong in their argument for their their position specific to that so I actually want to point something out because there is a third option I I said it as if there's two and that is flat out wrong an opinion can be dude we're not putting this to town meeting we're done that that's fair the board can I feel this is worthwhile the board the board can say no it is not we are not putting anything forward to town meeting and I'll be realistic if the board doesn't want to put this to town meeting that's fine you're not going to hear from me about it again because at some point I have other things in my life and dead horses Etc um but that is a choice we can say yeah we don't we don't want to deal with this I don't agree with that but it's certainly a choice and it's a valid one so that actually does bring a question I did have was where did this originate from okay I'm going to give you the quick version okay A Change was put forward I think by the Water District I'm not 100% sure to update the map okay to to take our map of the zones zones 1 2 and three and update it to match um the D what the D says because what happens is the de P has hydrogeologists and they look at things and they gain a better understanding and they go oh these recharge areas have changed this is change this has changed so update the map that failed my opinion at my understanding as to why is because there were many people in town who were concerned that some of those changes on the map um would impact them negatively uh for any number of reasons and I want to be corrected if I misspeak here okay um when that didn't go through Adam Bernie the previous land use director looked at it and said well with some bylaw changes maybe we can get everyone on board he he scrapped all he had had and wrote this all brand new yes that that is correct just uh well the I would say it was a heavy reorganization I don't know if I'd agree with a full scrapping but that's going to be in the eye of the beholder it was certainly a heavy reorganization and edit um and that was in part because our old bylaw is 30 years old and Engineering standards have changed so um it would let us effectively give some land use rights back because there's other ways of dealing with infiltration and every water infiltration and everything and making sure water gets into the ground like it's supposed to that were at least weren't common if they existed at all 30 years 30 plus years ago um there was back on back and forth on that that God this all bleeds together a little that eventually we put forward and I believe that was voted I don't know if that was voted down or not or if that's the one that was was that the one that was voted down or that was the one that was tabled actually that then was tabled to the next to the to the fall that was like for a fall town meeting special town meeting that was tabled to effectively this last spring um now Adam Bernie left the town that time to go become a land director um in another municipality um Mr uh Harris has helped us with some of the rewriting and everything uh but the one as kind of written by Adam was brought to town meeting and there was it was tabled to the spring to look at it better the board could not develop consensus between disperate parts of the town and couldn't get people close really and and um for a variety of reasons and some of that was to be frank I had some health issues that stopped me from being able to moderate meetings as tightly and frequently as I would like um and be on top of things but it wasn't ready for spring we thought we kind of put it Forward didn't like what it was in the end the board pulled it this is now the redo of that Mr Harris made some edits that he felt were appropriate um and now we uh I as the chair encouraged us to solicit a lot of public feedback to try to make it so by the time we get to the public hearing people have already been heard and we're not getting 11th Hour surprises the issue was before there was a lot of 11th Hour edits of what about this what about that so I wanted us to get that out now so that things like I won't vote for it unless you have swimming and people go okay fine that doesn't need to be and that doesn't have to be an amendment because amendments are completely doable but a little bit of a pain in the butt as well especially if there's several small ones so trying to deal with a lot of those things um I think it's possible no matter what there's going to be a floor motion for an amendment if we put this forward either way okay yeah I expect that I could be wrong but that's kind of how we got here was it's an iteration on iteration um I'm going to really try to direct some of our Focus now I'm going to I'm I'm going to ask um Tim and Amanda if you don't mind sharing do you have a thought one way or another on um uh special permit versus site plan approval between those two edits effectively yes I have uh a similar approach here uh in regards to like what is the role of a government or what is the role of a leadership group and it is largely like first priority is to protect and benefit the people that you are in charge of um I see the special perit review as in line with that all right thank you Amanda do you mind if I ask your opinion no not at all so my opinion is unchanged from our previous uh meeting on this issue I thought at the time that special permit made more sense um I still feel like special permit makes more sense for this um I think it is a compromise uh as the members of uh Hickory Hills Lake Association have pointed out frequently um I I will say I think a lot of the attitude towards the water district makes it seem as though their decision making might be nefarious and I I don't necessarily agree to that I'm not making a claim that that's what people are saying um I just think that from our last meeting when they were speaking about how much money it would cost to do these projects and how much planning is involved in it in in my mind if you're doing so much and spending so much money to get a project done I don't think a special permit is going to really add a lot more to your plate yes it's a little bit uh more involved um but I think it does help give the residents another layer of protection again this special permit is just for construction of water treatment facilities either construction of them or changing of them in some way so you know it really doesn't have any effect on the water other than if construction were to have an effect on the water so I I think a special permit makes sense um that that's just my thoughts on it it hasn't really changed great thank you um all right I and Mr Harris just help me with this quickly please is any construction of any type in zone 2 subject to special permit or is it just water treatment no um well and other things that would require special permit other I um if you look at let's see section H would list list the items that would require special permit in zone two okay enlarg of existing uses that do not conform to the water supply Protection District uh activities involved in handing of to or has materials rendering them impervious any lot yeah or par 15% or 2500 sare ft those are the items that in zone 2 would require a special permit um if you included the propos M it include construction new treatment works Etc okay so the the proposed change to the previous version is effectively that water treatment things would need special permit um it is not requiring all con okay great as one to me I felt like I was hearing that it might be all construction and that was going to kind of be worrisome for me but yeah that this makes sense to me all right I'm hearing a lot of support from the board for a special purpose let's call it unanimous and be done with it what's that it's call it unanimous and be done with it okay either way I mean we'll have a vote momentarily uh can I ask if we're comfy adding swimming just so that doesn't become a contention can we be comfy adding the swimming so it just if we're going to put land boating we might as well put land swimming that was my thought swimming um is there any objection to us putting swimming in in addition so I did see up here we do specifically at one point uh call out conservation of the water as a permitted use like we have actually referenced to I can't find it again here the use of the water as part of this um and I don't know if that means anything in terms of how it connects to the rest of it uh I'm going to be frank it's worked so far no one's object I'm fine to Deep dive and find that wording and figure if we want I am of the opinion that that has not been a contentious Point sure so it must not be a contentious point cuz people have read the heck over this and I read it over more in the past and I can only store so much at once I just no that was put in there because res wanted it put back in there so okay um I would so the motion would be to direct you to write to pick a specific version Mr Harris to then submit for special town meeting is that correct what my the motion be to will public hearing draft the proposed War article would entail the Amendments made the modifications recommended from the July 88th meeting with the addition of uh swimming but to exclude the uh water district proposed amendments regarding um water treatment plants all right is that something we can use a so moved on yes All right so moved second moved and seconded all uh well NOP vote vote can't say all in favor because it's a roll call roll call vote Mr McLoud hi Mr Allison hi Mr Wilner hi Miss Reed hi and I from myself we've got the wording you know I I have to mention I find it very interesting that we had to make a vote on those two things but we didn't have to vote on any of these other changes at any well they would just provide it to us I'm just a commenting I'm not complaining at all but I I think it was odd that we had to make a roll call vote on what we just talked about anyways I actually all right I don't think we've ever toen V taken votes on draft edits as we've got but I could be wrong I that may have happened I I I further support it though because this is technically I think Richard's last day is it not yeah yeah so I I do support that I mean he has a couple days with us but the last meeting all right I am going to go to our agenda up next was supposed to be the proposed accessory dwelling unit um amendments that's a pretty meaty uh I'm going to pause this for a minute though for a couple reasons uh uh the come on what do agendas go to the oh there like I wasn't get the agenda on my screen okay here we go I do want to loop back to Hanigan engineering um oh yes sorry I'm going to have us Rock the decisions and figure from there um do we need anything else I'm going to deal with this but I just want to ask Mr Harris so I can anticipate correctly do we need anything else in terms of setting the date from the public hearing from the board or is this all set now um I I just want be clear the board does want to set the date for September 23rd say you said that you want to be clear the board does want to set the date for September 20th yeah I believe we did all this so that we could do that okay just so that's in the minutes that's all we need okay so moved uh do we need that as a motion cuz we can you don't need it but you can and you won't to if we don't need it I'm not going to bother I'm going to move us on TimeWise unless there's an objection let's get this done uh decisions 240 Summer Street site approval storm water permit and this is again we have these in Drive um I have watched that but I wasn't here for it and I think the answer is I just don't vote on it that will be I don't even need to vote this is just checking the wording but that should be y'all who were there yes I would expect uh ttim Amanda and Lenn to vote on this cuz they were at the hearing and you said it was Tim Amanda and oh Glen and Glenn who were okay who are present great I'm going to leave that to you three I I'll look it over tell you if I see something glaring but and do I see correctly there were no special conditions it was just standard conditions I'm not sure the vote even included speci yes we had it in here somewhere are there three special were this the waivers oh three to zero to approve with conditions although I don't have the conditions I see never mind I'm looking right I'm not very smart that's our answer it is 9:45 my coffee was a long time ago and my ibuprofen was a long time ago so you are officially getting okay Matt unless you normally dislike me then just scale back from your own opinion appropriately is something worse when people are ready I would take them motion I am not looking to rush you okay so we approved sorry I always get a bit lost in this what exactly are we voting on I don't see do we even need to vote or is this Richard just everyone looking and saying yeah this looks right what you're voting on is to approve the the decision as written so you've already approved site plan approval you already approved the site plan approval you already approved storm water but it was conditioned upon reviewing and approval of the written decision at the next meeting do is make a motion to approve the uh s plan approval decision as written and then approve the storm water decision as written so you already approved at the meeting you chaired yeah and now and now it's just we this wording is what we thought it was okay great if uh Amanda and Glenn are ready then I'll motion uh to approve the decision uh for the site plan approval for 240 Summer Street I'll second can they combine the storm water with that sure okay and the storm water management plan also for tu 40 Summer Street I will second we've moved and seconded does anyone need more time all right uh again I will take a roll call vote uh Mr Allison and I were not present um but I'll call on us anyway um Mr McLoud hi Mr Allison abin Mr Wilner I miss Reed I and an exstension from myself there we go all set thank you for your patience um okay back to our agenda um was the comment here that the proposed accessory dwelling unit is a handful yeah um so some of it's been um there there's draft language in the drive already from Richard I believe correct me if I'm wrong um but yeah the based on the memo we got back from Town Council there's there's just a lot of work that he had to do okay well if I can just very quickly go over it uh the building commission I talked about what need to be done and what this uh proposal does is bring the bylaw in Conformity with the new state law regarding accessory departments that takes effect February 2nd of 2025 we believe it establish reasonable rules and regulations for accessory departments that are otherwise exempt from zoning and at the same time provides a mechanism that if somebody wants to do assess Department that would not be exempt from zoning they could apply for special permit s and be similar to what the conditions are presently under the new state law the big things are for those assess departments that meet the state definition which basically is not more than 50% of the primary unit or 900 square ft whichever is smaller Allowed by right you can't require a special permit you can't require a um own occupancy of either of them and it can be either attached or part part of the primary structure or a second independent structure on the property you can have no more than one of those on a given lot if you want more you have to apply for a special permit so trying to process everything my understanding very high level and it's our job to get details I get that is that what you and the Building Commissioner put forward is some surgical work to take our current bylaw and bring it up to date up to be compatible with the new state bylaw this has some safety ramifications if we don't because otherwise we might not have appropriate setbacks for accessory dwellings that could make them potentially like built too close to the property line which doesn't sound safety at first but that can actually limit for example fire department's ability to get in safe people corre um now what has Town Council said to us I've got this big letter that I'm I've been trying to parse through and it we have the letter from him is that saying there's something wrong with what you've put forward or that no okay the Town council's letter uh came before he drafted this up and this based upon the letter from Town Council okay as well as discussion Brian and I had among ourselves but what need be done so as a little bit of education for those at home and for those on the board who may not know by and large we already La lunenberg already has a very permissive set of requirements compared to many municipalities for accessory dwelling units we don't require it to be an inlaw where you could only have family living with you or something um we've already allowed it by right in the gross majority of cases so this to my understanding isn't doing a lot of there's some technical changes but it isn't doing a lot to change what we already allow but there's some Nuance because otherwise what we have doesn't work for the state Richard would you say that's correct or would you say it's different that that's pretty much correct um the um I said the major changes were that you couldn't require a owner living one right and uh it could be attached or detached that's their choice and as long as it meets the state definition I thought we already allowed attached or detached I didn't think we had a requirement on that I think there's some limitations that you have on it the other thing it does does is uh it provides more spacing between pro lines for uh the accessory unit so that you do have fire emergency access okay if this feels a little out of the blue to people here and to people out in uh watching us yep well welcome to state government and let let me ALS explain why Brian and I felt this should go at the Paul town meeting it takes effect at state level February 2nd um of 2025 if you don't have something book that conforms then at that time somebody could do an necessity problem without reasonable regulation all that do is get building permit and build it um and in one week Brian had three people inquiring about doing aess Department uh several of them two of them I think had heard about the new state law and they w't take advantage of it um I do see a change that I think ends up limiting the size I I'm looking at H1 F bottom of the first page uh oh sorry um yeah the replacement because we did say you it may not be more than 30% of the normally inhabitable floor area of the combination of the dwelling units as opposed to shall not be larger than the gross floor gross floor area of half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling that's very close to 30 like like 30 33% that's similar or 900 square ft whichever is smaller so this would limit the size of adus to 900 square ft where we do not currently do that do I understand that correctly it would limit the ones allowed by right if you scroll down further under um at section two at the bottom of page two access your drill unit by special permit somebody wants to have a larger accessory dring unit they can apply for a special permit is there a reason to require the larger by special permit like if someone has a 2400t house and wants to add a 12200 ft Adu or somebody has a or someone wants to build a 2400 ft second house on their lot well for the second house to be400 square ft their primary one would have to be 4,800 Square ft right under the current law is I know 30% versus 30% of total versus 50% of the main is a slight difference but I'm going to treat them as equivalent did the reality is oh think you're muted most want build that did that big that bigger one and it's up to you what you want to do I mean I just we felt this provides some reasonable approach to address those who want to do something that's not as EMP yeah I mean I don't I feel like the current rule isn't much of a problem but maybe it will be now that there's more attention paid to this I could be wrong then again I don't again I'm not I don't think special departments are that big a a hassle that they are a hassle but they're not end of the world I don't think I care much either way but as I think it through but I want to make sure we're aware that is a change I have a question for Richard please um so Richard in in the in these additions and revisions is there anything here that wasn't necessitated by the change in the state law there a there were a couple of changes that uh were proposed that Brian said now for instance uh uh no not k no permit for C housing gr here under shall take effect sooner than one year after occupancy of the primary gring no until the owner petitioner records Brian said the zba had been ignoring that routinely so that wasn't he felt we should just get rid of that um H2 consistent with the original architecture of the structure talk about that and that's really vague and how do you try to interpret that if it's allowed by right so we thought that should come out um those are a couple of items that were uh deleted from the existing regulations based on discussion that Brian and I had so the second one is because it's kind of vague and potentially not enforceable or at least not super useful right and the change in K basically means you can buy a house and get to work on Adu rather than right away rather than waiting a year correct I like personally I like that change cuz so there currently is a zba application to um to to do that within less than a year I believe oh I think it's been advertised I think I saw that in The Ledger but Brian said they've been routinely approving those so it didn't does make a lot of sense to require that so so but everything else everything else here for changes is mandated by state well some well the U let me go back to my copy I can't except for what um I'm going back to my copy that uh parking your limit you can require more than one parking space or accessory units uh state law says you can have will will say that you can have one accessory Department un that's exempt per lot a special permit can be may be required for more than one which one is this um e um e um yeah um e that's in yellow no more than one necessory drone unit shall be provided on single lot can can you just tell me the page number and roughly where on the page page one page one section H uh 1 e e H1 subsection e uh noce a floor area except as may be allowed by the issuance of a permit okay I thought you sorry I thought you mentioned the parking something the parking is uh where is that uh C C thank you um the state law says you cannot require more than one parking space per accessory Dr unit oh okay so that brings us to line with got it okay and um in here oh okay got it that's it okay so one per dwelling unit not one part one space per dwelling unit not one per bedroom effectively got it which makes sense to me and and are we trying to get this on for the warrant in the fall or in uh that's what Mr Harris is suggesting because otherwi if we do not then there is a period between February and the new law passing and then being approved by the AG um where people can kind of go willy-nilly and build a lot of provisions of our law of our current bylaw become moot without fixes and again that would that could allow something like building the accessory dwelling unit real close to the lot line and preventing uh where we normally have a setback for safety purposes but it would still be M dictated by the states so this is one of those cases where no matter what state gets what it wants if we don't update parts of our law get invalidated in a way that lets potentially unsafe things be put together um or things we've traditionally considered unsafe be built were this for the by and large just accounts for those changes so so that we can keep things safe and on the up and up again I'll I'll call out there is a change here in that we require right now all pretty much all accessory units are by right um where whereas in an Adu here over 900 ft would require a special permit so uh I've thought about put I I've my wife and I have talked at times about putting an Adu on our house for example um I think we're something like 2400 ft and we've been like oh we could have up to a 12200 ft in- law apartment if we wanted on the garage and this would say no it has to be 900 square ft unless you go special permit that is a change I don't think I care much either way but yeah I don't care either way frankly one way or another there's also changes in the the um setb setback requirements uh for 5 point under 250- 5.2 and these were done based upon discussion with the Building Commissioner to ensure that there's adequate safety for uh in terms of fire code and access CS he felt that was necessary yeah uh and I I would note the new state law treats those assessory jours that qualify under the state definition the same as agricultural uses are ASM same as churches in education they're subject to reasonable regulation and this is an attempt to provide reasonable regulations so that if somebody wants to use the state law they'd still have to comply with these it's also worth noting that uh while inquiries about these have traditionally been rare they have spiked in the building department since the state law passed not again we've kind of allowed this the whole time anyway but now that it's in the public eye as a way to help deal with our housing shortage um a lot more people are looking at them so while we may or may not see a large influx I don't think it would be unreasonable to anticipate a large a larger incre an increase in the applications or in the building of adus personally I think I'm I am comfy with it as written I don't think this is a hard I don't think this is a hard sell to the town I could see potential push back on the uh maybe potential P push back on the special permit but I can also see people wanting the special permit if adus are going to be more common again as an extra layer of protection and um again this would just be a public hearing draft you could after the public hearing make recommendation that the one article be amended to delete the the uh special permit requirement or to increase the allowable size of a uh mhm accessory drad unit um by right all right septic and everything aside okay let's assume everything else magically works I have a 2400t house can I build a 4,800 square foot house and declare the original structure to be the Adu I don't know how much I'm just curi like this is more for my own curiosity sake I don't think it's a super relevant if there was no size limitation you could yeah no that's fine I was just trying to think through what that would can an existing structure what I really meant is can an existing structure become the Adu and yeah the answer yes is fine I just I expect that at some point is something someone's going to ask me I don't see why you couldn't I mean it's it doesn't say the Seth unit has to be behind doesn't say anything else it it could part of it it be a replacement for it yes so I guess the question is are we comfortable putting are we comfortable putting this forward for public hearing could be yes could be no we could say we want more time and we'll just deal with the fact that that kind of leaves us up the creek for like 6 months or something that that's a choice and that's a a valid choice so my my my recommendation is if we want to then we probably should have it the same night as the other public hearing I would agree with that well okay there's a in thinking in thinking it through i i i and that might be a long meeting and it might interfere with this one and this could blow up and turn contentious so I don't know but I advertising we have yeah we have enough time to do 29th I'm not against long meetings but um it's going to be I expect the I expect the public hearing as for the water to be less long and less contentious than what we've already seen because um one of the two groups is satisfied the other group may come to us and and make a a discussion but I don't think it's going to be the same level I could be way off base there I think the public hearing will be less contentious and hopefully open up more discussion on this I could be full of cucky Duty I don't think this is going to be a big problem with the town honestly the town has repeatedly voiced they want as many options as possible when um for their the property they own for their housing and everything and this takes what we're already doing and just brings it in line with the state for the most part so again I'm just looking for some ideas and the answer can be due I'm still reading I'm comfortable with it I've read you said I'm sorry I didn't hear if that was I'm Comfort okay I am comfortable with it if um putting it Forward I mean as as that that's the reason I asked Richard how many of these were not mandated by the state he's had two basically right yeah that right there puts puts it in my acceptable box yeah that's I mean that's where look that's where I am um unless we're going to talk about fighting it no right no I would I would certainly go ahead and fight but there is no fighting this they've already put a deadline on it and and thankfully it's not a big change to what we're already doing like this Nuance here but for the most part we were ahead of the curve on this one yeah for once I'll take it well we do it more than once our storm water was ahead of the curve not far enough Richard I just note that I've got another community that spent about 2 years reiding their assessory apartment uh bylaw and that is going to have to be very significantly Rewritten because of this new state law so so at least you're not in that situation see isn't that a job for the board of assessors I'm hoping and not us to write that no is that's a serious question isn't that a job for the board of the assess I thought I heard assessors and then I realized he said assessory yeah yeah what I said was I've got another Community that's been two years oh another rewriting their accessory Department by law and it is in significant conflict with state law I Mis under I misheard theirs never mind I'm glad we're not them um how do we feel yeah I just I I agree I think it's this one's just another my concerns are more along the lines of the the proverbial slippery slope and what I what I think is critically important is that when it is presented to town meeting that we advise the citizens of lunenberg that this is your legislators stepping in on your behalf and making decisions under local issues of zoning and you have no choice whatsoever to do what they say to do just so happens this one like you said is pretty close to what we have so it's it's individually not all that offensive but if you look at the larger picture and the fact that you know somebody could build an accessory um dwelling unit on the property and rent it out mhm where that you know that may be a choice that residents would you know like you said a lot of communities either don't allow them or put a lot of restrictions that it has to be for a parent or a family member so logical things for a community to make a decision on their own behalf again the citizens making the decision whether or not that's how they want to to proceed um so this is just a situation where that is being removed from the you know the voter's will so I think it just we we don't necessarily have to go in in such detail but I do think in general any any article brought before town meeting there really should be a blur about where did this come from and why I got good news we well I say we do that I mean when I've been presenting for the board I have chosen to do that I believe Adam who presented as the lind's Director previously did at least similar but I can't recall his wordings from the top of my head but we we've had to make similar arguments before the town we actually got a zoning thing P it 100% that never happens but the argument basically was if we don't do this then the the way the law has now been interpreted by the state if we don't do this companies can do anything they want yeah like in in a specific situation but that I I would have that as part of my discussion with the town because I think it's worth knowing whether you like it or not and there's people who do like it but either way it's worth knowing where it comes from right and then the cautionary tale of you might be fine with this but you need to make it clear to your you know those who we elect to represent us that we don't unless you do want them of course but you don't want them to infringe on our rights as you know lunenberg citizens I am we can discuss this more in a sidebar at some point but um I am very thoughtful in the wording I use because if we like something I I try to be very concise in my wording um I'll let you know roughly what that's going to be because if you don't like it I I might not get too down deep down that rabbit hole but I'll let you know cuz you could certainly raise that as a point at the town meeting and discussion as well uh cuz I I I don't disagree however I try to keep a more narrow focus and this is a tough one because it's it's like you've said it's very close to what we already have but there's there's something else to keep an eye on all right it is I'm going to pause this for a second 10:17 at 10:30 we have to vote to keep going and I don't want to have to call for that vote so I going to turn to us and say uh from what based on what I'm hearing I am looking for motion the motion for example could be to have Mr Harris submit this draft uh for town meeting as uh as presented to us and for the public hearing to be scheduled on September 23rd is that a good enough motion 23d to 29 23 uh he's saying M Aris you're muted uh have Town staff because maybe Logan submitting um I need to advertise because my time is going to be done this this week so yeah but fair is what I said Can can that be used as a so moved or no that that's really okay great that's I know there's some details there uh so moved second moved and seconded roll call vote Mr McLoud hi Mr Allison hi Mr Wilner hi M Reed I and I from myself all right I am going to be frank and look at our agenda um uh if in 11 minutes we have to call for the vote I'm yes um I've had some email exchange with Town Council already this evening about 255 Sun Sun Hill Road I need from Mr Wilmer and Mr Allison the reasons for the denial of the storm waterer permit so I can put that into a draft decision for the board to then act upon but he has said is the 2 two vote is a denial and therefore and I need put together the written decision uh so the applicant will have something to act upon if they choose to appeal I only cut most of that can you can you forward that to us I've had email change with Town Council this evening and he has said the 2 two vote is effectively a denial and what I need to do is put together together a written decision that the board will then act upon and I need to get the reasons for the denial from Mr Allison and Mr Wilmer since they voted since you two voted denial very good when would you like those as soon as possible if you can email them to me tonight or tomorrow that'd be great very good all right thank you sir okay um great that's board discussions I am going to is there anything else I'm looking here is there anything else that needs to be addressed tonight I encourage the rest of the board to look at the agenda and if there is a committee report or if there's a t and uh Mr Harris I will ask you as well is there anything else on that list that we need to address tonight if your answer is none I would like to hear the word none just so I know that you're not reading you talk to Mr Harris I was talking to everyone I I'll just make one comment relative to the MBTA zoning yep um I I would have said more but in in in um interest of timing I would just suggest the board should commit to having an article approved by the executive office of Housing and livable communities prior to bringing it before town meeting simply simply because a lot of communities that have approved a vast change in bylaws it they approved at a town meeting it went to the Attorney General's office was approved and then was denied by the executive office housing livable communities so then they have a vast uh new zoning bylaw that passed AG that they do not they are still out of compliance so that's my my simple point with you know I could go into you know in a later date we can go into to more detail but it would be simply that we should you know assuming we go forward with it and come up with a a zoning change that we like and approve send it to and have them approve it prior to going to to her I think that is wise advice I'm going to stop us there for now with 7 minutes left unless there's something else we need okay anything else we need to address tonight I am not hearing anything so Richard we can put the items on the agenda to next time not a problem that like there's nothing here you see saying Matt you got to look at this tonight no that's fine all right Banger um in that case I'm going to move to public comment not seeing any okay um would this be a good time for you to mention whatever it was yeah this is public you can say whatever you want yeah I'm I'm public sometimes seven minutes I want to have a couple minutes to yeah I won't um I won't beler the point or anything but um yeah I'm I'm watching meetings and stuff kind of just beginning to wrap my head around a lot of these things and I just see a general reoccurring issue with like um you know a big part of this government stuff is collaborating on um a document and the approach that the town seems to have taken is just kind of the Antiquated one of um a billion different copies floating around this that and that's all that we could work with uh at the time due to the technology for for a long long time uh but now we're at a point where I think we can begin to move past that and I just general statement I'm really interested in helping with the implementation of that I watched a recent select board meeting and they were um ranking arpa funding and they at one point had to open copy of a copy of the you know this this spreadsheet um and I think ultimately it's little things like that that can slow down a meeting a little bit in the moment but but if you look at the aggregate time that that eats up it it is a lot and there's a lot of confusion um that I see people from many boards everywhere just uh just Express so it's a solvable problem I would love to Kuts with you on the side about that cuz I think that is banger but I think we're going to have some I I I want to discuss some hurdles you can probably easily think through but that I've observed and others could have well of course I'm not trying to preclude um ladies and gentlemen hire yourself some Zoomers there is a reason for it because they will drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century we're already a quarter of the way through it it's probably time to act like it um I hear you oh okay uh board comment I want to say very quickly I want to be more fuse but Tim you ran a damn fi meeting Amanda you were in a damn fine meeting pardon my language but dang wasn't going to cut it that time I was super I watched both meetings completely I mean at like 1.5 speed cuz I'm a human but it was great and you both I'm obsolete that's cool um secondly I would like to I Hope on the behalf of the board give a big shout out and thank you to Mr Harris who has been our interim land use director for months and has really done a bigger service to this town through that temp through that contractual employment than most people in the town will ever get and understand other communities if you are looking to hire Mr Harris and he's available to you I am envious uh and I couldn't speak highly enough myself thank you very much thank you Richard has been an absolute pleasure thank you very very much a pleasure thank you um uh board comment I did sit on an interview the other week last week which board chairs are traditionally not invited to but I was and deeply appreciate that and I was a silent participant I get that there's going to be reasons but I am hopeful for our future in the short term I don't know details yet but I am hopeful for what we have coming I am hopeful that we have coming and what we might have coming um all right any other board comment hearing none at 10:27 at night because we hate fund on the planning board I would look for a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn the meeting second moved and seconded all in favor by roll call Mr McLoud hi Mr Allison hi Mr Wilson M re hi I for myself for the love of God thank you everyone for sticking with us have a great night out there take care